User talk:Gab01
Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing. |
| |
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?) |
Westside
[edit]Hi Gab01,
thanks for uploading. But you should check whether Image:Westside 4.JPG and Image:Westside 3.JPG are really covered by the Freedom-of-panorama law of Switzerland. As modern architecture is considered work of art and as the architect of this building hasn't died >70 years ago, he still has copyright over the building. FOP usually covers only images from outside. --Túrelio (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Túrelio,
thanks for warning me. Do I have some time for checking it? If I had about one month, I could ask a lawyer who would tell my if those pictures are covered by the Freedom-of-panorama law. If not, the best thing to do would be to delete the pictures and maybe re-upload them later. I also contact user:Ikiwaner, maybe he knows that law better than me.--Gab01 (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)- Do I have some time for checking it? - I will not tag them as derivative, but it is possible that someoe else does. But even if they are deleted, that wouldn't be really a problem as nothing is final here. Any deleted file can (and will) be un-deleted if new evidence is provided. And you really don't need to invest any money for consulting a lawyer. There are plenty of people here, who know a lot about copyright, only in this case it has to be Swiss copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- And you really don't need to invest any money for consulting a lawyer. No, I know him: I am going to meet him in a month (that's the reason why I asked for the delay). I will just keep an eye on those files and If they are deleted, it isn't a drama. I'll contact you again if I get some news. --Gab01 (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Look at that link: Admin.ch. It seems that two-dimensional reproduction of a work of art visible in a public place is allowed. Could you please confirm if I am right? Thanks! --Gab01 (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- You are right - and it doesn't help ;-). The link shows the usual description of Freedom of panorama. The problem is oder auf allgemein zugänglichem Grund befindet as this may not be valid for inside buildings. (By the way, we can communicate in German, if you too are a german language-speaker.) --Túrelio (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer talking in English because I am from Suisse Romande, but I understand German. This document, see page 5 suggests that this kind of pictures may not be allowed, but there is a debate ("Ob auch frei zugängliche Innenräume unter die Bestimmung fallen ist umstritten"). Another point is that Daniel Liebeskind wants its building to become kind of a forum (E.g. this interview, but it is not very explicit in this one, others are better), a real public place — I know, thats worth nothing neither — but I think Libeskind himself wouldn't be angry to see those pictures. I'll add the FOP-model to my pictures. --Gab01 (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- You are right - and it doesn't help ;-). The link shows the usual description of Freedom of panorama. The problem is oder auf allgemein zugänglichem Grund befindet as this may not be valid for inside buildings. (By the way, we can communicate in German, if you too are a german language-speaker.) --Túrelio (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Look at that link: Admin.ch. It seems that two-dimensional reproduction of a work of art visible in a public place is allowed. Could you please confirm if I am right? Thanks! --Gab01 (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- And you really don't need to invest any money for consulting a lawyer. No, I know him: I am going to meet him in a month (that's the reason why I asked for the delay). I will just keep an eye on those files and If they are deleted, it isn't a drama. I'll contact you again if I get some news. --Gab01 (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do I have some time for checking it? - I will not tag them as derivative, but it is possible that someoe else does. But even if they are deleted, that wouldn't be really a problem as nothing is final here. Any deleted file can (and will) be un-deleted if new evidence is provided. And you really don't need to invest any money for consulting a lawyer. There are plenty of people here, who know a lot about copyright, only in this case it has to be Swiss copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Forgot something important. Even if both are not covered by Swiss FOP, you simply may contact the Libeskind office and ask politely if they could grant you permission to publish your two images under a free license on Commons (don't say "for Wikipedia", because that is not enough for Commons). For the correct wording of the required permission, use the email template on Commons:Email templates. --Túrelio (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished
[edit]![]() |
Dear Gab01,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help. |
![]() |
- Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 21:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
File:Latenium-3.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |