User talk:Stefan2/Archive 3

Archives

2006-May 2012
May-July 2012

Yeah a blank page to write on :-)

I was checking Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons reviewed by a human when I found File:Spyder logo.svg and some other logos. It seems that the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ is mentioned on the page but does that apply to the logo? If I look at Spyder (software) it says License MIT. What do you think? --MGA73 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice... Just found Category:Obsolete images. Guess we could delete many of those. --MGA73 (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with File:Spyder logo.svg. CC-BY 3.0 is obviously mentioned in the source code but it isn't possible to tell why the licence is mentioned there. {{MIT}} probably applies, but logos are sometimes special cases. MIT and CC-BY are supposed to be similar licences but designed for different purposes, so it doesn't look strange to see a CC-BY licence used in connection to MIT-licensed software. Category:Obsolete images looks like a useful category. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Well the idea is probably that Cc is for images and MIT is for software so that is not good for images so that is why the logo has that license. --MGA73 (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Image problem

You seem to be an image expert. I contacted the uploader to let them know there is a problem with this image, but I don't have any specific advice. Do you know what the problem is? (When I click on it, I do not see the image, but I do if I click a second time.)

File:Official Guide of British Hotels 1974.png--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell what's wrong. The fullsize image doesn't display at all for me, but thumbnails work and I see the image when I use it on this talk page (see right). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I left a note for the uploader, but they may ask me what is wrong, so I thought I would check. I will urge them to try a new upload, in case there was simply a glitch in the original upload.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

RE: File:DragonC2+ Parachutes Deployed.jpg

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Wingtipvortex's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_July_22.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Old files

Hi! I have been moving a lot of files uploaded by Special:ListFiles/Swampyank and now a lot of oldies are left. I think most of them look ok but perhaps you could have a look once you can find some time? --MGA73 (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama

Are you well versed in English law? I am curious as to how you would interpret this when applied to photos uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my very late answer. I have been away a lot lately and got a lot behind with my activities on English Wikipedia. Are you asking for an introduction about freedom of panorama or are you interested in some specific aspect of it?

If you wish to take a photo of a building or a statue or some other item, you may sometimes find that you are not allowed to take a photo of it (or upload it here) because it is protected by copyright. If the object has entered the public domain, there are no restrictions on photography. Some countries provide so-called freedom of panorama, which means that you may ignore the copyright status of the object you are taking a photo of. If freedom of panorama doesn't apply, and if the object isn't in the public domain, then it is not possible to upload a photo of it to Wikipedia or Commons, unless the file complies with WP:NFCC or if you have permission from the copyright holder of the item you're taking a photo of. Commons has a guideline, Commons:COM:FOP, which explains how freedom of panorama works in different countries and when it does (or doesn't) apply.

You may wish to read about Atomium (a big monument in Belgium): SABAM, a Belgian organisation for copyright holders, has frequently had people pay fines because of photos of Atomium. Belgium doesn't offer any freedom of panorama at all, so if you are in Belgium and try to use a photo of a recent building or a recent statue, then you may end up in trouble. Quite unsurprisingly, Wikipedia's photo of Atomium, File:Atomium FlickR ctsnow.jpg, is only kept under a fair use claim.

Wikipedia only requires that a file is free in the United States. On the other hand, Wikimedia Commons also requires that the image is free in the source country. Thus, there are some photos which can be kept on Wikipedia but which can't be kept on Commons.

In the United States, buildings are in the public domain if they were completed before 1 December 1990 (see s:Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act for details). Thus, the United States have no restrictions on photos of buildings if they were completed before that date. More recent buildings are normally copyrighted, but according to 17 USC 120(a), you may nevertheless take photos of buildings if the buildings are visible from a public place (for example from an ordinary street). Some other countries, such as Belgium above, do not provide any freedom of panorama for buildings, so you may not upload photos of Belgian images to Commons unless the architect who designed the building died at least 70 years ago. It may often be hard to identify the architect or his date of death. It is disputed whether photos of Belgian buildings are free in the United States (and thus sufficiently free for Wikipedia), so there is currently an ongoing request for comments on the matter at Template talk:FoP-USonly#RFC: Does US FoP apply to foreign works?.

In the United States, there is no freedom of panorama for other objects such as statues. Thus, you may not upload a photo of a statue located in the United States unless you can prove that it is in the public domain for some reason. Statues erected before 1978 normally count as "published" at the moment when they were erected, and statues "published" (erected) before 1923 are thus in the public domain. The copyright terms in the United States are extremely complex, and there are lots of cases in which a statue may be in the public domain if it was first erected in the 1923-1977 era. Similarly, Belgium has no freedom of panorama for statues either, so you may not upload a photo of a Belgian statue unless it is in the public domain. The United States and Belgium use different copyright terms, and if you find that a statue is in the public domain in the United States but not in Belgium, then the photo is allowed on Wikipedia. However, the photo isn't allowed on Commons unless the statue is in the public domain in both countries. Some other countries, such as the United Kingdom, do have freedom of panorama for statues. Thus, if you take a photo of a statue in the United Kingdom, then the image is fine in the United Kingdom (but not necessarily elsewhere). It is disputed whether such images are allowed in the United States, but the current practice is to accept the images on Commons. The articles Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. and de:Hundertwasserentscheidung have been brought up in discussions about this matter. The first case concluded that the United States copyright holder of a non-US work is to be determined by the copyright law of the source country (which suggests that the United States offers freedom of panorama for British works), whereas in the second case, Germany rejected Austrian freedom of panorama for a work located in Austria (which suggests that the United States doesn't offer freedom of panorama for British works).

If you wish to read any specific deletion discussions related to freedom of panorama, you might wish to take a look at Commons:Category:FOP-related deletion requests where lots of discussions have been categorised. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you enormously for this detailed explanation Stephan. To complete my education, could you let me have your take on on these specific photos and the licencing that has been claimed:

File:Hump traffic sign, Gibraltar.jpg (Gibraltar)
File:Fingerpost at Chawton.jpg (England)
File:A5-llwybrhanesyddol.JPG (Wales)

Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Without any indication of the opposite, I would assume that Gibraltar uses the same copyright law as the United Kingdom. British law makes a difference between "works of artistic craftsmanship" and "graphic works", and freedom of panorama only applies to works of artistic craftsmanship. Court cases have indicated that a 2D work usually isn't a work of artistic craftsmanship (see Commons:COM:FOP#United Kingdom). I do not think that these signs are covered by freedom of panorama, so it is necessary to determine if they are protected by copyright. Photos of British information boards and plaques are frequently deleted from Commons because of freedom of panorama concerns.

Logo of Edge

Very simple objects are not protected by copyright, but the term "simple" differs from country to country. You can see Commons:COM:TOO for some examples of simple works from different countries. The British definition is very strict, and it is assumed that very few works are too simple to be protected by copyright. For example, the logo of the British magazine Edge (see the image to the right) was found to be protected by copyright by a British court last year. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos for the relevant Commons discussion with links to a newspaper article and to the court decision. The Edge logo is nevertheless not copyrightable in the United States, so the logo is allowed here on English Wikipedia, even without a fair use claim. Because of the Edge ruling, I am not sure if it would be correct to assume that any of the objects on the photos are sufficiently simple, but this is a matter of debate. I do not think that there would be consensus on Commons to declare the first two signs as copyrightable unless you can show a court ruling which says otherwise.

Another important aspect is the fact that the United Kingdom doesn't provide copyright to utilitarian objects such as fridges or kitchen sinks. See for example this article where Star Wars helmets are ruled as not copyrightable in the United Kingdom because of their utilitarian aspects. Similarly, I would guess that the first two signs would be ruled as utilitarian (by giving information to car drivers or pedestrians), and thus not copyrightable for that reason.

I am troubled by the carriage and the horses at File:A5-llwybrhanesyddol.JPG, so I have started a thread about this at Commons:COM:VPC#British road signs because I want to hear the opinion of someone else. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again Stephan for your detailed explanations. I will follow the thread carefully on Commons, because this is the one that interests me most. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of several files

Yo man, I'm not understanding what's going on... I uploaded the covers for articles of songs what are notable. Like, are on Billboard charts... So why you warn deletions of the files? -SrGangsta (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

File:50CentFloydMayweather.jpg is a copyright violation, taken from Getty Images.

A lot of your images are listed as unfree. Unfree images are required to have a fair use rationale, see WP:FUR and WP:NFCC#10c. Many of your images don't have fair use rationales.

There are other restrictions on non-free images. Basically, they shouldn't be used if they can be avoided. Some of them seem to be excessive, superfluous or insignificant to the article, so I proposed some of them for deletion. You can discuss the nominations at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 11. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by User:AruniRC

The creator of that file had been a family friend of the subject and is now deceased (please refer to the dates mentioned). The photograph was taken entirely on a personal basis. Please mention the procedures for obtaining copyright about such material when the creator is deceased and the next of kin are no longer in touch. Or kindly remove that picture from the "tagged to be deleted" list.

Thanking you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AruniRC

AruniRC (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The copyright belongs to the photographer. You seem to be claiming that the photographer is dead. In that case, the copyright was transferred to the photographer's heirs. You should ask the heirs to send in permission. See WP:CONSENT for details. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh?

Sorry, you posted a very confusing thing about an image permission on my talk page. The artist uploaded the image herself. It is her image. She gave permission to upload it when we uploaded it. She is an artist. I just happened to be signed in at the time at her computer and was sitting next to her. Do you prefer that she reupload it when I am not signed in? She is 90 years old and if you actually need her to do something herself without me helping her you are going to need to explain to me how to do it since apparently the problem is that I was too involved the first time. Thanks, Saudade7 03:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Harry Robinson

Have I done enough? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about File:Harry Robertson.jpg? I'd say that it looks fine now.

Horatio Bottomley

I'm confused by File:Horatio Bottomley.jpg. It says that the file is in the public domain, but you are also claiming fair use. Where does the image come from? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A book. Forgotten which. Trouble is the quality is rubbish. Historical picture of dead guy. Can we find another pic? I am not attachedo this one. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new photo of Horatio Bottomley (see right). The image quality is a bit bad, though. There is this one published in Australia, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the image might have been published in the United Kingdom at an earlier point in which case the image might be copyrighted in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A bit bad is dead right. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Curris picPyramid43 (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in getting this straightened out. I have sent the following letter to someone with access to the BOR website: http://www.murraystate.edu/boardofregents. Is that the appropriate thing to do?

The wiki entry is up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_W._Curris There is a problem with the pic. I took it from the BOR website http://www.murraystate.edu/boardofregents

They need the pic to be released to wiki which I think means making it in the public domain. I thought the fact that it was on the MSU website meant that that had already happened.

Can you help me get the permission form filled out by someone from the BOR website? Permission form = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT Pyramid43 (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You are really supposed to obtain permission before uploading the image. Making something available under GFDL or CC-BY-SA 3.0 (as suggested at WP:CONSENT) is not the same thing as releasing it to the public domain, although the differences aren't that big. For random images from the Internet, see Commons:COM:CB#Internet images. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

They have sent the permission statement. Is that sufficient?Pyramid43 (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. There is some photo at File:Pic for Constantine W. Curris article.jpg, but it looks as if it was replaced by a different photo when your permission was accepted. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

File:School New Logo 1.png

Hi Sefan. Could you tzke a look at this please. I'm convinced that it cannot be the uploader's own work, and that as a a school logo it would be unfree and not acceptable on Commons, On Wikipedia it would need a FUR for what is fairly obviously a derivative work if not the original itself. I have no idea how to tag it for incorrect licencing or deletion (is there a Twinkle script for files?). Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed it for deletion on Commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:School New Logo 1.png. Twinkle is not used on Commons. There should be an option to the left in the toolbox which says "Nominate for deletion". If you wish to tag files for "no source" or "no permission" or similar, you might wish to go to Commons:Special:Preferences and enable the gadget "Quick Delete" which adds a few extra buttons in the toolbox. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done that now. I'll see if it works next time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

ubc Image

Ok, Thanks for letting me know. Feel free to delete it because I don't have time to deal with this now. CanadaRed (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:3rd All-Africa Games logo.png

Hi, thank you for your message. Yes right it's a mistake for me, I will change that immediatly. Thank you for warring me. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, finaly i maked an other mistake, I think I'm tired today

. In fact I want to delete this file because I created another one today, However I can't do that because I'm not an admin. Hope that u delete this file. Greetings. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added a {{db-g7}} tag which I assume will handle it. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:CymruMap2.PNG

Firstly, I did not create this file. Secondly, it is rubbish and I have always despised it. Thirdly, it is clearly not a "derivative work" as the WikiNewSpeak would describe it... unless an outline of a particular country, in this instance Wales, cane be described as "derivative" which surely any rational human being would reject. Sometimes I do wonder.Aetheling1125 17:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetheling1125 (talk • contribs)

You used the template {{PD-self}} which indicates that you drew the map. Why did you use that template if you didn't draw the map?

It says that you drew this map based on some other map. That's why I tagged it as a derivative work. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:USM Bel-Abbes logo.png

Hi, thank you for warring me about the file. I changed license. Greetings. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Stefan2 for taking me to the right way of uploading a file as I was giving wrong information. --Twiter is the best (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)LakshyaTwiter is the best (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)--

OH GOD WHY :(

1.Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images.

Replacing an image of a military officers in Egypt is unlikely. Photographs of military officers are whether published by the Morale Affairs department which is a one in a life time portrait photograph (unless they're promoted) or taken by press under a permission by the Armed Forces. in case of the generals i uploaded their photos they are at the peak of their career and next step is retirement no further promotions.
thanks for notifying me, I'd like you to help me improve the tags and licences of the photos --Zo3a (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The simple answer is that it is possible to take more photos of people who are still alive. It is thus possible to create a free photo of them. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Katapult Image

I have not been able to find a free version of this specific thing. It is a ride but it only lasted a few years and there were little of this model made. There are very few pictures of this and this was the best I could find. If you please be kind enough to help (because I have searched but couldn't find others) to find other picture please thanks. Dplcrnj (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It says that it is a specific type of vehicle. Wouldn't you be able to find a copy of this type of vehicle somewhere of which you could take a photo? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There are no more in the United States of America as it states here http://www.rcdb.com/r.htm?ot=2&mo=8237. All are out of the country.Dplcrnj (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, so according to you, there are some copies somewhere, although not in the United States. Just go to one of those copies and take a photo of it. At the same time, you could try going to North Korea to take a photo of Kim Jong-un. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright for File permission

Copyright for File permission and problem with File:Abdul Ghafoor Khan Durrani.jpg , Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Khan Durrani is dead and this is his picture for public use released by his grand son Abdul Sattar Khan Durran,--(talk/ Baloch Baba) 23:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)