User talk:Zio27

This is Zio27's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

AfC notification: User:Zio27/Davide Biale has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Zio27/Davide Biale. Thanks! Jalen Folf (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December2022

Hello! The image you added to Ulf Kristersson is marked as copyrighted in Metadata. Your talk page at Commons shows a huge amount of similar problems. If you continue to add copyrighted material there or here you are likely to be very effectively stopped from doing so. Fair warning. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SergeWoodzing: What do you mean? If you're dubious about the copyright of this file you're free to report in Commons. The way you are writing on this talk and on the one on the Ulf Kristersson page I really don't understand what the problem is. --Zio27 20:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you uploaded a copyrighted image to Commons, which is absolutely not allowed, and then added it to English Wikipedia, which is also absolutely not allowed. And the long list of deleted images of yours on your talk page naturally makes one worry about your behavior in general. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SergeWoodzing: What does my deleted images have to do with it? I have mistakenly uploaded images of the European Parliament, which unlike those of the Audiovisual Service of the European Commission do not allow modifications. If you don't even know why they were deleted why are you picking on me without reporting on Commons?? Don't lump everything together. {{EC-Audiovisual Center}} is clear and all of their picture are relased under EU copyright.

If not precisely written, they admit any type of use while specifying the source and sometimes they specify it even if, for example, when they do not allow commercial use. --Zio27 20:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image in question here is marked as copyrighted to a named photographer. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those photographers works of European Commission and the owner of copyright is always European Union as you can read here and even here. --Zio27 21:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright to a named photographer cannot be transferred. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even the picture modified by you is marked to a named photographer and why institution would not upload those content permitting all type of use even if they are the commissioners of such images? Does it make sense to be the only owner of an image despite being paid by someone else to do it? --Zio27 21:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. That's the very essence of copyright.

I modified that one, but I did not upload it. Big difference. It was reviewed and OKd by an admin before anyone used it for anything. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said modifed not uploaded. Big difference.

What essence of copyright? Paying someone for photos you can't even use? Giving money to a fortune teller would be money better spent --Zio27 21:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons has a process called OTRS which handles that sort of thing for companies and organizations. When one pays for photos one can reach a legal arrangement with the copyright holder (photographer) which can be used for OTRS agreement. We are not allowed to upload any photographs without proving specifically to Commons that the photographer agrees. The upload process is supposed to prevent that from happening. As far as I know, we have to cheat (give false answers during the upload process) to be able to do what you did. I am sincerely surprised that you have been able to do so much of it. That's why I warned you.

Anyway, your photo is being deleted at Commons (another one of your many), so that will solve the problem with the article here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So we have to delete every single picture, even taken from Flickr, wich have the name of the photographer? If you are consistent you should delete all images professionally made on behalf every institution even if released in the public domain. Among other things because you don't want to use that system to verify the license, what are you here to do?

And why are you discriminating against me because I've made mistakes in the past? You play the professor and you even said that I got it from the European Parliament, my friend, you're real comedian. Do you know how to fix the problem? Turn on that brain and at least go check out what the real legal notices of the site are, don't roll the dice before talking about that system and of European Parliament. You really can't distinguish the European Commission and the European Parliament? --Zio27 09:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should now be continued on your talk page at Commons where I like the warning an administrator gave you about it. Your belligerent tone, and remarks bordering on personal attacks, however, would make me worry about you there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which personal attack? If you don't even know why you want to delete the file that's your problem, not mine. If something sounds ridiculous it's not an insult, it's actually advice you don't want to understand. european parliament legal notes, LMFAO. --Zio27 14:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]