|
Welcome to the user talk page of Marchjuly.
- Please click here to start a new message at the bottom of this page.
- Messages posted here will be replied to here unless requested otherwise.
- Messages left on your talk page or a file's talk page will be replied to there unless requested otherwise.
- I am not an administrator. I may tag/nominate files for deletion, etc., but I cannot delete them myself. Conversely, I cannot un-delete something that has been deleted. Please consult the administrator who deleted the file, or COM:DRV if you require such assistance. I am also not an OTRS volunteer, so please consult at COM:ON if you require such assistance.
- Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~).
- Please be patient if I don't immediately respond. Sometimes the real world gets in the way. For really urgent matters, you can also trying posting at my Wikipedia user talk page.
- I'm happy to discuss any edits/comments I may have made, but please try to keep all comments civil. We are all volunteers and all make mistakes. There are really very things that I can screw up so badly that they cannot be undone if needed. Any mistakes I make are always made in good faith, and I will do my best to correct them as soon as possible. Personal attacks, etc., however, will not be tolerated at all and I will bring them to the attention of administrators at COM:AN without hesitation if necessary.
|
Server time:
September - 2018
09
Sunday
01:03 (UTC) |
Welcome[edit]
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Marchjuly!
 First steps tutorial
Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions 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 (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). 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.
 Getting help |
|
 Goodies, tips and tricks  Made a mistake?
- Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Simply use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
- Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Simply tag it as {{speedy|reason for deletion}}. For more information read the full deletion guidelines.
|
-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Robert Lewy Diploma[edit]
Please take a quick look at the live link in talk Robert Ira Lewy as the last entry. It's to my college diploma showing
My Phi Beta Kappa and Magna cum laude. Unfortunately it expires in 24 hours for security reasons!! Course I've saved it as a file and could email it. this system selected by the college itself .
Thanks
Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Kingseason (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Reporting copyright violations[edit]
Hi, For reporting copyright violations, please select the gadget in your preferences (AjaxQuickDelete and Quick Delete in the Maintenance tools section), and tag the file for {{copyvio}}. An admin will delete it soon after. IF you are not sure, tag it with a regular deletion ({{delete}}). Thank you for your help, Yann (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- No problem. I wasn't sure and posted at "COM:VPC" just to find out what others thought. Anyway, thanks for checking the files. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Abbey Road on the River Images[edit]
Thank you for letting me know the images may not be ok to use. I think they are, but I will verify it. Will it be suitable for verification purposes if I contact the festival via its "contact us" section in the website, send them a note with the images in question and then if I get a reply, forward it to Commons area? If not, how would you suggest I move? Again, thank you for your help! PhoenixGregg (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi PhoenixGregg. Please take a look at COM:OTRS for more details. I think you'll all find the information you need there. I am neither an OTRS volunteer nor an administrator, but you should be able to find one at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard if you need a more specific information. Also, although the images have already been deleted, you can request that they be undeleted once OTRS verifies they are freely licensed per Commons:Undeletion requests so there's no need to reupload them. In fact, reuploading the images without fixing the problem will only likely lead them to eventually being deleted again, and may be seen as disruptive by an administrator. For reference, the administrator who deleted the images was Ellin Beltz, so you can ask them for more specifics. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Ivanova[edit]
Thank you for your feedback. I checked Google Maps/Earth policy and they only require proper attribution
https://www.google.ca/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide.html So I edited the image and added their copyright info.
It should be fine now. Thanks! I'm learning... UberNemo (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- @UberNemo: I think you need to be sure that Google does not place any limitations upon commercial use. Commons only accepts images which can be freely used by anyone, anytime for any purpose (including commercial use). The 4.0 license you've decided to use explicitly states the image may be "remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially." This means I can download the image, put it on t-shirts, coffee mugs, mouse pads, and all other sorts of merchandise and make a profit of it without Google being able to do anything about. I'm not so sure Google licenses their images this way. On the link you sent me, it seems to say that such usage is expressly prohibited in the "uses in print" section. I suggest asking at Commons:Village pump/Copyright just to make sure because a quick scan of the archives of COM:DR show many Google Map/Earth images being deleted as copyright violations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi again UberNemo. The file was retagged as a copyvio by LX and then subsequently deleted by Didym, so you need to discuss this with them if you still think the image was OK for Commons. Licensing can sometimes be tricky so it's easily to miss something, but files tend to be deleted whenever there's any doubt. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is nothing at https://www.google.ca/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide.html that states the content is covered by any free license. The page is essentially about attribution requirements when using their content under fair use provisions, which don't apply to Commons. The official terms of use for Google Maps/Earth content is at http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/terms_maps.html. They are completely non-free. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you LX for further clarifying things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. July noted. You'll forgive my presumption, it's a different thing entirely. --Begoon - talk 15:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Seeking permission[edit]
Hello Marchjuly
Seeking permission as requested .....
I hope you will not delete the photos and the article as it's been difficult to date. I anticipate there will be a little delay, but I am hopeful the information your asking for is achievable.
Thank you for getting in touch much appreciated
Best Regards
Charles Dobson
82.33.183.90 20:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi 82.33.183.90 (Charles Dobson). I'm not exactly sure which file you're referring to, but it sounds like one I may have tagged with a Template:No permission since. If that's the case, then please read COM:OTRS for further details on obtaining permission from the original copyright holder (if that's not you yourself). Generally, the photographer holds the copyright on any photos they have taken unless they have transferred the copyright to another party. Please understand that Commons only accepts freely licensed content and that it certain cases the explicit written consent of the copyright holder is sometime required for verification purposes. Commons does tend to delete files whose licensing is ambiguous or cannot be verified per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, but any file which is deleted can be easily restored via Commons:Undeletion requests if the licensing is resolved at a later date. For reference, I am not an administrator so I cannot delete files myself, but the file is likely to be deleted by an administrator after a certain date if permission to upload it cannot be verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Re: File:Qateel Shifai.jpg[edit]
Hello. No it was not the same image. The image I deleted was this one. I do not see any other reupload under the same name. Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Peter Ewart files[edit]
Hi Marchjuly, The photo Peter Ewart Ed Pryor portrait.jpg that was deleted by Wikipedia editors is owned by Linda Ewart. She has published it on her own website for over 10 years. You may view it here http://peterewart.com/bio.php?ch=intro
The photo of the poster slated for deletion Peter Ewart CP poster Big Game.jpg is also on that website with permission from CP for use on informational publications such as her website and Wikipedia. See http://peterewart.com/ewart-corporate-artwork.php
Linda Ewart has asked me to update the information and images in this article.
Thank you for any guidance. I find the copyright/licensing information pages you directed me to very hard to decipher.
Jools
- Hi JoolsA. Thank you for the message. English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are both operated by the WMF, but they have some different rules when it comes to image files. Commons only accepts files which can be verified to be unequivocally freely licensed or in the public domain; Wikipedia, on the other hand, does allow certain copyrighted content to be uploaded as non-free content. So, sometimes something uploaded to Wikipedia is OK to be moved to Commons and sometimes it is not.
- Lots of images are posted online by people, but that does not necessarily mean the individual who posted the posted or the website where the photo can be seen holds the copyright over the image. Generally, the copyright of a photo taken belongs to the photographer who took the photo, not the subject of the photo. However, if the photo was taken professionally and the right were then transferred to or purchased by Peter Ewart, then I believe those rights would transfer to his estate upon his death. So, if Linda Ewart took the photo herself, she is the copyright holder. She then has the ability to decide whether she wants to freely license the photo and upload it to Wikipedia Commons. Since she's been using it on her website for a number of years, all she needs to do is follow the instructions at COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? She has basically two options: (1) She can email a "Declaration of Consent" to Commons OTRS at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org which explicitly says that she is the copyright holder and agrees to freely license the photo; or (2) She can post a Creative Common license compatible with Commons on her website for the photo which says that she agrees to freely license it as explained here. Please note that "freely licensed" means that anyone can download and re-use the photo in anyway (including commercially) without needing the permission of copyright holder. If Ms. Ewart is not the person who took the photo and is not the copyright holder, then she will need to get whomever that person is to agree to freely license the photo. She can do this by following the instructions in COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Since you apparently are neither the copyright holder nor the photographer, you also need to follow the instructions in "If you are NOT the copyright holder".
- As for the "Big Game" poster, if you look at en:File:Peter Ewart CP poster Big Game.jpg, you see that another editor Asclepias has added licensing which says the image is in the public domain. This basically means the image is not considered to be under copyright protection and can be freely used by anyone as they like. Because of this I have asked Taivo, the administrator who deleted the Commons version, to check the to see if the English Wikipedia licensing is also acceptable for Commons. If it is, Taivo will likely restore the deleted Commons' file and add the appropriate licensing.
- Finally one last thing about Wikipedia. You wrote Linda Ewart has asked me to update the information and images in this article in your above post. If that's the case, then you likely have what Wikipedia refers to as a conflict of interest when it comes to the Peter Ewart article, so I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia's plain and simply conflict of interest guide for reference. COI editing is not something expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, but it is something highly discouraged and the Wikipedia community has placed certain restrictions on the types of edits COI editors can make. Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone in particular, including the subjects they are written about or anyone closely connected (such as in this case a family member) to the subject of an article. Ms. Ewart has complete editorial control over what goes on her own website, but she has no final say at all as to what goes into the Wikipedia article written about her father. What this means is that she (or you on her behalf) may proposes changes be made (such as replacing/adding an image) on the article's talk page, but a consensus of editors may decide that such changes should not be made. So, you both should keep this in mind when it comes to editing/revising the content of the Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
To Marchjuly[edit]
Hi, How dare you to violate all photos, I copyright it from those people from the Prople of Caraga Region, you are not allowed to delete those photos that which you are deleted in 7 days or what!!! If you are from America, I hate Americans to block me or insult me for nothing!!!
- Hi IamUrian. Nobody has blocked you and nobody has insulted you. When you freely license a photo, you are basically giving anyone in the world permission to use the photo in anyway they want, even for commercial purposes. For this reason, Wikimedia Commons only accepts files which are unequivocally freely licensed or in the public domain as explained in Commons:Licensing so as to protect the rights of copyright holders. There is no indication that the original copyright holders of any of the photos I tagged with Template:No permission since have released their work under a Creative Commons 4.0 license, a you cannot simply take a photo from somewhere and freely license it unless you provide information which verifies that (1) you are the photographer who actually took the photo or (2) the copyright holder has explicitly agreed to release it under a free license. Almost all of the photos you have uploaded list a different author, so Commons is going to require verification from each that they have agreed to freely license their work. You can find out how to do this by reading COM:OTRS. Since you are new to Commons, you are probably not very familiar with it policies. I suggest that you take a look at Commons:FAQ for some general information, but if you have specific questions then you can ask for assistance at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Marchjuly, I will take my own photos for sure, instead of a copyright photos. Make sure my photos are mine, not them.IamUrian (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Most photos taken with digital cameras will add what is referred to as EXIF data to the file and this data is typically uploaded to Commons when you upload a photo. This type of information can sometimes be helpful in verifying who took a particular photo and when it was taken. All you need to do is follow the instruction given on the OTRS page I linked to above. One thing you do have to be aware of is that there is no freedom of panorama for photos of artistic works such as sculptures, statues, etc. in the Philippines. The Philippine government has put in place certain rules designed to protect the copyrights of artists, etc. who have their work publicly displayed. You can take a photo of such things for you own personal use perhaps, but you cannot upload such files to Commons unless you can show that the work is in the public domain or that the artist has explicitly agreed to freely license it for anyone to use as they please, even for commercial purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Marchjuly, I created that montage the one that you deleted!!! that is not COPYRIGHT VIOLATION!!!
- Please refer to my reply on your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
File: Marshall Hall Publicity 2.jpg Permissions[edit]
Marchjuly,
Thank you for the heads up on the photo copyright permission. I have verbal permission from the photographer to use any photo from our photo shoot to use as I wish.
As I'm certain this is not sufficient for your purposes, I have contacted him and he will be sending an email to OTRS with his permission.
Thank you!Marshallkiphall (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the message Marshallkiphall. Yes, you are correct in that verbal permission is not acceptable for such a thing; an explicit declaration of consent from the orginal copyright holder is needed. You should receive a confirmation email from OTRS after they receive your email. This reply will contains an OTRS ticket number, which is like a reference number, so please keep a record it somewhere. If by chance you need to discuss your permissions email later on with OTRS, this number help them track it down. Eventually an OTRS volunteer will review the email and determine if it is in order. This make take some time because there are only so many volunteers with lots of emails to check. The current backlog is listed as 101 days.
- Once you have sent in your email to OTRS, please remove the {{No permission since}} on the file's page and add {{OTRS pending}}. The "OTRS pending" template should be entered after
|permission= that I have added to the file's {{Information}} template. You can't see the parameter now unless you're in the edit window, but it will become visible once something has been added. The OTRS who verifies the permissions email will change the "OTRS pending" to {{OTRS received}} after they have verified that everything is OK. They will also update the file's licensing and source information as needed. The "OTRS pending" template is valid for 30 days; If 30 days have passed without a proper verification, the system will automatically revert back to the the "No permission since" template.
- If, by chance, the file is deleted before OTRS permission has been verified, please do not reupload the file. Files which are deleted are not really gone forever; they are only hidden from view and can easily be restored at a later date when appropriate to do so. Please check the Special:Log (just add "File:Marshall Hall Publicity 2.jpg" to the "Target" field) instead to find out which administrator deleted the image and why it was deleted. You can then post a message at that administrator's talk page and ask them for clarificaiton. If you have any further questions about the OTRS process you can ask for assistance at COM:OTRSN. OTRS correspondance can only be accessed by OTRS volunteers to protect the privacy of all involved. So, I can help with general questions, but I can't answer anything specific about any email(s) you may have sent in. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Message re Tunberg images[edit]
What would you like me to do? I took the photos and did the Photoshop artwork. Doesn't that make me the owner? Would you like me to send you the original tiff photos and working files? The only photo that I didn't take is Neoclassical Drawing Trap, which was taken in 1968 by Arty Zeller (a friend of Tunberg's, who is now dead) and given to Tunberg before it went to the Whitney. I did the artwork on the image. Would you like an affidavit from Tunberg? Please advise how you would like me to proceed. I have been working diligently to learn Wikipedia and bring the page up to Wikipedia's standards. Btw, I now know what TwisterSwister's "book" remark was. He didn't bother to read the page or scroll to see Tunberg's father's filmography. A question: Does everyone go through this? I built the Alfred Shaheen page awhile back and never had this trouble. It was very simple, and a bot helped by cleaning up the refs. Quite frankly, I'm feeling persecuted.Cstwct (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've posted my reply at en:User talk:Cstwct#Commons uploads. Just for reference, Commons and Wikipedia are technically separate sites even though there is some overlap between the two and they both are operated by the en:Wikimedia Foundation. So, what might be OK on Commons might not be OK on Wikipedia and vice versa. So, issues with files uploaded to Commons need to be resolved according to Commons policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Raul Escribano Image[edit]
Sir/Ma'am,
I apologize for taking claim to a photo as you are correct, I did not take it nor do I have any intention to claim the photo as my own. However, The person the wiki page is about (General Escribano), requested a wiki page be created for him and in military life, when higher ups ask, I have to get it done quickly. The problem however, is I have absolutely no idea how Wikipedia works or online copyright works. The other problem is these images were taken by a Public Affairs military member not acting on their own but as a military member. For example, if a pilot fly's a mission, its not him himself performing the action, its on behalf of the US. So similarly, if the individuals who took the photos did so on behalf of the US military in an official capacity and not of their own choice. So for example, in the link you had linked to the image being used, it is used again in a official capacity for military purposes. Wikipedia is not a military domain though so I'm confused on how I am suppose to go about getting approval to use a military image on behalf of the member in the picture. Thank you for your help in the matter.
- Hi Erik4j. Please just refer to me by my user name Marchjuly. Thank you for clarifying things. Just for reference, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are not part of the US military, so they do not need to do things the way the "higher ups" want. The images you uploaded are not your "own work" per se, so technically that might make them a copyright violation. Do you know if these photos have been previously published online? They had to come from somewhere since you are saying that you did not take them yourself. Do you remember where you got them? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- If the photo was taken by a soldier in the course of his duties, it's copyright free as a matter of US law. So you need not worry about the image just put {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} as the proper license.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for that Sturmvogel 66. What should be given as the sources of the images? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Just US Army official photo should do. Sorry for the late reply!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I think some of these files may have already been deleted for lack of permission. They probably can be "un-deleted" if a request is filed at COM:DRV. Since the relevant Wikipedia article itself has also been nominated for deletion, it's also not clear if there will be a place to use the photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Tu maza Jeev nominated for deletion[edit]
File:Tu Maza jeev movie.jpg
Dear sir I believe that the image doesnot contain any copyright as I have been given the image by the producer of the film and he has no objection on it so I request u to remove deletion tag on it. The file on IMDb has been uploaded by me only so please cooperate Tiven2240 (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Tiven2240. Wikimedia Commons only accepts files which are in the public domain or which are clearly freely licensed. The original copyright holder has to agree to freely license the image for not only you to use, not only for Wikipedia to use, but for anyone anywhere in the world to use at anytime for any reason including commercial purposes. Please read COM:Fair use and COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder and ask the producer of the film to complete a declaration of consent and email it to
permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for proper verification. File's which are deleted are not really gone forever, but rather are only hidden from public view; therefore, there is no need for you to reupload the image again. Once Commons OTRS has verified that the file has been properly licensed, an administrator will "undelete" the file so that it is visible once again. If you have any further questions about this, feel free to ask for help at COM:OTRSN or COM:VP/C.
- Finally, there are three notifications of uploading copyrighted images on your user talk page. Image licensing can be tricky and Commons administrators will delete any file whose licensing does not clearly comply with relevant policy per COM:PCP. It's OK to make mistakes, but if your uploads continue to be deleted as copyright violations, then your account is going to eventually be blocked by an administrator. So, I think it would be a good idea for you to ask for assistance at COM:VP/C before uploading any more files unless you are absolutely sure that they are in the public domain or that they satisfies Commons' licensing requirements. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Media submissions[edit]
Hi there, Thanks for letting me know re: copyright. Just to make sure, this means that all of those that I create pages for will have to write to wiki or do I write to wiki on their behalf? I will appreciate your kind response. Thank you :) I am still new at this and am learning as I go. Songuitar333 (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Songuitar333. Please refer to COM:OTRS for more information. If you still have questions after reading through that, then feel free to ask. Don7t worry about making good faith mistakes. As long as you're not trying to circumvent relevant Commons policy and don't repeat the same mistakes over and over and over again, you should be fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly, Thank you for this. It will take me a few days to get all the e-mails in. Yes all of this is a good faith mistake. What is the best way from now on to post images so I don't get flagged for each one? Songuitar333 (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Once you send in the emails, you can add Template:OTRS pending to the file's description/page. Once the emails have been received, an OTRS volunteer will change it to Template:OTRS received and once they have been verified to Template:OTRS permission. The "OTRS pending" template is good for 30 days, but will revert back to Template:No permission since at that point. You should receive a reply from OTRS containing an OTRS ticket number after you send in your emails. Make a record of those numbers because you can use them to ask questions at COM:OTRSN if you have any problems. Even if the files are deleted by chance, they are only hidden from public view and can easily be "undeleted" once the licensing has been verified; therefore, do not try and reupload them if something like that happens. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleting Duplicate jpg Uploaded File in my Gallery[edit]
Please delete two duplicate files that you have messaged me about. Both are candidates for speedy delete:
“Jean Jepson Portrait circa late 1940s or early 1950s.jpg”
“Jean Jepson Portrait circa circa late 1940s or early 1950s.jpg”
They are no longer needed. I do wish to retain however the "Jean Jepson 1940s portrait.jpg".
I tried to delete them on my own but your help guidelines are too complicated and did not provide a simple and clear example of how to do it.
I gave up because it was far too frustrating trying to use the HELP feature.
CableHut (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi CableHut. I am not an administrator, so I cannot delete the photos.
- There are basically a few things you can do at this point:
- Do nothing and the files will be deleted by an administrator in a few days for lacking proper permission, or
- Add
{{SDG7}} to the top of each file's page.
- FWIW, the easier of the two is to do nothing, but if you want to request immediate deletion than you should do #2.
- As for the file you want to keep, that is what is considered a derivative work. Derivative works of copyrighted images are also subject to the original copyright and also possibly a new copyright well depending upon the the situation.
- If I download a photo copyrighted by someone else, and simply make a mechanical reproduction of it or make just a cosmetic change (e.g., scanning a photo for online use, cropping a photo to reduce it's size, removing "red-eyes" from the photo, etc.), then I cannot claim a new copyright over my "version" and the original copyright is still in effect.
- If I take a photo copyrighted by someone else, and alter it in some significantly creative way then I there are now two copyrights which come into play: (1) the copyright of the original work, and (2) the copyright of my creation. The original copyright is still in effect, but there is now a new copyright which also needs to be taken into account.
- Regardless of which of the above is applicable, altering another person's copyrighted image does not void their copyright. So, even though I agree to freely license my "version" of the photo, I cannot claim ownership over the original version of the photo. In such cases, I need to show that the original copyright holder of the original photo under a license compatible with Commons' licensing policy.
- Who is the original copyright holder of the photo? For photos this tends to almost always be the photographer who took the photo, not the subject of the photo and not the person who currently has the photo in their possession. If you are the original copyright holder of the photo, then refer to COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?. If you are not the original copyright older of the photo, refer to COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder for more information. --Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
File:1930s-jamesw.curran-woodpeckershole.jpg.[edit]
This file is from a family photo album - more than 50 years old, so in the public domain, I thought. James W. Curran is my grandfather. When I upload the photo should I state that somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 50.70.41.138 (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi 50.70.41.138. A copyright image may be in the public domain for a number of different reasons as explained in COM:PD, but 50 years is not really a long time when it comes to copyright status and the requirements related to photo age vary from country to country. In most cases, the copyright of a photo is held by the photographer who took it, not the subject of the photo or those who have the photo in their possession; therefore, unless that copyright has been officially transferred by the photographer to another party as part of some "work-for-hire" copyright transfer agreement, the permission of the photographer or their estate is going to be needed to upload the photo.
- Do you know any more information about the origin of the photo? Simply assuming that it can be freely licensed as "own work" because it is in your possession is almost never the case. It needs to be somehow clearly shown that either the copyright holder has explicitly agreed to license the file in accordance with COM:L or the file is clearly in the public domain; otherwise, it might be hard for Commons to accept the file per COM:PCP. You can ask for the opinions of others at COM:VP/C or at COM:HD if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't act too smart[edit]
I have the proof to use the DMICElogo.png . Why should I show to you. DMI gave authorized me to publish in wikipedia. Mind your business. Edson Frainlar (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Edison Frainlar. You don't have to provide proof to me, but you need to provide proof to Wikimedia Commons OTRS, which clearly showd that the original copyright holder has agreed to release the files under a free license to not only you and not only Wikipedia, but to anyone anywhere in the world for any purpose, including commercial. Otherwise, Commons is unable to accept the files and they will be deleted by a Commons administrator. If the university has agreed to license the files in such a way, then please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. I think you should take a look at COM:FAQ for some more general information about the types of images the Commons accepts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Take note[edit]
Sir please do investigate the files uploaded by User:Rahuldeshmukh101 as he has uploaded videos from https://marathibhasha.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Home/index.aspx# which links to a YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j2KvmdrdBk&feature=youtu.be and is does not have cc license. I have advised him to upload them to local upload wizard but it hasn't done yet please see in this matter and do whatsoever necessary --Tiven2240 (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Tiven 2240. If you feel there is a problem with a file's licensing you can (1) nominate the file(s) for speedy deletion as explained COM:SD or (2) nominate the file(s) for regular deletion as explained in COM:DEL. If you're not sure how to do that or have any other questions, then you can try asking for assistance at COM:VP/C. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
could you please be more careful...[edit]
Could you please be more careful?
You applied a {{nod}} tag to File:Kyle_Schlesinger_Austin_2016.jpg -- even though it bears an apparently valid Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
I can see applying a tag like that -- if you had a reason to be concerned about flickr-washing, or reasonable equivalent. But, if you had that concern, surely you should have explained it, somewhere. Surely I should be able to look at the file, and FIND the explanation for your concern?
You are aware that individuals are entitled to upload self-portraits -- particularly when they are the topic of an article on one of the wikipedias?
I am going to ping @Kyle Schlesinger:, the uploader. Geo Swan (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Geo Swan. I apologize for the "nod". That was a typo of "npd". I added the template because the person depicted in the photo is en:Kyle Schlesinger which is also the same name of the uploader of the photo. So, if the uploader and person shown in the photo are one and the same, then either this is a selfie or it was a photo taken by someone else. Given the pose, etc., it does not look like a selfie to me which means it might have been a work for hire. If that's the case, then my understanding is that permission of the photographer or evidence of a copyright transfer still needs to be provided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, but for the last couple of decades digital cameras, even the cheapest, come with a self-timer. So, that the image shows Schlesinger doesn't mean Schlesinger wasn't the photographer.
- You are correct, it is possible that Schlesinger handed his camera to his neighbour, girl-friend, or a passer-by. Technically, that would make the passer-by the owner of the image's intellectual property rights. But, IF that were the case, in what universe would there be any reason to force an uploader, like Schlesinger, to jump through the extra hoops of getting a formal release?
- IF the photographer was his neighbour, girl-friend, or a passer-by, and you asked them, right after they handed the camera back to Schlesinger, whether they thought they retained any rights to that image, they'd laugh. They'd think you were joking. If you explained to them that you didn't think a verbal agreement between them and Schlesinger was sufficient, and you were demanding legal paperwork, you'd probably make them mad as hell.
- Under what circumstances do you think a photographer, other than Schlesinger, would exercise intellectual property rights? Would an embittered ex-girlfriend tell Schlesinger he no longer had permission to upload images she took with his camera? She could hardly blackmail him, when it would only take him a minute, or a couple of minutes, to take a selfie with the self-timing feature that even the cheapest cameras come with. Geo Swan (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. I just want to point out that an account with the user name Kyle Schlesinger does not mean that that the account holder is the same en:Kyle Schlesinger. As for the other stuff, it seems that you are arguing Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie which is not part of Commons:Own work#Not own work yet. FWIW, I did add the template in good faith. Perhaps, the uploader will see your ping and provide a little more clarification. Maybe this discussion can be linked to or added to the file's talk page for future reference. I asked an uninvolved admin about this at User talk:Didym#File:Kyle Schlesinger Austin 2016.jpg and their reply was that further verification is needed. So, perhaps things aren't so clear. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleting a Photo[edit]
hi there. i just uploaded a photo.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Captain_Hollywood_Project_Photo.jpg
but the owner of the photo is not available to email you guys. he will be available in about a week.
how do i delete it. i will re-upload it later. Maxxmusicfan (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- There are two things you can do: (1) you can add Template:SDG7 to the top of the page. Just go to the file's page, click edit, and add {{SDG7}} to the top of the page. Click "Show preview" to verify and then click "Publish changes" to save; or (2) you can do nothing and leave the file for Commons administrator to delete after 7 days if proper permission still cannot be verified.
- Regardless of how the file is deleted, you should not really re-upload again at a later date unless it is of a different file type or is a completely different file altogether. Deleted files are not gone forever; they are only hidden from public view and can fairly easily be "undeleted" at a later date once proper permission has been verified as explained in Commons:Undeletion requests. Just ask whomever sends in the permissions email to include the file name ("File:Captain Hollywood Project Photo.jpg") in their email. You can find out some more information about this at COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder or by asking for assistance at Commons:Help desk. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Just a quick update Maxxmusicfan. The file has been deleted from Commons as a copyright violation. It seems there have been warnings posted to User talk:Maxxmusicfan about problems with previous images you uploaded. You need to be very careful when uploading stuff to Commons. Administrators may be lenient the first time, but they will have no qualms about blocking accounts which repeatedly upload files which do not comply with COM:L. So, before you upload anything else, I strongly suggest that you ask for assistance first at COM:VP/C. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The language is a bit ambiguous here, but on Hello Internet #57, C. G. P Grey said that he was 'giving the flag to the public domain.'
https://overcast.fm/+BgMW9MNUo/1:24:49
Please note that I was not the user that aded the CC0 tag to the page.
--InAndOutLand (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for that information. If that's the case, then I believe Grey would be best to indicates that somewhere in writing since verbal permissions do not seem to be usually accepted. He can either do this by sending a declaration of consent to OTRS as explained in COM:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries or by adding an appropriate license to the official page where the logo is displayed per COM:OTRS#When contacting OTRS is unnecessary. He needs to understand, however, that once he release the logo under a free license that he cannot take it back.
- Finally, sorry if there was a mixup over the nontification template added to your user talk page; the template is typically added to the uploader since they are assumed to have been the person to have added the license. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure this would not be considered to be {{PD-textlogo}} per c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom and COM:TOO#Lower threshold in United Kingdom etc.. The UK has a pretty low TOO for copyrighted logos, much lower than that of the US, so I think this would be deleted based upon that if this was discussed at COM:DR or tagged with Template:Logo. You can if you like move the file to COM:DR if you like to have more feedback from other Commons editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
woka LAMPS vienna[edit]
I have answered your note regarding the copyright of the company Logo and have pointed out, that I myself as a WIKI author am the owner of this company and therefore have the copyright on this Logo - I write it here as I cannot find the correspondence on other places - I was not writing articles for a long time, but I did many articles on history of arts many years ago
- Hi Corso1111. The file you uploaded (File:Woka Logo-mit-Adler 6cm-300dpi.jpg) was deleted by an administrator named Jcb because it is too complex to be accepted by Commons without verification that it has been clearly released by the copyright holder under a free license acceptable for Commons. As I posted on the file's talk page in response to your post there, you can decide to release the file under a free license if you are the logo's creator/copyright holder. However, you are going to need to send Commons a explicit declaration of consent verifying that you understand and agree to the terms of the license you decide to use for the logo. You can find out how to do this in COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?.
- This verification is necessary because a "free license" with respect to Commons means that the copyright holder is agreeing to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the logo at anytime and use it for any purpose they like including for commercial purposes. In addition, once a logo, etc. has been released under a free license, the license cannot be cancelled. Therefore, as a business owner yourself, you can probably understand why Commons wants to do everything it can to make sure that no company logos are being improperly uploaded as "free content". Even though the logo you uploaded has been deleted, it's not really gone forever; rather, it's only hidden from public view and can be easily restored once its licensing has been properly verified by a Commons OTRS volunteer. This verifiction process may take a bit of time from start to finish, so you need to be a little patient. After you send in the permissions email, you will receive a reply containing an OTRS ticket number. You should keep this number on file because it make it easier for OTRS volunteers to help you with any further questions you may have. I am not an administrator or an OTRS volunteer, so there's not much more that I can do to help you. I will post a message for Jcb and ask him if he is able to help you further. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, the appropriate way is indeed to contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Lauren Jauregui[edit]
Hello, Marchjuly! I neglected to look at the history before tagging that photo as unsourced; I would have nominated it for deletion had I noticed that the uploader had removed your speedy template. Anyway, I just wanted to say I would have no objection if you did so—or even, considering you’ve found a likely non-free original, reverted to where you first tagged it. Then again, it probably won’t hurt to wait a week and see if proper provenance & permissions might be forthcoming.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Your npd tag is fine. Personally, I think they just found it online somewhere, but I guess there is always the possiblity that the uploader did take the photo. This will at least give them time to provide verification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- If you can find the same photo somewhere online, then it's copyright status may be able to be verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Re: File:Lincoln Johnson Ragsdale, Sr.jpg[edit]
Hello Marchjuly, I took the photo from the subjects crypt. It seems to me that it is obvious that the photo was taken while the subject was in the military. But, to be fair it would be then best to delete it. I have no objections if it is. Marine 69-71 (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Permissions granted by Big Lion Productions[edit]
Dear Marchjuly
I have been told owner has sent an email to : permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, granting permission to use both of these images, so can you lift speedy deletion warning.
Thank you
PEP
- @Pep67: I'm not sure which two files you're referring to, but two of the three I tagged have already been deleted. I am not an adminstrator so I cannot "undelete" those files. File:Big Lion Productions Logo.png was deleted by administrator Jcb and File:Faithfully.png was deleted by administrator Y.haruo. If a permission email has been sent to COM:OTRS for either of those two files, please ask for assistance from the administrator who deleted the file.
- The other file I tagged (File:Phillip Leo 1996.png) has not yet been deleted, so if a permission's email has been sent to OTRS for this file, then the Template:No permission since can be replaced with Template:OTRS pending. This file give 30 days for the email to be verified by OTRS, but the template will revert back to the "No permission since" one if the email has not been verified by then. If you're not sure how to remove the template I added and replace it with the "OTRS pending" one, please let me know and I will do it.
- There is no need to re-upload any of the files which have been deleted. Deleted files are not gone forever; they are only hidden from public view and they can be "undeleted" by an administrator once whatever issues that lead to their deletion have been resolved. Re-uploading the files may cause other editors to mistakenly assume that you are repeatedly uploading copyright violations and could in turn lead to an administrator blocking your account from editing.
- You should also understand that once a copyright content has been released under a free license, it cannot be revoked or taken back. In addition, a free license on Commons basically means that the copyright holder is giving anyone anywhere in the world permission to download the file at anytime for any purpose, including commercial purposes. This is why company logos such as the Big Lion production logo are very seldom released under a free license because it gives others permission to download these files and use them to make money or in some other way which might not be to the benefit of the company So, you and the original copyright holder should make sure that this is what you or they want to do.
- Finally, please try and remember to sign your user talk page posts on Commons and Wikipedia as explained in en:WP:TILDE. Signing your posts allow others to better see who posted what and when it was posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you[edit]
Hi Marchjuly
Thank you for your suggestions, I have taken note of the pointers in your message, I am still pretty new to this but I am learning, I wasn't sure how to sign articles with CC copyright clause, and I was pleased it has been placed on the article but I will investigate on how to do this via the link you messaged.
Thanks
Kind Regards
PEP
Regarding the Vanguard America logo deletion[edit]
Hello, Marchjuly
You recently deleted one of my uploads that I made for Vanguard America and their logo. I am a former member of Vanguard America of the Alabama Chapter. I am the one who designed the current website. I am the one who did create the new logo in which they use now.
King Regards,
Echo
- I am not an administrator, so I cannot delete files. I nominated File:Vanguard America Logo.png for deletion, but it has not been reviewed by an adminstrator yet. As it says in the template I added: "Appeal: If you disagree with this media file's speedy deletion, replace this tag with a regular deletion request." So, if you disagree with the nomination, the file can be discussed at COM:DR. Moreover, if you designed the logo as part of your "responsibilities" with the organization or as a "work-for-hire", then you may not own the "copyright" on the logo any longer. Are you willing to provide verification per COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? so that the copyright ownership of the logo clarified?
- Finally, you also uploaded a number of other logos as "own work": File:Antipodeanm Resistance.png and File:National Actionm.png in particular appear to be the logos of en:Antipodean Resistance and en:National Action (UK) respectively. Did you create these logos as well? If so, OTRS verification is likely going to be needed for them as well. If not, then you shouldn't claim them as your "own work" since they are likely protected by copyright for the reasons given in COM:VP/C#File:National Actionm.png and COM:VP/C#File:Antipodeanm Resistance.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Linking you, since you started the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/12#File:Tfn-logo-lg.jpg. Regards. -- Begoon 05:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Yellowhead Highway[edit]
Hello, Marchjuly! I was too slow to comment at the VP or the DR, but I think the head-&-trees graphic belongs to the TransCanada Yellowhead Highway Association; at least two different drawings of it appear on their website, incorporated into various logos and sign graphics. Although the organization dates to 1947, I doubt the logo is earlier than the ’60s; while the copyrights might have lapsed in Canada, that wouldn’t have been before the URAA date for the USA. I don’t know whether the four provincial highway departments use it under licence or share in the ownership. Anyway, I might try and contact the association for more information. Meantime, I thought you might enjoy this ‘news‘ item (and note the image credit).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Odysseus1479. Thank you for the message. I have no problem with the close if that's how Commons and Wikipedia wants to treat all files using the same imagery. It only becomes a problem if Commons and Wikipedia feel that different files using essentially the same Yellowshield imagery need to be licensed differently. The administrator who closed the DR is Yann, so you can, if you wish, point out what you've found and ask how to proceed if you believe further discussion is needed. This is something which can be done on English Wikipedia per en:WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but I'm not if such a thing is possible on Commons. Just for reference, Fastily (an English Wikipedia admin) is also not sure whether the ticket should be applied.
- It's also possible that OTRS ticket referred to in Commons:Deletion requests/File:RedCoatTrail.png could be extended to cover files such as en:File:Red Coat Trail highway shield.png since it's essentially the same logo as well.
- Anyway, the same upoader has upload quite a number of road sign files as "own work" which also might require review. The uploader seems to be under the assumption that all these signs are in the public domain (which may be true), but is unable to clarify why they feel this is the case. They also might not fully understand COM:DW and COM:CB#Road signs in that simply creating your "own version" of such a sign does not automatically mean the original copyright no longer needs to be considered. I'm involved in similar discussions at English Wikipedia's FFD regarding Canadian road signs with this person; they make lots of claims, but so far have not really clarified how these claims are supported by relevant policies or guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I’m not in any position to dispute the close, without more definite information, and the OTRS ticket (whether or not it’s entirely adequate or applicable) serves as something of a talisman to ward off COM:PRP. Procedures here aren’t quite as elaborate as on enWP, and I don’t know of a venue specifically for appealing closures; where the result is Delete I believe the next stop would be COM:UNDEL, but for a Keep it’s just another DR. That would be likely be regarded as disruptive without offering new evidence. As for dubious own-work claims on DWs, there’s a veritable plague of them here; I put a lot of the blame on the Upload Wizard‘s offering it as the default source. Paved with the best of intentions, no doubt.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine. Jeff G. seems to be working on getting the OTRS ticket clarified, so perhaps it will all be sorted out eventually. Any clarifiction of that ticket would make things over on English Wikipedia easier to resolve as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Odysseus1479: Well things have taken an unexpected turn in that the uploader has been blocked. So, if you do find out anything more about the copyright status of the original Yellowhead shield imagery, then perhaps posting it on the uploader's user talk might help clarify things. However, given some of the comments made in Commons:Deletion requests/File:CanucksBySeason.png, the uploader seems to be mistaking what Wikipedia and Commons policy allows for what is typically allowed under fair use and is assuming en:WP:ITSFREE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well, edit-warring with a sysop to get ‘the last word‘ in a closed discussion can only end one way, never mind the preceding shenanigans. Should I find out more I think the best place to post it would be the file’s Talk page (or perhaps Category talk:Yellowhead Highway), pinging involved parties.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- You're right that the file's talk page would be a much better place: more centralized and easier for others to participate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
TTTE&StarWarsFan2018's message[edit]
I did not upload that image.
- What image are you referring to? Also, please try and learn how to sign your posts. The easist way to do so is to add four tildes (
~~~~) to the very end of your post before clicking the "Publish changes" button. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
What's wrong with the SAPP LOGO.jpg?[edit]
May I know the reason that SAPP LOGO.jpg send to be deleted?
- The file was uploaded under a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International" and the copyright holder/source is listed as "Sabah Progressive Party", but there is no information provided (e.g., a link to a website, etc.) which shows that the file has been released under a free license. While it's true that the file can be seen being used on the party's official website, there's nothing (at least I couldn't find anything) which clearly says that the content of the website has been released under "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International". Commons does not accept fair use images per COM:FAIR which means an explicit declaration of consent from the original copyright holder needs to be emailed to Wikimedia OTRS for verification purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Ikebana photos[edit]
Hi Marchjuly,
Thank you for your message. That is a good question.
For arrangements which are copies of historical pieces, there cannot be a copyright since they are copying classical arrangements on which the copyright of the original inventor/teacher has expired. The example you gave of the Sōka Hyakki pieces is such, the author being Ikenobō Senjō (池坊専定) and the arrangements dating to at least 1820. Therefore there is no copyright on it since it has expired. It would be as if someone today copied an old master like Hiroshige, and then claimed copyright on the work. If a piece is modern and new (Jiyūka 自由花 for example), then I agree copyright would apply. The pictures I have uploaded are all pieces which are classical and traditional and copies of old existing formats. If that logic does still not suffice, you could argue that article 46 applies in this case. Gryffindor (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Discussion continues at User talk:Gryffindor#Ikebana photos. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hallo Marchjuly, could I ask you for a big favour? Could you please add the kanji that is written on the small wooden tablets in the description text, for example with this one? File:2017 Ikenobou Autumn Tanabata Exhibition Souka Hyakki (9).jpg and others? I will request the photography workshop to airbrush the tablets out, but I would like to save this information in the description first. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Gryffindor: I don't mind doing that, but some of the characters are blurred and look to be written with a brush so I clearly cannot make them out. For example, the tablet for File:2017 Ikenobou Autumn Tanabata Exhibition Souka Hyakki (9).jpg looks like (from top to bottom)
- 必 ?
- ? ? ?
- 松原カツ子
- My guess is the tablet follows that same format for all of the works in that particular exhibition. Item #1 probably describes the category/award, item #2 probably is the name of the work, and item #3 is the name of the artist. Also, there appear to be two seals on the tablets as well, but I am unable to make them out. I should be able to get most of the names since they appear to be the easiest to make out, but the other two items are too blurred. It would probably be much easier for you to figure out what they are exactly by looking at the original photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Marchjuly. Yes, whatever is possible, that would be wonderful. All images that need identification from the tablets are here: Category:2017 Ikenobō Autumn Tanabata Exhibition. I know it's quite a bit of work, but your help would be immensely appreciated. Please let me know if I can help you in any way. Thank you very much. Gryffindor (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Names can be tricky even when the characters are clearly legible; they may sometimes use other non-standard/special readings of a character or the character may have multiple readings which are used are commonly used for names. for example, "別府" can be "Beppu" like en:Beppu station or "Befu" like en:Befu station (Fukuoka), and "愛" can be "Ai" like en:Ai Sugiyama, "Manami" like ja:Manami Nomoto or even "Megumi" like en:Megumi Nakajima. So, even if I can make out the characters, there's no way to be completely sure the my reading will be the actual reading. IS there any way to figure out who held the exhibition and ask them for a kana-listing of the participants names? That would clear up both the blurred characters and the reading issues. If not then perhaps you good do one file as an example of what you want done. I'm not sure where the information you want included is to be added. Do you want to add it to the existing text in the
|description= parameter like this: "Classical shōka arrangement of the Ikenobō school presented by XXXXX at the annual autumn Tanabata exhibition, Takashimaya Kyoto."? (minus the bold) -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think best would be if you could just create a separate line for the Japanese text using the template
日本語: xxxyyy and fill it with any legible kanji. I would worry about the correct translation into English of the names later. I will ask also if there is an exhibition catalogue available. Gryffindor (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Do you still have the original photo data? Perhaps there's a way to use that to determine the blurred characters? If not, then maybe someone in Category:Users in Japan can help with the reading. Alex Shih is a English Wikipedia admin who might be able to help. There is also ja:WP:HNJS where a native speaker might be found who can make out the blurred characters. Finally, you mentioned that you want this done because you're going to have the tablets "airbrushed out"; however, even if that's done, the older versions of the files with the tablets should not be deleted just in case that was a concern of yours. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Is this the exhbition where you saw File:2017 Autumn Tanabata Exhibition Ikenobou doujou 01.jpg? I am unable to find anyone named "Shizuka Wakabayasshi" on this page, but I'm now pretty sure that item 1 above is "Ikenobō" (池坊). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- That is correct. Item 2 is "Sōkatoku" (総華督), the top qualification for Ikebana. Alex Shih (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you that Alex. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, to go back to your earlier question, the old version with the tablet will still exist as a previous version. Do any of the tablets state what type exactly the arrangement is, for example which type of Rikka, or Shoka, etc.? For example in this image it is obvious because it also states in the back in English File:2017_Ikenobou_Autumn_Tanabata_Exhibition_03.jpg. Gryffindor (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what is meant by "Rikka" and "Shoka". Do you mean "立花" and "生花"? Those words do not appear to be written on any of the tablets, but I'm not really able to make out much more than the names for most of the photos. Once again, you might be able to do so from the original photo data if you still have access to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Culture d'entreprise.jpg[edit]
Hello, can you please tell me what's the issue with File:Culture d'entreprise.jpg? Same with Cavenago factory.jpg and other files from that collection. --Ruthven (msg) 07:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- The same uploader (who also might be User talk:Babcock.wanson.stage) has uploaded some files which have been already been deleted as copyvios. My guess is that this person (or these persons) are somehow connected to the company en:Draft:Babcock Wanson (perhaps employees) have have been uploading various images found on the company's website as well as some other websites. There is no real EXIF data for many of the the photographs to show where they came from and there is also no source url provided. So, I added the templates to give the uploader(s) a chance to send in a permissions email so that OTRS could verify copyright ownership. If you feel this is unnecessary, then you can remove the templates. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
You are correct that overwriting the file was problematic - that should've been uploaded as a new file with a different name. However the license itself is fine, therefore I kept the file. — regards, Revi 15:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine. The overwritting was fixed by another editor, so that is no longer an issue. -- ^Marchjuly (talk)
Strange suggestions[edit]
"If you feel Wikipedia's policy on non-free content use needs to be revised, start a discussion at en:WT:NFCC or en:WP:VPP. Perhaps you can make a convinicing case that the "checklist" you refer to needs to be changed for the better."
You do know Slowking4 has an indefblock on enwiki, right? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. I don't believe I've interacted with that editor outside of Commons, and didn't do a deep background check on them. If you feel the comment is/was inappropriate I can remove/strike it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- What I think doesn't really matter and Slowking4 already read it so I don't think that's needed. Slowking4 is brilliant, in his very own and at times obnoxious way. Slowking4 doesn't follow Commons:Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point but more like the opposite. With mixed results, I think. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}