User talk:Yann/archives 33

Some holiday joy

Since 1959, it is a Swedish tradition to (at 3 pm) watch Donald Duck and other Disney cartoons on TV. The most appreciated part is about Donald as bird photographer in Clown of the Jungle. I think most users at FPC can relate to the frustrated Donald (especially the parrot scene), which is why I'm sharing it with you. Happy Holiday! --cart-Talk 15:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Lubov Satanovska, student.jpg

File:Lubov Satanovska, student.jpg has previously been deleted 3 times, under different names. I can't find exactly where I found it but it was tagged "VK © 2016" and I had the link in my speedy deletion notice. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

- and File:Lubov.jpg is another version. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I blocked this account for a week. Best wishes for the Holidays, and Happy New Year 2017! Yann (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Hello Yann, thank you for your wishes, I also wish you happy holidays and all the best for 2017! Poco² 20:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

		Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2017 !
		Remember: Look sweet... Eat everything... Seek the warmest spots to nap and purr... Try to wait until after to demolish the paper and ornaments... -- With best wishes! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy new year!

	Merry Christmas, Yann!
	English: Hellow Yann, Merci/Gracias/Thanks my friend for do it posible, this family of Commons, beleave that we can change world improving the educational media disponible. Take care by your self --The Photographer 02:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC) --The Photographer 02:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Tomognathus gigeri, une œuvre d'art ?

Bonjour et bonne année ! Comme chercheuse et illustratrice scientifique occasionnelle, je n'ai pas la prétention de me considérer comme une artiste et je réalise de nombreux derivative works, c'est même une obligation en science car nous ne sommes pas des créateurs mais des re-dessinateurs de nos sources, dont nous ne pouvons pas nous éloigner librement, si nous voulons rester dans le cadre de la validation scientifique (du moment). Nous travaillons généralement en équipe et nous recevons nos salaires, il n'est pas question pour nous de droits d'auteur (d'ailleurs même pour un artiste, une fois qu'il a vendu son œuvre et qu'il a été payé pour elle, son contrat devrait être clos : le droit d'auteur ne devrait pas se traduire par une privatisation de l'espace public, sinon on va finir par devoir d'acquitter d'un péage pour pénétrer dans toute ville comportant des œuvres d'art). Les législateurs ne semblent absolument pas faire la différence entre le travail de création artistique et le travail d'illustration scientifique, et cet amalgame est très dommageable pour l'illustration scientifique de wikipedia car :

• les règles de la marchandisation de l'art s'étendent abusivement à des réalisations scientifiques anonymes, collectives et exposées dans des espaces publics d'accès gratuit comme par exemple [1];
• des critiques d'ordre scientifique s'appliquent improprement à des œuvres purement artistiques comme par exemple [2].

Dans commons, Rules are Rules, l'administrateur n'a pas à réfléchir sur ce qui est légal et ce qui est légitime, il doit effacer ma photo du Tomognathus gigeri découvert par Stephen Giner, dont la maquette est un travail collectif appartenant à un Musée public départemental, dépendant d'une collectivité publique (le département du Var) qui travaille avec l'argent public et expose ses collections gratuitement (voyez sur [3]). Je trouve cela très regrettable, tout comme la disparition progressive de la liberté de panorama. Bien à vous, --Amélie Pataud (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Bonjour Amélie Pataud,

...bonne année !

En droit français comme en droit international, une œuvre scientifique est soumise aux droits d'auteur. Ce n'est pas une invention de Commons, c'est la loi partout dans le monde.

Maintenant, si un travail ne présente aucune originalité artistique (comme un scan d'un livre), il n'y a pas de création d'un nouveau droit, mais c'est une exception très restreinte. En plus, il n'y a pas en France d'exception au droit d'auteur pour les œuvres créées par des fonctionnaires d'État, contrairement aux États-Unis. Et donc même les œuvres créées par une collectivité publique sont soumises aux droits d'auteur.

Finalement, il n'y a pas de « disparition progressive de la liberté de panorama », car il n'y a jamais eu de liberté de panorama en France.

Pour Tomognathus gigeri, il est certainement possible d'obtenir une autorisation du musée.

Tout cela est regrettable, mais il faut faire avec. Et je suis le premier à refuser une interprétation trop stricte de la loi, et à m'opposer aux suppressions abusives. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Merci Yann et... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amélie Pataud (talk • contribs) 14:51, 04 January 2017 (UTC)

Cholmondley and Montagu images

You have made a poor edit which I have boldly reverted. You cannot just claim that there is "No real doubt about UK government source", and acts as judge, jury and executioner: provide some proof that this is the case please. - The Bounder (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

If ypou are one to revert me, perhaps you could do your job properly. Could you provide any proof that these two images are from government sources? The Macintyre source states they are copyright the respective families. Can you prove they are from the government sources you claim? - The Bounder (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Close a deletion discussion?

Yann, would you like to close this? Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fukutarō Ozawa Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please reconsider

Hi Yann: Please reconsider your close at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Assemblyman Phillip Chen.jpg because another image from same series was used when the man was running for the office. That means he did not have the job yet, and would not yet be photographed by official California state photographer. He has not yet been seated in the assembly and the official photos are taken the first week of office which has not yet happened. So regardless of what the other user said (who is not a citizen of California and would not know), I request you relook at this, we have absolutely no evidence it is a state of California image; and a really good reason to think it's a campaign photographer image, uploaded by someone who is not the state or the campaign photographer, which makes it a copyvio. Thank you for your reconsideration, this one has no source - and absolutely no evidence that it was created by a state photographer. It is not found at source given - another image is in use at the top of that site. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done I reverted myself, and will let someone else close it. Yann (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Admiral Joseph Strauss.JPG

Hi, can you explain why you disagree with the nomination reason? Jcb (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jcb, There is a source (which you could have added yourself), and there is no copyright issue. So can you explain why you want it delete? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can explain and I did, right in the DR. The given source does not provide sufficient copyright information, so the copyright situation remains unknown, which is a demanding reason for deletion. Jcb (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the source website again and I could not find a single statement or indication that the author would be the federal US government. Jcb (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

IMHO you are looking for an issue where there is none. Please look at File:RADM Joseph Strauss in 1919.jpg, where he looks older. So this was published before 1919, so it is also out of copyright by age. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Being created or being published are two completely different things. The indicated source is a 1963 publication. Jcb (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Again this is unwarranted assumption. There is absolutely no reason to think that 1. it was not published when it was taken; 2. this looks like an official portrait, so again, there is no reason to think it wasn't taken by the US government. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Can you take a look at this? Jcb (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jcb. I think this is a family photo that was probably unpublished until the commissioning of USS Joseph Strauss in 1963. He has his hands in his pockets, so this cannot possibly be an official portrait from before 1919. They were much more formal then. It would not have been published then. If there was reason to show a photo of him in a publication, it would have been one that was more formal. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yann, what do you propose, are you revising your decision or do we have to start a new DR? Jcb (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to recognize that I don't know what is formal about a US official picture. OK, reopen it if you like. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Appeal of Military Technical Courier deleting page

The content of http://www.vtg.mod.gov.rs/about-journal.html (and all other pages on that website) is licensed under a Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Serbia license (see http://www.vtg.mod.gov.rs/index-e.html, on the bottom). Is this still a copyright infringement? Lessormore (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC) Sorry for bothering you, but I would appreciate if you answered my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngacesa (talk • contribs) 08:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Why did you claim it as "own work"? And you didn't mention that in the description. Please correct that. I restored the files, and created deletion requests instead. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

copyright photos by Johannes Augustin

Good afternoon

I see that you are deleting my photos as possible copyright violation. Please note that I am the owner (as producer - director of these films) and so I have every right to use them.

It's not a nice thing to delete the photos before asking me.

Vassilis — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohannesAugustin (talk • contribs) 12:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@JohannesAugustin: Hi,

For any document previously published elsewhere, we need a formal written permission from the copyright owner. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

File:RoPeCastLogo.jpg

Hi, Yann.

Thanks for restoring the file in question. I'm contacting you to learn what exactly was the problem with the confirmation e-mail. --chris 論 10:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I don't remember, but it looks fine to me now. I confirmed the permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Happy new year! --chris 論 16:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Yann!

Happy New Year!

Yann, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Few of the pictures were created by me. How u can say that I copied it? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.236.194.54 (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eiffel Tower wearing Europe colors - panoramio.jpg

To remind you, the argument is "The various illuminations of the Eiffel Tower (golden illumination, twinkling, beacon and events lighting) are copyrighted. This media contains beacon as well as special lightings which can not be kept here." In the first discussion where there was no discussion at all, you said there is only a copyright on the show, but in fact, the special lightings (which is present in this media) and the beacon (which is also present in the media) is copyrighted. I request you to keep this discussion open.
You are paid to think. A mindless worker is a happy worker 🍺💲🚬 12:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Help me

@Yann, Hello! I didn't load the constrained images. Reason is in that letter with permission that an author sent in OTRS unfortunately it didn't handle and didn't reckoned. → there. Please help me... Adam-Yourist (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Vœux

		En route pour l'aventure !
		Bonne année Yann ! Je te souhaite de belles découvertes En agréable compagnie ! Au plaisir de te croiser, Cordialement, — Racconish ☎ 12:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Fichiers Athanase Vantchev de Thracy

Bonjour Yann, tout d'abord mes meilleurs voeux pour 2017 pleins de nouvelles images de qualité ! La suite est moins encourageante j'ai mis 10 fichiers d'Athanase Vantchev de Thracy sur wikimedia avec le formulaire habituel complété par Athanase Vantchev de Thracy. Je me retrouve avec 10 alertes de Patrick Rogel alors que le propriétaire des photos a bien envoyé le mail de permission le 31 à 15h15. Cordialement--Amage9 (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour,

Désolé, mais je ne pense pas que ça puisse être accepté : Toutes ces photos sont faites par des amis non professionnels. Je ne sais même pas qui a fait les différentes photos. Bonne Année quand même ! Cordialement, Yann (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Merci Yann. Cordialement--Amage9 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia Asian Month 2016 PC.jpg

Dear Yann ,Thank you for deleting the file , It was not copyright issue it was only because senders address was appearing in the Image he requested to make it blur/ erase that I do ,I am still learning,I will keep this in mind in future for sure ,thanks for understanding-- Suyash Dwivedi (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of the picture File:Benoît Philippe, verkisto.jpg

Hello, Yann. I consider absolutely unacceptable the way you act here in Wikipedia. Please contact the people before you delete the pics.

Susomoinhos (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour Susomoinhos,

Premièrement calmez-vous.

Pour cette photo, il faut une autorisation écrite du photographe pour une licence libre. Voyez COM:OTRS/fr pour la procédure. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Je suis absolutement calme. Mais je ne comprend pas votre vitesse en vos actions. Je n'ai eu pas le temps pour reagir. Par exemple, une photo de 1908 a eté éliminé. Pourquoi, si l'auteur a décedé il y a plus de 70 ans? Dans autres cas, je n'ai eu pas ni la chance de répondre.

Susomoinhos (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour Susomoinhos,

Le photographe de File:Marie Hankel c. 1908.jpg est Hugo Erfurth, qui est mort en 1948. Cette photo pourrait être restaurée en 2019. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Oui, vous avez raison, le photographe est mort il y a seulement 68 ans. Cordialement,

Susomoinhos (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Request your input

Requesting your input at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Debarghya89. The uploader has accused me of personal bias, which is incorrect. I noticed you have been active on Wikipedia. I hope you can weigh in. Coderzombie (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Banned for photos uploaded to wikimedia

You've threatened banning me because I allegedly posted copyrighted photos on Wikimedia. I assure you that I have never -- in 7 years, 1500 articles, 22,000 edits on Wikipedia, and not a single ban or warning -- knowingly put copyrighted material on Wikimedia. You've even deleted or proposed to delete material that I said truthfully was my own work.

There is a problem, however, with the complexity of the licensing system. Just to cite one example. I posted a photo of an album cover of "The Kelly Family" on wikimedia to use on the article of the same name in Wikipedia. Now, before posting, I actually researched album covers and discovered that album covers of the Beatles and others had been put on Wikimedia. Therefore, the album cover I wanted to upload to Wikimedia, should also be legal. Right?

However, in uploading the photo of the album cover, wikimedia did not accept the "fair use" license (or template or whatever it's called) used to place photos of album covers on Wikimedia. So, I ignored it, assuming that common sense would prevail. What's fair for the Beatles and others is fair for The Kelly Family. Right?

The problem is not that I illegally uploaded a copyrighted photo -- but rather than the Wikimedia system didn't allow me a place to explain what the photo was and make the case that it could be used. That's the problem that needs correcting. The system is too inflexible and complicated for a mere content creator like me to comprehend. I write words -- not computer programs.

I noticed another photo of mine proposed for deletion in the Osage Nation article in which somebody, maybe you, questioned if it was my own work -- and said it is a lousy photograph. Well, I agree that it is a lousy photo -- and I can't imagine why I posted it because I've surely got better photos of the same building -- but I damn sure didn't claim somebody else's photo as my own. At least not knowingly. Call me a lousy photographer -- but don't call me a cheat. (And in any case, why is lousy quality a factor in deleting a photo?)

I haven't looked at the other 3 or 4 photos I posted which are proposed for deletion to see what the problem is -- but I think you ought to take a look at the rigidity, lack of imagination, and inhospitability of the system you're using. I'm sure you're a nice guy who likes dogs and children -- but let's get a bit more user-friendly and produce a better encyclopedia.Smallchief (talk)

Hi Smallchief,

The warning I sent is just that: a warning. You won't be blocked if you don't upload copyright violations again.

Album covers are copyrighted, and can't be uploaded with a formal written permission from the copyright owner. In addition, there is very little chance to get a permission in this case.

This is the case for any previously published work.

If you are not the creator, please do not upload any document without making sure it is not a copyright violation. You can get help on COM:VPC. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest, therefore, that you look at File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.jpg. This is an album cover permitted to be posted on wikimedia even though it is a "non-free image" as described in the explanation as to why it is eligible to be on wikimedia. What is the difference between "fair use" of "non free images" of Beatle Album covers and "fair use" of "non-free images" of album covers by other artists? Smallchief (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smallchief: File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.jpg was rightly deleted as copyright violation by Polarlys. Files under a fair use rationale are only accepted on the English Wikipedia, and not on Wikimedia Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I give up....but I don't comprehend. How does one post a photo on the "English Wikipedia" without posting it first on "wikimedia commons"? Smallchief (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smallchief: Here: en:Special:Upload. But before uploading, please read en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Nathan_Wyburn_Red_Carpet.jpg

Hi Yann. RE: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nathan_Wyburn_Red_Carpet.jpg, what was the problem with the "Copyright violation" for this image? The author sent you permission, by email, on 09/10/2016 - 15:48 (GMTDT). He copied that email to me. I've just re-sent you a copy. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. Ticket#: 2016123010006528

Hi Martinevans123,

There was a "no permission" tag, and the OTRS ticket is not validated. Do you know the ticket number? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not keep the ticket number from the original email submission in October. I've just re-sent a copy of the email from Nathan and the ticket number for that is 2016123010006528. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Martinevans123,

OK, I added the ticket number there, and removed the "no permission" tag. However I doubt this is a selfie. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nathan tells me he asked someone to take that photo using his own phone. You're saying that the copyright is owned by the person who took the photo?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I've also now been sent a reminder for this image, which I uploaded on 5 September. So it looks like the email from Nathan for that one has also been lost or not processed?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

So, I just wait for that one to be deleted too? And then start the process all over again?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Martinevans123, The ticket was answered (negatively) today. I can't find the ticket for en:File:Nathan Wyburn.jpg. As you probably know, there is always a huge backlog of OTRS tickets, but you can always ask on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Which ticket was answered (negatively)? You said above that you "removed the "no permission" tag"? Could you please answer both of my questions? This is becoming a real pain. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I was asked to also take a look at this and there were multiple emails sent regarding this image. Ticket:2016100910008105 was sent on October 9th and responded to on the 12th saying that the release was invalid. That one was for File:Nathan Wyburn Red Carpet.jpg. Another ticket, ticket:2016090510018917 was sent in on September 5th regarding en:File:Nathan Wyburn.jpg and was responded to, also on the 5th, stating that the release required more information to be accepted. Your ticket ticket:2016123010006528 does not help anything I'm afraid as the original request was never responded to. --Majora (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please just tell me what I am now expected to do? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

We need to hear back from the original person with more information. Resending the permissions isn't going to help when the original email was not sufficient. Both of the images in question require a little bit more information in order to be accepted. Without further verification there is not much we can do unfortunately. --Majora (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

So I assume you have emailed Nathan asking for that extra information, but that it has not been forthcoming? Do you intend to prompt him, or do you need to prompt him on your behalf? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: You assume correctly. The responses sent on October 12th for the red carpet image and on September 5th for the headshot contained information regarding what we need. We never received any response back. OTRS agents do not go back and prompt people. We simply have too many emails to keep track of making going back infeasible. Generally we get responses back within a few days. If we don't there is nothing we can do. --Majora (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I see another slight flaw in the process. You don't have the time/ resources to monitor and remind. The subject is probably not too concerned with email questions they may not fully understand. The person who is trying to facilitate the images, in this case myself, is left completely in the dark and only begins to learn there is a problem when an image gets deleted. I'm sure having a huge backlog of requests doesn't help matters. I wouldn't be surprised if Nathan has long since cleared out his emails from three months ago and I'm really not sure I can bothered going through all this again. To tell you the truth, I'm pretty fed up with the whole thing. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand your frustration but there is nothing we can do. We responded back within three days for the red carpet image and within 24 hours on the headshot asking for additional information. Far faster than responses normally take. If the person doesn't understand something we are always willing to work with them but we can't help those that don't even respond to us. We appreciate it when people take the time to contact these people but in order to fulfill copyright law restrictions (and to protect the project as a whole in the long run) we have to go through specific steps to verify that everything is alright with the image. Oftentimes this requires at least a few emails back-and-forth before everything is worked out. That is the norm, not the exception. I'm sorry if this particular instance doesn't work out but Nathan is always free to contact us again regarding the images. They can even pick right up where they left off by including the original ticket number in the subject line. The system will associate that will the original ticket and notify the person handling the case. --Majora (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I've just been chatting with Nathan and he says: "I've searched and searched and they haven't sent me any emails back." Perhaps you could confirm exactly when those follow-up emails were sent? Or even copy them to me, so that I can see what they said? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I have resent both responses to the email address on file. The privacy policy forbids me from copying you on them without explicit permission from the other person as each email is confidential by itself. --Majora (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I expect privacy policy even prevents you from telling me when the originals were sent. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I actually already did that. Multiple times. I was asked to also take a look at this and there were multiple emails sent regarding this image. Ticket:2016100910008105 was sent on October 9th and responded to on the 12th saying that the release was invalid. That one was for File:Nathan Wyburn Red Carpet.jpg. Another ticket, ticket:2016090510018917 was sent in on September 5th regarding en:File:Nathan Wyburn.jpg and was responded to, also on the 5th, stating that the release required more information to be accepted. --Majora (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, so you did, thanks. I'm losing track. If Nathan says he did not receive either of them, it suggests there might be a problem with their delivery. Or do you have some kind of delivery receipt mechanism? Perhaps they were filtered out by a spam filter? I wonder have you now resent both of those emails? Is that allowed in your process? It might be beneficial if Nathan could be forewarned that he was about to receive something? Otherwise, I suspect, we'll just be in the same cycle of events all over again. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Documents in Walloon of magazine "Li Rantoele"

All rights are hold by two Wikipedians who edit the magazine, and who uploaded the files.

See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Li Rantoele-gazete#Permission.

Thank you for not deleting them.

--Lucyin (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I answered there. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Add about images deletion

Dear Yann: You've asked about the license of the following files I've uploadsd:

• File:Proyecto Capilla Alella-Seccion transversal.png
• File:Proyecto Capilla Alella-Seccion longitudinal.png
• File:Proyecto reconstruccion Alella-Seccion.png
• File:Proyecto reconstruccion Alella-Detalles Retablo.png
• File:Proyecto reconstruccion Alella-Retablo.png
• File:La Miranda-Proyecto.png

Aboy this I have to say they all are my own work. If an authorization file is required please tell me so and I will immediatly send it. Best regards. Mario Andruet — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.andruet (talk • contribs) 21:08, 04 January 2017 (UTC)

@M.andruet: Hi,

Yes, please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

File:RiaKeel.jpg

I'm sorry, but how is it obvious or not required? Masur (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Masur,

Could you explain what you want, or what you mean? Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, you removd the NPD template, but it's a reproduction (scan or photo) of a contemporary work, and imo we cannot assume that the author granted it on free license. Masur (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This is craftsmanship, and it is usually not covered by copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Images

I'm so so sorry!, I'm convinced I saw one file that was copyvio hence why I did the lot, Christ I'm glad someones on the ball!, Anyway my sincerest apologies for that. –Davey2010^Talk 14:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Please review this close

Hi Yann: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poema Clara Ricciolini.JPG is a poem, by an unnamed person, with an unnamed date, from an unnamed source, obviously not own work, and you kept it as "kept" with no additional statement why you would do that. It's a poem, it's a lot of words, and obviously not own work. Could I request that you review the close? Our files require valid sources, which this doesn't have and at a minimum it needs a different license. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ellin,

Please read the description. It is dated to 1853, so it is obviously old enough. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yann: I see the 1853, but I also do not see any form of source. I could upload anything, claim it to be 1853, and you would keep? I see "own work" - not a valid source. If this were indeed published in 1853, there would be a source, a book or a magazine or something. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to doubt this was published in 1853. The typography matches the 19th century style. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:South Shetland-2016-Deception Island–Chinstrap penguin (Pygoscelis antarctica) 04.jpg‎

Hello.Why you nominated a certain stolen file like this file for deletion?!This file is candidate locally and if it was marked (on 15 January 2017), would be wrong marking.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Sorry, but 1. I don't understand what you want to say; 2. I don't understand why you asked for deletion of this file. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

this is certain stolen file.Why did not delete it immediately, without discussion?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: You don't provide any valid rationale for deletion, it is a high resolution image with EXIF data, a quality image and a featured image on the English Wikipedia. That alone is a sufficient reason to have a proper DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Re:Casio de Granada

Dear Yann,

None of the files you've marked is a copyright violation; all of them are original images. Before doing such a grave accusation to an experienced user like me, I think you must prove it, instead of staining my work here. Can you please tell me the site where I took that images?

Sincerely, --Casio de Granada (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Casio de Granada, The files you uploaded are obviously not created by you. As an example, File:Orquesta Barroca Catalana.JPG is a screenshot from [4] at 3:32. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Sraub_F._Brunó2.jpg

Why did you delete this photo? In additio, without a message to the uploader. This cynicism and boastfulness is unattractive and disgusting. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Norden1990,

1. The uploader was informed; 2. This is a copyvio from [5]. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It was not copyvio, as it belonged to OTRS ticket:2009081610012122. (part of the Szeged University photo collection) --Norden1990 (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Norden1990, there is no permission. But I assume good faith, so I restored it, and created a DR instead. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Question about template

Last year I have mistakenly uploaded several non-free photos. But those images were uploaded together during only two uploads (I wanted to upload photos during one upload, but due to some problems I have uploaded them during two uploads (it was on January 8, 2016, between 02ː07-02ː38 UTC)). Later one half of photos was deleted by other users, other half of photos — was nominated for deletion by myself (because I have understood my mistake).

But you sent me a template, which contains following informationː "You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. This is your last warning." This information is wrong, because, as I said, I have uploaded copyrighted content only twice (it wasn't systematic uploading of non-free content); and I have nominated for deletion nearly a half of those photos.

So, can you, please, remove that template (wich contains information about last warning); and replace it with other template (which will contain only information about warning)? — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

hi صلاح الأوكراني,

You copied images from the British Museum, but you are not allowed to do so without a formal written permission from the museum. Please don't do it again. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about upload picture delinquently

Hello Yann, I send you this email to explain about this : Hello Kvd0012. It has come to our attention that you have uploaded several files that are copyright violations. You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter useful.

This is your last warning. Continuing to upload copyright violations will result in your account being blocked. Please leave me a message if you have further questions.

this is a long time ago since I connected to Wiki and now i come back and see this email, i'm very sad when i see this and i'm really sorry about that. I'm new member, despite of the face that i skim license, i'm very bad at English and i'm just student, so something in that i didn't understand quitely. To be honest, i'm really sorry about some pictures, please forgive for me. Thanks you very much God bless you, Yann Your sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvd0012 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kvd0012: Hi,

Your English is OK. For any image not taken by you, or previously published elsewhere, the copyright owner has to send a formal written permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Giuseppe Ferdinanso Piana

• File:Giuseppe Ferdinando Piana, autoritratto.jpg

Hello, as I previously said in the discussion, the picture that I uploaded on commons is a picture that I took during an the display of this painting in Bordighera and therefore not under copyright. There fore I would appreciate if you could restore the picture. Im at your disposition in case you need any help.--Bettylella (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bettylella,

It doesn't matter where you took the picture, the painting is still under a copyright. So you need the permission from the painter to upload this file on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I know, but I was allowed to upload this picture, during the same exposition in Bordighera I had the pleasure of meeting the family of the departed painter and they expressed their desire to see such page exist on Wikipedia and gave me their permission to use these pictures. Please just restore the picture. Regards,--Bettylella (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bettylella,

Someone from the family has to confirm the permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Renomination to FPC of non-deleted photo?

Bonsoir, Yann! I'm not sure I understand the outcome here. There had to be a majority for deletion? I guess the determination was that these decorations are traditional in France and don't reach a threshold of originality? In any case, now that the decision is made, it would be just to reopen the nomination and feature the photo, wouldn't it? How would it be best to do so? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ikan Kekek,

These decorations are certainly mass produced, and there is therefore not a copyright.

Yes, you can reopen the FPC. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Yann. Do you know what the best way is to reopen the nomination? Can it simply be reactivated, with the votes intact, or does it have to be started again from the beginning? I will have to wait until I have an open slot, I think, but I'd like to revive this soon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ikan Kekek,

You have to start again from the beginning. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Yann. I'm not sure how to do that, actually, as a renomination would pull up the previous nomination. But I can look into it in a couple of weeks or so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ikan Kekek,

Add a /2 for the new nomination. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

At what point would I add the /2? I have to identify the file as such, so not at that point, but when and where? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Like this: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013-12-21 19-13-03 lumieres-noel-montbeliard.jpg/2. Yann (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Borrado de fotos a Algarabia

Las imagenes "controvertidas" aparecen en páginas web/blog que piden a sus lectores que divulguen su contenido a efectos de que su mensaje llegue a cuanto más gente mejor. Cabe entender que se les está haciendo un favor a reproducirlo en otros portales, tal como wikipedia, por lo que no puede considerarse como una apropiación indebida de los derechos de autor. Si no es así, lo siento. Algarabia 01:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algarabia (talk • contribs) 01:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Algarabia: Hi,

Many of your uploads were previously published elsewhere, so you have to send a formal written permission. Please see COM:OTRS/es for the procedure (in Spanish). Regards, Yann (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright issue

The photos I have uploaded is my own creation. No others have any rights on these photos. I don't how others can claim rights on my photos. Please help me. I am not doing this purposefully.

Thank you

RohithKumarPatali (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi RohithKumarPatali,

Many of your uploads were previously published elsewhere, so you have to send a formal written permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Admiral RK Dhowan, Chief of the Naval Staff delivering the keynote address during the 25th Admiral RD Katari Memorial Lecture at Dr DS Kothari Auditorium, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi.jpg

Yours sincerely, MCMLXXXIX 18:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Please categorize

Having kept Commons:Deletion requests/File:Al mutanabbi group3051278.JPG please provide some form of categorization for it? Thanks. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Conservations

Merci des conservations, Yann. Et bonne année ! Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC).

Bonjour Yann (talk · contribs). Je ne comprends pas pourquoi vous avez restauré les photos supprimées. Il me semble très imprudent de faire confiance aux affirmations farfelues de Nomen ad hoc (talk · contribs) sur "le compte officiel" et "les autorisations des photographes".

J'ai demandé de nouveau les suppressions. Vous souvenez-vous qu'en novembre, vous aviez demandé à Ecole des d'envoyer les autorisations OTRS ? 12 November 2016, Yann ask OTRS confirmation https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Inauguration_officielle_du_nouveau_b%C3%A2timent_de_l%27%C3%89cole_au_65,_rue_de_Richelieu,_par_Fran%C3%A7ois_Hollande,_pr%C3%A9sident_de_la_R%C3%A9publique.jpg

Aucune suite. "Cela ne sent pas bon le propre", comme disait ma mémé.

Je partage l'avis d'un de vos collègues administrateurs :

see the argumentation for another photo (École des chartes) by Jameslwoodward [here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Inauguration_officielle_du_nouveau_b%C3%A2timent_de_l%27%C3%89cole_au_65,_rue_de_Richelieu,_par_Fran%C3%A7ois_Hollande,_pr%C3%A9sident_de_la_R%C3%A9publique.jpg] Deleted: Requires a free license from the photographer or from École des chartes. In the latter case, the e-mail must include a copy of the written agreement with the photographer that allows École des chartes to freely license the image -- either of this via the procedure at OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Je pense qu'il faut se méfier des affirmations sans aucune preuve que Nomen ad hoc matraque sur les débats de suppression. Ses "conservation immédiate" "problème résolu" "untel officiel" n'apportant aucune preuve, elles n'ont aucune valeur, et devraient être traitées par le mépris.

Je vous présente mes meilleurs vœux --Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Droit de retrait 03, je suis d'accord qu'une confirmation du compte est nécessaire, mais sur le fond Nomen ad hoc a raison. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Je ne comprends pas pourquoi vous écrivez que Nomen ad hoc a raison ? Plusieurs administrateurs ont dit qu'il fallait détruire ces fichiers (car pas d'autorisation OTRS). Nous attendons une confirmation OTRS depuis novembre (pour le compte et pour l'autorisation des photographes). Nomen ad hoc ne fournit aucune preuve, et vous me dites qu'il a raison "sur le fond" ? "Le fond" de Nomen ad hoc, ce sont des affirmations mensongères selon lesquelles le compte est officiel (aucune preuve), et que les autorisations des photographes existent (aucune preuve).

Cordialement --Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Finalize Advertisement

Hi Yann, please can you finalize ASAP this deletion request because of advertisement, regards and thanks, Sakhalinio (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yann, thanks for deletions but you forgot main deletion request photo. Regards, Sakhalinio (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sakhalinio, Which file? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletions, copyright violations

Apologies for what are considered copyright violations. The women in the photos are long retired, no longer active on the net. Did not realize this meant there were still copyright violations. In fact, one of the current photos on Wrestling (BDSM) -- Smackdown -- is of one of the women I uploaded. That is why I thought there were no copyright issues.

As far as the photo of John Mulholland, he is a publicfigure, director and writer. Didn't realize couldn't add a photo of him.

Again, sorry! cbee (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi cbee,

The subject has no bearer on the copyright. What matter is the photographer. If the pictures are not yours, you need a formal written permission before uploading them. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey!

Hi! Could you review this image from Bollywood Hungama? File:Aitraaz_cast.jpg has been used in an FAC which is about to be promoted. I would appreciate your gesture. Thanks.Krish! (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks buddy. Plus could you review few more (see my contributions). The first six pictures were added way back in April 2016. However, I forgot to add the Bollywood Hungama license template and they were never verified. I realised his today and added those templates. Please help me. I would appreciate you gesture. Thanks.Krish! (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Khanda.jpg

Hi, can you provide a source for the claim that this depiction of this symbol would be hundreds of years old? Jcb (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read en:Sikhism. BTW we also have File:Khanda.svg. I would agree to delete the JPEG version if it is replaced by the SVG version. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

en:Khanda (Sikh symbol) states it's from the 20th century, that's why I question the copyright situation. But the same would apply to the SVG version then. Jcb (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

So what is the next step? A new DR? Jcb (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, please undo your action on this DR, per your own promise. Jcb (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Jcb, anyone can open (and reopen) a DR with a valid rationale. Sorry to say, but you don't have it here. I really don't understand what you are trying to do, but you are ultimately going into a wall. :( Regards, Yann (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Individual representations of a logo have individual copyright, as pointed out to you many times already by me and by e.g. @Jameslwoodward: . Till now, you have not spent a single word to explain why this representation would have it's copyright expired. There is not authorship information. The concept of the logo dates from the 20th century and e.g. the Unicode version is clearly a different representation. The logo is above TOO. We have no evidence at all that this file would be free. And then it's very unbecoming for and admin to (speedy!) close the nomination again after it's reopened. Doing so you are clearly showing that you do disdain me. You are my colleague, not my boss. Jcb (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry again Jcb, but your arguments do not make sense. This is not a logo. It is a modern evolution to a centuries old symbol, and it is quite obvious, except to you, that there is no copyright on it. It is quite a stretch to claim anything new on this symbol. There is nothing original or even artistic here. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The representation is clearly above TOO. What makes this logo so important for you that you were somehow unable to leave the renomination to a different admin as you should have done? Are you a Sikh yourself? Are you affraid that a different admin could come to a different conclusion? Do you understand that your speedy second closure gives the impression that you don't respect me as a colleague? For me it's not problematic if you have a different point of view on a copyright situation, but it is problematic if you are disdaining me. I try to work in a respectful way with other users. Am I asking too much if I expect the same from my colleagues? Jcb (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, this is not a logo. I think you waste your time, and mine, looking for copyright issues where there is none. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do address the issue that you are somehow not respecting me as a colleague. Jcb (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do not take this personally. I would answer exactly the same thing to anyone looking for issues where there is none. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you understand that by speedy closing the re nomination yourself, you give little room to 'not take this personally'? Effectively you are disallowing me to do a renomination and apparently feeling yourself somehow higher in rank than your colleagues. Again: Why didn't you leave the second DR to a colleague as you should have done? Jcb (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Since I was pinged above, I'll comment. I think that while Johan has a point here -- that individual representations of this sort of symbol can have a copyright and this symbol cannot have been drawn more than 100 years ago, the likelihood of problems is so low as to be vanishing. Perhaps the best thing is to take Yann's suggestion and delete the JPG after all uses are replaced with the SVG -- we know the SVG is PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:117 France, Mont Saint Michel.jpg

Hi, thank you. In this request I wrote "Please delete also the other paintings in Category:John Delisle Parker". Can you please delete then all?--Karsten11 (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Great. Many thanks.--Karsten11 (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Block Warning

Hi Yann. I've tried to add the necessary rationale to be able to use a company logo on the article Actin (software) and I now have a warning that my account will be blocked if I upload another logo. I'm confused about why the logos in the article I'm using as a guide (SolidWorks) are not in violation, but logos on Actin (software) are. Can you offer guidance on the next steps to use https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Actin_Logo_and_Software_Image.png on Actin (software) and to use http://www.energid.com/assets/energid-logo-retina.png on Energid Technologies? Also, I work for Energid Technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:B235R and have access to this software which I used to create all images except the satellite servicing image and have permission for them to be on Wikipedia. Thanks. B235R (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi B235R,

All files on Commons have to be in the public domain, or under a free license. So you need a formal written permission to upload anything here which you don't create yourself. It seems more suitable to upload your files on the English Wikipedia under a fair use rationale. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, Yann. Thanks for the links. I think I have correctly uploaded the images to Actin (software) and Energid Technologies. Would you mind briefly reviewing these articles to ensure I have satisfied Wikipedia's requirements? B235R (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi B235R,

Wikimedia Commons and English Wikipedia are quite different projects. Some policies are common, but revewing files here and articles there have with their own process and working teams. You may find online help on IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Haute-Savoie.svg

File:Haute-Savoie.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Pierre73 (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Markus C. Blaich Führung Marienburg Hildesheim seitlich.jpg

Wo ist das Problem? Da steht als Lizenz: Creative Commons by-sa-3.0 de , wie bei 2000 andern Fotos von mir. --AxelHH (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, You need to use {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-de}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That is what I did: {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-de}} Where is the problem? --AxelHH (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No, see [6]. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

First I made a mistake, but 1 minute later it was okay. Where is the problem now? --AxelHH (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Now, it is fine, I fixed it. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

article Bob Boutique - illustrations sous copyright ?

Bonjour Yann,

Les clichés employés ne sont pas sous copyright. Je peux fournir des lettres (Editions Chloé des Lys pour la couverture (couverture que j'ai créée...) et Bob Boutique pour le logo actu-Tv et la capture d'écran effectuée lors de la diffusion de l'émission de Bruxelles News) certifiant que ces sources ne sont pas sous copyright. Quoiqu'il en soit, l'article sur cet auteur/journaliste a été effacé : pas suffisamment de sources secondaires. Le problème ne se pose donc plus.

Je vous remercie du suivi.

Cordialement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwen Saint-Cyrq (talk • contribs) 06:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gwen Saint-Cyrq: Bonjour,

Il y a un copyright sur toutes œuvres originales par défaut. Et si ces œuvres ont été publiées ailleurs avant de l'être sur Commons, le détenteur des droits doit fournir une autorisation écrite. Voyez COM:OTRS/fr pour la procédure. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Gogoshzara

Hey, I need to create this page j2k. which i have created before but if got deleted and i don't exactly know why? could you please help me with uploading the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogoshzara (talk • contribs) 07:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gogoshzara: Hi,

For all works previously published elsewhere, the copyright owner has to send a formal written permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Huh?

• Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Margaret_Phillips_French_(1846-1929).png
• File:Margaret Phillips French (1846-1929).png

Bipolar moment? - Revent^talk 05:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I closed this by accident. Thanks for noticing. Yann (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Revent: I know your comment above was intended to be a humorous remark between you and Yann, and I also noted the smiley, but please consider that not all users seeing such a joke with reference to mental illness sees it as a funny remark. Not something I want to make a mountain out of, as I am sure you did not think of that possible perception when you wrote it. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Slaunger: Sorry if you took it as offensive, but that was in no way intended as a reference to a mental illness (and, tbh, I don't think it would particularly make sense that way). The comment was about him accidentally keeping an image on the basis of a reason for deleting it.. 'having or showing two opposite principles, sets of values, or opinions' is a primary meaning of the word. My dictionary doesn't even mention 'bipolar disorder' when defining it. - Revent^talk 01:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Revent: If I enter 'bipolar' on two different search engines (Google and duckduckgo) and look at just the ten first hits (as far as I bothered look), they all refer to articles or web pages about bipolar disorder, which is a mental illness. I think you may need a new dictionary or use another source as its primary definition does not represent the most commonly understood meaning of that word. I did not take personal offense by the way, but I would never have used 'bipolar' in a joking remark myself, as it can be easily misunderstood. Again, I perfectly understand this was intended as a joke, as very few people are likely to see it anyway on this talk page. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Slaunger: Bipolar disorder is named that after the 'bipolarity' of the emotional state of the people that suffer from it, but many 'other things' completely unrelated are also bipolar (a magnet, or the planet Earth, would be obvious examples). I did not think anyone (especially Yann) would take the comment as any kind of reference to 'emotional bipolarity' (the mental illness), but instead to the 'logical' bipolarity of his obviously mistaken edit.... there was rather obviously nothing 'emotional' involved. I'm perfectly fine with not using the word, but "contradicting yourself today?" would have expressed what I was saying just as well.

Honestly, that 'society' has misappropriated a technical term to imply a specific use of that term is not unusual. I simply had a technical education, where the term was commonly used in other senses (a 'bipolar' magnetic field, as opposed to a more complex one, for instance). FWIW, from glancing a few other dictionaries, the use of the term 'bipolar' to refer to the mental illness seems to be specifically 'set aside' as something like 'of psychiatric illness'. I have no reason to think that Yann is any more mentally ill than myself (he's probably less, to be honest). - Revent^talk 01:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I came here for something else and see this. A search on the phrase lead me to this which is not related to BD. So I think this is another incident where words are split to find a meaning where the entire phrase has a different meaning. Jee 04:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Anna Marchwinska

Hello, I have just noticed that my file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anna_Marchwinska_po_koncercie_Akademii_Operowej_w_Warszawie,_listopad_2016.jpg has been removed. I am the author of the photo and Anna Marchwinska had approved this. I restored the photo. Let me know, if something is wrong and I can correct?

best, Atomksk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomksk (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Atomksk: Hi,

You should upload the original image with full EXIF data, or send a permission via OTRS, as this is a small file without EXIF data. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Guidance needed

Hello, my friend. Please say what I did wrong and how I can do it better in the future. [7][8]

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anna Frodesiak,

These are HR pictures with EXIF, and the copyright owner mentioned in EXIF matches the uploader's name, so I think a proper DR is better. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

But what is an "HR" picture? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anna Frodesiak,

Sorry for the jargon. HR = high resolution, Regards, Yann (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No, not at all. I just figured that out and was about to post here to say so. Okay, so, if it is an HR pic, that probably means it is not from some website where the uploader just grabs it, right? It means the uploader probably has the rights or that sort of thing, am I guessing right? Now, I'm using Irfan and the EXIF doesn't show me anything but numbers and such. Finally, is a deletion request the best way to go if the uploader made a promo page at enwp and I blocked him there for that? I guess that is an indication he works for them, right? I figured he did, but did not have the rights to the images considering that tineye showed them from here and there. I guessed he was an employee told to make a Wikipedia page and just shopped for pics at google. Please tell me what to do in these sorts of cases and I will follow that from now on. Many thanks for your patience. I'm still learning after all these years.  :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anna Frodesiak,

Yes, that's it. Speedy deletions are for obvious copyright violation. I don't think it is a copyright violation here. These look like professional shots made for promoting the subject, so it is quite probable that the company owns the copyright. The EXIF data is shown at the bottom of the description page. I guess they might be deleted anyway, unless someone finds a reason to keep them. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Understood. From now on, I will weigh out the resolution of the shot, the EXIF, and who the uploader is, and only speedy tag if clear copyvio with no reasonable possibility of uploader having the rights.

Would "no permission" tagging also have been an option in these cases?

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Anna Frodesiak. The copyright hlder of this image his "Ruza studio". This seem like a commissioned work in which the original photographer still retained the copyright of the work. There is no clear evidence that "Ruza Studio" is an employee of Suria Resort and Hotel. If we have to keep this image at all, the uploader must provide evidence of permission in form of written document stating a transfer has taken place. Note that Ruza studio's moral right is preserved. To be honest, this photo also qualifies for deletion per COM:ADVERT. Just as Yann rightfully said, we usually don't speedy this kind of file, instead we take it to DR. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, Wikicology. I will keep all of this in mind. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Query regarding copyright violations

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and thus do not have complete knowledge of the nuances, so forgive my naivety. I have been marked as having violated the copyrights for several images that were featured on the page Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad In that context I would like to mention that I was the original creator of all of those pictures, so I am not quite sure how I violated my own copyrights, so it would be nice if you could clear the air for me. I'm really confused. What do I have to do in order to upload my own images on Wikipedia?--Souradeep1996 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Souradeep1996: Hi,

For all works previously published elsewhere, the copyright owner has to send a formal written permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Mark612

Hey Yann,

I'm kind of new to Wikipedia, and I had suddenly received several copyright violations while editing one page, that are suddenly a "last warning" to me. Some of the pictures that were deleted I had taken myself, and others I had permission to use. What can I do to not only take off the violations, but to furthermore restore the photos I worked hard on to get? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark612 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mark612: Hi,

If you files were previously published elsewhere, you need to send a permission. It is also better to upload the original pictures, not small size copies. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Help

I want to completely remove these files which has been noticed as copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisalahmad523 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

please delete this file also "File:Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University logo.jpg", and let me help how to add logos to the universities pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisalahmad523 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wisalahmad523: Hi,

Either you get a formal written permission from the copyright owner, or you use the Non-free use rationale guideline on the English Wikipedia. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

درود و سپاس این خوراکی تقدیم شما برای تلاش هایتان. دانش و پویش هستم. عکس هایی که خودم گرتم مرتب داره حذف میشه. دلیلش چیه؟ Daneshvapooyesh (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Hello Yann,

We received a message for Copyright violations. There are Standard License from www.123rf.com for the images that were removed here bg:Микотерапия. The images are purchased from registrated account at the website and the conditions there include this: Credits & Subscription - Websites and Blogs, Electronic Documents and Reports. If you need more information leave a message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMICommunicationsBG (talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@AMICommunicationsBG:

For all works not uploaded by the creator, or previously published elsewhere, the copyright owner has to send a formal written permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Review

Hello, Yann. I hope all's well with you. Could you perhaps review the following images hosted by Bollywood Hungama: File:Hrithik at Rado launch.jpg, File:Hrithik and Rakesh.jpg, File:Hrithik Roshan in 2001.jpg, File:Hrithik Roshan in 2013.jpg and File:Hrithik charity.jpg? I would really appreciate the help. Thanks in advance. - Frankie _talk 19:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Frankie _talk 18:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shamrock III.jpg

Hi, the PD-UK template states: "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." - please add such a specification to the image description field. Jcb (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Do I really need to state the obvious? You are NOT the one to reclose this DR! Jcb (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Jcb, sorry to say, but if you continue, I am going to report you. Yann (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see http://www.naturepl.fr/photocaptions32.html for a better caption (search for '08101186'). The image was published in 1908. - Revent^talk 14:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

raison de suppression

Merci Yann de passer derrière moi. Comprenant peu l'anglais, je tatonne ! Je travaille dans les pages non catégorisées de 2014 et il y a au moins 20% d'images nulles, floues, non identifiées ou promotionnelles. Faut-il mieux les laisser dans ce puits perdu ou chercher à faire le ménage?--Macassar (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour Macassar,

Tu peux faire le ménage, mais il faut créer une demande de suppression. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Besoin d'aide pour télecharger livre

Bonjour Yann, j'ai scanné le livre papier Charles Le Goffic - La double confession, 1930, en une quinzaine de pdf's, puis fusionné dans un seul pdf de 18 Mb, et transformé en djvu. Mais cela est devenu un djvu de 18 Mb. Le télechargement ne réussissait pas, puis j'ai diminué la résolution, mais cela donne un djvu de mauvaise qualité. Que faire? Est-ce une option de t'envoyer par mail les pdf en portions, que tu puisses juger des possibilités? --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Close

Hi. I have a few questions about how your close, here, deals with the issues raised, since all the evidence is that these political speeches are subject to the copyright of the speakers and so, these files would be derivative works? Given that Commons Scope requires express release by all rights holders, and Commons Precautionary Principle requires no complaint (or notice) by the speech's rights-holder, how does your close protect Commons from not hosting copyrighted material without permission? Just last November, such a speech file was deleted from Commons as derivative work, correct? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, As I said, in my closure, there is clearly no consensus that these speeches are covered by a copyright. In short, I think that Fæ is correct here. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Despite the sources and the November close saying that is wrong? You'll have no objection to appeal then? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Fæ answered you with a detailed and clear 5-point message. What more do you have to say? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Everyone agreed and it is plain from the videos that the speakers were reading their speeches (or even if you take Fae's unsourced speculation -- they were reading large parts of their speeches). And Fae again misrepresented VOA, which says its videos may contain copyrighted material, and does nor say "public domain, unless stated otherwise" (only things others do not have copyright claims to are public domain). So, my remaining questions are: Did you read or view the following sources that were linked in the discussion?

• Wikimedia Foundation Wikmedia Foundation The copyright for political speeches, including notes that are read, are held by the speech maker (unless the speech maker is a government employee in their duties and none the speakers here was a government employee).
• [the US Copyright Office no notice of copyright is required, and as soon as a speech is fixed in writing or recording it is the copyright of the speech maker and publication is not required.
• Are speeches public domain?. from newmediarights.org - modern speeches are not public domain. You must get a release from the speech maker.
• Copyright in Campaigns | Copyright Corner. Ohio State University libraries. - the author of a speech holds the copyright

And then there is the prior Commons deletion which held that a political speech video is a derivative work, did you look at that, and how do you distinguish it?

So how do you justify your opposite close to the prior deletion, given none of the facts or sources support it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• ... Piling on, it's very clear that the speakers were reading the speech verbatim. I don't see how it's incumbent on us to prove otherwise. Such evidence has not been needed to delete similar videos in the past, either. Strongly disagree with reading of this consensus. czar 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I am thinking what to do next, but you are most probably wrong. See for example videos in Category:World Economic Forum. Do you intend to ask for deletion of all them?
  • @Alanscottwalker and Czar: I think Fæ refuted your arguments, and so far, you haven't countered his arguments. Most importantly, these videos are the FIRST publications of speeches, and the videos are free. It would be different if they were republishing of previously recorded materials, but that's not the case. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Let me boil down your answer in to some bullet point counters.
      1. Other crap exists are not a valid argument.
      2. The first publication is the unpublished texts which are written. They may not be published, but unpublished works are only PD if they fall within {{PD-US-unpublished}}. It is true that normal speaking is not protected, but reading something prepared is (if long and creative enough to be classified as a literacy work). It would be if someone wrote a book the day before the speech (but not put it for sale yet), then she would read it out load. THe book, and teext within it would still be protected under copyright.
    • This is the VOA republishing the material, under fair use. Bad close. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
      • • You are making a wrong interpretation, which would leads to ridiculous results. With your reasoning, we would need to delete File:The Moment the Women's March Took the Streets.webm... Regards, Yann (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
          • No. Josve05a is correct (in particular about VOA news's fair use) and you are disregarding the facts and law (and with no source whatsoever), as well Commons policy as shown in the prior deletion (Commons is not news and does not have fair use) - the speeches got copyright automatically when the were written according to actual law and sources. Do I understand you are contending that writings go out of copyright when they publicly read? And on what do you base such an unsupported notion? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Also, why do you try to make otherstuff arguments about things that are not speeches in the United States? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The remarks of the organizer at the start of File:The Moment the Women's March Took the Streets.webm are fine... not only were they not previously prepared, but there is not indication that she authorized that they be recorded (or even expected that she was being filmed). To be a subject of copyright, material must be fixed “by or under the authority of the author”... this would not appear to apply to the remarks there, so they would by be 'a subject of copyright'. Steinem, on the other hand, obviously expected (and probably intended) that she would be recorded, so her 'performance' became a subject of copyright (and she owns that copyright, as the 'author' of both the speech and the performance). - Revent^talk 02:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This close was wrong. Steinem owns a copyright in both her prepared remarks, and in the 'performance' of giving the speech... her prepared remarks became 'fixed in tangible form', and copyrighted, when written; and her performance became 'fixed in tangible form', and copyrighted, when recorded with her consent. That the VOA had an 'implied license' to create a derivative work (the video) is implicit in the fact that she was clearly expecting to be videotaped at that event. The only material that entered the public domain via the VOA is the actual 'copyrightable material' added to the derivative work by the VOA itself.... the actual video (not the audio).

The VOA, under the basis of that 'implied license', had the right to republish Steinem's copyrighted work on their website. That permission does not extend to us. The video is a clear copyright violation.

You stated at the DR that "Fæ's arguments are most relevant here." Fae was asking for "evidence of a claim of copyright" in the speeches or the performances. There is no requirement (and has not been for decades) that an author 'assert' that a copyright exists. Copyright exists from the moment that a creative original work is 'fixed in tangible form'.

Also, you really should not close DRs that were the subject of extensive debate unless you are willing to write a detailed rationale. - Revent^talk 01:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to add a bit. There were comments at the DR about 'extemporaneous remarks' or an 'improvised speech', also generally wrong. Such material is a 'performance', and if recorded (fixed in tangible form) with the consent of the author, then a copyright subsists in them, separate from any 'additional' copyright that might exist in the original creative contributions of the person making the recording. - Revent^talk 01:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I reopened it. It seems that curiously the objection is only for some videos of the Women's March, while we have hundreds such videos on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. But I criticized your last sentence in a comment on the deletion page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: That's not a copyright argument, but it is still a fact: only 3 videos of women's speeches were nominated for deletion, while we have hundreds such videos on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems quite unfair of you. You seem to be accusing Czar or others of something? Earlier on this page, you seemed to complain Czar or others did not nominate all the Women's March footage, so it is apparent that no one is out against the Women's March, in general (some of those you accuse may even have marched). Then too, I opened this discussion with you pointing to a prior deletion under Commons policy of a public speech (which was not a woman's speech). The actual issue is speeches in the United States and copyright, and, here, it just so happens, protecting the creativity of women by not taking their rights without express permission. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)