User talk:Erpert
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 when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump. |
|
File:Nica Noelle.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
High Contrast (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confused as to how this file is a copyright violation; the source page clearly states that the photo has a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Erpert (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Where is it written exactly? Does this CC-licence to the image as well or just for the blogger's text? --High Contrast (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is written at the very bottom of the page. Erpert (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I read it. But, does this CC-licence apply to images as well? Or is this licensing text only for the blogger's text? --High Contrast (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- How would I be able to tell? Would it have to explicitly state it applies to images on the blog? I thought a license automatically pertained to everything featured on the site (unless otherwise attributed to a different source); if not, I apologize. Erpert (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see, it is your blog. Where do you have this photograph from? Are you the author of it? --High Contrast (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- How would I be able to tell? Would it have to explicitly state it applies to images on the blog? I thought a license automatically pertained to everything featured on the site (unless otherwise attributed to a different source); if not, I apologize. Erpert (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I read it. But, does this CC-licence apply to images as well? Or is this licensing text only for the blogger's text? --High Contrast (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is written at the very bottom of the page. Erpert (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Where is it written exactly? Does this CC-licence to the image as well or just for the blogger's text? --High Contrast (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- How about this? (It's taken from her partner's official blog.) Erpert (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK. But this is a different photograph of her. Is there a "connection" between the file we are talking about and the one you are linking to? Do you have contact to the bloggers? If yes, can you ask them if this image is theirs? --High Contrast (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is no connection between this photo and the previous one; this one I suggested because I couldn't find good proof of licensing for the previous one (and this is actually Noelle's former partner's blog, lol). Anyway, at the bottom of the front page, it has the license information listed for everything on the site. Erpert (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you that the homepage content is under this free CC licence. But I still have a problem with the fact that the image we are talking about appears on this site as well. And the page http://www.goodforher.com is more reliable concerning licencing questions than a blog. We must figure out if the blogger is the copyright holder (e.g. he took this photograph) of this image or if this image is only a "random web grab". Do you have contact to the blogger? --High Contrast (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't just any blogger though; it's the official blog of the actress (maybe a better link would be this; it actually goes to the same place). As far as contacting her, I can always try emailing her. And as for the Good For Her link, I think you might still be talking about the original photo. Erpert (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes that's a good idea: ask her per Email if she is reachable for such requests. And yes, an "original" photo would be appreciated or if possible, a higher resoluted copy. --High Contrast (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- No--what I mean is, when you mentioned the photo also being featured on the Good for Her site, you're still talking about the photo I uploaded here that got deleted. I'm not talking about that photo anymore; I'm talking about this photo. Erpert (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- What is wrong with this photo? Do you mean I see there a copyvio again? Well, by now I could not find another version of this image on the web that could show that we have a copyvio-issue. --High Contrast (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Cool. I'm starting to get the hang of the licensing situation. ;) Erpert (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I hope you did not misunderstood anything. --High Contrast (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Cool. I'm starting to get the hang of the licensing situation. ;) Erpert (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- What is wrong with this photo? Do you mean I see there a copyvio again? Well, by now I could not find another version of this image on the web that could show that we have a copyvio-issue. --High Contrast (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- No--what I mean is, when you mentioned the photo also being featured on the Good for Her site, you're still talking about the photo I uploaded here that got deleted. I'm not talking about that photo anymore; I'm talking about this photo. Erpert (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes that's a good idea: ask her per Email if she is reachable for such requests. And yes, an "original" photo would be appreciated or if possible, a higher resoluted copy. --High Contrast (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't just any blogger though; it's the official blog of the actress (maybe a better link would be this; it actually goes to the same place). As far as contacting her, I can always try emailing her. And as for the Good For Her link, I think you might still be talking about the original photo. Erpert (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you that the homepage content is under this free CC licence. But I still have a problem with the fact that the image we are talking about appears on this site as well. And the page http://www.goodforher.com is more reliable concerning licencing questions than a blog. We must figure out if the blogger is the copyright holder (e.g. he took this photograph) of this image or if this image is only a "random web grab". Do you have contact to the blogger? --High Contrast (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is no connection between this photo and the previous one; this one I suggested because I couldn't find good proof of licensing for the previous one (and this is actually Noelle's former partner's blog, lol). Anyway, at the bottom of the front page, it has the license information listed for everything on the site. Erpert (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK. But this is a different photograph of her. Is there a "connection" between the file we are talking about and the one you are linking to? Do you have contact to the bloggers? If yes, can you ask them if this image is theirs? --High Contrast (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Boy, some of these rules are confusing. But I'll keep looking. Erpert (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
File tagging File:Jiz-lee-feminist-porn-awards-2010.jpg[edit]
This media was probably deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading File:Jiz-lee-feminist-porn-awards-2010.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Jiz-lee-feminist-porn-awards-2010.jpg]] ) and the above demanded information in your request. |
Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand how this was a copyright violation; I clearly listed the proof of licensing (everything on WordPress.com is listed under that license, including photos). And it would have been nice had you left a message on my talk page notifying me of the pending deletion. Erpert (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Janet Mason 2010.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
Martin H. (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
File:Anne Burrell.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|
Martin H. (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
KTo288 (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Jenny Ingram, Duskie Estes, John Stewart; SOBEWFF Miami 2013.jpg[edit]