Last modified on 4 June 2013, at 15:19

User talk:Fabelfroh

Return to "Fabelfroh" page.
Discussion History


Image:2848.jpegEdit

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 13:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2007Edit

Hi, I'm writing to let you know that an image of yours that became a Commons Featured Picture during 2007 is now part of the 2007 Picture of the Year competition. If you have > 200 edits you are welcome to vote too. Thanks for contributing your valuable work and good luck. mfx Q&A 09:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look. Fabelfroh 08:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dein Name auf den GalerieseitenEdit

Hallo Fabelfroh, ich habe beim Help Desk nachgefragt, ob aus lizenzrechtlichen Gründen die Nennung des Namens unter den Vorschaubildchen in den Galerien erforderlich ist (Antwort: nein). Und ich habe Deine archivierten Diskussionen gelesen. Ich war wohl nicht der Erste, dem Dein Sonderweg aufgefallen ist. Ich empfinde diese Vorgensweise als Belästigung Anderer mit persönlichen Eitelkeiten Einzelner. Deine Meinung dazu ist eine andere, das muss ich akzeptieren. Mir ist das Thema allerdings zu unwichtig, um ausgedehnt darüber zu diskutieren. Solange nicht auch Andere auf die gleiche Idee kommen und irgendwann alle Commonsgalerien überschwemmt sind mit Personennamen statt mit Bildbeschreibungen, kann ich gut damit leben. Gruß, --Aconcagua 10:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ich habe bei den Admins nachgefragt und dort war die Ansichtsweise verschieden. Seit 2006 füge ich die Lizenz- und Authorship-Informationen in die EXIFs der Bilder ein. Eine Entfernung würde genaugenommen bereits die Lizenz verletzen. Das hat mir ein befreundeter Jurist bestätigt. Deshalb habe ich bei den Bildern eine zusätzliche Erklärung eingefügt, die alle Unklarheiten beseitigen sollte. Siehe z.B. hier. Fabelfroh 11:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Nochmal hallo Fabelfroh, unser Start war ja etwas holprig, wir sind bezüglich "Ownership" nach wie vor nicht einer Meinung, ich möchte mich aber trotzdem für Deine kompetente Hilfe bei der Bestimmung des Mooses bedanken. Ich bin da gänzlich unbewandert, habe nur die "Stillleben" an der Ilz für fotographierwürdig gehalten, aber da steckt wohl ein ganzer Mikrokosmos dahinter, der durchaus interessant zu sein scheint :-) --Aconcagua 06:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In dieser Hinsicht gehen die Meinungen häufiger auseinander. Das fällt eigentlich nur auf, weil ich so viele Bilder (nicht nur von Moosen) eingestellt habe. Fabelfroh 07:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cladonia coniocraea.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cladonia fimbriata.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stereum hirsutum.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Peltigeria rufescens.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.


Image Tagging Image:Potentilla_reptans.jpegEdit

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Potentilla_reptans.jpeg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. -Nard 15:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kaefer korseby.jpegEdit

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Please note that if you won't provide a valid license in 7 days your image will be deleted and if you upload a lot of images without licenses you may be blocked from editing wikimedia-commons. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 09:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Deine QI Nominierungen vom 23.3.Edit

Hallo Fabelfroh, mir ist aufgefallen das unter deinen QI Nominierungen vom 23.3. überall meine Signatur druntersteht. Vielleicht weil ich gleichzeitig ein Kommentar unter ein anderes Bild auf derselben Seite geschrieben habe? Weißt du wie und ob man das einfach korrigieren kann? Ich hätte die Bilder nämlich gerne promoted... Chmehl 20:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Das ist ja echt seltsam... Sorry. Sowas war nie beabsichtigt. Warum ausgerechnet dein Name da aufgetaucht ist, ist mir ein Rätsel. Wenn ich jetzte meine Signatur dahin schreibe, dann erscheinen nur 4 Rauten... Muss wohl ein Fehler im Wiki-System sein.. Im Moment stehen da 4 Rauten, mal sehen ob's nachher wieder geht. Fabelfroh 20:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Anemone blanda.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Puschkinia scilloides.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chinodoxa luciliae.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gagea villosa.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Bryum flaccidum lamina.jpegEdit

Hoi Fabelfroh, Dankeschön für diese gelungene Aufnahme und auch für viele andere mehr. Ich freu mich immer, wenn ich sowas in den Neuen Bildern oder zufällig entdecke. Das wollt ich nur mal gesagt haben ;-) --:Bdk: 12:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Anemonen becherling.jpegEdit

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Anemonen becherling.jpeg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by User:Sz-iwbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Sz-iwbot 15:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hyla arborea detail.jpeg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Non-commercial use restrictionEdit

I've noticed that a huge number of your images have additional restrictions that forbid commercial use. This is not one of "these license discussions here on the commons that arise from time to time". It is, and has always, been a basic rule here that commercial use of an image must be permitted.

(The blame can't go entirely on you, by the way. I cannot understand how nobody has noticed it before, despite several images going through the FP and QI process. But I digress..)

I'd rather not delete the images that are restricted to non-commercial use. That's a huge number of very good images, and a huge amount of work. I urge you to consider removing this restriction. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If this restriction is not removed the images will be deleted. Adambro 10:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Making commercial use limited is just not a goal of ours. That media should be under a license that permits commercial use, without requiring permission, is a very long-standing and universally-accepted principle of the Commons. I can fully sympathise with you not wanting to have your pictures used commercially, but that does, sadly, mean that we can't have them here.
Moving on. I'm not seeing the Flickr/Horseby (whatever the latter is) compatibility issue here. How you license your own material elsewhere is your own decision.
Again, I urge you to remove this restriction. I (and as many people as I can find to help me out) will be more than willing to go through your previous uploads and remove this restriction, if you consent to this being done. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please reconsider your licensing. You're one of the best photographers we got, but we can't change our policy for you even if we wanted to. This is a Foundation policy, that we can't change or make exceptions to. One thing you can do to help limit the potential commercial use is to dual license under the GFDL and a non-commercial CC license. This is allowed since you have a least one free license option (however, we all know GNU-licensed content is harder to use legally). If you really want to go extreme, you can even do something like GPL and CC-BY-SA-NC (of course, I'm not endorsing that, but still). And remember, you can't add restrictions on top of these licenses, anyway. See CC-BY-SA-3.0 §8(e), GPLv3 §10, GFDLv1.2 §2, and §7 Additional Terms (which can be removed by anyone). Also, you are aware if you modify the terms while keeping the SA requirement you are basically creating a brand new copyleft license which means it would be incompatible with all other standard copyleft/share-alike licenses. Do you really want to do that? I know all this copyright crap sucks, but there's no reason to make it more difficult than it should be. Rocket000 12:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Relicensing is not an option anymore! The only thing that would be possible for me is to add an authorization that the commons/wikipedia has limited commercial use. Maybe we can discuss that and how that could be established for my photos on the commons. Fabelfroh 13:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The relevant photos can only remain on Commons if they are available under a license which potentially allows them to be used for any purpose (including commercially) by anyone who complies with the terms of the license without seeking your permission if their intended use complies with that license. If this isn't possible then they will have to be deleted. It seems very unfortunate and embarrassing to all concerned that this issue hasn't been identified earlier. Adambro 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why it's not an option. If you're still the copyright holder you can relicense them however you want. In the same way you relicensed them in the past, you can do so now. Actually, you don't have to change the actual license at all (just remove some excess text in order not to mislead people). Just acknowledge that the terms you added can be dismissed/ignored according to license itself (as I pointed out above). Else, there's no reason I couldn't reupload your files without the additional terms. Legally I can right now as CC-BY-SA-3.0 §8(e) clearly states I can. (I wouldn't, though, out of respect.) As follows: This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You. You are breaking the terms of your own license. If you don't want your pictures on Commons, say so, but don't say it's not an option. Rocket000 18:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The idea behind the addition was to restrict commercial use to wiki(m|p)edia only. And that still is my intention. However, there'll be a problem with all the microscopic photos I've uploaded (about 400) since I don't own all copyright on them since I've done the work on an university. So the question here is, if it is possible to restrict commercial use to wiki(m|p)edia and still using cc-by-sa-nc? Fabelfroh 18:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No this is not an option. Since the beginning of Wikipedia as the first Wikimedia project it has always been a fundamental thing that commercial use is allowed. "For Wikipedia only" licenses have never been allowed. The reasons for that got discussed to the end in the past years. It seems you don't like to share this fundament anymore. If you don't change your opinion immediately I will start deleting the affected images (date after 1.1.2008). --Ikiwaner 19:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine! Then delete ALL photos of 2007, 2008 and ALL moss photos too. And I mean ALL. So this is the end. Sadly but true. Fabelfroh 21:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. If you can't allow commercial use because you don't have full control of the copyright, then how can you allow Wikimedia commercial use (which is non-profit anyway). Furthermore, how can you add the restriction if you don't have full control. You still haven't addressed the fact that you can't add restrictions on top of a CC license and if you do, those are null and void and mean nothing. Rocket000 04:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am allowed to let wikipedia have limited commercial access over the microscopic photos for example. Since cc-by-sa-nc is not allowed here, how can I address that problem otherwise? Let's say flickr and any other site gets cc-by-sa-nc and only wikipedia/wikimedia is allowed to use the photos under a cc-by-sa license. How can I do that? It seems that this isn't possible because of the fundamental ideas. To the last fact: Maybe I'm interpreting that license wrong, but the word may is not a must. Fabelfroh 06:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
But Commons does not except licenses that are granted "only for wikimedia". See also Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses. Commons is for everyone, and all rights granted will be granted to anyone in the world, regardless of the place of download (commons vs. flickr). Damn, i can't believe no one caught this earlier... TheDJ 10:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine, a "may" is not a "must" (although that's common in legal text). But don't forget: There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. This License constitutes the entire agreement, Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. etc. I don't know how that can be any clearer. Rocket000 11:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

@Fabelfroh: Have you ever thought to change your free license to GFDL (with includes some restrictions on reuse especially recarding the inclusion of a copy of the GFDL license text if reused) with a non-commercial Creative Commons add-on license? We have at least two examples of those licenses here on Commons that may fit your needs:

  1. {{GFDL or cc-by-nc-sa}}
  2. {{GFDL or cc-by-nc-sa/2.5}}

or you create your own license tag having at least one free license combined with at least one noncommercial license. So reusers that are willing to accept the restrictions of GFDL may use these images for their needs or they would have to ask you for permission. --Denniss 14:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

SuggestionEdit

Suppose I wanted to use one of your photos, and charge money for the work in which it appears. But I didn't mind if other people then freely redistribute my work if they want to. Because if that would be OK, then maybe you could change the last line from "Also a commercial use of the image is only possible with the permission of the author." to "If this picture is used in another work then, unless special permission is obtained from the author, that other work must be re-distributable under CC-BY-SA-NC-3.0 or equivalent license." I am not a lawyer, but I think that might satisfy everyone. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. A use of GFDL, GPL or cc-by-sa license is not possible because I did some of the work on the university (especially the microscopics) and they don't permit commercial use. @Ben Aveling: What means "this work is used in another work"? Is this the same as derived work? To be honest, I do not completely understand the sentence you wrote. Maybe it's because it's early in the morning... Maybe you can explain that to me a little more in detail? It sounds promising... Fabelfroh 09:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I am doubtful that the community will be satisfied with any suggestion that additional conditions might resolve this issue. Reuse of images has to be subject to an acceptable license on Commons, nothing more. The fundamental issue here appears to be the of commercial use. The ability of images on Commons to be used commercially is a requirement and this is something I'd have thought that Fabelfroh would understand by now. Comments on the deletion request below seem to be suggesting that since you've tagged these under an acceptable license which doesn't permit the additional restrictions that these restrictions can be removed and your images used under the acceptable license. Adambro 11:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
As I understand CCBSANC, it permits commercial use, so long as the work produced is also licensed CC, or equivalent. In practical terms that does rule out a lot of commercial use, but not all. It isn't us saying that it can't be used, it's the potential user not being able or willing to agree to license their work as CC. So my understanding is that something along the lines of what I suggested would be CC compliant because, on my reading, reserving the right to grant non-CC licenses in parallel with the CC license is a completely acceptable restriction. So I hope that something like this would be acceptable to Fabelfroh, and the university, and the community. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA-NC does not allow commercial use and as such is not allowed on its own. The only Creative Commons license we can use are CC-BY or CC-BY-SA unless of course the image is dual licensed under one of are accepted license. GFDL and CC-BY-SA-NC would be fine for example. Adambro 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. I should have said CC-BY-SA. It's the "Share alike" bit that's important. Everything else I said stands. See http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses Thanks, Ben Aveling 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Question: Does the University not permit commercial reuse if they made those images or does it also apply if those images were made by another person but using their equipment? --Denniss 17:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Could someone explain it in more detail why commercial use is required for wikimedia? I do not see the sense of dual licensing my work. If I dual license a photo with CC-BY-SA-NC and GFDL, everyone would prefer GFDL and still can make money with it. So CC-BY-SA-NC would be meaningless. According to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode why can't I add the note that wikimedia is allowed commercial access? Fabelfroh 08:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Because the whole idea about commons, is to be a repository of images that EVERYONE can use. That means everyone throughout the world without a single restriction on what you can use the image for. (The only "restrictions" are that sometimes people would like attribution). This includes commercial usage and the editing of images by EVERYONE in the world. Having a "restriction" that only allows usage within wikipedia/mediawiki violates the "everyone in the world"-part of our goal. As such these images are not welcomed on wikipedia and commons. You can publish them yourself on your own website under such an "adapted" license, but they will not be accepted into wikipedia (even if you give them permission to do so). TheDJ 08:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
One point that I also feel needs to be emphasized again, is that any work under CC-BY-SA (even if it is a commercial usage of this work), needs to be licensed under a similar free license. Though this does allow commercial usage, I think it will be very rare for any commercial entity to produce a "new work" that is consequently also "freely licensed". TheDJ 09:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that is entirely true, looking at the legal text of the license, it says in section 4 (a) that "this does not require the Collection apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License". Adambro 11:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
What about having the photos licensed under cc-by-sa-nc and adding the freedom that the photo can be used commercially if the author agrees? The problem with dual-licensing is that people would simply take the license with more freedom in it and tend to ignore the other license. Fabelfroh 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No. That's the point. I think the policy is wrong - we insist on people giving up more freedom than they want to try to force them into releasing their images under a really really free license. But the result is that we get less images than if we let people choose more, ahem, freely. This disucssion has been had before, but one more time won't hurt. I'm going to ask Jimbo. Can you let me know how many QIs and FPs the current policy is about to cost us? Thanks, Ben Aveling 08:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Currently I have 32 QI and 1 FP, but without doubts I have quite some more in my queue and given up nominating and uploading photos because of this license issues. I'm not sure if my counting is correct but that would be about 780 photos of 2007 and 235 photos of 2008, 2/3 of them microscopic photographs... Thanks Ben Aveling for looking into this further. Fabelfroh 16:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Had, I'm afraid. Sometimes, the best is the enemy of the good. Sorry. Ben Aveling 07:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That does mean what exactly? Fabelfroh 07:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't speak for Ben Aveling, but I think that the original quotation is "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" and is attributed to Voltaire.[1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fabelfroh, if you want to understand why Wikimedia Commons chose not to allow NC licenses, you should read this widely cited article (in English and German, another version here) - by Erik Möller, who initiated Wikimedia Commons and is the current Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. It explains the damage done by disallowing commercial use, and argues that for most works the creator has almost no financial gain from doing so anyway. Regards, High on a tree 07:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello High on a tree. Thanks for the link. I don't want to make money in any way with my photos! I've never intended. The problem is that under a non-nc license some big publishers can make money with them without asking and that's not in the interested of the university (and mine too by the way). I'm willing to use a non-nc license if the publisher asks first. So I always said that a commercial use is possible with the permission of the author. But this model doesn't seem to be recognized here. Fabelfroh 11:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh... What I forgot to ask... What precautions can give a non-nc license against commercial exploitation? Fabelfroh 11:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this discussion is still ongoing, surely by now you should understand that for images to be on Commons they have to be available under a license which allows commerical use without your permission. As fantastic as your photos are the community can't and won't make an exemption for you. I've taken many photos for Commons and travelled extensively to do so and get a great sense of satisfaction when my photos are reused on Wikimedia projects and elsewhere, even commercially, because I like to know my work is valued. If you don't share this same spirit then you shouldn't have uploaded these images to Commons. Adambro 12:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request for 2008 pictures (CC-By-SA-NC-3.0)Edit

Image deletion warning Your pictures with the CC-By-SA-NC-3.0 license 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 images, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Well, most are gone. We'll be hopefully getting to the rest soon. Cheers, Rocket000 01:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Your 2007 imagesEdit

Thanks for your message, I have replied on my talk page. Adambro (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Späte Rückfrage …Edit

Ahoj Fabelfroh, ziemlich verspätete Reaktion meinerseits; tut mir leid :-/ --:Bdk: 20:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

use of imagesEdit

Dear Fabelfroh, I am writing to ask about the use of an image of yours from Wikimedia. I am working for a non-commercial biodiversity group “Biochange” (www.biochange.ie) in Ireland, making a web-based identification key of the plants of West Ireland. We would like to have images of plants next to their text descriptions.

I wanted to use some of your images from Wikimedia (Atriplex littoralis, Calystegia pulchra, Lactuca tatarica, Leontodon hispidus and Petroselinum crispum). These are accompanied by a GNU licence. In this licence it states that any “derivatives to be available under the same license”. Our identification key will be freely available for the public to use, however for various reasons I am unable to release it under a Creative Commons / GNU licence. Would you be able to grant me permission to use these images in the identification key nonetheless? (I would of course attribute them appropriately and the GNU licence would accompany the pictures).

It would be very valuable for us if I could use these images as they are of plants I have not yet been able to find to photograph.

Yours sincerely, Chloé Galley

You have to redistribute the photos under the GFDL or any other compatible license which gives the same credits. But I don't see a problem when you add the photos under GFDL + making the appropriate identification? Fabelfroh ( ) 11:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

...I will put "Photograph by Fabelfroh; GFD Licence, with permission". okay? also, I just found some excellent Myriophyllum verticillatum photographs of yours - may I use them too? This is not very common (at least in Ireland) so it's very nice to see. danke chloé

Link between photographers pageEdit

Hello.

I have made a topic called "More good photographers" on my user page. You could create a similar topic on your user page and you could include me in it. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing imagesEdit

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Fabelfroh!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 12:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Identification green algaeEdit

Thumb

Dear Kristian,

I am not really sure these algae are Ulva lactuca specimens. What makes me think so ? Blade is ondulated + one can see very long narrow (probably tubular) parts + something undefinable about how being fixed to the rock. So, I think it could be Enteromorpha linza. What's your opinion as the photograph and the uploader ?

--Channer (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Biodiversity Photo - Tettigonia ViridissimaEdit

Hello Kristian Peters,

My name is Rita Neves.

I work in Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, that is a Public Organism in Portugal.

Actually, we are working on a road book of Biodiversity of Lisbon, for which we are going to produce a panel and a brochure. We found your photos on Wikimedia Commons and liked specially one of them very much, so we would like to know if you could allow us to use your photos, for free, to publish on this project, knowing that the brochure of will be for free distribution to everyone.

The photo we would like to use are the following:

Tettigonia viridissima

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tettigonia_viridissima.jpeg  

If you provide us that photo, we will refer your name in the bibliografy and we need to know what´s the name you want on the bibliography? Kristian Peters?

Thank you very much.

Our best regards

Rita Neves


The photo is licensed under Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-NC. If your brochure is non-commercial you can use the photo. I would like to receive a copy if you decide to use it. Many Greetings from Germany.

Use of imagesEdit

Hi Kristian Peters,

I am working for a commercial publisher. We would like to reproduce one of your pictures from Wikimedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Parmelia_sulcata.jpeg) in our publications. Would you grant us the permission to use the image? If the image is permitted to be reproduced, we would include your name in our photo credits as a word of thanks.

Thank you very much.

Yours sincerely, Shshsh123 (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


The license of most photos on wiki commons still is indicated wrong. They are licensed under Creative Commons cc-by-sa-nc from 2007 and ongoing. So I guess the photo isn't compatible with any commercial use. Fabelfroh (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for your reply. Shshsh123 (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually the claim that "most photos on wiki commons ... are licensed under Creative Commons cc-by-sa-nc" is simply not true. Photos uploaded by this user prior to 26 December 2007 (as here) did not come with any indication of an intention to restrict commercial use at the time of their upload and licenses cannot later be made more restrictive because "Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable." One could argue that even images uploaded after that date are CC-BY-SA because the uploader indicated that a CC-BY-SA license applied at the time, the terms of which state "there are no [additional] understandings, agreements or representations", thus rendering the "in addition to" clause restricting commercial use added by the uploader null and void. These images were nonetheless deleted as a courtesy to the uploader since after 26 December 2007 there was now evidence suggesting that the uploader would not have wanted to continue to share under a CC-BY-SA license had the the uploader read the full terms of a CC-BY-SA in detail.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wasser-KnöterichEdit

Die wp-Seite zeigt in der taxobox ein bild von dir, könntest du überprüfen ob das nicht eher Persicaria maculosa ist ? thx

Das Bild zeigt Persicaria amphibia bzw. Polygonum amphibium -- und zwar die Landform. Grüße fabelfroh.

I use some of your photosEdit

Hi Fabelfroh!

I have use a pair of photos of Agelastica alni from wikimedia in my free software educational proyect "Animalandia" (http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia)

You can see directy in the follow link and click over "Siguiente" ("Next"):

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/imagen.php?id=33555

If you wish, you can send me some letters or/and a photo for your "contributor card" in Animalandia:

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Kristian%20Peters

This is my "contributor card", for example:

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Fernando%20Lis%F3n%20Mart%EDn


In the future, I use more of your photos, I sure!

Thank you for the licence and, of course, for your splendid photos!! Regards! Fernando Lisón

--Fernando.lison (talk)

File:Herniaria glabra detail.jpegEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Herniaria glabra detail.jpeg 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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hwtrissl (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Plagiomnium affine laminazellen.jpegEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Plagiomnium affine laminazellen.jpeg 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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

186.92.157.99 20:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Bildanfrage Epilobium_parviflorumEdit

Lieber Fabelfroh, wir sind ein kleiner Verlag und auf der Suche nach einem Bild von Epilobium_parviflorum, kleinblättriges Weidenröschen. Dabei habe ich Ihr Bild entdeckt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Epilobium_parviflorum_korseby.jpeg

Könnten Sie uns dieses Bild für ein kleines Buch über Duft- und Heilpflanzen zur Verfügung stellen? Die derzeitige Lizenz zur Weitergabe unter geleichen Bedingungen deckt diese Verwendung leider nich ab. Wir würde Sie natürlich in unserem Bildnachweis wie gewünscht aufführen und ein kostenfreies Belegexemplar zusenden.

Herzliche Grüße und vielen Dank für ihre Rückmeldung Thomas Stadelmann

Nesso 8 87487 Wiggensbach +49 (0)8370 - 1777 mobil_ 0163 - 341 00 00 email_ redaktion@stadelmann-verlag.de

Sofern die Lizenz die Nutzung ausschließt, dann kann ich da nichts machen. Fabelfroh (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)