Günther Frager

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Günther Frager!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help 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.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

My Tears Richochet from The Eras Tour

Hi, I changed the author and its respective work from the file My Tears Ricochet from The Eras Tour which now is from a Tik Tok video from the user ivyh0ax and it should not be eligible for erasure. WeNeverGoOutOfStyle (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, the first photograph is still available, and the second one, despite its low quality, belongs to a video that does not have a free license. Cheers. Günther Frager (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
León Ferrari.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Gerard Batliner Office.jpg

Added topic in discussion area regarding recent marking of speedy deletion. TheBritinator (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Laura Hidalgo.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
María Vaner.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Aníbal Troilo.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Photos by Avgust Lešnik

Dear Günther, I've helped Avgust Lešnik enter Wikimedia Commons to publish his photos of his deceased colleagues and include them into the respective Wikipedia articles, also written by him. He was the editor of the printed publications where his photos were published before. Please trust colleagues Wikipedians when they say they are the authors of the photos and don't discourage Avgust's endeavour with unnecessary VRTS-demands. --Hladnikm (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Hladnikm I made my request because of two things: the uploaded photos are published and thus subject to copyright, and he is a new user. Both are valid motives to ask for explicit permission that consist of sending an e-mail (there is a template already on COM:VRTS) from his academic account. I find it laudable that you encourage your colleagues to join Commons, but I think we don't agree on what trust means. I would find a lack of trust on my side if I start challenging your works after you have already proved over and over that you are the author of your uploads. Perhaps out of the scope on this discussion, but being the editor of a book does not imply one is the copyright holder of its photographs. Thanks. Günther Frager (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

To speed up the VRTS-processing, here (https://slov.si/doc/lesnik_carni_impressum.pdf and https://slov.si/doc/lesnik_britovsek_impressum.pdf) are the impressums of the books where the authorship of Avgust Lešnik as the photographer of Ludvik Čarni and Marjan Britovšek is documented. Of course, there is still a slight possibility that this Avgust Lešnik is some other person with the same name :) --Hladnikm (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I thought I was clear when I wrote that the editor argument was out of scope. I was always sure Avgust Lešnik took these photographs, as some of the copies on the Web cite him as the photographer. What I asked is a proof (to be submitted to VRTS team, not to me) that the Commons account named User:Lesnik Avgust was opened by that person, and that was the message I wrote on my revert Special:Diff/767293289. Had the account uploaded unpublished photos, we wouldn't be having this conversation, so please keep your sarcastic comments to yourself. Thanks. Günther Frager (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Gilda Lousek.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --GRDN711 (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ruehende Schiffe by Paul Klee.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Mujeres indolentes by Alfredo Guttero.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Bicicletas by Annemarie Heinrich.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Nice photo by a noted photographer; could be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --GRDN711 (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Autopatroller

Hi, I gave you the Autopatroller right. Yann (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Osvaldo Bayer.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope and used. --Tagooty (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks for the nomination, Günther Frager, and please note how I edited the scope so as not to have "Category" showing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Bruno Gelber.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
María Novaro.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Viele Löschanträge

Hallo Günter Frager,

statt Einzellöschanträgen für jedes Foto, das eine Skulptur eines bestimmten Künstlers zeigt, wären Sammellöschanträge (für alle gleich gelagerten Fälle) für alle Beteiligten mit deutlich weniger Aufwand verbunden. Bei ihrer Erstellung hilft VisualFileChange. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 10:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ingrid Laubrock.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope and used. --Tagooty (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

File:ОльгаПодойницына 2022.jpg

Dear colleague, you have marked this file as "Media missing permission". Meanwhile, its author, right when uploading it, indicated that he was posting this file under the terms of the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. Is there any other permissions needed for its publication in this case? I would really hate to have this file deleted (and I don't see any reason for this) – it is very well suited for illustrating Olga Podoinitsyna's article (in Russian). If there is a misunderstanding in this case, I would be grateful for its positive resolution. Thank you! Vesan99 (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vesan99 it is a photo taken by a professional photographer. It may be the uploaded or it may be not. That is why I marked it as "missing permission". To keep the image the uploaded needs to send an explicit permission via a COM:VRT ticket. I hope this dissipates your doubts. Günther Frager (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I seem to understand the source of the problems - I just don't often see photos taken by professionals on Wikipedia (and use them in articles I have written). But I am not sure that this professional photographer is well versed in the rules and requirements of Wikipedia (if you look at his contribution to the project, he is rather a newcomer here). I will try to contact him through the mechanisms of Wikipedia and ask him to fulfill the conditions you specified. But during this time, the file will already be deleted. Can you extend the review procedure for this file before deleting it? Or do I need to ask the author of the photo to reload it, at the same time sending permission to the address you specified? I have never encountered this kind of problems with the files I uploaded, so I don't know these procedures well. Thank you for the exhaustive explanations! Vesan99 (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is deleted, once the permission is received an admin will normally undelete it. Also, one can explicitly ask for it here. Günther Frager (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Lil Tjay 2023 image

Please explain where the video description doesn't say "Creative Commons"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7MkZH2PT94&ab_channel=MixtapeMadness https://imgur.com/a/xEGZYdj Shoot for the Stars (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Shoot for the Stars Instead of asking for explanations, you should put the right link in the fist place. The source was https://youtube.com/shorts/v7MkZH2PT94?feature=shared and not the one you are citing. In the description also stated "COPYRIGHT: If you believe this video breaches your copyright, please direct your DMCA related emails to: info@mixtapemadness.com", something that one doesn't generally put when owning the copyright. Günther Frager (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Botaurus lentiginosus (American Bittern) in flight.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment location is not important. You need to nominate best image of this species in flight with this scope: Botaurus lentiginosus (American Bittern) in flight. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I adjusted the scope. Günther Frager (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Look at the scope changes. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Costa Rica imagenes

The images are not really mine, but I asked the owner of the images if I could publish his images, his answer was yes and that he will not state copyright, the author confirmed that he accepts that the images are used on Wikipedia . Dey H.E (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dey H.E then ask the author to send the permission, see the procedure here: COM:VRT/es. Günther Frager (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

What is wrong with you

I made a original Album Cover just for the Wikipedia and I got Owner's permission why are you keep deleting it? Also you are deleting 50 year old album covers they have no copyright you are just randomly doing that??? Lim10Sevdalısı (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lim10Sevdalısı I think you are not aware of copyright laws in Turkey. Works are protected by copyright for 70 years after the death of the author. If the authors of album covers died the day after publication, we would still need to wait for another 20 years until they enter in the public domain in Turkey, and even more time until they enter in the public domain in the United States where images are hosted. Moreover, you cannot re-license works with CC-BY, as you did, if you are not the copyright holder. If you got permission from the copyright holder, then you can follow COM:VRT as the message on your talk page indicates. Thanks. Günther Frager (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Its not about the people The Maker of This Album Covers (The Record Companies) doesnt exist they shut down years ago no one is gonna sue you! You guys doesnt even know the what i am talking about, you are just looking the album cover and you say this is probably copyrighted and i will delete this Lim10Sevdalısı (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

No one is gonna sue you? You definitively don't know the policies of Commons, please go and read COM:PCP. Günther Frager (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Brother we are talking about non existing company, those companies are long gone im talking about that, no one has the copyrights Lim10Sevdalısı (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That the company closed years or decades ago doesn't mean that its assets don't have an owner. For example, if you go bankrupt the creditors will seize your property. Günther Frager (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Konstanzer Seenachtfest - fireworks display.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment As the image depicts one aspect of the festival, I suggest changing the scope to "Konstanzer Seenachtfest - fireworks display" --Tagooty (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Günther Frager (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Thank you.  Support Best in scope and used. --Tagooty (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose Not a valuable scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 Info @Charlesjsharp: The festival is described in a Wiki article. The article states: "The highlight on Saturday evening is the fireworks display, one of the largest lake fireworks displays in Europe." (translation by deepl.com). Hence, I believe it is sufficiently notable. --Tagooty (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Can one snap of a firework display be valuable? This is only my interpretation of VI scopes. Others will surely disagree! Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This is one of 3 such images in Commons. It is the best of the 3. This makes it "the most valuable illustration of its kind on Wikimedia Commons" (VI criterion #1). It is IMO a good image of a fireworks display
@Günther Frager: I notice that the image lacks a geotag. Could you please add an estimated geotag? --Tagooty (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I added the approximate coordinates. Günther Frager (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Best in Scope, and the fact that it has an article on de.wikipedia aught to prove that it's a useful scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Question and interests

Hello Günther; first of all, I need to know if you were born in Argentina; if so, I could write to you in Spanish. And the reason why I'm asking you this is I noted that (most of) your DR are strongly tied with Argentine works, more specifically URAA-related photographs and PD-old-70 works (talking from my experience in having uploaded some of the nominated files).

I'm also surprised by the fact your user account is pretty recent so I guess you could have been active on Commons before of that. I wish my message don't make you feel unconfortable, that's not the intention. But your case caught my attention. Fma12 (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Hola Fma12, sí, me puedes escribir en español. Mis intereses son variados y no solo me dedico a crear consultas de borrado. Sé que muchas de mis acciones afectan tus archivos y en lo posible trato de diversificar las categorías que tengo en la mira para no dar la errónea impresión que me estoy ensañando con alguien. Preguntas de mi vida personal prefiero no responderlas, pero no tengo problemas en conversar sobre otros temas relacionados a este proyecto. Saludos. Günther Frager (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ante todo, gracias por responderme. Sí, efectivamente tus acciones han borrado muchos de los archivos que yo subí, lo cual lamento porque dudo que la WMF reciba alguna demanda en EEUU por una foto de Bochini o Ricardo Iorio y se han perdido imágenes valiosas como las de conciertos en Argentina, tapas de discos, acontecimientos deportivos, entre otras, cuyos pedidos de eliminación habían sido mínimos.

Si por "vida personal" te referìs a tu nacionalidad, no considero ese tema algo específicamente "personal", pero si preferís no responder estás en tu derecho y lo respeto. Te había consultado porque tu conocimiento de copyright/licencias y tu proceder aquí evidentemente no se comparecen con los de una cuenta tan reciente. Por eso estoy más que seguro que sos un usuario de larga data, pero contribuías con otro nick. De todas maneras no soy del FBI y tampoco me corresponde determinar responsabilidades. Gracias nuevamente, saludos. Fma12 (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Este proyecto, a diferencia de la mayoría de la web, tiene un lineamiento bastante estricto respecto al copyright. Si subiste todos esos archivos sin saber que no seguían las políticas de licenciamiento, realmente lamento el tiempo que empleaste en seleccionar, recortar y subir cada una de tus fotos. Me hubiese gustado que la comunidad lo hubiese detectado antes. Ahora si lo subiste conscientemente, supongo que lo hiciste midiendo el riesgo y lamento que hayas perdido tu tiempo porque creo que la gran mayoría de las fotos que aportaste no están en esa categoría. Que WMF reciba o no una denuncia, la verdad que no me interesa, mi punto de vista es otro. Los términos de copyright me parecen excesivos y la única forma legal de combatirlos a mi entender es usarlos en contra de los que poseen copyrights. Iorio y su discográfica están encantados de que sus fans le hagan publicidad gratis, por ejemplo cuando escriben artículos sobre él y su música. Ahora ¿por qué no son capaces de liberar un par de fotos como agradecimiento? De Bochini ¿por qué Independiente no le regala a sus hinchas algunas imágenes de su máximo ídolo?

En lo referido a la pérdida de archivos, quiero recordarte que otros proyectos son más laxos con respecto al copyright. Por ejemplo, enwiki aloja imágenes bajo fair-use. Claramente no se pueden transferir todos los archivos, pero sí la tapa de los albums, algunos retratos y las fotos de hechos históricos. Saludos. Günther Frager (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

En realidad cuando empecé acá en 2006, bastaba que las fotos fueran PD en Argentina; luego surgió el tema del URAA, y ese debate en el cual se consensuó cierta flexibilidad que luego mutó en política estricta nuevamente. Lo que ocurre aquí es que algunos admin dejan las imágenes, y otros las borran, o sea, no hay un criterio uniforme o cada uno decide según su parecer, lo que puede confundir a los inexpertos o recién llegados.

Con respecto a "la gran mayoría de las fotos que aportaste no están en esa categoría" estás equivocado, he aportado muchísimas fotos históricas anteriores a 1971, además de montones de imágenes propias (fotos y gráficos) que superan largamente el número de imágenes que pudieran haberme eliminado.

El punto que planteás: "Los términos de copyright me parecen excesivos y la única forma legal de combatirlos a mi entender es usarlos en contra de los que poseen copyrights" encierra en sí cierta contradricción a mi entender. No creo que borrando sus fotos (útiles para ilustrar artículos) de los servidores en WMF ayude a evitar una supuesta publicidad gratuita. Ahora reformulo tu pregunta: "por qué Iorio o el C.A. independiente deberían liberar sus fotos de copyright? ¿Para dárselos a la WMF? Así como vos protegés los intereses de Wikimedia, el club o los músicos tienen derecho también a proteger sus propios intereses (y el trabajo de sus fotógrafos). Mas aún, en la Argentina hay montones de fotos en dominio público de Iorio y Bochini en los archivos de El Gráfico, diarios, o revistas de rock, que pueden ser libremente utilizadas por cualquier blog o web local. Es la misma WM quien limita el uso de esas imágenes en sus proyectos.

Y en relación al último punto, sí conozco los términos de fair use images en la WP en inglés, de hecho he subido muchas imágenes ahí bajo esa modalidad. Saludos. Fma12 (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

No leíste bien mi frase, hay una negación "la gran mayoría de las fotos que aportaste no están en esa categoría". Yo coincido contigo la mayoría de tus imágenes no tienen problemas.

No veo la contradicción. Vamos por partes, nadie le da nada a WMF, cuando alguien usa una licencia libre es para todo el mundo. Mucha gente participa en Commons, incluyéndome, porque el esfuerzo de las horas donadas son para todo el mundo. Nadie obliga a Iorio a regalar ninguna foto, pero tampoco Iorio puede exigir tener una página de Wikipedia, ni que haya fotos suyas en Commons. ¿Quiere proteger su propiedad intelectual? Ningún problema, que la proteja. En la práctica gracias al esfuerzo de los colaboradores es posible que Wikipedia o Commons esté entre los primeros resultados de búsqueda. No sería descabellado que una linda entrada en Wikipedia se traduzca en más ventas. Basta mirar la cantidad de artículos que son borrados a diario por publicitarios. Si esa lógica funciona, Iorio podría estar interesado en mejorar su entrada. ¿Si no le interesa? Tendremos una foto sacada de un celular, o esperaremos a que un fotógrafo done parte de su trabajo. No es la muerte de nadie.

Sí, muchas fotos están en el dominio público de Argentina, y como dices se pueden alojar en servidores locales. Pero Commons no está ni alojada en Argentina, ni se rige por leyes argentinas, ni su principal público es el argentino. ¿Podría WMF alojar cualquier contenido hasta que reciba una orden DMCA? Si, es lo que su jurisdicción les exige, pero no es lo que quieren y por eso tienen COM:PCP como una política fundamental. Si el Gráfico no tiene pensado explotar en el exterior parte de su propiedad intelectual, entonces no debería tener problema en usar una licencia permisiva con parte de su material que está en el dominio público argentino. Como no estamos en una wiki alojada en Argentina ¿Por qué tenemos que estar a la merced de los que pueda llegar a hacer el Gráfico en los próximos 20 o 30 años?

Hay muchos proyectos dentro de WMF. Las wikis pueden tener servidores locales. Muchas wikis permiten fair-use, otras como la alemana solo aloja imágenes en el dominio público de DACH (Alemania, Austria y Suiza). Creo que la wiki en español fue de las que optó por no usar un servidor local. Es cierto que hay restricciones, pero yo las entiendo como decisiones estratégicas para maximizar el impacto. No te olvides que el propósito de Commons es ser un repositorio de imágenes y para ello necesita productores de contenidos y consumidores de contenidos. Por ejemplo, permitir contenido no comercial aumentaría significativamente los productores, pero reduciría drásticamente los consumidores. Saludos. Günther Frager (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User keeps adding Missing Permission templates to photos that are clearly mine. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Shoot for the Stars (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Alkoholismo.jpg

Un saludo. Como veo más arriba, te puedo escribir en español, gracias. El archivo File:Alkoholismo.jpg es copia de un cartel que fue público en los años treinta y no tenía copyright; de hecho lo publicó el sindicato CNT-AIT al que pertenezco, hoy llamado simplemente CNT. Tengo copia en papel (de donde he hecho la foto) y las hay por todos lados. No la he sacado de la red. Las fotos File:Thumbnail Rocio de Frutos-2.jpg y File:Rocio de Frutos-1.jpg las hizo un amigo mío, que por supuesto me las mandó y me autorizó para esa publicación; tampoco están sacadas de la red. Yo estaba presente en ese recital del 81-a Hispana Kongreso de Esperanto, mi amigo filmó y luego sacó las fotos para Vikipedio. Su vídeo sí lo puso en Youtube, pero las fotos como tal no. Estoy a disposición para más explicaciones, pero creo que los tres archivos deben quedarse, si no hay específicamente regla en contra.--Kani (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hola @Kani: , vayamos por partes. Usted no puede poner que son obras de su autoría cuando no la son. Ni usted diseñó el afiche, ni sacó las fotos / el video. Que el cartel esté por todos lados o que usted sea dueño de una réplica no quiere decir que no esté protegido por derechos de autor. Dicho cartel fue creado por Eduardo Vicente (1909-1968) y todavía está protegido por derechos de autor en España (70 años luego de la muerte de su autor). En lo referido a las fotos de Rocío de Frutos, si su amigo sacó dichas fotos, posible aunque un poco extraño debido a la baja resolución, va a tener que pedirle que envíe una autorización al equipo COM:VRT/es. Saludos. Günther Frager (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Discusión sobre copyright

Hola Gunther, qué tal. Te etiqueté en la talkpage de un editor que me dejó una advertencia (insólita) "stop uploading copyright violations", ya que me vi en la necesidad de aclararle que NO subo archivos con copyright. Debido a que recientemente me dejaste varios DR sobre imágenes PD-URAA y algunas de esas imágenes fueron marcadas directamente como "copyvio" en lugar de DR, alguno de estos muchachos pudiera haber interpretado que soy un subidor serial de archivos con copyright.

Más allá de lo improcedente que me pareció esa advertencia, me parece justo ponerte al tanto del motivo por el cual te cito en su discusión. Por supuesto, sos libre de aportar tu punto de vista ahí, si es que te parece procedente hacerlo. Saludos, Fma12 (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hola @Fma12: dejé un comentario en la discusión donde explico el motivo de SD. No es mi intención que recibas ese tipo advertencia y voy a tratar en el futuro de evitar SD tu contribuciones. Lo que te voy a pedir es que si coincidís con el motivo en las fotos post-1989 dejes un mensaje en las DR. Saludos. Günther Frager (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Ahì vi el comentario, te agradezco mucho la pronta respuesta y la colaboración. No había dejado mi feedback hasta ahora en los DR no por mala voluntad, sino al contrario, porque consideraba que no había nada que refutar. Pero contá que a partir de ahora voy a dejar mi comentario soportando la eliminación de los archivos post-1989.

Con respecto a los copyvio, este usuario ni siquiera es admin, pero advierte como si lo fuera. Creo que tu respuesta fue màs que elocuente para despejar toda duda sobre mi buena fe, y aprecio mucho eso. Lo único que te pido es que si marcás algún archivo mío como copyvio, no dejes la notificación en mi talkpage, que lo eliminen y ya. Muchas gracias nuevamente, saludos. Fma12 (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Bellydance fotos

Hi Günther, bitte entferne die schnelllöschungen. Alle Bilder des Projektes „Wikipedia goes Bellydance“ wurden mit Zustimmung der jeweiligen Personen abgebildet (alle auf Instagram). Ich werde die einzelnen Personen anschreiben, damit schnellstmöglich die sich an die permission-Stelle wenden. LG, Shark Shark1989z (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations, dear license reviewer

If you use the helper gadget, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-.

Hi Günther Frager, thanks for your request for license reviewer status. The request has been closed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can now start reviewing files – please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Potential backlogs include Flickr review and files from other sources. You can enable the LicenseReview gadget from Preferences.

Important: You should not review your own uploads, nor those of anyone closely related to you!

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons ^webchat on irc.libera.chat. You can also add {{User license reviewer}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons!

I would like to ask you, however, to create a userpage including the languages you speak and your interests. Thanks in advance. --Bedivere (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ottavio Grimani by Alessandro Vittoria.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Pilar Gil Miguel

Hola @Günther Frager me has etiquetado para borrado las imágenes de Pilar Gil Miguel, que efectivamente son del Grupo Prisa (como indico en la subida de la foto) al que pertenece El País. Según la normativa española, marcando el origen de la imagen y habiendo sido ya publicada en un medio de información, siempre que no sea usada con fines comerciales (como es el caso) se pueden usar. En caso de que no se pueda, eliminaré la foto, pero he solicitado los permisos al grupo prisa incluso (aunque no sé dónde debo incluirlos), para evitar borrados y, sobre todo, porque quiero contribuir y no saltarme las normas de wikicommons. Gracias por todo, JorgeVBis (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@JorgeVBis: la política de Commons requiere que las imágenes estén en el dominio público (por lo general son fotos antiguas) o con tengan una licencia libre, que incluye la libre explotación comercial, algo que claramente dichas fotos no cumplen. Más aún, usted, quizás por error, puso que dichas fotos tenían una licencia CC-BY-SA, algo que no es cierto. Entiendo que quiera colaborar, pero lo que corresponde es primero pedir al poseedor de los derechos de autor que envíe una permiso (vea COM:VRT/es), o subir imágenes que claramente posean una licencia libre. Saludos. Günther Frager (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Gracias, @Günther Frager le solicité permiso al Grupo Prisa, me indicaron que sí estaba libre de derechos pero que iban a enviarme el permiso. Si me lo dieran ¿si podría subirse, verdad? Repito, en ningún caso quiero romper la ley de derechos de autor. Ni tampoco ser bloqueado, nuevamente, gracias por todo y por la paciencia. JorgeVBis (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@JorgeVBis: como le indiqué anteriormente, el poseedor de los derechos de autor que por lo general es el fotógrafo (Samuel Sánchez en este caso) tiene que mandar un permiso explícito al equipo COM:VRT. Una vez que verifiquen el permiso y lo aprueben van a restaurar la imagen. Saludos. Günther Frager (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Muchas gracias por toda la información, como te comenté les pedí permisos y ahora lo que me han enviado es un enlace de su página de recursos fotográficos en flirck, espero que así no haya problemas. Nuevamente, mil gracias por toda la información. JorgeVBis (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Kullervon kirous (Kullervo cursing) by Akseli Gallen-Kallela - Finnish National Gallery.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Can you change scope to include original title and artist please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Done! Günther Frager (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Support thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)