Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Sylhouet!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope edit

العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | Frysk | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | polski | português | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | 简体中文 | +/−


Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content, PALM van de Wiel, was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at educational media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote. If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. Otherwise, consider an alternative outlet. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding.

--Motopark (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oude munten en licanties edit

Dag. Ik zie nu pas dat jij als uploader van deze foto de licentie omzette. Ik had dat teruggedraaid. Mocht je toch PD-old erop zetten, dan ontstaat vermoedelijk ooit in de toekomst een probleem op (de Nederlandstalige) Wikipedia. Kort door de bocht kun je als goed is wel bij eeuwenoude tekeningen, schilderijen enz (2-dimensionale zaken) als die plat door een ander zijn gefotografeerd, er PD-old op plakken. Echter bij munten ligt dat anders, die schijnen als 3-dimnesionale objecten te worden gezien waardoor de fotograaf eigen originaliteit aan de foto schijnt toe te voegen. Hoe het exact ligt is vrij ingewikkeld en de hoed en de rand weet ik er ook niet precies van. nl:Wikipedia:Auteursrechtencafé is de plek om de beste uitleg op Wikipedia&co te krijgen als je daar behoefte aan hebt. Mocht je tot slot toch uiteindelijk op de foto PD-old zetten, dan is dat wat mij betreft verder geen probleem. Draai gerust mijn bewerking terug. Groet Sonty (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

File:Anna Verbakel.jpg edit

Hi LCPP37, why do you think that this photo was PD already in 1996? --Túrelio (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Túrelio, I hope I used the right license category. The photographer is unknown. The lady on the picture died in 1944. The picture was in the collection of her family. It was given to me in 1988 by the head of the family with consent to use it in a book I published. - LCPP37 (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi LCPP37, well "consent to use it in a book" does not equal public domain or free license. You should verify what were the legal terms for anonymous works in the country of origin in the year 1943 to 1996 and then check whether this image fulfils these terms. --Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi Túrelio, I tried to verify my assumption that photo's that are published in a book with consent of the owner are automatically in the public domain. But you are right, the assumption is wrong. Moreover I found that this photo does not fulfill the legal terms in the Netherlands in the year 1943 to 1996. Based on the assumption I placed several other pictures on Commons. By consequence all these uploads have to be deleted. Can you advise me on how to organize that? I can provide a list of the relevant photo's. Sorry for the trouble. - LCPP37 (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Just could either request one of them for deletion and then add the filenames of the others to the deletion-discussion page (best way) or list them all here (lazy way). --Túrelio (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  Done -- LCPP37 (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Piet van Hout edit

De auteursrechten op de foto van Piet van Hout zijn door Leo van den Heuvel overgedragen aan Paul van de Wiel, dus juridisch gezien is Paul van de Wiel de auteur en niet meer Leo van den Heuvel. Mbch331 (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hogere resolutie edit

Beste Sylhouet, Mooi die uploads. Als je foto's zoals deze in een hogere resolutie wilt hebben, dan kan dat. Let op het woordje memorix in de URL (of zie de archieven op deze lijst) en zwaai de foto door de Dememorixer, dan kan je de foto in hogere resolutie downloaden. Vysotsky (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Beste Vysotsky, mijn dank voor je tip. Ik ga het proberen. Sylhouet (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

File:Haremjaren.jpg was recently deleted edit

File:Haremjaren.jpg was recently deleted by JuTa for reasons below. If you disagree with the deletion, you need to file an undeletion request.

Reason for deletion: No OTRS permission for 30 days

It's best to discuss with the administrator who deleted your file before filing an undeletion request. Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply