User:Ellywa/geheugensteuntjes

Geheugensteuntjes edit

  • Add the License review template to a file where you are doubting copyright status. 07:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • As licence reviewer: Commons:License review
  • {{subst:npd}}. Sjabloon voor afbeeldingen die permission missen.
  • {{PermissionTicket|id=################|user=Ellywa}} Voor toevoegen van toestemming op VRT (voorheen OTRS) aan een afbeelding. ### = ticket nr.
  • Vermelden bij uploads waarvoor nog correspondentie via VRT loopt: {{OTRS pending|year=2017|month=March|day=31}}[[ticket:################]][[Category:New uploads without a license]]
  • Of, als het nog niet geheel duidelijk is, {{Permission received|year=2021|month=November|day=01|id=################|User=Ellywa|reason=processing}}
  • [[Category:Undelete in 20XX]]
  • Als je enkele tientallen VRT-tickets wilt toevoegen is de visualfilechange-extensie handig zie: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:VisualFileChange.js. Hiermee kun je krachtige bewerkingen uitvoeren zoals zoeken en vervangen. Soms is dat eenvoudig, soms heb je daar wat ingewikkeldere reguliere expressies voor nodig. In dat laatste geval vraag gerust om hulp. User:Basvb.
  • Undeletion requests: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests of Commons:UDR
  • Gebruik van foto's per categorie op Wikipedia etc: https://tools.wmflabs.org/glamtools/glamorous.php
  • Localisatie beroepen op "creator" page, Template:Occupation/nl, zie ook de categorieën van die pagina voor andere vertaal templates.
  • Handige tips van 1Veertje: User:1Veertje/Tips
  • Commonshelper, om foto's naar Commons over te brengen.
  • onbekende datum {{other date|?}}; onbekende auteur {{author|unknown}}
  • Voorkomen van dubbele licentie: Het is mogelijk een 2e parameter toe te voegen aan het wikiportret sjabloon. Bijv. {{wikiportrait2|<ticket nummer>|PD-old-assumed}} en dan vervangt hij de CC-BY-SA 4.0 licentie door de ingevulde waarde. Vul je niets in, dan pakt hij nog steeds CC-BY-SA 4.
  • Bij vermoeden dat een foto door iemand anders is gemaakt: Template:No permission since of direct {{subst:npd}}
  • Users by log action
  • Pattypan/Simple manual
  • Speedy delete template {{SD}} met talloze opties. Verwijderen lege categorie: {{SD|C2}}

Copyright edit

  • Copyright rules by subject matter
  • Snel verwijderen copyvio: {{Copyvio|Toelichting}}
  • In case of below Threshold of originality, sjabloon: {{PD-ineligible}}. Onder andere te gebruiken voor pasfoto's. Vermeld dan een link naar deze motivatie: [1]
  • Gebruik dit sjabloon voor foto’s die tenminste 120 jaar oud zijn en waarvan je aanneemt dat het in PD valt: {{PD-old-assumed}}
  • Als een foto meer dan 70 jaar geleden is gepubliceerd en 100% zeker is dat de fotograaf onbekend is gebleven, dan kan je deze gebruiken {{PD-anon-70-EU}} . Bij het uploaden dus a. gegevens over publicatie meeleveren (dat datum bijv. met Delpher kranten en dat de fotograaf er niet bijstaat). In geval van ansichtkaarten ook de achterzijde om te laten zien dat de fotograaf daar niet opstaat.
  • Wikiportret met andere licentie: {{wikiportrait2|<ticket nummer>|PD-old-assumed}}
  • {{De minimis |1= |reason= |DR=[[ ]]}}. 1=Welk onderdeel beschermd is. Reason= komt na het woordje because. DR inclusief de haken van de link.
  • USA controle op (her)registratie copyright: My link to check everything is [2] (search for text contents, not metadata). Other helpful links are [3], [4], [5]. --Rosenzweig τ 18:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Voor landen die geen lid zijn van de Berne Conventie: {{Copyright notes}}. Land achter een pipe plaatsen.
  • FOP in kerken in Nederland, zie deze discussie en de opmerking van Arnoud Engelfriet:
    This is complicated and has no legal precedent as far as I can tell. The issue is that while churches are publicly accessible, they are also places of worship where rights to privacy and right to exercise religion are very important. It's therefore debatable whether the inside of a church can be seen as a public place with all that implies for FOP. My position is that if you don't photograph during services, do not photograph worshippers (e.g. people burning a candle or praying in a corner) etc then I would consider your photo as legitimate under FOP. If you then can get in without asking permission or paying a fee (church-museum) then it's a public location.
    It is not relevant for FOP whether the owner can deny you access. The legal standard is whether the public in principle has access, like with the grounds of a castle that has a sign "Open between sunrise and sundown". True, the owner can still kick you out, but this is "public" for purpose of copyright law. If it has a fence, you have to ring and discuss before you're let in, then it's not public. Arnoud Engelfriet (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

URAA edit

Extended content

From admin noticeboard / Help requested with URAA nominations edit

Dear collegues, as an admin I am working on old deletion requests. I think it is a good thing to remove copyright violations from Commons and I want to protect authors as well as reusers. However, as an art lover I am in personal trouble with some URAA requests. For instance, a painting which is in PD in the whole of Europe, must apparently be deleted due to the URAA restoration. This has been discussed many times, and I do not want to discuss the principles again. I need help however with such deletion requests, currently with File:1937 Leblan Landschaft anagoria.JPG. The rather unknown painter died in 1940. Which admin is willing to help and close these DR's on an incidental basis? Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ellywa: URAA should not be the only reason to delete.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Jeff G., thanks, has that been written somewhere in the guidelines on Commons? Ellywa (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
With the help of Google and some browsing I found this statement of the WMF: So WMF does not see a reason to delete content simply because of general concern about the URAA. Assuming this has not been revoked, I can use that argument to keep such images. source. Is this a correct way to move on, or do you think there are other guidelines? Ellywa (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ellywa: Our current guidance at COM:URAA states "A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under U.S. or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle." Yann kept at Commons:Deletion requests/File:1937 Leblan Landschaft anagoria.JPG, I was going to   Weak delete per pcp.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: . Thanks for your help and link. I think I will act as Yann in future situations such as this one. I think that is in line with the intention of the legal dept. Ellywa (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Basically, you will find contradictory information. While the WMF seems not happy about the URAA still protecting works in the US that are free in their country of origin and most other states, they apparently feel (understandably) that they have to comply with US law, so you'll find only carefully worded statements from them. They'll leave the actual decisions whether to delete or not to the Commons community however and will only step in and delete something themselves by an Office Action if forced to do so by an official legal request. That brings us to the Commons community, where many admins, especially those from Europe, don't want to delete European works that are free in Europe but still protected in the US. Which lead to the statement that URAA should not be the sole reason for deletion, while our official guidelines state that files must comply with US law. That's the status quo, and apparently (almost) nobody is interested in changing it (let sleeping dogs lie and so on), which I found out a couple of years ago when I tried to resolve the situation. --Rosenzweig τ 16:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig: A similar situation exists with illegal graffiti. Officially, per COM:PCP, non-free graffiti is not allowed without permission of the artist. Yet in practice, if we look at DR results, non-free graffiti is allowed; in fact there is even a template {{Non-free graffiti}} to tag such images. -- King of ♥ 08:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • This is at the admin's whim. So they can then hold it over an uploader in the future, "Stop disagreeing with me, or else I'll go through all of your uploads (clearly UK PD book scans) and then delete them, just because I can." Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Perhaps you are referring to something from the past, I certainly will not act like that. English language books will be especially difficult to assess, because perhaps available/published in US. And thank you @Rosenzweig: it certainly is contradictory and legalists cannot avoid this if a ruling appears difficult to understand such as this case. URAA feels very strange. I can buy very cheap books from painters from my country like Piet Mondriaan and the lesser known Leo Gestel (born in the town where I happen to live), because the copyright is expired. It would feel strange to delete these images from Commons. No heirs - all far above 70 years of age by now - would ever think of getting more money from royalties. They have had enough imho. And I do not think a procedure in the USA will yield anything. Ellywa (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
No heirs would ever think of getting more money from royalties? There are several examples of suits about European works in the US; for example, the Arthur Conan Doyle estate in Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate or their suit against Netflix were after all of ACD's works were PD in the UK. Likewise, the Anne Frank estate sent Wikimedia a URAA notice when the work left copyright in Europe and the Dutch Wikisource started to transcribe it. I'm quite sure that whoever owns the Orwell estate would sue over 1984 in a heartbeat. I'm not so sure that Piet Mondriaan wouldn't sue us, but Leo Gestel probably wouldn't. Then again, I'm pretty sure I could upload photos of local murals painted in the 90s by an artist who died in 2000, and WMF wouldn't hear a word from the artist's estate. "Won't sue us" has never been a winning argument at Wikimedia.
I understand; many of the works that make up the shared Anglo-American culture are limited not because they are illegal for me or the WMF to use, but because they're copyrighted in Europe. The early works of Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers and A. A. Milne are passing into the public domain in the US but may not be uploaded to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  Comment Not only works from Europe, but basically anywhere else. The countries were the law is the most permissive are the most affected. It was also pointed out in some DR that in the case of URAA, the procedure is reversed: we assume that URAA doesn't apply unless proved otherwise. Yann (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Other specific situations edit

Copyright hulp voor "dummy's" edit

Verweesde werken edit

Dit is de aanpak die ik volg:

  • Foto's die meer 120 jaar oud zijn en waarvan de auteur niet bekend is. Hierover is ooit op Commons gestemd, zie Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template. Deze kunnen geplaatst worden, omdat 120 jaar na de opname veilig kan worden aangenomen dat de maker meer dan 70 jaar overleden is, waardoor de foto in het publiek domein valt. Hiervoor wordt het sjabloon Template:PD-old-assumed gebruikt.
  • Foto's die meer dan 70 jaar geleden gepubliceerd zijn (dus openbaar gemaakt), zonder vermelding van de naam van de fotograaf. Daarvoor moet je moeite doen of je de fotograaf kan vinden, bijv. als er een rectificatie is geweest. Hiervoor gebruik je het sjabloon Template:PD-anon-70-EU. Dit volgt uit wetgeving, in Nederland Auteurswet artikel 38 lid 1. Voor veel foto's uit bijv. Delpher (oude krantenfoto's) zal dit gelden. Maar wel goed zoeken of je de naam toch nog kan vinden.
  • Voor andere foto's, die bijvoorbeeld zijn opgenomen in archieven, privé fotoalbums, aan de muur hangen in een museum, recent openbaar gemaakt op een websites etc, kortom anonieme foto's die tussen 70 en 120 jaar oud zijn en niet meer dan 70 jaar geleden gepubliceerd, geldt dat er nog auteursrecht op rust. Die kunnen dus helaas niet gebruikt worden. Helaas, want ik vind het persoonlijk erg jammer, en je zou er waarschijnlijk niemand schade mee berokkenen om ze toch te publiceren, maar het mag niet. Zeker niet op Commons, waar zoveel kans is op hergebruik. Op een eigen website zou je het risico wel kunnen nemen.

Filemover edit

Category:Media requiring renaming

Afkortingen edit

  • {{keep}} - behouden
  • {{vd}} - vote delete - verwijderen
  • {{vk}} - vote keep - behouden
  • {{s}} - support (bij stemming)
  • {{o}} - oppose/tegen (bij stemming)
  • {{d}} - done/afgerond
  • {{n}} - neutraal
  • {{nd}} - not done/niet gedaan
  • {{r}} - voor

Admin help and tools edit

Deletion and undeletion edit

Procedure when handling VRT tickets and undeletion edit

(Copied from talk page of Rosenzweig)

Hi Rosenzweig, besides being admin I am a VRT agent reviewing permissions etc. Do you think it is allowed to directly undelete images if a correct permission has been received, or should I ask for a undeletion on COM:UNDELETE. This only in case the image is deleted because of missing permission or obvious copyright violation. Thanks for your insights on this. Ellywa (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ellywa,
I can't find any direct rules for such a case. This is about trust and accountability I guess. Can Commons trust you to get it right and correct your actions if you don't? Let's say you make this undel request, I see it and restore the file(s). I can't see the VRT e-mails, so all I can do is trust the VRT agent in question. Since VRT agents are known to the WMF, they are trusted I should think, as are admins who were elected in the projects. You are both, so you should be doubly trustworthy :-) Of course VRT agents can misunderstand something, and in that case some other agent would be needed to perhaps look into the relevant mails and shed a different light on things. A formal undel request makes such an undeletion probably more visible and allows other agents to look into the case as well, though I don't know if the VRT mail system provides such visibility as well. So in a nutshell, my opinion is that you should be trusted enough to do it right away, but an undel request makes the whole procedure perhaps more visible and allows other agents to weigh in if necessary. Though I'm not sure I understand the VRT side of that completely. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


Blocking and unblocking edit

Protection edit

Welcome, Dear Filemover! edit

العربيَّة  Deutsch  español  English  français  português  русский  українська  বাংলা  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  Tiếng Việt  中文(中国大陆)‎  中文(台灣)‎  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  +/−


 

Hi Ellywa, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.


About me edit

Subpages of Ellywa Category:Ellywa