Open main menu

Welcome to the Commons, Clindberg!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | تۆرکجه | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | भोजपुरी | Bahasa Banjar | বাংলা | català | нохчийн | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | euskara | estremeñu | فارسی | suomi | français | Frysk | galego | עברית | हिन्दी | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk | occitan | Ирон | polski | português | português do Brasil | rumantsch | română | русский | sicilianu | Scots | سنڌي | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | Basa Sunda | svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Tagalog | Türkçe | українська | اردو | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 粵語 | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−
Crystal Clear app korganizer.png First steps tutorial

Our first steps help file and our FAQ 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. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy.

Icon apps query.svg 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. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Transmission icon.png Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities.
  • All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
  • Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
  • To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg
  • If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper
Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png Made a mistake?
  • Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}
  • For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Contents

CosplayEdit

Do you happen to know of any references that might help me on this, other than the various Lucasfilms cases in the US and UK? --MichaelMaggs (talk)

(un)deletion of some of our filesEdit

Many thanks for your help and suggestions. We will proceed accordingly. With best, ESDC Secretariat

Help ...Edit

Hello ... Pls Delete all Old & New version of this file

commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Harminder_Singh_official.JPG


Thanks :)

« Wemmick's Castle »Edit

Thanks for the information. You're absolutely right. The best thing is to remove the file from Commons. It's not all that important, since it's not a genuine illustration. Personally, I'm deleting from the article Les Grandes Espérances. Best wishes, Robert Ferrieux

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 AnnouncementEdit

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!Edit

 
2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

VPCEdit

Hopefully you took my comment in the spirit it was meant, as a 'teasing' joke. What you said was quite apt, just a bit of a 'wall of text'... I try to keep things friendly.. the OP's comment was rather not, so a bit of a digression seemed in order. Revent (talk)

Oh, no offense taken ;-) That's hardly my worst example of a stream-of-consciousness wall of text reply on here either... I have some pretty long ones sometimes ;-)

FYIEdit

this got archived within hours. :-( Missed it?

WMDE and accreditatiionEdit

Do you remember when you said "Basically, you are claiming that Wikimedia Germany knowingly set up a situation where they could not legally upload their works to Commons. I seriously doubt that is the case."? Please see Template:2018-08-19 BFC Dynamo vs. 1. FC Köln. The first box states:

"This picture was taken holding an accreditation for the DFB-Pokal. While the photographer is providing the work under the terms of a Creative Commons license which allows commercial reuse, the accreditation rules contain the obligation to point out the following: Pictures may only be used for editorial publications."

I know better than to poke that hornet's nest again, but I think that template should clarify the situation with WMDE and where they stand. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, it's almost certainly just restricting uses to non-promotional use (i.e. uses where publicity or personality rights are not required), when you read further. That is fine -- publicity rights are separate from the copyright, and promotional use would require obtaining those rights from someone. Really, the personality rights template should be enough to satisfy that requirement. I really don't like that particular wording though, since it does seem to imply the copyright is being used to enforce that requirement as well, which would make it non-free. That is similar wording to the original Commons:Deletion requests/User:Stepro/UEFA discussion (though that also had an "online" requirement), where the wording was changed eventually to remove the unintended implication. This template should probably be re-worded similarly, and we should also double-check with the photographer to make sure that change matches their understanding. It's most likely fine, and deletion requests are pretty aggressive so I wouldn't recommend that, but wouldn't hurt to bring that up in the Village Pump, noting the similarity to the UEFA template and asking for similar changes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I can tell that you like to assume the best in people. Having now seen several accreditation agreements, it seems standard for these events that they do indeed restrict the use of images to editorial use only. We come back to the same argument that this is the photographer's problem, not Commons. I am certain that no one will be willing to tell me what the accreditation agreement says. Feel free to bring it up at Village Pump yourself if you wish. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The copyright is owned by the photographer (or their employer if any) -- the organizations can only control things via contract with the photographer themselves, or publicity rights they can exercise as part of promoting their sport. A contract is quite difference than a license. If one party or the other breaches the contract, the parties can only go after each other -- nobody else agreed to that contract and so nobody else can violate it. For those organizations, the publicity rights may be of greater concern, and they would use terms in context of those rights which sounds rather problematic when thinking in terms of copyright, which is what we tend to do (in particular the term "commercial use" has very different connotations). The organizations may well be releasing the publicity rights they own only for editorial use, without thinking much of the copyright -- even though we don't really care if they release any or not. The leagues are probably more concerned with restricting based on what *they* are allowed to do, since collectively-bargaining agreements often will spell out what the league is allowed to do for marketing purposes, versus what rights a players' association can sell, versus what rights you need to go to the player themselves (such as promoting products). In general, yes we assume good faith, particularly when it comes to Wikimedia chapters, who would usually be very aware of copyright issues in anything they do. They quite likely would come to a special agreement which match Wikimedia's purposes and not sign the typical agreement if there are problematic clauses in the latter. In the UEFA case, it turned out to simply be a poor choice of words, with the UEFA simply making sure the photos could not be used to promote products based on their publicity rights permission (since they don't have the rights to allow that) -- in other words, they were using terms in relation to personality rights, while we were thinking in terms of copyright, which has a different meaning. If the photographer is OK changing the wording to make it clear the terms "editorial use" was just in relation to publicity rights, it should be fine -- they know what they signed. I do agree that the wording can be misinterpreted, and there is a small chance that it could be an actual copyright problem (the photographer using his copyright to enforce a contract), and it would be best to get it clarified. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I understand your argument, I just don't agree that Commons should allow images which were taken with the understanding that the use would be restricted. I feel it is unethical for those photographers to claim CC licenses and for Commons to turn a blind eye. I know that I may be alone in that view. And I do not share your confidence that there were special terms negotiated. Other than that, I think we agree. :) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Use can always be restricted by trademark and publicity rights -- the status of "free" is dependent purely on the copyright. We have always allowed those restrictions. For these templates, the restrictions on "editorial use" of UEFA etc. have *only* been about the publicity rights, and nothing at all to do with the copyright. It's no different than having the {{Personality rights}} template on an image. This one is almost certain the same situation, though the wording should be changed as it could easily be misconstrued. UEFA etc. own none of the copyrights, but they do own a limited set of publicity rights in order to promote the game, and they probably have a responsibility to make sure that any permission they give not be construed to go beyond the bounds of the publicity rights they do have, which is probably the reason for these clauses. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright discussionsEdit

Hi Carl, thank you for your answer regarding the infamous Flickr Public Domain Mark. Would you mind have a look at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#News_in_Argentina and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Freddy eduardo. They're not related to PD-Mark but in both cases extensions of the copyright exceptions in Argentina and Ecuador are proposed. The first one with extremely weak arguments (IMHO) and with some merit in the second. Your opinion would be welcome (it's actually a Flickr Public Domain Mark case with an explicit PD fallback license; I don't share the interpretation of the Ecuador law either). Thanks in advance --Discasto talk 06:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Clindberg".