User talk:Edoderoo/Archive2009

File source is not properly indicated: File:Lous_Haasdijk_1981.png

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Lous_Haasdijk_1981.png, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Eusebius (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This file comes from http://beeldengeluidwiki.nl/, where it is published under a CC-by-SA license. Edoderoo (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And what makes you think that René Koenders represents the copyright holder? --Eusebius (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The file is put in that website under a CC-by-SA license, with the same restrictions as we have on wikipedia, that you should be allowed to put the file there under that license. And as beeldengeluidwiki.nl is a serious project, I trust that they do not mass-violate copyrights. If I understood well, user Multichill is in contact with this website to take over more material. In general we have more text articles, but beeldengeluidwiki.nl has a great resource on pictures. I hope that Multichill can achieve some nice coorporation here. Edoderoo (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I will let the other admins decide because I'm lazy and busy, but it is not enough that an authority sets up a wiki and decides that everything published there is CC. Contents have to be released by the copyright holders, and I don't think it is (always the case). --Eusebius (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The license info for BeeldengeluidWiki can be found here. I don't understand your decides that everything is published as CC. It is not a decision, it is a requirement, like we have this as a requirement as well. If this is not enough, maybe you should delete the images I made myself as well from commons, because maybe I didn't make them myself, or maybe I didn't mean CC-by-SA the same way as others, or maybe not just always? Edoderoo (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that we have registered a statement from you that binds you and that can be opposed to you if necessary (the server logs of your acceptance of the upload form). We have no such tools for images imported from other sources, and we must therefore trust that they have made the necessary verifications (which is usually not the case, just like here). This is why I try to be more careful with imported images (which should not be taken as an aggression towards the importer). I usually step back when other admins begin to call me a copyright paranoid. --Eusebius (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Then we have a serious infringement here, that can not be solved. You don't trust me, except when I declare I made the image meself, but when I declare I have (double)checked that the source is CC-by-SA, it ain't enough. Then I would suggest to take out the option to import images with free licenses that are not {{self}}, as they will be deleted after two weeks as standard precedure. Hence, this is how I interpret your answer. Edoderoo (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Then you misinterpret (is that even a word?). I do trust you as a contributor (which is or should be my default behaviour), and I do trust you when you say that you have checked that it was CC-BY-SA. In the case of the file below, what I had doubts about is the copyright awareness of the master-student intern who imported the picture on the institutional wiki, because it is totally unsourced: the visitors of the source website can't even know on which channel it was initially broadcasted, and when. But it was quite clearly affirmed that my actions were leaning towards copyright paranoia, and I admitted it, so I really don't understand what you want more from me. --Eusebius (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have seen that user Abigor (whom I know from the Dutch wiki) has taken away the request for deletion, so this discussion is indeed what we call in Dutch butter after the fish. I have, in the meantime, created an account on the beeldengeluidwiki site, and asked the owner for more information on their image source and holder of the copyrights. Hopefully we can share their whole collection in one way or another, as they have a collection that makes me jump through the roof, or at least it should be great if we can pick the images we can directly use on our (dutch) articles. Edoderoo (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)