Open main menu

MY TALK PAGE


Hello, welcome to my talk page. You are welcome to post any comments below. Please be polite and follow Commons guidelines.

-- coding taken from White Cat.

Notice: I will reply here. If you ask a question here, please check back regularly to see if I have replied (or add this page to your watchlist). I want my threads to be in the same place, because otherwise the comments will be scattered around and out of context.

-- coding taken from Timwi.


Leave me a message







Archives


Commons:Babel
sl
en-4
fr-3
de-3

Feel welcome to add new discussions under this line. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Contents

E-mail sent to youEdit

Eleassar, I sent you a e-mail a few days ago. If you could be so kind to look for it in inbox and send me a reply. Thanks.--MaGa 16:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm reluctant to answer by email. You can just write it here if you wish. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, don't worry, I'm not asking anything illegal. Please, read my e-mail and after thad decide if you want to answer or not. Thank you.--MaGa 05:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Why?Edit

Is there a specific reason for you to mass delete (e.g. request from the copyright owner)? Are you paid for this? --Thomas Ledl (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

No, are you paid for uploading photographs outside the scope of the project? --Eleassar (t/p) 17:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I cannot interpret your answer. Seems that No should be its own sentence? I'll repeat my question: What is your motivation to delete images for which nobody will ever claim copyright violation (since it also did not happen the last 60 years)? --Thomas Ledl (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The motivation is that I care about this project. Its mission is to provide photographs that are free for any use and may be freely reused. The ones that have been proposed for deletion do not meet this criterion. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
If you don't get caught in the shop stealing a sandwich because the shop's owner didn't bother to run after you, that does not make your act rightful. The same is here. If you reuse non-free content for commercial purpose without seeking the author's permission, you're infringing their copyright, which is similar to intellectual theft.[1] --Eleassar (t/p) 17:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
In Wikipedia we gather information from other sources. We are copying. Because we believe in free knowledge. Imo it is very clear that Wikipedia itself mass violates copyright. In random cases these violations will be brought to courtyard where there will be a random judgement. Therefore I find it rather strange to execute copyright violations in advance. Having images in local Wikipedias instead on commons for everyone is not the Wikipedia spirit.
People who use my photos do very often not correctly follow the terms of the cc-by-sa. But I don't sue them because that's not the mission. I don't do it for money obviously.
http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO5123
I just took a look over the Slovenian law. Why is this country actually considered to lack freedom of panorama? There are quite some exceptions for §47. Especially §55 sounds very much like applicable freedom of panorama to me. Also §51.1 seems to allow Encyclopedia use. In those fuzzy cases the upper courtyard decides. I assume you are Slovenian? Did you ever hear of a lawsuit in that context? --Thomas Ledl (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
In Wikipedia we're not violating copyright. At least not deliberately. What makes you think so? On the contrary, the project actively seeks and removes copyright infringements.
If you don't sue them, that doesn't mean they are not acting against the law and depriving you of your rights.
The freedom of panorama in Slovenia is limited to use for non-commercial purposes, which is not free enough for Wikipedia and Commons. So far, there has been no lawsuit, but:
a) This does not abolish our principle to offer as free only that which truly is free (it would be unethical to do otherwise); and
b) The EU legislation is getting ever stricter (and our Office for Intellectual Property just recently reiterated Article 55). It's just a matter of time and we absolutely want to stay out of this. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree to what you say about Wikipedia copyright violations. It is my personal impression because I know the way Wikipedians work. Especially long time contributors are never questioned and only have one source that is actually copyright protected.
Not sure if you got what I'm saying bout §55. You stated The freedom of panorama in Slovenia is limited to use for non-commercial purposes. This seems to be a citation. Can you provide a source (outside Wikipedia)?
Because when I read §51 and §55 I get a different impression. At least the cited lines are wrong and lost their context. The full text is available in English as well http://www.uil-sipo.si/fileadmin/upload_folder/zakonodaja/ZASP_EN_2007.pdf
The statement COM:FOP Slovenia about consensus I cannot find in the original document (imo describes the opposite of extended owner rights under 4. Enabling access and documenting) http://www.arhiv.mk.gov.si/fileadmin/mk.gov.si/pageuploads/min_eng/legislation/CHPA.pdf .
In best case there should be an official statement from https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/counsel/ it seems to me that Aymatth2 who wrote the article is not part of that group.
Article 55 
Works located in generally accessible premises 
(1)  Works  permanently  placed  in  parks,  streets,  squares,  or  other  generally  accessible premises may be used freely. 
(2)  Works  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  paragraph  may not  be  reproduced  in  a  three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for economic gain. 
(3) In cases stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship of the work must be indicated, if the latter is indicated on the work used.
This wording is even more open than the Austrian one (which is considered FOP. There the term public space is used). I really wonder where the conclusions in COM:FOP Slovenia come from. --Thomas Ledl (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This statement is written in Article 55 itself (may not be used for economic gain) and has also been reiterated by the Slovenian Office for Intellectual Property: "za uporabo varovanih del v komercialne namene treba pridobiti soglasje imetnika avtorske pravice. [For the reuse of copyrighted works for commercial purposes, the copyright owner's consent must be sought.]"[2] --Eleassar (t/p) 15:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea how this newspaper article can be a better source than the original ZASP cited above. The blog from jean marie cavada does not even mention Slovenia (and #2 it is a blog and #3 this guy is confusing things).
Article 51 
Quotations 
(1)  It  shall  be  permissible  to  make  quotations  of  parts  of  a  disclosed  work  and  of  single disclosed  photographs,  works  of  fine  arts,  architecture,  applied  art,  industrial  design and cartography, provided it is necessary for the purpose of illustration, argumentation or referral. 
(2) In cases stated in the foregoing paragraph, the source and authorship of the work must be indicated, if the latter is indicated on the work used. 

Would you agree to postpone your deletion requests until I can contact Wikimedia counsel? --Thomas Ledl (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Article 51 allows for commercial reuse of copyrighted works in public spaces. Certainly, feel welcome to contact the Counsel. These images won't get deleted right away in any case. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Brisanje prve redakcije z zvokomEdit

Wiki Loves Monuments - Slovenia editionEdit

Mogoče si že zasledil, da smo se letos lotili organizacije natečaja Wiki Loves Monuments v Sloveniji. Pomoč in/ali udeležba septembra dobrodošla. Zaenkrat sem postavil predstavitveno stran na Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 in Slovenia, ostalo sledi. — Yerpo Eh? 12:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hvala za obvestilo, Yerpo! Bom pogledal, kako lahko pomagam. --TadejM (t/p) 13:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Za začetek vprašanje: če izločim spomenike, za katere v RKD piše, da so bili postavljeni ali modificirani od 19. stoletja dalje, bo to dovolj, da ne bo težav s FoP? Podatki zgledajo kar kompletni, le par deset vnosov je brez datacije. — Yerpo Eh? 15:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Meni se zdi ok. Imaš kakšen primer? --TadejM (t/p) 16:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Sem objavil testni seznam za Gorenjsko (spomenikov po selekciji je cca. 2000, zato sem jih razdelil po statističnih regijah) - glej sl:Wikipedija:Wiki Loves Monuments v Sloveniji (2019)/Seznam spomenikov v gorenjski regiji. — Yerpo Eh? 19:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Tu je videti vse ok. Seveda se lahko zgodi, da se bo za kakšen spomenik šele pozneje izkazalo, da ne ustreza merilom. Verjetno je več avtorjev, ki so umrli šele po letu 1948 in so v 19. stoletju že kaj ustvarili. Nimam pojma, kako je z avtorskimi pravicami na njihovih delih, ampak načeloma velja konservativnost. Če odkriješ kakšnega takega avtorja, predlagam, da se njegove stvaritve po privzetem izključijo. --TadejM (t/p) 19:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Očitno se nisem dovolj jasno izrazil - odfiltriral sem 19., 20. in 21. stoletje, ravno zato, da smo na varni strani. Če bi pustil 19. stoletje, bi bilo skoraj nemogoče iskati posamezne primere pri 5000 enotah. Imam pa zdaj skripto, s katero se lahko igram s kombinacijami. — Yerpo Eh? 20:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Odfiltrirati celo 19. stoletje je nepotrebno. Boljše, da se dopolnijo navodila in se posamezni primeri izločijo naknadno (ali da se izločijo samo arhitekturne stvaritve). 5000 enot ni taka nemogoča številka, da se je ne bi dalo pregledati ročno. Še sploh, če upoštevaš, da to vključuje tudi razne kmečke hiše ipd., tako da se ta množica za pregled/izključitev še dodatno zmanjša. Pohvale za skripto. --TadejM (t/p) 20:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "TadejM".