Igor Zyx

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Igor Zyx!

First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions 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 (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content).

You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.

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 (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks

Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads.
Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~.
To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg.
You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account.
There are several tools to upload files.
Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful.

Made a mistake?

Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it.
Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

File:Holsteinborg Slot, facaden.jpg edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Holsteinborg Slot, facaden.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Sa vh ^ñ 18:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

File:Holsteinborg, model.jpg edit

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 19:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

- alle de andre. edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

De fleste af de billeder du har uploadet er blevet markeret til "hurtig sletning", da de ikke overholder de almene regler for ophavsret. Fotografen har ikke givet tilladelse til at værkerne kan bruges til ALT, også kommercielt, uden at rettighedshaver skal have kompensation for dette. Læs venligst regler ovenfor, inden du fortsætter med at uploade billeder fundet på nettet. Mvh. --Pixi Uno (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Livro das Fortalezas 122- Mertola, Serpa, Moura, Noudar (Plantas).jpg edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Livro das Fortalezas 122- Mertola, Serpa, Moura, Noudar (Plantas).jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Túrelio (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Notification about possible deletion edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Valença, Aspecto das Fortificações.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, moogsi^(blah) 21:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Mosteiro do Lorvão, Nave e Altar-Mor.jpg edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Mosteiro do Lorvão, Nave e Altar-Mor.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Mosteiro do Lorvão, Nave e Altar-Mor.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

moogsi^(blah) 21:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

File tagging File:Mosteiro do Lorvão, Cadeiral.jpg edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Mosteiro do Lorvão, Cadeiral.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Mosteiro do Lorvão, Cadeiral.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

moogsi^(blah) 21:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Copyright status: File:Túmulo de D. Pedro de Meneses.jpg edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Túmulo de D. Pedro de Meneses.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

moogsi^(blah) 21:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Deletion nominations edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. Thank you for your kind and civil message. I was worried that you might find it discouraging that so many files were nominated, especially since they were all quality, useful images.

Moogsi: Please check the following page, which clearly states that IHRU through its SIPA system makes all content on www.monumentos.pt available through the Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND-3.0 license: (see Pt. 3) http://www.monumentos.pt/Site/APP_PagesUser/SitePageContents.aspx?id=184e5446-f152-4c3e-ab84-04e0ddcedc06

I didn't see this! Unfortunately this is not a license compatible with Commons. All files on the site must be free to use by anyone anywhere for any purpose with no restrictions. Not only is this policy incompatible with much of the world at large, it is also incompatible with those Creative Commons licenses which include -NC or -ND restrictions. See Licensing#Well-known_licenses.

If you check the website given for File:Mosteiro do Lorvão, Nave e Altar-Mor.jpg which is <http://www.vitruvius.com.br/revistas/read/arquiteturismo/06.069/4584> you will also see that the author clearly authorizes use of his material as long as he is quoted, which I have done exactly in the format the author stipulates ("How to quote")

This seems to me to be instructions on how to cite the magazine. I wouldn't read it as releasing all the content on the website (including images) for free. If you think the author wouldn't mind releasing image/s from copyright, then it's better to ask for explicit permission (instructions are in the tag).

Still Moogsi: regarding the two other files: I haven't been able - yet -to find the necessary licenses.

The file File:Túmulo de D. Pedro de Meneses.jpg is a cropped version of a photograph from 1921, which I believe makes it eligible under the public domain category. But go right ahead and delete it if you want, IHRU/SIPA has a dozen others I can use. I just happen to like this particular one.

The photo is attributed to António Passaporte, who it appears died in 1983. Portugal has a copyright term of the author's life + 70 years. Seems silly but that's copyright law for you.

The licensing system on Commons is somewhat arcane, due to the WMF's decision to respect copyright law in both the US (where the servers are hosted) and in the source country of the media. There is a large gap to be bridged between the simplicity of letting anyone upload anything they like, and trying to respect the law. The site is maintained mostly by volunteers, none of whom have super-lawyer powers. The deletion process is entirely by consensus, except in cases of blatant copyright infringement. Anyone can voice an opinion on whether things should be deleted.

If you ever have any specific questions then there are some useful links in the welcome message. If you have any more questions about these files then just ask me.

By the way, you can sign messages with ~~~~, which automatically inserts your username and the date.

Thank you, moogsi^(blah) 00:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

______________________________________________________

Hello again, Moogsi. Thank you very much for your answer yesterday. It took me a while, but I finally found it: we have a specific Portuguese license:

This media file is a courtesy of IPPAR and may be used freely, assuming the source is credited, as stated here. "Os dados podem ser utilizados livremente, solicitando-se a necessária referência ao IPPAR como fonte de informação."

This license is not valid for files uploaded after May 23, 2009.
See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:IPPAR.

– for images courtesy of IGESPAR.

And who is IGESPAR, you'll ask? They're the government agency ABOVE, among other intitutes, IHRU. Until 2007 they were called IPPAR, hence the name of the license.

Check http://www.igespar.pt/pt/about/enquadramentolegal/ Quote: "O acervo arquivístico gerado pela Direcção-Geral dos Edifícios e Monumentos Nacionais e entidades antecedentes foi integrado no Instituto de Habitação e Reabilitação Urbana do Ministério do Ambiente, do Ordenamento do Território e do Desenvolvimento Regional, no âmbito do SIPA - Sistema de Informação para o Património (Decreto-Lei nº 223/2007 de 30 de Maio)."

...which translates as: "The archive collection generated by DGEMN and earlier entities has been integrated in the IHRU of the Ministry of (...) for the purposes of SIPA - the System of Information about the Heritage".

If you check my article "Conde da Feira", you'll see at the bottom that I specifically mention the photographs are from the DGEMN campaign 1935-1944 I mentioned yesterday - photographs which have been transferred from the the long-defunct DGEMN to IGESPAR and its subordinate agencies, including IHRU, and made available through SIPA. This is actually touching - they even have a specific Wikimedia license :-)

As I wrote yesterday, I understand and sympathize with your work. But clearly, as I hope you're beginning to understand, these files are meant to be shared. It's all about, as I wrote yesterday, the spreading of culture and knowledge - in this case of the architectonic heritage of our tiny little country. And don't worry: the water-marked photos I uploaded are in ridiculously low resolution compared to the real thing. They may give it away, but only cheap samples! :D

I hope this settles the question. Thank you very much for your attention. I'll await a (hopefully positive) reply from you before altering the license status on the SIPA photos I uploaded. Is there anything else that needs to be done in order for everything to be corrected? Igor Zyx (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

--- UPDATE --- Only saw it now, the english version of what I quote above: http://www.igespar.pt/en/about/enquadramentolegal/ And this is what I continuously refer to: "Among other duties, they are responsible for safeguarding, enhancing and disseminating the architectural and archaeological heritage".

--- UPDATE 2 --- Try reading this: http://www.igespar.pt/en/aprendercomopatrimonio/ and you'll understand how much the IGESPAR devotes itself to the "disseminating" mentioned above. It may sound like the standard bla-bla to you, but I assure you, we take it very seriously. SIPA is just one aspect of it - although a magnificent one: just for the castle of Feira - one of a hundred castles in Portugal - SIPA showcases 287 photographs and 21 drawings. The files of some monuments boast over 1,000 photographs. A few have more than 2,000, documenting for instance every aspect of some major works of restoration. And there are thousands of monuments in the system. Very few countries in the world, if any, have anything comparable to SIPA. But the photos I have uploaded are nowhere near commercial quality, and just a tiny sample anyway. Apart from illustrating the articles I write or expand on (the expression "my article" was a bad choice of words), I'm really just doing IHRU/SIPA a favour by doing exactly what it proposes: disseminating the knowledge of its existence.

Sorry about the long monologue, but as a historian I care a great deal about this, as I am sure you understand. Greetings, Igor Zyx (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all your effort in finding this information, I really appreciate it. Please understand that I personally cannot stop you from doing anything, I'm only here because I believe in free culture. IGESPAR is is less forthcoming, but SIPA goes as far to accept any legal responsibility for incorrectly licensing their data under CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0, which is extraordinary. For Commons to effectively release the same data under a different license would be almost a betrayal of this organization's own commitment to available heritage.

Of course the simplest way to avoid all this nonsense is to release content you make yourself... at least you can be sure that the author gives permission :) And I certainly don't think that Portugal is a tiny country, certainly not in cultural terms. Anyone who thinks so, it's their loss.

I've opened the discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Are images from IGESPAR compatible with Commons? because, like I said, I don't have any more knowledge/power than you in this situation.

Perhaps if you have academic (or otherwise) ties to either organization then it may be a good idea to consider a collaborative relationship with Commons. It usually generates some good press. I'm not the person to ask about how to do that, though.

Thanks again, --moogsi^(blah) 00:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of files edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Turélio and Moogsi: Regarding your recent proposal for deletion of some of the files I have uploaded, namely the IHRU/SIPA files and a couple other (Moogsi) and the ANTT files (Túrelio):

Moogsi: Please check the following page, which clearly states that IHRU through its SIPA system makes all content on www.monumentos.pt available through the Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND-3.0 license: (see Pt. 3) http://www.monumentos.pt/Site/APP_PagesUser/SitePageContents.aspx?id=184e5446-f152-4c3e-ab84-04e0ddcedc06

If you check the website given for File:Mosteiro do Lorvão, Nave e Altar-Mor.jpg which is <http://www.vitruvius.com.br/revistas/read/arquiteturismo/06.069/4584> you will also see that the author clearly authorizes use of his material as long as he is quoted, which I have done exactly in the format the author stipulates ("How to quote")

Still Moogsi: regarding the two other files: I haven't been able - yet -to find the necessary licenses.

The file File:Túmulo de D. Pedro de Meneses.jpg is a cropped version of a photograph from 1921, which I believe makes it eligible under the public domain category. But go right ahead and delete it if you want, IHRU/SIPA has a dozen others I can use. I just happen to like this particular one.

The author of File:Mosteiro do Lorvão, Cadeiral.jpg is a lawyer herself (!), but I have not been able to get in touch with her yet. Feel free to delete the photo if you wish.

Turélio: Regarding all the ANTT-Arquivo Nacional Torre do Tombo photos you question: the source I provide (ANTT homepage) should lead you to the Biblioteca Nacional Digital site, where all digitized historic sources are made available. But I´ll save you the trouble: check http://purl.pt/index/geral/PT/about.html read the following "SERVIÇOS Para além dos serviços técnicos de armazenamento, organização e apresentação dos objectos digitais, a BND integra ainda serviços que suportam a sua utilização pública, propiciando diversas formas de acesso livre e gratuito aos documentos digitalizados."

"utilização pública" and "acesso livre e gratuito aos documentos digitalizados". I think you should be able to translate :-)

By the way, I am a historian myself, which I gather you should be able to guess if you take a look at the articles I write (in Portuguese), where I put all this wonderful free material to good use: Livro das Fortalezas Livro do Armeiro-Mor Bíblia de Cervera Apocalipse do Lorvão Thesouro de Nobreza Livro de Horas de D. Duarte etc., etc., etc....

The spreading of culture and knowledge, using only public domain material... hey, it's what Wikipedia is all about! I appreciate your effort, though. Happy New Year to both of you! :-)

PS. I'm new to all this, so please let me know if you read this, ok? I still haven't figured out how to edit my user page yet... If this is the wrong way to answer your requests, I apologize. I just don't happen to know better - yet ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor Zyx (talk • contribs) 15. Januar 2013, 23:31 Uhr (UTC)

Hi Igor Zyx, the reason why I had tagged File:Livro das Fortalezas 122- Mertola, Serpa, Moura, Noudar (Plantas).jpg was that it is somewhat questionable whether it is really covered by our PD-Art policy, because the original of that image is not purely 2-dimensional due to the book scanning. In these kind of images we have 2 copyrights to consider: 1) of the original artist (drawing) and 2) of the photographer who made the reproduction. The first one is clearly gone, but the second one may still be active. Now, the site to which you directed me[1], has a bottom note: "Copyright © 2009 Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal. Todos os direitos reservados." Also, the text (after Google translation) in section "SERVIÇOS" is rather general and does not use the term "public domain". As you might be a pt-native speaker, please check for yourself if the usage terms on purl.pt mention any kind of restriction, such as "for educational use", "no commercial use", "no derivatives". --Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Turélio. Thanks for you reply. A few days ago while at work, after your initial proposal for deletion, I phoned both the ANTT (arquivo Nacional Torre do Tombo) and the BND (Biblioteca Nacional Digital, of the Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal) and asked them SPECIFICALLY about uploading content to Wikimedia Commons, but both places I was redirected to someone supposedly in charge who didn't have a clue (at BND I got through to the Digitalization Office, where I heard the man responsible asking a couple of colleagues, but no one knew anything); both places they ended up suggesting I ask the very top brass, the Director of the ANTT and the BND. The people I talked to were utterly clueless, as if it was the first time anyone had asked the question, which actually surprised me and frustrated me a bit, since neither institution has a legal office that can answer the question.

The case with the copyrights on the ANTT and the BND is analogous to the question Moogsi raised concerning the photographs at IHRUs SIPA-database. The thing is, SIPA has files on listed National Monuments, while ANTT and BND of course have files on old manuscripts, printed books, etc. And in all their various websites these files have a graphic component - photographs or scans of the buildings/books - and text. And here it comes: the text can (and will often) contain shorter or longer quotes of leading experts: analyses by archaologists, historians, art historians, etc.

An example: the BND features a file on the Portuguese copy of the famous Treaty of Tordesillas (1494); it contains a four-line quote of José M. Garcia, who has written on the subject of the Treaty. This is of course copyright material. I am a published historian myself, and while I obviously would allow any of these institutions to quote me, I wouldn't like to see someone else just copy/paste my words and use them as their own, even if this is exceedingly rare in my field. Hence the copyright.

But the scans themselves are public domain - at least the ones I look at, which are of 500-800 year old manuscripts. Recent material at the archives is not in the public domain, and some is even classified - notably the records of the PIDE, the secret police of the Salazar/Caetano era (1932-1974).

I did a little reseach today (since I normally only look at very old documents) and found that scans of recent and unclassified, but not yet in public domain works can only be accessed at the actual archives; the usual icon linking to the online scan is visible, but has the warning note "Cópia Interna" attached, and when when you try to open them the following note appears: http://purl.pt/resources/internal.html

It's interesting: I've been using the ANTT/BND databases for more than a decade, in its various permutations, and had never before tried to open an "Internal Copy". Mainly because none of the manuscripts I search for fall into this category, but also because I actually thought they were "staff only"-files, with some sort of password required. I mean, why else call something "Internal Copy"? So I actually learned something today...

Knowing that this probably wouldn't be enough to make you happy, I've tried to find some information on what you are POSITIVELY allowed to do with public domain scans, namely whether you may use them commercially, which should be their greatest concern, but I haven't found anything other than the rather vague, general terms of "dissemination of our cultural heritage" and the already mentioned "public use" and "free access to digitized documents", which is rather meaningless and more of a declaration of intent than a legal notice.

So all we have is the general copyright claim - which is surely aimed at protecting the various authors quoted -, some internal images of material not yet in public domain and not downloadable, and some downloadable public domain images. But how public domain is public domain? I don't know.

I tried the British Library website to see their policy, and it seems to be diametrically opposed to the Portuguese approach: http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/hightours/index.html If you click on any of the 15 suggested "Treasures", you'll see an image nowhere near the resolution of litterally millions of pages in BND, and the notice: Copyright © The British Library Board A high-quality version of this image can be purchased from British Library Images Online. For more information email imagesonline@bl.uk

This is a totally different approach, and a shocking one if you aske me, accustomed as I am to the Portuguese style of sharing everything freely; I have never seen any mention anywhere in ANTT and BND of buying material from them, and suddently feel I understand your concerns much better, if this is the reality you're used to. The best example I can give you of the Portuguese approach: the ANTT has published the entire Lisbon Inquisition records online: 19,775 files (trials) and a total of 2,392,997 high-res images (trial protocol pages). This is the most viewed of all ANTTs online collections. People from every corner of Portugal look into it. Researchers from around the globe download it. ANTT has 9 different PDF files introducing the Holy Inquisition Collection: how to search, how to interpret, etc. In none of them is any copyright aspect mentioned. As you can see, this is all very frustrating in Commons terms. And nevertheless the 2.4 million files, which represent 40% of the Portuguese Holy Inquisition records, are downloaded by Portuguese and foreign scholars and shared at a massive scale at universities in Portugal and abroad. I doubt that such a collection would be published online with any restrictions to it, as there is no way in a certain hot place that said restrictions could be enforced.

As I said earlier, I am rather new to all this. I am rather unhappy with the PD-Art template myself, because it really isn't very fitting, but it was the closest I could find when prompted an answer during the upload procedure. But while trying to find an answer to your question I found the following in Commons:

"In a nutshell, PD-scan may be used by the uploader of a scanned image made, and possibly enhanced, by somebody else to assert that the image can have no independent copyright as it is simply a mechanical reproduction of an old, public domain image, or — from the available evidence — that it is so similar to such a reproduction that no copyright protection can be expected to arise." http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-scan_tag

Wouldn't you agree that pages from 500-800-year-old manuscript sources scanned by - and, as opposed to the British Library approach, made available by - museums, libraries and national archives deserves the PD-scan tag rather than the PD-art? I have also discovered that there is such a thing as a PD-old; however, the PD-scan seems to be the most fitting. In case you agree with me, should I just use this in the future while uploading similar scans? And should I manually change the license on the file you mentioned, and any other similar files?

Seeing the British Library approach was a real eye-opener. The Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal provides you a catalogue of thousands of scanned works for easy download in a varity of formats, including all the scanned Treasures thus far; the British Library demands money in the second line. My God, we're worlds apart.

Greetings, Igor Zyx (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

File source is not properly indicated: File:Broholm, model.jpg edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Broholm, model.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Broholm, model.jpg]]).

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!

Smooth O (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic