Lidingo

Welcome to the Commons, Lidingo!

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. 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.		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 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?)

Request for files to be deleted that was created by myself

• File:Svalan_Kreuger.png
• File:Hydraulic_clearance.png
• File:Hydraulic_spool_valve_275px.png

File:CR_Nyberg_1920.jpg

File:CR_Nyberg_1920.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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!

Lokal_Profil 17:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Se min kommentar på CR_Nyberg_1920.jpg. Som Du kan se där tror jag att målningen är gjord av Bertil Dumm. Eftersom han dog 1942 kan man därför åberopa huvudregeln om "70 år efter upphovsmannens död". Om man inte kan ändra i texten till den redan uppladdade bilden, så kan Du ju ladda upp bilden igen och då åberopa annan copyright-etikett. Det är ju en mycket bra bild Du har hittat som huvudillustration.

Jag ser att Du gjort många tillägg till artikeln om Nyberg (som jag en gång startade). Det är intressant att se hur en artikel kan utvecklas på detta sätt.

Nyberg var verkligen en intressant person, och väl värd att uppmärksammas. HälsningarBoberger (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hej. Det blir 2012 så det är några år kvar för att åberopa 70 års regeln men om den är töjbar vet jag inte. Lidingo (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Vägverksfärjan Frida Östanå-Ljusterö.jpg

File:Vägverksfärjan Frida Östanå-Ljusterö.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.

 

Huib talk 17:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Lidingo!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Soderasen 04 april 2009 03.jpg is uncategorized since 5 April 2009.
• Image:Lidingöbroar Lidingösidan.JPG was uncategorized on 23 August 2009.
• Image:Södergarn grind.JPG was uncategorized on 25 August 2009.
• Image:Bergshamra koloniområde 1922.jpg was uncategorized on 22 September 2009.

Statoil-bild

Informationen på File:Bergs_oljedepå_Nacka_2008.jpg verkar märklig. Under Statoils pressbilder hittar jag inget om GFDL eller CC-BY-SA, endast att bilderna får användas för journalistiska ändamål. På bildbskrivningssidan står du som skapare. Är det du som tagit bilden eller hur hänger det ihop? --LPfi (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Dom känner dom garanterat inte till vare sig GFDL eller CC-BY-SA. Det tar tid att få in såna begrepp i företagsmedvetandet som dom kan utnyttja till sin fördel. Det är en guldgruva för företag som står och väntar med fri reklam och massor av professionella bilder. Jag ska informera Statoils pressavdelning om detta, så kanske dom märker upp pressbilderna med fri licens, typ Attribution-Share Alike 3.0. Dom är ju i praktiken helt fria att användas bara dom märks med källan. Tillsvidare tas bildlänken bort från artikelsidan [1]. Lidingo (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Om de inte känner till GFDL eller CC-BY-SA så kan de ju inte ge ut bilderna med dessa licenser! Om de går med på det nu så är det ju väldigt bra, men du kan inte lägga till licenserna innan du fått det svaret. Och upphovsmannen bör anges rätt. --LPfi (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Det är också viktigt att notera att pressbilder i allmänhet inte är att betrakta som fria i samma bemärkelse som bilder som publicerats under en fri licens. I praktiken är det endast tillåtet att använda pressbilder i oförändrat skick i journalistiskt syfte i relevanta sammanhang, vilket snarast är en tillämpning av {{Fair use}}. Enligt Commons licenskrav måste det vara uttryckligen tillåtet ur copyrighthänseende att använda bilderna i såväl oförändrat som bearbetat skick och i vilket syfte och sammanhang som helst. Se vidare Commons:Image casebook#Press photos. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Om jag får dom att lägga in en CC-licens på sin pressbildsida så ska det vara OK eller vad menar du.?. Det verkar som du letar efter en nål i en höstack för hitta något som hindrar att man använder bilder som företag publicerat. Det är ju företaget som bestämmer vad deras bilder får användas till, inte Wikipedianer. Naturligtvis har jag informerat dom om vad det innebär att ange CC och vilken HTML-kod dom ska lägga till aktuell sida så att dom får med symbolerna. Men genom att Wikipedia hos många institutioner och företag har ett grundmurat dåligt rykte där folk kan ställa till problem i användningen av bilder tror jag inte dom nappar på förslaget. Lidingo (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ja, om de lägger in en fri CC-licens på sin sida är det okej. Ett e-postmeddelande enligt instruktionerna på COM:OTRS funkar också. Tråkigt att höra att du uppfattar det som att jag letar saker som hindrar att bilder införlivas i våra samlingar. Mitt syfte är att göra vad jag kan för att se till att innehållet här verkligen är så återanvändbart som vi hävdar. Naturligtvis är det tråkigt om företag väljer att stå utanför projekt som syftar till skapande av fritt innehåll, men vill de inte släppa sina bilder fria så ska vi inte låtsas att de gjort det heller. Det ger ju knappast Wikimedia ett bättre rykte, eller hur? —LX (talk, contribs) 22:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Inget svar från Statoil. Dom verkar inte bry sig, så det är bara att ta bort bilden. Lidingo (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, synd. Jag noterar det i raderingsdiskussionen. Bilden ser ut att vara tagen från Blockhusudden, så den borde i alla fall inte vara så svår att ersätta. Tills vidare har vi File:Bergs oljehamn f Nacka.jpg, tagen från Nyckelviken. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Larsberg Fregatt Lidingö.jpg

File:Larsberg Fregatt Lidingö.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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!

--Leoboudv (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove problem tags

---

Hi! It has come to my attention that you have removed a warning which says that a file doesn't have enough information about the source or license conditions. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this information is still missing and I have restored the tag. You may either add the required information or, if you think that required information is already given, put the image up for a deletion request so that it won't automatically be deleted. Thank you.

Eusebius (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Read the text in row Permission that I have translated into English that is stated on the source webb page. "Free to use for publication". The copyright holder also promote uplaoding in high resolution. What more do you need? Lidingo (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Something equivalent to a free license. To be accepted on Commons (or as an OTRS permission ticket), an informal statement must make it clear that everyone has the right to use the content for any purpose, including derivative works and commercial use (but a clear free license release is simpler). Here, according to your translation, the only authorized use is publication (it is only a press release). We do not consider that this kind of statement covers derivative works and commercial use by default, it must be explicit. I know, it is frustrating. I know, I can be a pain in the neck. --

Ok, thanks for your quick respons. First of all, Commons need to modernize the routines involved with lincences that commons accept. It would be fantastic if a logged in user could send an e-mail via Commons or Wikipedia directly to a copyright holder, asking them to consider to put in, for example a CC-license tag. The important thing is that the receiver get a proof that the sender is a registered wiki/commons-user. The OTRS permission ticket is too complicated. I did that once and spend several hours trying to convince the holder to release a file of simplified map, first by e-mail and then direcly via a telephone contact. I finally suceeded but I don´t think I will use that procedure anymore, so do a lot of others Wiki-users think in Sweden. A simple e-mail procedure via Wikipedia or Commons would help a lot. People are suspicious when a private person get in contact with companies and they don´t know if the mail has been scanned for virus and such, thus refusing to answer any questions. An organisation like Wikipedia foundation and a logged in registered user behind the mail can open a lot of doors. However, in this case, I will try to convince them to add a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 to the images and give them the HTML-code that they can use on the webbpage and revert as soon as possible. Kind Regards, Lidingo (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I assure you that OTRS is not as tedious as it seems when you know how it works. It may be unfortunate, but involving an official foundation e-mail address and secure server in the loop is the only way the foundation can cover herself. Regarding your initial proposal, I'm not sure we want every logged in user to contact copyright holders on behalf of the foundation, because 90% of them don't know what a free license is, and this is when OTRS gets nasty ("look, I've got permission! -Yes, but sorry, that's not valid"). It bothers the user, the OTRS volunteer and, more serious, the copyright holder. Of course, contacting copyright holders, when you know what you do, is valuable, but what I mean is that it is not desirable (in my opinion) to "industrialize" the process. You may be interested to know that groups of users (of Wikimedia in general) have made a speciality to deal with important copyright holders (museums, galleries, national archives and so on). I guess it is a particularly difficult job, but this is how we get massive upload campaigns from official entities. You may also want to have a look at en:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. I have not read it thoroughly, but there seems to be useful resources. The important thing to know is to forward to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (or a more appropriate WMF permission address) to get the permission registered and validated. OTRS is now the only accepted way to register a permission if the work is not publicly released under a free license. I guess this is because a single nasty US-based copyright trial could put an end to the foundation and its projects. --Eusebius (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OTRS procedure
"1. Before you upload the file to Commons, contact the copyright holder and ask them to release the work under a free license".
That´s the first problem. You seldom get an answer as companies and organistions in general don´t know what it´s all about and feel uncertain. When a private person get in contact with them they don´t who they actually are talking to. The higly complex CC-licence system makes the problem even worse and the text:
"CREATIVE COMMONS CORPORATION IS NOT A LAW FIRM AND DOES NOT PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS LICENSE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. CREATIVE COMMONS PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. CREATIVE COMMONS MAKES NO WARRANTIES REGARDING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, AND DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ITS USE" makes it even more worse. This is a dead end that do not develop Commons in the right direction. Futhermore when a CC-tagg is removed from a webbpage, the copyright holder can claim that the tagg was never present or (2) the webb page is moved to another server and thus the link on Commons to the original file will have no meaning. Lidingo (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(indent reset) What you call a dead end is necessary in order to protect the foundation and its users. It is not desirable that either the foundation or a user can be sued for illicit or deceiving legal advice. It is also highly undesirable that the foundation be liable for any user's declaration. I wish you could understand that: opening an account on a project does not give the right to talk in the name of the foundation. Even admins or OTRS agents cannot do that. This is to protect them and the foundation. Only the legal council (paid lawyer) of the foundation and the members of the very few official boards of the foundation can bind the foundation with their declaration (and not all the time, they often use disclaimers when contributing to discussions). I think you don't really understand what a legal advice is and how much it is regulated. In theory I could be severely fined, or maybe go to jail, if I told someone I am giving her a legal advice. About the "disappearing CC release", you're right, this can be a problem, this is why, when I see a picture which is released on the web under a free license, I sign a little message in the "permission" field of the image, certifying that I have checked the release on a given date. When a trusted user has performed such a check we take the risk to keep the image even though the source has disappeared. You should also note that CC is not, by far, the only accepted license. Details here, or here. --Eusebius (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Sankt Annas skärgård.jpg

File:Sankt Annas skärgård.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.

 

--Túrelio (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)