|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
Thank you for providing images to the Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to the Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.
To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.
You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.
The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on the Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!
Thank you. 22.214.171.124 12:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
|File:Bishop_Alphonse_Gallegos_is_shown_in_his_--en-Pontifical_vestments-Pontifical_vestments--_which_depict_his_devotion_to_---en-Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe--.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 find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.
Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
|File:Bishop_Alphonse_Gallegos.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 find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.
The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.
File tagging File:Bishop Alphonse Gallegos.jpgEdit
|This media may be deleted.|
|Thanks for uploading File:Bishop Alphonse Gallegos.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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (firstname.lastname@example.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.
Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.
As already mentioned above, it is your task as the uploader to provide a clear legal permission for the image that expressedly states that the permission is issued by the legal rights holder (usually the original photographer or his heirs). See Commons:Email templates for a template. What's currently written in the description and on the talkpage of File:Bishop Alphonse Gallegos.jpg is not enough. --Túrelio (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Scanning a photo taken by someone else does not make you the copyright holder or author. The photographer is the author, and if the work is truly in the public domain, then it has no copyright holder. Public domain status and copyright protection are mutually exclusive. Claiming that a photo which is protected by copyright is in the public domain is illegal. Conversely, claiming that a public domain photo is protected by copyright is also illegal. GFDL and CC-by-sa are copyright licenses, and therefore can only apply to copyrighted works. As such, the statements you have made about the photo contradict themselves, so at least one of them must be false. Until you have sorted this out and provided a copy of necessary public domain grant or other permission statement, the problem tags are not ready to be removed. And in any case, you should not be removing problem tags from your own uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually this argument has been had on Wikicommons and Wikipedia. The scanning of a picture is no different than taking a picture of a person, building, plaque, statue, etc. Ideally in the case of a living person, a model's release should be obtain but rarely is done so here on Wikicommons. Many users here have taken pictures of famous people which are released into the public domain by using the GFDL license without getting the subject's permission. To use an example of one that I did long ago, taking a picture of Chi Chi Rodriguez and releasing it on the GFDL is not entirely all correct because while I may be the picture taker and holder, Mr. Rodriguez and his future estate control all images of his likeness.
In the matter of Bishop Alphone Gallegos, I asked and received express permission from the Augustinian Recollects. The O.A.R control the image of Bishop Gallegos which they distributed at the time of his funeral and at the Opening of his Cause. I communicated with Father Eliseo Gonzalez, who is the Postulator for his Cause, via email and asked for express permission to have Bishop Gallegos' prayer card picture released into the Public Domain. That permission was granted via email on December 23, 2009 after Father Eliseo communicated with his Superiors. This email has been forwarded to email@example.com as per the new tag on the file picture.
To tell you the truth, it is amazing the hoops one must do in order to help WikiCommons and Wikipedia. I knew that no public pictures existed in the Public Domain and wanted to help flesh out his article on Wikipedia to bring it out of stub status into one that is unique to Wikipedia for what its content can be based upon the decision of the Roman Catholic Church about his Cause for sainthood. Morenooso (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, when I read your paragraph " The scanning of a picture is no ...", it seems you still didn't get the main problem. Personality rights or model release are totally irrelevant with a deceased person. The original photo was taken by somebody, the photographer, who holds copyright until 70 years after his death - except he has transferred his rights fully to someone else (which is not possible in some countries, Germany for example). If he hasn't transferred his rights, you needs his (or his heirs) written permission. If he has transferred his rights, you need written permission by the person to whom the rights were transferred. If this has been sent to OTRS, fine. It may take some weeks, until the permission has been checked and a ticket been issued. To avoid problems in between, I've added a OTRS-pending tag to the image.
- What is still missing is the name of the photographer and the date (year, at least) of the original photo. The 2006 was nonsense, as the bishop died in 1991.
- About your last comment: it may look as we are too critical, but we have to protect the rights of artists (authors, photographers) as well as to provide some reliability for our re-users, who don't like to get sued due to using an image with a bogus or invalid license. --Túrelio (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've sent an email to the Postulator about the year and whom took the photo. Because the Bishop was ordained in 1981 and his youthful look in this picture, I surmised long ago that this photo may have been taken either prior to or just after his ordination. Unlike the normal "official photo" (to borrow a term from the military) used within the Diocese of Sacramento, this picture does not the standard studio imprint which is visible for the last 30 years or on their pictures. Because of this, I highly doubt that info exists but have asked for the info anyway. I believe that this picture most likely was taken an "in-house" photographer. Whether or not the O.A.R, who own and control the picture, has this information will remain to be seen. Morenooso (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Father Eliseo, the Postulator, emailed me saying the OAR was unable to determine when and who took this picture. However, as per previous emails, the OAR retains and owns the rights to publish and distribute this image. They are still willing to release the picture into the Public Domain for usage on Wikipedia. Morenooso (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Tip: Categorizing imagesEdit
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.
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]]
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.
- Image:Moreno oso's sixth DYK nom with a brown bear.jpg was uncategorized on 18 May 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Image:Moreno oso's categories.jpg was uncategorized on 13 June 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Image:Moreno oso's userboxes version two.jpg was uncategorized on 24 June 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
|File:Moreno oso's categories.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.