|
In general, US photos older than 1989 (e.g. File:A 1972 portrait of boys in LA's Pico-Aliso housing project.jpg) should not be nominated for speedy deletion, as there is a substantial possibility that they did not comply with copyright formalities and are therefore in the public domain. (According to COM:CSD#F1: "This does not apply whenever there is a reasonable possibility of discovering that the work is public domain through further research".) Instead, you can open a regular COM:DR discussion, and if people fail to find adequate evidence that there was no copyright notice or the copyright was not renewed, it will be deleted in due time. A copyright notice on a modern website changes nothing, since it is not the first publication of the photo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Alright. If I may ask a separate question, if it is found that there isn't enough evidence that a photo was published in the first place (and it's created sometime during the 40s to 60s let's say), would it be deleted? For example, File:Joe E. Hollingsworth, 1961.jpg, which was from the Valley Times Collection but may have not have been published at all (at least from what I can find for this specific picture). reppoptalk 00:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- If it was never published before 2003, and it does not meet the requirements at {{PD-US-unpublished}}, then you can start a DR on it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Alright, thank you. reppoptalk 00:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- By the way, note that the definition of "publication" is very tricky. For example, per COM:PACUSA the vast majority of public artwork installed pre-1978 in the US is public domain because it has no copyright notice. I recommend reading Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Copyright formalities in its entirety to get a general overview of what you need to know. If there are any edge cases, just ask away at COM:VPC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear editor,
I resent your warning on my discussion page, in which your practically menaced me of being expelled from editing Commons.
Perhaps you did not analyze that situation thoroughly, because the supposed copyright violation that you attribute to me didn’t in fact have anything to do with me. All I did was use the crop tool on a file that was already on Commons. The presumption used here is of licensing regularity. Therefore, I did Nothing wrong using the CropToolForge.
If you do not take that back and erase that message from my discussion page, I will most certainly take that behaviour to administration, since it will be the only way to come clean with my Commons reputation.
Best regards, Przelijpdahl (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- "Didn’t in fact have anything to do with me" but it did? You're the one who cropped it and uploaded it. Of course, I'm not sure if you knew if it didn't have permission, but it was still your upload. I notify the person who uploaded it, not the original file's uploader, because they're not the one who uploaded the cropped version. Also, it's not like me removing it would do anything for your "Commons reputation," since you still have a lot of deletion request and copyright status notices on your page. reppoptalk 20:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Plus, it's not like you'd get blocked because of that specific notice, since a person would see that it was because the original file was deleted and not because it was it was done to have a copyrighted photo on Commons. reppoptalk 20:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- First of all, you have as many notices on your page as I do, considering that I have been active on Commons since 2020.
- 2 -> unlike what you say, it is obvious that your inconsiderate and ILLEGAL notice on my page might affect my commons reputation.
- 3 -> As I said before, I used the crop tool on good faith on a File that was already on Commons. Therefore, I am not the one who uploaded the file. Commons rules says that I merely EXTRACTED ANOTHER VERSION of such file.
- 4 -> If you don't care for honesty on Commons patrolling, you mustn't do it.
- 5 -> I reiterate that if you really do care about honest Commons patrolling, you must either retract that notice or understand if I take this situation to the administration.
- Sincerely, Przelijpdahl (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The notice isn't even illegal. You uploaded the image so I put the notice on your page. Putting it on the original uncropped uploader's page would be more dishonest then just putting it on the cropped uploaders page, since they were not the ones who uploaded it. You making a big fuss over a simple notice and threatening to take this "situation to the administration" would do more to harm your "Commons reputation" then just going on your day. A singular deletion notice won't ruin your "Commons reputation," especially when its just because its cropped, but taking someone to administration because of that probably would. reppoptalk 23:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I can only regret your decision to pursue with such unreasonable position. You forget yourself, for I came to you in good faith and have never ‘threaten’ you. I have merely expressed my concerns over a notice put on my page that read ‘THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING’ and that I feel was unjustly applied to me. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you sir! Przelijpdahl (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- It literally doesn't say "THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING", it says "[this file] has been marked as a possible copyright violation" and it gives the reasoning that it is that because the original file was deleted. reppoptalk 03:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- It says “ Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.” And I took offense on that Przelijpdahl (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- And they do take it seriously, but if someone saw the reason, they would say "Oh, it's just because of the original file, no harm done." See the word "persistent," meaning that people who do upload copyvios again and again despite multiple warnings. Literally the last time a person notified you was last year. reppoptalk 03:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Also, that's just the template language. It appears every time someone uses the copyvio template. You can see the literal same thing on another notice on your page. See also Template:Copyvionote, which is the template for the message. reppoptalk 03:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you've been uploading images taken from very old newspapers, you may be interested in the methodology I use for getting higher-quality versions of such images. DS (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Reppop this photo is been fully credit to the owner of Chess.com. So this official copyrighted by the Chess.com. IDB.S (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Credit doesn't negate the fact that it's copyrighted. reppoptalk 04:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
|
.png){kind=link}