I got a notification that a image that I uploaded called Stein1.gif, will be deleted due to unclarified copy-right status.
I uploaded that file from my personal files, in the name of CITY College.
How can we solve this problem?
My name is Alex Jones, and I'm a high school technology teacher in Brooklyn. Jamz789 is one of my students, and the assignment is to make a stable wikipedia page. I asked them to make them as subpages so we could do our editing and changes without violating Wikipedia policies. I'll spend more time talking to him about what image copyrighting means, but please don't suspend his editing privileges - it will mean he can't get credit for this assignment.
Could you please let me know why the photo I upoaded to this page has been deleted?
I work with Simon and Max from The Shapeshifters at Nocturnal Groove - their record label. They have asked me to upload this picture which is there current press photograph.
I have first person knowledge that Nick Stockdale is the original talking queen. This can be verified by emailing Mr. Stockdale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewhaleys04 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I received notification that a logo on the [IPG Photonics] page was going to be deleted due to unclear copyright info.
I am with IPG's investor relations firm , Sharon Merrill Associates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CRanjiSMA (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well at least the pictures i post are better then the previous ones by a whole lot, the ones thats are still posted before mine are stupid and don't go right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtooher (talk • contribs) 13:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
As President for sport at Aberdeen Univesity I have the right and privalages to use such images as I choose. I am also the Chair of Scottish University Sport AU and likewise can use the image in any way I require.
I can even emal you the brand guidlines which accompany the images.
cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coxy gj (talk • contribs) 12:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings,
I dont understand the problem with this picture.It is from Geograph.org and the author has allowed it to be reused.--DColt (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the recent pictures I have added are all from Geograph.org and have permission to be be added on Wikipedia,could you explain why I'm receiving notification to say they are possibly unfree?
Thank you --DColt (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, DColt? I dropped by Eskog's talk page to comment about the images. The problem is you've missed off the .uk on the end of the URLs. So, when someone attempts to check if the cited source does indeed specify the license you asserted the images were released under, they reach a deadlink/domain-squatted page.
I've fixed a few of your images here: here, here, and here. A further adjustment I made in the same edit, for convenience, added the specific page link for the image, alongside the—corrected website address. I was able to find the correct address using Google and the author you listed. It's worthwhile you adjusting the remaining images' information, to ensure they're verifiable and okay too.
One other minor tip, for something which trips up lots of people, the license version listed at the source is v2.0 rather than the 3.0 version (moving the cursor over the license image shows the license URL in the browser statusbar). –Whitehorse1 16:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice.I will remember that in future.--DColt (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for File:Donner.jpg}[edit]
Thank you for letting me know. I will forward the permission email I received from the company to the address provided.
Hi, I was wondering if you could take another look at File:BrandonR..jpg? It's been speedily deleted multiple times under different names, both here and at Commons. Please see [1] and [2]. I figured you wouldn't have seen the previous ones, since the file is under a different name. Each time it's been uploaded with a different license, from "free software screenshot" to "public domain-self" to "GFDL-self". Radiant chains (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is captioned with 'EA's rock star artists, from the infamous "We See Farther" 1983 advertisement.', and I have seen this picture/ad referenced this way on numerous different sites, never with any explicit copyright indication and always with a reference to the 1983 "We See Farther" magazine advertisement. Any idea what I would need to put in the copyright info for this case?
The picture is captioned with 'EA's rock star artists, from the infamous "We See Farther" 1983 advertisement.', and I have seen this picture/ad referenced this way on numerous different sites, never with any explicit copyright indication and always with a reference to the 1983 "We See Farther" magazine advertisement. Any idea what I would need to put in the copyright info for this case?
Please feel free to delete my images - I was not aware of the copyright issues. I have unlinked the images from my page.Mlavannis (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, thought I could use a hand investigating Persia2's uploads, since you've spiked a couple of his images as copyvios. I just blocked him 72 hours for repeated bad uploads, but a look at his images makes me wonder if all or most of them are copyvios. I've already left a note at ANI, but since you've dealt with him in the past I figured I should let you know as well. Could use as many eyes as possible. Blueboy96 20:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, how many other socks does he have? Might be community-ban time, I think ... Blueboy96 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have the Copyright Permission to my Image.[edit]
I had the Copyright Permissions to that image. You could have just asked me where I got them before deleting my contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grebonitsuj (talk • contribs) 13:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Those watermarks are created by me, these pictures are created by me. If you require further info, it was taken using Canon. I hope it clarifies your fears regarding the copyright holder. I hope there is no rule that images being uploaded should not be watermarked. In that case I can upload one without watermark also, i.e. in case if watermarking is prohibited. You can check the image Chirmang Puram.jpg I had uploaded without any watermarks with a bigger resolution. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those pictures ar personally created by me and I decide what and where these pics can be displayed. I hope thes clarifies your fears regarding this issue
Hi. Thanks for letting me know there's a problem. As I understand it, Soviet photos taken before 1951 were exempt from copyright, and that as the position is currently unclear on that, the cert that I gave it (which contains reservations) is OK. The copyright at the foot of the source page shouldn't affect it, although it appears to have expired in 2007. The historical content of the photo (the recognisable ruined cathedral in the Gendarmenmarkt plus the concert with Boris conducting) shows time and place: it's a Soviet photo in the Soviet Zone before 1951. I think it's important to be able to show this photo, as it helps to demonstrate that everyone was working together for peace at that time and place. I believe that some people may have put their careers on the line for trying too hard (Russians singing in German) at the concert, and am currently evaluating evidence. If there's still a problem, please let me know. Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re:File Source problem with File:JosephSNewman.jpg[edit]
I've added the website where the photo came from and its Fair Use policy. Let me know if more is required.Thanks William Mirglip (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am sorry that I did not read carefully the complicated rules and unintentionally post a number of picture with wrong tags or license information. But indeed, I did not intentionally violate any copy right and I believe did not violate any law at all. All the pictures which I uploaded has been made by the source from State-owned propaganda institution in China, some originally made 50 years ago and republished from history archive while some others were snapshots from monitor cameras of their security institutions and recently issued by their government propaganda machine that they would love to re-distributed. All of the photographs have been already quoted directly everywhere in Chinese web site, both in the tens or even hundred website of the government propaganda institution, and in too many private blogs as well. Since they are a sort of propaganda materials that were so loved to be distributed, and since there is no law to prohibit distributing them either in China and US. I don't want to make any propaganda here but the picture help to make balance in some articles. I wonder how to use information tags to make it clear that my uploading on Wikipedia did not violate any law for copy right in this specific case? I would greatly appreciate if I could have a reply.
I uploaded a photograph with water print of a certain web site. But the web site did not own the picture, but just quoted from Chinese government. Water print was automatically made in every pictures uploaded in that site, however that picture come from an achieve in a museum.
Also I would like to apologize for misuse the tag previously. Those mistake was due to both I am so sure no copy right were violated and lack of reading on rules. Also I thought the examine system was automatic processed by machines so I post a number of them with wrong tags for saving my times; so that I did not realize my mistaken license information would waste the times of editors. I promise I will be much more careful to use license tags. But I hope my previous mistake should not be the reason for banning me if I make some uncareful mistakes unintentionally, for example by misunderstand the rules in future. Sildroad (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you tagged the above image. I've updated the tag, added a dispute and added motivation to the image's talk page. Please have a look at my own talk page as well, the fair use for this image has come up several times in the last few years and the decision has always been to keep. Regards Rpvdk (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:BrandonRouth.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=File:BrandonRouth.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:28691_batman_arkham_asylum.jpg){kind=link}
