User talk:LPfi

Jag svarar här på förfrågningar gjorda här.
If you ask something here, I'll answer here.

Välkommen[edit]

Svenska: Välkommen till Commons, LPfi!

Första stegen De första stegen och vår FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) är till hjälp efter registrering. De förklarar hur man gör inställningar (till exempel ändrar språk), hur man laddar upp filer och ger grundläggande information om licensiering. Du behöver inga tekniska färdigheter för att bidra. Var djärv och utgå från att andra menar väl, precis som på Wikipedia. Få hjälp Ytterligare hjälp finns på Community Portal. Allmänna frågor kan ställas på Help desk, eller på Bybrunnen, eller på IRC (chat) #wikimedia-commons. Du kan även kontakta en administratör på deras personliga diskussionssida. För specifika frågor om licens, fråga på Commons talk:Licensing.		Tips och tricks Använd Babel-lådor på din användarsida för att meddela andra om vilka språk du talar Se ett galleri över alla dina uppladdade bilder med Användargalleriet Använd CommonSense för att hitta kategorier för dina filer (så att andra kan hitta dem också!) För att länka till en bildsida, sätt ett kolon framför bildnamnet, så här `[[:Image:Foo.jpg]]`, så ser det ut så här `Image:Foo.jpg` Om du kopierar över bilder från Wikipedia-projekt, använd en CommonsHelper Har du gjort ett misstag? Vill du döpa om en bild? Ladda då upp den på nytt med det nya namnet och märk den gamla filen så här:`{{bad name\|nytt namn}}` För ytterligare information, läs Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Patrícia ^msg 13:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tack! --LPfi (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, LPfi!

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 06:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Förbindelsetrafik Väståboland 2009.jpg was uncategorized on 9 October 2009.

Weird: I remember having looked up the exact wording of the category names. Added them now. --LPfi (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: General lock because of a few users[edit]

Replied on my talk page here (just to let you know).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hundpromenad vid Aura å vintern 2010.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, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 17:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem with the user interface: when the image isn't uploaded soon enough one has to try once more – but some of the information given in the upload form is lost. Among the lost information is the license and the second form does not give the same options as the first one. cc-by-sa 3.0 has to be added by hand and so you have to remember or check the template syntax. Quite irritating. --LPfi (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Vähäjoki mynning vid vårflöde 2010.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, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 20:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

File renaming[edit]

Hi, this is worded in way that seems discourage editing and updating files. It almost sounds like files should never change. That's very unwiki-like and not the common practice. Most things like graphs and diagrams that are updated fairly often (monthly, for example), should use the same name if it's simply an update. We don't want a bunch of outdated useless files laying around, right? This is why, in my experience, it's a bad idea to include things like dates. Of course, you're free to do that if you want, but it definitely should not be policy. Rocket000 (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should probably be clearer about what files we are talking about. Have you read the section Overwriting or a new name? on the discussion page?

Some graphs and maps should reflect the current situation and those could be overwritten continuously. But if the changes are infrequent then the old files may have historical interest. The one who wants to use them have to reupload the old version on a new name to be able to use it. If redirects work nowadays, as I have understood they do, it might be better to use a redirect for the current version instead. This was what folks thought last year.

It depends on the file, of course. When old versions are not supposed to be used a name without version or date is easier to handle. But this is not always the case. And when there are any issues about what the best or correct version is, it is better to give neutral, disambiguated names.

I can accept your statement "adding controversial things doesn't help form a policy, but removing them is the start of gaining acceptance, we need to agree on the basics first", so I won't put this back for the moment. I think, though, that including some reasoning about this point would be good.

--LPfi (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finsk upphovsrätt[edit]

Hejsan!

På sv:Wikisource har vi principen sedan gammalt att texter ska vara fria i de svenskspråkiga länderna Sverige och Finland samt i serverlandet USA. Men jag har inte sett någon ha synpunkter på vilka regler som gäller specifikt Finland. Detta kanske för att vi inte har några finlandskunniga bidragsgivare som i tillräcklig grad engagerat sig i meta-frågor.

Om du har tid (och lust) kan du väl skriva några rader på s:sv:Wikisourcediskussion:Mallar för upphovsrätt så får vi se om vi kan komplettera de mallar vi har. Om reglerna i de båda länderna skiljer, får vi kanske ta en principdiskussion om vilka villkor som gäller: Frihet i publiceringslandet eller Frihet i båda länderna, för den skillnaden tror jag ingen har tänkt på. (Sedan har vi ngn text som publicerats i tredje land, men inget system är perfekt.) Någon diskussion om bilders rättigheter behöver vi nog inte, för det hänvisar vi ju nästan alltid hit... -- Lavallen (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at educational media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote. If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. Otherwise, consider an alternative outlet. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding.

abf «Cabale!» 18:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain what contribution you think isn't in scope. I think I now the scope quite well. --LPfi (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheesus, det här systemet med att slänga upp mallar på varandras disksidor är ju rena snurren på det här projektet.... -- Lavallen (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Min reaktion också! Hoppeligen var det bara ett misstag den här gången (fast robotmallarna om saknade kategorier blir ju en nätt samling de också, oftast handlar de om att jag arbetat med beskrivningen så länge att servern tröttnat). --LPfi (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mercedes (ship)[edit]

Dear LPfi,

I am not going to oppose your view. I am not a specialist in ship qualification. I took the description of brigantine from this website: http://www.tallshipsfalmouth.co.uk/ships.html AdMeskens (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thank you. I think it is a mistake - easy to do in such texts, which are hardly checked for factual errors. --LPfi (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shipyards[edit]

I think we create a problem with a number of users if we add the category of the shipyard to much. What I do is "Ships built in" a certain country in the "Ships by name" category and "Ships built at" in the IMO or ENI category. I assume this gives less problems, certainly if the ship had more names. Regards, --Stunteltje (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I think that is logical. The problem is, as you mentioned earlier, that few people know the IMO number. I thought practice was to add the ship names, but I do not have any strong opinion. --LPfi (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Veneet ja partioalukset[edit]

Hei,

Lisäsit Category:Boats in Finland luokkaan linkin Category:Patrol vessels of Finland ja poistit File:Rajavartioston partiovene PV 121.JPG kuvan veneet-luokasta. Patrol vessels of Finland käsittää kuitenkin lähinnä ulkovartiolaivoja, joten lisäsin kyseisen kuvan takaisin myös veneisiin. Mielestäni pienille partioveneille kuten rajavartioston PV-, NV- ja AV-tyyppeille kannattaa ehkä tulevaisuudessa ennemmin luoda oma alaluokka joka sisältyy molempiin yllämainittuihin luokkiin (jokin "Patrol boats of Finland" tai vastaava). MKFI (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oletan, että olet oikeassa. Olen kiitollinen, jos voit luoda tarvittavat alaluokat, linkit ja luokkakuvaukset. Itse en hallitse tätä terminologiaa, en ainakaan englanniksi - eli luokkien suomen- ja ruotsinkieliset kuvaukset ovat todella tarpeen. Rajavartiolaitoksen (ja mahdollisesti muiden pelastusjärjestöjen) alusten lisäksi ilmeisesti monet muutkin pienten alusten luokat saisi mielellään selkeyttää. Esimerkiksi vesibussien tapaiset linja- ja tilausalukset taitavat nyt olla luokassa "passenger ships". Mutta pelastusalusten luokituksen selkeyttäminen olisi hyvä alku. Osaatko muuten lisätä veneen tyypin File:Sjöbevakningsbåt och Caritas Boundbirsn 2010.jpg kuvaukseen (vene oli uutta tyyppiä, hävitin kuitenkin muistiinpanoni)? --LPfi (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Valitettavasti en itsekään hallitse alustermejä englanniksi erityisen hyvin. Kuvassa oleva rajavartioston vene taitaa olla PV 06E -tyyppinen [1], tosin aivan varma en ole. Vesibusseille paras ratkaisu saattaisi olla Category:Tour boats-luokka. MKFI (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kiitos. Yritän itse selvitellä näitä jossakin vaiheessa, pikkuhiljaa. --LPfi (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Siirsin tullilaitoksen veneet luokkaan Category:Customs services boats in Finland. Luokittelin sen Category:Customs services ships by country alle mutta Suomen tullilla on muinoin ollut kunnon laivojakin, joten tulevaisuudessa voi olla hyvä luoda Category:Customs services ships of Finland ja siirtää veneet sen alle.

Loin rajavartiolaitoksen pienemmille veneille luokan Category:Border Guard boats in Finland, jolloin sen kohde on rajattu pelkästään rajavartiolaitokseen eikä käsitä puolustusvoimien veneitä. Category:Patrol vessels of Finland on mielestäni vähän epäselvä, voisi olla parempi siirtää kaikki merivartioalukset ruotsin mallin mukaisesti uuteen luokkaan Category:Finnish Coast Guard ships. Nyt en kuitenkaan heti siihen ryhdy. Veneille laitoin nimeksi "Border Guard" enkä merivartiosto, koska rajavartiolaitoksen nimeä nuo nykyisin kuitenkin kantavat. Toivottavasti tämä hiukan selkeyttää Category:Boats in Finland -luokkaa, eikä tee tilannetta pahemmaksi. MKFI (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. Varmasti selkeyttää tältä osin. --LPfi (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coa Sweden[edit]

Hej. Jag undrar om du kunde peta till template:Coa Sweden/fi så att den innehåller den tillagda "organisation"-andringen som jag gjorde till den engelska och svenska versionen. Tack /Lokal _Profil 22:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Japp, det var enkelt.

Commons:Email templates/Consent/sv[edit]

Hej! Jag skrev precis en svensk översättning av COM:ET. Sidstrukturen där är ju allt annat än tydlig, så det var först när jag var klar med hela översättningen som jag insåg att du redan hade skrivit en svensk version av själva mallen under Commons:Email templates/Consent/sv. De andra språkversionerna ligger i Template-namnrymden, vilket var anledningen till att jag missade den. Den engelska förlagan som jag utgick ifrån uppdaterades nyligen, men med undantag för det blev våra översättningar rätt lika. Jag valde att justera några formuleringar där du hade fått till en bättre översättning och att sedan dirigera om Commons:Email templates/Consent/sv till Template:Email templates/Consent/sv i likhet med de andra översättningarna. Jag hoppas att du inte tycker att jag gick för buffligt fram, och jag diskuterar gärna formuleringar och utformning. Jag har valt att lyfta ut allt vad instruktioner heter från mallen och lägga allt sådant direkt i Commons:E-postmallar istället för att blanda huller om buller som i den engelska versionen. Jag har också ändrat strukturen på instruktionerna, eftersom jag inte tyckte att det blev tydligare av att man sade samma sak fyra gånger fast på olika sätt. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 20:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bra att du gjorde det. Länken borde i och för sig ha funnits i diskussionen på WP:Bildfrågor (eller var var det vi initierade detta?), men det är tydligen lätt att missa. Jag vågade inte ändra särskilt mycket och var inte nöjd, så det är säkert bättre i din version - och Var djärv! gäller ju också (eller i synnerhet) sådant här. Jag kollar vid tillfälle. --LPfi (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Komentovene Träskö[edit]

Hei,

Mahtaisiko sinulla olla tarkempaa kuvaa merivoimien komentovene Träsköstä (992), erottuu taustalla oikealla kuvassa File:Rajakari Tall Ships Races Turku 2009.jpg? MKFI (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ei näytä siltä. Kävin läpi tuon Tall Ships' Racen kuvani, eikä se näytä tarttuneen muihin kuviin. --LPfi (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:WikiProject Public Domain[edit]

Hi, I'd like to bring to your attention Commons:WikiProject Public Domain. COM:WPPD aims to support the Commons community's efforts to organise Commons' public domain materials, and to ensure that these materials meet Commons licensing policy. Please consider contributing to developing the project. Rd232 (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I added it to my watchlist. I am not quite up to date about whether there is consensus on how to proceed and I do not have time or ability (robot experience) to do heavy work, but I will take a look at times to see how I can contribute. --LPfi (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Simple photographs[edit]

thanks, but following Commons:VPC#Commons:Simple_photographs I'm waiting for Lupo to confirm that it's OK to move User:Lupo/Simple Photographs to Commons:Simple photographs. Rd232 (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I put both pages on my watchlist. --LPfi (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Edit conflict) In fact I'd missed his reply, so I've done that now. Rd232 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VP[edit]

Hi LPfi,

I responded to your comment at Commons:Village_pump#Categories:_the_primary_way_to_search.2Fnavigate_Commons. -- Docu at 03:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appropå ditt förslag om att anlita advokat[edit]

Som du kanske vet håller jag (Jopparn) och Lennart "Hannibal" Guldbrandsson för WMSE:s räkning på och arbetar med rätt coolt projekt i samarbete med Europeana Foundation och en massa andra organisationer. Där ska vi bland annat anordna en tävling som kallas Wiki Loves Public Art och jag fick ett tips från ArildV om en diskussion från september 2011 där du lade fram ett förslag om att en jurist borde anlitas för att ta en titt på vad som gäller med konst på allmän plats i Sverige. Om du fortfarande känner att det råder oklarheter vore det jättebra om du kunde formulera det hela som en konkret fråga som vi kan föra vidare till Europeana så att de kan ta en titt på det hela. De ger juridisk stöd just för den här typen av frågor till sina samarbetsorganisationer, varav Wikimedia Sverige är en. Om du har tid och möjlighet att hjälpa till vore det enklaste om du direkt kunde skriva in dina frågor här. Har du andra kluriga frågor som kan vara relevanta att ställa inför Wiki Loves Public Art så får du gärna skriva in dem också! Sedan får vi hoppas att de har tid och möjlighet att hjälpa oss med ett svar. Det fina är att om de kan hjälpa till med det så kommer det ju inte att kosta WMF/WMSE någonting och de är ju verkligen experter på området!

Vänligen, John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jag vet inte om jag lyckades formulera den väl, men jag ställde frågan där. Passade på och ställde ett par andra frågor också. --LPfi (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bra frågor! Kommer du på fler är det bara att skriva in dem (så länge det rör sig om europeisk lagstiftning). Om du är intresserad av att hjälpa till med att anordna Wiki Loves Public Art antingen i Finland eller Sverige så tycker jag att det vore jättekul! Hör gärna av dig om så är fallet (via email om du vill hålla det här kontot separerat från ditt riktiga namn)! John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

U+0080 to U+009F characters[edit]

Hi! Can you please clarify here the reason why U+0080 to U+009F characters are invalid and the difference with 0x80~0x9F characters in the Windows-1252 encoding? Thanks! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 22:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I wasn't here to answer. I suppose the issue is already understood and handled (others explained what I would have explained). --LPfi (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Gamla Testamentet (Myrberg)[edit]

Tack för att du tog dig an kategorin. Jag vet inte riktigt hur jag ska hantera hans bibel ännu. Den gavs ut succesivt efter vad jag kan se, och vissa delar blev aldrig utgivna innan han dödde. Bästa är väl att ha en kategori för varje utgiven bok. Alla delar äger jag ännu inte... Han skulle ha behövt revidera den också, men det hanns nte det heller. Hans vers/kapitelindelning är inte så lite egen, och har rört till det för oss... -- Lavallen 18:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:-)

Tack. Jag höll på med finländska böcker i anledning av rundgången i Kategori:Svensk litteratur och gamla finska böcker är ju främst andlig litteratur. Jag misstänker att det finns ett och annat att göra i bibelträdet (det är svårnavigerat åtminstone för oss som inte kan teologisk engelska), men jag har alldeles för liten koll på problematiken.

--LPfi (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jepp, samma problem här, inte överallt ens bekant med svensk teologi. Jag kan bibeln mycket mycket bättre än jag kan teologin, vilket rör till det rejält ibland. Samma bibliska person kan finnas under flera olika rubriker, kanske främst för att de som målade ikoner skilde på deras roller.

Hade dessutom ngn illustration med anknytning kategorin "Exodus", vilket helt resolut ändrades till "book of Exodus", vilket bidde fel. Dessutom finns det förvirring i trädet relaterat mellan Wikisource användning och Wikipedias användning. Men med omfattningen av material här så är det nog inte så konstigt. Trädet här ser ibland mer ut som en savann än ett träd... -- Lavallen 16:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another redraft of Photographs of identifiable people[edit]

Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people#Another redraft

I would very much appreciate your comments on this redraft. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for alerting me. I shall try to follow the discussion. [Förslag att ändra Commons-policyn gällande foton av personer] --LPfi (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've tried to address your USA-bias concerns. See talk. Colin (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you did address them, and the text is much better than my quick try. I also think you were right in removing the Policy section I introduced. You guessed right about my intention. --LPfi (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jmabel is querying the addition of "whether or not commercially". See User talk:Colin/People. I wonder if it was ok before, without it. Colin (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From a Finnish perspective, the talk about commercial use is confusing. Whether I sell a book for profit or give it away has (in my understanding) no impact on whether I am allowed to use images in it without permission. The profit may have an impact on how much damages I have to pay, but that is not what we are discussing.

There is a Finnish case, where a public (non-commercial) tourist agency used an image of a person fishing on the ice. He was not recognizable per se, but the court decided that as he was recognisable by people knowing his habits, the image should not have been used without permission. He got damages. I think we are trying to give advice about exactly this kind of reuse.

--LPfi (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defining "non-commercial" is tricky. See this. All the definitions I see for "right of publicity" talk about "commercial use". Ultimately, it is not our job to fully define the law in all countries. My feeling is that using Jimbo's image for Wikipedia adverts is "commercial use" because they are raising money and providing a service, even though they are defined as a non-profit. A public tourist agency is also ultimately about generating revenue for the local economy. In fact, I'd like to think my I could control my image for any promotional activity even if not money-making. For example, a poster urging folk to take exercise or to recycle their waste. But we can't just redefine the term to mean "non promotional" or something like that.

I like your story about the fishing person. This is why I think the issue of "identifiable" is so complex and actually think we should remove the word from the guideline name -- but that is a conversation for a later time if/when this draft goes live. Stock agencies separate photos into "editorial use" and "commercial use" based on whether a model release is available. And their threshold of "identifiable" is extremely low. See this for example. I suspect that since most people images on Commons lack a model release, their ability to be used for advertising and other promotional/commercial activities is zero. Any serious organisation would use a proper stock agency, if only because they can isolate themselves from any legal issues arising from the image. Colin (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May be it is just the word that is confusing. But I do not want to mislead poor ("non-serious") not-for-profits to use our images, where permission would be required. They might not understand that their use is "commercial". A problem here is that a word with a legal meaning and a separate common language meaning very easily is misunderstood by people with an other mother tongue, without legal training and from an other jurisdiction - such people will both consider using the images and translate the guideline to their language. --LPfi (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Aland passport biodata page.png[edit]

File:Aland passport biodata page.png har raderats som ett upphovsrättsintrång. Tror du att bilden omfattas av {{PD-FinlandGov}}? Enligt Google ska bilden se ut så här: https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwq8id3nRfau8umNcQ5b7WG0FWBi_NOyzZQ0smUeabm6U_HhIF --Stefan4 (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ja, det tror jag. Jag skrev på den raderande administratörens diskussionssida. --LPfi (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bilden var hämtad från en EU-sida med otillräcklig licens. Mer information skulle behövas för att konstatera att den är fri. Lönar sig kanske bättre att hitta samma eller motsvarande bild på finska servrar. --LPfi (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vet du om man kan använda {{PD-FinlandGov}} för finska pengar? Se t.ex. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gedenkmuenze Finnland10.jpg. Jag skulle kunna tänka mig att många mynt förekommer i olika myndighetsbeslut. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alltså i besluten om hur mynten skall se ut, knappast i andra. Där torde de förekomma och borde därför vara fria. Samma med sedlarna. Problemet är att Finlands bank och Europeiska centralbanken hävdar upphovsrätt. Jag har inte för tillfället lust att driva saken i domstol (och har hittills också skjutit upp att kontakta Finlands bank för att utreda vilket lagrum de hänvisar till).

Det finns åtminstone två tänkbara sätt på vilka mynten och sedlarna kunde omfattas av upphovsrätten: om bilderna uppfattas som självständiga verk eller om de inte ingår i ett myndighetsbeslut. Ingendera verkar trovärdig.

Bilden har troligen från början avsetts användas för detta ändamål och därmed är den inte självständig. Ett undantag gäller vissa av marksedlarna, där existerande konstverk kopierades, ersättning betalades i efterskott och jag antar upphovsrätten upphörde gälla (men på den punkten är jag mer osäker).
Beslutet om sedlarnas och myntens utseende kunde i teorin ha delegerats till någon utan myndighetsställning, men det verkar ytterst osannolikt. Också om beslut fattats vid ett bolagiserat myntverk tycker jag verket då skulle uppträda in en myndighetsroll.

Jag försökte sammanfatta vad jag visste om rättsläget i Commons:Currency#Finland. Jag skall också ta en titt på raderingsdiskussionen.

--LPfi (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jag fick följande svar (på User talk:Fastily; Fastily hade avslutat diskussionen):

File is described as Commemorative Coin Finland 2010. Commons:Currency#Finland. --Martin H. (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Det skulle alltså gälla att hitta det beslut där utseendet för finska jubileumsmyntet 2010 slagits fast. Om beslutet gjorts av en finsk myndighet eller motsvarande borde bilden kunna återställas. Jag är mycket förvånad om så inte är fallet, men för säkerhets skull borde man alltså kunna hänvisa till det specifika beslutet. Om besluten delegerats till någon privat aktör borde man påvisa att beslutet fattats i en myndighetsroll som omfattas av undantaget i upphovsrättslagen.

--LPfi (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Du kanske kan kommentera COM:VPC#Finnish currency? --Stefan4 (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Odd file names and file descriptions[edit]

A recent batch of uploads got images mixed up. Seems the wizard got preview from one file and the image itself from the next one. I am going to fix these tonight or tomorrow. --LPfi (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit to Category:Klamath Belle[edit]

You changed the Klamath Belle's parent category from Category:Sidewheeler steamships to Category:Sidewheel riverboats. It's really not a matter of concern to me, but as a point of information for you: the Kamath Belle was designed for use on a lake rather than a river. I don't know if that changes your thinking - if it doesn't, please feel free to disregard this message. — Werewombat (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I am sorry to have made the mistake. --LPfi (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ekorre[edit]

Jag giller bildserien med ekorren :-) --Nordelch (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:-)

Bildserien var helt oplanerad. En ekorre sprang nära. Jag råkade ha kameran till hands och tänkte att jag kanske kunde få någon ordentlig bild (märkligt svårt, oftast hoppar ekorrar bort just som man knäpper). Och så valde ekorren platsen helt nära. Första gången jag ser en ekorrgömma. Ekorren fortsatte en lång stund att springa upp i eken och vidare åt olika håll, men några fler lyckade bilder blev det inte.

--LPfi (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons essay on languages[edit]

Thank you so much for your help in that file! WhisperToMe (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{PD-FinlandStamp}}[edit]

Enligt Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Finland gäller {{PD-FinlandGov}} för frimärken utfärdade av Post- och televerket men inte för frimärken utfärdade av Itella Abp. Tolkar jag det rätt att {{PD-FinlandGov}} inte heller kan användas för frimärken utfärdade av Posten Åland Ab?

På denna sida hittar jag historik för de åländska frimärkena, som har getts ut sedan 1984. Det framgår att frimärken utgetts av olika myndigheter och bolag:

1984-1992: frimärken utgivna av Post- och televerket i samarbete med Ålands landskapsregering
1993-2008: frimärken utgivna av ett lokalt postverk på Åland
2009 och senare: frimärken utgivna av Posten Åland Ab

Är alla åländska frimärken utgivna av statliga myndigheter (d.v.s. frimärken utgivna före 2009) fria med hänvisning till {{PD-FinlandGov}}? Att döma av texten på Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Finland låter det som att de strukturella förändringar som 1990 skedde i övriga Finland först ska ha skett på Åland år 2009. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jag har för mig att upphovsrättslagstiftningen är gemensam medan postlagstiftningen (numera) faller under landskapets kompetens. Antagligen är Åländska frimärken fria åtminstone till och med 2008. Hur läget är idag beror på statusen för Posten Åland Ab och frimärksbesluten. Antagligen är situationen den samma som för Itella, men frågor kring ett aktiebolag som sköter myndighetsuppgifter kan vara komplicerade. --LPfi (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, tack för svaret. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sähköturvallisuustutkinto kevät 2014.pdf[edit]

Vet du vad det här är för något? Tentamensfrågor? Gäller verkligen {{PD-FinlandGov}} för sådant material? Har Commons någon användning av filen? Jag misstänker att det är något som bör raderas, åtminstone med hänvisning till COM:SCOPE. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tentamensfrågor för elsäkerhet.

För PD-FinlandGov är det möjligen relevanta "beslut eller yttranden av myndigheter eller andra offentliga organ". Jag har dock liksom du svårt att se detta som ett yttrande. Det är möjligt att myndigheten genom tentamensfrågorna de facto fastställer behörighetskraven för elektriker, och därmed vore dokumentet av en betydelse motsvarande "beslut och yttranden" som explicit nämns i lagen. Det är fullt möjligt att dokumentet därmed är fritt (domstolsbeslut finns knappast, men man kanske kan hitta ett resonemang av någon mer sakkunnig).

Användaren som laddade upp dokumentet lade också till en formulering på finska, där han hävdar att frågorna inte har verkshöjd och [också] därigenom är fria. Jag tvivlar på den upgiften: formuleringarna är rätt långa (om också knappast särskilt originella) och valet av frågor torde avspegla enskilda personers prioriteringar.

Jag ser det alltså som möjligt att filen är fri. Ifall frågorna är offentliga har knappast någon orsak att hävda upphovsrätt. Jag har tidigare noterat att finska användare tolkar "yttrande" brett, bland annat laddar man utan tvekan upp bilder ur myndigheters verksamhetsberättelser och dylikt. Jag har inte sett att myndigheterna skulle ha reagerat på det.

Jag tycker också att dokumentet är relevant. Dels är urvalet frågor intressant, dels är den grafiska formen det. Vad gäller den senare tänker jag genast på mötesprotokoll från 1970-talet, som redan är överraskande "exotiska". Man bör knappast ladda upp varje tentamen man hittar, men en tentamen inför en myndighet har en annan dignitet än en tentamen för en vanlig lärare.

--LPfi (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renamed misidentified seal image[edit]

Kurjenrahkan kansallispuiston Lammenrahka[edit]

Moi, Kurjenrahkan kansallispuistossa on kaksi suota nimeltä Lammenrahka. Toinen on Nousiaisissa ja toinen Pöytyällä Savojärven pohjoispuolella. Oletan että kummatkin kuvat olivat Pöytyän Lammenrahkalta. Tarkensin tältä osin kuvatietoja. –Makele-90 (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Photos from Urho Kekkonen National Park[edit]

Hi! Thanks for looking and for asking. Unfortunately I'm terrible at orienteering, which is why I usually let the camera's GPS do most of the work (when it works). The WLM uploading app did not extract the coordinates into the information templates (I'm not sure whether that's intentional or not), but if you click the EXIF box you can see them. Indeed we entered at Saariselkä and then took one of the easiest circle trails (possibly mixing two of them), up to the small hill then down next to some fence and through the swamp. Nemo 09:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nemo bis: Ah! Wonderful. I didn't notice the EXIF coords (they are hidden by default). I will go through the images and add descriptions on at least some of them (sooner or later). There have been discussions on whether or not to keep location info not explicitly added to the information template, for privacy reasons, as some users may be unaware of it. --LPfi (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Orlando Paride[edit]

My photos are pretty good but I have worse ones only out of dislike ... for example they prefer this to this File:Cupola della Cappella Albani in San Sebastiano.jpg or this to this File:Salvator Mundi (Bernini, Rome).jpg to say the least .... see you .... Regards --5.90.88.17 19:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When one has a conflict of interest, one should leave to others to decide what version to use on the pages. The one example I had in mind when talking about worse images was an image of a garden, where the other image was much better in the given context (not necessarily otherwise). –LPfi (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact I'm not telling you that they are all perfect or better but most of them do and they do it either to put their own or just because they dislike me. --78.13.193.212 14:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know nothing about the original conflict, and I don't know what images where in the articles first, but you should leave it to regular editors with no conflict of interest to defend your images if they choose to. It is not a battle for you to fight. If you leave the articles alone, the conflict will probably be forgotten and new editors will choose your images on their own merits. If you don't, others will join in the reverting. –LPfi (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The images had been put but systematically remove them ..... you think some were even without images. I'm not doing anything ..... here on the wiki there is a way of doing that is very sympathetic and not on merit. Anyway ok thanks. Sorry to bother you. Thank you--176.200.45.247 18:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ruska-luokka[edit]

Hei. No ei oikein ole kunnollista luokkaa. Suomenkielisen Wikipedia artikkeli Ruska on Wikidatassa käännetty fall foliage, fall colors, autumn colours, autumn foliage. Huomasin (!), että olen laittanut viime vuoden ruskakuvat kategoriaan Category:Autumn 2021 in Finland ja jokusen myös Category:Leaves in autumn in Finland(kuvia Pallastunturista, Kittilän Kaukosesta ja Särkitunturin lammesta). Kai luokka:Fall foliage voisi olla lähinnä, seillä on maakohtaisetkin luokat (mutta ei taida olla yhtään Suomi- tai Ruotsikuvaa). Wikidatassa ei ole yhdistettyä luokkaa, hassua sinänsä, koska ruskaa on muuallakin kuin Pohjoismaissa. Kuvasin pääasiassa laajempia maisemia enkä niinkään yksittäisiä lehtiä. Kiva että löytyi noille kuville käyttöä! Terveisin Htm (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kiitos, yritän jossakin välissä katsella saisinko noista iw-linkeistä ja luokista tolkkua. Viimeksi kun yritin en tainut löytää niitä kaikkia. –LPfi (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phabricator[edit]

Thanks for your comments on upload problems, but where do I find Phabricator? Sardaka (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sardaka: Oh, there wasn't a link? Sorry. Here: phabricator.wikimedia.org. –LPfi (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sardaka: Wrong link text at first try, now it should be OK. –LPfi (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ålands sjöfartsmuseum 2022 knopar.jpg[edit]

File:Ålands sjöfartsmuseum 2022 knopar.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ 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 ∙ ไทย ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Zaripov999 (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominated as duplicate. Commented there: the other image much better, so this could go. –LPfi (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Examples mentioned in Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/04#Questioning when the personality rights tag is relevant...[edit]

In that discussion, you gave the following examples:

Over here, a tourist bureau took a photo of a person ice-fishing on a lake and published it in their brochure. Distance was long enough that the person wasn't directly identifiable, but the court decided that people who know him would recognise him from the context, and judged they had used his image for promotion without his permission. They had to pay damages. The photo could equally well have been found at Commons. –LPfi (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was another case (I don't remember whether the idea was dismissed or whether it went to court), where a party in their campaign was to use an image of a crowd, to illustrate something innocent, like togetherness or whatever. That was also deemed illegal. –LPfi (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These examples are interesting, both for the endorsement issues raised there and for concept of identifiability more generally. Identifiability is poorly understood on Commons; I have collected some examples at User:Brianjd/Old#Identifiability. But this is the first time I have heard of a court expressing such opinions.

Unfortunately, I don’t recognise these examples and don’t know how to find more information about them. Can you help? Brianjd (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also: #Another redraft of Photographs of identifiable people. Brianjd (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Brianjd: Unfortunately I don't have much time to put in the issue before Christmas. At least the first case was Finnish and I assume the other one was too. I think I read about the case in Finnish, perhaps in a folder with advice for professional photographers. I didn't read the court's decision and argumentation itself. It should be findable though, and certainly public although not necessarily published. –LPfi (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chat[edit]

I'm sorry I recently made this image as a Valentine's Day gift for everyone to see I hope it's not too bad looking.

File:Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund).jpg

JohnJackMillard (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to tell more about it on the file description page. If it is from the film, it isn't your work. If it isn't, there are still probably several persons involved and you need to explain something about it ("recreating the scene ..." or whatever). –LPfi (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't want the image to be deleted I worked so hard search for it and download it. JohnJackMillard (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you found it on the internet, then it isn't your work and cannot be kept as such. For us to host it, it must have a free licence, and as uploader, its your job to find evidence that there is such a licence, from the owners of the copyright. If they don't want to give such a licence, we cannot host it. –LPfi (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I screenshoted it from the original film and crafted it to make it full size it took an 1hr to make it. JohnJackMillard (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was in the scene in Nancy's dream at school. JohnJackMillard (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, but it is still a derived work of the film, and the copyright owners are the only ones who can license that. You can still use it in private (at least over here you could, I don't know your jurisdiction). Good night! –LPfi (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to show what Freddy Krueger looked like in the first film he had no stripes on his sleeves his stripes were only on his torso. JohnJackMillard (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I am sorry that the copyright laws hinder people from doing such things in public, except in very limited manners. However, Commons cannot host media that cannot be used under a free licence. –LPfi (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for disturb[edit]

Perhaps you might be interested this [2]. Thank you. --151.37.104.182 17:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I am following it. –LPfi (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sockpuppet investigations don't need to reference "original reasons" for a block: they're designed to establish behavioral or technical correlations with the sockmaster or recent puppets and therefore decide whether blocks are being evaded.

In terms of arduous investigations, I've done some legwork here: meta:User:Elizium23/L'anatra romana. There is an RFC for a global ban in progress.

Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is modification on image and uploaded it on wiki violates copyright?[edit]

Dear,

There are so many discussions about my uploaded files. I just want to know if I edited or modified any taken photos as such that it looks so different from the original photo. Is that still considered copyright infringement or violation?

Scenario 1:

If that's the case, then how are youtube channels like Failarmy, KhilliBuzzChiru, chottochele, BadmasBipua, SSTroll and so on uploading others' Tiktok videos, Insta reels? Not only this but these YouTubers are trolling, abusing the original creators and using their videos they’re making money, and yes that too without permission.

Also, YouTubers like magicshowfootball, 6oonclassic, NinetyVirus, Football-Show, TeoCRi kGZ, soccerprime697, J9Studio, AshStudio7, Score90 and so on are using live football matches videos with some edits on their channels. No! none of them are affiliated or associated or authorized with those tournaments or by fifa or by leagues. Some of them even have subscribers in millions and are also verified by youtube.

They literally making money with those videos so aren't they violating copyright?

Scenario 2:

Even many free images are also selling ”as it is” on photo selling sites like shutter stock, adobe stock. Need proof? Here are some of them:

Example 1: Where these same images are freely available (meaning free commercial license) in Pixabay 1, Pixabay 2, Pixabay 3 these are also available on photo selling site Alamy 1, Alamy 2, Alamy 3

Example 2: Where these same images are freely available (meaning free commercial license) in Pixabay 1, Pixabay 2 these are also available on photo-selling site Adobe Stock 1, Adobe Stock 2

Example 3: Where these same images are freely available (meaning free commercial license) in Pixabay 1, Pixabay 2, Pixabay 3 these are also available on photo selling site Shutter Stock 1, Shutter Stock 2, Shutter Stock 3

Example 4: Where this same image is freely available (meaning free commercial license) in Pixabay, it is also available on photo selling site Dreamstime

Note: All of them from Pixabay (The 2nd best free image source after Wiki) are either featured in the Editor's Choice or Outstanding by Pixabay which means it was reviewed rigorously by the team to choose if those are genuine or not.

As the photos are selling without the original author’s permission (yes, the Pixabay and photo selling owner are completely different - checked through their social medias and names) so aren't they violating copyright?

Scenario 3:

Even I got many promotional emails (as I subscribed) from “Trademark Factory” ( a company that registers copyrights and trademark like stuffs) is using others’ gifs in the emails. You may say ohh they are doing that because it’s meant for personal use. No! It’s not! Promotional emails are also a commercial asset and many are buying products from those email links. How can that be meant for personal use?

I got a image in my emali in which they’re using others' copyrighted materials (yes the below image not belongs to them):

That image was originally taken from the Buzzfeed

I have many of these. But due to laziness, I just mentioned one.

So aren’t they also violating?

Then you might say Youtube and Wikipedia are different at their field. But they originate from the same country "USA" and isn't the copyright law apply equally to them?

On the other hand, I just uploaded photos that were modified as such which makes totally different from the original photos. Where these YouTubers literally using others clips without permission and making money.

Where I just uploaded them for nonprofit - wiki and obviously want to help travelers. How? Because as most of them seek wikipedia for many travel related infos, if they get appropriate images with that it will be greatly helpful.

Even most of the news websites use others image just by citing the source. Is just citation enough to bypass the copyright and that too without permission?

My Intention:

To be honest, I have no bad intentions at all in uploading these images.

I uploaded Belgharia Railway Station.png, Agarpara Railway Station.png, Barahat railway station.jpg, TEMPERATURE DANGER ZONE.jpg because there were no better images portraying the station/subject or the previously uploaded image were insufficient in portraying the station/subject.
I uploaded Sealdah Station.jpg, because that will give better comparison between past and current view of sealdah station with the image Sealdah Station (BOND 0481).jpg with the image Like this:

I uploaded Eleta Kingsley.jpg because there was no other image of him.
By uploading images on wiki, I really want to help travelers and people who are hungry for knowledge. Travelers will get appropriate images along with infos. Seriously I felt this too helpful and needed when I have gone through this situation while traveling to mnay places.

Modification:

Below I am mentioning the images I modified:

Agarpara Railway Station.png was modified originally from https://goo.gl/maps/eShLwydsyoN5Bifg6

Barahat railway station.jpg was modified originally from https://goo.gl/maps/gq4AVizsbd6oKDYV8

And the similar was done for the images Belgharia Railway Station.png, Eleta Kingsley.jpg, Sealdah Station.jpg, TEMPERATURE DANGER ZONE.jpg, Habra Railway Station.png (on these images collection from 3rd parties was involved but with modification)

But also note: Among my uploaded images 1) বন্ধু (Friends).png; 2) খাদ্যের গুনমান নির্দেশক.png 3) Old Sealdah Station.jpg the first two I completely own.

For 1) I am the photographer and the editor for this image. I reuploaded this (originally uploaded in 2020) because I uploaded it with my site’s name in the photo, caption, and even in the description. That’s why I allow deleted the photo and again uploaded it. The pic was drawn on my finger and captured by me.

For 2) I edited this photo from the starting to finish by myself through photo editing software. So, yes in these 2 photos, no collection or source was made or any 3rd parties were involved. I completely own and photographed these.

For 3) It was already proven (though no way I ever claimed myself as the owner of that photo). It’s in the public domain and found on a 1900s postcard see the proof here.

In Short:

Is modification on images violate copyright? Except for the 3 images বন্ধু (Friends).png; Old Sealdah Station.jpg; খাদ্যের গুনমান নির্দেশক.png simply delete those rest other files If modification still violates the copyright! If not, please keep them!
I used modification on the image as such that it looks different from the original. Still people on the internet like youtubers, news agencies are using others images “As it is” and that too without permission. And they said they can use others as long as they cite others. Yes, I heard good YouTubers saying that citing images of others is enough: Source What? Is this called copyright? Just cite others and now you can use them? If that’s the thing then what is copyright? To what extent it can be used?

One more thing to ask: As per wiki CC4.0 stated Wikimedia images can be modified and used if it is distributed under the same share-alike license means CC4.0. I just want to ask if I use Wikimedia images as it is or modified in commercial blog posts or in any commercial writings, is this completely fine to use? Mean, is this copyright-free?

(I added many images while sending this same message to the VRT by email but as I can't add image here you can consider the sourced links)

Thank you, HridoyKundu (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not going to look into this any deeper right now. A short answer to some of the points:

Violating copyright laws is common, as few have a grasp and you often can get away with it. Sometimes what seems like a copyright violation may be allowed as fair use or by an agreement.
Commons does not want reusers to get sued or get other copyright problems. That's why we have the precautionary principle. Sometimes it seems absurdly strict, but that's the price we pay for making it workable.
Our licences should allow modifications and distributing derived works, but there are many special cases, such as cropping to make a de minimis feature the focal point, or modifications that violate the author's moral rights or somebody's personality rights.

–LPfi (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understood! And as all things are sorted (meaning the desired copyrighted image was deleted by vrt team). So can we close this thread? Thanks! --- HridoyKundu (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National Parks[edit]

I'm trying to stay out of disputes on Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/04/Category:Places to go, National Park Service but for your suggestion of supplementing Wikivoyage, isn't that exactly the sort of thing that ought to be done with a gallery page, not a category? - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They might be good for the purpose, yes, but there are too many unmaintained galleries. Maintaining the gallery is much easier if there is an equivalent category; I think which one to link from Wikivoyage is a minor detail. Here the issue was placing the sight is the intermediate Places to go category, which I think is redundant in most cases and may make for a a confusing structure in some cases (some would put Lakes of X-park there, others would use it for individual lakes, and similarly with a lot of landforms, where you could get loops). A gallery about X-park is a different beast, it wouldn't be linked from the See listings of Wikivoyage's article on the park (but with iw of the article itself), and won't help finding media about a specific feature (unless an image in the gallery is in the specific category). –LPfi (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DR[edit]

If you feel the need to convert the tags to a DR, create a mass DR, but immediately stop creating individual DRs for each file. --Didym (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Please do that yourself for any similar cases. I don't know how to do that sensibly. This is one reason why I asked you not to use "no permission since", but instead create a mass DR for the files. There is no way I can discuss the files collectively with the "no permission since". –LPfi (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you don't know how to convert to a proper DR, just do not do it. The correct way is the use of VFC, but there is still no need to use a DR for these files at all, those don't need discussion, but a VRTS ticket. --Didym (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, so I have to learn to use VFC. I regard that as an advanced tool, while challenging speedy deletions should be something any user should be able to do. A VRT ticket is of course the best way to handle it, but as the user made what seemed to be the sensible thing and is a serious contributor, I think a friendly note on their user talk page would have been much more suitable than giving a 7-day grace period that they may not notice until much later. –LPfi (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your opinion?[edit]

Hello LPfi,

I'd be interested in your opinion about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Theeurekaflag.jpg. This relates to a previous discussion we had here in September 2022. Thanks! Renerpho (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I commented there. –LPfi (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi[edit]