User talk:LX

Welcome to the user talk page for LX!

Sign your posts by typing four tilde characters (~~~~). If you want to start a new discussion on a new topic, place your post at the bottom of the page under == A descriptive heading ==. Please be civil, assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. (See Commons:Talk page guidelines.)

Important:
I prefer to keep discussions where they started.
If I left a message on your user talk page, please respond there.

I should have it on my watch list. (If I seem to have overlooked a response, you may remind me here.) If you write something here and expect a response, expect it here (so watch this page).

Archived discussions are in User talk:LX/Archive.

Om du undrar över att jag ändrade tillbaka den här redigeringen [1] så beror det på att jag är väldigt säker på att bilden föreställer Gustav Adolfs torg i Malmö och inte i Stockholm. Byggnaden i bakgrunden finns fortfarande kvar på torg, och burspråket är rätt ovanligt utformat. Mvh--Ankara (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Det verkar stämma. Jag gick nog lite för snabbt fram. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:RASECZENITRAM#Do you own a lot of different cameras?. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. 19:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You deleted File:Segera Afghanistan.jpg and File:Celebrating Internation Womens' Day in Kandahar.jpg. The deletion log says they were marked as copyright violations. But I received no heads-up that they had been marked.

Could you please direct me to the place where the discussion of this copyright concern took place? Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete them. As the deletion log states, File:Segera Afghanistan.jpg was deleted by Abigor (talk · contribs) and File:Celebrating Internation Womens' Day in Kandahar.jpg was deleted by High Contrast (talk · contribs). I only marked them as copyright violations. I notified you of this on your talk page here and here.

These images were obvious copyright violations (http://www.flickr.com/photos/21394661@N08/3632467937/ is credited to Marco Di Lauro/Getty Images and http://www.flickr.com/photos/23879550@N00/3399565743/ is credited to AP Photo/Allauddin Khan, meaning neither Flickr uploader has rights to issue valid licenses to them). As such, the files were eligible for speedy deletion without prior discussion per Commons:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion. If you have objections, you may raise them at Commons:Undeletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that Afghanistan is not a signatory to any international copyright agreements, and has no domestic copyright law. You called these images "obvious copyright violations". I suggest you made this comment without fully addressing the complicated status of images taken in countries with no copyright protection. I suggest this makes Afghan images inappropriate for speedy deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The country of origin is the country where the image was first published. The headquaters of Getty or Associated Press are not in Afghanistan. --Martin H. (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The country of origin is the country where the image was first published?" That would be significant. Do you have a source for this?
• And if these images were first published in Afghanistan? Is it your legal opinion (are you a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property law?) that publications in Afghanistan don't count? What about images taken by GIs or State Dept employees in Afghanistan -- is it your position that an image taken by a GI, first published outside of the USA, is covered by the laws of that other country? What if that country where the GI's official photo was first published was Afghanistan?
• How do you know these images were first published by Getty or the AP? I have seen both services claim credit for images that were the work of US Federal employees. Geo Swan (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Martin's comments, it's also quite likely that the images were post-processed outside of Afghanistan, which could constitute additional support for the organisations' copyright claims even if the original photos were not protected by copyright. In any case, you did not make the claim that the photos were not protected by copyright until just now. In fact, by uploading the photos to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons copyright license, you were explicitly making the claim that they are protected by copyright. If you believe they are not protected by copyright, a public domain tag ({{PD-Afghanistan}}?) would have been more appropriate. Additionally, you incorrectly cited the Flickr users ♪_Lisa_♪ and tldagny as authors. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please clarify, are you suggesting that routine image cropping, or color balancing, would allow AP or Getty to claim these photos were their derivative works, and that they owned the intellectual property rights, without regard to who actually took them?
• When I upload images from flickr I use the flinfo or flickr2commons tools. I have occasionally added PD liscenses, when I was absolutely 100 percent certain that PD liscense was apropriate. But it is more convenient to stick with the liscense the tool wants to carry over. Sticking with the flickr liscense means that either the flickrreview robot, or a 2nd real human being will confirm that the image was available on flickr. There is no corresponding routine confirmation of PD images. Leaving the original flickr-derived liscense on the image so there is a review prevents confusion if and when the page where the image was found is no longer available.
• I think your challenges above confirm that the deletion of these images was not routine, and that your use of speedy deletion was overly hasty. Geo Swan (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cropping is usually not considered a copyrightable modification, but it's certainly possible to introduce modifications requiring creative decision-making of a copyrightable nature in post-processing. I don't know if that's the case here, but given that Getty and AP appear to be claiming rights to these photos, I believe an assertion to the contrary ought to be based on more than favourable assumptions.

I also think that convenience is not an appropriate reason for using copyright tags that one has good reason to believe to be incorrect. Using an appropriate tag with an explanation in the permissions field would be preferable and could still be handled by a human reviewer.

When tagging these images, my focus was on doing a routine sweep for files with information indicating that they were sourced from commercial agencies. The Afghan situation is a bit of an unusual case as far as international copyright law is concerned, and given that there was no reference to it, it did not cross my mind (nor the deleting administrators' minds, apparently). While I would still argue for deletion in this case, I probably would have gone for a regular deletion discussion rather than speedy tagging if these issues had been apparent at the time. Again, feel free to use Commons:Undeletion requests if you feel that the deletion was handled improperly. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about all the copyright violations. I was confused about how it worked. I'm afraid you'll also have to delete the following files as well:

• Spaghetti alla puttanesca.jpg
• Turkey with stuffing.jpg
• Roast turkey 02.jpg
• Spaghetti vongole rosso.jpg

RecoveryMinded (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tidied up RecoveryMinded's incomplete deletion request or File:Roast turkey 02.jpg before I saw this note, perhaps it can be closed speedily. I converted his other deletion requests:File:Spaghetti alla puttanesca.jpg, File:Turkey with stuffing.jpg, File:Spaghetti vongole rosso.jpg into speedies as he has stated license is invalid. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that and hope you learn from the situation and have more success with future participation. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

the bot has only transferd the file and isn't the creator. The creator is en:User:Swamp_Greetings!

Jan Luca (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator, according to the file description, is the University of Santiago de Compostela. I guess you mean the uploader, though. In that case, Swamp Greetings may be the English Wikipedia uploader, but the bot is indeed the Commons uploader. I'd say the human responsible for the upload here at Commons would be whoever ordered the transfer to Commons. Where can I see that information so that I can remind them to check that the source and licensing information is complete before requesting such transfers? —LX (talk, contribs) 20:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the attribution is part of the licensing, still an advertising link to a bicycle workshop is not part of an attribution (that would be "Ralf Soletschek", as explicitly stated in the license tags). I believe making an advertising link a required part of a "free" file would collide with Wikimedia policy - no ads on Wikimedia projects. --77.176.210.177 10:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 77.176.210.177 (or 92.225.132.117, if you prefer),

Attributing the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor is a strict requirement of the license. There are plenty of files on Commons that have a link as part of the required attribution, and there is no problem with this. See, for example, Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/05#Image:Locro.jpg. I've asked the admins to look at the issue, since you've now made the same edit four times without trying to reach consensus. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LX. Do you want me to assign you rollback and patroller permissions? Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 10:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that could be useful, I guess. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 10:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done :). Best reards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 11:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]