User talk:Yann

/archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

• User:Yann/Valued images, 2009-2014
• User:Yann/Quality images, 2005-2014
• User:Yann/Featured images

God is busy, may I help you? / Dieu est occupé, puis-je vous aider?

You can leave me a message in English or French, at the bottom. Click here. Yann 22:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

Hello, Yann,

Thanks for making the controls. I did not intend to violate privacy policies. I'm training on the Wikipedia platform and I'm learning. I'll try to be much more careful with the photos. Thanks for correcting me, and sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SelimDavidMusali (talk • contribs) 19:29, 02 January 2017 (UTC)

Restore photos

All my photos were created by me, and I approve of them being here, please restore them.

And stop this shit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimnator (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations on pictures

Hi Yann,

As i am new to wikipedia, i am still learning about the different copyright rules and exceptions and etc..You guys have a fairly strict and sometimes confusing rules for internet content. I thought mentioning the website and naming the artist would be enough... But I'm learning from my mistakes, i'm seeking for artists authorization now. Anyway, sorry for the the inconvenience.

Sylvia Ines H — Preceding unsigned comment added by SYLVIA INES H (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Huh?

• Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Margaret_Phillips_French_(1846-1929).png
• File:Margaret Phillips French (1846-1929).png

Bipolar moment? - Revent^talk 05:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I closed this by accident. Thanks for noticing. Yann (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Revent: I know your comment above was intended to be a humorous remark between you and Yann, and I also noted the smiley, but please consider that not all users seeing such a joke with reference to mental illness sees it as a funny remark. Not something I want to make a mountain out of, as I am sure you did not think of that possible perception when you wrote it. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Slaunger: Sorry if you took it as offensive, but that was in no way intended as a reference to a mental illness (and, tbh, I don't think it would particularly make sense that way). The comment was about him accidentally keeping an image on the basis of a reason for deleting it.. 'having or showing two opposite principles, sets of values, or opinions' is a primary meaning of the word. My dictionary doesn't even mention 'bipolar disorder' when defining it. - Revent^talk 01:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Revent: If I enter 'bipolar' on two different search engines (Google and duckduckgo) and look at just the ten first hits (as far as I bothered look), they all refer to articles or web pages about bipolar disorder, which is a mental illness. I think you may need a new dictionary or use another source as its primary definition does not represent the most commonly understood meaning of that word. I did not take personal offense by the way, but I would never have used 'bipolar' in a joking remark myself, as it can be easily misunderstood. Again, I perfectly understand this was intended as a joke, as very few people are likely to see it anyway on this talk page. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Slaunger: Bipolar disorder is named that after the 'bipolarity' of the emotional state of the people that suffer from it, but many 'other things' completely unrelated are also bipolar (a magnet, or the planet Earth, would be obvious examples). I did not think anyone (especially Yann) would take the comment as any kind of reference to 'emotional bipolarity' (the mental illness), but instead to the 'logical' bipolarity of his obviously mistaken edit.... there was rather obviously nothing 'emotional' involved. I'm perfectly fine with not using the word, but "contradicting yourself today?" would have expressed what I was saying just as well.

Honestly, that 'society' has misappropriated a technical term to imply a specific use of that term is not unusual. I simply had a technical education, where the term was commonly used in other senses (a 'bipolar' magnetic field, as opposed to a more complex one, for instance). FWIW, from glancing a few other dictionaries, the use of the term 'bipolar' to refer to the mental illness seems to be specifically 'set aside' as something like 'of psychiatric illness'. I have no reason to think that Yann is any more mentally ill than myself (he's probably less, to be honest). - Revent^talk 01:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I came here for something else and see this. A search on the phrase lead me to this which is not related to BD. So I think this is another incident where words are split to find a meaning where the entire phrase has a different meaning. Jee 04:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Guidance needed

Hello, my friend. Please say what I did wrong and how I can do it better in the future. [1][2]

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anna Frodesiak,

These are HR pictures with EXIF, and the copyright owner mentioned in EXIF matches the uploader's name, so I think a proper DR is better. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

But what is an "HR" picture? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anna Frodesiak,

Sorry for the jargon. HR = high resolution, Regards, Yann (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No, not at all. I just figured that out and was about to post here to say so. Okay, so, if it is an HR pic, that probably means it is not from some website where the uploader just grabs it, right? It means the uploader probably has the rights or that sort of thing, am I guessing right? Now, I'm using Irfan and the EXIF doesn't show me anything but numbers and such. Finally, is a deletion request the best way to go if the uploader made a promo page at enwp and I blocked him there for that? I guess that is an indication he works for them, right? I figured he did, but did not have the rights to the images considering that tineye showed them from here and there. I guessed he was an employee told to make a Wikipedia page and just shopped for pics at google. Please tell me what to do in these sorts of cases and I will follow that from now on. Many thanks for your patience. I'm still learning after all these years.  :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anna Frodesiak,

Yes, that's it. Speedy deletions are for obvious copyright violation. I don't think it is a copyright violation here. These look like professional shots made for promoting the subject, so it is quite probable that the company owns the copyright. The EXIF data is shown at the bottom of the description page. I guess they might be deleted anyway, unless someone finds a reason to keep them. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Understood. From now on, I will weigh out the resolution of the shot, the EXIF, and who the uploader is, and only speedy tag if clear copyvio with no reasonable possibility of uploader having the rights.

Would "no permission" tagging also have been an option in these cases?

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Anna Frodesiak. The copyright hlder of this image his "Ruza studio". This seem like a commissioned work in which the original photographer still retained the copyright of the work. There is no clear evidence that "Ruza Studio" is an employee of Suria Resort and Hotel. If we have to keep this image at all, the uploader must provide evidence of permission in form of written document stating a transfer has taken place. Note that Ruza studio's moral right is preserved. To be honest, this photo also qualifies for deletion per COM:ADVERT. Just as Yann rightfully said, we usually don't speedy this kind of file, instead we take it to DR. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, Wikicology. I will keep all of this in mind. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Anna Marchwinska

Hello, I have just noticed that my file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anna_Marchwinska_po_koncercie_Akademii_Operowej_w_Warszawie,_listopad_2016.jpg has been removed. I am the author of the photo and Anna Marchwinska had approved this. I restored the photo. Let me know, if something is wrong and I can correct?

best, Atomksk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomksk (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Atomksk: Hi,

You should upload the original image with full EXIF data, or send a permission via OTRS, as this is a small file without EXIF data. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Query regarding copyright violations

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and thus do not have complete knowledge of the nuances, so forgive my naivety. I have been marked as having violated the copyrights for several images that were featured on the page Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad In that context I would like to mention that I was the original creator of all of those pictures, so I am not quite sure how I violated my own copyrights, so it would be nice if you could clear the air for me. I'm really confused. What do I have to do in order to upload my own images on Wikipedia?--Souradeep1996 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Souradeep1996: Hi,

For all works previously published elsewhere, the copyright owner has to send a formal written permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Mark612

Hey Yann,

I'm kind of new to Wikipedia, and I had suddenly received several copyright violations while editing one page, that are suddenly a "last warning" to me. Some of the pictures that were deleted I had taken myself, and others I had permission to use. What can I do to not only take off the violations, but to furthermore restore the photos I worked hard on to get? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark612 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mark612: Hi,

If you files were previously published elsewhere, you need to send a permission. It is also better to upload the original pictures, not small size copies. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Help

I want to completely remove these files which has been noticed as copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisalahmad523 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

please delete this file also "File:Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University logo.jpg", and let me help how to add logos to the universities pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisalahmad523 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wisalahmad523: Hi,

Either you get a formal written permission from the copyright owner, or you use the Non-free use rationale guideline on the English Wikipedia. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

درود و سپاس این خوراکی تقدیم شما برای تلاش هایتان. دانش و پویش هستم. عکس هایی که خودم گرتم مرتب داره حذف میشه. دلیلش چیه؟ Daneshvapooyesh (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Hello Yann,

We received a message for Copyright violations. There are Standard License from www.123rf.com for the images that were removed here bg:Микотерапия. The images are purchased from registrated account at the website and the conditions there include this: Credits & Subscription - Websites and Blogs, Electronic Documents and Reports. If you need more information leave a message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMICommunicationsBG (talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@AMICommunicationsBG:

For all works not uploaded by the creator, or previously published elsewhere, the copyright owner has to send a formal written permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Review

Hello, Yann. I hope all's well with you. Could you perhaps review the following images hosted by Bollywood Hungama: File:Hrithik at Rado launch.jpg, File:Hrithik and Rakesh.jpg, File:Hrithik Roshan in 2001.jpg, File:Hrithik Roshan in 2013.jpg and File:Hrithik charity.jpg? I would really appreciate the help. Thanks in advance. - Frankie _talk 19:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Frankie _talk 18:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shamrock III.jpg

Hi, the PD-UK template states: "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." - please add such a specification to the image description field. Jcb (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Do I really need to state the obvious? You are NOT the one to reclose this DR! Jcb (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Jcb, sorry to say, but if you continue, I am going to report you. Yann (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see http://www.naturepl.fr/photocaptions32.html for a better caption (search for '08101186'). The image was published in 1908. - Revent^talk 14:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

raison de suppression

Merci Yann de passer derrière moi. Comprenant peu l'anglais, je tatonne ! Je travaille dans les pages non catégorisées de 2014 et il y a au moins 20% d'images nulles, floues, non identifiées ou promotionnelles. Faut-il mieux les laisser dans ce puits perdu ou chercher à faire le ménage?--Macassar (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour Macassar,

Tu peux faire le ménage, mais il faut créer une demande de suppression. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Besoin d'aide pour télecharger livre

Bonjour Yann, j'ai scanné le livre papier Charles Le Goffic - La double confession, 1930, en une quinzaine de pdf's, puis fusionné dans un seul pdf de 18 Mb, et transformé en djvu. Mais cela est devenu un djvu de 18 Mb. Le télechargement ne réussissait pas, puis j'ai diminué la résolution, mais cela donne un djvu de mauvaise qualité. Que faire? Est-ce une option de t'envoyer par mail les pdf en portions, que tu puisses juger des possibilités? --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Close

Hi. I have a few questions about how your close, here, deals with the issues raised, since all the evidence is that these political speeches are subject to the copyright of the speakers and so, these files would be derivative works? Given that Commons Scope requires express release by all rights holders, and Commons Precautionary Principle requires no complaint (or notice) by the speech's rights-holder, how does your close protect Commons from not hosting copyrighted material without permission? Just last November, such a speech file was deleted from Commons as derivative work, correct? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, As I said, in my closure, there is clearly no consensus that these speeches are covered by a copyright. In short, I think that Fæ is correct here. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Despite the sources and the November close saying that is wrong? You'll have no objection to appeal then? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Fæ answered you with a detailed and clear 5-point message. What more do you have to say? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Everyone agreed and it is plain from the videos that the speakers were reading their speeches (or even if you take Fae's unsourced speculation -- they were reading large parts of their speeches). And Fae again misrepresented VOA, which says its videos may contain copyrighted material, and does nor say "public domain, unless stated otherwise" (only things others do not have copyright claims to are public domain). So, my remaining questions are: Did you read or view the following sources that were linked in the discussion?

• Wikimedia Foundation Wikmedia Foundation The copyright for political speeches, including notes that are read, are held by the speech maker (unless the speech maker is a government employee in their duties and none the speakers here was a government employee).
• [the US Copyright Office no notice of copyright is required, and as soon as a speech is fixed in writing or recording it is the copyright of the speech maker and publication is not required.
• Are speeches public domain?. from newmediarights.org - modern speeches are not public domain. You must get a release from the speech maker.
• Copyright in Campaigns | Copyright Corner. Ohio State University libraries. - the author of a speech holds the copyright

And then there is the prior Commons deletion which held that a political speech video is a derivative work, did you look at that, and how do you distinguish it?

So how do you justify your opposite close to the prior deletion, given none of the facts or sources support it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• ... Piling on, it's very clear that the speakers were reading the speech verbatim. I don't see how it's incumbent on us to prove otherwise. Such evidence has not been needed to delete similar videos in the past, either. Strongly disagree with reading of this consensus. czar 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I am thinking what to do next, but you are most probably wrong. See for example videos in Category:World Economic Forum. Do you intend to ask for deletion of all them?
  • @Alanscottwalker and Czar: I think Fæ refuted your arguments, and so far, you haven't countered his arguments. Most importantly, these videos are the FIRST publications of speeches, and the videos are free. It would be different if they were republishing of previously recorded materials, but that's not the case. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Let me boil down your answer in to some bullet point counters.
      1. Other crap exists are not a valid argument.
      2. The first publication is the unpublished texts which are written. They may not be published, but unpublished works are only PD if they fall within {{PD-US-unpublished}}. It is true that normal speaking is not protected, but reading something prepared is (if long and creative enough to be classified as a literacy work). It would be if someone wrote a book the day before the speech (but not put it for sale yet), then she would read it out load. THe book, and teext within it would still be protected under copyright.
    • This is the VOA republishing the material, under fair use. Bad close. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
      • • You are making a wrong interpretation, which would leads to ridiculous results. With your reasoning, we would need to delete File:The Moment the Women's March Took the Streets.webm... Regards, Yann (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
          • No. Josve05a is correct (in particular about VOA news's fair use) and you are disregarding the facts and law (and with no source whatsoever), as well Commons policy as shown in the prior deletion (Commons is not news and does not have fair use) - the speeches got copyright automatically when the were written according to actual law and sources. Do I understand you are contending that writings go out of copyright when they publicly read? And on what do you base such an unsupported notion? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Also, why do you try to make otherstuff arguments about things that are not speeches in the United States? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The remarks of the organizer at the start of File:The Moment the Women's March Took the Streets.webm are fine... not only were they not previously prepared, but there is not indication that she authorized that they be recorded (or even expected that she was being filmed). To be a subject of copyright, material must be fixed “by or under the authority of the author”... this would not appear to apply to the remarks there, so they would by be 'a subject of copyright'. Steinem, on the other hand, obviously expected (and probably intended) that she would be recorded, so her 'performance' became a subject of copyright (and she owns that copyright, as the 'author' of both the speech and the performance). - Revent^talk 02:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This close was wrong. Steinem owns a copyright in both her prepared remarks, and in the 'performance' of giving the speech... her prepared remarks became 'fixed in tangible form', and copyrighted, when written; and her performance became 'fixed in tangible form', and copyrighted, when recorded with her consent. That the VOA had an 'implied license' to create a derivative work (the video) is implicit in the fact that she was clearly expecting to be videotaped at that event. The only material that entered the public domain via the VOA is the actual 'copyrightable material' added to the derivative work by the VOA itself.... the actual video (not the audio).

The VOA, under the basis of that 'implied license', had the right to republish Steinem's copyrighted work on their website. That permission does not extend to us. The video is a clear copyright violation.

You stated at the DR that "Fæ's arguments are most relevant here." Fae was asking for "evidence of a claim of copyright" in the speeches or the performances. There is no requirement (and has not been for decades) that an author 'assert' that a copyright exists. Copyright exists from the moment that a creative original work is 'fixed in tangible form'.

Also, you really should not close DRs that were the subject of extensive debate unless you are willing to write a detailed rationale. - Revent^talk 01:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to add a bit. There were comments at the DR about 'extemporaneous remarks' or an 'improvised speech', also generally wrong. Such material is a 'performance', and if recorded (fixed in tangible form) with the consent of the author, then a copyright subsists in them, separate from any 'additional' copyright that might exist in the original creative contributions of the person making the recording. - Revent^talk 01:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I reopened it. It seems that curiously the objection is only for some videos of the Women's March, while we have hundreds such videos on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. But I criticized your last sentence in a comment on the deletion page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: That's not a copyright argument, but it is still a fact: only 3 videos of women's speeches were nominated for deletion, while we have hundreds such videos on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems quite unfair of you. You seem to be accusing Czar or others of something? Earlier on this page, you seemed to complain Czar or others did not nominate all the Women's March footage, so it is apparent that no one is out against the Women's March, in general (some of those you accuse may even have marched). Then too, I opened this discussion with you pointing to a prior deletion under Commons policy of a public speech (which was not a woman's speech). The actual issue is speeches in the United States and copyright, and, here, it just so happens, protecting the creativity of women by not taking their rights without express permission. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

hardgaza

hi yann sorry they are my photos of me y can delete them if you want .

i thought tey might help other men like me with Klinefelter syndrome and a micro penis thanks for contacting me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardygaza (talk • contribs) 07:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC) yann no one has contacted me just delete them if you want thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardygaza (talk • contribs) 07:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Localización de Barallobre.JPG

Your action and your closing statement don't match. -- Gauss (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops, fixed. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Gregjarlot

Thought you should be made aware Gregjarlot (talk · contribs) has resumed uploading non-free content after you banned him in December. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 14:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you please also take a look at File:Iris Mittenaere 2016.05.07.jpg? Image has Commons licensing on Flickr but a copyright sign on the image. A derivative is being used on English wiki with the copyright cropped out. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 20:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, the Flickr link for the image we've been reverting to is dead and all the account holders other photos are copyrighted. Is that grounds to nominate File:Iris Mittenaere 2016.jpg for deletion too? PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Iris Mittenaere 2016.05.07.jpg is probably OK, but File:Iris Mittenaere 2016.jpg is not. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

How can it be ok with a copyright declaration on it? PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, There are 2 separate things: the watermark on the image, and the license. What's important is that the Flickr account is really the photographer. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

London Hughes JPG

the image in regards to londonhughes.jpg is not in violation of any copyright laws as she has rights to the photo. this photo was deleted unfairly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharMedia22 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@CharMedia22: Hi,

The copyright owner is CLARE PRICE PHOTOGRAPHY, so we need a formal written permission from them to keep this here. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Do not reupload it without that permission, or you will be blocked. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

copyright

Hi There

i noticed my images were flagged for removal of my brother's wiki page. I guess I am unsure of the laws as one of the pictures was of a picture in our house of my brother and John Candy. It is a picture we took and had blown up and gave to him as a gift. There is another one of his Grey Cup jersey (which he owns as playing for the team) that we had done in a shadow type box and hanging in the family home. It was a picture of it that I took. The other ones are ones the team took and gave to my brother to have, which he in turn gave to me to make up his page. So I am not sure how I have violated anything? I am happy to revisit so he van have he page restored with images.

THanks — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.36.7.253 (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Could you log in, and/or give a link to the files? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Using pictures from the arabic wikipedia

Hi, I was wondering how could I use pictures uploaded to the Arabic version of Wikipedia here. Example: I would like to use this file https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Qaisumahclub.jpg on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaisumah_FC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twbakhsh (talk • contribs) 22:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Twbakhsh: Hi,

This is a complex logo, so you need a permission from the copyright owner to upload it on Commons. But you can upload it on the English Wikipedia under a fair use rationale. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Vermin Supreme and Rob Potylo at the DC Women's March.webm

Yann, this is a copyrighted song. There are earlier versions published on YouTube. Please revert to the original upload, which noted the copyrighted audio as removed on purpose. czar 23:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, This is getting ridiculous. To me, these artists are improvising. And without the sound, this video is useless. If there is a copyright, I don't understand why you uploaded it in the first place. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This appears 'improvisational', yes, but "Hot Dogs and AppleSauce" is a copyrighted song by Rob Potylo. You can see him and Vermin Supreme performing it here in 2012. While they appear to have varied the words, the song itself is copyrighted. Uploading the video without the audio (their 'physical performance' appears to fail to meet the fixation requirement) was correct, and with the audio it's a copyvio. - Revent^talk 23:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

User DidierMazuru

Salut, Yann. Could you please contact DidierMazuru (talk · contribs)? If he is in fact the artist of the same name, I think we need an OTRS ticket for his uploads. I thought it would be best if someone explained the situation to him in French. De728631 (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

ABDO2008.DZ

Hello Mr yann , thank you for all that you order the Wikimedia. But you are wrong to delete some images. Because it is mine. Some of the other pictures I had asked permission from the owners before they are submitted. I do not deny that I violated the copyrights on some pictures. But Most of them mine. In the other, I asked permission from the owners. Delete it. But like mine File:Beautiful nature 2015.jpg, File:Beautiful flower_2015.jpg, File:Bouhatem.jpg, File:الشتاء.jpg

Creative Commons License 2015 أنا، صاحب حقوق الطبع والنشر لهذا العمل، أنشر هذا العمل تحت الرخصة التالية: w:ar:مشاع مبدع النسبة الترخيص بالمثل هذا الملف مُرخص تحت رخصة المشاع المبدع نسبة المصنف إلى مؤلفه - المشاركة على قدم المساواة 3.0 العامة لك مطلق الحرية: في المشاركة – في نسخ وتوزيع وبث العمل في التعديل – في تكييف العمل تحت الشروط التالية: النسبة – يجب عليك أن تنسب العمل بالطريقة التي يحددها المؤلف أو المرخص (ولكن ليس بأي يشكل يمكن أن يوحي بتأييده لك أو لاستخدامك لعمله). الترخيص بالمثل – إذا عدلت أو غيرت أو بنيت على هذا العمل، فلا يحق لك توزيع العمل الناتج إلا تحت نفس الرخصة أو رخصة مشابهة لها.

thank you... --ABDO2008.DZ (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi ABDO2008.DZ,

The issue here is that you are images are of very poor quality and not used, so out of scope. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Romain Rolland books

Hello! You've uploaded Romain Rolland's books "Quinze ans de combat" and "Par la révolution, la paix" which you've marked as {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. As the page Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights shows, France had 50 years copyright term on the URAA-date, which was extended to 70 years in 1997, therefore these files are actually PD-URAA and so you can mark them accordingly. Nonexyst (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

France terms were actually 50 + 8 years for war extension = 58 ans. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Morten Kirkskov

Salut!

Tu te souviens pourquoi tu avais effacé Morten_Kirkskov.jpg? Je viens de recevoir un ticket OTRS de la photographe et je voulais être sûr qu'il est ok. Merci! --Ruthven (msg) 17:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

La première version est sourcée de Facebook et l'auteur est Natascha Thiara Rydvald. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

New here

Helo , dear Yann , I am new here and didn't know what to do ? It's about my husbands art ;))) I need to do a page here of him ? But I started and you or your team deleted the page bcs of the license rights or something like this ? Please help me what to do to continue with the making of the page of Vladi Vladimir VV ? Thank you , Kristina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladi Vladimir VV (talk • contribs) 22:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Vladi Vladimir VV: Hi,

Please a permission for a free license via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

File:SIX Group logo.svg

Sorry, I am not really familiar with how it works, but the tagged graphic needs to be deleted, because it is claiming to be our company logo and it is not (we only use SIX and not SIX Group). As far as I can see from the discussion it was extracted from a brochure without any permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixmedienstelle (talk • contribs) 14:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sixmedienstelle: Hi,

1. Please sign your posts with ~~~~.

2. This logo is {{PD-textlogo}}, so there is no copyright on it.

3. We usually keep old logos for reference. You can still ask for deletion, but on the logo page. Last time, you requested deletion of the vandalism report page. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Hi Yaan,

You left me a message letting me know that I have uploaded content that has copyright issues. I want to let you know that I hold the copyright to these photos. Please let me know if you need some sort of proof, but these are all original works owned and copyrighted by FANUC America Corporation. If I do not hear back I will forward your message to our legal department and they may contact you. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoboGuru (talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@RoboGuru: Hi,

Since these images were published elsewhere, please send a permission for a free license via COM:OTRS. And do not make legal threats, or you may be blocked. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations - KovalamKid

Hi Yann,

Please excuse me. I am quite new to editing in Wilipedia. I sent a request to the permissions email to remove a couple of images that I uploaded without copyrights by mistake. I asked for them to be removed.

Since then I have added some further images to the following pages Stephen Mold, Michael Ellis and Emma McClarkin. I can confirm that those images are mine. I am a professional photographer www.artconaghan.com

Can you let me know which images you are concerned about and how can I prove to you they are my images.

Looking forward to hearing from you

Art Conaghan (KovalamKid) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KovalamKid (talk • contribs) 19:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@KovalamKid: Hi,

Please could you please confirm that you are Art Conaghan via COM:OTRS? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

RE:Grafiki naruszające prawa autorskie

I sent these logos in Mai, so I don't understand what is this for (warning)Maxiuss (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Maxiuss: Hi,

We have only discovered that they are copyright violations now. :/ Regards, Yann (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Pictures of Songuitar333

Hi there, I understood this. I have been ill and then out of town. I have not "violated" this and I was well aware and all of these artists will be sending in an e-mail to wikipedia. I just haven't been well enough to give them the template from wiki commons to use to give wikipedia permission but am better now and you will receive e-mails from these artists to allow me to post this image. My question is should I upload those images again and the link to the image with the e-mail? Please let me know. Thank you! Songuitar333 (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Songuitar333,

Do not upload the images again. Please send the permission for a free license via COM:OTRS, and the images will be restored. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Lebanonrugbymedia

Hello,

We have two tickets out for the two photos you tagged for deletion or deleted. These photos were taken by us The Lebanese Nation Rugby Union team and so we have the rights to use them. Our two tickets with OSM release are: Ticket:2017012710017783 and Ticket:2017012710017792.

Can you please take away the warning for the block and restore our images thank you.

LRUF.org--Lebanonrugbymedia (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lebanonrugbymedia,

I restored the images and added the permission, but the copyright owner is a different person in the EXIF data of File:Frank the Yank.jpg‎.

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Frank the Yank.jpg‎. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations - Quantumsuizid

You: "It has come to our attention that you have uploaded several files that are copyright violations. You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions."

No, I uploaded 3 pictures before I got any messages from you. I did nothing "despite" instructions from anyone.

OK, I'll try to work out the complicated process of verifying that I own the 3 pictures... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumsuizid (talk • contribs) 09:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Quantumsuizid: Hi,

One of the image is a smaller copy from [3].

The others are a logo and a poster. For any previously published content, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Pictures and being blocked

Hi, first of all Im uploading some pictures of my own. And im new to this platform and i have emailed wikipedia for this issue. How can I have the pictures back? And how do I tell that it is mine.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autoautoauto (talk • contribs) 06:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Autoautoauto: Hi,

The files you have uploaded were copied from the Internet, so there are not yours. For example, File:Luana Kenap.jpg comes from Instagram, as you mentioned yourself in the source. Anyway, for any content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission from the copyright owner is necessary. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Warning to user

I think that your warning to Ghadasal's talk page (here) may be too heavy-handed. As far as I can see this user has not uploaded any images since he or she was first alerted to the problems. Please reassess. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Verbcatcher,

I put a similar note on everyone who has uploaded more than 3 copyright violations. This user has uploaded only copyright violations so far. This is just a warning, and it usually works fine: people understand than continuing will grant them a block. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Block

How long will be my first block? MilosHaran (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi MilosHaran,

There is no fixed time. It depends on you, your behaviour, and your uploads. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so one mistake and I can't upload on commonos anymore. MilosHaran (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi MilosHaran,

Dealing with problematic files takes time, both to reviewers and admins. So blocks are a conservative mesure, to prevent Commons to be flooded with copyvios. Actually most blocks are temporary. They depend mostly on the uploader's willingness to learn Commons rules, and follow them. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for help. MilosHaran (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Atlantic Forest: definition of edit warring?

Hello, Yann. I want to point out that I reverted Category:Atlantic Forest precisely once. User:Wieralee reverted my reversion. How does that make an edit war?

If you hadn't protected the page, I would have just let the page stand as-is (because completely fixing Commons' categorization will take man-centuries of effort, and life is short).

I normally delete all comments on my Commons talk page. I would appreciate it if you would retract your comment (perhaps with strikethrough?) before I delete it, so that my 12-year-long reputation at Commons remains pristine. — hike395 (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Hike395: The problem starts at the upper category: [4] and is not solved yet, I think. You all are still putting this category into a redirected one -- and this is the real problem. I'm editing on two computers, so I didn't noticed I was editing this category before... so I was trying to empty the redirected category according to the redirection :( Wieralee (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Accept my apologies, please -- and revert my editions at any time. Wieralee (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No need to apologize, User:Wieralee. You didn't do anything wrong. I didn't realize that Category:Brazilian WWF ecoregions redirected to Category:Brazilian WWF ecoregion maps. Thanks for pointing that out! That doesn't seem right. Let's try to fix this mess. We may need to ask User:Yann or another admin to unprotect Category:Atlantic Forest before the fix is finished. — hike395 (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done OK, fine. Unprotected. Yann (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

About "copyright violations warning"

Two recent photos were uploaded with the express permission from the copyright holder. Here it is - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dok-vo_razresheniya.jpg , the permission. The very thing was posted on the freaking image description AND sent to the OTRS team - however, the images were still deleted via rapid deletion procedure (originally meant for obvious copyright violoations - e.g. taking some other person's copyrighted work and claiming it as your own) instead of normal deletion process and I have no say about it. I bear absolutely no responsibility for OTRS team failing to react to my e-mail in any way. As of now, copyright enforcement policy here starting to look both inept, stupid and heavy handed. --RussianTrooper (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi RussianTrooper,

The permission should be send to OTRS, not uploaded on Commons. Then if the permission is valid, the files will be restored. I checked OTRS for your last 2 deleted files, and there is no permission there. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Improper file deletion: Patrick J. Ahern House

I would like to know why the image for the Patrick J. Ahern House was deleted. I originally uploaded it with what I thought was the proper copyright information. Then you flagged it for copyright violation, so I contacted the museum which owns both the property and the image and had them email the release exactly as directed. I know they emailed it because I was CC'ed on it. Yet the image was still removed. What exactly do we have to do to get this image loaded into commons? Valis55 (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)