You've put GNU licenses on these images this is incorrect, they are commercial images and copyrighted. You'd need to add the correct licensing and a fair use rationale. This would only work for the cartoon images not the image of the voice artist as only a free image would be acceptable for a living person. Polly (Parrot) 15:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for moving over there. Now, what did you mean: "You'd be better off using a fair use rationale for those images."???ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
II don't know what you mean when you say, I need to have "fair use"(whatever that is) for the Toon's images.
As for the human's, you realize I have no idea what that last part was? You lost me at: "Well It's just unlikely that the copyright holder will release those commercial images under a free license, so fair use would be your best bet. Now in regards to Kathlene Herles if you wanted a free image of her your best bet would be to...",
the rest is intellectual babble. Pretend like you're explaining it to a 4 year old, only without the sugar coats.ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the tag you put on unfinished articles so they don't get speedy deletions? How do i put them on my unfinished article?ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying, all I have to do is scan the original/offivial image in myself and we can use it fairly? (please reply on my talk page, you know the drill) ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is that Matt Frewer, but I created the image and assigned it creative commons. If you would have read the comment you would have seen that. Please be a bit more careful with your excisions in the future. Thanks!
There is a confusing array of articles and user spaces perpetrated by UseoffkidsARTICLE (talk·contribs) and BoysGetHigh (talk ·contribs) involving LeCri, Hostel Records, Floor Number Three, Green Room, Acoussions, Only Four Of It and Mir Yusof that boils down to spamming and vandalism. I've already blocked UseoffkidsARTICLE (talk·contribs) based on the warning level on his talk page, but the other has yet to convince me he's not just wiki-stupid. - CobaltBlueTony™talk19:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for notifying me about my copyright infringment. I have just read the information you linked me to and was previously unaware of what I was doing wrong but now I know.
Is there any way I can remove the photgraphs myself manually before wenesday?
No problem copyright laws are tricky at the best of times. If you really want them deleted quickly you could add ((db-author)) to the image pages that should work. Polly (Parrot) 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont mind at all. I would rather someone identified to me the rules I am unintentionally breaking on wikipedia so that I can revert what I have done than for someone to say nothing and allow me to continue breaking them. --Energizer07 (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like a welcome template on your talk page as it has lots of useful links, when you're fairly new finding the policy or guideline you want can be tricky otherwise. Polly (Parrot) 01:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide a link to the image showing the free license. The current link doesn't work, it just set off my anti-virus software. Polly (Parrot) 01:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no idea why certain photos were up for deletion, as they have been there for months; all I did was change the contrast and re-upload them. Other photos on the page have no problem at all (and were all uploaded by myself) so I have changed the tags to mirror the ones that are fair-use.--andreasegde (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged them because they have no source information about where the image came from. For instance a website, a book or an archive of some sort. If you could add that source information to the images then that would solve it. Polly (Parrot) 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polly, I love you. You added the sources for some Brian Epstein photos (because I didn't know, or had forgotten - Doh...) You are to be heartily congratulated (or something more romantic, if you wish) for your dilligence, caring, and understanding. I have never seen such a thing on Wikipedia before, and I wish you the "toppermost of the poppermost". I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome, happy to help. I wasn't able to find them all but will give the other images another try later today. "Toppermost of the poppermost", I like that, and thank you for leaving such a lovely message. Polly (Parrot) 19:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you liked the message - some people think a nice message is being sarcastic, believe it or not. Anyway, I have added the rest of the sources (apart from the telegram which I can't find.) I remembered that a few photos were from books that I have, and photographed... (ouch!). All the best. --andreasegde (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you very much for acceptng at least those two images you've declared as historic phgotographs (Bobby receiving his Oscar and Treasure Island - on the set).
I've created a low resolution montage of five Peter Pan Production photographs, showing portions of the process of making the live action scenes and which I consider as historic as well.
They are not in my possession and are still copyrighted, but are at least of the same importance and ability to improve the article on Bobby Driscoll as the other two ones, you've accepted.
Its quality and shape is unsuitable for commercial use, and I declared them as Fair Use.
If you disagree, simply delete it, and I will leave it at that.
Regards --Bylot (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It really isn't up to me what images are accepted or deleted, I just added a rationale to those two because I thought a good fair use case could be made. I've had a look at the montage image and agree that a good fair use case could be made for this image as well. You could also make a reasonable fair use claim for an image of Bobby Driscoll toward the end of his life Image:Bobby1967.jpg to add near the end of the article. Polly (Parrot) 16:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They have a fair use rationale but whether or not they conform to WP:NFC is open to debate.Primarily they seem to be used for decoration as nothing new is conveyed that isn't adequately discussed in the relevant film articles. Polly (Parrot) 18:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if their use is debateable, but not necessarily against Wikipedian policy, can I add some screenshots in the same manner, and then wait for them to be contested (if at all)? THanks! Adaircairell (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can, just don't be surprised if they are challenged at some point. As WP:NFC is widely breached and misunderstood with at least 50% of FU images failing one of the 10 criteria, therefore I believe Wikipedia's Non-free content policy is unsustainable in the long term. At some point I think a decision will need to be made to either scrap WP:NFC and purely implement the much broader legal fair use definition or scrap fair use images altogether. Polly (Parrot) 18:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concerns for the images, but I'm not able to correct them properly. Hence, I request you to delete these. I'll upload new ones from my own side. Please accept this request of mine.
Yash
Only an administrator can delete them, but if you place ((db-author)) on the page then that should see them deleted quickly. Polly (Parrot) 20:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of reducing many Nero Wolfe book cover images I uploaded some time ago, to a height not exceeding 600 pixels. Seven of the images I reduced today have been tagged as needing to be reduced still further. Can you look at them again, and if reducing them further is still necessary, could you please give me the maximum dimensions that are permitted? Thanks. WFinch (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a good example Image:Ff42.jpg of a reduced image book cover, but if you don't want to reduce them yourself somebody else will get round to it shortly, most likely User:Melesse. Polly (Parrot) 20:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For good or ill you are the uploader of Image:KennyLofton.jpg, I can't imagine why you re-uploaded it as the chances of it being free are zero. Polly (Parrot) 21:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea who Kenny Lofton is and the image wasn't attached to an article. I assumed good faith that the uploader would spot the comments on their talk page and add source/license info and attach it to an article. I just thought the long filename was stupid, so fixed it. It could be a fan-taken photo (ie. non-copyright and usable in an article about Kenny Lofton) so, I would give Arialflyer a few days, but if you're sure it's gotta go then delete away. Astronaut (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking true, but twinkle doesn't give you the option to add a link with I9 but it does with G12 so it seems expedient to utilise it. Polly (Parrot) 21:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was browsing your user page and noticed a cat you are in: random page patrolling. I didn't see the userbox though and didn't know if you were aware of it.
Thanks for advising me about the missing tagging of the picture I added.
However, I do not find any possibility to add the tags. It is the first picture I added.
It is NOT a commercial picture, it is FREE for use, and so on. Can you help me, as I do not want it to be deleted again.
And how do I do it with pictures I took myself??
Thanks a lot, and please be patient with me. royalrec
The image Image:RecivingTheSeagull.JPG according to your summary is copyrighted to (c) 2008 Broken Records, Chile are you really sure that this image is free, if so can you provide a link to the website where the image is located and the free license should be displayed on the website. Polly (Parrot) 17:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging Image:Axelrod01.jpg which is up for deletion per CSD using TW
Can't say I'm familiar enough with the subject to make a decision on the matter without the source being cited- the images do not have adaquate sourcing, they should link to the website they were taken from, the book they were scanned from, or whatever. In any case, they'll be deleted in a few days (probably by me, I seem to be doing that a lot at the moment) as having no source, so I don't think we need to worry about it. I'll remove them from the articles in the mean time. J Milburn (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added descriptive info to the uploaded image in question. As far as I know, the image is in the public domain. It was taken from the Daily Telegraph page cited in the article on Johnny Bassett. I expect it was provided to the Telegraph by Bassett. It's an excellent specimen, to be sure. And germaine to the article.
I very much doubt it's in the public domain and as such would need a fair use rationale, though if Bassett is still alive then even that might be challenged as being replacable by a free image. Have a look here for Wikipedia's policy on non-free images. You could use this template for the rationale, I'll add the licensing template. Polly (Parrot) 00:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I adapted the template you recommended. I've emailed Kate Devin about the origins of the photo. She's the author of the Daily Telegraph article that includes the image. Although, this information may be of importance to you, I'm mainly enquiring out of curiosity. --Thelmo (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your message and your help! I started adding images only a few weeks ago, so I am still learning... I will correct the licensing. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have attemped to add a fair use rationale to the Book of Mormon lands map. Do I need to add anything more? The map is not mine, but I have obtained permission from the author to post it.
Thank you for your help! This is the first image that I have contributed to Wikipedia.
Has the copyright holder released the image under a free license? If so then you really need to pass on this permission by to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org". In the mean time I'll add a licensing template and remove my no fair use explanation tag. Polly (Parrot) 13:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I noticed your tagging of the image Image:The Building Blocks with Life.jpg. I have been told to upload the highest resolution possible by another user in wiki commons. In fact this tag might be a conflict in wiki policy. It might be best if you tell me what resolution is the limit according to the rules. Thanks. Benjwong (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also this tag did not warn the uploaders. What would happen if the user wasn't aware of the small-image request? Would it just delete it? Benjwong (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All free images should indeed be uploaded at their highest resolution but non-free images should be kept small to comply with policy. About half its current size would be ideal, if you don't want to do this yourself somebody else will get round to it. The image shouldn't be deleted as a result of being tagged for reduction. Polly (Parrot) 13:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dave1185 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding ((subst:Smile)) to their talk page with a friendly message.
Permission from the copyright holder to use the images under a free license, this would need to be sent to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org". Or as in this case Image:TheMegaPowers.jpg where the team concerned is no longer active then a fair use rationale would be needed. Polly (Parrot) 22:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section that you keep deleating is a section on one of Williams Field High's heroes. At WFHS we are going through a tough time right now, and it is getting tougher when someone goes to Dylan's section on the WFHS page, and it is gone. Dylan was only 14, and passed away in a tragic car accident, please stop deleating this content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycaptain14 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giving this young persons sad death such prominence on the high school article really isn't appropriate. His death wasn't directly related to the high school he attended. I can appreciate that his death had an affect on the school as a whole but many such deaths occur throughout the USA and if every one had a section on the high school they attended then Wikipedia high school articles would quickly become defacto memorials. Polly (Parrot) 20:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but my source is my self. We as a group edit this. Students and teachers. We don't have resources for this information. We don't need to read or watch the news to find out whats happening around us. For the sake of Dylan, please leave this be for him. If you are worried about some sort of "Source" you can write, "WILLIAMS FIELD ADMIN" or something. Thx. WFHS Students and fac.Skycaptain14 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky
Hi Polly! I noticed that you tagged everything recently uploaded by user Omkara69 for speedy-deletion. However, they clearly state that these are their own photographs, so I don't see why there is any confusion about source or copyright. Perhaps there's something I'm missing; if so, I'm happy to be illuminated. It would just be a shame if these images got deleted prematurely, because they're good content, and I get the feeling that Omkara69 might not be the sort of user who checks Wikipedia before the speedy-delete deadline. Skybum (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they are his own photographs then I'm a banana. It's pretty obvious they've all been taken from websites. The image size, the lack of Metadata all point to this. Just sticking a ((self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL)) tag on does not a free image make. Polly (Parrot) 02:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my -- you are absolutely 100% correct, and I sincerely apologise for making you take the time to justify this! I feel especially sheepish because I really, really, really should have recognised the source of those Girnar Hill photos above -- Norman Koren is my father, you see, and I was there when he took those photos. :-) So, speedy-delete away! Don't be surprised, however, if I end up putting the same Girnar images back in, after talking with my dad. This time they'll have proper attribution. Sorry again for the trouble! Skybum (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, hopefully they'll get deleted in a weeks time. Please do upload your father's images if he agrees, at full resolution would be great. Polly (Parrot) 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've queried the provenance of the image attached to Microcon. As clearly stated in the image's own entry, it has been included on Wikipedia with the express consent of the artist, Kevin Clarke. The society set up the Microcon page on Wiki and its members are aware of recent edits, including the addition of the logo. The image was taken from my own photograph of my own society t-shirt. What is the problem? Ghostwords (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image of Joel Lane is the standard publicity shot provided by his publishers and should therefore qualify as public domain. I hope to replace it with one of my own photographs of Joel in due course, but cannot see why the current image requires speedy deletion. Ghostwords (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it is a publicity photo widely distributed doesn't make it public domain. Wikipedia's current policy is only to allow the use of non-free images on WP:BLP's in exceptional circumstances. So please do upload one of your photos of Joel Lane and add a free license to it. Polly (Parrot) 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which license would you suggest if I'm happy to have it available on Wiki, but do not wish to make it public domain and lose any commercial rights? Ghostwords (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recently uploaded a photo from a government website which was licensed for the public use, but you recommended it for deletion. I was wondering if you could please point me in the direction of the rules for uploading photos as I'm rather new and I assumed that any publicly owned content would be fine on Wikipedia.
If i remember correctly it was an image of the Hartford Club, did you put a ((PD-USGov)) tag on it because I don't believe the image was a work of the Federal Government which would be why it was deleted. The image would need to be explicitly released under a free license that would allow commercial and derivative works useage. If you give me a link to where the image came from I'll be better able to tell you why it was deleted. Polly (Parrot) 18:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would really need to be about half the size of the one you originally uploaded. So by all means if that is the case then re-upload the smaller version. Don't worry about it though if you are unable to do so because your original image will get reduced by somebody at some point. Polly (Parrot) 18:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author Phyllis Carol Olive has given me permission to post her copyrighted map on Wikipedia "Limited geography setting (Book of Mormon)" section "Great Lakes setting". She only asks for attribution and that the work not be used for commercial gain. I have told her that she needs to email permission to Wikipedia. Will an informal email from her to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org", stating the article, section, name of the copyrighted work and date, as well as a statement of her granting permission suffice?
The troble is, in order for the image to be acceptable to Wikipedia it would need to be licensed under a free license thar permits commercial and derivative use, such as Template:Cc-by-3.0 or Template:GFDL. If it's only allowed for non-commercial use then it will be turned down. Polly (Parrot) 13:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I did was add the image from The College of William & Mary's page into the template, and seeing as though there are zero warnings or non-free labels on that, it is free to use. -Jrcla2 (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen from the image page Image:190px-WMseal.gif it has a copyright license on it, now unless you can show that the image is free then using it in a template is not a good idea as you would need to provide a fair use rationale for every page the template is on. Polly (Parrot) 23:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Polly, glad to see that you are awake on your perch. The image Youtube high low quality.JPG was tagged as a copyrighted screenshot although it was created by me to illustrate YouTube. The stills from YouTube are used for illustration purposes only. Please could you remove the deletion tag as this is preventing the image caption from displaying correctly. --♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to provide a fair use rationale for the image. Otherwise someone else or a bot will end up tagging it for deletion. Polly (Parrot) 19:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the image summary. With hindsight, it was overcautious to call this a copyrighted image since all it is designed to do is to show the difference between the size of the two formats (See the text of YouTube). --♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)19:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of it the screenshot is from a BBC broadcast, so they would be the copyright holder. Just add ((ScreenshotU|You Tube|This image shows 480x360 High Quality and 320x240 standard YouTube videos. It is currently in the article YouTube to illustrate the difference between the two formats. The screenshot itself is copyright free but the stills from YouTube are used under fair use to illustrate the two formats|BBC)) and that should cover it. Polly (Parrot) 19:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected and added information to the image so it could not be deleted I will fix it again if it still does not list source but I found it on National Governors Association if I still need to correct please tell me what because I listed the Source & author & Permission previously so I just created a link to the page.
Diamond Joe Quimby (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello POLLY,
I would like to tell you I corrected the source & author & listed the permission if it still needs to be corrected contact me again so it will not be deleted.
Diamond Joe Quimby (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, with copyright you have to presume that everything is copyrighted only if it explicitly says that the material can be used under a free license is it OK to do so. Polly (Parrot) 14:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though just because someone has put a free license on an image doesn't necessarily mean it is correct. If it's an image of a commercial work, eg. a cartoon character or TV show screenshot then it is very unlikely to be free. Polly (Parrot) 01:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The person or company who shot the video holds the copyright on it. The You Tube uploader says in the more info section that "Credit must be given to To a Tee Video Productions" so definitely not free, therefore unfortunately it wouldn't be acceptable to use it on the Junior Brown article. Polly (Parrot) 14:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've tagged a lot of images for deletion lately and I just wanted to point out some that I have removed the deletion tag from for various reasons:
Image:BurrardInletFromBarnet.jpg - image is marked cc-by and no evidence that it is non-commercial use.
Image:041002223500 the bulb of science world at night.jpg - uploader claims that the image is released and this is plausible as it is from a personal website - use WP:PUI for this
Image:20amps085.jpg - uploader claims that the image is released - again, WP:PUI
Image:Barolo Botti.jpg - appears to have a valid cc-by license
If you're tagging images for deletion under CSD:I3 because you've had a look at the flickr site that the image came from and it has a different license from that on the image page, please consider mentioning in the edit summary or elsewhere that the source says that the image isn't under cc-by but is cc-by-nd (or whatever other license). Thanks for your great work! Stifle (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the first image you listed has a link to a blog as the source if you go to the bottom of that sites page you'll find the Creative Commons license, click on it and you'll see it is incompatible.
Second image, fair enough it is feasible that this is the case.
Third image,again feasible though very unlikely.
Fourth image, the flickr page definitely says all rights reserved so not a valid CC license.
I'd love to leave a more explicit edit summary, Twinkle doesn't give that option though. As soon as you click on CSDI3 the summary is generated automatically. Polly (Parrot) 14:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the messages at the top of a user's talk page before posting. I have a big red stop sign at the top of my page that asks people to stop filling up my talk page with a never ending parade of "Look out! We are going to delete your image!" messages.
If you and your ilk want to spend all their time taking other people's stuff out of Wikipedia instead of adding your own stuff into it, that's fine. Just stop pestering me about it.
Sorry for the pestering, but the message is auto-generated by Twinkle. I do indeed add images to Wikipedia, quite a few really. Polly (Parrot) 14:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The creator changed the posted license status. They have confirmed it was previously CC-BY. I am getting explicit confirmation and will be posting a UR when I have it. Just a heads up. PS We (WP) need to have some sort of policy or guideline for dealing with this sort of situation. - Keith D. Tyler¶17:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that can be a problem, I believe there are sites that will archive a web page so they could be utilised to show the license at the time of upload. In the meantime when you re-upload you could add the template that this image has Image:Elanus caeruleus1.jpg as they obviously had the same problem. Polly (Parrot) 17:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Image:Asa Dotzler.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Asa Dotzler.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 00:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... interesting. This image was definitely available on Flickr under the the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Licence when I originally uploaded it, though the page now bears no such licence. I uploaded the image at the same time as Image:Mitchell Baker.jpg, which was taken by the same photographer at the same event and was also available under the same licence. In fact, another user uploaded exactly the same image to Commons (without crediting me as the original uploader), leading to my original image on Wikipedia being deleted as it was a duplicate. The Flickr page for that image has also lost its the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Licence. The photographer has obviously decided to retract their licensing of the image under Creative Commons. I don't the legal ins and outs of this (can someone retract a licence?), but if Image:Asa Dotzler.jpg is to be deleted, so should Image:Mitchell Baker.jpg. Likewise, if one is kept, so should the other (presumably both stored on Commons). - Green Tentacle (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No a creative Commons license can't be revoked see here. That though is the advantage of uploading Flickr images to Commons, they usually get reviewed within 24hrs to ascertain if the licensing is correct. That way at least if at some future date the Flickr licensing is changed then we can be pretty certain that at the time of upload it was indeed under a free license. Polly (Parrot) 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is very frustrating when license changes occur, all I can advise is that in future you upload Flickr images to Commons or use web citation if you upload to here, that way at least you should have some evidence of the license you uploaded under. Polly (Parrot) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, always nice to be appreciated. I just hope that the people whose images I tagged are of an understanding persuasion, a parrot can be easily throttled. Polly (Parrot) 21:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polly...Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. Through it I have become aware of a great many people who can help me in my future editing endeavors. Even though I was not promoted, your support shows that I still have something to contribute to Wikipedia, even if it is minor edits to fix spelling and grammar to working in WikiProjects to help others make great articles. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Polly, I appreciate your work with images. Would you be willing to take a look at Image:6a00d8341d0dbb53ef00e54f33c1b98833-640wi.jpg? In addition to the image name, it was uploaded by a user (User:Lamrock) who hasn't uploaded a photo before and may not know Wikipedia's guideline. The image does show up on a Google Image search for White Zinfandel with uncertain authorship. Appreciate your time. AgneCheese/Wine08:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! You left a speedy deletion notice on my talk page. The deletion has already been done. But as the image was copied to commons much earlier, the deletion had no net effect. However, that really isn't the point of my message. I specifically remember uploading that image (and another one along with it as well) over a year ago during the 2006 Asian games, while the page it was on was linked to from the main page. As an admin (even at that time), I am quite aware of image policies, and would never upload a copyrighted image. It is most likely that the creator of the image (on flickr.com) changed the license sometime after I uploaded it here. I'm not sure what applies legally in such cases.I really have no reasons to campaign for that image,so I'm fine with its deletion. However I'd like to know what the general procedure in such cases is. Thanks!--thunderboltz(TALK)16:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I saw your message on my talk page and it says that this image ,which I uploaded, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed and if the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted.
I asked the author of this image for permission to use it and he said that I can use the picture for purpose. Can you tell me how I can verify copyright status of this image and prove that author gave me permission? (originally [3] image is unfree but i got permission to use it)
-- GM Red Wing (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to forward the email permission you received to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" and you'll get an OTRS ticket number, add that information to the image page. Polly (Parrot) 22:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have to presume it is subject to copyright, as there is no free license on that website then it would be a copyright violation. Polly (Parrot) 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Skybum (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
