PascalHD
Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump. |
|
|
-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
FM promotion
edit
The file File:Canadian Army Newsreel, No. 01 (1942).webm, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest file on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured media candidates/File:Canadian Army Newsreel, No. 01 (1942).webm. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page. |
Hi
edit@PascalHD Hi this photo of Janet [1] was taken in 1986. [2] Could you correct the year to that --Jade505 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
PascalHD Hi Pascal, I think Janet Jackson 1986 (A&M Publicity photo) is a bit confusing as the Publicity photo is from 1987. How about Janet Jackson 1986 (A&M Publicity photo 1987) --Jade505 (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hello and thanks for the info. You've shown me evidence that the photograph was taken at the earliest of 1986. The date stamped on the back of what I have uploaded just shows the first date that specific printed copy was used in print. As publicity photos were mass distributed/published, it would be appropriate to use the 1986 date. PascalHD (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ok no problem. Jade505 (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for providing an accurate date PascalHD (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ok no problem. Jade505 (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
File:PEI Sample License Plate 2013.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. |
File:PEI License Plate RZ 069.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. |
Help with this Christopher Mayer picture
editSo I just found this This picture of actor Christopher Mayer, which is licensed under "Fair Use", but upon looking at both the archives it's absent with Copyright Markings or has been registred. I'm pretty sure the uploader didn't knew about the 79-89 PD-US tag or wasn't enforced during that time (the pic was uploaded in 2012). So, what's the next steps to relicense this pic as Public Domain and move this picture to commons? Hyperba21 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely, I would transfer this. However, I found a copy at Worthpoint of the photo which includes a notice: [3][4]. It appears that the copy the image was sourced from chopped off the notice. The 1980s publicity photos are a mixed bag, just needs a bit more searching unlike pre-1978 where it is guaranteed with no notice. PascalHD (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- So what the uploader did was correct but by accident since they didn't really specify if the pic was or wasn't copyrighted. Well I actually have a plan B, which was uploading this this photo (back) of Mayer on a short lived 80's show "Glitter", (Already checked on the Catalog it's not there). Actually, now I found a non watermarked version on Worthpoint, I'll have that site too as a reference for Press Photos. Thanks. Hyperba21 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah pretty much. Anyway that other photo looks fine to me. It appears to be a full rear label, nothings been cut out. ABC was still doing non-copyrighted prints till the mid 80s. You can attach the {{PD-US-defective notice-1978-89}} as the 'All Rights Reserved' on its own is not a suitable notice. Worthpoint is great for finding and referencing press photos. It often stores old sale listings. eBay is still better, as you get listing info and HQ photo scans. PascalHD (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- So what the uploader did was correct but by accident since they didn't really specify if the pic was or wasn't copyrighted. Well I actually have a plan B, which was uploading this this photo (back) of Mayer on a short lived 80's show "Glitter", (Already checked on the Catalog it's not there). Actually, now I found a non watermarked version on Worthpoint, I'll have that site too as a reference for Press Photos. Thanks. Hyperba21 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Saw that you changed the license.
On the images's page at the City of Toronto Archives, it says under copyright conditions:
G-CC Government Records - City owns copyright
Copyright is held by the City of Toronto. You do not need permission to use the work for any purpose.
That implies Template:Copyrighted free use not Template:Attribution only license, right?
I have emailed the City of Toronto Archives to confirm Vasusrir429 (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Vasusrir429 When I first reached out to them, that is what they told me. They mentioned that the Attribution license was most accurate when I showed them. The City of Toronto Archives are the Copyright holders, for the G-CG records or Transferred works, not the creator/photographers. When we use the Copyright free use template, it credits the creator, not the Archives. An example would be, if a photo was taken by John Smith and he donated his photo to the Archives, we need to credit the Toronto Archives, not John Smith. When we used the Attribution license, it correctly credits the Archives and its fonds. Hope this makes sense. PascalHD (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting ...
- I don't think that Template:Attribution only license is a substantially more restrictive license then Template:Copyrighted free use, so it's not a big deal. I agree that attributing to the archives makes it easier to find the original, but I'm not sure if attribution is legally required.
- I'll see what they have to say.
- Thanks for your help. Vasusrir429 (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Talking to them, I'm still not sure that attribution is legally required, but they do seem to prefer it so I think using Template:Attribution only license is best.
- Best of regards — Vasusrir429 (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply and clarifying. PascalHD (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
File:Ontario Street Public School 2018 (01).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. |
Notification about possible deletion
editSome contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, PascalHD (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
editSome contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:Depeche Mode logo 2022.png
- File:Depeche Mode Memento Mori logo.jpg
- File:Memento Mori Logo.png
- File:Memento Mori World Tour Logo.png
Yours sincerely, Consigned (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
File:Depeche Mode - Construction Time Again - Logo.png 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. |
Ken Sim
editHey, noticed your crop and profile image update for en:Ken Sim. I used the CropTool to rotate the image and it looks a bit better? File:Ken Sim - Collision 2024 (53799178757) (cropped).jpg Do you want to try Crop+Rotate, or update to this image? // sikander { talk } 🦖 01:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Sikander Yeah, I think the rotation is a good idea. Although I would prefer a 3:4 crop, there's nothing wrong with your file version. PascalHD (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Updated to 3:4 crop: File:Ken Sim - Collision 2024 (53799178757) (cropped).jpg. Cheers. // sikander { talk } 🦖 02:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Sikander Yeah, looks good! I just cropped a little headroom off. I'll replace some articles with that. PascalHD (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Updated to 3:4 crop: File:Ken Sim - Collision 2024 (53799178757) (cropped).jpg. Cheers. // sikander { talk } 🦖 02:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I cannot understand...
editWhy this change if no parameters change in the categories? You know {{Country photographs taken on}} and {{World photos}}? Threecharlie (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- What seems to be the issue? PascalHD (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Cutoff Dates
editHey, so I want to add some info additional info about the cutoff dates for the press kits:
For the Fox Broadcasting Company it looks like the notice started appearing around August-September 1989, (Alien Nation debuted in Sept. 1989) see here: 1 2 3, well after the new Copyright rules were enforced.
Starting in December 1981 some pictures related to NFL Broadcasts on CBS here and here started having copyright notices affixed. We can also see that the notice was not present in pictures before December 81' 1, 2. So the cutoff date for CBS is December 81'.
The 78-89 Law indicates that if the notice can be registred up to 5 years even if it wasn't present, for example this Eddie Murphy picture promoting the MTV VMA's doesn't contain a Copyright Notice, but if we search on the Catalog under the terms: "Eddie Murphy publicity photographs" or the registration number "VAu000075296" we can see there's publicity photographs registered. While we couldn't know what photos specifically were registered it'd the best assumption is to not use those pictures until someone points which pictures were registred under it. Also since ya answered my question while I was writing this, it'd be best to also add the Weird Al promo pic to the Not Upload List.
Finally, I would also recommend adding in the "Information" section of your gallery, tags for pictures or stills published under Creative Commons, like for example pictures that were uploaded on Flickr, published on a website or extracted from a Youtube video all with a valid CC License affixed. Some examples that I've uploaded: Website, Flickr and YT Vid Hyperba21 (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Hyperba21 Thanks for the info. The CBS cutoff date seems to more certain now. I'll clarify the registration details, and I can add that Weird Al photo to the list. Yes, I am aware that newer photos can indeed by freely licensed. This information section I have created just applies to stuff prior to 1989 during that period of US copyright when notices were important. I'll add a note though to clarify. In regards to the Eddie Murply registration, I am certain it is for the film '48 Hours', per the notes section. A photo like this. The MTV photo might not be it, unless you can find was published as a Paramount still. Also to note, movie studios have always released their publicity photos with notices, unlike TV studios and record labels. PascalHD (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
File:Anti-bullying poster at Oshawa Centre.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. |