User Chech Explorer has requested me to provide a high quality image of 'Deepika Padukone'. But since the photo was taken in a private party, I can't handover a high quality pic to anyone and everyone untill I'm sure that they have to do something with Wikipedia Admin. As i mentioned before I can provide you a link for high quality full version of that image, since from Check Explorer's page it looks like he is just an normal user. Please let me know what can be done to remove the Deepika Padukone pic from deletion List. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreerajarasa (talk • contribs) 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Angela_at_her_album.jpg
Hi there, im rather new to wikipedia image uploading!
So sorry, I dont know whats licence and stuff.
Can u help me to delete that photo?
Sorry i dont know how to!
Thanks:D
ok, sir, i understand... im a professional photographer and have pictures or celebrities, sports starts, models and just regular people that i use for my resume when it comes to magazines and television.. etc. etc... if i happen to have any pictures you guys dont have, ill upload them and provide any and all information necessary. thank you sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkstro (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
uh, why does it matter when i uploaded the picture to wiki? it doesnt.... i had just come across Zooey's page... saw she didnt have a picture up and knew i had one of my own to contribute.. so i uploaded it... it's not like i scour the internet looking for websites that want to post pictures of her but dont have permission.. lol.. and not only that, but i said that this image was taken in early 2007... and the picture you linked me to was posted in March of 2007.. and poorly cropped/photoshopped... so i dont see how there is any issue... someone used my picture without proper authorization and posted it in 2007... a couple months after it was actually taken... anyways.. you've been making such a horrible stink about this image for over a week now and all i was doing was trying to help out.. you didnt have a picture or her... i have one that i had taken.. and you freak out when im only trying to help... that's too bad :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkstro (talk • contribs) 00:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Jessica Calvello picture: A friend took the picture for me, but that's me in the photo, so it is mine! Feel free to use it! -Pocky Box —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocky Box (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
aaron fink, mark klepaski and ben burnley images:
i took all three of those images and i thought i had copyrighted them.... apparently not. the images belong to me, yes.
Ashleyw2005 (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Ashleyw2005[reply]
also can you give me a quick step by step (I am computer illiterate) to uploading a file, when the person has given permission by email for you to use the picture! thanks again, and thanks for not punishing me! Im just a silly little Canadian girl...
sorry I am all new to this....If you take the pic of the person..does this mean you own the copyright...?? sorry Ill have to talk to my room mate! I can provide any proof you need from Chrissy Carnell..sorry again about being rude but if you can see when you spend alot of time putting something together and it just gets deleted with no warning...its so frustrating! I mean Im not getting paid to do this or anything...:O)
Hello THere chrissy Carnell GAVE ME that picture to use ..why did you erase it off
sorry I dont mean to be rude, but I am just pretty frustrated ...I worked so hard on this page...please help me.
Welcome!
Hello, Genisock2/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
I hope I am responding at the right place. If asked if I took a photo. Yes, I did tons of photography for the Wrestle Birmingham group from 2000-present. The particular photo you asked about is from 2001 at a Continental Wrestling reunion. I am a journalist/photojournalist for FigureFourOnline.com and DragonKingWrestling.com. In fact I own the later website. I hope this answers your questions as I have hundreds of photos of the old Continental guys and was planing on updating some of their biographies as soon as I get a better hang of it.
Regards your removal of the image from Katy Manning[1], it is not clear to me what the reason was. As far as I can make out it met the fair use criteria, I assume you disagree with this?
You're right, sorry. Just when I'm going through 500+ images in a matter of like an hour, I easily overlook them sometimes. ^demon[omg plz]23:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Genisock2. I noticed the copyright status of the image, Image:Honoda.jpg, is in doubt. I am not the uploader, nor the author of this work, but I am a contributor at the main article involved. It appears that this image falls under the fair use clause because it is a Japanese work older than 50 years. However, it also appears that the original uploader found this with a Google Images search; for unrelated reasons, the uploader's account has been blocked. Before this image is deleted, please let me know if the fair-use tag is appropriate. The article does need an image, but we need to make sure it is a legitimate, legal one. Nimur22:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as certainty of the image, it is difficult to know specifically. This page hosts this image which I believe to be the source of this digital version on Wikipedia. However, Lt. Onoda was "in hiding" from 1945 until 1974 (as a Japanese guerrilla in the Philippines), so it is very unlikely that this image was taken later than 1945; this would classify it older than 50 years and hence place it in our public domain/fair use category for Japanese images older than 50 years by anonymous authors. I can't verify the original source any better than that. Nimur00:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I meant it should only be used on that page, it was because I thought it would be pretty pointless anywhere else. It is completely free, and was taken about three weeks ago. If it is more appropriate, I'll remove the line stating where it should be placed, as it really makes no sense to restrict it to one particular area. Signed by Tommy (Talk/Contribs) 02:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jopay_1.JPG photo
I took the photo, so I released it under a free license (although I do not understand everything about these licenses).
I just do not understand why my photo was removed from the article. I do own the photo, so I think it's okay to upload it here.
-- I cannot remember what article it was in. I checked the history of Jopay Paguia and SexBomb Girls article, but the history doesn't show that I used it there. Anyway, I also have another photo that was removed because they had doubts about the copyright status.
I do not know what to do. What kind of licensing should I use if I upload a photo which I myself took?
Just curious on your rationale on removing the globe image. I agree it is not free, but according to the image page Image:NoImageYetSquare.png Wiki own the copyright which would imply it can be used. Is it because someone other than Wiki foundation has made it. Has there been a discussion on it? MortimerCat09:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MalcolmPlaque.JPG, MalcolmHall.jpg and Bocobohall.jpg
Hi. Are you the author of MalcolmPlaque.JPG, MalcolmHall.jpg and Bocobohall.jpg?Genisock2 09:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I took all these three pictures myself with my Sony DSC-200 camera in February 2007 (MalcolmPlaque.JPG, MalcolmHall.jpg) and June 2006 (Bocobohall.jpg). What I uploaded were resized versions of those three pictures which I took. --Anyo Niminus15:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- no problems uploading the original with the MalcolmPlaque.jpg file, the original picture is not that large (640x480 pxs, 141KB). The two other pics though are larger (3072x2304 pxs, 2.97MB and 2.86MB respectively), and I had cropped the Malcolm Hall picture.
Also, particularly with the MalcolmHall.jpg pic, it was a deliberate choice on my part to release into the public domain only a small resolution version of that picture. That photo, especially a larger version, can easily be exploited for commercial use (especially in the Philippines, where Malcolm Hall and the U.P. College of Law are well-regarded and historic institutions). By releasing into the public domain only a smaller-resolution version of that picture (which after all I had invested time and effort one Sunday afternoon in order to take), I hoped to limit the exploitation of that picture, while at the same time provide an appropriate illustration to the sufficiently complement the articles to which it was linked to.
Can you please state where that image came from? In April 2007, Mrs Astor was bedridden, not appearing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and certainly not in that state. The photograph only barely resembles her, so can you please provide a citation as to its source and correct identification? I do not think it serves the article in any way to show a photograph of a woman who does not resemble Brooke Astor, either in her prime or in her dotage.Kitchawan15:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I overlooked your posting on the Talk page. I have looked at the file in Wikipedia.jpg and it states that some tourist took the snapshot in April 2007. He is mistaken in his identification, not only because Mrs A was an invalid at her home at the time and had been for some time. Secondly, check out the Metropolitan Museum metal ID tab on her blouse (you think they're going to make a major benefactor wear one of those -- believe me, they don't). Also the shape of the nostrils is wrong (Mrs A, as you can see in most of her photographs, had a notably distended right nostril). Et cetera, et cetera. My vote is to remove that image from the picture bank and the article and replace it ASAP with an accurate image.Kitchawan16:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was a mistake. There are big problems with using that PR plug ahead of all the real investigations, but it was still referenced an astonishing 20 times even after my error. I can't delete a template (or I don't think I can) - have I accidentally rubbed up against a red-line? PRtalk23:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Image:Pro-test-June2006.jpg
The key part is that I took the photograph and as the copyright holder I'm free to license the image as I wish in different places. I'm happy for it to be under the GFDL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pishmishy (talk • contribs) 10:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The disputed facts are on the talk page, "ionic stuff tends not be a significvant as other areas" doesn't even make sense, but you can tie it to a reference on the talk page to establish this if you need to. We don't have an expert isn't reasont to dismiss the need for one. Discuss this on the talk page, don't edit war. As long as the article is seriously deficient in the areas I've mentioned these tags should remain. KP Botany01:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JzG is once again attempting to enforce badsites, despite his unsuccessful forum shopping. I'm going to revert his edits because I feel they are disruptive and POINTy, and since I saw you had reverted him as well, I was wondering if there was some centralized discussion about this that I could take a look at. Milto LOL pia17:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the uploader and creator of this image - I have adhered to the GNU licence protocol as required by Wikipedia. Thanks. Bambaland 11:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)bambalandBambaland11:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have thought so, he only took it because I asked him to. I was a bit disappointed with the quality of the shot (he should have used zoom), but as they have not yet invented cameras that can hover in the air while taking pictures of you, and he did it as a favour, I let it go.MultipleTom (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My brother took it (on my request) the picture was cropped from a larger one which I was also in. I have 100% clearance to use it. If you have further questions by all means get in contact. As I said in the description it was taken Saturday November 24th in Streatham, London at "Sparkling Streatham".
Hi
Because this is a problem?
Lol, I do not know I have to think
Thanks for asking about my picture! I'm not sure what you mean, though. But my bettas are in classic flat fish bowls, and I held the mirror off to the left for him to flare at. I used the close-up mode on my camera and had a sunlight lamp on him. Is this what you meant? Malzeeso.005:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see what you're asking. Yes, I took the picture. That's my betta Mort :) It's great what you're doing here... stealing images sucks! Malzeeso.005:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not take this photograph. I emailed Dr. James Albus asking for a photograph that I could attach to the Wikipedia article about him. I stated that the image must be one that he took himself and that he owns the copyright.
StephenReed 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
My email did not mention the GFDL. I will immediately request it according to your wording. StephenReed 00:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenReed (talk • contribs)
This is from Community Webshots. This is a free internet picture sharing service. This photo is okay, do not delete it. Jccort (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I took down the images
I am sorry I did not know that Community Webshots was not okay. I have taken down the pictures of the people I uploaded. Please feel free to now delete them. Jccort (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the husband is okay with the Image relese, but he just doesn't know how to do the copyright stuff. It's very complicated. Jccort (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You asked if took the picture of Megan and her fans at Stage Door at Wicked. Yes, i did, i'm the guy in the picture. Well, technically my mom took it but i own the picture. I DO NOT ALLOW YOU TO USE MY PICTURE. --9allenride9 (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:Multilicensefobuild requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
hi Genisock2, yes i took the photo of Ms. Neal. If you would like to grab it please feel free. It was taken at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel at the G'Day USA event on saturday January 26, 2008. i covered the event for my blog In A Lather. Here's my site's URL:
http://in-a-lather.blogspot.com/2008/01/australia-day-gday-usa-honors.html
STOP adding copyrighted images to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you do not provide adequate copyright information, it is assumed that the image is copyrighted and unavailable for free use. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images borrowed from other web sites, printed material, films, or other sources; such additions will be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Note that Wikipedia policy does not allow use of a non-free image on the page of a living person. If you continue adding copyrighted images to articles, you will be blocked from editing. Ward3001 (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Okey what?Genisock2 16:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)": Don't upload any more photos, and especially don't add them to articles, until you thoroughly read and understand WP:NFC and WP:IMAGE. You have added images that are either copyrighted or have no copyright information on the image page. Either of those is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Ward3001 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Genisock2. You have new messages at Addshore's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
hey, thanks for making sure my diagram got deleted. the image's page made it clear that i was the creator, and that it was intended to be used on wikipedia. i don't have the origional anymore so i have to make another one now. i spent a lot of time on that.
instead of marking images for speedy deletion maybe it would be more helpful if you just told them how to fix the liscense. I'm pretty sure that one was correct though, i don't know why you marked it. unfortuntely, i never saw that it was marked for deletion until it was already gone.
The image can be undeleted. However the initial license was for wikipedia only which isn't considered free enough for wikipedia that requires that anyone be able to use the image for commercial as well as non commercial uses.Genisock2 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i realize some people upload copyrighted pictures that they claim to own licenses to, but some people really do own licenses to professional looking images. you can't just go around tagging things for deletion.
And i don't want it to be used outside wikipedia because, sure, wikipedia is great, but not everyone is. some people use even the most innocent things with malicious intent. total freedom isn't always a good thing.
Wikipedia disagrees. Wikipedia has not accepted images under wikipedia only licenses for years see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Free_licenses. So if you are not prepared to release the image for anyone to use then I say I quite understand your decision but we cannot use the work on wikipedia.Genisock2 (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia is about everyone sharing knowledge, not everyone acting like the boss. so add everything you can to wikipedia, but let the wikipolice be the wikipolice.
That photo is an official US government portrait, archived by his grandson, Zachary Train. It's not copyrighted or copyrightable. (Joedelta March 18 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedelta (talk • contribs) 14:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Image:Dunwoody.jpg
Genisock2 wrote:
Hi did you take this pic?Genisock2 (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes the pic belongs to me - it's actually my hair on the right, the photo was cropped by me and then uploaded to the page. Thanks, JessPix (29.3.08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JessPix (talk • contribs) 20:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I took that photograph at 4:47PM EDT from the stands of Columbus Crew Stadium during the match.
I have photographed several MLS games to share with other fans of he sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Late1 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Stopmenow
This was the edit that showed up in my window [4] which looked like a recently warned (level 1) user removing a picture with a non-picture (placeholder), which is why I reverted. Heading over to his page hat in hand... MBisanztalk21:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Kleinzach's confusion in this discussion, perhaps it might help if you were to change your sock's signature to include both account names? Not that I'd have expected anyone to really be confused about it in the first place, but since it's happened once... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jonathon Porritt Bristol 2008.jpg
Yes, I took this picture. I saw him at a talk on sustainable development and politely asked him before he went on if I could take a picture for Wikipedia as there wasn't one already. I think I cropped it before uploading. I donate it to Wikipedia, my first donation!
Hi Genisock2, I found the photo among my collection without any copyrights. I'm not sure if this fells into the "my own pictures" category or not! If not, can you please tell me in which categoy does it fall? thnx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaGaEy (talk • contribs) 10:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Image:DerrickD-DSC01065a.jpg
Hi did you take this pic?Genisock2 (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was at the location. The shoot was done at "Villa Fontani" in the San Fernando Valley near Los Angeles. There was the photographer Henning and a quite big team of assistants around. This is a snapshot in a break. Cheers, Germany2799[reply]
Ah well you didn't make any references to the topic and I don't appriciate your tone. You sound very condescending and hostile. And if you were paying attention to the discussion, there has been a request to suspend the addition of these tags for the moment until after a wider discussion has been had. That is just curteous and if a decision to not use the tags is made (although it may not be) then there is less undoing work to be done. What may I ask is the rush? Also, the opera wikiproject has had its own pages removed from the bots search parameters that is responsible for the addition of these tags, thanks to the kindness of David Gerrad who created the bot and the image. Gerrard has been considerate to the opera wikiproject so why can't you be as well? I don't think this is a case of ownership either sense there are good arguements against the use of this tag. Frankly, you are the one who seems to have a problem with ownership in this insistance by continuing to create edit wars rather than talk things out first.Nrswanson (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again a little politeness would be appriciated. We obviously see things differently and I don't think that is going to change. Best wishes to you.Nrswanson (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back when I was film critic for the LA Weekly, I took Polaroids of everyone I met. I'd like to offer you the opportunity to flip through them and see if any might be useful. I recently noticed Lewis Arquette had no picture and you accepted one of mine. I'm reticent to simply post my own work since I know how that looks, yet there's the distinct possibility I might have a lot more shots you can use. There's a page of my Polaroids here. Check out the "Celebrity Slideshow." You're welcome to any of them through a creative commons license.
hi did you take this pic?Genisock2 (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
yes i took that pic, and it's rankly insulting that you ask. Oh, but I see by your whole page that it's your job to save the world from image-stealing supervillains, who manage to get through all the instruction and 18 levels of rule-harping while learning how to post images, and then blatantly disregard them all and post pics that they don't have the rights to. It's always nice to be assumed to be a criminal rather than a law-abiding citizen. Thank you ever so.Sebum-n-soda (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi did you take this pic?Genisock2 (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope I am responding correctly, we own this photo, www.speakerheart.com/davidpack. We are his digital label. David asked me to update his wiki page so I added our photo. Am I doing this correctly. We have other artists that we will probably update with discography and photos soon too.
i noticed it was removed, what am i suppose to do. it is free to use.
Image:DomingoJ1.jpg
The wording permission is as written on the photo "It must be credited to the photographer ...". I actually asked for different photos (10 photos) from Mr. Domingo's PR but this is her reply (exact words: copy/paste from her mail) "I am sorry to keep you waiting. The photos are from different sources, some of them are from photographers who has to get a photo credit or be asked for permission. The quick way would be if I send you a choice of photos which are free for promotion purpose". After the e-mail, she sent me the photos (including Image:Domingo OtelloJ2.jpg). - Jay (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They gave us the permission to publish the photos without mentioning any conditions whatsoever. According to the PR representing Mr. Domingo promotion office based in Germany (incharge of the Mr. Domingo website and promotional), these photos belong to them and are free to be distributed and published without asking any permission from anybody. She promised to give me more from time to time. In my opinion, the photo is under "GNU Free Documentation License" : Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License - Jay (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:DomingoJ1.jpg (Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License BUT the usage of it must be credited to the photographer as mentioned at the footnote)
Image:Domingo OtelloJ2.jpg (Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License) - Jay (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say again that the photos were given permission to be published/copied/distributed and I will not repeat it again. To me, when the legally rightful owner has given the permission in writing as what the office of Placido Domingo has done, that is it! I am still standing on that principle. As for Image:DomingoJ1.jpg, what we need to do is to give credit to the photographer and that is all (but by all mean, anyone can copy and distribute it someplace else, because it is FREE! That is what the PR meant by "dont need to ask permission from anyone"). I noticed there are many more photos in other singers articles that using CD/DVD covers etc in here but nobody bother to ask or remove. As for me, I have done my very best to ask photos straight from the office of the singer himself (it is not an easy task for your info) and with this, I have nothing more to say - Jay (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get real. You removed a whole section, covering about 50 editor's votes, with only a pointy edit summary. If that isn't disruptive, what is? Put your point on the talk page at the article & don't come on my talk page again. Johnbod (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't tell you again. Keep off my talk page. reinstate your edit if you like, and see how long that lasts. Or take it to the article like I said. Johnbod (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
placeholders and OWNership
I agree with you about the whiff of WP:OWN in the opposition to the placeholders. The continued mention of "it conveys a sense of inadequacy" betrays that the editor simply want "their" article to have no "tags". Perhaps we can still move on to a real discussion and find ways to lessen their concerns, however. DoubleBlue (Talk)01:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True that there will not be any way to satisfy that element. It seems to me, however, that there are enough other people who simply didn't like the current image and could be satisfied with some compromise in that direction. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk)01:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Genisock2. I'd like to explain the above external link. The images on ChinaTravelGuide.com's quake coverage were prepared from the web site's Xi'an office. People in China do not have access to wp. Also, ChinaTravelGuide.com is a commercial-free site (compare with other external links with commercial ads on that article). Like wp, it's a wiki, and we are doing our best to make it useful. It has also been reviewed by wp admin's and accepted as a qualified interwiki link. So I think it's a reasonable external link. I appreciate all your effort, and thank you for your time to make wp such a wonderful place. Pintogiants (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You had tagged Image:101 0574.jpg with {{subst:nsd}}, but it seems to have a license tag and looks like something someone took with their digital camera. I haven't kept up with some of the new changes to the "Replace this image" images. Is this template insufficient for asserting authorship or something? Thanks. --B (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion comes in because another editor decided to move the images to wikipedia commons and rename them. Thats fine with me, but has left a mess over deletion of then in en.wikipedia. They are not wonderful images as one gets today, however they serve a purpose. If you could assist in clearing up the mess it would be most appreciated. Normally I add to the commons but on this occasion clicked on an 'image wanted' template. --Gibnews (talk)
Hi,
I received your message on last April 2008 about image licensing. You seem to be very “strict” about it and queried me a lot about photos I obtained with permission from Placido Domingo’s PR. But as I explained to you before, I have seen many photos using “fair use” tag and those photos survive in here until today. I feel so unfair when I have to give lenghty justification to you (after going through hard time to get “legit” photos from the rightful owner) whereas “fair use” photos are published freely unquestioned by anybody. For that, could you please check 2 articles above and tell me what you think about it - there are many more articles with “fair use” tag images than those 2. I do not ask you to remove those photos but I think we should be fair; if they are not allowed according to WIKI rules, they should be removed. The reason why I wrote this is very simple. Some users in WIKI have to go through all this pain about photos they published but some people can just walk out free after publishing photos that according to you and other “image admins” as “not allowed due to copyrights etc etc”. Please accept my comments with open heart, I do not mean to bash anyone in here. Thanks. - Jay (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering but I think they are not good enough. At one time (last year I think), I posted Placido Domingo photos (before I decided to contact Domingo's PR) but all of them been deleted with various reasons such as “you cannot use FAIR USE because this guy is still alive” or “this photo is for his album not for profile” and many more. But what ticks me off is, why other articles can easily get pass all these criteria. These 2 are merely examples, there are many more actually. I for one, love our articles to have many photos but I just couldn’t figure out what criteria can be considered as CAN and CANNOT. In José Carreras for example, Image:CarrerasRicciarelliCDBoheme.jpg is allowed but at one time, I posted Domingo album cover and it was DELETED. One more, Image:RomanzaFinalScreenShot.jpg was taken from a scene is allowed but when I posted Domingo in one of the scenes in Turandot, it was deleted with various reasons. I am not questioning Carreras article but only using it as example. As for Salvatore Fisichella's photos (Image:Salvatore Fisichella - I Puritani 1986.jpg, Image:Salvatore Fisichella-foto-Lucia di Lammermoor.jpg, Image:Salvatore Fisichella - close up.jpg), they were taken from his website. Hopefully you don’t mind answering my questions, because if these photos are allowed, I do not see why other users and I cant post album cover or selected scene photos in any articles I want in the future - Jay (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer is too brief. For that, let me make it simpler, in José Carreras's article, there are photos taken from Magazine cover (Image:JoseCarrerasFoundationBulletin.jpg), album cover (Image:CarrerasRicciarelliCDBoheme.jpg), scene from performance (Image:RomanzaFinalScreenShot.jpg) AND photo when he was young (Image:JoseCarrerasAge8.jpg). The question is, are they allowed? If they are, I will also upload similar kind of photos and put the same remarks for them. If I received any warnings from any WIKI admin, I will point to this conversation and also José Carreras's article. It is because, at one time, I also posted "album cover" and "selected scene" photos, but they were removed. But now since I have a good reference, I can always use José Carreras for argument. See, Geni, rules should have been standard, whether it is allow or not. It is not fair when it is allowed to some articles only. - Jay (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I called the USPTO office in DC and the OSS Society in McLean, VA last week. Spoke with a Mr. Pinck on the OSS Society, who is in charge of trademarks there, and he said they are owned by the US Gov't but used by them on permission. - NeutralHomer • Talk21:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
