Hello MalborkHistorian! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your thread has been archived
Hello MalborkHistorian! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Infobox fix Proposal, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.
Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
File permission problem with File:Marienburg airplane wreck in Stuhm.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Marienburg airplane wreck in Stuhm.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
How do you know that the "author" of this photo died more than 70 years ago it you don't know who took the photo? The copyright holder of a photo is generally considered to be the person who takes the photo, not a person who may subsequently obtain physical possession of the photo. Are you saying that the person who took the photo and its "owner" are the same person? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
actually that man was my great-grandfather who was a russian photographer who lived in east prussia [ today poland ]
How do you know when your great-grandfather died or whether he took the photo himself if you don't know his name? Is there some way to show he died before 1954 even if he did take the photo? Do you know whether the photo was ever published (creation doesn't equal publication)? Unless it can be reasonably verified that your great-grandfather took the photo, when he died and whether the photo was ever published, it might need to be treated as an unknown and unpublished work that's still eligible for copyright protection until January 1, 2050 (creation year + 120 years + 1 year) under US copyright law. If you can established that your great-grandfather did take the photo, then his copyright ownership might've been passed along to his heirs and his heirs could release the photo under a c:Template:PD-heirs license, but you'd need to ask about that at c:COM:VPC because that particular license is for files uploaded to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
update : I was once curious about my family history due to the place where i live Malbork so i discovered about him i once knew everything about him but suddenly forgot so i searched for 2 hours in my house And found them all
Thank you providing that information; however, there's an issue with the {{PD-old-70}} license currently being used because of when your great-grandfather died. While it's true that he did die more than 70 years ago, the photo was still under copyright protection on January 1, 1996, when the URAA took effect, per c:COM:Poland and c:COM:Germany. This means it's copyright term was extended under US copyright law to 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is lesser. So, if you can demonstrate that the photo was first published in 1929, it will enter the public domain in the US on January 1, 2025. Is the copy you have a clipping from a print publication or do you have a copy of the actual photo itself? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the official copy of the actual photo is in the Malbork museum in Poland the only problem is that i live 3000 km away from it i currently live in Spain
Neither where you live nor how far you live from Malbork is not really relevant to whether the original photograph was published in 1929. Is your copy of the photo (i.e. the version you uploaded) something you found in an old newspaper clipping, something you found online, a photo you took of the original photo or a reprint of the the original photo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly alerted me of this interesting discussion on my talk page. In effect, I believe things lie much as Marchjuly explained them to you. However, I am quite certain that the URAA considers the modern country in which first publication took place rather than the historical situation at the time of creation or publication. Therefore, we should consider Polish copyright law, which in 1996 provided for a copyright term of 50 years after the death of the photographer. Therefore, it seems as if the URAA did not revive any expired US copyright in the first place. However, all of this only helps if there is some evidence of publication before 1989. If not, for instance if it is a family photo that has never really left the family, then as Marchjuly pointed out, Commons will need a declaration from the heirs of the copyright holder (which may or may not include the uploader). Felix QW (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is the original photo the only thing is i found out that it was my great grandfather who did it
Well, if the original was given to the museum that sounds like it could amount to "publication" in the US sense. So if happened before 1989, I think that could be fine. Apologies for all the headache - unfortunately, international copyright law can be quite complicated... Felix QW (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:Obituary in the Stum district newspaper dedicated to Ferdinand Schulz and Bruno Kaiser (1929).jpeg
Thank you for uploading File:Obituary in the Stum district newspaper dedicated to Ferdinand Schulz and Bruno Kaiser (1929).jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
That's OK, but it's better to get all the information ready before uploading a file to Wikipedia because incomplete information on a file's provenance can make it hard to assess its copyright status. You also might want to take a look at c:Commons:Licensing, c:Commons:Own work and c:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter because you seem to be misunderstanding some important things about Wikipedia:Image use policy. Although Wikimedia Commons and English Wikipedia are separate Wikimedia Foundation projects with their own policies and guidelines, there's quite a bit of overlap when it comes to image licensing requirements, and the Commons' pages tend to not only contain more detailed information but are also available in languages other than English. The Creative Commons copyright licenses, in principle, are only supposed to be used by the copyright holder of a work to release their work in way makes it easier for others to use (i.e. less encumbered by copyright restriction). The copyright holder of a work is the person who originally creates the work (the photographer who takes a photo, the author who writes a book, the songwriter who writes a song, the publisher which publishes a newspaper, etc.). A scan, photograph, photocopy, dubbing, etc. of someone else's creative work isn't considered a transfer of copyright from one party to another; in other words, it doesn't automatically void the rights of the original copyright holder or establish an new copyright for someone else. So, you shouldn't be using Creative Commons licenses for works created by others regardless of how old the work is or whether you know who the original creator is because even anonymous works are offered copyright protection (sometimes for quite a long time) under the copyright laws of many countries, and this includes the United States. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free rationale for File:Obituary in the Stum district newspaper dedicated to Ferdinand Schulz and Bruno Kaiser (1929).jpeg
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing the {{Di-no non-free use rationale}} template from this file's page, unless you first add a non-free use rationale for the file's use in Ferdinand Schulz. The information template you added to the file's page is not the same thing as a non-free use rationale. If you're going to try to claim this file as being non-free content, you're going to need to add a separate and specific non-free use rationale non-free use rationale to the file's page explaining how the file satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing a non-free use rationale for this file's use; however, as I posted above, adding a non-free use rationale doesn't automatically mean a non-free use is considered policy compliant. This file isn't being used for identification purposes in the main infobox at the top of biographical article; so, that part of the non-free use rationale isn't really an accurate description of how the file is being used. There are other issues per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS with the file's non-free use which also need to be addressed. In addition, there's also a Wikipedia Manual of Style issue with MOS:TEXTASIMAGES as well. So, I don't believe a consensus can be established in favor of the non-free use of this file at the moment if it were to be discussed at WP:FFD. If there's any sourced critical commentary found in reliable sources about this particular obituary/headline that you can add to the article, please do. Otherwise, the image is likely going to be seen as decorative non-free use, and it's really going to be hard to establish a consensus in favor of using. This image, however, might not need to be treated as non-free per c:COM:Poland, but that's not clear at the moment; I will ask someone to take a look. If it's, for example, within the public domain, then the file could be relicensed and moved to Commons. Finally, despite your remark here, I've actually been trying to help you sort these images out so that they don't end up deleted. A bot would've eventually removed the file and kept removing as long as it lacked a non-free use rationale for that particular use like one did here for another one of the non-free images used in the article, and you repeatedly removing the template I added to the file's page wasn't going to stop that. Repeatedly removing the template without addressing the issue, however, could attract the attention of an administrator, who might just decide to issue a formal warning to you to not do so again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some good news regarding this image, I asked Stefan2 to take a look at this image, and Stefan2 was able to sort out this image's copyright status. Since it was published in 1929, it won't actually enter into the public domain until January 1, 2025; so, for the time being it needs to remain treated as non-free. Technically, the file probably should be deleted and then restored on or after January 1, but Stefan2 has added some information to the file's page explaining what's going to happen on that day. What Stefan2 did won't become visible until January 1, but it can be seen in the file page's code. If things work as expected, the licensing and other information for the file should automatically change from non-free to PD on that day. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Ferdinand Schulz's Gliding School in Rossitten.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Ferdinand Schulz's Gliding School in Rossitten.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
i know what youre saying but the point this photo is from 1925 which means that its expired tried to add the license tag but couldnt find the source code MalborkHistorian (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear what you mean by "expired" because it's not clear what the provenance of the photo is and whether it was ever published (as typically defined under copyright law); for example, a photo unpublished but taken in the US by a known author with a known date of death could have entered into the public domain 70 years after the death of the author under US copyright law; however, a unpublished photo taken in the US by an anonymous in 1925 could be eligible for copyright protection for up to 120 years after creation. Since copyright laws vary from country to country (sometimes quite a bit), what Country A does might be different from Country B does. Because English Wikipedia's servers are located with in the US, it primarily follows US copyright law and the content it hosts needs to be in accordance with US copyright law first; Wikimedia Commons also follows US copyright law for the same reason, but it's also is intended to be more of a global project; for this reason, it further takes it to account the copyright laws of the country of first publication. You're adding licenses to files but not providing a justification for them; so, essentially, it just seems as if you're adding random licenses. What you're doing might be a little more credible if you hadn't tried to upload a 1984 Paramount Pictures publicity still of Gil Hill from the movie Beverly Hills Cop as "my portrait" when it clearly wasn't, and then subsequently uploaded other images with incomplete or incorrect source information and questionable copyright licenses. The point isn't really to keep changing a copyright license until you find one you think might be OK; it's to try and get it right from the beginning. If you don't know who took this photo, then you don't know when they died. You shouldn't really guess that they must be dead now because the photo was take so long ago. In addition, unless you can clearly show the photo was "published" as defined under US copyright law before 1929, you can't really say it is. When a photo was taken isn't the same thing as when it was first published. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked someone who's fairly experienced in assessing the copyright status of old photos to take a look at this. Perhaps that person will be able to help sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked someone about this image at User talk:Stefan2#Copyright status of old photos, and they came up with some information that might be helpful. It looks like the photo might've been taken by a de:Fritz Krauskopf. Are you able to verify whether that's the case? Krauskopf died in 1945 which was more than 70 years ago; so, this photo would no longer be eligible for copyright protection under German copyright law, and the license "PD-old-70" could be used for Germany. However, we also need to make sure the file was in the public domain in the US because that's where Wikipedia's servers are located. Since this photo was still under copyright protection in Germany on January 1, 1996, it's copyright was "restored" under US copyright law for use within the US. So, the "PD-old-70" license can't be used for the US. If, however, it can be shown that the photo was published prior to January 1, 1929 (once again "creation" doesn't equal "publication"), then this photo would most likely be too old to be still eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law as {{PD-US-expired}}, which means the photo would be within the public domain (for different reasons) in Germany and the US. Otherwise, the photo is going probably going to need to be treated a PD for Germany and non-free for the US (i.e. for Wikipedia's purposes) and licensed as {{Non-free Old-70}} and also tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite strict, though, and I don't see how the non-free use of the photo in Ferdinand Schulz can be justified, which means the file most likely can't be kept as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ferdinand Schulz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wielbark. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Orphaned non-free image File:Obituary in the Stum district newspaper dedicated to Ferdinand Schulz and Bruno Kaiser (1929).jpeg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Obituary in the Stum district newspaper dedicated to Ferdinand Schulz and Bruno Kaiser (1929).jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for your contributions to Maksymilian Krybus. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Thanks for your contributions to Daniel Torok. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
WTF?! when someone creates a stub article of an non-important item on wikipedia the community usually helps by expanding it and doesn't say that it has issues even tho it is not referenced
but when i create a stub article about the newly appointed Chief Official White House Photographeron purpose it says that it had issues?! and then gets DRAFTED?! WTF
also not to mention the words were the exact same as in Adam Schultz's article it also had no sources or references and that DIDN'T say that it had issues or it got drafted/removed
.jpeg){kind=link}