User talk:ALH/Archive A

MY FILE

Why did you put it for deletion? Old Time Music Fan (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is here: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 February 17 ALH (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You deleted a free img

Please restore File:Sex-based and non-sex-based gender sytems.jpg. The maps at WALS are CC (CC3 if I remember correctly). — kwami (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't delete the image, I just nominated it. The problem was that WALS releases their material under a CC-no-commercial licence, which is incompatible with Wikipedia. In addition, the underlying maps were from Google, which adds more complexity to the issue of the image's copyright. Given this information, I highly doubt the original image will be restored, however if you're interested, you could recreate the image yourself using a blank map (there are quite a few available here: commons:Category:Blank maps) and MS Paint or a similar program. If you do go that route, just make sure to list WALS as where the information is from. ALH (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Danielle Ilabaca

Hey why is it set for deletion anyways. It has no copyright info. I found it at a blog site posted by a guy, it wasnt his work. It is just a photo of him for his page to show his looks. I uploaded a similar image and It stayed without discussion. Though Others have told me that a copyrighted photo (which this isnt) could be used if it doesnt violate copyright. If it is used sparingly (usually less than 3 times) and it used for educational purposes then it poses no harm and does not violate the copyright if there is any. So this is used for copyright and only on one page. Other copyrighted work is also used without permission as is doesnt violate policies. But the place where I found this has no copyright anyways so I see no problem. BlackDragon 00:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

In this case, the image you used doesn't have an explicit copyright statement. However, all works (including images) are "under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." (Copyright.org) Just because an image doesn't seem to have a copyright notice, doesn't mean that the image isn't under copyright. In this case, you are claiming that the photo isn't under copyright because "It was published to show what he looks like on a blog which has no copyright" which is not a valid reason for a photo to be in the public domain. You need to provide evidence that the copyright holder of the image (either the photographer or, I would guess in some cases, the subject of the photo) released the photo into the public domain. You haven't provided this proof, which is why the photo is up for deletion.
Now, as far as "educational purposes," I believe what you are referring to is Fair Use. On Wikipedia, Fair Use can only be used when a photo cannot at all be replaced by a free alternative. In this case, a cursory Google search revealed a free photo of him already on the Commons (commons:File:Daniel Ilabaca.jpg), and while they may not work as well as the photo you have used, it still indicates that there are free alternatives to the photo you have uploaded. ALH (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Drago_Kocakov_autoportrait.jpg

I suppose you assume I don't want the file deleted. So, I would have to verify the file's copyright status? Well, the artist's son gave me the picture personally to photograph it exactly for this purpose (Wikipedia). I think that's quite legal and sufficient due to the fact that no one cannot ask an approval from a dead man (in this case Drago Kocakov). Kind regards! User:Pejacsevich —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For this portrait to be in the public domain, there has to be evidence that the artist himself explicitly donated it to the public domain, or that the artist legally passed his copyrights down to his son. Otherwise, the work is copyrighted. Should neither of those conditions be met and you still want the portrait on Wikipedia, you should create an article on the artist, which would allow the file to be kept, provided you add a fair use rationale. ALH (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

File:TellicoDam.jpg

Apparently you nominated this file for speedy deletion, and it was in fact rather speedily deleted. The reason given was that it's a copyright violation. Since I personally took, edited, and uploaded that photograph, and since any copyright claim would therefore need to come from me, I'm curious why you thought I might want my photo deleted.

Scott Johnson (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The photo was also uploaded here on Flickr under an "All Rights Reserved" license, which makes also uploading the photo on Wikipedia a copyright violation according to our policy. If you change the license on the Flickr to either Creative Commons-Attribution or Creative Commons-Attribution-Share Alike, you can re-upload the photo to Wikipedia (just make sure to note the photo is also uploaded on Flickr). Please note that photos with No Commercial or No Derivative licenses cannot be uploaded on Wikipedia. ALH (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been my impression that copyrighted photos may be used on Wikipedia with permission of the copyright owner. I am the copyright owner. Where's the problem with that? Are you saying that a copyright notice on Flickr strips me of the right to give permission to use my image?

Scott Johnson (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not that you can't upload the photo here, it's that the terms you released the photo under on Wikipedia conflict with the terms you released the photo under on Flickr. Until that conflict is resolved, the photo cannot be uploaded here. As I said, all you have to do is change the license on the Flickr photo, and the photo can be re-uploaded. ALH (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hello ALH, I hope that you are doing well. I need your help. I recently took a new and better photo of Glendales Southern Baptist Church with the intention of replacing the "old" photo that I took and which is now in commons. To tell you the truth, I was unable to do it and I messed up. Here: File:Glendale-Souhtern Baptist Church-1920.JPG you can see the new photo, which I want in commons and the "old" photo which is in commons. Can you fix the problem for me or have someone who can do it? Thank you ahead of time. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

From what I can tell, commons:File:G-First Southern Baptist Church-c.1920.jpg is showing the new file. Probably what's happening is that your browser is showing the old version of the file. What browser are you using? ALH (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• I had my browser recently updated by Crome. Now, I want to make sure that I understand right. You are telling me that the image in commons is the one where you can see the stairs to the church instead of the green tarp coving their view? Because the main image that I see the darker one with the green tarp and the one that I want in commons is the one where you can see the front stairs. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I'm seeing. Like I said, your browser is probably just showing an older version of the image, but it is updated. ALH (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Good, thank you and I hope that you have a good day, or at least what's left of it :) - Tony the Marine (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and you as well. ALH (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons coordinates

As you noticed at File:North York General Hospital and Oriole GO Station entrance.jpg, all image uploads are now being given a default coordinate value of 0, 0. This is obviously wrong. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I figured it was probably a problem with the upload system. My comment about me doubting that it was in the Atlantic was meant as a joke, nothing personal. ALH (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)