Petasites

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. Bahasa Indonesia ∙ dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ euskara ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ Simple English ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ ქართული ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙

/archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

• User:Yann/Valued images, 2009-2014, 2015-2016, 2017-2019
• User:Yann/Quality images, 2005-2014, 2015-2016, 2017-2023
• User:Yann/Featured images, 2009-2018, 2019-2023
• User:Yann/Featured media

You can leave me a message in English or French, at the bottom. Click . Yann 22:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello Yann, je ne partage pas ton analyse. Selon moi, une planche contact annotée n'est pas nécessairement et automatiquement une publication au sens légal américain. Je pense que dans de tels cas il serait préférable de laisser le temps à un consensus communautaire de se dégager. Cordialement, — Racconish ^💬 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Racconish: Bonjour,

C'est comme cela qu'est interprété le copyright aux Etats-Unis sur Commons. Il y a des milliers de photos avec cette justification. Cela pourrait être contesté pour des photos de famille, mais pour des photos d'événements comme ici.

Hi, This is how US copyright is interpreted on Commons. This could be contested for "family" pictures, but not for pictures of such events. Pictures are published when the picture leaves the photographer's custody. @Clindberg: who has, it seems to me, confirmed this. Yann (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely that was kept private. The definition of publication in the U.S. before 1978 was tortured, but the most common definition of "limited publication" were copies distributed to limited people, for a limited purpose, and with no right of further distribution. If any of those three tests failed, it was "general publication" and lost copyright if there was no notice. So even giving a print to a friend with no understood limitations could be publication. Copies did have to be actually distributed -- if something was technically published without any distribution, it may not actually lose copyright, as the law does mention distribution in the clause where copyright is lost. In this case, it seems like a publicity photo, so no real limited purpose. The back says it was a gift to the NYPL by someone who died in 1971, and that was likely the second distribution, so no real doubt this copy was floating around without a notice before 1978. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yann and Carl Lindberg, thanks for commenting. I agree with Carl we have to consider whether this is assimilable to a general publication or to a limited publication, with respect to the fact a distribution to a limited number of people for a limited purposeis not a general publication, even if the limitations are implied and not expressed (Burke v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc. [1]). The fact it is a scan of a contact sheet with a handwritten inscription seems to me to indicate it is likely a case of limited distribution, in a context of professional discussion, possibly but not certainly prior to the future publication of a cropped version. The situation is comparable to that of a composer giving or lending copies of his composition to interprets or to firms to sollicit their interest in the works's production (Allen v. Walt Disney Productions [2]), or that of authors of a play distributing copies of their work to potential backers and production personnel in an attempt to obtain its production (Burnett v. Lambino [3]). With no other evidence, assimilating the distribution of this contact print to a general publication is IMO quite a stretch. — Racconish ^💬 09:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giving it to the NYPL would not be limited publication. And the ability to do so would indicate that the distribution to Hayward in the first place may not have been for a limited purpose either. I don't see the comparison, especially giving it to a library. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Lindberg, indeed yes if it would have been given by the photographer himself, which is probably not the case here. Assuming Hayward, whose relationship with the photographer is unknown, was explicitly or implicitly entitled by the photographer to make such a gift is IMO a very hypothetical intellectual construction. — Racconish ^💬 12:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken in 1960, and given as a gift to the library before 1971, which would seem to indicate that Hayward thought he had the ability to do so (i.e. it was not really a limited distribution in the first place). Not definite for sure, but I don't think it's very hypothetical either. You are also making assumptions about the nature of Hayward having it in the first place -- while that is possible, it may have just as easily simply been a gift as well, which would probably be general publication then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yann and Carl Lindberg, first I am not convinced we can take for granted a gift date before 1971, since most of the Hayward archives in possession of the NYPL were gifted by his wife after his death [4], particularly those relating to ballet [5]. This was a bulk gift of a large quantity of documents with no consideration for existing distribution restrictions. In any case, Hayward's professional involvment suggests a context similar to the Burnett v. Lambino case referred to above [6]. My points are (1) a context of general publication cannot be inferred from the sole absence of a copyright mention on the verso and (2) by application of the principle of precaution we cannot rule out a limited distribution, particularly for a working document such as a contact print and when the person to whom it has been distributed was a producer as was Leland Hayward. — Racconish ^💬 14:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yann and Carl Lindberg, thanks for the opportunity to have a more thorough discussion. Would you agree it would be appropriate to renominate the file for deletion based on the fact we cannot rule out a limited distribution? — Racconish ^💬 09:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Racconish: I think Carl made it clear that there is very little chance, i.e. much below the reasonable doubt, that the file was not published at the time, and that it is in the public domain. Yann (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, I think the fact Hayward was a producer was not factored. This is why I am still waiting for an answer to my previous comment. — Racconish ^💬 11:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are correct, what right did the NYPL have to publish them? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yann and Carl Lindberg, their disclaimer is compatible with the library exception of Section 108 [7]. — Racconish ^💬 13:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy'd File:Kate Edwards.jpg two days ago as a copyvio, but Kingofthedead raised that I was wrong. The uploader (Ksoglin on enwiki) appears to be the actual copyright holder. This was an oversight on my part, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to undelete it. Thanks! SWinxy (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created a DR instead: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kate Edwards.jpg. Yann (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the file File:Sol Levante title card.png yesterday, which has now been speedy deleted by you. The license template I used, {{Netflix Open Content}}, links directly to https://opencontent.netflix.com/, which shows that the short film Sol Levante is licensed under CC BY 4.0. I’ve listed it at COM:UNDEL, so ultimately no harm, no foul, but in the future please look a bit closer at file pages before speedy deleting them without discussion. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 16:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabldotink: Undeleted. It was speedy nominated by Belbury. Yann (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On User:DylanTastic you say that the user is a puppeteer, and on an DR that they started you state that they are blocked. I don't see a block, so are you able to explain where we actually are situated with the user? I have just deleted nominated trash that they uploaded. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: Hi,

I blocked the socks, and deleted their uploads, but not the main account, and I didn't delete files from the main account. I don't mind if you block the main account as well. Yann (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I misinterpreted what you said then. <thumbsup>  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you repeatedly requesting to delete the image when this image has the permission of VRTS. warning: we can take serious action against you Fizzza (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fizzza: DO NOT THREATEN ME, or you will be blocked. The issue is not copyright, but scope. Wikimedia is not a social media, a place to promote non notable people. Yann (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I thank you for helping me block Dcmpr and all his puppet accounts.

I'm writing to you because I have a suspicion that DylanTastic and Franklin482 could be the same person. Since I'm not entirely sure, I preferred to write to you here instead of the noticeboard because I would like you to help me investigate this.

My reason for saying that is because in 2019 I had problems with Franklin482 on English Wikipedia for the same reasons I reported Dcmpr on Commons. In fact, in WP he was blocked for having Harrison Canyon as a puppet account, which was where he was spent making changes to the highway shields of Puerto Rico. That is, in Commons he used the Franklin482 account to create shields and in WP he used the Harrison Canyon account to edit articles.

The behavior between Franklin482 and the accounts related to DylanTastic have similarities that remind me of that negative moment. I wouldn't want that to happen again and that's why I had to be brave and report it. For that reason I decided to write to you. I would like you to help me solve my doubt.

Thank you so much. Yarfpr (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yarfpr: In this case, please create a request for check user. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Yann,

merci pour restaurer cette image. Maintenant que je le vois, j'ai des doutes quant à sa validation. J'ai donc écrit à la cliente pour lui demander une preuve. Je suis désolée, cela arrive parfois lorsque je ne peux pas voir l'image. Pour le moment, je pense que l'image peut rester telle quelle.

Amitiés d'Allemagne Mussklprozz (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Yann. I just noticed that you nominated one of my photos.

That's very kind of you.

Apologies, but I speak French like a Spanish cow, so I am writing in English.

Best regards,

Paul Pdanese (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Captain America, Chapter 1.ogv 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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : HydinJeckel.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good one… ★ 12:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2… ★ 19:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I already had this last one in my list, but it needs some work before nomination. Yann (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Yann! Could you please take a look at this non-free map? I've seen that you quickly deleted a similar looking map so I thought that might interest you. Best regards, WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann, hope you can help. Is there a way to search files and get results that show the categories that are on the image? I'm going through a "needs categories" category, and half of them seem to be fine, just never had the particular "needs attention" category removed. I'm looking for a quicker way than clicking into each file to determine if it needs work (other than taking of the "needs categories" label). Let me know or if you can point me in the right direction, that'd be great. Thanks in advance! -- Deadstar (msg) 11:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann. Do you think File:Snipertron12 Logo (20 May 2024).png and File:OOPS! Card.png meet COM:PERSONAL? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zéro de conduite (1933) par Jean Vigo.webm 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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙

 — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everhardy (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I’m not sure why you didn’t just block this user outright. A user with “ever hard” in their name who uses Commons to spam dick pics and offer hookups is most assuredly not going to contribute constructively, ever. Dronebogus (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Yann (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Yann

You've just closed the undeletion discussion in the following section, but it's not yet finished as I was going to provide more details supporting the case. Could you please re-open it or let me know how I can re-open it?

thanks Almas Dautbay (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Almas Dautbay: Hi,

There is no way that a 1957 picture from former USSR is in the public domain. In the best case, if it was published at that time, it will be in the public domain in the country of origin in 2028, and in USA in 2053. If it was never published, it will be in the public domain in USA in 2078, as Jim said. Yann (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,@Yann I'm not challenging that. My hope is to establish the copyright history. After all these discussion here, I'm now trying to contact directly with the descendants of the person depicted in the portrait to get more details. I obtained this photograph from them, and I hope they will be able to provide more details about the history of this specific document photo. I didn’t ask any copyright questions from them earlier, because I was relying on my understanding of the Soviet Law from that time. As I confirmed and quoted above such type of works were not subject to copyright during the Soviet Union time. That’s why I uploaded it almost 3 years ago to Wikimedia without any hesitation or concerns. Now, since we are having this conversation, I will try to reach them and request more details and I will try to return with the details ASAP. Almas Dautbay (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Almas Dautbay: The issue is that the copyright didn't belong to the subject, but to the photographer, unless you could prove that it is a work for hire. Yann (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann Thank you for your response. I understand that the copyright would belong to the photographer and not to the subject. I did not suggest otherwise. This is why I am trying to reach the descendants of the person depicted, to see if they know or remember anything about who exactly took the photograph back then. Thank you for your patience and understanding. I hope to get the answer ASAP, hopefully tomorrow. Almas Dautbay (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann I’ve reached the descendants of this person as I planned, and they gave me the contact of one of his daughters, who is still alive (83 years old) - Svetlana Tulegenovna Dautbayeva. Luckily, she is in good health and sound mind, so she was able to remember and provide more details about this photo.

As I initially assumed, the photograph was taken in a regular Soviet photo studio, based on the general practices of the time. However, after speaking to this person, I have learned additional context. It turns out that while the photograph was indeed taken using the equipment of a typical Soviet photo studio, it was actually taken by her. She said that photography was her hobby at the time, and this particular photograph was a memorable event for the family. Her father had just received a rare award - the “Order of Lenin” (attached to his jacket in this portrait), and she wanted to create a new portrait of him as a special memorable gift.

Could you please share the format of explicit permission required from her or the online form that needs to be filled regarding the copyright required to restore this image here? I’ll follow up with the copyright holder accordingly. Almas Dautbay (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Almas Dautbay: Ah great! Please ask her to send a permission via COM:VRT. If she is not able to do it on the Internet, you could also get a paper from her with the same text, which you can then send to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. This can be done in Russian as well. Yann (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]