User Talk:Chiefsfan364

User:Chiefsfan364	User talk:Chiefsfan364	Special:Contributions/Chiefsfan364	User:Chiefsfan364/Sandbox	User:Chiefsfan364/Autograph Book	User:Chiefsfan364/Awards
User Page	Talk	Edit Count	Sandbox	Autograph Book	Awards

Wikipedia vandalism information
(abuse log)

Low to moderate level of vandalism

[view • purge • update]

3.58 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 18:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Chiefsfan364's Talk Page!

Hello, and welcome to my talk page! If you want to start a new conversation, please start a new box. Thank you! ----Chiefsfan364 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Archives

Copyright problems with Image:Image:Shelfstone.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Shelfstone.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. WTucker (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An answer to your question

In answer to your question about why the image in the Shelfstone article was submitted to be considered for deletion.

When I looked at the image, I recognized the cave and then I realized that I had seen that image before or one much like it. To me, the image appeared to be a crop from an image at [1], specifically [2]. This image is clearly marked with a copyright assertion from Dave Bunnell. But, even if it weren't marked, the copyright is still held by the producer of the work and cropping does not create a new work but a derived work.

A close examination of the image seemed to confirm my suspicions of a crop of one of Dave Bunnell's images.

Dave Bunnell appears to be a Wikipedia contributor. His talk page can be found at User talk:Dave Bunnell. I put a note on his page but have had no response to it. I think he has probably not revisited Wikipedia in a while.

I hope this explains my reasons, WTucker (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spar3.jpg

Is this image also a crop from a copyrighted image? Image:Spar3.jpg WTucker (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spar.jpg

And this one? Image:Spar.jpg

If so, you shouldn't do that. Just cropping someone else's images does not create a new work and so does not change the copyright status.

WTucker (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See section immediately below, which is also about this image. Cheers. -- Hux (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright question

Hi Chiefsfan - could you advise as to the origin of this image? You appear to claim to be the copyright holder, but another editor has brought to our attention that it seems to be from this site, taken by a "Bill Holmes" for the National Parks Service. How is it that you own the copyright? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image at the NPS link is tagged, "NPS Photo by Bill Holmes". All NPS content is public domain unless otherwise noted so the correct tag for this one should be {{PD-USGov-Interior-NPS}}. I just updated it. -- Hux (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spar.jpg

O.K. The copyright status of Image:Spar.jpg seems to have been clarified and the image appears to be in the public domain. However, the uploaded image appears to have been cropped from the original and has lost some fidelity. How about uploading an uncropped version of this public domain image to replace the cropped one?

WTucker (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spar3.jpg

Image:Spar3.jpg also appears to be a NPS image from [3], specifically [4] -- I will ask the experts to look at it too.WTucker (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Spar3.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Spar3.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [5], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Spar3.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hux (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to copyright questions

The pictures in question were not a crop. They were a picture taken on a digital camera...

If you took the pictures yourself at the source then that is not a copyright violation. But what you seem to be saying is that you took a picture of a picture and that generally does violate the copyright.

I am not a lawyer and therefore not a copyright lawyer -- there are whole teams of lawyers out there making a living off of copyrights -- but I will try to explain the big picture as I understand it.

When someone produces a creative work, like a photograph, they own that photograph and get to control all copies made of it. They can say who can copy it; how it is copied; where it can appear and on and on -- complete control of all copies, in any form. It doesn't matter if the copy is a photograph, fax, drawing or painting, digital copy or whatever -- any copy in any form. They do not even have to give notice that the work is copyrighted -- it implicitly is because it is a creative work.

Most people seem to think that images on the web are fair game and can be copied to enhance web pages and other creative content that they are producing. This is not true. Some seem to understand this and attempt to subvert it by altering the image or taking a picture of a picture or some such and this does not change anything. And Wikipedia is even more strict about what rights images and all contents, for that matter, that are placed on it must grant to others.

There are concepts of "fair use" which I will not get into. Suffice it to say that almost any image of a cave formation generally cannot be used under "fair use" because a new image could be produced to show substantially the same thing even if it requires crawling into a cave.

I have no doubt that you were unaware that the use of these images on WP was violating the copyrights of the image owners. I know you intended only to help. But, to protect the rights of the image owners and Wikipedia itself, they had to be deleted.

I hope you understand that I was not being malicious and trying to cause problems. I did not really intend to get into this -- I just stumbled across the one image and it snowballed from there.

Thanks for your understanding.

WTucker (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:CloverfieldDrawing.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]