User talk:Polly/Archive 11

HI, About Telemundo novelas posters

Hi I saw your warnings and the problem is that I dpn't know enough english to provide such information about files I uploaded that's the problem but the files are official posters and Telemundo sends me via e-mails prmotional posters they come form there.

OK leave it with me, I'll add the rationales as best I can. Polly (Parrot) 18:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Silver Movement

I don't understand why that artist page is up for dispute/deletion. The Silver Movement is on iTunes under an indie label and uses a major distributor to sell their music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audiomixxer1123 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do they meet any of the criteria listed here. Polly (Parrot) 17:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see this interview here http://watunes2.blogspot.com/2009/05/matt-silver-movement-kletter-in-watunes.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audiomixxer1123 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure an interview on a blogspot is sufficient, but by all means add it to the article, it might help its chances. Polly (Parrot) 17:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand...The page has substance and is factual. What is the problem here? Audiomixxer1123 (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately having substance and being factual very often aren't enough. Wikipedia has certain notability guidelines that usually always need to be met if an article is to stay. Add any reasons why you feel the article should stay to the deletion discussion, and try to find evidence that at least one of the music notability criteria has been met. Polly (Parrot) 18:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Re:Suspicious uploads

I'll take a look. feydey (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several copyvios uploaded, deleted some, added a note to the user's page. feydey (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look on google images and see if I can find any more copyvios. Though it is sometimes like searching for a needle in a haystack. Polly (Parrot) 18:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pic

If I get a pic from google images, but cite everything, is that permissable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzdemarco (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be acceptable,as he's a living person, it would need to be a unique historical image to really pass wikipedia's non-free content criteria for images. Polly (Parrot) 22:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how would a person be allowed to use a pic from say AP? Why is citing it not good enough? Rzdemarco (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is and isn't acceptable with regard to images is listed here. As the person is alive then a non-free image would be very unlikely to be acceptable. Polly (Parrot) 17:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki rotate image

Just wondered why you tagged my rotating Wikipedia image. Is the Wikipedia logo copyrighted? --Simpsons contributor (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png basically to use it for any purpose beyond a direct relevance to Wikipedia requires permission. They're just protecting themselves from any possible overt misuse of the logo. Polly (Parrot) 23:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could've explained that better, the main problem is licensing. You cannot claim copyright of the derivative image, you could claim fair use but it is easily replaceable by a free image so that wouldn't work either. So you've got an image that ultimately lacks an acceptable license. Polly (Parrot) 00:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need a complex symbol to best illustrate the rotational program. The problem is I can’t produce any reasonably complex logo like that with my software. Do you know where I could go to (another user for example) to get a good logo (with an identical width and height and a black background). --Simpsons contributor (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would commons have any free images you could use [1]. Polly (Parrot) 17:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drugstore/Isabel Monteiro artwork

Dear Polly, I am Isabel Monteiro, the creator of all the artwork for my band DRUGSTORE (ref:File:Drugstore mini3.jpg +File:Firrst album.jpg). I don't want to be credit as the creator of the images, as I don't think it's necessary. On all the Drugstore albums and singles I already am credit as creator (artwork by i.monteiro), I don't particularly want to add this information. many thanks, isabel Lovelyshopper (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could email OTRS with permission. Polly (Parrot) 17:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real Chance of Love 2 cast photo

can you please remove the deletion note. Because that's the actual cast of the upcoming show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capoeira Fighter 3 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add a fair use rationale, try adding Template:ScreenshotU. Polly (Parrot) 20:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion

Hi-

With regard to the Ron Olsen bio page. I see you have tagged a photo I own and uploaded for speedy deletion. You should have no worries about the copyright. It's my photo and I own the rights.

Ron (71.129.173.106 (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

If that's the case could you please add a creative commons license such as this one to the image page, thank you. Polly (Parrot) 21:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion

Sorry about that. I'm new to this and am learning as I go. Will try and add the copyright tag.

(Lanewsguy (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

If you have difficulties let me know and I'll add it for you. At some point an email to OTRS giving your permission may be required. [2].Polly (Parrot) 21:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion

This pic is sopposed to be a personal pic for my profile. It is indeed owned by me and I am the source. The problem is I am not sure what to put to say on a copyright tag for a personal pic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Virtue (talk • contribs) 21:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one would do fine, or {{pd-self}} for a very basic license. Polly (Parrot) 22:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I applied the pd-self tag. Hope that works. Thank you for your assistance-

Ron (Lanewsguy (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

And my sincere condolences on your mother's passing.

Ron O. (71.129.173.106 (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you, it's been a difficult and emotional last year. Polly (Parrot) 22:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PerryatSupremeCourt.jpg image

Hi Polly. I'm new to Wikipedia. I received your message that I need to add a copyright message, but I don't know how. Can you help me by providing steps to add such a message. I took the photograph myself, so I own the copyright. I am happy to make it available as a public domain image. So there isn't any problem, except my lack of knowledge to correctly annotate the image. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSCapon (talk • contribs) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perryat SupremeCourt.jpg

Hi Again Polly. I tried to add to things to the image: an image description, and an attribution tag. Could you please let me know if I have done this correctly? Again, I created the photo, so it's only a matter of entering the copyright information properly. Thanks, Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSCapon (talk • contribs) 01:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All looks fine. You'll find the full list of licenses here. Polly (Parrot) 01:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:File permission problem with File:DanSwampyComicCon.jpg

I was under the assumption that it's under the public domain if it's on a blog. Nowhere on the page did it say no one was allowed to use it - while it was not directly stated, it's clearly public domain. No, I wasn't the owner of it, but I've seen several images from blogs accepted because no copyright law was given for it. Sorry if that was just a bot and you have no idea what I'm talking about, just need to clarify. The Flash ^{talk} 03:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the copyright status and am going to change some similar ones to the right copyright status. I don't understand why it's about to be deleted when I'm trying to fix it and gave reasons for it to stay, but is it fine now? The Flash ^{talk} 15:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately copyright must be assumed unless it is explicitly stated that content is under a free license. If the blog writer owns that image then they would need to release it under a free license for it to be acceptable. Polly (Parrot) 19:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a huge disappointment. Thanks for letting me know, but this leaves me with around no images if that applies to everything. The Flash ^{talk} 20:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, but those are Wikipedia's policies. Are you able to take some pics of your own? Polly (Parrot) 21:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry, I know it's policy, just saying. But thanks, anyways, for letting me know about this. The Flash ^{talk} 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've added a new tag to it - is it any better than before? The Flash ^{talk} 23:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still the same problems, it isn't explicitly released under a free license. You could always try asking the copyright holder to release it under a free license. Polly (Parrot) 23:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging images used in my articles

You have tagged my images with rationale required. All images contain three reasons for rationale which are self explanatory.

Please advise.

Regards

--Trevorsem (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated rationale provided for all tagged images using template you suggested above for another user.

--Trevorsem (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use rationale isn't compatible with a creative commons license. You need the poster license [3]. Even then as The Alarm are still performing it's likely replacable by a free image. Polly (Parrot) 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Mass deletion of image uploads needed

Thanks for the note (and nice to see you back- I did notice you weren't about- new image patrolling became a little lonlier!). I have contacted the user and will delete unless they say they have a claim. Otherwise, I'll investigate their claim... J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll leave it with you. Though unless the uploader is the President of the IEC of Afghanistan then I doubt any claim would have veracity. Polly (Parrot) 19:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey its me yusufisfine i acctually made that picture myself in photofiltre so the picture is acctually mine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusufisfine (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a composite image, it's made up of multiple images, do you own the copyright of all those images? Polly (Parrot) 00:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan and Swampy.jpg

Okay, I have no idea what the message means. Please explain. The Flash ^{talk} 01:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only allows the use of non-free images of living people in exceptional circumstances, as almost always it is possible to obtain a free image of a living person.See number 12 here for clarification. Polly (Parrot) 01:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case there isn't, as the other one is the one mentioned above. But okay, thanks. The Flash ^{talk} 01:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point being it would be quite easy to obtain a free image of the people concerned, unlike for instance someone who has been incarcerated for life. Polly (Parrot) 01:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've looked everywhere and haven't found anything; the blog one was the only one I thought was fine but it violated policy. But that's besides the point, I understand, thanks. The Flash ^{talk} 01:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry I keep having to be the bearer of bad news. Polly (Parrot) 01:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's no problem, it's just your job. The Flash ^{talk} 01:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it's my job I'm demanding a pay rise! I want minimum wage at least. Polly (Parrot) 01:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mine ur own fucking bussiness.wat da fuck is ur problem u ugly fat ass motherfuck ].go suck on your moms dick and fuck ur dads pussy.u fat bitch.

Such vulgarity, how shocked and offended I am. Polly (Parrot) 01:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan & copyright

Losing a parent is normally very tough. After a long illness must be much tougher.

I got your reply. The copyright issues for images taken in Afghanistan are tricky.

I routinely see images taken by GIs, where wire services, freelance photographers, or other private organizations try to claim all rights to the image.

I don't know if you know this, but Afghanistan is not a signatory to any of the international copyright agreements -- and it has no domestic copyright legislation.

Some people claim that this means all images taken in Afghanistan are public domain.

Some people claim that this means that whoever first publishes the image in a country that does have copyright protection gets to claim all rights -- without regard to who actually took it. But, if that is the case, what about images taken by GIs in Afghanistan -- which would be PD because a GI took them?

What I suspect is that the claims of those who try to claim all rights to images they didn't take, just because they were the first to republish outside of Afghanistan, have never been tested in court.

Can I ask how you figured out AP claimed the rights to this picture?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes copyright in Afghanistan is tricky to determine, but probably not top of their governments agenda right now. You could make the claim of unique historic image for the photo with a fair use rationale. As to the AP copyright claim, well I just went with the attribution The New York Times gave the image here. Though as you say it might well have been taken by a US serviceman or equally an embedded journalist. Polly (Parrot) 14:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Steel's in Town

I have been given permission to use this image from Julia McKenzie, the producer of Mark Steel's in Town. She gave me this image to use. If you want to contact her, you can find her on Facebook. ISD (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to provide a link to the image with the CC license visible or forward the permission to OTRS, see here for info. Polly (Parrot) 15:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've posted that photo on Wikimedia Commons but I've yet to get a reply from my permission email. ISD (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DONE!

File:John E Robinson.jpg now has information on who created it, and where i got the image.

Cheers. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 22:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now listed at PUI, see the file page for reasons why. Polly (Parrot) 22:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree files

Dear Polly, regarding your questioning of file images File:New prime movers.jpg, File:Prime movers old group.jpg, File:FirstNoElvisCover.jpg ... I am a member of both groups in question PLUS am the owner of the record label (Birdcage Records) that the group is on. The two photos belong to me as does the artwork for the First No Elvis CD cover. I want to release to Public Domain. Please let me know what I have to do to clear these. Alkarpus (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If any of the material you uploaded is already online then you need to follow the instructions listed here. Polly (Parrot) 01:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Paganini Strads.jpg

Hello Polly, Thank you for your feedback re the above file, in my article on the Paganini Quartet. Please forgive my prior inaccuracies as to copyright and source information. I am new to Wikipedia and am still learning the ropes, and the copyright ropes are complicated indeed! I have attempted to provide a detailed Fair Use rationale and template for this image and would very much appreciate your review & comment. Thanks again. Dan T.DtemiankaHT (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I fixed that rationale and added licensing.File:PQ AT CARDS.jpg this image is a bit dodgy, you say you created this image, if so you're very old. Do you really own the copyright or was it scanned from somewhere? Polly (Parrot) 21:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid deletion?

Don't be so quick with deletions (File:CricketPatchArt small.jpg). Checked the upload record and you will see that the owner granted permission for it's use, and you should also note that the owner's permission has been sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org for review. If there is a problem with it, I'm sure they will let me know. I trust you will make the same effort to ensure the file is not deleted that you have made in putting it into the "rapid deletion" category.

David Sciacchitano —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciacchitano (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Deletion and Tagging

Sorry, I was cranky last night. I appreciate your reminder regarding the photo and permission, though I had already sent the email exchanges to the Wiki permission address.

If that's the case add {{OTRS pending}} to the image page. Polly (Parrot) 21:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble figuring out how to tag photos. Is there a page on Wiki that explains how to do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciacchitano (talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By tags do you mean the copyright licenses or the fair use rationale templates? Polly (Parrot) 21:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signing posts

Also, let me know how to sign my posts. I thought I was doing so, but they show as unsigned, even though my identifying user name is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciacchitano (talk • contribs) 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here for sig info. Polly (Parrot) 21:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you guys bloacked me for copyright but too correct me u have to tell me how to add copyright to a picture u just cant block me like that god so i had the pictures from public websites whats ur problem and tell that gyford guy that blocked me he dont know nothing about ethiopia just because his wife is amhara. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusufisfine (talk • contribs) 20:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you've been blocked then follow the instructions to be unblocked contained on the blocking template. Polly (Parrot) 21:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Season3concertphotoit'sallrighthere.jpg & File:Season3concertphoto.jpg

You had previously left a message on my talk page indicating that two images were possibly unfree. And I left a couple of messages saying it is a free image, being posted on Flickr and it stated so on the image's page. What was not correct about the imaages? I need for you tell me because I have no idea what I did wrong. The images were already deleted and I need to know why. Please help me. Please reply. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr uploader didn't hold the copyright of those images so they were in no position to release them under a free license. The images were quite obviously screenshots taken from a commercial source. Polly (Parrot) 21:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timur Kuran Image

Dear Polly,

You sent me a message regarding the copyright for the image of Timur Kuran which I uploaded. I emailed you back, forwarding an email from him which asked me to use this file on wikipedia. However, I haven't heard from you as to whether that is enough and the file is still listed as a candidate for deletion. Please can you look into this

Best

Charlie —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesArthurMiller (talk • contribs) 23:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only check that email address rarely. You shouldn't email permissions to me but instead follow the instructions listed here. It would need to be released under a license that permits commercial and derivative works, being allowed just on Wikipedia wouldn't be acceptable. Polly (Parrot) 23:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads

The Jo Bench, Holy Moses, and Transmetal images were found on photobucket.com. I think thats a free-use site, I'm not sure but it might. The GavinWard one, I'll just let it be deleted since I dont want to fuss around with that. I didn't find that one on photobucket. I also found a Maria Brink image I found on photobucket. Marauder09 (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Photobucket is just an image hosting site, all those images are likely copyrighted and not under free licenses. Polly (Parrot) 23:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please stop deleting my images u fat ugly cumputer geek looking at kiddie porn all night kiss my natural black ass fat bitch

Your criticism has been noted and duly filed. Have a nice day. Polly (Parrot) 23:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know any good sites to find images that aren't really copyrighted images? I'm in no mood to get on the bad side of the law here. Also this image Lotus logo|100px is used in one of my userboxes and it looks like it is copyrighted, should I get rid of it or is it fine? Marauder09 (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You could try the Flickr site [4] use the advanced search and tick all the boxes in the creative commons section. Even then though you need to exercise caution as anyone can upload to Flickr, obvious commercial or promotional images are unlikely to be free regardless of what license the uploader has given them. The image in your userbox is fair use so not appropriate, only free images should be used in user space. Polly (Parrot) 02:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that... I didn't know people could be so intorelant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devoindahouse (talk • contribs) 02:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to possible copyright violations then I guess you can label me intolerant. Polly (Parrot) 02:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be good. I found it on flickr. http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandi666/3601449076/ Oops, fogot to sign :p Marauder09 (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Yoshimura

Hi, I'm Hunter Kahn. I got your message about the "replaceable fair use" claim regarding the James Yoshimura photo. The image policy at Wikipedia is one of my weak points, and maybe you can answer a question for me. This claim says that freely licensed media could be reasonably found or created, thus the media is replaceable. But there are no Yoshimura photos that are freely available right now (that I know of), hence I used this image. How does this work? Why is this image deemed replaceable, exactly? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but as he's a living person, then it's reasonable to suppose that a free image could become available. Only in exceptional circumstances are non-free images of living people usually allowed, see this section here No.12 for more detail. Polly (Parrot) 02:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

file raja brijmohan pal.jpg

i'm not an expert with the terms and other things used here, probably you could help me, i'll just explain the case, the picture of Raja Shri Brijmohan Pal Bahadur of Kutlehar state is owned by his grandson - Prince Rupendra Pal of Kutlehar, the Prince trasffered it to his Public Chariyable Trust, and he agreed to let me use it if we give credit to the Mahadeva Public Charitable Trust. So what step should i take now ? Tikka Sangram Singh (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image needs to be released under a free license that permits commercial and derivative works. If that is acceptable to the copyright holder then you could email this permission to an OTRS volunteer. See this page for instructions. Polly (Parrot) 21:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Thanks for writing. I'm currently working on the article "Philosophy and Social Hope". The image will be used to illustrate it. Hopefully it'll be ready by tomorrow.--Scandza (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged Image

Why did you tag the image I uploaded of the Beatles Stereo Box Set? This is a promtional photo released by Apple Records for the upcoming release of the Beatles remastered CDs.

File permission problem with File:Spruce street place.jpg / File permission problem with File:Alan ford architect headshot.jpg

Dear Polly,

Alan Ford, the copyright owner of the above two images in question, sent an email on Tuesday, July 7, to permissions-en@wikimedia.org granting permission for their use. In fact, the email granted permission for those and the other two images on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Ford_(architect). Please see to it that the images are not removed as I believe I have complied with the Wikipedia guidelines.

Thank you.

Mjhalliburton (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone has already deleted the photo from the page even though the purge date you put on it was after July 14 (I'll stick it back in). I can't figure out how to edit the photo so I can include the "OTRS pending" message in it. I'll check the links you sent on tagging, but frankly I find these Wiki info pages frustrating - they tell you what something is, but never tell you how to actually do anything.

Re: my question about tags and tagging, when I upload my own photos, I select a license/use category. Does that not cover "copyright licenses or the fair use rationale templates"? If not, what is it I have to add (and how do I do it) so I don't get messages from robots telling me my photos are orphans and untagged? I know what a tag is, and just about everyone does, but what is the specific tag and how is it added?(Sciacchitano (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

File:CricketPatchArt small.jpg

It looks like someone has already deleted the photo from the page even though the purge date you put on it was after July 14 (I'll stick it back in). I can't figure out how to edit the photo so I can include the "OTRS pending" message in it. I'll check the links you sent on tagging, but frankly I find these Wiki info pages frustrating - they tell you what something is, but never tell you how to actually do anything.

Re: my question about tags and tagging, when I upload my own photos, I select a license/use category. Does that not cover "copyright licenses or the fair use rationale templates"? If not, what is it I have to add (and how do I do it) so I don't get messages from robots telling me my photos are orphans and untagged? I know what a tag is, and just about everyone does, but what is the specific tag and how is it added?(Sciacchitano (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

If it's your own image choose one of the free licenses from the drop down menu and fill in the summary box with details. If it's a non-free image select the licensing from the box or if not there then add it to the summary box along with the fair use rationale. If things don't look right after upload just fix them up. Have a look at the copyright licenses page and select the right one then do the same from the FU template category. These two pages contain all that is needed really [5] [6]. Polly (Parrot) 22:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. Now I have to figure out why it is taking Permissions - Wikimedia Commons to get back to me confirming acceptance of the permission I forwarded to them. But I'm not going to worry about it for a while. Thanks for the help.(Sciacchitano (talk) 10 July 2009 (UTC))

OTRS Permissions can sometimes be overwhelmed, I'm sure they'll get to it. Polly (Parrot) 19:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Spruce street place.jpg / File permission problem with File:Alan ford architect headshot.jpg

Dear Polly,

Alan Ford, the copyright owner of the above two images in question, sent an email on Tuesday, July 7, to permissions-en@wikimedia.org granting permission for their use. In fact, the email granted permission for those and the other two images on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Ford_(architect). Please see to it that the images are not removed as I believe I have complied with the Wikipedia guidelines.

Thank you.

Mjhalliburton (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mullingstorpgrounds.jpg

Hi Polly,

I had a note left on my talk page about the above image missing file a license (which at the time it did). The owner of the image, Viktoria Eriksson, has sent an email to en-permissions with the necessary info. She sent it on the day the image was uploaded but I've kept checking and the image is still tagged as having problems with its license. I'm not sure what the procedure once one has emailed en-permissions so I thought I'd send you a note to ask if you knew of any problems with the image. Do I need to do anything else now that the email has been sent? Slightly rambling note but you get the gist I hope :) ɪntə svɛnsk 10:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see an OTRS ticket number has now been added so it's OK. All you really needed to do to prevent it from being tagged for deletion was add {{OTRS pending}} to the image page. Polly (Parrot) 15:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah it's sod's law that as soon as I write to you it gets a ticket. Thanks for the tip though. I'll know for the future. ɪntə svɛnsk 16:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising/graphic art of the 1930s

Polly -- You have disputed each of the following:

I have responded by adding more information to each description page. Perhaps the matter is best resolved in each instance by adding a fair use rationale + {{Non-free historic image}}-template :

If this is satisfactory, good -- but if not, I'm wondering why not?

Also, I'd appreciate a bit more of an explanation about what was wrong with my initial effort to comply with Wikipedia's policies as I uploaded and posted these images? I suppose this will be another one of those situations involving lessons learned the hard way. --Tenmei (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One image -- File:French Line Chicago1933.jpg -- poses a special problem if I need to create a specific fair use rationale for each of the two articles in which it has been used:

If the Creative Commons permission is deemed adequate, I would guess that this would be unnecessary? --Tenmei (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tenmei, I gave a brief explanation here. Also this File:Tatstua Maru postcard.jpg image requires a fair use rationale, I'll leave it with you. File:French Line Chicago1933.jpg you could try to justify the use in Century of Progress with a FUR, though someone might challenge it, not me though. Polly (Parrot) 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion: Maps of Western Desert WW2

Please check copyright corrections to:

I trust I have corrected them in accordance with requirements. Farawayman (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all is well now. Polly (Parrot) 18:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Uploads

Hi Polly, thanks for your comment on my talk page. You are welcome to delete the pictures I recently uploaded with bad copyright information. I am new to the upload process.

However, the picture currently being used in the article (mark071408.jpg) should not be replaced, but I was wondering if you could help me fix the license information so that the picture can be kept in the article.

Thanks! Kevinmon (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't delete anything, that's down to the admins. As for the image you mention, well it's been listed on PUI (Possibly unfree images), you really need to provide some evidence that you are indeed the copyright holder of that image. The small size of the image and lack of camera meta data is suspicious, it looks like it was sourced from a website. Polly (Parrot) 19:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Arts' picture

Hallo, Polly, you have a nice photo at your user page.

I read the message on the top of your talk page. Please accept my condolences.

Regarding the Faculty of Arts' picture, as far as I know, similar (free) photo can't be found on the Internet and I'm not able to create it by myself because of the great distance between Zvecan, where the building is situated, and my hometown. I believe that the photo of the Faculty's building should exist in the article to illustrate it.

Best regards, --Andrija (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind condolences. Unfortunately images of existing buildings really need to be freely licensed to comply with Wikipedia's policies, see Images section 12. Polly (Parrot) 22:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see. (It seems that in the meantime User:GrooveDog wrote one similar explanation on the picture's talk page.) Well, in that case, I'll try to find whether somebody related to the Faculty has an appropriate picture, or will make it by myself one day in the future. Anyway, thank you for informing me about the rule I didn't know. All the best, --Andrija (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Presbyterian Church of Marcellus image

Thanks for the heads up on this. I removed the image from the article before your alert because I realized (too late) a free image could be provided by someone taking a pic of the spire. Stupid me! Thanks again. I'll wait for a free image. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thank you for being so understanding. Polly (Parrot) 02:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Deletions?

Why did you nominate a picture from Flickr for speedy deletion? It was on the Patty Duke page. I'm tired of this stuff. If I'm not not nominated for speedy deletion, then crazed fans are deleting pictures because they don't think they're good enough. I give up...I'm taking everything off that I've put on including corrections to inaccuracies, no references, and grammar corrections to pages. Farewell, Wikipedia! I was just trying to help my college students get accurate information, but from now on I'll discourage using Wikipedia, since no one cares about content, just 40 year old pictures. Markysl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

That particular image was all rights reserved and not free, as Patty Duke is still alive then a non-free image would likely be deemed replaceable. I'm sorry to have distressed you so, such was not my intent. Polly (Parrot) 17:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Image:Jericho Undisputed.jpg

Are you tagging Image:Jericho Undisputed.jpg because it has the WWF logo? Y2J The Evil Twin (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image was tagged as it has no copyright license applied to it and appears to have come from a website and is unlikely to be free. Polly (Parrot) 17:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]