User talk:Yann

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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

God is busy, may I help you? / Dieu est occupé, puis-je vous aider?

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

Deletion of my images

Hi,Yann! Why had you deleted my 2 images ? I have read that you wrote about that supposedly my images do not contain copyrights. But I marked that i found out this pic on Tottenham Hotspur’s official YouTube channel.

I do not know anything about copyright licenses here. But, as I mentioned before, I wrote about the source of an image.

Yann, please, unblock me, my friend, and return those images! Please! George Heung min (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@George Heung min: Hi,
Yes, these images are under a copyright, and you are not allowed to upload them here without a formal written permission from the copyright holder.
You are not blocked, but you will be if you upload more copyright violations. Yann (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Ok, but why then I can not edit pages even if i am not an abuser or a bot ?
2) Also, why had you returned a page to a vandal version of an article - where there is a photo of scoreboard after the match that Tottenham lost 2-7 (on a page about Tottenham's honours, but not their failures ...) but then you deleted my photo where Tottenham won 5-0. Please tell me are yoiu also Tottenhamophobic, biased, delusional bot that thinks it could write bad things about the Club on a page dedictaed to this Club??? George Heung min (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need to understand resoning behind deletion

Hello Yann,

The following image was deleted File:CES Ecuador.gif which is the logo of an Ecuadorian Government organization. Isn't there a contingency for Government Organizations, and for using logos when explaining a subject and there is no other option for the logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarveyPrototype (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HarveyPrototype: Hi,
You uploaded it under a fair use rationale, which is not allowed on Commons. I don't see anything in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ecuador which would indicate that it is OK for Commons. Yann (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification HarveyPrototype (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Yan,
File:CES CACES Logos.jpg I drove to the building a took a picture from my car. I've edited the picture to have the logo. Can I replace the image with the picture taken from my car? HarveyPrototype (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this new image fall under FOP? HarveyPrototype (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HarveyPrototype: I am not sure. Please ask on COM:VPC. Yann (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I've posted the question on village pump HarveyPrototype (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Yann,
Aparently the logos outside of the building do fall under FOP, so may I be allowed to edit the original file? File:CES Ecuador.gif HarveyPrototype (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Yann,
You've got me researching so it appears that the copyright rules in Ecuador have been changed since 2018, What would be the process to change Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ecuador? According to this news report [1] "Se habilita la disposición de obras a través de Internet con fines de investigación y educación, sin fines comerciales."which translate to "The provision of works over the Internet is enabled for research and educational purposes, without commercial purposes."
I will read through the law[2] to find the corresponding article HarveyPrototype (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HarveyPrototype I am sure Yann will also suggest to you that a question about this, with links to the relevant law, are best asked on COM:VPC as well. Things change by community consensus, not by the act of a single editor. While many of us are able to implement the policies nt everyone is able to consider changing them. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 06:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou the question is currently under discussion under the title "Two Questions Regarding Freedom of Panorama" HarveyPrototype (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing happened with the Amway Center logo SVG file. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration

Victor Hugo is in the area… ★ 03:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is already a FP. The mention was erroneously removed by GerifalteDelSabana. Yann (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Château de la Jayère 1.JPG

Hi, please take a look there.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Six et demi onze (1927), affiche.jpg

File:Six et demi onze (1927), affiche.jpg 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 ∙ 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 ∙ +/−

hinnk (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

Dear Yann,

Please delete immediately the following page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Philips_MASTER_LED_2.3W_830-827_E14-E27_lamp_candles,_lusters_%26_bulbs.pdf

Thank you. Elena Regina (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Video2commons malfunction

Hi, sorry for taking this much to answer, I've been a bit busy, and I kinda lost your message. Unfortunately my team cannot take on work on Video2Commons, and the usual response I get when I ask around is that WMF doesn't maintain community tools. Maybe I can try to see if someone on the Hackathon Telegram channel can take a look at it, but I cannot promise anything. I hope to get back at you with good news soon, but if I don't, at least know that I tried. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sannita (WMF): Hopefully it does get fixed soon. It is a very useful tool when it works. (Yann's talkpage is on my watchlist) Abzeronow (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sannita, thanks for caring! Rich Farmbrough, 22:10 29 May 2024 (GMT).
@Sannita (WMF): My point is that volunteers are not able to fix it, and that it is an essential tool until MP4 is allowed on Commons. Basically, sicne MP4 is the usual video recording format, no video can be uploaded without that tool, unless having inner knowledge of codecs, and a lot of computer power. So I think that the WMF should take over its maintenance. Yann (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann I totally get your point, and to some extent I agree, but it is not something that WMF can do. As I already said many times now about taking over community-run tools, it will take a significant number of hours to understand how the code runs and/or rewriting the whole tool to make it fit MediaWiki. This would require an ok from upper management. I will bring up the problem of video management, and try to squeeze it into an action for next year, but pressing for a solution is all I can do, unfortunately. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Official portrait 2023 Chandni Mistry.jpg

Hi, thanks for uploading this file. You claim OGL for it, but I can't see that on the Brighton and Hove page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:09 29 May 2024 (GMT).

@Rich Farmbrough: That was the license claimed the original uploader. I only uploader the original larger image. There was an undeletion request on Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-05#File:Official portrait of Chandni Mistry, 2023.jpg. Yann (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 14:55 1 June 2024 (GMT).

Hello, yes I know that my last uploads may be not clear about copyrights. But I've found one picture [3] with the same upload method: the same source, the same rights - and this specific picture was approved. Plesae, take a look at this picture, and verify the other ones. I'm deninitely NOT a wiki-destructor, I started to editing almost 20 years ago, and don't want to make any vandalisms or problems but, you know, if we can do something for wiki, we do it. Zorro2212 (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zorro2212: Well, this license is wrong. This is not even 50 years old. But if this is a picture from Poland, Polish law applies. Yann (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know polish copyright law talks about even 70 yrs after death of author of photograph. But there are possible exceptions, eg. government sources. So, I thought that may be this particular case, because those photos are imported from our main historical institution. I understand rules, but I had to try. Of course don't bother if you will must delete it. Regards.--Zorro2212 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zorro2212: The rule is available at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Poland. So it seems that pictures from Poland from before 1994 are OK with {{PD-Poland}}. Yann (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ukraine-NATO Relations.png

Can you update it? It should show Sweden in it but it doesn't. IWantToHelpOut (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IWantToHelpOut: You can request it on Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. There is no need for deletion. Yann (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added template that allows anyone to overwrite the file. Abzeronow (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tis done. IWantToHelpOut (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transmission d'une requête

Bonjour Yann,

Je transmets la requête d'une utilisatrice. Cette personne a quitté les projets Wikimedia (peut-être temporairement ou définitivement) et elle souhaite faire supprimer rapidement certains des fichiers qu'elle avait téléversés sur Commons il y a deux mois (les fichiers en question sont des photos prises chez elle et ils ne sont pas utilisés), car leurs données EXIF contiennent la géolocalisation de son domicile et elle craint pour sa sécurité (voir notamment ici). Ça me semble une raison valable dans ces circonstances. Étant donné justement la nature de la situation, je préférerais éviter une demande de suppression ordinaire, puisque cela n'aurait comme effet que d'attirer davantage l'attention sur cette faille de sécurité. Si tu es d'accord, est-ce que tu pourrais t'occuper de la suppression rapide ? Sinon, je tenterai de trouver une autre solution, peut-être une requête sur Aministrators' noticeboard ? Merci d'avance.

Voici la liste des fichiers les plus directement concernés :

-- Asclepias (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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 ∙ 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 ∙ +/−

Affected:

Yours sincerely, GaiusAugustine (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, per this, it appears that File:Byron Randall, "Golden Gate Bridge", tempera, 1950s.jpg is not "own work". The uploader claims on enWP that he's the owner of the painting and therefore owns the copyright. I'm not sure that is correct. Perhaps you can check the uploads made by Rootbeerlc when you have a moment. Thanks! Randykitty (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Tagged with no permission. Yann (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have copyright over all of the late Byron Randall's art; I am his granddaughter who inherited the art collection and responsibility for the art estate on his death. I also own the photographic images of the art and those of Randall himself. 'Rootbeerlc' is my account. Several years ago when I started to attempt to upload Byron Randall images and release many of them to Creative Commons, I erroneously labelled a batch of the art as Woody Guthrie (the title of one of the art works in that batch), not realizing that this title would be applied to all of the art images in that batch. I am the sole uploader of Byron Randall art to Wikipedia and Wikicommons, since 2012. Rootbeerlc (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rootbeerlc: hi, Could you please confirm the permission by email via COM:VRT? Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed confirmations for all of the deleted and potentially deleted material. Is it only the Golden Gate Bridge jpg that you are requesting email confirmation for, now? Rootbeerlc (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rootbeerlc: Do you have the ticket number? Yann (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ticket#2024060210005515 Rootbeerlc (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rootbeerlc: You can add {{subst:PP}} in the "Permission" field of your files. So the files won't be deleted for one month. Yann (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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 ∙ 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 ∙ +/−

Affected:

Yours sincerely, GaiusAugustine (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HLEP!!!

我上傳的多張照片全都被要求刪除，這是為什麼？比如「原神.jpg」和「未行之路.jgp」，我明明給出了來源且根本沒有侵犯著作權(著作權是原神公開的，不受限制的)，為什麼還要刪除？請求恢復😭pls!! --（留言・原神工作組） GoogleRitz (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoogleRitz: Hi, You need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder before uploading content from a third party. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:West of Hot Dog.ogv

File:West of Hot Dog.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 ∙ 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 ∙ +/−

Prototyperspective (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:2010-08 Ramallah 04.jpg

well thats kind of confusing as Commons:Deletion requests/File:2010-08 Ramallah 04.jpg states: "Deleted: per nomination" - don't know how the procedure is on commons. Maybe you know ...Sicherlich talk 20:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sicherlich: I added a link to the undeletion discussion in the archive. I don't have the time to add it to other pictures. Yann (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Todd Bolender in The Concert (1960).jpg

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. [4]). 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 [5]), 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 [6]). 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 [7], particularly those relating to ballet [8]. 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 [9]. 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]

File:La Glace à trois faces (1927) by Jean Epstein.webm

File:La Glace à trois faces (1927) by Jean Epstein.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 ∙ 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 ∙ +/−

hinnk (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emanuel Zamrazil, ak. malíř.jpg

co se vám nelíbí, foto je volné dílo a autor je neznámí Martin wolf (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Amway Center logo SVG file falsely deleted.

The Amway Center logo SVG file was falsely deleted. The logo is in the public domain. I even included the public domain copyright tag. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhiramakella: Hi, I don't see any reason why it would be in the public domain. Yann (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yann&oldid=882764449"