User talk:Luestling~commonswiki

Landscape at Kobern you've put in the German article - pure phantasy if you ask me (livin' at Winningen). Regards --172.181.243.143 23:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Das ist a) Kunst und hat was mit Phantasie zu tun und b) obendrein ist's 200 Jahre her. Lebtest du da auch schon in Winningen? Schöne Grüße --Luestling 18:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Isaac-newton 1.jpg and Image:James-clerk-maxwell 1.jpg

Please provide more information about these images. At least web page address. Info about original printed publication will be plus. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko 02:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Please consider to use Google if you already don't. Both files are definitely in the Public Domain, and in either cases widely used among many sites. The special colors of the Newton portrait are a result of the GIF format. --Luestling 18:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for reminder but it's uploader’s job to provide information about image source. Please read Special:Upload carefully. --EugeneZelenko 13:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Michel-eyquem-de-montaigne 1.jpg

Hi. Please indicate exacte source and author for Image:Michel-eyquem-de-montaigne 1.jpg. "Web" is not enough. Please read the instructions in Special:Upload carefully before providing data for an image. For all you know, this reproduction of the original work of art may very well be copyrighted, thus preventing its use at the Commons. Taragüí @ 08:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Taragui!

This file can be by no means copyrighted because it is just to small to be a professional work of its own that is eligible for copyright. It can't be printed in high resolution, and there is absolutely nothing special in this reproduction of a two-dimensional piece of art. It is more or less a photocopy of minor quality.

Of course, you are right, anyway: the web ain't enough. -- OR IS IT? Google says YEAH.

Please be considerate of my shortage of time and please help yourself by reading the things closely you want to make aware to others. --Luestling 16:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Answers are to be provided at the user page of the other user, not your own, or the authomated answering method provided by the software does not work.

It is not in you to assert whether the image can be copyrighted or not, unless you can provide a legal basis for the non-copyrightability of images beneath a certain resolution. If you're short in time, which you may well be, please refrain from wasting other people's time in revising your work. Unless you have an explicit, verifiable source for the image (i.e., author and date), it cannot remain in the Commons. The fact that other sites are less strict in respecting authors' rights does not make this less of a possible copyright breach. Taragüí @ 09:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Taragüí, as I've already stated: this file can be by no means copyrighted. 1. It is the simple reproduction of a painting that is several hundred years old 2. There is no additional achievement recognizable that would render the file eligible for copyright.

I downloaded it two years ago or so to complete my personal collection, so I can't tell the exact source anymore. Anyway: go on and delete it if you are able to provide irrefutable evidence that it actually is a breach of copyrights. To accomplish this, you presumably will have to disprove the following:

Material in the public domain

The commons accept material that is in the public domain, that is, documents that are not elegible to copyright or for which the copyright has expired. A work is generally considered to be in the public domain after the creator of the work has been dead for more than 70 (in the US: 95) years. That is, if the author died before 1935, the work can safely be assumed to be in the public domain in almost any juristiction. If the work is anonymous, it is in the public domain 70 years after the date of publication according to the Bern convention.

A work may also be in the public domain (worldwide or in some jurisdictions), if one of the country-specific expections discussed below are applicable. Note however that the details of copyright law are very complicated, especially when international laws and treaties have to be taken into account. In general, if something was created and first published in one country, that country's laws probably apply.

See also:

• Commons:Licensing (quoted above)
• Union for the Public Domain
• Center for the Study of the Public Domain
• Library Autonomous Zone: WIPO Announces Plans to Support Public Domain, Open Source
• WOS3: Heftiger Streit um Urheberrechts-Konventionen der WIPO (don't know if you read German...)

Please note: the file in discussion here has been stored by a German on a server that is situated in the United States of America. Spanish law will NOT apply.

--Luestling 09:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Public domain

Your argument is based on two untenable assumptions. First, that the creator of the work of art has been dead for more than 70 years; you provide no data as to his identity, so you have no proof of the fact. It can be a modern painting in Renaissance style. Second, that no additional achievement has been performed to render it eligible for copyright. Lacking information about the original, you have no ground for that. I asked you to provide both, and you failed to do it.

The onus of the proof, according to Wikipedia guidelines, is on the uploader. I would very much like to see the image stay (I discovered it accidentally when I was looking for an image for es:Montaigne), but there are rules that must be followed. See Commons:Licensing#License Information.

Your remark on Spanish law is not only irrelevant but presumptuous and offensive. You have no clue as to my nationality, and in any case no argument was ever raised touching on the nature of the Spanish code of property rights. I am trying to make you follow Wikipedia guidelines. You're a welcome contributor as long as you accept them. Taragüí @ 10:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for being mistaken: I didn't intend to offend your patriotic feelings or whatever. However, this will not impair the simple fact that Spanish law does not apply. (Maybe it's more strict than others - I can't judge this...) I can only bring forward one excuse: "Presumption is our natural and original malady", as Montaigne enlightened us.

Now, let me ask you a question: Why aren't you consistent to tag the following files for rapid deletion as well (I'm making it easy for you - I could cite a few thousands of similar images in the Commons):

• Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Danseuse (Dancer) The National Gallery is not the source - it is a download from the web. Also, it could be a photograph of a perfect reproductional painting by some contemporary artist in which case it certainly would be a breach of copyright.
• Berthe Morisot, Le berceau (The Cradle), 1872 (same as above)
• Camille, Les chataigniers a Osny (The Chestnut Trees at Osny), 1873 (same as above)

By the way: of course if tried to find out the author of Montaigne's portrait but I found no information on that so far. Maybe he's unknown. In this case, I'd like to recommend to delete all images within the Commons of unknown origine and/or unknown authors just to remain consequential.

For example, this one:

Der heilige Baum von Heliopolis mit Thot und Seschet

Are you sure that it definitely isn't the copyrighted drawing of a contemporary?

"Untenable assumptions"

First, that the creator of the work of art has been dead for more than 70 years; you provide no data as to his identity, so you have no proof of the fact.

See the supplemented description.

It can be a modern painting in Renaissance style.

Yeah! It could be anything except what it actually is.

Second, that no additional achievement has been performed to render it eligible for copyright. Lacking information about the original, you have no ground for that.

This is plain NONSENSE: it is all too OBVIOUS that it is a simple photograph of an old painting just as thousands of other files in the Commons. WHY DON'T YOU GO ON TO DELETE THESE AS WELL?! Be consistent! (Most files are by far better mastered in a technical sense than the file you are mistrusting; see above.)

The onus of the proof, according to Wikipedia guidelines, is on the uploader.

That's right. Except when you claim a picture to be copyrighted that is -- at first glance -- simply and obviously NOT eligible for copyright. If you were a jurist you'd understand what I mean. You dare to accuse me committing copyright breaches and I should be obliged to prove the contrary? You are incredibly RIDICULOUS, man! Taking your arguments seriously would mean no less than the very END of the Wikimedia commons. At least, you should bear in mind what you are talking about.

--Luestling 11:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)