User talk:Mussklprozz

Hi!

Te he enviado un email. Saludos! Ganímedes (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: Gracias, ya lo recibí. :-) Me ocuparé de esto, pero dame unos días. Tengo cosas que hacer esta semana fuera de Wikipedia. Un saludo, --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Pfff qué urgencia hay :) Muchas gracias. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: Es Ticket:20211110000025, ¿verdad? Vaya, ¡qué complicado! Estoy de acuerdo con tu propuesta: restaurar los archivos que mencionaste en tu correo electrónico y rechazar los demás. Un saludo, --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

File:01-Hesam-Fetrati-Portrate.jpg

Guten Morgen Mussklprozz, lässt sich aus den Genehmigungsunterlagen für diese Datei noch ein source-Eintrag erstellen? Derzeit fehlt der nämlich. --Túrelio (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Guten Morgen @Túrelio: , danke für den Hinweis. Hab es ergänzt. --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Couvent des chèvres - Rompon

Bonjour,

Les mentions en question concernent la fiche des Monuments historiques (qui est sous droit d'auteur car rédigé par une personne, spécialiste des MH) - ça ne signifie pas qu'il est interdit de prendre le monument en photo. La photo en question a été prise par moi et ne pose aucun pbl de droit d'auteur

Bien cordialement,

Remi Mathis (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Remi Mathis: Merci et bon weekend ! --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Email

Cuando puedas. Sds. Ganímedes (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Two images

Hi!

You added OTRS tags to File:Philipp Fauth 1930.jpg and File:Dritte Sternwarte.jpg. Currently, the information template says that these were taken approximately in 1930, but according to the copyright claims, they were both published before 1928. A photo can't be published before it was created, so something looks strange. --Stefan2 (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Stefan2, sorry, yes, i made a mistake by adding the wrong license tag in each of the files. Hence the images must be deleted from commons, since they do not comply with US copyrght, right? I will inform the client in case. After deletion I can upload the images to the German language Wikipedia. For my records: the ticket # is Ticket:2023050810006132. – Greetings, --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Prof. Maria Kliegel's Licence Permission

Hello, I see you're working on Prof. Maria Kliegel's Licence Permission and for some reason it wasn't accepted. The complete formular was sent per email. What can be done about it? Best wishes! Toni Sułek (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Toni Sułek There was an open question about the image with Nelson Mandela which Maria Kliegel answered meanwhile. Hence I could add permission to that image file now. – As for the image with the dedication, there is still a copyright issue which hopefully can be cleared quickly as well. Mussklprozz (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The issue about the second image has also been resolved. Mussklprozz (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Tapis rouge des arts littéraires

Hi,

What is this ?

It goes against all the work and conclusions reached in Commons:Village pump/Copyright#"Photobooth" portraits and in User talk:FrederiqueDube#File:Marie-Noelle Marineau.jpg.

I personally went to speak with Rhizome at their office (we are in the same city) to obtain a copy of the form signed by the authors and I asked Rhizome to send a copy of it to VRT. (As can be seen, there is no CC in the form.) I expected that if there was a difficulty with the VRT, it would be mentioned in the section that I took the precaution of opening at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard#productionsrhizome.org.

According to the discussions, it is agreed by everybody, including Rhizome, that the CC claim was not correct and that it is now out of the question. How did that wrong CC claim bounce back? If it was added in the VRT mail, it goes against what Rhizome said they would do, and anyway it has been concluded that Rhizome cannot place this CC license because they do not hold the copyright. The VRT mail is dated from what date? The VRT mail was supposed to be essentially the text of the form, so that Commons could decide the proper qualification to apply considering the wording of the form. It turns out that the license tag "Copyrighted free use" is the existing tag that renders the notion of the license granted by the authors in the form.

Please refer to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#"Photobooth" portraits and to the user talk page for details and please add comments to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#"Photobooth" portraits if you disagree with what was concluded there.

The removal of the Copyrighted free use tag will also complicate the second part of the bot task requested at Commons:Bots/Work requests#Tapis rouge des arts littéraires that is supposed to put the final touch to complete the whole thing.

-- Asclepias (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Bonsoir @Asclepias, le processus s'est déroulé auprès du support sous Ticket:2023081410007374:

1. Le 2023-08-14, nous avons reçu un e-mail de Rhizome avec un formulaire Google: Je consens à la publication de ma photographie sous licence libre etc. Le formulaire n'était pas signé. L'expéditrice a assuré que toutes les personnes photographiées avaient donné leur accord. Je lui ai répondu que nous avions besoin d'une autorisation des photographes et non des personnes photographiées.
2. Alors le 2023-08-16 j'ai reçu la réponse d'une autre femme qu'il s'agit des selfies.
3. D'abord j'ai répondu qu'on puisse bien accepter des selfies, mais ...
4. ... après un nouvel échange d'e-mails, le 2023-08-19 j'ai examiné de plus près un échantillon de photos et j'ai constaté qu'elles avaient toutes été prises avec un Canon EOS 6D, un appareil photo très professionnel, et ont donné une impression de professionnalisme. J'ai donc écrit que je doutais qu'il s'agit des selfies.
5. Après ça, on a reçu un email du PDG de Rhizome, disant que c'était sa caméra et que c'était lui le photographe. Je lui ai proposé pour toute la catégorie le texte de validation selon le modèle que tu trouveras dans fr:Aide:Demande d'image libre.
6. Aujourd'hui, il nous a ensuite envoyé cette autorisation, avec la licence cc-by-sa-4.0. J'ai alors ajouté la formule du partage dans les fichiers et modifié la licence en ce sens.

Je n'étais pas au courant de toute la discussion qui s'était déroulée auparavant sur la page de Frédérique Dube etc. Cela ne mène pas forcément plus loin. Ce qui est important, c'est de savoir ce qui s'est réellement passé avec les photos. Si le PDG de Rhizome a mis son appareil en place, réglé l'exposition, la mise au point, le cadrage et que les écrivains n'ont appuyé que sur un déclencheur, alors sa revendication d'être le photographe est acceptable. - Comme tu es en contact personnel avec l'organisation, tu peux certainement dire comment les photos ont été prises ?

Merci beaucoup pour tes efforts ! Salutations cordiales, Mussklprozz (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Bonsoir Mussklprozz,

Merci beaucoup de la réponse. Tu dis «Ce qui est important, c'est de savoir ce qui s'est réellement passé». Et, en effet, c'est très exactement ce que j'ai pris la précaution de demander et de bien faire préciser par la responsable du projet en question, pour qu'il n'y ait aucun doute possible, comme on peut le lire dans la discussion sur la page User talk:FrederiqueDube, où la responsable répond très clairement «En fait, c'est sous le principe d'un photobooth, c'est Rhizome qui fournit le setup et le matériel, puis c'est la personne qui veut être photographiée qui appuie sur un bouton (une manette) pour déclencher le flash et l'appareil photo. Il n'y a donc pas à proprement parler de photographe impliqué dans le processus.» et plus loin «je parle au nom de Rhizome, je suis la coordonnatrice du projet», «je confirme que Rhizome n'a pas participé dans la prise de photo de chaque écrivain. Nous avons tenu un rôle d'animation afin de faire connaître le projet et nous avons fourni et installé le matériel»

La notion est que ce sont des autoportraits pris avec un bon appareil photo. Rien n'empêche de faire des autoportraits avec un Canon EOS 6D. Il est évident dans le contexte que la personne qui a utilisé le mot «selfies» l'a fait dans le sens de autoportraits. Pas que ce seraient des «selfies» au sens de photos moches prises avec un téléphone.

Maintenant, je comprends qu'aujourd'hui le DG vient nous dire le contraire, i.e. «que c'était lui le photographe», ce qui est une affirmation étonnante car cela n'a jamais été prétendu auparavant et c'est contradictoire avec les informations précédentes. Pourtant, la responsable du projet gérait et animait l'activité et doit bien savoir comment ça se passait. D'ailleurs, je ne trouve pas claire l'affirmation du DG qui dit «que c'était sa caméra et que c'était lui le photographe». Que c'était sa caméra ne fait pas du tout de lui le photographe. Et s'il a seulement installé la caméra et le flash au début de l'activité, comme le disent les informations précédentes, ça ne fait pas non plus de lui le photographe. A-t-il fait des réglages individualisés pour chacune des 583 photos ? L'appareil doit pouvoir faire une mise au point automatique. Et les personnes photographiées décidaient de la pose qu'elles prenaient et du moment de la photo.

En tout cas, dans l'hypothèse où on accepterait la prétention du DG que c'est lui le photographe, alors il faut repasser sur les 583 fichiers pour inscrire le nom du DG (Simon Dumas, c'est ça ?) dans le champ "auteur" du modèle Information.

-- Asclepias (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Bonjour @Asclepias, merci de mon côté. Nous sommes donc d'accord sur ce qui s'est passé : « C'est Rhizome qui fournit le setup et le matériel, puis c'est la personne qui veut être photographiée qui appuie sur un bouton (une manette) pour déclencher le flash et l'appareil photo. » La différence réside dans la conception de qui a effectué l'effort créatif pour les images. A mon avis, c'est celui «  qui fournit le setup ».

Dans sa déclaration au support, Simon Dumas l'a d'ailleurs concédé. Tu as raison, alors son nom doit aussi être inscrit comme auteur dans les descriptions de fichiers. J'ai oublié de le faire, mais je peux le rattraper en quelques minutes.

D'accord ? Mussklprozz (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Asclepias J'ai fait maintenant. Mussklprozz (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible?

Hi @Mussklprozz. I hope you are doing well. Thanks for processing the permissions on the images that I recently uploaded. Would it be possible to incorporate the ticket details on {{Heritage Lens - MUWQ}} for convenience? I/anyone else who uploads other images from this source can easily use the template without having send permissions again and again to the VRT? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 13:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @TheAafi, I have in deed made a few custom license templates, but they were for museums and archives, i.e. legal entities which can acertain some control on who uses their template. With an open community like this, the risk of abuse seems too high to me. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

ahh, I understand. Thanks for your input. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Rotonde Lac-Édouard ph-014383.jpg

Hi, I notice that this file was recently undeleted with a permission. The stated license is CC-BY-SA-4.0, but the author is unknown. Only the author can attribute a CC license, so if s/he is unknown, how is this possible? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Salut @Yann Yann, tu as raison. J'ai retiré la permission et écrit au client, lui demandant de préciser. Amitiés, Mussklprozz (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Un film de chasse de filles 01.jpg

Bonjour @Mussklprozz ! J'espère que vous allez bien.

Je vous écris puisque je remarque que vous avez ajouté une balise VRT ou note de licence à la section permission de ce fichier, pour ensuite la retirer. Qu'est-ce qui explique ce changement ?

Cette image a été versée conjointement avec un ensemble de photographies et autorisée pour diffusion par l'ayant droit, comme en témoigne le billet #2023092610012398.

Un grand merci. Synchroniseuse (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Synchroniseuse. Pardon, c'était une erreur. Merci d'avoir attiré mon attention sur ce point. J'ai remis le module d'autorisation en place. Mussklprozz (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz Fantastique, et aucun souci ! Merci pour votre retour rapide. Synchroniseuse (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in/contribute to a photo contest

English

Dear Mussklprozz,

We’re excited to share with you our first-ever art and photo contest for this year’s #VisibleWikiWomen, on Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports!

We’re inviting submissions of photos, illustrations, and other forms of art depicting womxn and non-binary people in sports — as athletes, fans, cheerleaders, referees, journalists, and much more. Our #VisibleWikiWomxn contest celebrates the bodies of womxn in sports by centering their voices, images, stories, and experiences in all their diversity, plurality, and glory.

You can find all the information on our landing page: Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports

Spanish

Hola Mussklprozz,

Queremos invitarte a participar de nuestro primer concurso de arte y fotografía "Cuerpos plurales en el deporte" en el marco de la campaña #VisibleWikiWomen de este año.

Estamos convocando a presentar fotos, ilustraciones y otras formas de arte que representen a mujeres y personas no binarias en el deporte - atletas, personas aficionadas, animadoras, árbitras, periodistas y personas ligadas al deporte en todos los aspectos. Nuestro concurso #VisibleWikiWomxn celebra los cuerpos de las mujeres en el deporte centrándose en sus voces, imágenes, historias y experiencias en toda su diversidad, pluralidad y gloria.

Puedes encontrar toda la información en la página del concurso.

Portuguese

Olá Mussklprozz,

Ficamos felizes em convidar você a participar de nossa primeira Wiki-competição de arte e fotografia, como parte da campanha #VisibleWikiWomen deste ano, sobre "Corpos plurais no esporte"!

Estamos recebendo fotos, ilustrações, e outras formas de arte que retratem mulheres e pessoas não-binárias nos esportes — como atletas, torcedoras, juízas, jornalistas, e muito mais. Nossa competição #VisibleWikiWomxn celebra os corpors de mulheres e pessoas não-binárias e coloca ao centro suas vozes, imagens, histórias, e experiências em toda sua pluralidade e glória.

Você pode encontrar todas as informações necessárias em nossa página: Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports.

Sunshine Fionah Komusana (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Ticket_2023021610013794

Category:Ticket_2023021610013794 has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Ein Rätsel

Hallo Mussklprozz, ich kann ja nun nicht in die Tickets reingucken, aber nach dem, was der Hochladende hier schreibt, ist mir das Ticket zu diesem Bild ein Rätsel. Er sagt dort, er habe ein "Schreiben vom Urheber mit der Übertragung der Bildrechte" und "der Gestattung der Nutzung für Wikipedia". Die "Übertragung der Bildrechte", wie das? Das Urheberrecht ist nach deutschem Recht überhaupt nicht übertragbar. Und "Gestattung der Nutzung für Wikipedia"? Ist ja schön, aber wenn ich mich recht entsinne, umfasst die CC-Lizenz ein klein wenig mehr als das. Kannst Du das Rätsel auflösen? Gruß, --87.150.5.51 08:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@87.150.5.51 Moin, der Fotograf selbst schickte eine Freigabe an den Support. Was der Hochladende auf seiner Diskussion schrieb, ist veraltet. Gruß, Mussklprozz (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lukas Zimmermann Portrait.jpg

Hallo Mussklprozz,

ich nehme an, du meinst dort nicht Identität Lukas Zimmermann = Brunchgrandy, sondern Identität Tobias Hofmann = Brunchgrandy - oder? Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 12:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig. Ja, danke. Zum Teufel auch :-)

Gruß, Mussklprozz (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Text zu Bild hinzufügen

Hallo Mussklprozz, ich würde gerne den alt-Text aus dem Artikel Max Frommann dem Bild auf commons hinzufügen. Ist das sinnvoll? In welchen Abschnitt gehört das? Gruß Schrauber5 Schrauber5 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Moin @Schrauber5, tut mir leid, bin in Frankreich unterwegs und mit dem Handy nicht in der Lage, einen sinnvollen Vorschlag zu machen, geschweige denn umzusetzen. Herzlichen Gruß aus Avignon, Mussklprozz (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Ecuadorian coats of arms

Please do not continue to add that template as it is controversial, to say the least. These coats of arms are complex artworks, not public domain in Ecuador and not the uploader's own work. See further explanation at other DRs such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Babahoyo.svg. Bedivere (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bedivere Sorry, i believed what was written in the template. Now, what are the consequences? To may understanding now, PD does not apply, and the uploader who created the SVG also cannot claim copyright? Hence those files need to be deleted, or who can and must grant permission? Best, Mussklprozz (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bedivere Gracias por enviar las solicitudes de supresión e iniciar el debate. ¿Podríamos resumir los debates para todos los archivos en un único debate, ya que se trata del mismo problema en todas partes? Un saludo, Mussklprozz (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Mussklprozz: the Ecuadorian law has no special exemption from copyright to coats of arms, symbols and emblems, so they can be copyrighted unless it can be proven they were enacted in a public document, and such document includes it, because the law refers to documents exclusively, not artworks, photographs and other works. Bedivere (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I just saw your last message. There are dozens of those requests, unfortunately :-( Bedivere (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for confirming the permission of the Millenials comic logo via VRT, I really appreciate it! Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Re

Te respondo por mail. Ganímedes (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ganímedes gracias, lo agredezco. Mussklprozz (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hecho, espero contribuir. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Genehmigung

Hallo, wärst Du so nett und würdest bei diesem Audio noch die Ticketgenehmigung "2024071810006626" ergänzen? Fällt natürlich auch unter die Generalgenehmigung, wenn ich allerdings das "Images-by"-Tag hinschreiben würde, würde es automatisch unter seinen *Bildern* eingeordnet. Danke, frohe Weihnachten, --Subbass1 (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Moin @Subbass1, erledigt. Schöne Feiertage und einen guten Rutsch! Mussklprozz (talk) 08:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Das ging ja rasend schnell! Besten Dank und guten Rutsch! --Subbass1 (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)  Done

File:Logo Schwermetall.jpg

Könntest du noch mal eine Blick auf das Ticket werfen. Da sind einige Dinge im Argen. Die Datei ist eine 1:1 Kopie vom Markeneintrag beim DPMA. Die Marke wurde dort bereits 2005 gelöscht und trägt eine andere Registernummer als genannt. Auch halte ich die genannte Urheberin für zu jung um 1980 diese Marke entworfen zu haben. --Hinnerk11 (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Moin @Hinnerk11, die Uploaderin hat uns die Kopie einer Patentbescheinigung vom 2025-01-31 geschickt, unter der in der Dateibeschreibung genannten Registernummer. Ist es ausgeschlossen, dass sie die Marke erworben hat und dass die neue Patentbescheinigung existiert? – Gruß, Mussklprozz (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Patentbescheinigung? Du meinst wahrscheinlich die Eintragung der Marke? Unter der genannten Nummer gibt es keine Eintragung beim DPMA. Mit der Registernummer 1095010 findet man den Eintrag mit einer Bilddatei in exakt den gleichen Maßen 1210 x 535, wie hier auf Commons. Wesentlicher finde ich allerdings die altersbedingten Zweifel an der Urheberschaft, dass werde ich wegen ANON aber hier nicht ausführen, könnte ich aber per Mail.--Hinnerk11 (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hallo @Hinnerk11, sie hat uns ein Dokument geschickt mit dem Titel

Bundesrepublik Deutschland | Urkunde über die Eintragung der Marke Nr. 30 2024 244 947

Tag der Eintragung: 31.01.2025

Ist es ausgeschlossen, dass ein solches Dokument existiert? Was die Urheberschaft angeht: Sie muss das Logo nicht selbst entworfen haben. Es genügt, dass sie die vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechte erworben hat.

Zur Vorsicht habe ich einen Schnelllöschantrag gestellt. Wenn sich herausstellt, dass alles rechtens ist, kann das Bild jederzeit wiederhergestellt werden. Mussklprozz (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

P.S.: Du kannst mir gerne eine Mail schicken. :-) --Mussklprozz (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Das DPMA aktualisiert sein Register täglich. Die gesetzliche vorgeschriebene Veröffentlichung findet freitgs statt. Mail folgt später, RL ruft.--Hinnerk11 (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

So ganz stimmt die zitierte Eigenaussage des DPMA zur Aktualisierungsrate wohl nicht. Jetzt habe ich die Marke mit der Nummer 302024244947 gefunden. --Hinnerk11 (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hinnerk11 Also doch echt. Hab die Freigabe wiederhergestellt. Im Übrigen siehe E-Mail. Mussklprozz (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hinnerk11 für Dich und Mitlesende zur Info: nach rechtlicher Klärung Freigabe zurückgezogen. Rein markenrechtlicher Eintrag ist unzureichend. Gruß, Mussklprozz (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Tajotep

I'm not sure how images from multiple photographers can be covered by one VRT ticket. I hope you have looked at these with a very skeptical eye as this editor has a long history of copyright violation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jim, when a second and third person writes to us with a ticket# in the subject of their message, then their email is grouped under that very ticket. This frequently happens when we, the support team, writes to a client that the photos are not his and that we need a permission from the photographer. The client then writes to the photographer, and the latter sends the permission. – In the given case, we received emails from three persons who in deed could be trusted to be the photographers. – And yes, I have realized that User:Tajotep had been very careless about his uploads, to say the least. You can see that from the stern comment I made in the request for deletion. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

P.S.: @Jim, of course it is very likely that the user is identical to the sailor who is shown on the images, and the motivation is self promotion. Nevertheless, I did not use the scope argument because the photos are high quality and well suited to illustrating the topic of sailing in Wikipedia. Mussklprozz (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful attention to this -- your explanation is very logical -- I just hadn't run into the situation before. Have you considered becoming an Admin? -- you could choose to use it only for restoring files that had good VRT tickets rather than having to go to UnDR and request restoration. If you're interested, I would be happy to nominate you.

I wouldn't be surprised if the uploader and subject were the same. As you say, they're good sailing photos and he's somewhat notable, see Julio Alonso Ortega, mostly written by the same user. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Gérald Andrieu 2017.jpg

Hi, You added a permission, but there is no license. Yann (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Merci @Yann. Someone seems to have changed the upload wizard; lots of images coming up it the past few weeks. Especially from French clients, it seems to mee. I missed that one, am going to correct it. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

LWM Pattypan

nachdem der Upload der 7 Dateien heute ja noch mal (nach Löschen durch Support) live wiederholt wurde, kann ich die von mir "gesehenen" Merkwürdigkeiten jetzt nicht mehr feststellen, da hatte ich dann doch wohl Halluzinationen, happens...

noch eine Kleinigkeit:

in dem Bildtitel

File:LMW Bildarchiv 165815 astromomische Stockuhr.jpg

ist der Tippfehler "astromomisch", den solltest du vielleicht noch beheben lassen. Und bei der Gelegenheit mit LWM klären, wie die Nomenklatur der Bildtitel nun aussehen soll, die heutigen haben einen anderen Takt.

gruß Goesseln (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding File:Institut Català d Ornitologia logo 2007.svg

Hi Mussklprozz! Your input here would be appreciated. Thank you! It's moon (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Category:Ticket2025020510007497

Are you still using this "temporary work category", or can it be removed? Omphalographer (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Omphalographer: Please delete it. Thank you! Mussklprozz (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Photos/VRT

Hallo Mussklprozz. I'm writing to you because I've managed to get some photos of a train station in Spain released for use on Commons. I'm looking into how to formalize this through VRT. As a member of VRT team, could you give me some guidance on this? Thanks in advance. CFA1877 (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Hola @CFA1877:

Si quieres utilizar una obra publicada en Wikipedia, el autor debe enviar él mismo un formulario de autorización a permissions-es@wikimedia.org. Debe mencionar explícitamente la obra en cuestión y la licencia elegida. Te recomendamos el/ella ponga sus imágenes a disposición del público bajo la licencia CC BY-SA 4.0.

Ten en cuenta que cualquier obra bajo la licencia CC BY-SA puede ser modificada y redistribuida libremente, incluso con fines comerciales.

A continuación, la autorización. ¿Podrías pedir al fotógrafo que las envíe validada y completa a permissions-es@wikimedia.org?

 

Confirmo que soy el autor y propietario único y exclusivo de la obra <adjunta> o <publicada en <enlace a la imagen si ya está publicada en Wikipedia o Wikimedia Commons>>.

Doy mi permiso para publicar este trabajo bajo la <Elige una o más licencias enumeradas aquí (licencia recomendada: CC BY-SA 4.0)>.

Entiendo que al hacerlo permito que cualquiera utilice mi obra con fines comerciales y que la modifique en la medida en que lo exija la licencia.

Soy consciente de que sigo teniendo derechos extrapatrimoniales sobre mi obra, y conservo el derecho a ser citado por ella según los términos de la licencia elegida. Las modificaciones que otros puedan hacer no me serán atribuidas.

Soy consciente de que una licencia libre se refiere únicamente a los derechos patrimoniales del autor, y me reservo la posibilidad de emprender acciones contra cualquiera que no utilice esta obra de forma autorizada, o violando derechos personales, restricciones de marca, etc.

Entiendo que no puedo retirar esta licencia, y que es posible que la imagen sea retenida permanentemente por cualquier proyecto de la Fundación Wikimedia.

[FECHA, NOMBRE CIVIL DEL TITULAR DE LOS DERECHOS DE AUTOR E INFORMACIÓN DE CONTACTO]

 

Un saludo, Mussklprozz (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

P.S.: Encontrarás las disposiciones de cc-by-sa-4.0 allí. Mussklprozz (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm. Creo que está un poco complicado. Voy a comentarte el caso por privado y ya me dices. CFA1877 (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@CFA1877 ¿Por qué complicado? ¿El titular de los derechos solo tiene que copiar el texto, rellenar los parametros y enviarlo al equipo de suporte? Recibimos docenas de autorizaciones de este tipo todos los días de todo el mundo. Mussklprozz (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@CFA1877: He recibido tu correo electrónico. ¡Gracias por eso! Prefiero que mantengamos la correspondencia a través del equipo de soporte. ¿Podrías reenviarlo a permissions-es@wikimedia.org? A ser posible, adjunta la correspondencia que mencionaste. Así, si yo no sé cómo ayudarte, mis colegas del equipo de soporte podrán hacerlo. Gracias y un saludo, --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Así lo he hecho. Muchísimas gracias por toda la información y consejos que me has dado. Saludos cordiales. CFA1877 (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding File:Institut Català d'Ornitologia logo 2007.svg and File:Catalan Ornithological Institute English logo.svg

Hola Mussklprozz! Gracias por tu asistencia en VRTN. Desafortunadamente estos dos archivos aún no han sido restaurados. La administración de Commons me ha dicho que la única forma de que se restauren es que un miembro de VRT abra una solicitud de restauración. Véase [1]. Muchas gracias!

Hi Mussklprozz! Thanks for your assistance on VRTN. Unfortunately these two files haven't been restored yet. Commons' administrators have told me that the only way for them to be restored is that a VRT member opens an undeletion request. See [1]. Thank you! It's moon (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear @It's moon, Frankly, I don't feel like discussing and explaining to the admins why I requested the restoration of an image for which a valid duplicate exists. I have changed the file description of the existing file so that your contribution is clearly indicated. If you tell me the original source from which you obtained the logo, I will also add this to the file description. Let's close this case. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright fine, I'll just redo the work. I just hope they don't delete it again. I'll redo the english version from your CC BY-SA 4.0 upload, so there shouldn't be an issue, per the share-alike terms. It's moon (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)