Grant from West point. You may add your name under author as "author Thure de Thulstrup; restored by Adam cuerden". I don't know whether RP88 's suggestion to use retouched interests picture works as people expect credit info at "author" field. At least, media viewer will neglect retouched picture. J e e 15:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Category:Bain copyright notice i had created "Category:Bain copyright notice" for historic images taken by bain in which they placed " bain" on the images, there are less than a dozen so far in the hundreds I have. The category was deleted and I think it should be restored. A large tranche of the bain collection is owned by corbis which claims a copyright for the unpublished images and post 1923 published images. The library of Congress which has duplicates, lists them as "no known restrictions".
If you'd like my help, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. — rp88 ( talk ) 12:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Comment I wonder whether I fully understand the concern raised by Adam cuerden and the replies above. Just mentioning trunk my thoughts. self has a wording " i, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: " when author is not mentioned which is a "release". But when "author name" is mentioned, it is just a statement that " name of author, the copyright holder of this work, published this work under the following license: " It means that the work had published some where else with the said license. Some people override it by mentioning authori, name of author and attribution name of author. I just checked File:Ulysses.
In this case, i assume the problem is that you are not the author of the image but want to be searchable as the restorer of the image. The retouched picture template (which you used via the retouched redirect) does accept an "editor" parameter to credit the restorer of an image, the name of the restorer will be found by the search function if you add it in this manner. I went ahead and added your name to file:Ulysses_g using that method and now your search is successful.— rp88 ( talk ) 18:52, 28 november 2015 (UTC) In the years I laboured under the misstaken advice, i provided hundreds of such images, as did many. There were, as I recall, rules at the time basically forbidding such attempts to ask credit for restorations as best practice; we now have a nightmare on the back of this. Adam cuerden ( talk ) 08:54, 30 november 2015 (UTC) The "editor" parameter has been a supported feature of the retouched picture template since 2006. I looked through the history of the relevant policy pages, and I couldn't find anywhere that either currently or in the past has discouaged the use of the "editor" parameter, so i agree, sometime in the past you must mave gotten some poor advice. Visual File Change could be used to fix the relevant files fairly quickly if you are comfortable with regular expressions and you already know which files need to have their retouched picture template updated.
How do i indicate i m not a foreign national on my resume?
Blue rasberry (talk) 15:21, 25 november 2015 (UTC) Dutch blogpost regarding this topic. Charlotte is a well-known Dutch lawyer specialised in intellectual property law and some related topics. She believes the chances the museum will win are slim. Natuur12 ( talk ) 15:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Our searches are stripping credit from authors who follow our directions. Template:Self says that the author should not be listed in the template if they are the uploader. For example, will not show File:Ulysses_g despite being one of my earliest high-level restorations, because, at the time, i was following the bad advice presentation then current that I shouldn't explicitly credit myself.
(I shall fix this in a few days for that image, but there's lots of images like that. However, our searches ignore anything in the upload information. How to fix this? The obvious thing is to add the uploader(s) to the search text, but that may require a bug report. Adam cuerden ( talk ) 08:27, 28 november 2015 (UTC) I totally agree that this is bad advice. In particular, the author field is the easiest way to indicate how you want to be credited on reuse. Talk 16:35, 28 november 2015 (UTC) The reason the self writing tag says not to set the "author" field of the self template when the uploader is the author is because when the uploader is the author they should put their name in the author field.
So, what I don't get is what, if anything, they are saying that the wmf, or Commons, or individual users, may be doing wrong, or what they are asking the wmf to do and by what rationale. asclepias ( talk ) 20:23, 23 november 2015 (UTC) It's not clear what is actually the subject of the suit. From earlier press reports like this one (in German) I guess that the museum and the city of Mannheim, which is behind the museum, want the files in question deleted from Commons. They apparently want to control how the photos of "their" paintings are used, forbidding some kinds of commercial use and charging reproduction fees for others. rosenzweig τ 05:45, 24 november 2015 (UTC) hi, i suppose the paintings are included in Category:Collections of the reiss-Engelhorn-Museen. Yann ( talk ) 21:09, 23 november 2015 (UTC) The blog speaks of 17 images.
I guess probably some of those in Category:Paintings in the reiss-Engelhorn-Museen. asclepias ( talk ) 21:15, 23 november 2015 (UTC) Someone has now grouped the files in Category:Images subject to reiss Engelhorn Museum lawsuit. asclepias ( talk ) 21:52, 24 november 2015 (UTC) Some of us (at least on :de) actually (sort of) welcome the suit as an opportunity to get a real court ruling about the fundamental question whether reproductions of 2D works which are clearly in the. túrelio ( talk ) 09:57, 24 november 2015 (UTC) Yep, so far all we had was "The official position taken by the wikimedia foundation". Now we might get some real world answers, at least for Germany. el Grafo ( talk ) 11:02, 25 november 2015 (UTC) i also am happy about this. I would love to see a statement from reiss-Engelhorn-Museen and look forward to the clarification that this discussion will bring.
Job seeking Tips for International Students - center for International
asclepias ( talk ) 19:56, 23 november 2015 (UTC) They say that the files in question are photographs taken by their photographers and writing that the photographs, even though they show public domain paintings, are of sufficient originality to enjoy copyright protection. And that they own the rights to those photographs. Which of course is completely contrary to our pd-art concept. I'm not sure where they are actually suing. rosenzweig τ 20:10, 23 november 2015 (UTC) Thanks. My question was not clear. I get that they say they own rights to the photographs. Which may be "contrary" to the way the wmf would wish the laws to evolve, but it is not "contrary" to what Commons does. Commons never said that the museum doesn't own the rights on the photographs in Germany.
Commons provides a warning, too timid perhaps, to the master effect that such images are probably not freely usable in Germany. Does anyone know what the museum is complaining about exactly? Is it that some of the pages on Commons were missing the pd-art tag? Is it that the warning is not prominent enough or that its wording is misleading? Is it that the help page omits to mention some countries where the images are not free? Is it another National Portrait type of complaint (from 2009, how did that end, btw)? Or is the museum saying that the law of Germany should rule what people do in the United States?
no published encyclopedia has ever. Talk 23:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC) yes, sorry, lost this argument to the free software people, who say free to profit is true freedom. The open access librarians take a different view. And the difference between nc and sa is instructive. Slowking4, richard Arthur Norton's revenge 00:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC) And I think that you all need to study more about license. 1, do not matters what you think, non commercial it's not free, and that's it! Rta 16:43, 2 December 2015 (utc and he is just a troll for me: :This section was archived on a request. Rta 16:43, 2 December 2015 (utc wikimedia foundation, wikimedia deutschland urge reiss Engelhorn Museum to reconsider suit over public domain works of art. Wikimedia blog reports on some litigation relating to images held on Commons: 2 - michaelMaggs ( talk ) 18:07, 23 november 2015 (UTC) The blog speaks about generalities, but no real information about what the suit says.
Yes no, allow modifications of your work? Yes Yes, as long as others share alike (more shakespeare info more information). Jurisdiction of your license, note: to license a work, you must be its copyright holder or have express authorization from its copyright holder to. Pick your license: you have selected: Attribution-Non Commercial-no derivatives.0 International License. If wiki was educational based you would take images licensed for educational / editorial only. Model releases cannot be obtained for every photo as such, images without a release can only be used for non commercial uses. Get with the program wiki and stop calling yourself education based when your commercial based. Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by, danielteolijr ( talk contribs ). You are entitled to your opinion.
5 Tips for Foreign Professionals looking for Jobs in the
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Contents, wiki is not educational based it is money oriented. Here is how it is done, if your educational based. From the Internet Archives / wayback machine. They offer a simple choice for licensing an image. Allow commercial uses of your work?