Benutzer Diskussion:Racconish
Letzter Kommentar: vor 6 Jahren von Racconish in Abschnitt WikiProjekt Frankfurter Buchmesse 2017
PD-US[Quelltext bearbeiten]
Please make sure that you only use images that are in the public domain outside of the United States. Always check before if there are any hints or warnings given about areas and countries that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Germany. Best Regards --Saint-Simon (Diskussion) 14:45, 20. Sep. 2013 (CEST)
- Thanks for reaching out to me. Actually, most of the concerned images are PD in Germany, as advertising material of unknown creator published more than 70 years ago. I will review the PD tags on Commons before reposting here. As a side note, my understanding is that WP in German is not WP in Germany and accepts PD-US files (see here). Could you point me to a page that says the opposite ? Thanks and cheers for now, — Racconish D 17:56, 20. Sep. 2013 (CEST)
- The page you linked says: When the material was published before 1923 you have to prove that the creator/copyright holder is unknown. Each of such uploads has to be discussed on this page first. It's more safe to only use material of an unknown creator/copyright holder here when the material was published 100 or more than 100 years ago. And please don't add such galleries in articles. It doesn't look good and it's not reasonable. With several of these photos/ads it's not certain anyway, that they are in the public domain in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. I personally also think that several of your uploads like magazine articles are not suitable to illustrate an article about a person on behalf of additional value. Furthermore articles especially small ones shouldn't be overloaded with photos. The “photo section” should never be longer than the article itself. Kind regards, --SeptemberWoman 18:42, 20. Sep. 2013 (CEST)
- Hi SeptemberWoman. The request for proof applies to 'uploads' to WPde, not to uploads from Commons. It is the general policy of the Wikimedia Foundation that images from Commons can be used on all Wikipedia projects. Nevertheless, I don't mind changing {{PD-US}} to {{PD-old-70-1923}} wherever it applies. In any case, the duration of protection is 70 years from publication for works published anonymously . As far as galleries as concerned, arguments such as 'it doesn't look good' are extremely subjective. Galleries were deployed in all Wikimedia projects in order to be used, in view of their encyclopedic value, i.e, if they help the reader better understand the subject. In practical terms, these are visuel subjects, where images help the reader better understand. Cheers, — Racconish D 20:07, 20. Sep. 2013 (CEST)
- Sorry, but that's not correct what you're writing. We have to make sure that the re-use of the content of each article in the German WP goes ok with the copyright law in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and that includes pictures as well. And what about the overloading of articles with pictures? Me criticising this is not subjective, it's common sense. And ask yourself, do the pictures you e.g. added to Tom Mix help the reader to understand the article about him? Perhaps it would better for you to only work in WPs where you can read and understand the rules and guide lines properly. Regards, --SeptemberWoman 20:40, 20. Sep. 2013 (CEST)
- Dear SeptemberWoman, I would like to apologize if I was not clear enough : I will definitely abide to the above request of using images from Commons which are not PD in the USA only. As for galleries, I was made a little bit uneasy by the generic aspect of your argument against them. I consider, in particular, that carefully selected images of period advertising help the reader better understand the socio-cultural significance of Tom Mix. Please bear in mind film stars are mainly visual subjects. Nevertheless, it does not imply a gallery should have too many images and any image is appropriate. Cheers, — Racconish D 15:28, 22. Sep. 2013 (CEST)
- Dear Racconish, I was surprised to see, that actually several users already told you to stop adding pics to de.wp, that are not PD in D-A-CH. You continue to do so though. Why? Do you know German Urheberrecht? It does not say: "If an add was published in 1917 and there is no photographers name near the pic, upload the pic to de.wp". Your mass uploads of pics, that you think are pd in D-A-CH, might only be a problem on Commons. It becomes a problem for all those readers from D-A-CH, who reuse those pics, when they are added to de.wp. Please stop that behaviour immediately. It is not acceptable, that several users have to check every edit you do and delete nearly all pictures you added (also those massive galeries), just because you apparently have no idea about the Urheberrecht or the way, articles on de.wp are illustrated. --Paulae 09:27, 19. Okt. 2013 (CEST)
- Paulae, my understanding of the comments above was to avoid PD-US, not PD-old-70-1923, the latter being PD in D-A-CH per the rule of 70 years of publication of anonymous works. Am I wrong to consider that according to the German Urheberrechtgesetz (1) copyright of anonymous works expires 70 years after publication and (2) if the author does not disclose his identity during that period no extension of copyright is appliable ? Am I wrong to consider an advertising agency or a company cannot be considered as the copyright owner per the same law ? I do not understand the advise given me above to stick to documents published more than 100 years ago and would appreciate your help in these matters, particularly for photographs : my understanding is that according to the German copyright law (art. 72) the copyright expires 50 years after publication. Cheers, — Racconish D 00:32, 20. Okt. 2013 (CEST)
- No, you are completely mistaken, probably because of your trouble with German. What you refer to with art. 72 are Lichtbilder, but we deal with Lichtbildwerken in each one of your uploads. Forget those 50 years, they never fit here and they fit in only very few circumstances in general. Your understanding of the term anonymous works is, as far as I can see „Anonymous means, that the name of the author is not published in this one magazine lying in front of me“. That is wrong. Actually you have to prove, that you did research to find the author of the pic. For most of the pics show scenes of films, I would even say, that the Urheberrechtsinhaber is the producer or the film company, so that all pics showing scenes from the film should be treated like the film itself (i.e. the main protagonists must be dead for more that 70 years). In cases, where we don't know the photographer, we have an internal rule, which has nothing to do with Urheberrecht, but puts us on a rather safe side: We assume, that 100 years after an anonymously publication, the author might be dead for already 70 years. Therefore we allow those pics on de.wp, but we also know, that we might put people, using these pics, on risk. I would never upload pics from movies, if I do not know for sure, that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. So far, nearly all of your contribs have be reverted. How do you call such users in your home wiki? --Paulae 01:23, 20. Okt. 2013 (CEST) PS: Wikipedia:Bildrechte tells you all you have to know, it is in German though (esp. interesting: 3.4.1: „Die deutschsprachige Wikipedia akzeptiert Bilder, die nachweislich 100 Jahre oder älter sind, sofern der Name des Urhebers oder dessen Todesdatum auch nach gründlicher Recherche in Suchmaschinen, Datenbanken und biographischen Nachschlagewerken nicht herausgefunden werden kann.“)
- Thanks Paulae. The distinction between Lichtbilder and Lichtwerken is clarifying. I have also read carefully Anonymes Werk (Urheberrecht) and tried to understand its implication. I shall attempt to respect the local consensus you reminded me. Please note the photographs illustrating these posters I tagged as PD-old-70-1923 are promotional film stills and not photograms from the movies ; they are not copyrighted and their author is not known. It is a very different situation from signed pictures of stars that appeared in some film magazines which I tagged as PD-US. In view of the above, I will retag such unsigned promotional postersas PD-US , while reviewing some signed portraits that could be PD-old-70-1923, such as those signed by Norbert Evans who died in 1923. Any thought on this ? Cheers, — Racconish D 23:57, 20. Okt. 2013 (CEST)
- I think you should retag those images as PD-US. Please bear in mind, what the WP description conc. anonymes Werk in Germany says: Es „bestehen trotzdem große rechtliche Unsicherheiten für die potenziellen Verwender anonymer Werke.“ – you might always put the re-user at risk by telling him, that a pic you uploaded is an anonymes Werk, especially, when you just assume so, because no authors name is given on this one peace of paper you know. „they are not copyrighted and their author is not known“ – that is way to generalised for me. In D-A-CH we have no copyright and it doesn't matter, if copyright is renewed or whatsoever. Works are protected, and even if there is no copyright notice on a film or a film still, they are still protected acc. to German Urheberrecht. That is a big difference to American law. If you have photographs taken by a photographer who died more than 70 years ago, the pics are pd. They are even pd, when they were taken in 1942. The URAA thing is of no relevance for us. --Paulae 19:58, 21. Okt. 2013 (CEST)
- Agreed. Will use PD-US in the general case and PD-old-70-1923 only in case of established death more than 70 years ago. And I shall use here only PD-old-70-1923, or files meeting the local criterion on 100 years you quoted. In practical terms, I am changing on Commons all PD-old-70-1923 to PD-US in case of such anonymous author, to avoid possible mistakes on WPD. I hope this settles the matter. Thanks again for taking the time to discuss and my apologies for any trouble caused. Cheers, — Racconish D 14:06, 22. Okt. 2013 (CEST)
- I think you should retag those images as PD-US. Please bear in mind, what the WP description conc. anonymes Werk in Germany says: Es „bestehen trotzdem große rechtliche Unsicherheiten für die potenziellen Verwender anonymer Werke.“ – you might always put the re-user at risk by telling him, that a pic you uploaded is an anonymes Werk, especially, when you just assume so, because no authors name is given on this one peace of paper you know. „they are not copyrighted and their author is not known“ – that is way to generalised for me. In D-A-CH we have no copyright and it doesn't matter, if copyright is renewed or whatsoever. Works are protected, and even if there is no copyright notice on a film or a film still, they are still protected acc. to German Urheberrecht. That is a big difference to American law. If you have photographs taken by a photographer who died more than 70 years ago, the pics are pd. They are even pd, when they were taken in 1942. The URAA thing is of no relevance for us. --Paulae 19:58, 21. Okt. 2013 (CEST)
- Thanks Paulae. The distinction between Lichtbilder and Lichtwerken is clarifying. I have also read carefully Anonymes Werk (Urheberrecht) and tried to understand its implication. I shall attempt to respect the local consensus you reminded me. Please note the photographs illustrating these posters I tagged as PD-old-70-1923 are promotional film stills and not photograms from the movies ; they are not copyrighted and their author is not known. It is a very different situation from signed pictures of stars that appeared in some film magazines which I tagged as PD-US. In view of the above, I will retag such unsigned promotional postersas PD-US , while reviewing some signed portraits that could be PD-old-70-1923, such as those signed by Norbert Evans who died in 1923. Any thought on this ? Cheers, — Racconish D 23:57, 20. Okt. 2013 (CEST)
- No, you are completely mistaken, probably because of your trouble with German. What you refer to with art. 72 are Lichtbilder, but we deal with Lichtbildwerken in each one of your uploads. Forget those 50 years, they never fit here and they fit in only very few circumstances in general. Your understanding of the term anonymous works is, as far as I can see „Anonymous means, that the name of the author is not published in this one magazine lying in front of me“. That is wrong. Actually you have to prove, that you did research to find the author of the pic. For most of the pics show scenes of films, I would even say, that the Urheberrechtsinhaber is the producer or the film company, so that all pics showing scenes from the film should be treated like the film itself (i.e. the main protagonists must be dead for more that 70 years). In cases, where we don't know the photographer, we have an internal rule, which has nothing to do with Urheberrecht, but puts us on a rather safe side: We assume, that 100 years after an anonymously publication, the author might be dead for already 70 years. Therefore we allow those pics on de.wp, but we also know, that we might put people, using these pics, on risk. I would never upload pics from movies, if I do not know for sure, that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. So far, nearly all of your contribs have be reverted. How do you call such users in your home wiki? --Paulae 01:23, 20. Okt. 2013 (CEST) PS: Wikipedia:Bildrechte tells you all you have to know, it is in German though (esp. interesting: 3.4.1: „Die deutschsprachige Wikipedia akzeptiert Bilder, die nachweislich 100 Jahre oder älter sind, sofern der Name des Urhebers oder dessen Todesdatum auch nach gründlicher Recherche in Suchmaschinen, Datenbanken und biographischen Nachschlagewerken nicht herausgefunden werden kann.“)
- Paulae, my understanding of the comments above was to avoid PD-US, not PD-old-70-1923, the latter being PD in D-A-CH per the rule of 70 years of publication of anonymous works. Am I wrong to consider that according to the German Urheberrechtgesetz (1) copyright of anonymous works expires 70 years after publication and (2) if the author does not disclose his identity during that period no extension of copyright is appliable ? Am I wrong to consider an advertising agency or a company cannot be considered as the copyright owner per the same law ? I do not understand the advise given me above to stick to documents published more than 100 years ago and would appreciate your help in these matters, particularly for photographs : my understanding is that according to the German copyright law (art. 72) the copyright expires 50 years after publication. Cheers, — Racconish D 00:32, 20. Okt. 2013 (CEST)
- Dear Racconish, I was surprised to see, that actually several users already told you to stop adding pics to de.wp, that are not PD in D-A-CH. You continue to do so though. Why? Do you know German Urheberrecht? It does not say: "If an add was published in 1917 and there is no photographers name near the pic, upload the pic to de.wp". Your mass uploads of pics, that you think are pd in D-A-CH, might only be a problem on Commons. It becomes a problem for all those readers from D-A-CH, who reuse those pics, when they are added to de.wp. Please stop that behaviour immediately. It is not acceptable, that several users have to check every edit you do and delete nearly all pictures you added (also those massive galeries), just because you apparently have no idea about the Urheberrecht or the way, articles on de.wp are illustrated. --Paulae 09:27, 19. Okt. 2013 (CEST)
- Dear SeptemberWoman, I would like to apologize if I was not clear enough : I will definitely abide to the above request of using images from Commons which are not PD in the USA only. As for galleries, I was made a little bit uneasy by the generic aspect of your argument against them. I consider, in particular, that carefully selected images of period advertising help the reader better understand the socio-cultural significance of Tom Mix. Please bear in mind film stars are mainly visual subjects. Nevertheless, it does not imply a gallery should have too many images and any image is appropriate. Cheers, — Racconish D 15:28, 22. Sep. 2013 (CEST)
- Sorry, but that's not correct what you're writing. We have to make sure that the re-use of the content of each article in the German WP goes ok with the copyright law in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and that includes pictures as well. And what about the overloading of articles with pictures? Me criticising this is not subjective, it's common sense. And ask yourself, do the pictures you e.g. added to Tom Mix help the reader to understand the article about him? Perhaps it would better for you to only work in WPs where you can read and understand the rules and guide lines properly. Regards, --SeptemberWoman 20:40, 20. Sep. 2013 (CEST)
- Hi SeptemberWoman. The request for proof applies to 'uploads' to WPde, not to uploads from Commons. It is the general policy of the Wikimedia Foundation that images from Commons can be used on all Wikipedia projects. Nevertheless, I don't mind changing {{PD-US}} to {{PD-old-70-1923}} wherever it applies. In any case, the duration of protection is 70 years from publication for works published anonymously . As far as galleries as concerned, arguments such as 'it doesn't look good' are extremely subjective. Galleries were deployed in all Wikimedia projects in order to be used, in view of their encyclopedic value, i.e, if they help the reader better understand the subject. In practical terms, these are visuel subjects, where images help the reader better understand. Cheers, — Racconish D 20:07, 20. Sep. 2013 (CEST)
- The page you linked says: When the material was published before 1923 you have to prove that the creator/copyright holder is unknown. Each of such uploads has to be discussed on this page first. It's more safe to only use material of an unknown creator/copyright holder here when the material was published 100 or more than 100 years ago. And please don't add such galleries in articles. It doesn't look good and it's not reasonable. With several of these photos/ads it's not certain anyway, that they are in the public domain in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. I personally also think that several of your uploads like magazine articles are not suitable to illustrate an article about a person on behalf of additional value. Furthermore articles especially small ones shouldn't be overloaded with photos. The “photo section” should never be longer than the article itself. Kind regards, --SeptemberWoman 18:42, 20. Sep. 2013 (CEST)
Please don't put movies in articles. They are most likely not pd in D-A-CH, for it is not sufficient, that the director died mire than 70 years ago. You must also add the main actors, the producers, the writers and other major contributors to that list. --Paulae 11:16, 1. Nov. 2014 (CET)
- I thought this one was not a problem, but fine, I get your point. Thanks, — Racconish ✉ 16:04, 1. Nov. 2014 (CET)
Invitation à la 
Nous avons organisé un Edit-A-Thon, qui aura lieu dans le cadre de la Foire du Livre de Francfort. La France est au centre de la Foire du Livre de Francfort cette année (Gastland). Nous organisons la rédaction et la traduction d'articles sur les auteurs entre Wikipédia germanophone et francophone.
Les frais de transport et d'hébergement sont pris en charge par WMDE. La Foire du Livre aura lieu du 11 au 15 octobre (deux jours de participation minimum)
Si vous êtes intéressé, vous pouvez me contacter via Wiki-Email. Plus d'informations et la possibilité de s'inscrire ici (français, anglais, allemand): Wiki-Projet Foire du livre de Francfort
Merci et je serais heureux de vous rencontrer à Francfort. :) --Jens Best (Diskussion) 13:45, 16. Sep. 2017 (CEST)
Info: Ne répondez pas ici, mais écrivez-nous le site du projet.
Einladung zur
Wir haben ein Edit-A-Thon organisiert, das im Rahmen der Frankfurter Buchmesse stattfinden wird. Frankreich steht im Mittelpunkt der diesjährigen Frankfurter Buchmesse (Gastland). Wir organisieren das Verfassen und Übersetzen von Artikeln über Autoren Und Literaturthemen zwischen der deutsch- und französischsprachigen Wikipedia.
Die Kosten für An/Abreise und Unterkunft trägt WMDE. Die Buchmesse findet vom 11. bis 15. Oktober statt. Mindestdauer für Teilnahme (wenn Anreise und Hotel organisiert via WMDE) ist zwei Tage.
Bei Interesse kannst Du mich auch über WikiMail kontaktieren. Mehr Infos und die Möglichkeit sich bei Interesse einzutragen hier (Französisch, Englisch, Deutsch): WikiProjekt Frankfurter Buchmesse 2017
Vielen Dank und ich würde mich freuen, Dich in Frankfurt begrüßen zu dürfen. --Jens Best (Diskussion) 13:45, 16. Sep. 2017 (CEST)----
Info: Bitte antwortet nicht hier, sondern schreibt uns auf der Projektseite.
- Jens Best, hélas impossible, mais merci quand même. Cordialement, — Racconish 📥 19:34, 17. Sep. 2017 (CEST)