User talk:DCB

New huggle 3.1 is going to be released soon
Hi Der_Checkerboy, we are to release a new major version of huggle, but we did receive almost no feedback from our beta testing team, which you are a part of (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members). It would be of a great help if you could download it (if you have windows, all you need to do is getting http://tools.wmflabs.org/huggle/files/huggle3.1.0beta.exe and putting it to a folder where you have installed huggle) and test it. You can always get a help with making it @ !

Major changes:
 * Multisite support - you can now log in to unlimited number of wikis in 1 huggle session and get a huge queue of all edits made to these wikis. This is good for smaller projects which gets overlooked often.
 * Ranged diffs - you can select multiple revisions and get a huge diff that display all changes done to them.
 * Fixes of most of bug reports we had so far

In case you found a bug, please report it to bugzilla: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?product=Huggle&list_id=147663 thank you! Petrb (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Huggle message
Hey Der_Checkerboy! You are receiving this message because you are subscribed at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members#Beta_testers

I have recently launched a new downloads for beta testers that contains nightly builds of huggle, eg. versions that are built every day from our master branch and contains latest huggle. These builds are currently provided only for Windows and Ubuntu. You can find them here: http://huggle.wmflabs.org/builds/

Please keep in mind that these don't have any automatic updates and if you download and start using nightly build, you will need to update it yourself! So don't get yourself to running old version, it's possible to install both stable and nightly huggle, which is what I suggest.

Keep the bug reports coming to phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/create/?projects=Huggle Many thanks! Petrb (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Combatinfvet. Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case not a very good investigation. You might want to correct yourself and apologize. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears I owe you an apology, I didn't look at the pages for the accounts all that closely (if I looked at all), I was interested in contribution history for the accounts and in the process of going through those contributions in the article history I apparently caught yours unintentionally (or so I have been told). This has been brought to my attention at the SPI page, and while I have defended the fact that unaffiliated accounts do get caught up in these things if I had done a better job of checking the accounts before listing them I likely wouldn't have named you in the SPI. That being said, I have no good reason or excuse to offer for accusing a veteran editor of sockpuppetry, for that you have my sincerest apologies, and if you feel the need to bring this up at WP:ANI or elsewhere then I understand. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Is modification on image and uploaded it on wiki violates copyright?
Dear,

There are so many discussions about my uploaded files. I just want to know if I edited or modified any taken photos as such that it looks so different from the original photo. Is that still considered copyright infringement or violation?

Scenario 1:

If that's the case, then how are youtube channels like Failarmy, KhilliBuzzChiru, chottochele, BadmasBipua, SSTroll and so on uploading others' Tiktok videos, Insta reels? Not only this but these YouTubers are trolling, abusing the original creators and using their videos they’re making money, and yes that too without permission.

Also, YouTubers like magicshowfootball, 6oonclassic, NinetyVirus, Football-Show, TeoCRi  kGZ, soccerprime697, J9Studio, AshStudio7, Score90 and so on are using live football matches videos with some edits on their channels. No! none of them are affiliated or associated or authorized with those tournaments or by fifa or by leagues. Some of them even have subscribers in millions and are also verified by youtube.

They literally making money with those videos so aren't they violating copyright?

Scenario 2:

Even many free images are also selling ”as it is” on photo selling sites like shutter stock, adobe stock. Need proof? Here are some of them:

Example 1: Where these same images are freely available (meaning free commercial license) in Pixabay 1, Pixabay 2, Pixabay 3 these are also available on photo selling site Alamy 1, Alamy 2, Alamy 3

Example 2: Where these same images are freely available (meaning free commercial license) in Pixabay 1, Pixabay 2  these are also available on photo-selling site Adobe Stock 1, Adobe Stock 2

Example 3: Where these same images are freely available (meaning free commercial license) in Pixabay 1, Pixabay 2, Pixabay 3 these are also available on photo selling site Shutter Stock 1, Shutter Stock 2, Shutter Stock 3

Example 4: Where this same image is freely available (meaning free commercial license) in Pixabay, it is also available on photo selling site Dreamstime

Note: All of them from Pixabay (The 2nd best free image source after Wiki) are either featured in the Editor's Choice or Outstanding by Pixabay which means it was reviewed rigorously by the team to choose if those are genuine or not.

As the photos are selling without the original author’s permission (yes, the Pixabay and photo selling owner are completely different - checked through their social medias and names) so aren't they violating copyright?

Scenario 3:

Even I got many promotional emails (as I subscribed) from “Trademark Factory” ( a company that registers copyrights and trademark like stuffs) is using others’ gifs in the emails. You may say ohh they are doing that because it’s meant for personal use. No! It’s not! Promotional emails are also a commercial asset and many are buying products from those email links. How can that be meant for personal use?

I got a image in my emali in which they’re using others' copyrighted materials (yes the below image not belongs to them):

That image was originally taken from the Buzzfeed

I have many of these. But due to laziness, I just mentioned one.

So aren’t they also violating?

Then you might say Youtube and Wikipedia are different at their field. But they originate from the same country "USA" and isn't the copyright law apply equally to them?

On the other hand, I just uploaded photos that were modified as such which makes totally different from the original photos. Where these YouTubers literally using others clips without permission and making money.

Where I just uploaded them for nonprofit - wiki and obviously want to help travelers. How? Because as most of them seek wikipedia for many travel related infos, if they get appropriate images with that it will be greatly helpful.

Even most of the news websites use others image just by citing the source. Is just citation enough to bypass the copyright and that too without permission?

My Intention:

To be honest, I have no bad intentions at all in uploading these images.


 * 1) I uploaded Belgharia Railway Station.png, Agarpara Railway Station.png, Barahat railway station.jpg, TEMPERATURE DANGER ZONE.jpg because there were no better images portraying the station/subject or the previously uploaded image were insufficient in portraying the station/subject.
 * 2) I uploaded Sealdah Station.jpg, because that will give better comparison between past and current view of sealdah station with the image  Sealdah Station (BOND 0481).jpg with the image Like this:


 * 1) I uploaded Eleta Kingsley.jpg because there was no other image of him.
 * 2) By uploading images on wiki, I really want to help travelers and people who are hungry for knowledge. Travelers will get appropriate images along with infos. Seriously I felt this too helpful and needed when I have gone through this situation while traveling to mnay places.

Modification:

Below I am mentioning the images I modified:

was modified originally from https://goo.gl/maps/eShLwydsyoN5Bifg6

was modified originally from https://goo.gl/maps/gq4AVizsbd6oKDYV8

And the similar was done for the images, , , , (on these images collection from 3rd parties was involved but with modification)

But also note: Among my uploaded images 1) ; 2) 3)  the first two I completely own.

For 1) I am the photographer and the editor for this image. I reuploaded this (originally uploaded in 2020) because I uploaded it with my site’s name in the photo, caption, and even in the description. That’s why I  allow deleted the photo and again uploaded it. The pic was drawn on my finger and captured by me.

For 2) I edited this photo from the starting to finish by myself through photo editing software. So, yes in these 2 photos, no collection or source was made or any 3rd parties were involved. I completely own and photographed these.

For 3) It was already proven (though no way I ever claimed myself as the owner of that photo). It’s in the public domain and found on a 1900s postcard see the proof here.

In Short:


 * 1) Is modification on images violate copyright? Except for the 3 images বন্ধু (Friends).png; Old Sealdah Station.jpg; খাদ্যের গুনমান নির্দেশক.png simply delete those rest other files If modification still violates the copyright! If not, please keep them!
 * 2) I used modification on the image as such that it looks different from the original. Still people on the internet like youtubers, news agencies are using others images “As it is” and that too without permission. And they said they can use others as long as they cite others. Yes, I heard good YouTubers saying that citing images of others is enough: Source What? Is this called copyright? Just cite others and now you can use them? If that’s the thing then what is copyright? To what extent it can be used?

One more thing to ask: As per wiki CC4.0 stated Wikimedia images can be modified and used if it is distributed under the same share-alike license means CC4.0. I just want to ask if I use Wikimedia images as it is or modified in commercial blog posts or in any commercial writings, is this completely fine to use? Mean, is this copyright-free to use?

(I added many images while sending this same message to the VRT by email but as I can't add images here you can consider the sourced links)

Thank you, HridoyKundu (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Any use of a work of which you are not the author requires the consent of the author and permission to reuse it. Anything else is a copyright violation. It is completely irrelevant whether and how other people approach the issue. For Wikimedia projects, the applicable copyright restrictions are binding in any case. The use of Creative Commons licenses also does not make these images copyright-free. The conditions of the corresponding license apply (see linked license at file description page; especially attribution of the author, marking of possible adaptations, attribution and linking of the license). DCB (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)