User talk:Entre-Nos/imagecopyright

Thanks for your fast response. A few pictures I see though that appear not to be in the public domain (please explain):

As for all the snapshot-type photos, where the public domain release by the photographer seems more plausible: For the images that you did not take yourself, it is necessary to change the tag. The correct tag is. It also would be helpful to explain on the image page that they told you the image was in the public domain, in case any dispute arises later over the image's copyright status. Make sure that the person who told you it was in the public domain was the actual photographer (who owns the copyright) and that they said it was in the public domain, in those words. (It must be able to be for other purposes besides wikipedia, including commercial purposes.)
 * Image:ParcialKarlaMonroigImagen.JPG - This is obviously a magazine cover. Do you claim that you were the photographer of this photo?  Even if you were, I think the copyright to such images is ordinarily owned by the publication, not the photographer.
 * I have removed this from the article page, since there is a less problematic picture (that you uploaded) on the page already. Do you still believe this is in the public domain?  If so, why?  If it is not in the public domain, it must be deleted because it is wikipedia policy not to use fair-use copyrighted images to show what living people look like.
 * Image:KarlaMonroig portrait.jpg - You say this comes from her myspace. Unless you personally took the photo, it is not in the public domain.
 * I have removed this from the article page, since there is a less problematic picture (that you uploaded) on the page already. Do you still believe this is in the public domain?  If so, why?  If it is not in the public domain, it must be deleted because it is wikipedia policy not to use fair-use copyrighted images to show what living people look like.
 * Image:Louyopuedopartial.JPG, Image:LouBriel reflejoscover.JPG, Image:Louyopuedo.JPG, Image:Lou Briel Album Cover Small.jpg, Image:CD Album Divinamente Lucy Fabery.jpg. These are all album covers, which are almost certainly copyrighted by the record company.  Just because you took a photo of an album cover doesn't make the album cover enter the public domain.
 * I have tagged these as fair use for now. It is possible to use a limited number of fair-use images in an article about a musician or their works.  We'll come back later to think about how many of these are necessary to put in the article, and where in the article they should be placed.
 * Image:JohannaRosaly.jpg - You say this is from a www.preurbano.com, which appears to be some sort of message board. Who is the photographer, and where did they say the photo was in the public domain?
 * Do you still believe this is in the public domain? If so, why?  If it is not in the public domain, it must be deleted because it is wikipedia policy not to use fair-use copyrighted images to show what living people look like.
 * Image:Puchi.jpg - This is by a newspaper photographer, and the copyright is likely owned by the newspaper. What evidence do you have that the newspaper has released the image into the public domain?
 * Do you still believe this is in the public domain? If so, why?  If it is not in the public domain, it probably must be deleted because there is a pretty weak claim that we NEED to have a picture of the woman's funeral in her encyclopedia article.
 * Image:Sonia noemi .jpg and Image:Soniacropped.JPG - you say these are public domain and come from http://www.prpop.org/biografias/y_bios/yoyo_boing_luis_antonio_rivera.shtml, but the website (where i can't find the images) is marked ©2007 Fundación Nacional para la Cultura Popular
 * Do you still believe these are in the public domain? If so, why?  If it is not in the public domain, it must be deleted because it is wikipedia policy not to use fair-use copyrighted images to show what living people look like.

Finally, if images are in the public domain, they do not need to be under "fair use" because any use is acceptable. Image:Yolanditacrop.JPG says both public domain and fair use. Which is it?

I understand that you are busy. However, wikipedia copyright policies are basically the most important ones we have, because they keep us from getting in legal trouble. If I don't hear back promptly about these images, I will nominate many of them for deletion. Calliopejen1 06:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again, Calliopejen, I was just about to log off, but I saw your message. Ok, I understand. As I'm new here, I ask you to lead me through the process.  I would love to ask you sincerely not to nominate them for deletion because, I know I can manage the changes I have to make, as you've asked, but I need your help doing so.  Deleting them would only block the process, and it has been done with good faith and not with the intention of infringing copyright rules.  I know this issue can be solved, there's a solution to it and furthermore, the oportunity to improve them if that would be the case.  I know that there's no problem at all, on the contrary, the people in these pictures are honored to be included in Wikipedia.  Don't worry about legal problems, I can assure there will be none, just tell me how to keep them and lead me through the steps.  I've done this from my heart, not to create discussions, just to acknowledge people I admire and deserve a space here.  I hope you can help me, to prevent further discussions, warnings and deletions.  Thank you very much for your concern.  I appreciate it.  Best regards:--Entre-Nos
 * Okay, I'm not tagging anything at the moment so that you can see my thought processes, but you have to understand that some of these images almost certainly must be tagged and deleted no matter how much we'd rather they stay. We'll start with the worst offenders that I listed above, then we can go through and clean up the description pages for other images.  I'll write under each bullet the steps that I have taken so far, and what you need to do to help sort out the images' copyright status. Calliopejen1 09:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. Check out the stuff above to help figure out what to do with these images.  Many of these may have to go, but hopefully we can keep your other pictures. Calliopejen1 09:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, a few thoughts in general: Just because you can view an image without paying anything does not mean it is a free image in the sense that wikipedia is free.  (See Gratis versus Libre for more.)  Even if an image is posted for free viewing on a website (gratis), the image is not a "free image" in the wikipedia sense (libre) because the copyright owner retains many rights, like the right to sell the image.  Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia that can be reused and adapted without restrictions (a different kind of free).
 * Sometimes it might not be possible to find a free image of certain people yet, if they have never been photographed by a photographer who released the image under a free license. (That is why pages about some important people do not have pictures yet.) In those cases, we wait until someone takes a picture that we can use freely before we add a picture to the site.  Since you seem to have many personal photos of famous Latin American entertainers, you may have connections in the entertainment industry.  In this case, another way that you can get a suitable image for wikipedia is to ask the copyright owner whether he will release the image under a free license.  The copyright owner must not just say "this image is ok for wikipedia"; that is not enough.  The copyright owner must say something like "this image is in the public domain" or "this image can be used by anyone, in any way (even selling it), so long as they credit me."  If you think you can get image creators to agree to these terms, we can talk about the details of what licenses are acceptable. Calliopejen1 09:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. The only thing I ask you is to check on many other images I've seen that are taken from other websites, with no permisssion at all, and haven't been tagged.  I just logged in because I'm a very busy person and you've ruined a lot of my articles, adding red links that are not necessary, deleting some images, changing them as you wish.  That's not fair.  My images shouldn't be changed or deleted.  They're truthful and done in good faith.  I don't have the time now to tell you which images I've found they're not true, but if I could, I would do it.  It's increbible you've taken your time just to  damage my entries as you wish.  Unbelievable.  Take your time to look around, and find other people that are doing really wrong entries, not me.  I've corrected a lot of entries that I've found and others that I wouldn't even care.  It's my job, my donation, my contribution, and again, in good faith.  Stop, please.  Look around, and you'll be aware of really serious matter, not mine.  Why pick on me?  Any reason at all?  Think about it.  Leave me alone.  I'm a good person and I like to acknowledge my compatriots.  I can see you don't know about anyone of the people I've written about.  Their images are totally public domain.  You're just assuming they're not.  Stop assuming.  Take care.  --Entre-Nos 07:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop being hysterical about my edits. I swear that I am trying to help your articles, not hurt them.  I'm not sure what damage to your articles you are referring to, but if you would like to post some diffs (if you don't know what I mean by that, ask) and I can explain each change.  I went through your articles because you are a new user and thought it would be good to help you improve your articles, so you could see how an experienced editor would change them to help them comply with wikipedia policies.  Since you haven't told me exactly what changes you're talking about, I can't really address them specifically. However, don't be worried about red links--it is good to have red links in articles where they mention other concepts or people that should have articles, but don't.
 * As for your pictures: Just because other images are on wikipedia improperly does not mean that your images--if they are on wikipedia improperly--can stay.  (And just so you know, I do often nominate other people's images for deletion.)  I am trying to help you here now by cleaning up your image tags so you can explain why they are here properly.  Otherwise, someone else will just nominate them for deletion later.  Because you have tagged images that definitely don't belong to you (the CD covers and the magazine, for example) as having been created by you, other users will be suspicious of even the photos that are genuinely yours.  I am not assuming that these images are not public domain, I am asking you to explain why they are.  On wikipedia, it is the burden of the uploader of the image to prove that the image is in the public domain, so you will need to learn how to do this properly if you want to make sure that these and future contributions are not deleted.
 * Just so you know-- the reason I am "picking on you" is because I think you are a valuable new user. Normally I would just stick deletion tags on these images, because that's how the policy process works.  I am trying to be helpful by explaining this and working with you, but you don't seem to appreciate my effort.  Obviously writing what I did above took a lot of my time, and it would have been much faster to simply submit these to the normal deletion processes.  Furthermore, I've been going through your articles because it seems like you're adding a lot of good content, but sometimes it could be formatted or worded better.  It is frustrating to try to work with you and have you make all sorts of wild accusations about me when all I'm doing is trying to help you learn the ropes.  Please don't assume you are under attack--remember to assume good faith on behalf of other users as well.  And look at helpful things I have done to your articles--from the filmography here to here, starting new articles to link to Antonio Aguilar, and cleaning up the wording at Lucy Fabery, just to name a few.  Relax for a couple minutes--realize that once we figure out the copyright stuff we can put the images right back on the article pages--and try to work with me here. So far, you've spent all sorts of energy telling me tons of other things, but none just explaining where you got the images.  If you can just write a short explanation of where each image came from and why you think they're allowed we could just get through this quickly. Calliopejen1 08:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry
Dear Calliopejen: I'm sorry. It wasn't you. It was another user. I understand everything you say, and the procedures you've gone through. I apologize. Keep up with your good work. It was a misunderstanding from my part. Best regards:Entre-Nos 22:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi entre-nos, no problem. However, you do need to help explain where these images came from soon or I will tag them for Possibly unfree images, which may lead to their deletion.  It's nothing against you, but they definitely look like copyright violations and wikipedia cannot have images that violate copyright.  I want to help you get these images cleaned up so that other people are not suspicious of your (seemingly) valid contributions.  Thanks! Calliopejen1 05:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)