User talk:David.Monniaux/archive1

File not found. Thus I requested deletion of the article.

Yes, the correct name is Image:Japan_Tottori_MitokuSan_Nageiredo_DSC01248.jpg. David.Monniaux 12:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What is the copyright status of Image:French bread DSC09293.jpg? Please add copyright tags. For now I have tagged your image as "Unknown". If there are no tags, the image may have to be deleted. Thanks -- Chris 73 03:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HiAnd yet more images without copyright tags? For now I have tagged your image as "Unknown". If there are no tags, the image may have to be deleted. Thanks -- Chris 73 04:09, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I uploaded a whole lot of images. It happens that I forgot to insert the copyright tags. The user interface is quite unwieldy for this task. In any case, it would have been nice of you to point to the name of the image in question, instead of letting me go through a whole backlog of images.

In light of this reception, I'm thinking of reevaluating my policy of uploading images to commons. David.Monniaux 17:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for not mentioning the picture. You could also check Category:Unknown, which is not yet too big with the list of thumbnails, or you could check What link here for Template:Unknown. In any case, my apologies if I came across unpolite, this was not my intention. I also use a boilerplate text, so the two comments of mine look very similar because it is a cut/copy from User:Chris 73/Boilerplate. Please keep on contributing! Thanks -- Chris 73 23:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately I had to submit Image:Milice ecole.jpg for deletion because I believe that the idea of "de facto PD" is incompatible with Commons copyright policy. Whether or not I am right will now be discussed on Commons:Deletion_requests. Please do not take this as a personal affront and keep up the good work. -- Sebastian Koppehel 06:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Un admin français de plus sur Commons, un ! Bienvenue :) villy 08:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello David, I´ve seen that you did very good work with enhancement of some images at Piton de la Fournaise, but why don´t you just overload the old versions? Is it really useful to store duplicates of such different quality? I think it isn´t. So go on ... I wish you a happy new year :-) --:Bdk: 10:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think that it's better if we store both. People may be interested in getting the originals for performing their own error correction, for instance. David.Monniaux 15:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But we do store both, compare the versions of Image:Hibiscus_trionum.jpg for example, you always can reach the original. That´s the normal way to store different versions with the same file name and the best version should be used as the actual one. That´s it imo :-) --:Bdk: 21:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A image licensed under CC (or GFDL) cannot be copyrighted. This affects at least Image:Goats_sleeping_DSC04008_crop.jpg. --Thomas G. Graf 16:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to tell you you are wrong. Content under GPL, CC or GFDL is copyrighted (you just have to open the documentation of any program from the Free Software Foundation to see copyright tags). Then, the owner of the copyright grants some rights to others through some license. That's how it works, and how such content is different from "public domain". David.Monniaux 19:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you are right. Some time ago, somebody wrote on the German WP, that GFDL/CC images cannot be copyrighted; but it seems to be wrong. Sorry. --Thomas G. Graf 14:53, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi!

I noticed you placed a copy violation tag on the Matisse page. Could you please explain to me the reason you placed the notice there? If the images are truly in violation of copyright laws in the place where the Wikimedia server is located, then I will delete them pronto. If not, then I see no reason for the notice.

Thanks, Me

The images are not in the public domain in many countries outside the United States. It is unclear at this point whether the heirs of Matisse could sue in one of those countries. David.Monniaux 08:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In that case, would you perhaps consider rephasing your statement? As it stands, it states very absolutely that the images are in violation of copyright. However, your contention seems to be that the images are in violation of copyright _only_ in some countries. As a notable exception, they are probably in the public domain in the U.S. which, incidentally, is where the Wikimedia servers are located. Thanks, Me :-)

The location of the Wikimedia servers may actually be irrelevant, depending on what courts appreciate. It is possible that if the Matisse (or other) heirs manage to convince the court that we are targetting the audience in their country, then they will find the Wikimedia Foundation or its local representative guilty of copyright violation. Furthermore, Wikimedia has servers outside of the US, right now, and plans to have more. The usual argument is that they are only caches and not true servers, but try explaining that to a court. David.Monniaux 08:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've been doing a bit of research on this and it appears that the vast majority of countries and the vast majority of the world's population live under Life + 50 copyright rules so the Matisse paintings would certainly be public domain in those countries. I've altered your original wording on the Matisse page to reflect this.

The situation you describe is absolutely unworkable. It would require that Wikipedia follow the most restrictive copyright laws in the world, i.e. Life + 120 or something equally nonsensical. There are already plenty of organisations on the internet which operate only to the laws of their own country (e.g. Project Gutenberg). I don't see why Wikipedia should be any different.

The whole point of tagging images is that the Wiki has information on the copyright status of images. It is, therefore, entirely feasible that servers located in a given country could use that information to decide which subset of the Wiki it would be legal to disseminate from that country. The U.S. servers, for instance, could allow access to the Matisse images created before 1923, a server located in the European Union could deny access to all Matisse images and a Canadian server could allow access to them all.

Thanks, Me

Hi. Could you add a copyright or source info to Image:Trier roman baths DSC02378.jpg? Thanks -- Chris 73 03:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. David.Monniaux 07:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Une autre sans tag (et listée dans Commons:Really unused). FoeNyx 12:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merci pour tes réponses.

Le pain d'épices a été photographié dehors ? En effet, la lumière est assez faible. Mais c'est vrai que c'est plutôt un gâteau que l'on associe avec les fêtes de fin d'année.

Pour l'équilibre entre sujets des images de qualité, je ne souhaite pas imposer d'équilibre. Je remarque juste qu'il est dommage que certains sujets soient surreprésentés. Cela n'empêche pas que ta photo de N-D soit excellente !

Pour les licences, j'ai compris.

Bonne journée Pabix ܀ 10:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Je l'ai photographié devant ma fenêtre, avec peut-être ma cuisine allumée en plus. Mais, comme tu le sais, en hiver le temps est souvent bouché, ce qui donne une lumière blafarde. David.Monniaux 12:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

salut david. il y a déja une article: Louvre. ca veut dire, Category:Louvre est plus nécessaire. Schaengel89 @me 09:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: et pour la future, stp arrange tes images dans la Category:Paris, France, et ne plus dans la Category:Paris Schaengel89 @me 09:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please re-check the image-description page. Jimmy himself (perhaps he doesn't remember) gave his OK to use the picture. It has many references in several wp's like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sylvia_Saint_001.jpg

Please double-check. Thanks. --Avatar 17:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi David. Since you accidentally deleted Image:Sylvia Saint 001.jpg, perhaps you could undelete the image description page. That way those of us who have edited it will be reinstated to the history, as is required by the GFDL. Thanks, Dbenbenn 03:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary — I re-uploaded the image, and put the description back. David.Monniaux 08:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why we should delete Sylvia Saint again. The picture is GFDL; the image description page is essentially a quote of Jimbo Wales saying that the picture is GFDL, and as such is not really a creation by those who wrote it... David.Monniaux 08:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I said "undelete", not "delete"! I want my contributions to the image description page to be properly attributed to me. As it currently stands, it appears that you wrote all that text yourself. Please click the "Restore!" button at Special:Undelete/Image:Sylvia Saint 001.jpg. Thanks. Dbenbenn 18:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Dbenbenn 18:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi - several of the images you uploaded are listed on Commons:Untagged_images#D, because they have no license info. Please add the appropriate Commons:Copyright tags to the images description pages, as images without license info will have to be deleted. Please also add the author, source and date of creation if applicable. Thanks! -- Duesentrieb 13:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, good, sorry I didn't check - it's just a lot to work through. Also, the list being outdated can't really be helped - it was created from the latest dump, which is a few days old. I can create an updated version only after the next dump has been released. I'll remove you from the list. -- Duesentrieb 13:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh - you forgot Image:Trier basilica DSC02373.jpg - please tag it too and remove it from the list afterwards. Its on the second list (because it contains "CC" in the text - i have to tweak that query some more). thanks -- Duesentrieb 13:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You wanted a higher-res photo? Well, take a look at the featured pics page now: [1] All the en:Prokudin-Gorskii photos on the commons are at a rediculiously low resolution (700x700). There are available as TIFFs at 3000x3000, and I believe that these files need to be converted to PNGs. --Zantastik 02:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You wanted a higher-res photo? Well, take a look at the featured pics page now: [2] All the en:Prokudin-Gorskii photos on the commons are at a rediculiously low resolution (700x700). There are available as TIFFs at 3000x3000, and I believe that these files need to be converted to PNGs. --Zantastik 02:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bonjour David Monniaux,

A propos de la photo de cette arbuste, pourrais-tu donner préciser la date et le lieu où tu l'as prise? Tous ce que je puis dire c'est que ce n'est certainement pas un cassissier (Ribes nigrum, ...) ni un Berberis sp mais un Mahonia sp Pixeltoo 07:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Le 25 juillet 2003 à Dijon (Côte d'Or, France). David.Monniaux 07:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alors il s'agit peut-être d'un Mahonia japonica qui fleurit en hiver et dont les fruits mûrissent en juillet. Mais il s'agit peut-être aussi d'un de ses hybrides (appelés Mahonia x media).Pixeltoo 08:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   * Nominate LoopZilla 09:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   * Oppose dull colors, not sharp Ravn 10:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
   * Oppose not sharp, not "impressive" scene, saturated white background David.Monniaux 18:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So why was this "Picture of the Day" for 19th April???? LoopZilla 06:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because someone nominated it to this position? I note that we have more pictures of the day than featured pictures. David.Monniaux 06:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bonjour,

Je viens de voir tes photos correspondant à ce titre. Rien à voir avec des silènes, ce sont des papavéracées, certainement Papaver nudicaule. Amicalement. Jeantosti 09:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Je n'y connais rien et me suis contenté de recopier ce qui était indiqué sur l'étiquette placée par le Jardin des Plantes, que j'ai photographiée au passage pour le pas me tromper... David.Monniaux 10:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Les étiquettes sont parfois trompeuses. Silene pendula, c'est peut-être la plante qui est en train de pousser à droite, je n'en sais rien. Quant à Papaver nudicaule, je confirme, d'autant que je viens d'effectuer une recherche sur Google images, et qu'un Italien a photographié la même plante… au Jardin des Plantes ! Il faut donc corriger. Comme tu sembles plus habitué que moi à Commons, je te laisse le soin de le faire. Jeantosti 10:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, merci bien! J'ai tout déplacé et créé une page (reste à renseigner la taxonomie mais bon...). David.Monniaux 10:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

C'est fait (je commence à m'habituer à Commons). Ceci dit, c'est une excellente idée de photographier les plantes des jardins botaniques. Et tes photos sont très intéressantes. Jeantosti 11:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bonjour, C'est peut-être un marronnier à fleurs rouges Aesculus carnea Pixeltoo 12:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salut,

Bon, comme tu parles le français, je te fais la demande en français: pourrais-tu voir mon commentaire dans Image:Sylvia Saint 001.jpg, s'il te plaît? Merci beaucoup! --Mschlindwein 20:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for answering. I did not know that Jimmy Wales was executive officer of Bomis. This changes everything, indeed. I understood that the other "Bomis images" were not useable here, no need to remind me. Actually I had no intention whatsoever to upload them to Commons. Thank you again for the answer! --Mschlindwein 00:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have cropped Image:Chirac ABr62200.jpeg, a photo that you had uploaded a while ago, to remove something in the background so that Chirac doesn't appear to have been stabbed in the back. When I uploaded my version, I carelessly missed a letter in the filename, ending up with Image:Chirac ABr62200.jpg, which I am using in English Wikipedia (here). Is it okay to have two photos so similar here ? Am I expected to do anything to fix this duplication ? I'm new at the Commons. Can you help, please ? Many thanks. -- PFHLai 13:26, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it. Please let me what I can/should do with this problem I created. Thanks. -- PFHLai 18:57, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Thank you very much for fixing this. It's very nice of you to help out. Thank you. -- PFHLai 14:20, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

ok ok je ne savais pas que l'on avait pas le droit de prendre les photos officielles depuis les sites gouvernementaux...on les prend depuis ou alors? jonathaneo (passe plutot pas sur la page fr de wikipedia, je plus present dessus en ce moment!)

Image:Claude_Bernou_Carte_de_lAmerique_septentrionale.jpg has a strange copyright statement.

This image is a reproduction of a bidimensional map, now in the public domain. 
For this reason, it is in the public domain in the United States of America.

In France, it is possible that this photographic reproduction is copyrighted by
the administration who performed it, i.e. the National Library of France (BNF). 
However, BNF gave us the authorization to use any image from their database on our sites and CD/DVDs.

We thank BNF for its kind collaboration. This image may be consulted on Gallica 
(http://gallica.bnf.fr) (#08008861 (http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?Destination=Gallica&O=IFN-08008861)).

Is that OK for Wikipedia?

LoopZilla 13:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a number of arguments on this, and the consensus was that, since the servers were in the US, we should apply US law and not the laws of other countries. According to US law, these images are in the public domain.

However, it is possible that these images could perhaps not be in the public domain in France. In the past, a number of images in the public domain in the US but surely not in the public domain in France have been accepted. I don't see why we should be more severe for images that we aren't even sure are copyrighted in France. David.Monniaux 17:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons servers appear to be in the Netherlands (maybe just the Squids)... LoopZilla 07:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For your request on the image water lily [3], I have uploaded the original version of that image.--Yongxinge 13:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Does exist any tutorial teaching how to make images like Image:GMT France with altitudes 30s.png from NOAA using Generic Mapping Tools? Thanks in advance. --Patrick-br ^msg 13:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

salut. peux-tu prend un view ici? c' catégorie est trè grande maintentant! Schaengel89 @me 13:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be carefull - I just removed a few logos from the speedy deletion cat in use by more then 100 pages throughout the wikimedia universe! --Avatar 16:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• mais... c'est quoi, le pâté noir, en haut, aux pays-bas ? toujours des problèmes avec les cours d'eau ? (à l'environ de bordeaux, par exemple) mais ce ne sont là que détaux ;D Alvaro 17:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - can you improve the image at COM:FPC Comet Hale-Bopp (high resolution). [4] Feel free to overwrite the current image! LoopZilla 07:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

clicke ici Schaengel89 @me 14:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image deletion warning

The image Image:Whisky safe DSC05276.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Thuresson 10:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J'ai l'impression qu'une proportion alarmante des marins de cette page sont en fait des élève d'Aéro Image:France naval fusiliers DSC03289.JPG. Ca se voit aux casquettes, aux galons et aux guêtres.

Par ailleurs, il faut se méfier, c'est pas parce qu'un marin tient un fusil qu'est est nécessairement un fusilier marin (voir [5]); là, par exemple, je vois une proportion anormale d'aspirants de marine, pour un régiment de fusiliers... à tous les coups c'est Navale qui défile.

A+! Rama 12:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: le premier qui dit que je suis un obsédé des miloufs ou qui parle de planton marin a un gage ! R.

PPS: encore un gag, les marins ont une jugulaire à leur casquette (météo marine oblige...) R.

File:Manihot esculenta dsc07801.jpg

Hi David.Monniaux,

I believe that Image:Manihot esculenta dsc07801.jpg is misidentified, and is really a photo of Colocasia esculenta or Xanthosoma. Is this possible? Thank you — Pekinensis 17:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for contributing the photo of the portrait of Jean-Martin Charcot and his student, Babinski, and patient, Blanche Wittman. This old neurologist was delighted to look at it. 67.188.208.164 06:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you reload this image rotated? Its not easy to use images in the wrong orientation. Also the title is not helpful, I am sure this was an accident (its easy to d by mistake, but it is not possible to rename pictures alas). Justinc 22:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, je voudrais savoir ce qu'un nouvel administrateur doit faire lorsqu'une catégorie se retrouve proposée à la supression rapide. Que je sache, le vote entre catégories et articles n'a rien tranché et je ne vois pas pourquoi on devrait supprimer les catégories lorsqu'un article existe. C'est le cas par exemple pour les rivières et fleuves français actuellement dont les catégories sont actuellement proposées à la supression rapide. J'ai compris que, concernant flore et faune, l'usage est d'utiliser les articles et respecterais cet usage, mais pour le reste, tes lumières d'ancien admin me seraient trés utiles avant de faire des erreurs. Merci beaucoup, bonne continuation. Petrus 16:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David,

why should a picture of an "affiche", which was manipulated by the pharmacie by adding a price label, be a copyright violation? The poster is presented to the public, not at all restricted in access, as e.g. a painting in a museum (where the museum as owner might raise some copy rights), and is quoted as a picture as it is: A marvelous example for handling the issue of preservatifs the "french" way, with a wink! "l'abuse de ..." is so common in France, that the wording on this poster leads to a real surprise, and that's in my opinion the real issue.

You're building up a rationale for using this photograph under "fair use". We don't allow fair use on the commons.

I've posted the same picture with a translation on the german wiki page as a trial how long it will stay there, and, as expected, it was removed 6 hours later! This is typical german!

It is very interesting to follow the pages about preservatives in the different languages. I think, the way this issue is handled tells a lot about the different cultures in each country.

Coming back to the copyright issue: When I would use the poster as basis for an own poster or would create a similar poster, then the copyright issue in terms of intellactual property is a case. But to quote it, is in my opinion no violation of any copy rights. Imagine, a museum would like the poster for its collection and would present it in 10 years as an example of posters in 2005. Would they ask for any copyright?

The problem is not your opinion, but the applicable Law, and the policies we have on commons.

Rolf

David,

according to your concerns I've studied a little bit around concerning copyright issues. First, in several countries (at least the languages in wiki) the exact meaning seems to be slightly different. Very interesting was to study articles in the English wiki pages. There is an article about "fair use", and reading this I feel completely supported in my opinion issued in the statements above. The general meaning is that quoting something (in a restricted amount) is not violating any copyrigths or intellectual properties. After reading this article I really do not understand the fears to violate copyrights with a picture. This fear seems to be widely spreaded in the wikipedia community. OK, it is not allowed to use explicitly coprighted pictures themself (very funny: frequently you can found in uploaded pictures remarks of the photographers about their copyrights, in wiki a "contradictio in adjecto") but it is under the conditions of "fair use" difficult to see, why a picture of something which is in the public can violate any coprights, as long it is not a reproduction, e.g. by reproducing a picture of a painting printed in a book. If it would be not allowed to publish a picture of a poster it would also be a copyright violation to publish a picture of a car, because the car manufacturer surely claims copyrights for the car design. I think, the conditions of "fair use" are very helpful for wikipedia. And I don't think that concerning this issue in other countries the law systems are completely different from the US system

Rolf

Hi David, you just deleted Image:L2logo.jpg which is most probably ok. It would be nice if you notice the uploading user in future. a) Perhaps there is a logical explanation, b) if not, he should notice that there is a high probability, that he will get problems (get blocked) if something like this happens again. Thanks. --Avatar 06:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain this user that he/she must add copyrights tag(s) (preferable {{PD-user}}) to and categorize images? I deduced that he/she knows French from it:Utente:Lalupa. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko 01:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

thanks for your note. I updated the picture. -- aka 07:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bon, j'ai ouvert une porte pour débloquer User:Chris93, si il (elle) me laisse un message m'assurant qu'il (elle) a bien compris les licences acceptées sur commons, je débloque le compte. Mais, vigilence. Si tu penses que cela n'est pas bien, dis le moi. A bientôt. Petrus 15:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I removed your photograph from the Sari page. Having the women's eyes edited out looked awful! Please consider uploaded the unaltered photograh -- the picture is great, but the messed up eyes ruin it. Let me know what you think on my talk page. Thanks! --129.21.140.32 01:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Could you please change the name of one image I uploaded some time ago?

I uploaded this image and I put it the name Image:Italica adriano.jpg. Some moths ago I discovered that this statue is from Roman emperor Trajan, not Hadrian, so I'd like to change the name to image:Italica trajano.jpg. I have already changed all description to actual data, but I cannot change the file to his correct name. Could you do it for me?

Thanks in advance and sorry my poor english.

Hispa

I did the job. Now you can safety delete the image Image:Italica adriano.jpg. It's not yet linked by any article and it's been substitued by image:Italica trajano.jpg. Thanks again. Hispa 12:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]