User talk:Bedivere

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Bedivere!

Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文（台灣）‎ | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4

Hola Bedivere, felices fiestas ante todo. Te sorprenderá este caso, revisa bien cada uno de los archivos que subió esta cuenta. Notarás algo que te dejará con los pantalones abajo. Me dirás qué procede, pero esto nadie lo asimila fácil. Saludos. Taichi (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Taichi buenas noches estimado, Felices fiestas para tí también. Todas sus subidas o son descritas por garabatos o profanidades. Las he borrado pero no lo he bloqueado pues no ha editado en un tiempo. Estoy de acuerdo en todo caso con lo que le has escrito. Si reitera su comportamiento se le bloqueará indefinidamente Bedivere (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you blocked him in July. Was this a permanent block or a temporary block? He is back editing. He is reverting a lot of my recent work. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged they were blocked for personal attacks just one day Bedivere (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's become quite the nuisance recently. Reversions with one word or no word explanations. He is quite dogmatic in his opinions and does not really enter into true dialogue. I may have to take this further. Thanks for your time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand that. I'd advise you to take this to the administrator's noticeboard. Given the precedent block I think some action will be in order. I can't do it myself right now Bedivere (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: Buenas ,se puede publicar el logo de Wish Money como este (si el logo es simple se puede publicar con {{PD-textlogo}}) (Líbano usa el mismo TOO de Francia porque Líbano se considera un estado de Francia antes de su independencia)? AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Como el umbral de originalidad en Líbano es tan bajo, creo que sí podría tener protección ese logo, aunque me parece muy simple. Mejor no subirlo. Bedivere (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere:Buenas, dime una opinión? AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere:Buenas el logo Photo Pierrot (creado en Líbano) es simple o complejo,si es complejo por favor bórralo? AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

¿Se puede subir ésta imagen y subirla con ésta licencia PD-US-no notice?

Es una fotografía de prensa tomada en Estados Unidos Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 19:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No veo el símbolo así que muy probablemente sí Bedivere (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

¿Puedes por favor aprobar las imágenes?

Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 22:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere Por favor. Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 15:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your closure. This is a repeat of 2017. The White House has “stolen” copyrighted images from a private photographer on the direction of Trump. The mere fact the White House staff was directed by Trump to steal and post those images does not change their copyright status. That has no basis in copyright law, as thoroughly explained in the statements I and others made in the deletion requests. Berchanhimez (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez The new evidence presented makes it undoubtedly CC-BY, so I stand by my closure. you are free to renominate if you feel like it, though. Bedivere (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the pre-emptive arguments about your evidence before you closed this? Namely, that the Trump White House has a history of stealing third party images and not giving them proper attribution - they did the same thing with their copyrighted inaugural photos in 2017. Berchanhimez (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In effect, you've just closed a discussion permitting license laundering, which is explicitly addressed by Commons policy (as not allowed) and was referred to (not by name, but implicitly) by many in the deletion discussion. Berchanhimez (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, you should update your closing statement to clearly reflect why you discounted the historical precedent (that in 2017 the Trump White House did the exact same thing). But I would encourage you to re-open the DR for further discussion and post your opinion there, rather than ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people who commented "we can revisit on the 20th" already identified this would happen, and how it is not sufficient. Berchanhimez (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, if you decline to reverse your closure of the discussion, I not only will be renominating all the files (or rather adding them to the nomination someone else has already recreated) but I will be taking this to COM:ANU or wherever appropriate. It is clear that you ignored the comments in the discussion when making your closure, because they specifically addressed that even if the photo was posted on whitehouse.gov today, it would not mean that the copyright has been released. Your statement that The new evidence presented makes it undoubtedly CC-BY is false. There are clear and articulated doubts in the very discussion you closed, as well as a link to 2017 where this same thing happened and Trump tried to "steal" the copyright to an image. It is textbook license laundering and an administrator should not be so blatantly supporting that through closing a deletion discussion early ignoring the comments made in it. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your affirmation that the White House "stole" those photos without the consent of Trump or his team seems an exaggeration from your part. It is obvious to me they (Trump or his team) is the legitimate copyright owner and it is much evident that 1) the purpose of the photograph was evidently to serve as the official portrait 2) Trump or his team is perfectly fine with that as per 1). Works by US officials are in the public domain, and we are certain this isn't one of such works. The cc-by license claim, in my opinion, solves any uncertainty. I reiterate, however, that you may renominate and you may report me if you want. I can understand that you don't agree with me. Bedivere (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be requesting that ANU decide whether you've supported license laundering in this case now. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how "third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License" is not clear enough for you, they certainly have the right to publish the photo, but okay, go for it. Bedivere (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as multiple people said in the discussion (which you clearly did not read), Trump did this in 2017 too. He posted an image taken as an "official inaugural portrait" on whitehouse.gov over the wishes of the private photographer. He did so because he wanted to - not because he owns the copyright to it. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, them having the right to publish the photo is not the same thing as them having the right to release the copyright of it. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with works-for-hire? Bedivere (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a work-for-hire. A work-for-hire requires that the person be hired to produce works on a permanent basis. A one time photographer, in the USA, is not a "work-for-hire" unless it is specifically addressed in the contract. You have no evidence that it was addressed in the contract, and again, the photographer has explicitly stated they did not sign copyright over. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you have evidence that the White House "stole" those photos? All I've found is your assumptions. I see it was apparently taken by Daniel Took, who says on Twitter he is the chief photographer of President-elect (sic) Trump. I am yet to understand how that isn't the definition of a work for hire. Where and how did it happen that they "stole" the photos or is it just your assumption because in 2017 something similar happened? Bedivere (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:PRP, there is enough doubt based on that history. Furthermore, your reason for it is textbook license laundering, which is not appropriate. Your evidence has shifted from "it was posted on whitehouse.gov" to now "well maybe it was a work for hire" because you know that your original reason was license laundering.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome, or whether it may be confirmed to be a work for hire, an administrator openly engaging in license laundering as their reason to keep an image is not appropriate. Hence why I've taken it to ANU. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand. I am trying to understand the whole point you are trying to make, but I fail at doing so. It is crystal clear to me the photo is CC-by as per the White House website, which makes it very clear. Bedivere (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the redundance but you have failed to this moment to give any conclusive evidence this is a "stolen" photo. Bedivere (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't need to be "conclusive evidence". The standard is reasonable doubt. And given that he stole his inaugural photo before from a private photographer who was made to have like 5 VRT/OTRS volunteers unanimously say that it was stolen... there is more than enough doubt that he is not engaging in the same behavior again. You would've known this had you read the deletion discussion before you SUPERVOTEd based on license laundering. Since you refuse to go re-read through the discussion you closed to find it, let me link it here for you. Notable comments: A website's claim that all of its hosted content falls under CC is not compelling, nor does it have any affect whatsoever on the photographer's assertion of copyright. and It wouldn't be the first time a USGov website host improperly licensed content (or fails to properly identify third-party content not falling under standard licenses).

PRP applies here, clearly. Berchanhimez (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there was enough doubt before the explicit release was made on the White House website. You have renominated the files, filed a report against me, now wait for another admin to think of a solution. Have a good day Bedivere (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was enough doubt after too, as evidenced in 2017, where the photos were explicitly confirmed to be released on whitehouse.gov without them owning the copyright. Again, It wouldn't be the first time a USGov website host improperly licensed content (or fails to properly identify third-party content not falling under standard licenses). Berchanhimez (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bedivere. I have a question about this, in fact, the specific images. People keep referring to the publication by the White House. I assume we're ignoring the unsuitability of the author's statement, and the transition team's publication. I can only find this cropped image (JD Vance) on their site. Do we have evidence that the full 'official portraits' have been published there? I tried searching the quoted sources for the images, and none seem to be the WH. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the full portraits are published by the White House, other copies not published on the website should be deleted. Bedivere (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is another reason I am unhappy with this early unilateral closure. The discussion over which image(s) if any could be kept should be taking place in the original deletion request. Berchanhimez (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Bedivere. You are abusing your administrator authority to engage in license laundering, over the concerns of multiple users..

Berchanhimez (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]