User talk:Oscar

File tagging File:Oscar van Dillen.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Oscar van Dillen.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

–Krinkle^talk 09:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a source link where the author released it under the free license or ask the author to send permission for release under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported to the permissions-team at COM:OTRS by following the instructions below. –Krinkle^talk 09:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• dear krinkle, here it the source as published on my own website http://www.oscarvandillen.com/File:OscarNiaux.jpg - it is a picture taken of me by my partner. is this sufficient evidence? cheers, oscar 15:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I discovered that already and added that site as the source here. However it does not mean anything legally speaking. The problem is that the source website uses a non-commercial only creativecommons license, this kind of a license is not compatible with Commons and doesn't match the license you selected during upload (you selected "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike", the website has "Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike"). Aside from the mismatch, the license on the source website does not allow commercial use which is mandatory for the file to be free.
  • Either request deletion if the author does not wish to allow commercial use, or ask the author to send an e-mail containing the permission to license the file under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike, and address it to the permissions-team at OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) –Krinkle^talk 19:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• dear krinkle, of course! i overlooked that. we discussed this and having obtained this permission myself, i adapted the description at the original source; it now runs This photo was taken by Elise van Rosmalen and released under CC-BY 3.0, may i take it this solves it? thank you for your kind help and concern; as i do prefer this color photo to the older black and white still in use in some places. very best greetings, oscar 23:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi Oscar,
    That looks good. Thank you too! –Krinkle^talk 00:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • dear krinkle, you're wonderful grtz! oscar 00:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)