Image talk:Prius2004.JPG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What source of energy do hybrid cars use?

follow the link to Hybrid car and Toyota Prius to get your answer.

[edit] Image Prius2004.JPG

Hi Kowloonese, I would like to ask about the GFDL Licence for the "Image:Prius2004.JPG". Someone translated the according article for the german Wikipedia and also copied the image (Same for some other Toyota articles/images). Now we have a discussion about the licence and usability of the image within the german Wikipedia branch, as some doubt that it has been put under the right licence (Germany, famous for it's beer, bavarians and bureaucracy ;). Is it a photo you took yourself, do you have permission from the originator of the image or is there a licence legislation that puts the photo under the GNU-FDL? Sincerely Azhai 62.112.80.130 01:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I took the photo myself. In fact, every photo that I've ever posted on wikipedia was from my camera. How could I grant the GFDL permission if it wasn't my photo? I really don't understand why the license question came up in the first place. As the GFDL statement says: "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to disclaimers." I have no idea how German bureaucracy deals with GFDL. You need to find that out for yourself. Kowloonese 20:48, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I know, and i totally agree with you that it should be sufficient to place the GNU-FDL on the page and get trusted that it has been the correct classification until prove of the opposite. But over here there are some bureaucrates that don't trust a wo/mans word and demand additional a source statement. (Yes its not logical. If someone wants to betray by setting a wrong GNU-FDL note what hinders her/him to set a wrong source note.) Netvertheless, we have some of those people in our Wikipedia over here and they seem to have the power to archieve the deletion of an image but fail to have the guts to ask the releaser of an image for clarification of their suspicions, so those wo follow a more constructive path have additional work to do to ask and gain the anger of those wo where distrusted by such people if they want to save the use of a image. Greetings, Azhai --62.112.80.130 00:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do they need the serial number of the camera that took the picture? Or do they need a Notary Public's signature and witness's testimony to confirm that I really pressed that button? Kowloonese 00:25, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if thats a serious or cynic question, so i will provide two answers.

In case of serious: I think a statement "Picture was taken by me", as you provided here, would be sufficient (I already made a remark about the logic of this).

In case of cynisem: A Photo of you taking that photo should be prove enough, but remember that this photo should, following their philosopy, also be uploaded with prove of its origin. ;)

But before we digress too much into polemic let us end this discussion, as it, sadly, changes nothing over here. I whish to thank you for providing an answer and express my hope that our next contact will have more desirable causes. Sincerely Azhai --62.112.80.130 02:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My questions were cynical. However, on the serious side, I wonder how those anal retentive bureaucrats feel about GFDL released by an anonymous poster. I will remain anonymous. What good is a grant of permission when the grantor's true identity is concealed? Just curious. Kowloonese 20:49, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Prius2004.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Prius2004.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Many of these pictures were uploaded years ago before the GFDL-self template was invented. It would be a chore to revisit all the early pictures to change the GFDL tag. It would be nice if the robot can factor in the upload date of the pictures before picking on these early pictures. Kowloonese 18:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)