User talk:Zecke
Hi,
I am writing you as the person who added new terms into the historical objects map translation page. I just want to let you know that the Czech version is up to date. BTW: are the translation updated automatically or have I to write you all the time when there is a change?
--Xkomczax (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your info. I have set an automatic notification to changes of the translation pages, so I get notified by the system of any changes. I then re-publish the translated pages by a script (manually triggered). So all you have to do is translate. Best is to also set a notification trigger on the Czech page so you get informed of changes/additions by us. Zecke (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Translation pages
Hi, I saw you created some translation pages without translation, and redirected them to english pages (for example this). Why did you do this? I didn't understand. --Jgpacker (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- I created these redirection pages as placeholders. The multilangual map of historic objects contains links to the Wiki pages in the respective languages (generated by a translation tool). However not all wiki pages are available in a translated form yet. So the missing language versions now point to the english version as this is probably understoood by the majority. Zecke (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Free OSm
Hallo Zecke, ich habe gerade gesehen, dass du für Bilder von Flickr Free OSM ergänzt hast, habe ich eine Frage, da ich mich selbst mit Bildrechten bei Wikipedia und Wikimedia Commons beschäftige, Free OSM aber nihct kenne. Nachdem OSM ja auch nur freie Lizenzen verwendet, müsste doch Free OSM ebenfalls eine freie Lizenz sein, oder ist da OSM doch nicht wirklcih frei? ;-) --lg aus ÖK@rl (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Free for OSM" ist ein neues Konzept, das wir gerade einführen, um Bilder von Flickr, die per default "All rights restricted" sind, dennoch für Historic.Place (und andere OSM Karten) verfügbar zu machen. Der jeweilige Autor muss dabei nicht auf seine Bildrechte verzichten, er gestattet aber OSM eine Ausnahme, seine Bilder zu verwenden. Es wird dazu in Kürze noch nähere Informationen geben, das ist gerade erst im Entstehen. Über das Setzen des Tags "free4osm" gestattet der Autor explizit und aktiv OSM, seine Bilder zu verwenden. Beispiel: Stolleneingang bei Bonn Zecke (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ist eine interessante Version - ich hätte da allerdings meine Bedenken, da es sich eben nicht um freie Ausnahmen wie das sonst freie Projekt. Ob man da nicht irgendwie die Büchse der Pandora öffnet ;-) - aber das wären nur so meine Bedenken, aber das ist eine andere Sache- trotzdem danke für die Auskunft. lg aus Wien K@rl (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Es soll keine Lizenz sein, eher eine Erlaubnis der Verwendung, die noch näher Beschrieben werden soll! Vieleicht kannst du uns mit deinen Erfahrungen dabei helfen? lutz (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ich weiß, aber eine Lizenz ist ja nix anderes als eine Verwendungserlaubnis. Ich weiß nur schon welche Schwierigkeiten allein in der nicht ganz freien Lizenz CC BY-NC-SA ist, damit blockierst du jede weitere Verwendung. Jetzt nur ein Beispiel: Du machst eine Karte mit Denkmälern, da hast du 20 Fotos drinnen,die unter freier Lizenz sind und ein 21. das nur für OSM die Erlaubnis hat. Damit hat niemand mehr die Möglichkeit, die Karte weiterzugeben, denn die Lizenz hört bei dem einen Foto auf. Damit sind aber alle anderen 20 auch blockiert, was eigentlich durch die CC BY-SA gar nicht erlaubt ist. --K@rl (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Könnten wir diese Diskussion per email fortsetzen - ich finde dieses Medium mühsam...? (zecke @ historic.place). Wir sprechen hier von einer interaktiven Online-Karte. Für uns stellt sich die Frage - verzichten wir auf Flickr, obwohl sehr viele Fotografen das lieben, weil es eine gut gemachte Seite ist? Leider wird das Offenlegen den Usern dort nicht nahegebracht. Oder sie lieben es genau deshalb. Es gibt User, die gehen ganz bewußt nicht zu Wikimedia, weil es dort andere Nachteile gibt. Dennoch würden wir gerne von diesen Usern Beiträge verwenden und sie sind auch gerne bereit dazu. Wir wollen eine Möglichkeit schaffen, daß andere, denen es ähnlich geht, sich dem anschließen können. Das muss halt ordentlich formuliert werden, so daß wer das Tag setzt weiß, was wofür er das macht. Juristisch bindend ist das ohnehin nicht. Zecke (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ich weiß, aber eine Lizenz ist ja nix anderes als eine Verwendungserlaubnis. Ich weiß nur schon welche Schwierigkeiten allein in der nicht ganz freien Lizenz CC BY-NC-SA ist, damit blockierst du jede weitere Verwendung. Jetzt nur ein Beispiel: Du machst eine Karte mit Denkmälern, da hast du 20 Fotos drinnen,die unter freier Lizenz sind und ein 21. das nur für OSM die Erlaubnis hat. Damit hat niemand mehr die Möglichkeit, die Karte weiterzugeben, denn die Lizenz hört bei dem einen Foto auf. Damit sind aber alle anderen 20 auch blockiert, was eigentlich durch die CC BY-SA gar nicht erlaubt ist. --K@rl (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Es soll keine Lizenz sein, eher eine Erlaubnis der Verwendung, die noch näher Beschrieben werden soll! Vieleicht kannst du uns mit deinen Erfahrungen dabei helfen? lutz (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ist eine interessante Version - ich hätte da allerdings meine Bedenken, da es sich eben nicht um freie Ausnahmen wie das sonst freie Projekt. Ob man da nicht irgendwie die Büchse der Pandora öffnet ;-) - aber das wären nur so meine Bedenken, aber das ist eine andere Sache- trotzdem danke für die Auskunft. lg aus Wien K@rl (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Missing file information
Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.
Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.
Are you the author of image File:Historical Objects No preview.png ?
Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?
Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ".
Doing this would be already very useful.
Licensing - photos
In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?
In case where it is a photo you (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.
Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?
Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?
If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.
You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.
Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified February 2022}} from the file page.
Licensing - other images
If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.
See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.
note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.
note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.
Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.
Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.
Help
Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.
Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).
If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.
--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Missing file information
Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.
Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.
Are you the creator of image File:Historische Objekte - previsualisation.png ?
Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?
Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ" or "this is map generated from OpenStreetMap data and SRTM data" or "map generated from OSM data and only OSM data" or "This is my work based on file -link-to-page-with-that-file-and-its-licensing-info-" or "used file downloaded from internet to create it, no idea which one".
Doing this would be already very useful.
Licensing - photos
In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?
In case where it is a photo you (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.
Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?
Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?
If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.
You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self|Zecke}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.
Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified March 2022}} from the file page.
Licensing - other images
If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.
See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.
note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.
note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.
Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.
Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.
Help
Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.
Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).
If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.
(sorry if I missed something that already states license and source: I am looking through over 20 000 files and fixing obvious cases on my own, in other I ask people who upladed files, but it is possible that I missed something - in such case also please answer)
--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Missing file information
Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.
Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.
Are you the creator of image File:Halde.png ?
Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?
Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ" or "this is map generated from OpenStreetMap data and SRTM data" or "map generated from OSM data and only OSM data" or "This is my work based on file -link-to-page-with-that-file-and-its-licensing-info-" or "used file downloaded from internet to create it, no idea which one".
Doing this would be already very useful.
Licensing - photos
In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?
In case where it is a photo you have taken then you can make it available under a specific free license (except some cases, like photos of modern sculptures in coutries without freedom of panorama or taking photo of copyrighted artwork).
Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?
Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?
If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.
You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self|Zecke}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.
Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, June}} from the file page.
Licensing - other images
If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.
See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.
note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.
note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.
Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.
Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.
Help
Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.
Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).
If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.
(sorry if I missed something that already states license and source: I am looking through over 20 000 files and fixing obvious cases on my own, in other I ask people who upladed files, but it is possible that I missed something - in such case also please answer)
--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)