![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello, Magog the Ogre, Since I value your input, I am requesting your expert comments at Possibly_unfree_files File:Robert Smith Barry.jpg. Thank you in advance for your comments.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC) |
File:Hispanolian slider.jpg uploaded in '09 can be seen here from '07 and at least half of File:Trachemys-gaigeae-gaigeae.jpg (also uploaded '09) can be seen here from '06. It's clear they did not originate on Wikipedia. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Do I need to track down archive copies for every image I tag of this known repeat infringer?VernoWhitney (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2010
Thanks again, help with CCIs is always appreciated. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to remember to do that. I think I've found all of the easy copyvios for that one anyways, so the rest of it is probably down to browsing obscure turtle websites to try and figure out if any of the images are clean. Of course any help you could give on this or any of the other CCIs would be greatly appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Magog. I noticed your recent action at the 3RR noticeboard concerning 217.157.212.160. The 1RR sanction should probably be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Log of blocks and bans, to be sure that people don't lose track of it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Carry on the good work at WP:AN3. That board used to get long backlogs, so I am happy to see new admins show up to close cases there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Re. your unblocking of Juancarlos131291 (talk · contribs),
Please take note of the discussion about their suggested edit, in User talk:Juancarlos131291#Asking for review of the above.
Of course, I hope they will indeed contribute usefully, but I have concerns because their 'demonstration' of an edit had BLP concerns and referencing issues - so, please, could you monitor their work. Many thanks, Chzz ► 13:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I missed the added source. I'm still not too sure about some of it though - see the talk page. Cheers, Chzz ► 01:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I tried to get J Milburn to do this, but he's probably not going to be able to for a couple of days: Could you please delete File:Palm Springs through mountains.JPG. I uploaded it to Wikipedia but then I moved it to Commons. Can you delete the Wikipedia version? Thanks, Jsayre64 (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
{{db-f8|optional alternate file name here}}
and it should be gone within 24 hours. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:175.144.248.22&oldid=387111997 --175.144.248.22 (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Your warning didn't have any effect. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I see you blocked 217.157.202.160 with a hard block, meaning that registered users from that IP can't edit. Is there any reason for that? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have reason to believe this blocked user is operating a second account (Alrightwithme (talk · contribs)), just wanted to let you know. Nowyouseemetalk2me 06:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you kind sir! Nowyouseemetalk2me 06:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Why did you remove my vandalism warning? This editor has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images, and when his particular image wasn't allowed at Harold Gould, he removed the one that was already there. That sounds like vandalism, to me. In addition, it would certainly have been collegial of you to discuss it with me, first. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Magog. When unblocking a user, please verify that you've removed autoblocks as well. This block had a related autoblock that needed to be removed. If you don't remove them, unblocking the user really won't get them any further. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding what you said: "I will delete the information from history if requested where the socks have been valid." Could you? I feel dumbstruck that I've been hit with such accusations from an editor I've never met before; I didn't make any malicious edits, and the whole mess seems to have started from having a tenuously similar name to another user. Thanks in advance.--Theliberalhumanist (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated.--Theliberalhumanist (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Magog, This file has two images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dejan_Stojanovic_21.jpg Would it be possible for you to delete the one of them -- a mother with a child, because it was not used and it needs to be cropped anyway? Best regards and thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. User:Hemant.india just posted on his talk page that he wants to be unblocked. Now, he clearly still doesn't understand the reason for the block (either the socking or the OR issue), but I figured he should have a chance to make a formal unblock request. I'm not sure which account you would like him to do that from, and there's no info about how to add an unblock request on his page. Since I was one of the people watching and reverting the original problem, I figure I at least owed him the courtesy of pointing him in the right direction if he actually wants to make such a request. While I don't see how it could be successful, hope doth spring eternal, I guess. Could you leave a note on his talk page telling him how to request an unblock (and which account to do it from)? Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I was reviewing the "contributions" of the user "GarnetAndBlack." Seems that for the past year, he hasn't contributed much to this site except tear down other people's content and abuse, bully, & vandalize other people's edits, then try to blame shift the other parties into the rule's violations he has actually broken. He has also been using multiple, anonymous IP addresses to continue posting, re-editing, & vandalizing content after the supposed 3 edit rule. It's obvious that objectivity is not his goal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=GarnetAndBlack
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1975 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
If you go back and look at the edit histories it's clear that the user has been doing all of the things I mentioned, for almost a year. And I never really accused anyone of anything until now. I did some research this morning. Seems that this user has been using and re-using an IP that has been flagged for "sockpuppetry" in the past. If you go a view content edited and re-edited (so called "edit-warring") on corresponding dates (July or September, for example), it's clear that this is the same person or persons:
Thanks for your time. I only came to you for help.Apollo1975 (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have to disagree with your close of the PUF for File:Babe Dye.JPG. {{PD-Canada}} is clear that it is the creation date, and not the publication date, that determines the copyright status of a photograph. All we need to know is that the image must have been created prior to 1949 for it to be free in Canada, and that it is free in the USA at the URAA extension date if created prior to (1996 - 60 == 1936). This is also true. No source is needed to determine these things, so no source is needed, period. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
And can you have a look at File:ColEvansFreakeLYStandS.jpg? I have added the information I got from the uploader and my conclusions as to the copyright situation of this image. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Re (2) thanks. Re (1), I can't see that we *need* to know the source. It would of course be far better to know it, but it does not impact the copyright status that we do not. I can't see that this is remotely as bad as not knowing the source of a non-free image. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
You recently block Nyisnotbad for his edit warring on Armenian language He is using IP 67.49.14.143 to evade the block. I have filed a report on the edit warring user board. Please let me know if I need to file a report somewhere else in this case. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Gohere and see if that's enough for you to update your File:TDBank footprint.png.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You're the artist here. I don't even have dealings with this bank. I just look at that paper online.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't tell any difference between them, and my Internet is so slow it took a long time to see each one, so I really can't say. It probably doesn't matter at this point because we probably need to wait until they rename the branches. But I didn't know what stage was the best one for the change.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The branches won't change names right away. See this article.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You're wholly mistaken. Moreover, you should have asked me about this first. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
A red-linked user repeatedly blanking sourced content, with only that same blanking in their contrib history, is vandalism. I see you've only been an admin for three weeks. You have been heedless. You should have asked me about the warning I gave the user and you should have asked me about the background of the other editor who made the 3rr report. Hopefully, you'll learn. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You're missing a lot here. As I said, hopefully, you'll learn. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
As I later told an uninvolved admin who had emailed me (hours before any of this happened) over worries about that editor (and no, it wasn't that admin), I shan't do anything that might allow anyone to be further dragged into the mud, which is all that editor ever wanted. This means I'll say nothing further than that which I've already said, which was enough. As anyone can see at User_talk:RollerBooger, there is no risk of an edit war. The protection will lift on its own tomorrow. In the meantime, please do as you see fit (unprotection will be welcome anytime, so that I can make the edits the new and inexperienced user wanted all along) and thank you. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Magog. Was I warring? If so, how so, looking at WP:WAR, first paragraph? If not, why must I wait 14 days on Padillah's (cough) disruption, if GG, who was warring, waits only 19 hours (or, who do I ask about it)? Thank you! JJB 19:14, 03 Oct 2010 (UTC)
Why was this article deleted, What was wrong with the reference , how was it a copyright infringement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskoekemoer (talk • contribs) 03:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok my question here is this... the Blurb at the back of the book, have you deleted the article because using it in this forum would constitute a copyright infringement? or Do you believe that some other part of the article is a copyright infringement? As the blurb is a description of what the book is about and is used as a marketing tool. I am under the impression that it would not be copyrighted. am I wrong? If so please keep the article deleted until i can complete the permission procedure Chriskoekemoer (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the lesson :) i will follow the copyright permission procedure. should i then contact you regarding un-deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskoekemoer (talk • contribs) 03:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm closing this discussion as it's already occurring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Winstonlighter reported by User:John_Smith's (Warned) and User talk:Winstonlighter#Vandalism_ on Senkaku islands. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
If you decide to moderate this article, please get familiar with the recent changes there. In the past whole month, the article has experienced futitle efforts on changing the contentious name ordering in the article, which have been regarded as vandalism and led into a lengthy discussion on the talk page.
John Smith's is one of the very active member to make this unconsensus move [8] , and all those efforts were regarded as vandalism and reverted by a lot of editors including adminstrators[9], [10].
WP:EW states clearly that 3-Reverts rule doesn't apply to vandalism and in fact, I've never made 3 reverts for within 24 hours. There's a lengthy discussion on every move. John Smith's removal of the fact that Japanese lost the second world war [11] has been disputed by other editors and discussed for 10 days. [12] when I rephrased and put it back, it has been reverted again without any explanations. See also the discussion about name ordering throughout the whole talk page.
This article also recently attracts handfuls of new users who seldom edits other articles but actively involved in only this article. If you're interested at moderating this article, please run a checkuser on them too. The English style (and one of their names) of DXDanl and ScorchingPheonix are similar to Phoenix7777 and John Smith's .
I'm not that interested at playing politics in Wikipedia and toying with the wikipedia guidelines but it doesn't mean I agree anyone trying to trap an uninvolved adminstrators who are not famiilar with the style of vandalism in this article. For a user who is so good at reading every favourable sentence in the Wikpedia guidelines, please stick to wp:name which stately clearly that a name is used when it is common and it never endorses any national claims by compromising its neutral position. --Winstonlighter (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, your warning is disputed because it contradicts with other editors (including adminstrators) efforts on removing vandalism in the recent months. Please check it here- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring --Winstonlighter (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, you said to me:
"Thanks for uploading File:EarlyMindenHarpsichordImage.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license."
This is just not right! I went to great lengths to contact the owner and get him to grant permission using a standard licence. Please reread the material that accompanies the image and you will see this. Sincerely, 15:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opus33 (talk • contribs)
Why was Arzel blocked for edit warring at Fox News controversies while PrBeacon who also participated in the edit war, reverting Arzel twice in the last 24 hours, left alone and granted his wish to block his edit warring partner? Surely Arzel wasn't blocked because he had 3 reverts in a 24-hour period instead of the 2 reverts of PrBeacon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and for reconsidering your decision. Drrll (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
As usual, Drrll conveniently ignores facts which do not support his opinion. Arzel has been edit warring with at least 2 other editors on those 2 articles in the past week-plus, or more. He does not engage in collaborative discussion on the talkpages, if he participates at all, and often seems to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with him. Of course, Drrll and Jake agree with him so they overlook each others' transgressions. They continue to protect the articles from our attempts at balance. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Magog, although your recent advice on the article Senkaku Islands has been disputed, there is no way to stop further exploitation on it. As a responsible admin, you surely need to explain this.
A few days ago I added this dashed sentence to the article but now it looks totally redundant as it mentions the same thing, the same idea, same fact in the same paragraphy. Today when I removed my addition, I was told by John Smith's that I wasn't allowed to do it because of you.
There is a disagreement between the Japanese, PRC and ROC (Taiwan) governments as to whether the Senkaku Islands are implied to be part of the "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa".[8] The Japanese government argues that the disputed islands were not implied to be part of the "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa" in the Treaty of Shimonoseki.
As you're the first and only admin to decide to intervene this recent controversy, you're expected to do the follow-up on it. It seems that any removal of a sentence with a word "Japan" and addition of any sentence with a word "China" is touchy and relentlessly regarded as WP:EW.
In response to this, a few new discussions have been started regarding John Smith's reverts of recent edits. Welcome to join rather than making uninformed warning and leave the mess. --Winstonlighter (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Magog. I'm sorry to trouble you, but Winston keeps refusing to act in good faith. He is now telling people uninvolved with the Senkaku Islands page that I'm a sockpuppeter. He has also raised the allegation on the article talk page. This is a very heavy allegation to make, and I have a good reputation on the project in as far as I don't do that. I would appreciate it if you could have a word with him, as he is just ignoring me. John Smith's (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I give up - I have no idea what copyright tag this is supposed to have - it's an obvious copyright violation from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11493287 , alternative images exist, and the image itself is garbled. It should be deleted fairly rapidly.
Can you help me ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
ok thanks, I was beginning to suspect a hole too. It was really getting on my nerves - I'll go to sleep now for a bit. Thanks again.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Magog, just alerting you of these images, uploaded by User:D400j2000, all of which are tagged for deletion. Personally, I just can't stand seeing all these obviously not-allowed-for-Wikipedia files! Too bad I'm not a sysop yet. :-) Anyway, can you delete them? Thanks, Jsayre64 (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Magog,
Where did you find the branch location data for the "Wells Fargo Footprint" and "PNC footprint" maps?
Thanks in advance!
Chrisbrunner.com (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Hi Magog. This is a duplicate of what I just wrote regarding the Al Lohman image:
What else do you need? It's pretty cut and dried that this was not a "publication". I have the backing of two admin on this, and wold appreciate some help on getting the license right. But I change the license and one of the "image patrollers" changes it back. They do not understand the real story behind this. Thanks for any help you can give. Regards, --Manway (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
can you please explain why you did this revert?. I had clearly explained in my edit summary why i was undoing the previous edits. They ahve been discussed atleast twice in the article's talk page and consensus was against adding the wording. This particular user has been told many times to read talk page archives or discuss things first before he makes changes of this kind. --Sodabottle (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I have sent an email to Wikipedia with a copy of the original permission email for File:EarlyMindenHarpsichordImage.jpg. If there is still something wrong with the bureaucratic support for this image, please refrain from deleting the image without consulting me first. The original correspondence concerning the image is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Opus33#File_permission_problem_with_File:EarlyMindenHarpsichordImage.jpg. Opus33 (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Magog, can you suggest how I might resolve an issue here? The problem is that on the James O'Keefe page, it needs to be pointed out that O'Keefe did not "plea bargain" as the article claims (given that it is a BLP, that would even seem to be slander). Here is what I had posted before and what I think is very fair to post:
That comes directly from a court document: http://patterico.com/files/2010/05/OKeefe-Factual-Basis-Final-Signed-Version.pdf
But apparently I can't use this as evidence of anything because it is a primary source, and WP:BLP says:
It seems to me that this regulation is mainly intended to protect the LP being biographied. Given that the information provided here is exculpatory and corrects a false slander about him existing in the current BLP page, I would think the LP would want that published. The document contains no personal details that I can see. There has to be some sort of exception regarding primary sources here, right? I mean this requires almost no interpretation - it says right there that the government's evidence supported O'Keefe's explanation.
Moreover, the document also points out that the video evidence obtained proved O'Keefe's investigation was successful:
Can you suggest what I need to do to put these in the record? Thanks. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, also, I just noticed that someone else on the page used a few government documents and primary sources as references. http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1888& and http://neworleans.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/no012610.htm and http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf, for example. Is there a difference between those and the document I produced? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Magog. I noticed your request for ideas at WP:AN to deal with what you described as an ugly mess. While I don't want to quibble with the notion of discretionary sanctions, I think that the FNC controversies article might be kept from running off the rails through a continuation of the full protection. There seems to be a constant back-and-forth about some sentence on ethical issues being added to the lead. If you simply leave the full protection there indefinitely, you could allow editors who feel strongly about that sentence to open an RfC. The last RfC, while vast, was probably not as painful an outcome as some others could have been. A full article probation like the one used for Obama articles would use up a lot of admin time and surely would produce many aggrieved editors, somewhat like the Climate Change situation. DGG's closure of the last RfC shows how these things should probably be handled. Meatpuppets in AfDs are often dealt with in the same way. Another idea might be to impose long-term semiprotection, which would reduce the flow of edits that are not fully discussed before being made. Semiprotection is often used in meatpuppet situations, but it would not hurt to get it reviewed at a noticeboard to be sure it would enjoy general support. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
[13] —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
I was told by another Wikipedian to do exactly what I had just done. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 23:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The rationale has nothing about why the appearance of these two men is of significance, and it certainly isn't clear. Just because the people are of importance to the article, doesn't mean we need to illustrate them. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)As I was posting below I saw this and had a look. I concur with J Milburn. Aside from that the image needs to meet *all 10* of the criteria found in the policy - stating the image is used "for informational purposes" and it has been seen on/in "numerous news reports" is not enough. And it really does not add "significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion." Show where this image is the object of discussion anywhere in the article...it isn't. And how this, in your words, "adds to the reader's comprehension" to any of the article. It does nothing to aid in understanding commentray such as:
I do not see this image being acceptable fair use at all. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you rethink your "keep" on this deletion discussion? Your reason for a "keep" and suggestion to send it to a deletion discussion if I felt the file was not useful *and* that there was no explanation provided why it is possibly unfree makes no sense. I stated in the nom it is an "Unused personal photo" - that alone should indicate the the file is not useful. That was followed with saying the uploader is one of the *subjects* of the image. In other words the claim of "self" in a license is not accurate as the subject did not take their own photo, thusly it was sent to PuI. There is no need to send this to another deletion discussion where the exact same nom would be made, and files of this type are sent to PuI, not IfD. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Work for hire is highly unlikely here. Do you have signed contracts for every snapshot someone has taken of you to establish they were a "work for hire"? I have gone ahead and re-submitted. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Too late, already done, and you stated "If you think the file isn't useful, suggest WP:FFD". And in reply to your thought that images uploaded when someone "verbally authorizes" the uploader to do so contain a "valid license", that is not true, nor is it accepted. Wikipedia does not accept "with permission" (or like worded - "used by permission of...", "They said it was ok", "they are sitting next to me", "my neighbor", "work for hire", etc) files (Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted) and are regularly deleted by various means unless a permission OTRS has been sent and verified. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
No - images that are claimed to be used "with permission" are deleted and/or questioned quite often. This is going "off topic" a bit as this image does not explicitly state it was "used with permission" or was a "work for hire", but any file that *does* explicitly state something along the lines of "Permission given by the author" and it is *not* the author who uploaded it and there is *not* any OTRS associate with it will be questioned, not only be me, but by most all editors/admin who deal with images all the time. I use {{di-no permission}} a lot because of this, others may send such files directly to PuI or if the source is blatant (i.e - a myspace page, AP, Getty, another website) be tagged a a copyvio. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
It is not *my* logic at all - it is Wikipedia policy, and has been policy since before you or I started editing here. For example see the Wikipedia Image use policy. It is fairly well laid out - when uploading a "free" image make sure You own the rights to the image, prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under an acceptable free license and/or prove that the image is in the public domain. Also there is some good advice at Wikipedia:Uploading images, part of which suggests that you must gain permission to use the image from the copyright holder and that if successful, tag the image with {{OTRS pending}} when the upload procedure is completed. Lack of verifiable permission can result in a {{di-no permission}} tag being used, which in turn becomes an I11/F11 after 7 days. I used my own words above, which you feel is only my "completely warped" view/logic but in the words of Wikipedia policy: Acceptable evidence of licensing normally consists of either a link to the source website where the license is stated, or a statement by the copyright holder e-mailed or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Such a confirmation is also required if the source is an organization that the uploader claims to represent, or a web publication that the uploader claims to be their own. In the real world, one that I live in and deal with this sort of thing a lot, this is called obtaining a release, or in the case of distribution, obtaining a signed contract or agreement with the copyright holder which would also lay out the terms of use. A distributor of any product would not (ok - "should not", although some do and they usually end up in courts) simply obtain that product because somebody walked in and said "Here, it's ok to distribute this/use this/do whatever you want with this because the person who created it said it was ok." This is why all major studios and distributors have full time legal departments that make sure all the "i"'s are dotted and the "t"'s crossed. Not doing that results in lawsuits, and in the computer age finding an image on the internet that one presumes to be "free" without dotting the "i"'s and crossing the "t"'s can lead to lawsuits such as this one (An interesting piece on it from a Harvard Law school student is a fun read) and the Daniel Morel suit. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)