Casacarby

April 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently made a new article or made changes to one, for example "CASA CARBY MIAMI‎", by adding things copied from a book, magazine, newspaper or another website without the permission of the copyright holder. Many sources, including websites found on the Internet, are copyrighted. I'm afraid Wikipedia cannot accept any things copied from these sources as it can get Wikipedia into serious legal trouble. The article or changes have been or will soon be deleted. Next time, look up sources to find out information for articles and explain it in your own words, and don't copy sentences or images from them. Thank you. Osiris (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I am afraid my Wikipedia page was removed. You posted that it violated Copyright. But where? I attributed all content to authors? You were not specific what violated? I have rights to all photos, I took most of those photos. The others I received from the Museum of History Miami. What can I do to get this page back up? I thought I followed everything perfectly! Please do let me know so I will not be in violation of your laws... thank you!

Nathalie Casacarby (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Nathalie. I'm sorry that I had to delete your article, but it was indeed in violation of our licensing policies and terms of use. Anything you submit here should be your own work. I realise that some of it was probably yours, but a lot of it was taken from non-free sources. Attribution is a requirement of content that is free to use—the content on your page, however, appeared to be copyrighted. That means it cannot be reproduced unless the authors re-publish the content under a freer license.
• If you want to recreat the page, anything you took from a website or other publication, should be put in your own words. One source you might be able to reuse (though I wouldn't advise it) is that document by the City of Miami. I'm not sure what license works published by municipal governments of Florida fall under, but that's something you need to figure out beforehand. If it is free to use, you need to clearly state somewhere on the page where the content was taken from, who the author is, and what license it was published under (see here).
• As for the images, any photos you took yourself are fine. These are, indeed, your "own work". However, the historical ones are not, and you need to provide sources and permissions for them or they, too, will be deleted (many of them have been tagged awaiting this information). The historical photos may be in the public domain depending on how old they are, you'll have to check. If I'm correct in presuming that the billboard and the spoonbill are not your own work, then you need to provide proof that they are free to use. Whichever images that are not your own work, remove the {{self}} tag from them (since you are not the copyright holder) and replace it with the name of the copyright holder and the license they published it under. If the images aren't available under a free-to-use license, then they will need to be deleted. If you don't know the license, assume it's copyrighted. Note also that the copyright holder of this photo is the author of the map, not the person who took the photo of the map.
• Finally, I have a feeling that this is all likely to be a waste of your time. You're going to need to show that the subject of this article is notable and relevant to an encyclopaedia. This is an educational website. It's not a travel guide or a hosting service for advertising. Phrases like "From the moment you step inside Casa Carby you are transported into a serene state of mind," and "Exhale your stress and worries and unwind in modern comfort," are likely to get the page deleted as an advertisement. Are you are the owner or manager of this hotel? If this is the case, I would strongly suggest you follow our guidelines Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If the hotel has no academic value, it will probably be removed.
• If you have any further questions, you know where to message me. Sorry again. Osiris (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the photos

That's a tough one. Normally, the rights to an image remains with the author (the person who took the photo). Since your uploads are on Commons, this is something the community on that project will have to look into. For legal reasons, they need proof of permission from the copyright holder. Whether that's now the museum, I don't know... I suggest asking at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, they might be able to give you the answer. If they say that the museum does indeed own the rights to the images, have a look at Commons:OTRS and ask the museum to send permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Were any of the photos taken before 1923? If so, they're in the public domain and you can do whatever you want with them. Regards, Osiris (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. When sending permission, get Ms Hughes to use the standard template shown here and make sure she is aware of all the disclaimers. Particularly that she will be granting anyone—not just you—the right to use the images, even commercially. There are many types of licenses she can choose, but permission for anyone to use is the main intention they all share. How people can use it depends on the license the museum chooses. There's a list of licenses and what they mean at Commons:Copyright tags: those under GNU Licenses and Free Creative Commons licenses allow the museum to retain some rights. Osiris (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that the spoonbill is by Audubon (you might've already known that). Any works created by him are now in the public domain, so I've tagged the file page appropriately. You'll notice that it's already been uploaded under a different name, so yours might get deleted as a duplicate, but that's probably okay since you can just use the other one. Osiris (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Sounds good, I look forward to reading the finished product. If you have any problems on Commons, just let me know and I'll have a look into it for you. Osiris (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Re-uploading

Hi Nathalie! I'm doing fine, hopefully I can help get this settled for you. Can you tell me where you've uploaded the new article to? Let's see where we're at with the images... It looks like your original uploads were deleted because permission wasn't given in time. That's okay, you can just upload them again. Looking at the information and the link to the steps that I gave you above:

1. What license did the museum choose? Did they use one of the standard templates I linked to above? Have a look here and make sure they include all the required information for each image.
2. Get them to send the permission(s) to your email address.
3. Re-upload the files. Use the upload wizard. When you get to the Release rights step, click "This file is not my own work". For "Source", type the museum's name. If you know the author, add that too. Then click on "Another reason not mentioned above", make sure it's selected, and type {{subst:OP}} into the box. Next to it, you'll also need to type the right tag (see here) depending on the license the museum chose. If you tell me what that was, I can tell you which tag you'll need to use.
4. After that, forward the email the museum sent you to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and include the URL's of the images.
5. Whoever receives your email will deal with the rest.

I know it's a bit tedious and annoying, but with some patience, it should work out okay. Just try and stick to what's outlined at Commons:OTRS. I'm not sure what you mean about duplicates.. Those images are probably still available for use (see your old sandbox).

Will wait for your reply. Anubis ^[Osiris] 04:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Casa Carby Miami

Hello,

Thank you again SO much for being helpful. I've contacted both my programmer (the person who is actually uploading my content) and Mrs. Hugh from HistoryMiami. The only information the museum gave me is the license number for the photos, more of a reference number, not a general license number, that is all they had. Since this is their first Wikipedia request perhaps they did not provide me all the information. I forwarded your last email to Mrs. Hugh so she can get a better understanding as well. I know you provided me a link (sent her as well) but they are confusing. This is what we know. HistoryMiami OWNS the photos. They have ALL rights to do whatever they want with the photos, they have the photographers permission. I purchased the rights to use photos and have a contract with HistoryMiami to use photos for my Wikipedia article. So which license would that fall under, one of the following based on what I just wrote (OR IS IT UNDER A GNU LICENSE): United States

{{PD-US}} – published in the US before 1923 and public domain in the US.
{{PD-1923}} – published before 1923 and public domain in the US.
{{PD-1996}} – public domain in a source country on January 1, 1996 and in the US.
{{PD-US-not renewed}} – published in the United States between 1923 and 1963, with its copyright not renewed.
{{PD-US-no notice}} – any work first published without copyright notice prior to 1978.
{{PD-US-1978-89}} – published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 with neither copyright notice nor registration within 5 years.
{{PD-US-unpublished}} – never published prior to 2003.
{{PD-US-record}} – for sound recordings in the public domain in the US (i.e. fixed before February 15, 1972 and not based on copyrighted material; does not apply in New York).
{{PD-Edison Records}} – for public domain sound recordings from Edison Records.
{{PD-EdictGov}} – edicts of government put into public domain in US.

HELPPPPPPPP.... thank you :)

NathalieCasacarbymiami (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It sounds as though this is a kind of copyright transfer contract, in which the museum has given you permission to use the images, but only you. These kind of agreements can't work here, we can only accept public licenses. The whole idea behind Wikimedia Commons is that it's a free media repository, and anyone anywhere is able to use the material, even commercially. I would imagine that if the museum is leasing the permission to use these images to paying customers, they would want to retain those rights. Publishing them on Commons effectively voids this control, since they must choose a public license that allows people to freely distribute the images.

If the museum is aware of this, and are okay with it, then get them to choose either a GNU license or Creative Commons license for maximum retention of rights. But they (the museum) must choose the license and name it in the permission disclaimer, along with an acknowledgement of all the consequences of publishing the material under that particular license — particularly that anyone (not just you) will subsequently be able to use the images anywhere for anything.

If they don't agree with that, then we cannot accept the images here. Osiris (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Casa Carby Miami

Hello O,

I sent your email forward to Mrs. Hugh so she can read your message and grant me the permission I requested. The museum WAS aware that I was writing an article for Wikipedia so it's just a matter of getting their written permission sent to you that they understand this. I really thank you for your patience.

Now, I also uploaded photos that predates 1923. Why were those pulled off? They are ok to use as no copyright has been extended on those.

Have a lovely Wednesday!

Nathalie Casacarby (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, they sure are. Probably were deleted because they weren't tagged as being taken before 1923. Re-upload them and tag them like you did with this one. So when uploading them you check "This file is not my own work", click on "The copyright has definitely expired in the USA", and select "First published in the United States before 1923".

In reply to your other question - are these the same files as you listed here? If so, they are all still available - see your upload log here. Or are you referring to the museum's photos? If so, it might be best to wait for a reply from the museum and then re-upload them under a different file name... Osiris (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)