User talk:Yann

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

---

/archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 6364

• User:Yann/Valued images, 2009-2014, 2015-2016, 2017-2019
• User:Yann/Quality images, 2005-2014, 2015-2016, 2017-2023
• User:Yann/Featured images, 2009-2018, 2019-2023
• User:Yann/Featured media

God is busy, may I help you? / Dieu est occupé, puis-je vous aider?

You can leave me a message in English or French, at the bottom. Click here. Yann 22:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

File:Oscar Burritt (ca. 1940).png

Hi Yann: Thank you for your message about this image. As I indicated, this picture of Oscar is a digital frame grab from the experimental film "and-" And (film). The film was made in 1940-41 by Dorothy Burritt [nee Fowler] (d. 1963) and Margaret Roberts (presumably deceased). The original of the film is held by Library and Archives Canada; it was donated to the archives by Burritt executor Douglas S. Wilson, who is (surprise!) also deceased. In 1989, Mr. Wilson gave me written permission to obtain a copy of "and-" and use it in my research and proposed documentary about Dorothy and Oscar Burritt. I'm wondering if Wilson's permission letter could be construed as a license to use this image. The Burritts had no children, so trying to trace a current copyright holder would be a dead end. Is my due diligence enough? Any thoughts? Filmhunter (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Filmhunter: Hi, Where was this film first published? I am not sure that {{PD-Canada}} applies. So this is probably an orphan work. Yann (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi again. The film was first "published" through public screening(s) in Vancouver in 1941-42. I agree, this could be considered an orphan work. If so, what license would apply? I appreciate your help, Yann! Filmhunter (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Filmhunter: If it is in the public domain in Canada, then I would support keeping it, although some people would say it is not in the public domain in USA. Could you please find out when Margaret Roberts died? What copyright status does the Library and Archives Canada give? Yann (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Library and Archives Canada says that "Copyright owner is probably Dorothy Fowler Burritt." I can't find Margaret Roberts' death date; I searched, but it's way too common a name. Does Wikimedia have the option of an "orphan work" license? I suppose I could attempt to get Copyright Canada to recognize it as an orphan work, but that's a LOT of work--and I suspect it wouldn't solve the problem. Filmhunter (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Filmhunter: I created {{Orphan work}}, but it doesn't replace the license. You could try arguing for PD-Canada. Yann (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

PS: Here's a thought. Dorothy Burritt died in 1963, so her Canadian copyright would have expired at the end 2013, after 50 years. (The copyright protection was later changed to maker's death year + 70 years, but that change explicitly DIDN'T re-instate any already expired copyrights on works that had already moved into the public domain.) As an archivist and authority on the Burritt films, I think it's entirely reasonable to say that Dorothy Fowler was the principal creator of "and-". If so, maybe only Dorothy's death date matters?

I realize that the above may only resolve the copyright problem from the Canadian perspective. Filmhunter (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Filmhunter: Yes. Do you know if the film was screened in USA? That could also solve the US copyright. Yann (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

A US screening seems unlikely. Any screening would have required the film, two phorograph records, a dual turntable, and an operator who knew the film.! I'll do a newspaper search, but it's pretty unlikely.

I think I've made a good argument above for a PD-Canada license. How can I add that info to the uploaded file? The note could state: "Based on the 1963 death date of principal creator Dorothy (Fowler) Burrit, the film "and--" is now in the Public Domain under Canadian copyright law." Filmhunter (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Filmhunter: Yes, please add the license in the file. You can add other information either in the description or in the Permission field. Yann (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I've just added the PD-Canada license, .my permissions statement, and a "fair use rationale" to the detail space for this image. Will that resolve the issue? Filmhunter (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Filmhunter: Fair use is not accepted on Commons, so I removed it. Yann (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

sure, why not...

My only question is: why have you done this?

What proof do you have that I didn't shoot those pictures? Show me actual evidence that these files are not my own work.

You literally nominated for deletion a thumbnail created on my personal computer, which includes my own face.

Did you even bother to do any kind of research before flagging all my uploads?

This is not about copyright anymore - this is abuse of service and power. You didn’t verify anything. You just blindly deleted everything, without checking the source or author. That is unacceptable. MSVED (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@MSVED: Hi, Since you have a large amount of copyright violations, it is difficult to trust you, and in the absence of evidence everything you have uploaded is doubtful. I suggest that you always upload the original images with EXIF data. Or if not possible, please confirm the license by email via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Пантелија

User has opened multiple topics on my talk page regarding an incident related to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Пантелија. I saw the messages you left on this user's talk page, so I was wondering you could please take a look.

Thanks! Sev6nWiki (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, I blocked this account and deleted all files. Yann (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Order for editing a personal page.png

Hi Yann. Could you take a look at this? It's pretty much the same logo as File:Wise Owl Barnstar Ribbon.png, which you tagged with {{npd}} a few days ago. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Tagged, and user blocked. At least partially a derivative work, uploader complete disregard for copyright. Yann (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Scrim photo - Ticket#: 2025071610048744

Hi Yann.

I replied to your message on my user page page regarding the photo of Scrim (and several others) yesterday. I think my problem might be that in uploading a photo from someone else, the requirement states that the photo will be deleted if the release is not received within 30 days, whereas the notice on the photo file states it must be sent when the photo is uploaded. Could that be the reason why the photos I upload are deleted? As I wrote in my message yesterday, I never upload photos without permission from the copyright holder, but I tend to upload them right away (before the permission has been sent).

I just forwarded the license for the photo of Scrim (dog). The ticket number is above. The photo is located at File:Scrim_by_Micelle_Cheramie.jpg.

Thanks for your help. JSFarman (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@JSFarman: Hi, You didn't provide a license. If you don't do it within a week, the file will be deleted. You have quite a lot of warnings about copyright issues on your talk page, so please be more careful about that. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I just sent the release for the Scrim photo. The ticket number is above. I will leave a note at the Village Pump about the inaccurate information on the upload form. Thank you again! JSFarman (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Just FYI. The upload wizard includes: "The creator of this work or their representative must send a written consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to release this work under a free license within 30 days of your upload." (It also requires that a box stating "I understand that if the email is not sent in the 30 days of upload (sic) the file will be deleted" be ticked.) JSFarman (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@JSFarman: Yes, you have 30 days to provide a permission if there is a license. When uploading documents from a third party, you are supposed to ask on what license the party wants to release the document. There was a an issue with the Upload Wizard (I don't know if it has been fixed) about failure to provide a license. This should not happen. Yann (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The Creative Commons license is what the copyright holders I contact send. Although once someone sent me a screenshot of a photographer's affirmative response to a request to use her work. A screenshot. Of an email. Lol. Moving forward I will not upload photos until the license has been sent and I have a ticket number to include with the license. JSFarman (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@JSFarman: Please note that there are several versions of Creative Commons licenses. The latest (4.0) is the best. And that there are non-commercial and non-derivative Creative Commons licenses which are not allowed on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I use Creative Commons 4.0 sharealike. But I just realized that the subject line on the emails I (or the copyright holders) send says "Permission to use XXXX" in the subject line rather than "License to use XXXXX". Fingers crossed! You have given me more information than I've been able to gather in years. Thank you! JSFarman (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Yan! I can confirm that we received the ticket (ticket:2025071610048744). I think it's sufficient to restore under 4.0. FYI to Krd. I would myself, but not an admin on this project. TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, TheSandDoctor. I am very disappointed that the photo was deleted. JSFarman (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

It was restored!!! I'm ecstatic. Thank you! JSFarman (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Results of Wiki Loves Folklore 2025 are out!

Hi, Greetings
The winners for Wiki Loves Folklore 2025 are announced! We are happy to share with you winning images for this year's edition.
This year saw over 85715 images from 1912 uploaders represented on Commons in over 142 countries.

Kindly see the winning media here.

Thank you to all photographers, jurors, and cultural documentarians who helped make #WikiLovesFolklore 2025 a global success!

We hope you will consider contributing to the campaign next year.

Thank you,
Wiki Loves Folklore International Team

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Bandera de La Habana.png

Hello, thanks for undeleting this file (again), I'm messaging you to ask if I can get permission to overwrite the file with a better version (includes text and CoA is less messy), having the background and text from File:Official flag of Havana, Cuba.svg, and the CoA from [1] recolored (I'll upload file from EcuRed later also). Thanks! CubanoBoi (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@CubanoBoi: OK, done. Yann (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Maps by scale

Hi, is there a reason why you chose to deviate from the established nomenclature when creating the category Category:Survey of India map sheets 253,440 and similar? The "1:<scale-number> is very important to indicate that the big number is a fractional scale, and not some other random number (library IDs, sheet count, edition size, coordinates...). Please also consider to move those categories into Category:Maps by scale, like the examples under Category:Maps with a scale of 1:25,000. In my opinion, we shouldn't need a parent category for the highly irregular scale (Category:Maps with a scale of 1:253,440), you could instead just sort it as [[:Category:Maps by scale|#::::253,440]]. My best regards, --Enyavar (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Enyavar: Hi, I just wanted to avoid having a : in the category. Yann (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Media_without_a_license

Hey, please see the files directly in Category:Media_without_a_license. Why are they undeleted and still tagged? --Krd 06:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Krd: Hi, These files have a free license at the source. They were undeleted after this request. The missing license is due to a bug in the UW. I have requested User:6D to fix that. Probably they didn't see my ping. Yann (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Usage of templates on Category:License tags of Cuba

Hello, I'm messaging you today to ask if theres a way for me to use templates Template:PD-Cuba-Other and Template:PD-Cuba-photo. I believe using purely Template:PD-Cuba could and has caused confusion for having all of these different types of materials listed, and it would be better to specify them. The templates I've mentioned above both state "NOTE: Don't use this template yet. It hasn't been checked if it is correct or needs more editing. Use {{PD-Cuba}} instead.", is there a way to "check" them, since they both appear to be correct based on Commons:Cuba and Law 14 of Copyright in Cuba.

Also, if these pages can become "checked" and usable, if there can also be a Anonymous works template, which is one of the types materials used on Template:PD-Cuba.

Thanks!

CubanoBoi (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@CubanoBoi: Hi, PD-Cuba-Other and PD-Cuba-photo says the same thing, so I don't see the need for both templates. And PD-Cuba says something different for photos. In PD-Cuba, I think the word "Used" is not clear enough. It should be either "created" or "published". Yann (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

PD-Cuba-Other and PD-Cuba-photo don’t say the same thing. Other is referencing the fact that the author died 50 years ago and that’s public domain in Cuba. Photo is saying all photos taken 25 years ago or more are public domain in Cuba. Other copyright if author died 1942 or before in the US and photo is if the photo was taken 1972 or before. And also as you said, PD-Cuba isn’t specific enough like the templates I’ve mentioned are, so it’ll be better for the other templates to be used in my opinion. Thanks ! CubanoBoi (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@CubanoBoi: OK then. But like I said, "used" is not clear enough. It should be either "created" or "published". Yann (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

On Article 47 of the 1977 law states that photographs "se extiende a veinticinco años a partir de la utilización de la obra." or in english "extends to twenty-five years from the date of use of the work.", so as that's what it saids in the law, it should be what is used in the copyright tag in my opinion (I could be wrong tho).

For the anonymous section of PD-Cuba it should use published, as seen from "expire el plazo de cincuenta años a partir de la primera publicación de la obra." Article 45 of the same law, meaning "expiration of fifty years from the first publication of the work."

Also how can I remove the Note seen on the pages I've mentioned? Can I remove it myself and start using it or does it have to be an admin or like go through a discussion?

Thanks! CubanoBoi (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@CubanoBoi: I don't speak Spanish, but copyright terms start either after creation, or after publication, which has a precise meaning. "Used" is unprecise. Used by whom? Where? This probably needs review by someone who speaks Spanish and understands copyright laws. Yann (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure we can assume it meant "published", due to both the fact anonymous works use "published" and that if it was when it was "created", it would likely rather use "hecho" or "made" instead of "utilización" or "utilization". CubanoBoi (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Publication would be what would make the most sense in context (and obviously they'd need to be first published in Cuba for the license to apply). Abzeronow (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow agreed, Template:PD-Cuba should use “Published more than 25 years ago” for photographs and “Published more than 50 years ago” for anonymous works.

But that still doesn’t answer if Template:PD-Cuba-photo and Template:PD-Cuba-Other should be used or if it should all go to just Template:PD-Cuba? Thanks ! CubanoBoi (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Question about your FP nominated image of Buzz Aldrin

Question: (Decided not to clutter the FP nomination page with this) Do you know what the source/purpose of the + marks spread across the File:Astronaut Edwin Aldrin descends the Lunar Module ladder, AS11-40-5868 (21037483754).jpg photo? — ERcheck (talk). 00:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@ERcheck: Hi, I have read that somewhere, but I don't remember. These appear on all pictures of Apollo on the moon. First hit on Google Search. ;o) Yann (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Yann - That is awesome and makes great sense. I'm amazed at how they nicely disappear into the image. — ERcheck (talk). 12:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Sérieux doute sur l'origine réelle de cette photo

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lafor%C3%AAt2.jpg

Bonjour Yann,

J'espère que tout roule et que tu restes bien au frais... ;)

En examinant les données de ce fichier et en l'inspectant attentivement, je note plusieurs incohérences de date, depuis la prise de vue présumée en 1985, la résolution numérique (même à partir d'une diapositive ou d'un négatif couleur scanné à haute résolution) et le fait que ce même auteur a déjà vu plusieurs de ses photos supprimées pour les mêmes motifs d'absence de preuve ou de ticket[2]. De même, il aurait pu préciser le lieu (Hôtel Excelsior) et surtout la date précise.

Toutefois, je souhaite prendre avis auprès de toi et savoir si tu connais ce contributeur (ancien) et surtout s'il a réellement été photographe professionnel comme il le déclare ici, sans en fournir de preuve [3]. Je suis prudent avant de soulever cette question mais je me demande pourquoi il n'a pas authentifié son compte Commons depuis tant d'années (et les tickets), ce qui lui éviterait beaucoup de suppressions ou contestations. Je viens de trouver une source démontrant que lors de la même séance cette photographie pourrait être toujours protégée par les droits d'auteur [4], [5] (mêmme tissus roses en arrière plan et surtout même coussin ![6]). Merci de tes conseils. Bonne après-midi. Tisourcier (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Tisourcier: Bonjour, Ceci est en effet suspicieux, et suffisant pour une nouvelle demande de suppresion. Yann (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Bonjour et merci pour l'analyse.

En explorant d'autres photos de ce contributeur dont l'identité précise n'est pas révélée en fait, j'ai découvert qu'un certain Francesco Gorup de Besanez est cofondateur d'une agence photo italienne créée il y a 31 ans en 1994, avec l'ancien paparazzi Marcello Mencarini [7] et intitulée "Rosebud" (dont l'article sur Mencarini Wikipedia exploite des sources pas très fiables). De plus, la concordance avec les dates (dont les plus anciennent sont de 1980) ne coïncide pas vraiment avec "le vrai" Francesco Gorup de Besanez dont on ne trouve aucune trace directe dans Google, ce qui est assez suspect.

Mon hypothèse est que quelqu'un qui n'est pas l'auteur des photos a (eu) accès à la base de données de cette ancienne agence photo et qu'il se permet de les publier dans Commons mais il n'y a pas de certitude. On note aussi que les photos de l'autre photographe fondateur de Rosebud sont toujours sous droits d'auteur [8].

Pour lever totalement le doute (cela concerne beaucoup de fichiers au total), il faudrait que ce contributeur procède à son identification officielle et qu'il produise des ticket VRT. Quand on lit ses arguments ou réponse, cela n'apparaît pas très pro. À qui pourrions-nous faire appel à ton avis pour éviter toute erreur, avant de déclencher des débats sur le Bistro ou ailleurs ?

• Bingo ! Je viens de trouver le site des archives de l'agence Rosebud avec les fameuses séries de photos de Marie Laforêt, carrément créditées avec copyright par Marcello Mencarini / Agence Rosebud et non ce fameux Gorup de Besanez" [9], idem pour Claudia Cardinale voir ici photo signée Graziano Arici [10] par rapport à celle-ci [11]. Je pense que rien qu'avec ces éléments de preuve de copyvio manifestes, tu vas pouvoir lancer l'opération pour tous les fichier de cet "usurpateur"...

Belle fin d'après-midi. ;) Tisourcier (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Merci pour cette recherche. J'ai ajouté ces infos dans la demande de suppression. Yann (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Bonjour Tisourcier et Yann,

Bien qu'il soit tout-à-fait pertinent de se poser ces questions et de chercher à clarifier l'affaire, je suggérerais quand même une certaine prudence avant de qualifier le contributeur d'usurpateur ou de conclure que le tout devrait aller à la poubelle. C'est dommage que personne ne semble avoir demandé à l'utilisateur une confirmation d'identité durant les années où il était actif sur les sites Wikimedia. L'initiative de Tisourcier de demander à ce moment-ci est bonne, mais on risque de ne pas avoir de réponse étant donné que l'utilisateur est maintenant inactif sur Wikimedia depuis quelques années.

Francesco Gorup de Besanez semble beaucoup moins connu que Graziano Arici et Marcello Mencarini. Il ne semble pas mentionné sur le site officiel de Graziano Arici, mais il est mentionné sur le site officiel de Marcello Mencarini : [12]. Sur la photo de l'équipe de Rosebud, selon la légende, c'est apparemment le type au fond à gauche.

En ce qui concerne les photos de Marie Laforêt, on voit sur la page des archives de Rosebud2, liée ci-dessus par Tisourcier, que les photos au haut de la page sont attribuées à Marcello Mencarini et sont datées de 1985 et que les photos au bas de la page sont attribuées à Graziano Arici et sont datées de 1993 et de 1994, alors que ces groupes de photos sont évidemment de la même journée. On note aussi qu'aucune de ces photos ne sont les mêmes que les deux photos de la même journée versées sur Commons par l'utilisateur Gorupdebesanez. (Selon l'angle de prise de vue, le photographe de ces deux photos pouvait apparemment se trouver un peu à gauche de Marcello Mencarini.) Si ces trois photographes couvraient régulièrement le Festival de Venise sur plusieurs années et qu'en plus ils se connaissaient ou travaillaient ensemble, il est normal qu'ils aient pu se trouver ensemble à prendre des photos lors des mêmes séances de photos. Si les photos sont de 1985 qu'elles ont été versées sur Commons en 2014, presque trente ans plus tard, par un photographe qui a couvert le Festival, et les mêmes acteurs, pendant de nombreuses années, je ne le condamnerais pas nécessairement pour l'unique raison de s'être trompé d'année sur quelques fichiers, surtout si les photos de Graziano Arici sont aussi datées de 1993 et de 1994 dans les archives de Rosebud2. La photo de Claudia Cardinale versée par Gorupdebesanez et datée de 1984 n'est pas non plus la même que celle de Graziano Arici datée de 1987 liée ci-dessus sur le site des archives de Rosebud2. Bien que les deux photos soient probablement proches dans le temps, elles ne semblent pas de la même séance puisque les cheveux semblent coiffés différemment. On trouve un phénomène semblable d'une photo de John Malkovich versée par l'utilisateur et trois photos par Graziano Arici prises apparemment lors de la même séance de photos et différentes. Ça peut montrer simplement que trois photographes de la même région qui se connaissaient et qui couvraient les mêmes événements prenaient des photos des mêmes personnes et parfois lors des mêmes séances, ce qui ne semble pas nécessairement étonnant.

Presque toutes les demandes de suppression sur la page de discussion de l'utilisateur ne concernent pas du tout des doutes sur sa paternité des photos. Ce sont plutôt des cas où les photos incluaient des oeuvres d'art en l'absence de liberté de panorama. À part les deux photos de Glenn Close, par rapport auxquelles le proposant de la suppression n'a fourni qu'un commentaire vague et très faible qui n'aurait peut-être pas vraiment justifié la suppression. Autrement dit, ces demandes de suppression ne peuvent pas servir de pièces à charge contre l'utilisateur. En autant que je puisse constater, il semble qu'il n'existe aucun cas de preuve que l'utilisateur aurait versé des copyvios (à part les cas relatifs à la liberté de panorama), des cas où exactement les mêmes photos auraient été préalablement publiées et attribuées de façon certaine à quelqu'un d'autre. Je n'exclus pas que quelqu'un pourrait en trouver en examinant les contributions de l'utilisateur, mais jusqu'à maintenant ça ne semble pas avoir été le cas. Je dirais qu'on pourrait supposer la bonne foi à moins de preuve du contraire. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Bonjour @Asclepias et @Yann,

Effectivement, la bonne foi est un bon principe mais dans ce cas précis (j'ai choisi les guillemets au terme "usurpateur" et cela concerne les quelques photos d'agence dont nous avons trouvé des sources authentifiées), ce qui gène vraiment est que personne ne peut affirmer qu'il s'agit bien du véritable Francesco Gorup de Besanez et non pas d'une autre personne ayant accès à la base de données de son agence photo Rosebud. La supposition selon laquelle plusieurs membres de la même agence se soient retrouvés sur les mêmes lieux et pour les mêmes événement est possible mais on peut constater qu'en examinant les fichiers, les appareils photo ont les mêmes paramètres d'exposition, d'optique et de prise de vue, ce qui est quand même curieux.

Je suis d'accord pour ne pas généraliser pour la totalité des photos (notamment les plus récentes, par exemple) mais rien ne prouve qu'il en soit réellement l'auteur aussi. Si ces photos dataient d'avant 1976, cela serait beaucoup plus simple (PD-Italy) mais hélas ce n'est pas le cas.

Pour lever toute ambiguité, il faut que le contributeur démontre son identité et valide des tickets VRT. Dans le cas contraire, le doute doit protéger avant tout les vrais détenteurs des droits d'auteur et la suppression est recommandée. Enfin, quelqu'un pourrait solliciter le fondateur de l'agence Rosebud, Marcello Mencarini, sur son site officiel pour vérifier [13].

Bon week-end. ;) Tisourcier (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias: Bonjour, Je trouve l'argument "plusieurs photographes à la même session photo" difficile à accepter. Cette session est évidemment planifiée. Il n'y a pas de raisons que plusieurs photographes de la même organisation soient présents. A ma connaissance, les photographes ne travaillent pas de cette façon. Les informations disponibles sur Internet ne plaident pas dans ce sens. Yann (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Bonjour Yann, Selon le comte-rendu de Marcello Mencarini [14], la première agence Rosebud a été fondée en 1996 par Marcello Mencarini, Graziano Arici et Francesco Gorup de Besanez. Les photos des archives personnelles de Francesco Gorup de Besanez versées sur Commons de personnalités sont environ du mileu des années 1980 au milieu des années 1990. Donc, elles sont d'avant la fondation de l'agence Rosebud. Mais évidemment ils se côtoyaient nécessairement dans les mêmes événements dans la décennie précédente. Dans cette même décennie précédant Rosebud, Marcello Mencarini collaborait comme photographe à divers magazines et organisations. Je ne vois pas ce qu'il y a d'étrange à ce que plusieurs photographes se trouvent à la même séance lorsqu'ils en ont l'occasion, peu importe d'ailleurs qu'ils collaborent à la même agence. Pourquoi laisser passer de bonnes occasions de faire de bonnes photos de célébrités qui vont enrichir leurs portfolios respectifs pour la suite de leurs carrières? On sait déjà par les photos de leurs archives que Marcello Mencarini et Graziano Arici étaient aux mêmes séances. Que Francesco Gorup de Besanez y ait été aussi n'a rien d'étonnant. Que les trois photographes se trouvaient aux mêmes séances pour diverses publications et/ou comme pigistes est dans l'ordre des choses. Quant à l'agence «Rosebud2», elle a été fondée en 2012 par Marcello Mencarini, Graziano Arici et Vanna Daccò. On note l'absence de mention de Francesco Gorup de Besanez en rapport avec Rosebud2. Ce qui explique d'ailleurs parfaitement bien que le site de l'agence Rosebud2 puisse présenter notamment d'anciennes photos provenant des archives respectives de Marcello Mencarini et de Graziano Arici, mais pas de celles de Francesco Gorup de Besanez. Les photos de Francesco Gorup de Besanez sur Commons ne sont pas sur Rosebud2 ni offertes sur le site des archives personnelles de Marcello Mencarini [15]. Autant que je puisse constater, personne n'a jamais démontré que les photos de Francesco Gorup de Besanez ne sont pas légitimes. Ces centaines de bonnes photos sont sur Commons et largement utilisées sur les Wikipédias, notamment la Wikipédia en italien, depuis dix ans. Sur son site, Marcello Mencarini donne un lien vers la Wikipédia en italien. S'il avait trouvé un problème avec les photos de Francesco Gorup de Besanez, il l'aurait dit. De même, si l'utilisateur Gorupdebesanez n'était pas Francesco Gorup de Besanez, on peut penser que, depuis le temps, Francesco Gorup de Besanez se serait manifesté. Les questions soulevées dans la présente discussion étaient pertinentes et ont permis d'en apprendre davantage. Plus on fouille le sujet, plus il me semble que les photos sont légitimes. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Question about a deleted file

Hello, Yann. I have a question regarding the deletion of File:Egor Burkin.jpg. The reason given was "per COM:SPEEDY," but as far as I know, the license and provided information were correct (unless they were changed prior to the speedy deletion). Additionally, the file is under discussion in a deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Egor Burkin.jpg. Franco Brignone • Talkpage 19:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Franco Brignone: Hi, The file was tagged with "the file has been uploaded with the intent to be used solely for purposes of vandalism, personal attacks, etc." Do you agree with that? Yann (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Yann. No, I don't agree with that reasoning. I would have preferred the deletion request to be evaluated based on the arguments presented, but it was closed simply because the file was deleted. The discussion was focused on whether the file fell within scope. Claiming that its sole purpose is vandalism is inaccurate, as it disregards its potential educational use. Also, labeling it as a personal attack makes little sense, given that it depicts a publicly known felon. Franco Brignone • Talkpage 18:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Franco Brignone: Could you please ask for undeletion on COM:UDR. I won't oppose undeletion, but I would like to know what others think. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Done — I've submitted the undeletion request here. Thank you for your help and consideration. Franco Brignone • Talkpage 19:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Astronaut Edwin Aldrin descends the Lunar Module ladder, AS11-40-5868 (21037483754).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Astronaut Edwin Aldrin descends the Lunar Module ladder, AS11-40-5868 (21037483754).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:1936 Survey of India map of Highlands of Tibet and Surrounding Regions.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:1936 Survey of India map of Highlands of Tibet and Surrounding Regions.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)