User talk:Racconish

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I have signed the confidentiality agreeement on Meta.
You can email me if need be, but I prefer to discuss here.
Should you be interested, older discussions are archived.
☙❧ ❧☙

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Waltercolor[edit]

This seems like an early close to me, as several of these images are still in the limbo of awaiting a response from photographers as to whether they mind Waltercolor making sketches of their work without credit.

I can renominate the seven cases where Waltercolor doesn't mention having asked permission, if that seems the most useful way to proceed, but what do you suggest I do with the six images which are currently awaiting a response from the photographer? {{No permission since}} seems harsh for imposing a seven-day deadline that wasn't there before, and when some users are disagreeing that this permission is even needed. Belbury (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would suggest renominating such a narrower group and more coherent group, yes, and explaining clearly to the uploader on their talk page how to proceed with permeission. — Racconish 💬 18:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So one group nomination for "seven images based on photos where photographer permission is pending", and one group nomination for "six images based on photos where Waltercolor hasn't yet stated that they are seeking photographer permission"?
The French Wikiproject already seem a little insulted (understandably if no such copyright exists in France) that the first deletion request was raised at all. It would concern me that restarting both discussions on clean slates could be read as an attempt to ignore their previous input and get a different outcome, but I'll try to summarise their points if you feel this is the best next step.
The uploader seems to be doing fine with obtaining adequate permission, one of the photos had already passed VRT. Belbury (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be useful to look at the related notion of oeuvre composite in French copyright law [1]. — Racconish 💬 20:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't doubt the existence of such a French law. Perhaps I'm mistaken in believing that files hosted on Commons have to respect US copyright law?
Should Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Drawings_based_on_photographs just have an additional clause saying that if an artist based in France makes a drawing closely based on a single copyrighted photograph, that's fine and they can release it as public domain and Commons can host it for free international reuse? This suggestion wasn't raised by anyone in the discussion. Belbury (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might also be interested to give a look to the case law related to Jeff Koons' works, e.g. here. — Racconish 💬 09:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the links, but as the admin who closed the discussion, I'd appreciate your specific instruction on what you think I should do next. Is that:
  1. To reopen two separate discussions (which will both be created at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Waltercolor since they are two discussions of files uploaded by that user?) and allow the previous discussion to continue
  2. To forget it because there is no legal issue in French artists uploading drawings based on photographs to Commons
  3. To take the discussion somewhere else
Belbury (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should you renominate some of these files, please try to narrow down the nomination to homogeneous situations, particularly in terms of copyright applicable to the original artwork and with respect to the heterogeneity issues raised in the previous discussion. — Racconish 💬 10:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would renominate the 13 files which Commons has not yet received permission for, and not the 1 which has. The situation for all of them is that they look like a drawing of one specific photo. There's some heterogeneity in Waltercolor's responses (in some cases they concede it was based on a single image and they would seek permission; in others they say it was based on two and haven't mentioned permission), but my nomination would be the same.
Given that this renomination would be made at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Waltercolor in a new section below the first, and refer to 13 of the same 14 files, this really doesn't seem any different to reopening the closed discussion and letting it continue. Belbury (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, I suggest you to narrow down an eventual renomination. — Racconish 💬 10:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My nomination would be that we have 13 files that may currently fall foul of Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Drawings_based_on_photographs for appearing to be largely based on a single photograph, and asking for community input on this. I would be able to summarise that five have had a copyright request made to the photographer (which may or may not be granted), two have been claimed by the artist to be based on two photographs (which may or may not be enough to pass COM:CSM), and that seven have not been neither. I would not include File:Claude Grison.jpg which we now have permission for.
But this is the same summary you can currently see at the top of the closed discussion.
The concern for all the files is the same: they are sketches based on photographs, the community needs to make a call on whether they cross COM:CSM, and the uploader is free to show evidence of the photographer giving permission to bypass this question.
I don't see a benefit in starting a single, new nomination at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Waltercolor, summarising the previous one. I think the previous discussion was progressing usefully, with Waltercolor adding notes and updates to the list at the top as permissions were resolved. Belbury (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure if I'm required to notify you (it's certainly not intended as a complaint!), but I've requested wider input on what to do next at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unclear_how_to_proceed_on_a_closed_discussion. Appreciate your time so far, I'm just a bit lost on how to proceed, and am concerned that Waltercolor no longer has a clear place to announce whether or not the photographers have granted permission for derivative sketches. Belbury (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks anyway for the notification. — Racconish 💬 11:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help[edit]

Dear Racconish, Hi. My first experiment in uploading videos looks good, but with two unknown faults! After I’d converted the file from mp4 to webm, then I’ve uploaded it. It’s only two minutes, but the described length is shown as 231 mintues! The file also has no profile image! What’s wrong?! Maher27777 (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done I remuxed it without recoding : ffmpeg -i 'Hotst Totsy, fragment (1925).webm' -map 0 -codec copy -copy_unknown output.webm. Hard to tell you what went wrong. — Racconish 💬 10:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks..All I wanted to save you, and some other users some of the uploading's burden. Maher27777 (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Schatten - Eine nächtliche Halluzination (1923).webm[edit]

File:Schatten - Eine nächtliche Halluzination (1923).webm has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Prosfilaes (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources Studio Harcourt (et autres) d'avant 1954[edit]

Bonjour Racconish, Je vous (te ?) croise parfois sur fr.wikipedia.org, avec plaisir. Je me demande si, sur le principe du versement de certaines photos du fonds https://www.photo.rmn.fr datant d'avant 1954 (70 ans), il est admissible d'en ajouter sur Commons, conformément aux mêmes règles de droits “semi-libérés" déjà publiées.

Ainsi, par exemple, si ce n'est pas déjà fait : De Funès, 1952 https://www.photo.rmn.fr/archive/08-500597-2C6NU0JD96GB.html Michel Serrault 1953 https://www.photo.rmn.fr/archive/07-519657-2C6NU0CMVTCA.html Paul Meurisse 1953 https://www.photo.rmn.fr/archive/07-535643-2C6NU0JB60RO.html Robert Dalban 1948 https://www.photo.rmn.fr/archive/08-537883-2C6NU0TT4H7E.html etc...

Bonne fin de dimanche et à bientôt ici ou là. ;) Tisourcier (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tisourcier, les photos du Studio Harcourt s'analysant comme des oeuvres collectives, elles tombent dans le domaine public 70 ans après l'année civile de publication. Ainsi, au 1er janvier 2023 sont tombées dans le domaine public celles publiées avant le 31 décembre 1952. Cordialement, — Racconish 💬 16:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CQFD. Un grand merci ! Tisourcier (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Demande d'aide pour validation question de droits PD-France (Studio Harcourt)[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tisourcier#c-Snowmanonahoe-20230327203700-File%3ANoiret-1951-Harcourt.jpg

Bonjour Racconish, Malheureusement, mes derniers imports sont sous le feu de certains ici. Pourrais-tu aider à confirmer le statut valable de ces droits ? Un grand merci ! Tisourcier (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tisourcier, j'ai vu cette demande de suppression après son retrait. N'hésite pas à me faire signe en cas de difficultés persistantes. Cordialement, — Racconish 💬 09:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Encore merci. Comme pour PD-Italy, cela bloque certains parfois. Bonne journée ! Tisourcier (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Night of the Ghouls (1959).webm[edit]

File:Night of the Ghouls (1959).webm has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charleroi Habitation du Dr Mattot 02.jpg[edit]

Bonsoir,

L'utilisateur qui a téléversé l'image était débutant. Et donc le choix de licence est probablement incorrecte.

Mais j'ai fais toutes les recherches nécessaires, y compris auprès du Musée de la photographie à Charleroi et des archives de la ville de Charleroi. L'auteur de la photo "disparait" après 1939. Aucune trace. Aucune publication après. Rien.

Mais pas non plus un acte de décès. Enfin rien.

Qua fait-on dans ce cas ?

Cordialement. H2O(talk) 21:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmh2o: Commons n'accepte pas les œuvres orphelines mais applique {{FoP-Belgium}} et {{De minimis}}. Cordialement, — Racconish 💬 05:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quelle solution y a-t-il pour cette photo là ? --H2O(talk) 06:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Selon moi aucune, un recadrage sur des éléments strictement architecturaux ayant peu d'intérêt, d'où ma proposition de suppression. Cordialement, — Racconish 💬 06:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tant pis. --H2O(talk) 06:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Olivier Véran en campagne (27 mai 2022).jpg[edit]

Bonjour, Je suis d'accord pour faire retirer cette photo (pour des raisons d'utilisation sur un site politique) même si le principe me semble bien tiré par les cheveux puisqu'il s'agit d'une image publique qui n'est pas le thème central de la photo. Jean-Paul Corlin (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jean-Paul Corlin: le problème que j'ai signalé est que cette image en reproduit une autre, l'affiche, qui n'est pas libre de droit. Cordialement, — Racconish 💬 08:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Photographer's Barnstar
For all your work finding public domain film transfers Victorgrigas (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Victorgrigas, it is very appreciated. — Racconish 💬 06:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Encore des interventions pour suppressions non fondées (PD Italy)[edit]

Depuis quelques minutes, je fais l'objet d'interventions plus ou moins inopinées de la part de l'IP 81.41.175.237. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.41.175.237

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DeFunes-Dynam-1965-Italie.jpg

Cela porte tout particulièrement sur des fichiers sous PD-Italy. Il semble que l'intéressé ne soit pas vraiment au courant de ce statut très particulier. Si tu veux bien intervenir comme tu me l'avais proposé ? Bien cordialement. ;) Tisourcier (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello ! Merci pour l'intervention. ;) Ca se passe au bistro maintenant. On pourrait penser que cette IP a un comportement assez contreproductif pour l'encyclopédie.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bistro#Abus_de_speed_deleting Tisourcier (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bonjour Racconish,
J'espère que tout roule pour toi. ;)
Une nouvelle fois, certains ici me demandent des comptes sur mes imports et désormais, sur les outils Photoshop que j'utilise, pour coloriser ou corriger les images.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tisourcier
Je suis perplexe : est-il formellement interdit d'utiliser tout ou partie des outils de retouche numérique (y compris certains exploitant l'A.I.) de Photoshop dès lors que des mentions sont clairement spécifiées ? Ou bien quelles sont les "limites" à ne pas dépasser en la matière ?
C'est important car bientôt, il est certain que l'A.I. va débouler en avalanche et je ne suis pas certain qu'il sera facile de le détecter si ceux qui les emploient ne déclarent par comme moi en toute transparence, les outils qu'ils ont utilisés.
Après, la question éthique de la retouche peut se poser : doit-on coloriser, doit-on nettoyer ou restaurer numériquement une photo ou un film, doit-on utiliser l'A.I., etc...
Dans l'idéal, il faudrait avoir une codification claire et précise de ce que Commons admet ou pas, ce qui permettrait de s'en référer (comme c'est le cas avec PD-Italy pour les droits).
Encore merci pour ton conseil et ton (gros) travail ici. ;)
Bonne après-midi. Tisourcier (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bonjour Racconish et Tisourcier,
Je pense également que Commons devrait avoir une page similaire à w:fr:Wikipédia:Traitement des illustrations#La restauration d'images par une intelligence artificielle.
D'après les archives de discussions sur Commons : [2][3][4][5], le consensus actuel est que les retouches avec l'IA doivent être clairement indiqués, mentionner quel outil a été utilisé et si possible importer la retouche dans un nouveau fichier.
Je suis en train de réfléchir à la création d'un modèle. Thibaut (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Thibaut. Merci. Je suis d'accord pour une codification (j'en ai relayé le principe sur les Bistros). ;) Tisourcier (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tisourcier: , le principe général de Commons est d'une part d'avoir la meilleure version possible d'un fichier sans modification, ce qui signifie généralement dans la plus grande résolution possible, et de télécharger séparément les retouches ou corrections. Le modèle approprié est {{Retouched image}} (voir par ailleurs les autres modèles indiqués sur cette dernière page). Cordialement, — Racconish 💬 15:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merci Racconish. Si j'ai bien compris, il est indispensable que le fichier d'origine avant correction soit versé dans Commons. Si la photo d'orgine est abîmée, mal développée, mal reproduite ou mal scannée, chacun se fera son opinion sur la version retouchée. C'est très rationnel. Bon courage pour tout le travail effectué ici et ailleurs... ;) Tisourcier (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oui, c'est ça. Si tu veux dorer les pâquerettes, tu peux lier les fichiers et mettre dans le domaine public tes retouches sur la version corrigée. Cordialement, — Racconish 💬 15:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bonjour Racconish,
Ca recommence. Suite à une discussion ici : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/7_juillet_2023#Qui_retouche_cette_image_?
Yann a supprimé sans aucune discussion ni recours, ce fichier alors qu'il relève bien du PD-Italy mais qu'il est diffusé sur Getty Images :
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Serraul-Italie-1984.png
C'est pénible de devoir à chaque fois recommencer. Quant à l'aspect esthétique de la retouche (surtout manuelle) que j'ai fait sur ce fichier, je peux comprendre mais pourquoi réintroduire à la place, une mauvraise photo de l'artiste où il apparait à la fin de sa vie pas au mieux de sa forme ?
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Serrault
Si on commence à retirer tous les fichiers PD-Italie sous prétexte qu'ils sont recadrés, retouchés, colorisés, etc... On va affecter considérablement les illustrations sur WP.
Merci de ton aide. ;) Tisourcier (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yann parlant français et étant de contact facile, je te suggère de lui en parler directement. Cordialement, — Racconish 💬 14:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merci, j'ai posé un recours et je l'ai interrogé sur sa pdd.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests Tisourcier (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-Italy[edit]

Ca prend des proportions pénibles sur le Bistro. Si tu veux bien intervenir pour confirmer ? Un grand merci. ;)


https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/7_juillet_2023#Qui_retouche_cette_image_? Tisourcier (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tisourcier, toutes mes excuses, j'ai été assez pris par aileurs. J'espère que la discussion communautaire que tu as suscitée t'a été utile. Cordialement, — Racconish 💬 13:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bonjour cher Racconish,
C'est moi qui m'excuse de t'avoir ennuyé avec mes soucis. Certains (cf ma pdd) continuent d'interpréter les critères PD-Italy et il faut à chaque fois un trésor de diplomatie pour empêcher les interventions plus ou moins musclées. ;)
À l'occasion, il serait bon de publier une recommandation en français pour l'application du PD-Italy avec des exemples précis et rendre bien plus compréhensible, cette règle sur Commons et sur le WP francophone. La pédagogie est nécessaire pour limiter les suppressions inopinées par des contributeurs sincèrement convaincus de leur droit. Bonne fête nationale et surtout passe un bel été (bien au frais, si possible). Tisourcier (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Peut-être pourrais-tu en parler à un spécialiste du sujet comme Ruthven. Cordialement, — Racconish 💬 12:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bonjour,
c'est vrai qu¡en des années de discussions et de lecture de décisions de tribunaux, je me suis fait une assez bonne idée de ce qu'est une "photographie simple". Mais je ne suis pas le seul: un bon nombre de contributeurs, surtout italiens, s'en est fait une idée assez précise. On peut toujours faire une page d'exemples si nécessaire, mais généralement c'est comme pour la loi suisse (qui est semblable): les photos de type "reportage" sont en général des représentations de la société et des événements, mais sans caractère créatif. --Ruthven (msg) 14:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Racconish&oldid=783780375"