Datei Diskussion:Summe von Quadraten und die Anzahl ihrer Darstellungen.pdf

This is not a reuse of anything, but a first and direct use of the picture. The picture was made by the author and this is mentioned, no further source information would make sense. It is inside the tex-file, from which the pdf-file is generated.--Bocardodarapti 20:02, 19. Nov. 2009 (CET)

Die Datei sollte auch nicht nach Commons verschoben werden.

{{BLU}}

The file use an image under an CC-by-sa licence. This file is re-using this image, but do not respect the licence.Crochet.david 21:25, 19. Nov. 2009 (CET)

Dear CrochetDavid,

This file is not reusing anything. The author has created a picture, which was also (!!!) uploaded on Commons under Creative Commons by the author. This does not (!!!) destroy the original rights at the picture. The file says that it contains a picture created by the author, which was put under the Creative Commons licence. The author does not have to say whenever he or she uses it, that the source is Commons, because this is just not true, the source is the mathematica code on the authors computer. Please stop to put in {{BLU}} again, unless you can provide clear arguments. I do not see what is missing, best wishes,--Bocardodarapti 22:15, 19. Nov. 2009 (CET)

1. "The author has created a picture, which was also (!!!) uploaded on Commons under Creative Commons by the author" : You speak about this file ? Ok, now look the history : This file was upload at this time (2009-11-15 00:13:42), so the image was created before the PDF file .

The upload history is irrelevant. Both things exist for two months.

Yes, of course. It is known throughout the world that a server does not know the hour and the time of uploading a file, and this indicated the site may not be true.

There exist thing in the world independent of being uploaded. Uploading is not creating.

1. "This file is not reusing anything". So you say that this file haven't an image in it ? so what do you see page 9/75 of the PDF file ?

Silly question, it uses, but it does not reuse from Commons.

1. "The file says that it contains a picture created by the author". So now, you say that the file use a file ?
2. "The author does not have to say whenever he or she uses it, that the source is Commons, because this is just not true, the source is the mathematica code on the authors computer" :The PDF file use an Wikimedia Commons image. The wikimedia Common desciption page of this image do not say that a software was used to create the image and now you say that the image source is from a software program ?

yes, because I konw the person. The author is allowed to give rights to many different repositories, but she does not mention all of them. Commons does not get the property on the images.

1. So if the PDF file use a wikimedia commons file, the using of this image need to respect its licence, so the CC-by-sa, so Volha Baranouskaya as author and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GaussZ3.PNG as source
2. If this desciption in the PDF file do not respect the 5th indication just before, the PDF file is under Copyright violation.

Crochet.david 19:27, 20. Nov. 2009 (CET)

I repeat: The pdf file uses an image, but not via Commons, and in no relation with Commons. The image on Commons is not (!) the source for the image in the pdf-file.--Bocardodarapti 20:26, 20. Nov. 2009 (CET)

So File:GaussZ3.PNG is not the image use in the PDF file ? As you want, but it's amazing that the TEX source of the PDF file contain this file. So as you are exactly sure about what you say, I can only bow to these conclusions.Crochet.david 21:15, 20. Nov. 2009 (CET)

The image is identical, but the use in the tex file is prior and independent to the upload to Commons. The image on Commons is a copy of what is used in the pdf-file. Is this really difficult to understqand?

Conclusion: this discussion is getting ridiculuous and is now finished.--Bocardodarapti 23:22, 20. Nov. 2009 (CET)