User talk:Dcoetzee/Archive 2011-03-09

Flickr upload of Ara militaris

I have explained that the name of your file was a bad name because it should have included "Military Macaw" and not "Military macaw", and this was given as one of the reasons why I uploaded the new photograph again with a better name. The binomial name is better because it is more easily used internationally. I think that your badly named file name could mislead people into using the wrong capitalisation for this species. But that was not the only reason why your image upload seems unsatisfactory to me, because the flickr licensing is ambiguous. May I add that putting an alternative licence in the caption of flickr is confusing, if they are your flick photographs. I think that putting two licences on a flickr image is confusing, and you should know that the wiki automated software can only upload the licence with the flickr licence. Where there are two licences on flickr a think that I have to upload with the more restrictive licence. Yes, is would be quite easy to sort this out - it would be clearer if you said in the caption on flickr that the CC flikr licence is replaced by the licence indicated in the caption, and that flickr did not have you licence you were looking for. It would be even clearer if you provided a link in the caption to a PD licence webpage, with the full legal definition of PD. Even so, I am not sure if this would be appropriate as the two licences are conflicting legal documents. I do not know you you used flickr, which is a photography website that does not provided built-in facilities for tagging your PD images, and then pick a CC licence that is not the one you wanted. If you are going use an alternative licence on commons to the official flickr licence, I think that it should have a OTIS tag. I can not see the reasons why you deleted my image with a correct name, but I wonder if you had a conflict of interest in deleting this file and using your administrator privileges in this way. Obviously, I can not view the deleted file, and so I would be grateful of you would tell me what due process you used to delete my file and your reasons given. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

May I refer you to Commons:Help_desk#Some_confusion_over_an_images_licence_and_name where any discussion on this file can be continued. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken regarding the licensing here - where an image is licensed under both a CC-BY license and under a release-all-rights license, the effective result is the same as though all rights were released (this is how multilicensing works in this case). I could have made this clearer, but updating the license statement in all my thousands of Flickr images would be an enormously taxing task of no clear benefit. I hope that Flickr will implement a CC0 option - in the meantime, I think my intention was clear enough, but just to be sure I will update the Flickr descriptions to match and eliminate confusion. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

For good reasons there is a proposal for the binomial names to be used; see Commons:Language policy. The binomial name is more easily understandable in many different languages. I have not had an explanation what due process you used to delete the image with a file name that included the binomial name rather than the duplicate file with a name featuring the common name that you uploaded. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

About Bulk Downloading

Hi ! Just to let you know my e-mail: it is mail at eduardovalle dot com. Thank you for all the information ! EduardoValle (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A note of support

Just a brief note in support of the problems with the NPG. I have read a lot of the material but cannot claim to have read it all. As you know I have done a lot of work researching the 1841 painting of the Anti-Slavery conference. This painting was given to the NPG and I believe is now included in the images in dispute. I suggest that morally this picture was given by the Anti-Slavery Society in order thats its image could be shared with the world. I would like to approach the anti-slavery society (at my expense) to find out what their view is on the moral position on the image that they gave to the NPG. This organisation, I suggest, should historically be concerned with morals and may be willing to give the image more freely than its current legal owners?/guardians?. This may not remove the legal problem, but it might highlight the moral imperative that I suspect many feel aggrieved about

Lastly: Is there a legal aid fund? I realise you may not want to discuss this here, but I would be willing to post my phone or email. Victuallers (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you plan on sticking it out I would like to contribute some money to your legal defense. Please contact me via email. Kaldari (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your support. I will inform everyone if I open a legal aid fund. Regarding the anti-slavery society, that is certainly one of the most valuable images in the collection, but I advise you to tread carefully as they may come down on either side of this. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, you also have my support. You have done a lot of good work around here and I would hate to see you end up on the wrong side of this. Should it be needed, I'd also contribute money to your defense. Dragons flight (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Dragons flight. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A word of support in case it gets lost in the hub bub of the village pump, all that you did was in line with the policies of the WMF and its somewhat combatative attitude to art institutions, as such I would hate to see you suffer for this. You say that so far the Foundation have been supportive, has this merely in the form of words of comfort or have they indicated to you that they will make a firm commitment to you legally and financially. If you think it will help I'm willing to put this petition onto the village pump and forward it to the Foundation, its best for you to know how far the board will go in their support before deciding to reply to the NPG's solicitors.KTo288 (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dcoetzee, I'll contribute to any legal defense fund you set up, or any manumission fund if you're ever enslaved. By the way, good work in liberating those treasures for all mankind (and womankind, and other kinds). -- Noroton (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to both KTo288 and Noroton for your support. :-) I believe WMF is already taking reasonable action in assisting me to the best of their ability - I don't think anyone should expect them to represent me directly. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you think best.KTo288 (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

+1 on support for this. Clearly, you understand copyright law, unlike some people. That Legal Advice on UK Copyright Position bit seems quite helpful. The 'I'm not subject to your jurisdiction' defense would seem to do the trick as well; reminds me of the David Linhardt (aka e360 Insight LLC) v. The Spamhaus Project case because of the (reversed) jurisdiction issues. Glad to hear the EFF is helping you. The NPG should be ashamed for harassing you.--Elvey (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Elvey. :-) I'm not speculating on the legal issues here, but I trust in my attorney to deal capably with any threat. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent happenings

Dcoetzee, it is with great regret that I have requested that your commons adminship be temporarily revoked.

Although commons admins do not have the technically ability to permanently delete images or the authority to make such changes against community consensus I believe that nevertheless the spurious legal attack on you has created a potential for conflict between your own interests and those of the Wikimedia Foundation, the community of contributors on this project, and the general public. While this conflict is more likely to be a perceived conflict than an actual one— the resulting confusion will detrimental to all. This negative situation can most easily be avoided by a temporary reduction in your access.

No one should consider this temporary deadminship as an insult towards the great service you've provided here, or as any indication of wrong-doing on your part. I trust that after this matter is resolved you will be able to resume contributing in the same admirable manner that you have done in the past with the full trust and support of the community. I look forward to this less conflicted future. Cheers. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In accordance with the above request and my own judgment that there is a potential conflict of interest justifying such a move, and acting in my capacity as a steward, I have removed your adminship temporarily pending a resolution to this matter of a conflict of interest. ++Lar: t/c 00:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gmaxwell. No insult is taken and I understand the need for the project to take this action under the circumstances. Thanks for informing me. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

May I say that I disagree with this measure. Either Wikimedia stands behind Dcoetzee by associating itself with his actions, in which case he should remain an administrator, or it should request him to comply with the legal request (were he not to agree, then that would be a reason for removing his adminship). It is the worst of both worlds for Wikimedia to deflect the approaches of the NPG on the one hand—and I believe they have a valid case for doing so—while suspending Dcoetzee as an administrator on the other. This action could weaken both Wikimedia's and his argument that nothing wrong has been done, should that be the stance decided on. There can be no conflict of interest between Dcoetzee and Wikimedia so long as he adheres to policy and follows the advice of Wikimedia's authorities. qp10qp (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I must also STRONGLY disagree with this, it plays into the hands of the NPG, who will undoubtedly throw up 'He's had his admin rights removed by Wikipedia you know?' in their manipulations (typical straw man behaviour). Since Dcoetzee has shown themself to be entirely trustworth and honorable in this regard it would be far better to leave the adminship as-is to demonstrate that the foundation stands behind it's contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.233.2 (talk • contribs) 16. Juli 2009, 12:57 Uhr (UTC)

Lar is not a WMF employee; his action is not an action of the Wikimedia Foundation. Lar is a volunteer on this project like any other user, acting in good faith and doing what he believes is right. With the usual IANAL disclaimer, there is no way that this can be seen to affect the Foundation's position. Happy-melon (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it is Dcoetzee's position that is affected. qp10qp (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add my own strong disagreement with this "deadminship". The lawyers' original letter gave Dcoetzee an option to defuse the situation by deleting the images. Now although it is only in some sense coincidental that the photos had been uploaded by an administrator, the fact is that Dcoetzee was one and was therefore in fact in a position to "delete" the images, at least in the sense of removing them from general public availability. Had he chosen to do so (together with the other measures that the lawyers requested) then there would be some chance that the lawyers would have been satisfied with that. If anyone had then felt strongly that the images should remain, they could then take personal responsibility for them by reuploading or "undeleting" them, almost certainly not a big job with a suitable bot. The deadminship is just a cowardly way to ensure that the images are kept while the finger of blame still points at Dcoetzee as much as possible. Not impressed. Alan012 (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Notify uploaders please

Dear Dcoetzee, if you nominate one or more images for deletion you have to notify the uploader. Please don't forget this. Multichill (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I accidentally nominated one of the uploaders and not all of them. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Alaska-Yukon Pacific

I have been doing the subcategorization. However, I'm not sure if Category:Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition - Seattle, U.S.A. June 1st to October 15th 1909 is right or the files there should be moved to Category:Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition - Seattle, June 1-October 16, 1909.

Given the names, I'd think they're the same but File:Alaska-Yukon-Pacific_Exposition_-_Seattle,_June_1-October_16,_1909_-_Page_6.jpg is quite different than File:Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition - Seattle, U.S.A. June 1st to October 15th 1909 - Page 6.jpg

Could you look at it?

Platonides (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is that these two sets of pages come from two very similarly-titled but otherwise different brochures advertising the exposition. You can see more details regarding this at the source website. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A note from the NPG that may be of interest

I don't know how familiar you are with the situation that happened with the NPG back in 2006, but at the time the situation was settled (according to Gregory Maxwell) by agreeing to link from our images back to the NPG. This may be useful to you in a potential legal case. I have a personal email from Matthew Bailey, the NPG's Assistant Picture Library Manager, from back in 2006 which is related to this. Kaldari (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Kaldari. Of course our image description pages have always linked directly to the corresponding page on the NPG's website, as a matter of courtesy and as an informational resource, and I think this will only be helpful. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting to hear back from Gregory to see if he knows of anything more concrete that transpired in 2006. Obviously, some of the conditions specified in the email I received were not acceptable for Wikipedia, so I don't know if it could be argued that any actual agreement had been reached. Kaldari (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting. In the meantime, you may be interested to know that all the images uploaded from the NPG have hidden digital watermarks. I suppose since their status is not certain at the moment, it wouldn't be worth the effort of marking them all as such, but maybe at some point in the future (assuming this all gets resolved). Kaldari (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

AYP Exposition

I notice that you uploaded File:Argus - A.Y.P. ed. - Page 15.jpg and others. Would you agree with me that this almost certainly derives from an artist's rendering, not from a photograph? - Jmabel ! talk 06:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that it says "Photo by F. H. Nowell" in the corner. It may be an artistic rendering based on a photo, or it may just be a photo taken using a process that gives it an artistic appearance - I'm uncertain. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a photograph that's been painted on to me. Maybe the pool was empty in the actual photo so they painted it in. Kaldari (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize you probably have more urgent things to think about, but you might be interested that I've gone through all the images in Category:General history, Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition, fully illustrated - meet me in Seattle 1909 and added descriptions and further categories. There were quite a few interesting things. I also stitched together a panorama of Lake Union (File:1907 Lake Union pano.jpg) from three photos there. Thanks for uploading these. - Jmabel ! talk 00:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, thinking about the NPG matter is about all I've done and I welcome a distraction. :-) That panorama image is spectacular - for future reference, however, when processing this type of scan I recommend applying a Gaussian blur of appropriate radius to eliminate the half-toning at 100% zoom (I already did for some of the pictures but not all of them). This also acts to dramatically decrease JPEG filesize by eliminating a lot of the spurious high-frequency components. Thanks for your help with these. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been known to used a Gaussian blur for that purpose, didn't think about it this time. I did ratchet down the level of information-preservation in the JPEG. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Another question: I don't want to second-guess you, but is there really any point to putting images like File:Baby eating Heinz apple butter.jpg in Category:Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition? The only connection is that it appeared in the pamphlet (Category:57 Exposition Number) that H. J Heinz Co. printed for the exposition. It would seem to make more sense to put it in Category:57 Exposition Number. - Jmabel ! talk 03:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking of that as an image source category rather than a category for things actually related to the A-Y-P. Maybe we need two different categories for this. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine to use Category:57 Exposition Number as an image source category for these, but adding the supercategory Category:Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition seems useless: the only connection to the Exposition is precisely the image source category.

Separately but related: I'm next working through the images in Category:Argus - A.Y.P. ed.. For an example of what I'm up to, see what I did with File:Argus - A.Y.P. ed. - Page 37.jpg or especially File:Argus - A.Y.P. ed. - Page 1.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, this is great work. :-) I'm surprised you were able to track down so many details regarding the subject of these images. This definitely helps put them in context. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Seattle history has been a major focus of mine the last few years. There are a remarkable number of surviving 100+ year old buildings here (for a place that was pretty much wilderness in 1853). Plus I've now looked at so many photos of downtown Seattle in the first decade of the 20th century that I'm beginning to have a fair chance of identifying a building even if the address is wrong or missing. My best piece of detective work so far was probably File:Seattle - M & K Gottstein Building - 1900.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 00:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Another one where I could add a lot: File:Argus - A.Y.P. ed. - Page 50.jpg. Two of these three buildings are still standing (I'd already photographed both) and I didn't have too much trouble tracking down an image of the third that places it in a clear context next to a building that is still standing. - Jmabel ! talk 19:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

NPG copyfraud

See my comments at Commons:Village_pump#Copyfraud which may be of use to you. Suggest you check out what I have put there as I'm not a lawyer, but I've laid out the situation as I see it under UK law. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal Advice on UK Copyright Position

Hi, here is some legal advice I got here in the UK regarding copyright from a UK Barrister (Senior Lawyer):

"There is no current UK court ruling that says that copyright exists in the photograph of an out of copyright painting.

It all depends on whether the person who took the photograph of the painting made an original contribution, if yes, they may be able to claim a copyright in the photograph. If no original contribution, no copyright. Originality has not been defined in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act and is open for the courts to interpret on a case by case basis.

However, there is UK case law which has established that a mechanical photocopy of an original work is not copyrighted (Reject Shop Vs Manners 1995) and in the case of Interlego A.G. vs Tyco Industries (1989), it was held that that a drawing which was a copy of another drawing did not hold its own copyright. ‘Skill labour or judgement merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality’ said the court in this case."

So it would seem that Farrer are bluffing - there is no precedent that supports their position - but there are precedents in your favour... I very much doubt if they or any other UK gallery would want to take a case to court because the chances are they would lose. The only thing stopping people now from scanning images from books, postcards and posters is either a mistaken belief that it is illegal or fear that it may be judged to be so.. Unsigned edit by Jimbodiddly (talk) at 22:08, 18 July 2009; see this edit.

Your last name

Hi. How do you pronounce your last name? I have doubts about the “Кутзее” in n:ru:Национальная портретная галерея Великобритании угрожает гражданину США судебным иском за изображения Викимедиа. Thanks. --AVRS (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi AVRS. The short answer is, it's pronounced "koot-SEE-uh" where "koot" rhymes with "soot". My last name is Afrikaans, and is quite common in South Africa; perhaps the best-known person carrying it is Nobel Prize in Literature winner J. M. Coetzee. Vowel pairs in the orthography of this language have a pronunciation that English speakers may find unusual. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

“Кутзее” (also used for the Nobel Prize winner) is something like “koot-ZEH-yah” or “koot-ZyEH-yeh”, which is different from “[kutˈseː]” mentioned in en:J. M. Coetzee. Is that "[z]" OK, or would “[s]” fit much better? Thanks again. --AVRS (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's possible it's begun to develop a unique Anglicized pronunciation. I can tell you that my family raised me to pronounce it the native Afrikaans ways, which is as I described with the "s" sound. I think the IPA is correct but I don't remember my IPA too well so I might be wrong. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I’ve replaced “Кутзее” with “Кутсее”. There is no distinction between short and long vowels in Russian, so “[kutˈseː]” could be something like “Кутсе́” (which might lead to an unpalatalized “с” and thus a too open “е”/“э”) or (if it's necessary to show the long vowel, but I doubt people would accept that; it also avoids the semi-vowel placed between the “SEE” and “uh” by the “е”) “Кутсиэ” (which makes me think of French and “Кутсье” — something like coots-YER; it also seems then that whether the stress is on the “е” or on the “э” doesn’t matter, but that might be because I assume that to be a diphtong, which is also not Russian). Thank you. --AVRS (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Your first name

According to the ever reliable BBC, you're called David, not Derrick! Regards, GiantSnowman 20:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I spotted that and mailed them a correction. :-) I think they mixed me up with David Gerard, who they also quoted. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of balance …

In the interests of balance are you going to publish your lawyer's reply to the NPG? 92.233.109.79 07:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not publishing any new information unless my lawyer advises me to do so. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI my attorney's response has been made public. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

NPG

If there are further developments in the story that can be publicly announced, where would we be likely to find future updates? Dragons flight (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll update User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat and drop a note of the Village Pump, but I'm not publically announcing any more info without my lawyer's approval, so things might be quiet for a while. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i wanted to discuss some of the questions raised here tomorrow as part of a presentation of the public domain manifesto that has been released by the communa network and was wondering if there are any updates that i should be aware of in this context. if this conflic still going on or has it been resloved in some way? (Paul Keller) 09:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

((Forestryimages)) tag

Nice idea! If you find any more that have been uploaded with an invalid non-commercial license, drop me a note and I'll speedy delete them. I'll also run through the category to check for any more that need watermarks editing out. - MPF (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay! FYI I'm in touch with one of the people who run Forestryimages, and I'm hoping we can actually get the original images without the watermarks, which would be even better. I'm pretty sure they're the ones adding them. I'm trying to explain how the use of EXIF data and the image description page is better. We'll see how that goes. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Next would be nice if they dusted their slides before scanning them ;-) Just found another non-com one though, File:Quercus_frainetto.jpg it'll be gone in a moment (gotta delete it from its use es:, ru: & cz: wikis first) - MPF (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay - FYI once they're all tagged it would be easy for me to have a bot run through them and verify licensing. I'm also trying to make sure we have the highest resolution version available of every image - many are reduced resolution (mainly because people are too lazy to register). Dcoetzee (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK! The ones I've uploaded (a lot!) are all top res and with watermarks edited or cropped out; for many, I've also edited out scanning errors (dust on slides) so for those, re-uploads may not necessarily be better - MPF (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you've done a good job with yours. :-) And you've also fixed many of the ones uploaded by others. I'll keep an eye out for any edited ones. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the list! All now deleted. Thanks for notifying the uploader of most of them, I was going to do so and saw you'd already done so ;-) Rather more worrying is that one of the pics (the former File:Fraxinus quadrangulata twig.jpg) was one of my uploads; I'm pretty certain that was a legit license when I uploaded it so wonder if it might have been changed subsequently on the FI site. Not completely impossible that it slipped by my pre-upload checking though. - MPF (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

One other thought - if you're in contact with the site owners, I was thinking it would be very nice if this contributor could be persuaded to change his pics from cc-by-nc to cc-by, as he has a lot of pics of species not represented on Commons at all. - MPF (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

AYP Exposition redux

I've more or less finished my pass through the Argus material. I noticed in putting together Argus - A.Y.P. ed. that we are missing a few pages. Some are just text, but others are not, and at least some that are just ads are interesting. I don't know quite how you got these, since I don't see a "download whole page" option on the site linked as a source. Could you possibly snag the missing pages & let me know when they are uploaded (or let me in on the secret of how to do so) so that I can follow through? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 05:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The ones I left out were I think all repeat ads that were already used before... you can double check me on that. And no, the pages had to be extracted. Let me know if you find any pages that are not redundant and I'll grab them for you. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It can be hard to tell redundant to what, since none of these were uploaded with much description. Definitely some of the missing pages are portions of articles, which if someone ever goes to use OCR to get the article content they will want. - Jmabel ! talk 06:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I still have all the pages - I omitted the text only ones because there were so many of them and I didn't think Commons had any interest in those. I'd rather submit those to another project like Distributed Proofreaders. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few entire scanned books on Commons (though most of them are in German). I assume it is being used as a repository to then grab the content of these for other projects. As I understand it, that is one of the acceptable uses of Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 15:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I might upload the full books as DJVU files instead. I'd feel more comfortable with that. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:DcoetzeeBot

Congratulations! It has bot status now. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I haven't been running it a lot lately because my network connection at home has been really unstable which makes it do weird things - but I'll get it back up soon. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Feedback on CC0 Waiver

Hi Dcoetzee, I just wanted to say thanks for your feedback on the CC0 Waiver. We've updated the waiver deed with yours and others suggestions (that attribution is not required and use of CC0 works does not imply endorsement). You can see the new language on the waiver here. Thanks again! Fred (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I like the changes. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio detection

Hi Derrick, I remember your question once at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009May#Designing a bot for copyvio detection. I have another Idea, not so interesting for your from the developing site because it is a merely technical approach to check user uploads. It would be extremly useful to have a tool just like the Gallery that creates a sortable table of all useruploads. I think of:

Filename	Date of upload	Infotemplate	Source	Author	Date	EXIF	Camera	Date of creation	Δ EXIF/Date	Δ EXIF/upload
own.jpg	2009-01-03	Y	Own	User	2009-01-01	Y	Coolpix	2009-01-01	0 days	2 days
flickr.jpg	2009-01-03	Y	Flickr	Flickruser	2007-07-07	Y	Canon EOS 350D	2007-07-07	0 days	2 days
copy.jpg	2009-01-03	Y	Flickr	Flickruser	2008-12-01	Y	Nikon D200	2007-07-07	33 days	546 days
websize.jpg	2009-01-03	Y	Own	User	2009-01-03	N
own2.jpg	2009-01-20	Y	Own	User	2009-01-17	Y	Coolpix	2009-01-17	0 days	3 days

A table like this would help to make it much easier to check uploads by cameras e.g., somthing that is done manually at the moment. Given a larger number of uploads the date differences show how likely something is own work. Somthing that was, according to EXIF, created the day befor upload is most likely correct. Given a short upload time for one camera and a long for others helps to separate the correct tagged images from copyrigth violations. The difference between the EXIF date and the written date gives additional information about the accuracy. I realy missed a table like this in cases of e.g. User:Trowa Barton (w:fr:Le Mans), User:Diego quintana88 (w:es:Mariano Roque Alonso (Ciudad), User:Fernandoespañol (w:es:Palencia), User:Eduardosalles (w:pt:São Miguel do Oeste) and many others. Sometimes I collect the data from EXIF to not delete the wrong files, but doing this by hand takes long and is not fail-safe. --Martin H. (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Query

Dear Dcoetzee,

I am emailing from a documentary company in England called Parthenon Entertainment and we would love to use the following image within our documentary series entitled Mystery Files.

Vesuvius erupting at Night by William Marlow.jpg

We were wondering if you own the copyright to this image as we would like to use it within our documentary for the rights for worlwide, all media and for perpetuity.

If you can email me at: emily.rudge@parthenonentertainment.com or call me on 01923 286 886 that would be great!

Many thanks,

Emily.

Responded by e-mail. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Image question

Do you know how to save high resolution images from amazon.com? They have a zoom feature similar to that thing you got round. example here. Thank you.--Hbridges (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This can be reverse engineered, but most images at Amazon are copyrighted. If you can identify a specific one that's public domain I may be able to help. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Promo images like http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B002ACPIS0/sr=8-9/qid=1258569897/.--Hbridges (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Any recent (1978 or later) photo used for advertising is not public domain, unless explicitly released under a free license, which is very rare. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

They are promotional shots manufacturers have distributed to retailers to use.--Hbridges (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Images uploaded to Commons have to be free for any use, not just for limited retailer use. These images are not licensed for this type of use. See Commons:Licensing. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I was going to put them on my home page.--Hbridges (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you mean your user page, you're still not permitted to do that (at least, English Wikipedia policy forbids non-free content on user pages). If you mean your own website, I'm not going to help you with that. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not?--Hbridges (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm busy and if I don't have time to do personal favours for you. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

cc-zero

Hello, I saw you have changes some of your image license from automatically added cc-by-2.0 to cc-zero. Just wanted to let you know that on Commons there is some other of your images with cc-by-2.0 uploaded by various users [1] and maybe you are willing to change them as well. --Justass (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. :-) I should keep an eye out for those. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Paleo ptg lascaux unicorn.jpg

There was an edit on the image I reverted. However, can a photograph of a cave painting qualify for PD-art? I dont think so, a photograph of a cave painting is always a photograph of a cave and thus demonstrates originality no matter the walls of the cave are unusually planar (correct word?) or the photograph is of low quality. Also File:Lascaux-aurochs.jpg - whats your opinion? --Martin H. (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC) P.s.: I ask you because of the reupload. Feel free to copy the question to COM:L talk. --Martin H. (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I consider it a borderline case - the essential question is whether the photograph constitutes a slavish reproduction of the original artist's work, with no creative contribution from the photographer. The previous discussion, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Paleo ptg lascaux unicorn.jpg, did not discuss these interesting points at any length. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Errors in University of Toronto Wenceslas Hollar Digital Collection

Hello, as I look throw the Collection, I discovered errors at two files File:Wenceslas Hollar - John the Baptist (State 1).jpg and File:Wenceslas Hollar - The French ape and the Spanish fox.jpg and I think that maybe You would be able and so kind to fix it... --marv1N (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out - looks like something went wrong with the acquisition tool, maybe a network error. Luckily it appears no data was lost and they can be fixed with a little editing. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Your opinion on a nomination for deletion would be appreciated here, thanks, DR04 (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Batch uploading

Hi Dcoetzee, could you please update your projects at Commons:Batch uploading? Thank you, Multichill (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Birds

Hi, Re:

• File:Alopochen aegyptiacus -Lake Merritt -California-8.jpg
• File:Larus delawarensis -Oakland -USA-8.jpg. I have uploaded and identified them. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I had a lot of trouble trying to identify these, but those identifications look great. I went ahead and updated them on Flickr too. I hope they'll be helpful. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

They are good pictures and I considered nominating the Egyptian Goose for a Featured Picture, but its blurred foot ruled it out. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! These were more or less random snapshots taken during suboptimal conditions - perhaps I should consider revisiting the Bird Sanctuary another time. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In need of direction

Dear Sir.......I wonder if you would be kind enough to point me in the right direction. First let me say that your work on the National Portrait Gallery was fantastic. The images are nice and clear. You made note that this was done by a special process. I have a similar interest and need to download large and crisp detailed images of oil paintings. Is there a softwear program that will help me do what you did.....or, were they just photographed professionally.

I guess my question is.....is ther a way for me to download marginal art images...and improve them with softwear. Is that what you did?

Thank you for this consideration. Dan at RestorationStyle@MSN.Com

The images were photographed professionally by the National Portrait Gallery, London, who did an excellent job with them. I only transferred the images here, to Wikimedia Commons. There is image editing software to help improve the quality of lower-quality photographs of paintings, but there is no fully automatic software for this purpose. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Sir.........I should probably clarify my previous question. Can you point me in the direction of the softwear program that will allow me to do...as you did in downloading public domain images from the National Portrait Gallery. The zoom tool...as you know, will not allow you to download a high resolution image. Are you using a special softwear that can be bought....I would be thankful if you can help me in this regard.

Many thanks.......Dan RestorationStyle@MSN.Com

No, it is not possible to purchase this software, and I will not make it available because it could be misused. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Watermark removal request

Hi - I've noticed you removed the watermark from File:Virgin Mary of Szczyrzyc 01.JPG. Could you do the same to File:Virgin Mary of Szczyrzyc 02.JPG? I think it is a much better picture. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus - right now I'm prioritizing watermark removal on images that are in use, as it's fairly time-consuming. I'm glad you appreciate the removal though. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: aircraft images

Hey Dcoetzee, I remember uploading those images, and they definitely had a compatible license at the time (because Picasa can be such a pain at times, I remember checking these very carefully). If they must be deleted, so be it, though it would be unfortunate since they relate so well to the history of Civil Air Patrol. If it makes a difference, I am a trusted user now, just wasn't at the time of upload, and there would have been no way to relevantly add that info since only Flickr used the trusted system at the time. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, in that case I'll run this one by Deletion requests and see what they think. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

picasareview

Hi Dcoetzee. Please do not add {{Picasareview}} to any further image in Category:Images by Volker Prasuhn and remove the template where your bot has already added it. --Leyo 10:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, why? Those images are from Picasa. They require review. Unless you are Volker Prasuhn, which you would have to prove. Removing that template compromises the review process and may lead to your images being deleted in the future, so I would strongly suggest you not remove it. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, have a look at one of the images; secondly, I was in personal contact with the uploader; thirdly, I am an admin (the template says admin review is required). Enough reasons? --Leyo 10:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the license of these images, as far as I can tell they're all perfectly valid, but they still need to be reviewed. The point is that if the license is changed on Picasa in the future for any reason, we will have evidence that it was valid in the past. This is just the first pass - another pass will follow up by comparing every image to its source page, verifying the license, and marking it reviewed. This is analogous to the Flickr review process and should not interfere with use of the images in any way.

Although you are an admin, removing the template is not how you "mark it reviewed", see Template:Picasareview for instructions with that (or just wait until the bot does it). Dcoetzee (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The images are not exactly the same as on picasaweb (no watermarks). If you can read German or French you can verify that the licenses are correct. See also this talk section. I spent several hours corresponding with the author and uploading the 663 files. I will not spend more time do any unnecessary work. --Leyo 12:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The source that is provided is picasaweb - is this wrong? Watermarks like those could easily be removed, so I think there is capacity for confusion here and that this could be avoided if the text on the image explained more. Perhaps the permission should say that the author has uploaded a different version to picasaweb to avoid confusion, or there should be a OTIS tag. Left as they are I suspect that these images could be targets for deletion because of poor documentation, and that would be unfortunate after all your work in the uploading. Actually, I do not read German and French. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your frustration - if these images are actually not copied from the Picasa website, then we should update the source field to indicate the actual source, and we should send the permission message through OTRS (since we can't depend on www.news.admin.ch staying up forever). The images can still link Picasa as a secondary source. I can update the images for you with OTRS tags and so on if you just send the permission through OTRS. After this is done, the {{Picasareview}} tags can be converted to {{Picasareviewunnecessary}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Following up on this, I see that the resolution of the images is also different from Picasa. It's important to not list Picasa as the source here, as is currently done. If you have a permission e-mail, please forward it to me at dc@moonflare.com, and I'll arrange to put all of them through OTRS. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The media release will do for ORTS (you can copy the content “since we can't depend on www.news.admin.ch staying up forever”). --Leyo 21:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it won't. The press release isn't written by the copyright holder, and it doesn't state that the images are released under a free license (only that "Die Bilder können von Medien, Öffentlichkeit, Forschung und Beratung für Vorträge, Vorlesungen, Seminararbeiten und andere Zwecke herunter geladen werden."). This won't suffice as permission. I can contact the copyright holder myself if you want but since you've had prior contact with them I thought you might want to do that. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The license is given in the right column (“Link zur Lizenz” / “Lien vers licence”). --Leyo 22:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't sufficient. The press release isn't written by the copyright holder, and additionally the images linked by the press release (on Picasa) are lower resolution than the versions you uploaded. We don't need a release for the images on Picasa - we already have that - we need a release for the images you uploaded, the ones you received from the author. I'm happy to e-mail the author myself if you don't want to do this for some reason, just let me know. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

“The press release isn't written by the copyright holder”? It is quite obvious that he is a co-author. --Leyo 12:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's both not obvious to me and ignores my other points, which are sufficient by themselves... but forget it, I'll go ahead and mail the author myself. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me add “for people knowing what the domain admin.ch is and/or having good skills in D or F”.

I forwarded the correspondence with the author to you anyway in order to avoid him to reply to unnecessary questions. --Leyo 14:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any semi-automated software to upload form picasaweb. I have found creative commons, commercial, modifiable images there, and I would like to upload some of them. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi Snowman - not yet, this is a new system and the automation is work in progress. Meanwhile, please see Commons:Picasa Web Albums files#Manual_upload. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I have uploaded some from Picasa. When will the bot do the reviewing? Snowmanradio (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
      • The Picasa review bot has reviewed four of my uploads this morning. It seems to do the review about three days after upload - perhaps it has a backlog. Snowmanradio (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Not exactly - I just wrote it. :-) It can't make any more edits until it's approved as a bot, those were only for demonstration. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I did not know it was knew. Snowmanradio (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Review your bot, please.

It's marking images marked {{Change-of-license}} as review needed. For example, File:Jennette_McCurdy.JPG and File:Raymond and Ryan Ochoa.JPG. --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, those tags are correct. Ideally these images would have been reviewed at the time of upload, but there was no Picasa review system at that time. As it is, the only evidence we have that the image was ever released under the original license is your word. You seem like a trustworthy user as far as I can tell but these may have to go through a deletion request before we can keep them. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Look more carefully - I didn't add the change-of-license, Zsero did, that's the review. The full details can be found at User talk:GRuban#File:Raymond and Ryan Ochoa.JPG. --GRuban (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if the copyright holder is claiming that the images were available under CC-BY-SA at the time of upload that would be sufficient, but it would still have to go through OTRS, not just a talk page discussion. Can you please list for me all the images that are affected by this so I can be sure that they're all covered? Dcoetzee (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't add {{Picasareview}} to {{Picasareviewunnecessary}}

Hi,

You've added a wrong template here. If this was not an exception, please review the script. -- Krinkle^talk 21:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll have it go back and remove any of those. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Unnecesary reviews

Your bot tagged many of the images I uploaded for w:en:List of works by Thomas Eakins. These works are definitely in the public domain. (Eakins stopped painting around 1912). Raul654 (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If they were tagged PD-Art they should have already been marked as {{Picasareviewunnecessary}}. Let me know if some of them are tagged differently, and link me to them. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Doh. I misread the tag. I thought your bot was tagging them for review; it was tagging them so they would not have to be reviewed. Sorry about that - disregard my above message. Raul654 (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Michelangelos_David.jpg

I'm the author of the picture and the original uploader. Unfortunately I don't have the energy it takes to fight vandalism and copyright violation of my work.

I feel sad (and a bit angry) to see an administrator giving credit to vandals and copyright violators. Before acting you should work things out. --David Gaya (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I said I was sorry. I didn't look closely enough at the history, and didn't notice the slight differences between the two photos. I was reviewing a large number of images and found several other copyvios of the same statue, so I'm hoping you'll forgive my accidental oversight. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Flickr-change-of-license

Template:Flickr-change-of-license probably would be better if it included the event of deletions from flicker. "The Flickr user has since changed the licensing to be more restrictive." would be better as "The Flickr user has since deleted the image from Flickr or changed the licensing to be more restrictive." I would do this, but there are lots of language versions that need changing too. Snowmanradio (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Snowman, I think you're a little mixed up - I do the Picasa stuff, not the Flickr stuff, I have no edits on that template. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. I have mentioned this on the talk flickr template page some time ago and I have not had an answer yet. I was trying to make some headway. Snowmanradio (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Dcoetzee. You have new messages at Commons:Bots/Requests/Picasa Review Bot. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Picasa review

Hi! I found a bunch of images like File:Stepping stones - Yorkshire three peaks.jpg from User:Papa November. It has been licensed with {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} so bot can not review it. If I remove {{User:Picasa Review Bot/reviewed-error|01:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)}} then bot will ask for new review later right? So the "error" should be replaced by a {{Picasareviewunnecessary}}? --MGA73 (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Also - perhaps you should request to be a Commons:Flickr files/reviewers and the "trusted" in the babel when approved. It would look strange that you and your bot review images without being trusted :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi MGA73 - yes, if you encounter images uploaded by the actual author and you can confirm this then {{Picasareviewunnecessary}} is fine (although to be conservative I might ask them to post a comment on their Picasa account to prove this). There's a separate trusted list for Picasa - we've talked about merging them, but so far I'm just including all Flickr reviewers automatically. I don't need one either way because I'm an admin. Let me know if you have any other questions. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh forgot :-D

Anyway in cases where license is {{self|whatever}} and license is "whatever" on Picasa then bot could pass images (that is easier than do a manual review). If license is different then we need human review. --MGA73 (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I'm a bit suspicious of the ones that use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} on images from Picasa - I like to at least due to a cursory check to see if they really are the same person as the Picasa user. However, if you've identified some particular users who seem to be fine then I can have the bot pass all of those users' images. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the plan was if license on Commons was {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} and it was cc-by-sa-3.0 on Picasa only then it could be passed. Because then we knew it was licensed freely on Picasa. However if the two did not match excacly then we should really check for our self. --MGA73 (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually already passing images marked {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} - I'm just not passing the version that additionally includes the GFDL, because that's technically a different license. (We wouldn't want people using the image under the terms of the GFDL if that hadn't been sanctioned by the original author.) If I'm wrong about this please point me to an example. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I will keep an eye out :-) What is the plan with images like File:MarcelvanDam.JPG? If OTRS is valid then there is no need for a review. Did you forget it (them) or is anything missing? --MGA73 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Those ones are tagged {{Picasareviewunnecessary}}. The bot missed it because the OTRS tag is transcluded from a template. I've taken care of all of the ones with that template now. Let me know if you find any others and I'll add them to the list. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If you ever get bored you could see if you could make the bot fix things like this [2] :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh and perhaps you could leave a note on Commons:Bots/Requests/Picasa Review Bot. I think I found out but crats would probably want a comment before they give the bot a flag :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Picasa review

Can you review my latest images uploaded from Picasa? Thank you!Ionutzmovie (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh I did it - hope that Dcoetzee can find something else to review ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see [3] Jurema Oliveira (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jurema - if you received an e-mail specifically releasing these images under a free license, it could be submitted to OTRS, and the images would be marked OTRS-pending, which would prevent their deletion. However, in the e-mail you show on that page, if I'm understanding it correctly, they forgot to fill in the license where it says LICENSE (they should choose a license, such as Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0 Unported). Please obtain a new e-mail specifying the license and send it to OTRS. Let me know when you've done this. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Picasa Review vs. OTRS Permission

Hi Dcoetzee, I noted that your bot tagged an image that had already an OTRS permission. I've reverted this and would suggest to skip such cases. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi AFBorchert, I've already fixed this problem and it'll get repaired in the current bot run as soon as it reaches that file. Please do not revert the tag addition, as this will prevent the bot from finding it again and tagging it correctly. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dcoetzee, ok — thank you for the explanation and for fixing it. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Picasa Review Bot uploads

Hello, your bot uploads original versions from Picasa, but in some cases like [4], [5], [6] he uploaded same resolution versions. I didn't checked, maybe SHA-1 is different, but maybe it would be good just to compare resolutions after hash check --Justass (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I am the original uploader on those. It appears that downloading JPEGs directly from the website produces slightly different files than the way I did it, downloading them through Picasa then uploading them. Since in some cases it may be desirable to upload an original of the same resolution (e.g. if the uploaded version is of lower quality) I intentionally have not disabled this. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Picasa review of File:Women Volleybal 2009 Poland-Croatia.JPG‎

Picasa seems to make it impossible to release the picture with the permissions required on Commons. So how should the picture be marked so that it is not considered for removal anymore? rzyjontko (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi rzyjontko - Picasa does in fact allow the Picasa user to release their images under the Creative Commons Attribution and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike licenses, either of which is acceptable for Commons. If you are the Picasa user you can edit the license of an individual photo by clicking on the photo then clicking "Edit" next to "Photo reuse" on the right-hand side. If you are not the Picasa user, you will have to either convince them to update their license, or get e-mail permission via Commons:OTRS. If you don't do one of these, the image will be removed. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice on copyvio

Perhaps you could consider using "no permission" when you review images? I can imagine that users do not like to get a big red notice of "Pay attention to copyright" on their talk page. If image is speedied users might newer know what is wrong before image is deleted. If you use "no permission" they have a week to read the message and perhaps send permission or change license. If they can not save the image at least they get a notice what to do in future + they might feel more welcome. Ofcourse if they have 10 "warnings" allready there is no reason to be nice. --MGA73 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally I don't mark as copyvio if I have doubt, I nominate for deletion instead. No permission is also an alternative I haven't tried though that I might consider, but I generally think of it more as a tool for new uploads rather than old ones. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Olympic postcard.jpg

Can you determine the copyright status? From the collection info I can see, that the publisher is a defuncted company, so not renewed? Any other reason? Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC) P.s.: Its narrowly the same as File:RMS Olympic.jpg, so a reprint and pd-us? --Martin H. (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd say, don't bother with it - it's low res and lower quality than the LoC image you linked. Just crop the LoC image to replace it. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

D'oh, you are so right. Will do this. --Martin H. (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Diametrically opposed templates

Looking at File:Albrecht Dürer zelfportret 1503.jpg, one says delete, the other says keep. Is this just a case of one template not having deleted after a change of policy? — billinghurst sDrewth 16:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. If you look closer it says delete "only if it is an exact or scaled-down duplicate" which it isn't. Nevertheless I tend to remove universally replaced tags from superseded images because some admins are a bit too quick to delete them. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Information on paintings

Hi! I am currently deleting duplicates of paintings you uploaded in a higher resolution. A lot of these files contain additional information on the painting, for example descriptions in other languages or details on the creation. Please transfer these information. Thank you for your help and your contributions. --Polarlys (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to some of the Diego Velaquez images. I uploaded these en masse because only some of them were originally uploaded and I didn't want to sort out which is which. I'll check out your deletion log and see about merging the descriptions. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Polarlys (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Korean war Memorial

While the copyright law is not obscure, the very fact that the sculpture is copyrighted is highly obscure. (See my momment on the deletion page). SYSS Mouse (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Old images needing picasareview

To help cleaning up in Flickr images that need a review the old and "hard ones" was moved to a seperate category. That way new and old files are seperated and it is easy to spot the new and review them or tag them with "no source" or "no permission" or speedy delete them. Perhaps we could do the same for Picasa images needing human review. --MGA73 (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi MGA - this is actually a pretty good idea, especially because many of the "old/hard ones" will take weeks or months to go through deletion requests. How do you categorize these though? Based on how long they've been tagged? Dcoetzee (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For Flickr images it has been if day of review is more than 7 days from day of upload. This should only be a "one time problem" unless we find a huge number of unreviewed files later. --MGA73 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the number. To make it easy you could move all images uploaded in 2009 and before to "old". There is only a few from 2010. --MGA73 (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I made Category:Picasa Web Albums files needing human review-old as a suggestion. Will your bot ask for a new review if we change template to {{User:Picasa Review Bot/reviewed-error-old|03:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)|could not retrieve image information from Picasa}}? We should of course make a template to match it. It could be a copy of "User:Picasa Review Bot/reviewed-error" with a different category and perhaps a modyfied text. Perhaps it would be a good idea to add "Click here for instructions." to both the templates. --MGA73 (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I sorted the images now in (subcategories of) Category:Picasa Web Albums files needing human review-old. All images in "unfree" shall probably be failed and images in "notfound" might be saved if we can find the source. The images in "old" did not fit in either of the subcategories or contained the word "OTRS". --MGA73 (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Pieter Pelser

Thanks for the notification. I'm glad you've found a way that looks like it will work to keep these pictures legally. JerryFriedman (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Update

You missed these 3 very recent uploads supposedly from Kevin's picasa account by DMH17H in your mass DR.

• File:Handan Railway Station 01.jpg
• File:Shijiazhuang Railway Station 02.jpg
• File:Shijiazhuang Railway Station 03.jpg

Its very noticeable that they are January 2010 uploads and yet they have absolutely no source. Finally there are these 2 other images from different picasa accounts also by the same uploader:

• File:Haadyai Station 01.jpg
• File:Ningbo Railway Station 01.jpg

Its the same problem. I doubt they are copyright free and the uploader never says it is his work which would make them all copy vios sadly. Regards from BC, Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I decided to just delete them. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sure. No problem. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment: Sorry I missed mentioning these last ones below. I hope there are no more.
• File:Changchun Railway Station 02.jpg &
• File:Nanjing Metro Nanjing Station 01.jpg

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Uploading higher resolution

Hi! Your bot uploaded here File:Trevelez.jpg. Could you fix it so it does only upload higher resolution if license is ok? --MGA73 (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it assumed it was okay in that case because it was public domain, but that only applies if it's public domain due to age, not if it's public domain by release. I'll look at it... Dcoetzee (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is OK

File:Coupon ticket book, Mrs. Delia T. Whittelsey - Front cover.jpg: I know you said "don't subcat", but I think that at this point there is a more appropriate subcategory. If you have a problem with what I did, let me know & we can discuss it. - Jmabel ! talk 02:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't much care about categories and I wasn't the one who reversed the subcat, that was User:Platonides - so you might want to talk to them first. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry, I didn't look through that history. - Jmabel ! talk 21:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Zhuhai Sanzao Airport.jpg

I think this is the last one by the uploader. The photo is on the link but the license is all wrong. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for helping track these down. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sure, no problem. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Picasa Review bot

Hi Dcoetzee,
do you know when the Picasa Review Bot will have its next run? --Túrelio (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just now, thanks for the reminder. Right now it's run manually but I hope to get it on a regular cron schedule on Toolserver. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Could need a new run :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And done. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Question on closures

This page merely says "When it is established that a debate is settled," instead of giving a time for how long discussion is going. Some were closing after a couple hours, others without giving a couple of days (disallowing people in different time zones or on different days of the week to participate). What have you been using as the minimum amount of time? Other groups, like Wikipedia, require a minimum of days (mostly at least 5), but I haven't seen any image get that far even though some of the discussions are very close. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ottava. Generally, I've just been waiting until a clear consensus was established (or in one case, I speedy restored because it's a work of art by a notable artist and there's a clear precedent for restoring these). Generally it was sufficient for me that many different people had participated, that compelling arguments to restore the work were demonstrated, and no compelling arguments to keep it deleted had been voiced. I understand that sometimes a short discussion does not give enough time for all interested parties to participate, and if you disagree with any of these restorations I invite you to nominate the image for deletion so that it can be discussed over a longer period with full information available to all parties. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

One problem is that it was noted that there is strong canvassing on the German Wiki right now. There are probably other instances of it. Many users have been saying this is an "American" thing and want to make a stand, even though large portions of the world do not share the extreme liberalised version of acceptability and "educational" as they do (Middle East, China, Africa, South America, etc, all have very restrictive ideas that makes it not just an "American" thing). It is definitely getting to the point that one group is overriding the opinions of others by mobbing the scene quickly and shutting down discussion. That is the opposite of consensus or discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of the users participating in the discussions I closed are from wikis other than De, and many are established users and administrators on Commons. I do not believe canvassing is a realistic concern. This is also not a cultural issue - I am myself American, and I believe many people in the countries you list (e.g. teachers and scholars) would support these restorations. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If you do not think canvassing is a realistic concern, then I think there is a bias, as many of the users are friends of similar users and sit in rooms such as Commons or the rest, but have not done so until just recently. Anyone on IRC can testify the appearance of like minded people out of no where in many chats pushing their interpretation and view. And I work at Wikiversity and I have never heard anything positive from school or university faculty about the pornographic aspects of Wikipedia. To claim that they would is absurd and I feel that your statement above to that reveals a bias of judgment. Two statements above suggest that you are closing things too soon for a prejudice. I ask you to recuse in the future based on consensus standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not claim all educators would support these actions. Canvassing is not an issue. And I will not recuse myself. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is determined by someone who is objective. You have opined to a great length and have consistently stated that there was no canvassing when there clearly has been quite a lot of it. To your last claim, "I believe many people in the countries you list (e.g. teachers and scholars) would support these restorations" that statement strongly suggests that teachers and scholars would agree with you when evidence suggests the direct opposite. We have been labeled "pornopedia" in academia for a reason, and that is the fact that we do not follow what is "encyclopedic" or "educational" in these situations. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, your statements on File:Carving_knives_2.JPG suggest that you have not put enough care into looking at the situation. Closing these requests require examining of statements within policy and other considerations. If you overlooked the obvious in this situation, how do we know your predetermined ideas (since you voted on many of them) would not be overriding any careful examination? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not state that canvassing is not occurring, I stated that canvassing is not an issue - that it did not affect the outcome of these undeletion discussions. The ones I closed had a clear consensus of established users. You are welcome, as I said, to renominate any of these images for deletion via the deletion request procedure. I made an error in my evaluation of File:Carving_knives_2.JPG, but I will take special care to review the relevant background carefully for all closures. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I can spot quite a few people that I recognize (and I'm not even a Dutch wiki user or a German one) that work together before and have been collaborating off wiki. My point here is to ensure that you are putting as much care as possible into these closures. You know I've defended you before and also dealt with you on many image issues before. I want to make sure you wont rush through things and be sure not to cross the line. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern and I will do my best to be careful and allow adequate time for discussion. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I know you will. But on to the other part of the first statement that began this - why is there no real time standard for such items? I don't really know a project that does that except for those who let things drag on for weeks. (so, longer for security instead of short) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure - my best guess is because undeletions are so rare at Commons, and normally easily dealt with, that we never bothered with a time limit. I might support a minimum time though, if you proposed a policy change. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I had to retire from one project to slow down the nasty political based attacks I've been receiving, so I am definitely not one to propose any such things. Someone without any connection to the matter would need to put it forth, and then it would have to be hoped that it doesn't turn into a political fight. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, admin voting in the discussions are now closing the pages with false rationales. The last two were clearly not in use, and any support votes were based on them being "in use". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable works of art

"There is clear precedent for the inclusion of notable works of art, regardless of content." A notable work of art is a work of art that could have a stand alone page and fits criteria. These were not such works. They were obscure works by a minor artist who barely passes notability inclusion for a biography. Please do not conflate the two. Plus policy makes it very clear that we do not keep all images that "could" be used on a page. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• • I will revise my statement. Regardless they would have been kept as there is almost unilateral support for keeping drawn artistic works by notable artists. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • And I will abide by your decision there. However, I just wanted to make sure that the argument was changed as someone was using Rembrandt's art as a reason why obscure people should have theirs kept. As I showed, Rembrandt had at least 7 pages that discussed notable works, and many of the images were either enlarged portions of the painting or related works that dealt with what the articles were discussing. As a person who has worked on articles on notable works of art (The Ghost of a Flea and Nebuchadnezzar as two examples), I do not like the idea of the two conflated. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
      • You're absolutely right that these were not particularly notable works in their own right - I misspoke there. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, in the section "not legitimately in use", examples state: "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." This, along with the two previous phrases ("does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs" and "does not mean that we should keep all pornographic images") makes a strong statement that there is a maximum to how many images of each kind of depiction we have. This would mean that unless they have individual use (i.e. the Rembrandt's are on other pages), then there is a maximum to how many images we should have. We do not need 1,000 pictures of men masturbating as 5 images of it would be reasonable enough if there was any need for "variety". This would also apply to non sexual items. We do not need 1000 pictures of the Empire State Building unless they add something unique (a certain part of it, an architectural feature, etc) that is necessary on an encyclopedic page. It is one thing to want to remove all images or keep all images, it is another thing to want to reduce them to remove clutter. Removing clutter is not censorship, which many people do not seem to understand. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an important rule and the only rule by which we can delete the many redundant low-quality self-photographs of penises, etc. that are uploaded everyday and I support it. However, it is intended to eliminate images that will never be used in an article because superior substitutes exist - it specifically does not apply to images which are already in legitimate use in articles. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not true, as I pointed out two cases of articles on the undelete that already have an image being used to show it. The one with the two people masturbating already has an image of the two people masturbating. Now, the thing about "quality" doesn't come into play until the "discussion" part, so quality is not necessarily a primary component but a side thought to the matter. A strong consideration but not -the- consideration. The primary consideration is amount of images, then it is preference between quality once we reduced the number. We do not need a billion high quality porn images for the same act. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding. This rule is used to exclude images that are very unlikely to be used in any article because there are many substitutes readily available. It is not used to exclude images because a relevant article already contain many images. In fact, it is often the case that relevant articles in different projects choose to use different images. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No misunderstanding. A basic ability to read sees that there are three distinct sections with one before another and before another. If they were prioritized in the way you suggestion, the items in the third would be in the first and not labelled "discussion", which is the equivalent to theory. Furthermore, the two quotes I gave state that it doesn't matter if they could be used or not, saying they -could- be or that any image -could- be is not within scope. They have to prove that they are utterly essential to the article and that there are no duplicates. That is how the three sections read. It was designed solely so that commons would not become flickr, and now people want commons to be flickr. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As I point out here, the image was a duplicate of another and added by a user with no edits besides putting up the images, from last month, and disappeared after putting it there. That is not a legitimate "in use" in any kind of manner. The project also has too few editors to efficiently check for vandalism or trouble makers, or to determine consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This image is not as established as some which were in use for years and reviewed by multiple editors, but I still consider it legitimate. You can try for a deletion request if you want. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It was added in a throw away account in the same way as others that were pointed out, even one you agreed should be deleted. Just look at the edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In use

Most of these images are not in use, including the first one. They are displayed on a user page. Multiple parts of the scope suggest that such a huge collection just for a user page is inappropriate. I am sure you would put forth the same effort applying this part of the policy in ensuring that they are removed correctly as you are ensuring that those in use (applying your standard, not my own, as we disagree) are kept. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Picasa uploading

Hiya, I just came back from a few weeks of traveling in obscure parts of the world, and am looking to share my pics with friends, Commons, and Google Earth. As I haven't done this before, I'm not entirely sure which app to use to minimize uploading and labeling on my part. I know that Flickr has an auto-upload to Commons feature, but someone else also recommended Picasa (which I'm not that familiar with yet). I saw a note that you're working on a Commons-upload feature for that one too... Is there a status update? Or do you have any advice on the best way to sort and upload my pics, to make them most viewable / usable by these different apps? Thanks, --Elonka (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, welcome back! There is not an uploader app for Picasa at this time, but if you add the {{Picasareview}} tag to your uploads, and link to the Picasa source image directly, they will be automatically reviewed by User:Picasa Review Bot. To help save you uploading work you might use a batch uploading application such as Commonist (see also Commons:Tools). Thanks for your contributions! Dcoetzee (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested in a status update on the semi-automated Picasa upload tool. I am wondering if it is worth waiting a while for the tool to be finished for all my Picasa uploading or uploading some selected images from Picasa before this tool is made. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please explain ...

... why my deletions need to be "monitored". Why was I 'singled out', to use your words? - Alison ^❤ 03:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually specifically said I wasn't singling you out. I only wished to locate all the deletions made as part of the recent mass deletion of sexual content for review - since only a small subset of administrators were participating in that action, I thought the simplest way would be to review their deletion logs. If you weren't in fact a participant, then I was misinformed (I got your name from another discussion thread elsewhere). Dcoetzee (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You were misinformed. Those four images had weeks-old deletion requests open - go check. They're *still* untouched, BTW. And it's not okay to say "I'm not singling anyone out" then go on to single people out .. including me, esp. given the complete dearth of any evidence. You didn't even check first, did you? Nor did you inform me that you were posting this stuff on VP - Alison ^❤ 04:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for my mistake - I reviewed a number of the deletion listings but didn't have time to review them all in detail, which was I made that post in the first place - I hoped others would help review the listings. I should have asked them specifically to remove users who were uninvolved, but I incorrectly assumed that my information was correct. I had no intention of accusing you of any misdeed, I was just trying to track down a list of images, that's all. I've struck your name from the list now, and the entire section is moot now that Jimbo's policy change has been repealed. I can't imagine any other way of tracking down the incorrectly deleted content, short of scrubbing the entire deletion log, which would be arduous. I also apologize that I didn't inform the people I listed - I understand now that they may have been upset and wanted to clarify their actions so that they could be removed from the list. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Resize

Sorry didn't realise. I apologise for resizing. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, just letting you know. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Obscenity laws

Typically this discussion should be on project talk page, but I'm personally questioning your last 3 contributions, particularly these two. Why can't we just use the UK Extreme Pornography laws? They basically cover our (US) obscenity laws in a much clearer way as well as keeps Wikimedia clear of legal problems both home and abroad. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Those edits were intended specifically to address the objections of User:Tabercil and User:Wnt. I strongly object to you removing the subsection, as it was part of the policy and did not consist solely of recommendations, but also contained specific requirements (I am however okay with your wording changes). Additionally, I would strongly oppose the idea of adopting the UK's Extreme Pornography laws as a guideline, because they are both too narrow (don't cover everything covered by US obscenity law) and also too broad (exclude useful works). I would support tagging works that are illegal under these laws, as a service to content reusers in the UK. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

National Gallery, London

Hi Derrick, how are you doing as of the case with NPG?

I thought you gonna be interested in getting hand on PD images from National Gallery, London. I uploaded a couple from there, but there are more than 2000 of them ahead. May I help you to build a bot? 4649 12:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Olpl - there have not been any further developments on the NPG incident. While I believe it's possible to build the bot you describe, and the National Gallery, London does have many valuable works, at the moment I'm avoiding any further personal risk to myself in this area. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Derrick, your position is quite understandable. Thanks, anyway. BR 4649 03:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That help page says to only circumvent zoomify software "if you are sure not to break any local laws by doing so", yet there is a subpage of this userpage with a complaint from the NPG which says "By deliberately posting images from our client’s website to the Wikipedia website in which the Zoomify software has been circumvented you have therefore acted in breach of section 296ZA(1) of the CDPA.", which sounds like a local law. Your legal representative said "your client’s circumvention claims are baseless, as the “Zoomify” technology previously used on NPG’s website does not effectively control access to a work protected under copyright law" - but it seems like it did effectively control access until someone decided to circumvent it. I guess my question is, if someone takes a picture of the Mona Lisa and sticks it to their wall and you catch a glimpse of it through their front window, but only a glimpse, not the whole thing, would you feel comfortable circumventing their front window to steal their picture too? Weakopedia (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Effectively" is a term of art here from the CDPA ("effective technological measures") - it indicates a technology like DRM that is designed to protect assets from distribution. Zoomify is not such a technology. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Picasa bot

What happened to Picasa bot? There are images coming in periodically :). ZooFari 19:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Running now :-) I really do need to port it to the Toolserver. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind sharing the source for the bot. Of course, I won't be running it; I'd just like to see the code because I think I'll be doing something similar with a different wiki and the fact that it's in C# is a major plus. Mahanga (Talk) 22:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, here it is. Forgot to add the license, but consider all my original code licensed under the Simplified BSD License. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! Btw, this bot doesn't run on the toolserver, does it? Since it's .NET... Mahanga (Talk) 02:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, although it may run over Mono. More likely I'll port it to PHP or Python something. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Attribution metadata from licensed image/doc

Hello,

Template:Attribution metadata from licensed image/doc mentions a talk in your talk page that is no longer available. Could it be possible that you create a copy of that talk ? Or are the talks on Wikipedia enough to understand why this template is needed ? In any case, that /doc page needs some improvements. Teofilo (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Eventually it got archived. This tag was originally created because some people became very upset when watermarks were removed from their images - some even tried to claim it was a license violation. This template was my way to attempt to placate them, by assuring them that attribution was still available on the image description page and in the image metadata. I don't generally use it anymore except in exceptional cases where the author seems particularly possessive. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Flickr/Picasa/Panoramio review notice

Hello Dcoetzee. You are receiving this message because you have recently or regularly participate in Flickr review requests. A proposal to move Commons talk:Flickr files/reviewers to Commons:License review/requests was made and no objections were raised and thus transferred. Please watchlist this new page for further requests. Commons talk:Flickr files/reviewers will continue to display for a period of time but new requests will not be raised on your watchlist. Thank you, ZooFari 17:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Michaeljacksonphoto drewcohen.JPG

Hi, are you sure you haven't reuploaded the original instead of the corrected version? --Eusebius (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I already noticed that error and was in the process of uploading the correct one. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Mariza 2.jpg

I replaced that file, please remove the watermark again if you like. Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for letting me know. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thx for your work with all that watermarks. --Martin H. (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Image request

Hey Derreck - I'm trying to get some files from the Met Museum website (this one in particular). Can you email me any info you have? Raul654 (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing watermark

Hallo Dcoetzee, I strongly disagree with the policy that maps that I draw with conciderable amounts of time and work should not be worth to carry my name as an author. That is why I chose cc-by-sa as a licence. Earlier in discussions people promised - and it still says so on the watermark page - that it would be useless to mark an image with a name because there are different meanings of establishing your authorship. You removed my watermark but did not add my name to the exif-data or whatever other means there should be. Could you please correct that? (as far as I know it is not possible in *.png). I insist that the name of the author should be connected to the picture in case of cc-by-sa licence because otherwise it is lost in case of copy paste. sidonius (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sidonius - generally we consider image description page credits okay, but if you'd like your images to contain your author name in the metadata I'll make sure it gets there. PNG does support metadata - e.g. via the "-comment" flag with ImageMagick. Please list the affected images for me and the information you'd like embedded and I'll update them. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Valroma

Hi Dcoetzee, you recently warned User:Valroma against advertising on Wikimedia sites, but you might want to take a look at their uploads, as I suspect they fall well outside the scope of Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

They didn't upload those until after I warned them - but in any case they appear to be quite confused. Probably should be blocked. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting flickr user

The flickr user http://www.flickr.com/photos/28433765@N07/page2/ worth a look. Files are organized by artists and some by galleries, e.g. prado. --Martin H. (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Good photos. Many of them appear to be collected from various places on the web (some have clear watermarks like [7]), but that's okay since they're PD-Art regardless. Resolution varies by image (some are only 0.5 MP, but many 3-5 MP). Flickr apparently now allows you to download the original size without any trouble despite them being marked "All rights reserved." Many would require the removal of 3D elements like frames. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation at File:Conway's soldiers.svg

Hi Fibonacci, I was looking through some math articles and noticed that your diagram File:Conway's soldiers.svg bears a very strong resemblence to the diagram at [8]. Although these are very simple diagrams, and strongly constrained by the problem under discussion, I'm concerned that the design choices borrowed here such as colors and line thickness rise above the threshold of originality, which would make this an illegal derivative work. Would you re-drawing this diagram in an original manner? Thank you. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My image, I assure you, isn't derived from the one at MathWorld - I didn't even know te page about Conway's Soldiers existed. But I've changed a few things in my image anyway. I hope it's OK now. --Fibonacci (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! What an odd coincidence that they looked so similar. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

G'day D

Hope you're good :-) - I finally got around to creating a template for files on commons which seem to be illegal down here in Australia (see here for the last community chat about it) - if you get a mo. would you mind reviewing, and maybe giving some thought to where you might feel this could have some utlity? Cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

oh, and obviously please do feel free to dive in and make any improvements you think would help - in particular I wasn't sure about the template's name - it seems a bit incendiary to call it 'Considered child porn. in oz' or somesuch, but obviously that is, in fact, the only material it'll cover, so I dunno.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Commons:List of administrators by date

I've been cleaning up the three Commons lists of administrators, as they had a lot of discrepancies, see Commons talk:List of administrators#Discrepancies. The last strange thing I have found is that on August 15, 2009, User:Rocket000 commented you out of the date list, see [9]. You remained in the alpha list and the language list and should be #91 in the date list. Is there any reason why I should not remove the commenting?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I did that while Dcoetzee was temporarily desysoped due to legal reasons (see Special:UserRights/Dcoetzee and [10]). So, yeah, it should be uncommented. Thanks for updating these lists, btw. Rocket000 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Bald Head Cliff vs. "Bold" Head Cliff

Hi, I saw your image of old post card of "Bold Head Cliff." I grew up near that cliff, which is in Cape Neddick, Maine, a few miles north of Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The cliff is actually called "Bald Head Cliff." Thanks for the pic. It brought back many happy memories. :) --DORMILONA (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi DORMILONA, I assume you're referring to File:Bold Head Cliff, York Beach, Maine, by Davis Brothers.jpg. The error was copied from an error in the New York Public Library's records. I'll note the correction on the image description page, but you should also contact NYPL (e.g. at digital@nypl.org) to see if they'll accept your feedback. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Y-P again

I found another trove of A-Y-P images on Flickr. If you are interested, there are a lot of new additions to Category:Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition Pay Streak and also see Category:Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition dirigible. Other than that, it's a bit scattered around the A-Y-P categories. I uploaded using User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske), so if you want to see more comprehensively what I added, look at the bot's gallery; of course, those are mixed in with other people's uploads over the past couple of days. - Jmabel ! talk 03:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Time to run the bot again for Category:Picasa Web Albums review needed

Hi! 90 images :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment: There is now 140+ images in this category. I could sometimes mark 30 images a day--if I had the time--but I can never keep up with the picasa backlog. Some sort of bot is needed here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks, I'll run it now - I really do need to port my bot to Toolserver or something so its runs can be completely automated. I apologize for the delay. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• That's OK. Its unfortunate that no one else seems to mark the picasa images at all. Tomorrow I will be away so I can't mark anything. Today, I marked 40+ photos from my check of my marked images. Hopefully the bot will be running soon because one of the uploaders uploads sports images from picasa like no man's/woman's business recently. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've run it again now, I had some troubles migrating it to the new version of tools... the 3 images left in the category it had some trouble with, it can't handle cropped images, or images removed from Picasa, but hopefully there aren't too many of those. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Current status NPG case?

Hello Dcoetzee, a little over a year ago you got into a legal conflict with the National Portrait Gallery for uploading high-resolution pictures from their website to Commons. Can you tell me if the case is still going on and provide some information about what happened. If it is better for your case to not provide any details, I can perfectly understand you prefer to not go into the specifics. It would still be nice if you at least can tell me if the case is closed or not. Best Regards, Robotje (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Robotje, there are no new developments. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

File:David_Miguel_Angel.jpg

Hello, These files are on Picasa, but the original source is Commons. That's quite obvious if you compare them. Yann (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sort of. Based on the resolution I'm pretty sure the original source is on Picasa or was processed with Picasa software. However, I believe it was taken down because I can't find it. The one on Picasa that I linked to is in fact reposted from Commons. So it was correct to restore it, pending further evidence. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Picasa review script

Memo: There are a number of files for Picasa Web Albums review. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Unfortunately none of them could be automatically reviewed, mostly due to edits by the uploader. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The bots edit summary says; "Unable to confirm license, marking for human review (Commons version is bigger than Picasa version, something weird going on)". I really think that editing a file after upload is not something weird, so I suggest that this automatic message in the edit summary be amended for future edits. I have reverted the bots message as I think the message is inappropriate, at least on the files that I uploaded. The bots edit summery might tend to suggest that some of my uploads are weird, which is obviously not the case. Some of mine were slightly bigger files than the original - the final file size depends on the file compression chosen in the image editing software. Snowmanradio (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The bot was confused, it doesn't look for edit after upload... it can't detect it in general because some people modify the image *before* upload. It's kinda tricky. If nothing else I can modify the message. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

John B. Heywood v. John D. Heywood

Among the many photos generously uploaded by NYPL to Wikimedia Commons, I've noticed a few that may be very slightly misattributed. There were two 19th-century American photographers named "John Heywood": John B. Heywood, and John D. Heywood. They both worked around the 1860s. It seems that some of the NYPL records (incorrectly) attribute authorship of single photos to both men. See, for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:NYPL_Cape_Ann_scenery_by_John_D._Heywood

In any case, thanks for NYPL's contributions to the Commons! M2545 (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The NYPL records contain a number of errors. Feel free to fix the image description pages and/or e-mail NYPL about the error. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing Stereoscopic View from the New York Public Library

It is not clear whether or not the images should be deleted from the temporary category once they are categorized elsewhere. I think there is value to having stereoscopic images categorized together, so I would keep the temporary categories. But in any case, I suggest that to assist categorizers there should be, on the top of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Temporary_categories_for_images_from_the_New_York_Public_Library , a statement such as "When you have categorized an image to another category, delete its categorization to the temporary category, e.g., " NYPL Stereoscopic views of Cheyenne Canyon, Colorado"". Alternatively, place a statement directing categorizers NOT to delete the temporary category, e.g., "NYPL Stereoscopic views of Cheyenne Canyon, Colorado" from each image in that category. I will not take on categorizing any of these NYPL images until this question is resolved. Downtowngal (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Downtowngal, I think you're right that these existing categories are useful, but I would also not want to discourage people from renaming them where appropriate, since they are automatically generated - so I'm hesitant to put a recommendation in one direction or the other. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, but... leaving the images in the temporary categories means that categorizers can't tell which images HAVE received additional categorizations to other categories, and which haven't, except by clicking on each individually. Or is there some method to determine which ones still need categorization? Downtowngal (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, good point, I guess there isn't. Maybe they should all go in a category "NYPL Stereocopiv view categories requiring categorization" or something like that when they're first created, along with any that are remaining? I could do something like that. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions: 1) Copy every image in "Temporary_categories_for_images_from_the_New_York_Public_Library" to a new category called "NYPL Stereoscopic views". Now all the images that have the correct tag "NYPL Stereoscopic view of X" ALSO have a tag showing they belong to "Temporary_categories_for_images_from_the_New_York_Public_Library" 2) At the top of the page "Temporary_categories_for_images_from_the_New_York_Public_Library", write "Please delete this category from an image once you have ADDED any classifications to it other than "NYPL Stereoscopic view of X". 17:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good way of doing it - thanks for the suggestion. I think I can take care of that. Remind me if I don't take care of it soon. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:TVA Act Signing.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:TVA Act Signing.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:TVA Act Signing.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

D, if you want to let this image expire, I've got a much higher resolution image up and running at File:Roosevelt signing TVA Act (1933).jpg. If you want me to start moving articles to the new image, let me know. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded that image 6 years ago. I don't even remember uploading it, much less what articles I put it in. Feel free to use CommonsDelinker to move any uses. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Licence removing

Please revert your editions like this one. Sp5uhe (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No. The uploader tried to release a derivative work of a non-free copyrighted work under a free license but they were not entitled to do so without permission from the copyright holder. They can only release their own additional contributions under a free license. As such the original license tag was misleading, as it may give the false impression that this image is suitable for reuse by third parties. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

USMC War Memorial

I don't object to deletion, but the reason seems invalid. Felix de Weldon copyright is expired, because it wasn't renewed on 28th year. Trycatch (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed this. I'll revert to keep. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Peter Altenberg.jpg

FYI, I have requested undeletion at COM:UNDEL. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Blanket deletion requests

Prior to placing all of the deletion tags on the said images I might advice you that they're subject to freedom of panorama copyright laws. There are numerous deletion discussions that have taken place regarding such images and a precedent has been set.

Kind regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated in the deletion review, freedom of panorama in the UK does not extend to all 2D works, only to "works of artistic craftsmanship", such as "hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates," etc., which most of these are not. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes artwork is a very subjective matter and hardly one we can settle in a debate here. All of the pieces in question contain some degree of artistic or graphic design. Irrespective of this, a precedent has been set in countless fruitless deletion requests. I really can't see what these counter-productive deletion requests acheive other than to hinder the project and undermine the work carried out with great diligence by many volunteers. Mtaylor848 (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My only goal is to delete images that are or may be violating copyright. Most of your images have no problem and are welcome contributions and I don't mean to discourage you. The works being copied certainly have artistic character, but that doesn't make them "works of artistic craftsmanship", which is a term of art that you don't appear to fully understand. You can read more about it here. It's generally understood to exclude "mass-produced" items. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Batch uploading

Hi. As you are listed as one of the scipters at Commons:Batch uploading I am contacting you to see if that project is still active. I made a request here a while back, but didn't get any feedback. Thanks for your attention! GoEThe (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Masiela Lusha photos

please stop removing my work. I am Janice Belson from Medicines Global. I am a part time set photographer as well as president of Medicines Global, which is a youth ambassador's program. Lusha is one of our ambassadors. Please return my work the way it was. Thank you.

I believe you could plausibly be Janice Belson of Medicines Global, so I have restored the photos taken by you. However it's important to understand that you can't (usually) upload images you found on the web - these are protected by the copyright of other persons and we don't have their permission to use these images. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

clarify

Just to not be misread, I meant the last bit in this comment to be in total jest because of your British Museum issues. The BM thing *did* make you a legend on the copyright front. When I read what I wrote I thought it could be taken in a different way I meant it. I hope all is going well for you Derrick - David David Shankbone (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

possible deletion of historical markers in the US

If this plaque in England will be deleted, what is going on with Category:Historical markers in Michigan for instance? As far as I see, these are not old. I still cannot believe that the possible deletion of these files is a valid interpretation of the copyright laws of the US, but I think there must be a consequent action. Best wishes Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends on who authored the markers, their age, and if they contain enough content to be eligible for copyright. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Issue with 2 pictures or are PD-OLD and PD-art tags useless?

Hello, Dcoetzee. Since you are both an administrator at English wikipedia and at Commons I believe you can help me out. I have an article which is being nominated to Featured status on Portuguese navigator en:Pedro Álvares Cabral. All that is left to the article to be passed are 2 images in it which an editor has issues with it. They are:

File:Pedro alvares cabral 01.png - a lithography made by George Mathias Heaton (1804 – after 1855) and Eduard Rensburg (1817-1898)

File:Miniature of Pedro Alvares Cabral.jpg - miniature made by Roque Gameiro (1864-1935)

On both pictures I used the PD-art tag due to the type of images and their authors' date of death. This editor who I mentioned says that it is not enough neither the tag nor the author's date of death. I need to prove that both pictures were also published before 1923. Is that correct? According to him, I need to prove that every single image I upload, no matter if the author died more than 70 years (or even in this case, more than 110 years ago), was published before 1923. So, if the PD-art and PD-old are useless, why do they exist at all? So the PD-1923 tag is the only one that we can use? If that's the case, why that is not told? Please, I would really like to hear an imput on this subject. P.S.: Answer me on my talk page, please. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Dcoetzee. I'd like to know if you could help me out. I have nominated yet another article as a FAC at the English-written Wikipedia. It is about José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco (Link: [11]), a 19th century Brazilian statesman. I'd like to ask you to take a look at the article's pictures and write in the nomination page if they are OK or not. I also made the same invitation to Kaldari and I wanted to see both of you giving your opinion there, since you are both administrators there and at here, at Commons. Here is the link to the nomination page: [12]. Thank you very much for your time. I'd be very thankful if you could review it. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Charles_Abbot,_1st_Baron_Colchester_by_John_Hoppner.jpg

File:Charles_Abbot,_1st_Baron_Colchester_by_John_Hoppner.jpg 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!

Havang(nl) (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hi Dcoetzee, I removed the forum post about US-UK-India relations at Commons talk:Licensing as unrelated. I hope you don't mind that I removed your "what?" response in the process. Regards Hekerui (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I thought maybe the poster had a point and would explain, but that's not likely. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You bot!

Looking at old pictures of Haifa, I came across one with nasty vandalism...uploaded by a bot, more than half a year ago.. look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DcoetzeeBot

It is programmed so that only a few of the uploads gives bad contributions: bad: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palestine_Park,_Mt._Carmel,_from_Mountains_of_Gallilee,_by_Lloyd_(fl._187-).jpg fine: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palestine_Park,_Mt._Carmel,_from_Mountains_of_Gallilee,_by_Lloyd_(fl._187-).png

I just checked a few, like File:The_pool,_with_the_old_man,_by_White,_Franklin,_1813-1870.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Glen_Ellis_Falls,_by_White,_Franklin,_1813-1870.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Union_Square_looking_north_towards_4th_Ave,_from_Robert_N._Dennis_collection_of_stereoscopic_views.jpg

There must be lots more...sorry, I do not know anything about bots.

Cheers, TheRealHuldra (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am the operator of DcoetzeeBot, but the uploads you linked look fine to me. I'm having a little trouble understanding your English. Could you restate this in your native language and then I can get it translated? Thank you. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh; yeah, they are fine, now! ..Without any edits! The vandalism was "Tiptoety is a convicted ___...." in big red letters. Looking at Tiptoety talk-page, I saw a reference to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Personal attack via PD US Navy template. In other words; it seems that the vandalism was in the templates used...and not in your bot! (If you you understand my English.) Cheers, TheRealHuldra (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see! Glad to see it was taken care of. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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!

  — Jeff G. ツ 03:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request

I request to delete my image from commons because I don't want to keep it there anymore. Thanks--സ്നേഹശലഭം (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Already deleted by User:Dferg. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views

Dcoetzee, I was looking at fixing files in Category:PD-scan without primary license containing files using PD-scan without specifying the primary license and noticed a large overlap with Category:Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views which were mostly uploaded by you. I assume that for this collection the primary license should by {{PD-1923}}. If that is so, my bot can easily change all {{PD-scan}} with {{PD-scan|PD-1923}} for files in this collection. What are your thoughts? --Jarekt (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not that simple. The ones dated before 1923 are {{PD-1923}}, but many of them are PD for a variety of other reasons, such as {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not-renewed}}. They have to be examined on a case-by-case basis to verify and tag their status, an undertaking that may take a very long time. What you can do is have your bot examine the earliest revision of the file description page and look for [[Category:PD files for review]] (see e.g. [13]) - if it does not have this, it should be {{PD-1923}}, unless my bot made an error. (These tags were later removed by another bot, so you do have to examine the earliest revision). Dcoetzee (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My bot is AWB based and I do not think I can see earlier edits, but I can look at "PublishedDate=" field and change {{PD-scan}} to {{PD-scan|PD-1923}} if the date is prior to 1923. --Jarekt (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I fear that may be more of an undertaking than you imagine. The date uses many different formats - my bot handles about 20 different formats, and a small subset of them I still had to do manually. It was the most taxing part of the whole thing. Trust me, you don't want to reproduce that work. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you thing your bot can fix those licenses? I am not very eager to jump into this, but was trying to fix the problem of files using {{PD-scan}} without mentioning the primary license. --Jarekt (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I could look at it but I'd have to write some new code and it would take a (very) long time to run, at least several days - the date info is not cached on my local PC. I realise you're trying to clean out the category, so I'll take a look at it. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco

Hello, Dcoetzee. I'd like to know if you could help me out. I have nominated yet another article as a FAC at the English-written Wikipedia. It is about José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco (Link: [14]), a 19th century Brazilian statesman. I'd like to ask you to take a look at the article's pictures and write in the nomination page if they are OK or not. I also made the same invitation to Kaldari and I wanted to see both of you giving your opinion there, since you are both administrators there and at here, at Commons. Here is the link to the nomination page: [15]. Thank you very much for your time. I'd be very thankful if you could review it. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to start the picasareview bot

Hi 163 files to review - would be nice if the bot could give a hand. --MGA73 (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Quite a few were confirmed but some weren't - let me know if you see any systematic problems. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The ones I checked were changed a bit before the upload to Commons. Perhaps the bot could leave a (hidden?) note if the image was free or not? Just in case the license gets changed before a user checks if the images is the same. Perhaps in the editsummary "Files could not be reviewed. License was cc-by-sa-3.0 but images were not the same." --MGA73 (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea - that is now done (it should confirm in the edit summary that the license matches and is valid, even if the images do not match). Dcoetzee (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

US sound recordings

Hi! It seems the discussion about US sound recordings was archived again without any visible consensus for a concrete change in the policy. (The same thing happened in June, and before that in March and in January; there are probably others.) Is there a way to get more people involved in the discussion? I understand that we're talking about an extremely muddy part of copyright policy, but it's frustrating that the demostrably incorrect status quo prevails because we can't find a version everyone would agree on. Commons doesn't have an RFC procedure apparently, but there must be something that could be done about it. I've been drafting a proposal in userspace for the new template (here and here), but so far to no success :) Do you have an idea on how to proceed with this? Jafeluv (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a big part of it is a mere lack of interest. Most users on Commons don't contribute sound recordings, and most users also can't penetrate the thick cloud of inscrutable laws governing their copyright status (myself included). Yet clearly we have many sound recordings on Commons which are copyright violations right now and need to be dealt with en masse. Mass deletions do get people's attention, so they have to be planned carefully. I think it'll take time to research all the relevant law and more time to come up with an acceptable policy based on them - a mere tag won't cut it because the law is just too big and complex to fit in a tag, which is why I suggested Commons:Sound recordings. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Picasa Review Bot

Perhaps the new picasa review bot should run once every day or two days or until there are at least 25 images to be marked so that the picasa category here doesn't grow to 29 images or more?

I did tell MGA73 2 days ago that the picasa review category was overflowing with images and that a bot might be needed. This is just a suggestion of course. So feel free to operate the bot as you wish. I don't know if the picasa bot marks images intermittenly or not. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment: Could you ask the Picasa review bot to run and mark photos every...say 2 [or 3] days...as the images to be marked here keeps growing to more than 50 now. I think that once a bot is in place, a trusted user or Admin is usually supposed to wait for a bot to mark the photos if possible first? Just curious. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The trick here is that currently I'm running it only on a frequently disconnected laptop, and it only runs on Windows. In the short term the easiest thing to do would be to spin up an Amazon EC2 instance to run it every few days, but really I ought to port it to the Toolserver and just haven't gotten around to it. Lemme take a look at what I can do. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes it would be nice if it was moved to toolserver so you could make it run once every day without you having to be around. I hope it works out well :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• I hope you can do something to improve the marking process...in your free time of course. I understand that Christmas is a stressful period for everyone. Its just that picasa seems to be the only source of pictures where a bot doesn't automatically mark a photo within a few days. It doesn't have to mark a photo every day. Every 2 or 3 days is fine too. As MGA73 says, I hope it works out well. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To Leoboudv - if the bot runs on tool server it is no extra work to make it run every day. As far as I know the only difference is if Dcoetzee type 1, 2 or 3 :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've only just remembered that I happen to have a permanently connected Windows box at home. I modified the review bot to run every 2 minutes, because really I might as well. Hopefully this will help deal with the issue. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment: Thank You for your help. The bot works now. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikipe-tan Cartoon - Something is missing.png

I don't really do commons, so I'm not sure how this works. I nominated this for deletion, and looked back 24 hours later. A lot of keep votes, but I had more I wanted to say to try to sway folks. However, it had been closed without explanation by you within 24 hours. Is that normal? If I want to add some more reasoning and continue the debate, do I simply have to renominate it? I don't want to tread on toes by doing the wrong process as I don't know how things work here, and good faith nominations don't get closed without explanation on en.wp. Thanks.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Scott, I don't think there's any reasonable way the debate could ever be closed as "delete", but if you would like to offer fresh arguments I'll re-open it. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Doubt with photo's copyright

Hello, Dcoetzee! Could clarify to me a doubt I have about copyright? In Brazil, the rights over a photograph will last for 70 years from the subsequent year when it was first unveiled. See here: [16] So, here's que question: can a photograph taken in Brazil in 1939 be used in the English-written Wikipedia? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that this photograph is in the public domain in Brazil, per the tag currently on it. However, it may not be in the public domain in the United States, for two reasons:

1. It was still copyrighted in Brazil in 1996, so its copyright in the US was restored by the URAA until 95 years after publication (see {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}).
2. Even if it were not restored by the URAA, Brazil and the US were signatories to the en:Buenos Aires Convention - as such if the work carried a copyright notice, the US would have recognized its copyright, and copyright registration could have been renewed in the US at a later time.

Although I don't think it's PD in the US, I think it would be contentious if nominated for deletion, since not all Commoners respect the URAA. Hope this helps! Dcoetzee (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So, even if a photograph taken in Brazil (such as the one above) is regarded as in public domain in Brazil (per Brazilian law), it is not in the United States? --Lecen (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Absurd but true. I've tagged it with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, but will not nominate it for deletion myself. Someone else may choose to at a later time. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

We have to live with that, nonetheless. Anyway, thank you very much! Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm back. I was taking a look in some Argentine-related articles and noticed that the photos have a tag warning that they are in public domain in Argentina. Here is an example: en:File:Peron y Eva - casamiento civil - 1945.jpg. According to what our earlier discussion this photo is not in public domain in the U.S., right?

What is odd is that the tag gives the link to a so-called "BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS" (http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/7.html). There is an article about it in en:Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. I wonder myself if later U.S. laws superceded it? --Lecen (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Argentinian photo was in the public domain in 1996, so its copyright was not restored by the URAA. The URAA does not supercede the Berne Convention - in fact it was enacted in order to ensure the US's compliance with certain parts of international copyright treaties. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a shame. Because that means that any article related to Brazilian history from 1901 to the present day will be devoid of pictures. Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:The Rossetti Family by Lewis Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson).jpg

File:The Rossetti Family by Lewis Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson).jpg 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!

Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

[:File:Wikipe-tan_Cartoon_-_Something_is_missing.png]

Hello, you closed the deletion request (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wikipe-tan_Cartoon_-_Something_is_missing.png)with KEEP but I think you did forget to remove it from the picture. Groetjes -- Neozoon (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... I removed it the first time but forgot the second time. Oops. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dcoetzee,
could you comment at the speedy-request for File:Self-portrait with Bernardino Campi by Sofonisba Anguissola.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Self-portrait_with_Bernardino_Campi_by_Sofonisba_Anguissola.jpg

File:Self-portrait_with_Bernardino_Campi_by_Sofonisba_Anguissola.jpg 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!

Denniss (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_in_Category:Butter_sculptures

I left a note and a question for you on that deletion request page specifically related to Buddhist torma offerings. Cheers. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice of this on my talk page. I do regretfully agree that many of these could be deleted. Could you please look at again at File:PrincessKay.jpg and reconsider it? What that image shows is more of an uncarved block of butter near the beginning of the creation process than it is a sculpture, as I have clarified in the expanded file description. Jonathunder (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

And I see now you have done so. Thank you. Jonathunder (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Further questions from TPF

Thank you for responding to my questions on the Help Desk regarding student and teacher artwork.

When you say "signed license statement", do you mean:

This work is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94105, USA.

I searched the CC website, and this was all I could find that seemed to pertain. Also, if this is the correct statement, could I edit it to:

The works listed below are licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94105, USA.

Thanks again for your help.

Yes, it is enough for them to say "the works listed below are licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" (make sure this is the license you want - we also accept the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0 and Creative Commons Zero Waiver). It should also state that they are the sole author of the work. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration

Thanks again for your help so far. Your comment: "It should also state that they are the sole author of the work" reminded me that several of the images are collaborations.

These are of two types:

1. Where I have taken 2 or more images and made a collage of them using photo-editing software; and
2. Where one person has made a line drawing, and another has added colour physically on the paper.

(1) seems fairly easy to deal with - license both original works, then license the collage with myself as the author, crediting both original authors as per the CC license.

(2) Is there a standard text for collaboration on the original work? How about "We, [name1] and [name2] are co-authors of the works listed below"?

Since the free licenses that we use allow the creation of derivative works, either option is acceptable. I would recommend simply having each author state that "I release the rights to all my contributions to the work under the stated license" or something like that. Let me know if you need any more help. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have just finished preparing the documents for authors to sign. Each has the wording: "The works listed below are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. I release the rights to all my contributions to these works under the stated license," followed by one or more names with a place to sign, and then a table of thumbnails of the works that that author, or group, contributed to. Does that look OK?

That sounds great :-) Thanks for putting the work into this release. Just in case the contributors are not familiar with the CC-BY-SA license, you may wish to provide a short description. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Work Derived from openclipart.org

I have a few images that contain elements of artwork from http://openclipart.org/, which all have a PD license.

Just to clarify, I'm not planning on uploading images obtained directly from that site. These are collages that contain one or more images from it.

The "It is from somewhere else" option looks to be about the least bad fit for this, but any advice would be welcome.

Hi, for this it would suffice to add a statement to the effect that: "This work contains clip art from http://openclipart.org/ released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver." It's even better if you can provide links to the specific works that your works are based on. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Idea about collecting files to undelete in the future

Hi, Dcoetzee. At Commons:Village pump#Public Domain Day 2011 you wrote, "I still think it's well worth the effort to collect images that we intend to undelete in the next 30 years or so." I think that's an interesting idea and I want to reply to it, but in order not to get the conversation at the village pump off track (and because half of my reply is quite philosophical), I thought I'd reply here instead.

I agree with you from an ideological point of view—it seems to be a good idea to preserve files secretly until they can be revealed publicly when their copyright expires, so that the files aren't simply lost. I pondered this idea several years ago when I was thinking about the fact that many of the plays by Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes, surely brilliant pieces of literature, have been completely lost to history. Historically, works have been lost for physical reasons—copying them was expensive, so there were only a limited number of copies, and they were all eventually destroyed for one reason or another. Today, with computers and networks and mass media, making copies is cheap, practically free, so it seems that, technologically, we have solved this problem. But we've invented a new, artificial problem—copyright law—that prevents us from freely making such copies, so there is still a danger that works will be forgotten and lost before they enter the public domain and are able to be freely copied. Of course, most of these forgotten works will be things like bad pulp fiction stories, but still the idea of a secret archive of copyrighted works seems to be a good safeguard against possible loss.

But I also think that we shouldn't encourage Commons or Wikisource to be that archive, because I can't imagine that such an archive, collected without the copyright holders' consent, would stand up to a legal challenge against it. At the very least, a suggestion that, alongside the "public Commons," we should maintain an organized "secret Commons" of copyrighted works, proposes a huge change to the current scope and goals of the Commons and Wikimedia Foundation. That alone seems to make it an infeasible thing to pursue. —Bkell (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a proposal - we already do this (see subcats of Category:Undeletion requests, e.g. Category:Undelete in 2012). The fact is, we have no way of either preventing people from uploading copyrighted material, or of permanently removing files without the assistance of developers; as such, not archiving copyrighted materials is simply not an option. The only question really is whether encouraging it is a bad idea. Considering a contributor may lose interest in as little as 5 years, I think it's pretty important to keep their stuff somewhere, especially if it's e.g. high-quality photography of sculptures which is not easily replaceable. (For what it's worth, some other notable organisations have explored the legal perils of archiving non-free copyrighted work, such as archive.org, which freely distributes their archives). Dcoetzee (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That's true—I didn't know we had categories like Category:Undelete in 2012. That sort of organization and categorization seems to be encouragement for these uploads, at least in part. What makes this categorization system different from a members-only website where members swap copyrighted music or books or whatever, which pretty clearly falls afoul of U.S. copyright law? "All" I have to do to gain access to all of this copyrighted material is to become an administrator on the Commons. (Now, granted, that's not something anyone on the street can just decide to do one day, but…) Has there been a discussion about the legal status of this? I ask just because I'm curious. —Bkell (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question. The idea of an archive or vault has come up a few times on VP in the past... but I don't know if anyone has discussed the legality of the current practice. It's pretty clear that even if we could permanently delete files, regularly doing so would viciously disrupt our processes (e.g. making undeletion impossible if the reasons for deletion are challenged). And the legal risk is significantly limited once they're not published publically, since that makes any copyright violation difficult to discover, prevents content reusers from downloading and spreading it, etc. I think if we are breaking the law in this case the best thing to do is to go on breaking it and hope for the best. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be legal by "copies for use inside an organisation" clauses (although the law over here seems to forbid later publication of those copies). Most media that will be free of copyright in 30 years will also be things for which nobody claims copyright (do you know who got the rights to works of your great grandfather? Not to mention company reorganisations, if copyrights were sold), so not a great legal risk. On the other hand I think encouraging the practice might draw unwanted attention to it. A big scale archive should therefore be set up by somebody else, in some suitable jurisdiction. --LPfi (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I like this idea. For images which are in the public domain in Canada, you can upload then to Wikilivres. There is plenty of place, it could easily host several hundreds MB of images. Yann (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Setting up an overseas archive might be useful for media whose copyright was restored under the URAA, but not for media first published in the US; most nations respect US copyright on US works. I've also considered setting up an archive on EC2 in Singapore. But none of these will help WMF projects which are still US based. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

For us Europeans (and others) most important works have probably been published here first, so loosing the US works is a pity, but not something really influencing the decision to set up the severs. But setting up an independent organisation is not easy, at least if you want to be able to share the work with/of the WMF projects to the extent not legally problematic. --LPfi (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul Klee

What's the point of tagging images that are pre-1923 with {{PD-1923}}, it's redundant to {{PD-Art}} which has a US-statement in it - any image post-1923 falsely claiming to be free should get a {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, instead we add additional tags to works that have no problem. And why not use {{PD-Art|PD-1923}} if you're intent on using the template? On the other hand, why use the 70 year provision? It's totally redundant to {{PD-Art}}without it. Is that supposed to be a response to the discussion on Talk:Licensing, because I don't think it helps one bit. Hekerui (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

They have to be public domain in both the source country and in the United States. They're marked PD-old-70 to indicate they're public domain in the source country. They're marked PD-1923 to indicate they're public domain in the United States. I find it useful to have a tag indicating that Not-PD-US-URAA should not be applied, so that an automatic program can determine which files still need to be examined. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course I know that, but {{PD-Art}} is 70 years, and just {{PD-1923}} instead of {{PD-Art|PD-1923}} makes no sense when you put a separate PD-Art template there anyway. Besides, there is no way you can go through all the files you would need to tag to have a program look at this, so it's only cluttering the pages of files that are not problematic anyway instead of dealing with problematic ones. Why? Hekerui (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's true that {{PD-Art}} by itself defaults to {{PD-Art|PD-old}} which is nearly identical to {{PD-Art|PD-old-70}}, but these all take up the same amount of space in the rendered page and I don't see any reason not to be explicit about it. I would like to put both the PD-old-70 and PD-1923 inside the PD-Art template, but the template does not accept multiple parameters (alternatively I could combine the two templates into a single template and put that inside the PD-Art template, but I don't think it's that big of a deal). And I fully intend to review all files tagged with PD-Art or PD-old - it is possible with software assistance. Which is why I need to be able to identify files that have already been reviewed. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you at least use {{PD-Art|PD-1923}} from now on? It makes no sense to have a comment on the foreign work status (which you must regard it since you don't think the inclusion of the U.S. in the description is enough) qualified by the Art-template and not have it for the U.S.-centric template. I wonder how that bot would proceed since there are a lot of files were insufficient information is given, including those that probably are PD but require finding evidence. I'm interested how this can be accomplished without creating chaos. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is not sufficient, because if you look at the text generated by {{PD-Art|PD-1923}}, it no longer says anything about the reason why the work is in the public domain in its source country, which is necessary in order for us to use it here. The PD-Art template explains why the reproduction is in the public domain, not why the original work is in the public domain, which are totally separate. And yes, it will be difficult to deal with missing information, but I've done this before - this is why the plan is to tag them with {{Not-PD-US-old-70}} first to give everybody time to research them. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There also needs to be an explanation why the reproduction of a pre-1923 work is PD in the U.S., no? That this is there for one template and not the other would confuse me as a new user, because while I might see why two templates are there dealing with two jurisdictions, I wouldn't understand why the reproduction is dealt with for one and not the other. Not to beat a dead horse.... The templates could also be changed to accomodate more, instead of working around the problem, no? Hekerui (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, that would be less confusing... I'll look into it. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've now updated {{PD-old}} to remove mention of the United States (which was confusing you) and created {{PD-Art-two}} to tag the images above in a less confusing manner. Let me know how this works for you. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work! Commons needed that all along :) I created Template:PD-Art-two/de. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to vary the second, U.S.-centric parameter? I played around with the template a little in previews and it doesn't look like it can be substituted for another U.S. license. Or am I mistaken? Hekerui (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It is now - I made a mistake but it's fixed. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

An accident

that you deleted my post? --Martina Nolte (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops I'm sorry. It was an edit conflict and I made a mistake. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I just wondered in the first moment if I wrote something totally silly. ;-) It's restored. --Martina Nolte (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP problem

Your description is inflammatory and problematic. His status as a suspect has nothing to do with that image. Please refrain from adding BLP problematic statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

His status as a suspect is why he is in Category:Wikileaks and why is he is of educational interest to the project. That is why I included that in the description. I find it especially hilarious that you assume I have an anti-Manning bias when nothing of the sort is true. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Being a suspect is okay for a sourced Wikipedia article. The image is not of him as a suspect. It is of him as a normal person. I'm not saying you are for or against him in anyway, just that your description violates BLP. You can damage someone's BLP while still liking the person. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's true that the caption is not showing him committing a crime or anything, or even a police photo, but what if some random admin deletes the image because it's a personal photo and "I don't know who this guy is or why he's important"? What is someone removes him from Category:Wikileaks because "I don't see what this guy has to do with Wikileaks"? A short description can be really helpful for maintenance purposes. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is Charles Manson's booking photo. It doesn't describe him as anything more than Charles Manson. Not "convicted murderer", not "murder suspect", nothing. It is not an image's place to add "context" like that, especially when it is highly inflammatory. Secondary sources and on articles only. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay well, as long as there aren't two people with the name it's not really ambiguous, they can look it up. Feel free to edit the image descriptions. But at least link to the article on En. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't plan on editing it. I'm just telling you about a potential BLP mess. Wiki has enough problems when it comes to possible criminals. "Suspect" is even worse, as he hasn't been alleged (formally, at least) to have committed a crime. You weren't on IRC so... Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you're so reluctant to edit it. This is a collaborative project. But regardless I've fixed it. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not touching anything Wikileaks related. Sorry, but that is just off limits. That is a mess better left for others that don't care about implications - government on one side, hackers on the other, and people with too much time on their hand and not worried about destroying anyone. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a license missing (sorry that I tagged, could have simply left a note right away). Hekerui (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, fixed. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sincerely, many thanks by your answer about my question of the singer’s improvisation (common cafe).Could you help me, please, with something more if it’s not too annoying for you?

Thank you by your anwser Dcoetzee.For me ,the unic problem is that I don´t know how work the specific laws in my country over that.I wonder if wikipedia have something like an article about it. Maybe, I will have the courage to unload the file at first , and then try to find the way for to put the corresponding license.So ,you say that improvisations could be more difficult to unload than clearly songs? Sorry I don´t underestand this very well since English is not my mother language.I tried to resolv the problem putting my question in the spanish cafe that is my idiom but I don´t recived any answer yet. Please if you can answer again some more about it ,I will be grateful.Sorry for my recurrent questions.I tried to resolv the problem putting my question in the spanish cafe that is my idiom but I don´t recived any answer yet. PD:Way the way, if you know something more about it or have another idea that can help me or , simly could serve to resolv the situation, I tell you that I live in Cuba. Please, don´t frighten for that I´m simply a modern person like many others around the word.Thank you aggain.

Vicond (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have nothing against Cubans. However to evaluate the situation I will need more information. I recommend you upload the recording, fill in detailed information about its author and source, and then we can look at it. You can fill in the description in Spanish if you want as we have Spanish-speaking admins I can talk to help look at this. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, many thanks for all.Now, the file is here in commons, but maybe will be deleted on seven days.So now, I will see what can I do for it.

Finally, this is in deed, the file: File:Anabell Improvisation.ogg Enjoy if you want Regards

Vicond (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I commented at Commons talk:Licensing about it. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you by your intervention.Now, I will see what happen.Is a very specific case, but could serve for my experience on other times.

PD:Maybe in the future ,recent or not, I could take contact with the singer in deed and she could accept the file in commons.On that case I will see what more I can do for the file. Vicond (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm tired of this

His cross wiki stalking entered a new low. It is obvious that a work doesn't have to be first published in the US, but merely published in the US before 1923 for it to be PD here. Everyone knows that. All this guy does is go around to whatever WMF project he can and pulls these stunts to harass me. How is this acceptable behavior? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your statement here is not backed up by policy because of: "Exception: Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, such as paintings, which are in the public domain are an exception to this rule." Did you forget the own rule you used? o.O Ottava Rima (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We permit reproductions which are PD in the US but not in the UK; but the original work must itself be PD in the source country (even if that is the UK). So if the original work were first published in the UK, I'm pretty sure 70 pma would apply, unless I'm missing something. If it were just the publishing of a reproduction (republishing) occurring there that's fine. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't say original work. This is a separate US edition. The source is the US edition. He licensed it to a US company and that edition was first printed at the date given. I talked to someone from the UK who studies UK law and they agreed with the assessment that it is a different copyright and only imported works would count as the previous one. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Think of it this way - why would we allow you to get images of an image that was never published in the United States under one PD (Author 70+) and not under another PD (before 1923) when it was published in the US? One would seem to be taking something that was never registered here and would not be within any US authority vs one that was clearly under US law and would be processed out as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The URAA, the whole reason for this, says, according to the Wiki page: "17 USC 104A effectively restored the copyrights on foreign works that previously were not copyrighted in the U.S." This is true from looking at the law. The reason why your uploads were controversial is that there was never a copyright in the US on the images. However, my image did have a US copyright with its own US publication that would have ended. The URAA did not extend previous copyrights but only added copyrights when they weren't there before. Does that make sense? Ottava Rima (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm heading to bed. Read the law, see that PD-1923 was still in enforce as it converted all foreign copyrights to US standards - 70 years after death or 1923. Hopefully you will realize that the WMF's stance on one should apply to the other half, and that we should bring back many of the improperly stripped images. This does not preclude the argument that the work was copyrighted in the US as a different edition, and not recognized as an import edition. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I would like an apology for you wasting my time and pushing a claim you know is patently wrong. As I point out here, not only were you claiming things that made no sense in timing, as the WMF statement came after the template, but the template clearly states that an image that was before 1909 is acceptable. "if it was published after July 1, 1909". The original image was published in 1895. You know that. It was discussed many times. How many other images did you destroy while pushing this blatantly wrong claim? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I've already explained my position. I'm not wrong - you are. Several people have explained your misunderstanding in detail. I'm not going to go over it again. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not wrong - you are" I pointed out where the facts were blatantly wrong. 1. Template came out before the WMF decision. 2. Template does not say what you wish it to say. You have to apologize on both. If you are unwilling to admit that you are wrong like you are doing above, and you keep pushing it when confronted by overwhelming evidence, this can be dealt with in a very easy way. Admin are not allowed to push blatantly false claims, and an apology for this mistake is the minimum needed here. A correction of your behavior and pushing what is blatant false is what would be optimum. It is your choice, do you want to be stubborn even though what you did above amounts to lying? You don't even have the decency to admit that the template doesn't even say what you claimed. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, "have explained your misunderstanding in detail.". Ironholds is someone far more familiar with UK law than you are. You take two people with no real background in law and posit as proof that they override one who is? How is that civil or appropriate? It isn't. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Need help filling out a declaration of consent form for a photograph

I left one more question on the Commons talk:Licensing page in case you do not watchlist it (Do you?) I will use the license you suggested. Thank you for your valuable time. (How come the four tildes signature does not work in Wikimedia Commons? Should I sign in some other way?)--Foobarnix (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I do. The four tilde signature does work on Commons but you must be logged in (your username should appear in the upper right corner - if it does not, you may need to unify your accounts, see meta:Help:Unified login). Dcoetzee (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

photo showing a cake is copyright of WMF

That is copyfraud: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WP_10_Lisboa_-_Bolo.JPG&curid=12720779&diff=48365826&oldid=48364789

Even if the logo on the cake is copyrighted (which I doubt due to strong modification and the logo being part shown here is not very complicated) someone could crop the pic to only the lower half of the cake. Then, due to your change, he is not allowed to use the picture. As there is no free license. So: Please do not do such changes and revert those already done. You can add the copyright marker additionally.. but not as a replacement. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a derivative work of a non-free copyrighted work and explicitly and falsely indicates to content reusers that they are free to reuse the work under the terms of the license when in fact they are not, they can only reuse a portion of the work. It places it in categories indicating that the work is free. This is highly misleading. I have no intention of reverting my edits, but I'm open to alternative suggestions for how to indicate to content reusers that the additional contribution of the photographer is free. It's also not copyfraud because the template explicitly says "This image (or parts of it)" rather than "this image" (although I think it could be modified to make that clearer). Dcoetzee (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. We should have a template {{WikimediaCopyrightWarning for a part of the image, for the rest:}} like I made it now in the image's description. I do not like this wmf copyright (the logo should be free - as all other content is and especially for a org. which is promoting free content). And also if free photos get totally (since the other license is removed) unfree due to this logo. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree with the WMF copyright and think they should defend their brand through trademark law, but I don't think they'll change their minds on this one any time soon. In some cases works have to be deleted because they combine CC-BY-SA works with WMF non-free works, which is even worse. I'd be up for some kind of special template, but it would have to be carefully designed to avoid being misleading (and I don't know of any simple way to prevent it from adding the works to free work categories). Dcoetzee (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the "free categories": We could simply only link the license template instead of including it: {{WikimediaCopyrightWarning for a part of the image, for the rest: | Cc-by-sa-3.0}} Which could produce:

A part of this work is containing the Wikimedia Foundation logos. Only if you crop the image or otherwise remove the logos you can use it under: Cc-by-sa-3.0. For the whole image (due to the image showing the Wikimedia Foundation logos) the following applies: {{WikimediaCopyrightWarning}}

However, in fact parts of the image are free and if we do not include the free license template the image can only be found if someone searches for content not filtered by license type. And such a template will only easily work with non-multi-licensed images. So this is not really a solution. Good night --Saibo (Δ) 01:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The cake in question (similar to one on wikipedia itself) is intended to celebrate 10 years of the project. How likely is it that the owners of the project would smash said cake? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood what this discussion is about. It is not about Wikimedia is does not allow Commons to host the logos. Commons does have a permission by Wikimedia to do it. In general regarding your argument "how likely ..." please read: COM:PRP. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The "all rights reserved" tag, which is also on the other picture at wikipedia that I mentioned, would seem to cover it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving a category

Hello, Dcoetzee! Could you be kind and tell me how do I change the name of a category? I'd like to move Teresa of the Two Sicilies to Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies as in its English-written article Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies. I also want to move Maria Amalia of Brazil to Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil as in its English-written article Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lecen. Categories can be renamed automatically by User:Commonsdelinker, but this requires you to be on a privileged list to use. You can also use semi-automated tools like pywikipediabot. Be sure to have a look first at Commons:Naming categories - not all category names on Commons are English, although many are. If the category name does not match, you can still link it from En with {{commonscat|Name of category}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The articles are in English and the categories are in English too. But the names are incorrect. So, there is no one I could request to correct the categories' names? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You can ask any admin to do so. Like me. I've submitted the request to rename them. When it's done, use {{Catredirect}} to direct future uploads to the old category to the new instead (I've done this for you in this case). Dcoetzee (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Images from LIFE

Hi Dcoetzee, some time ago I read that you were preparing a batch uploading of images from the Life archive hosted by Google and that you had a script to remove the watermark. If so, could you please upload these 3 images? 1 2 3 Both the 3 are anonymous sou they could be tagged as PD-France. If there were any problem with this, please contact me. Best regards Rastrojo _(D•ES) 16:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC) PD: the pics are about the en:Meeting at Hendaye.

Email me your e-mail and I'll e-mail you the tool (runs on Windows). Dcoetzee (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyonymous at that website, but not anonymous. 1 is a Heinrich Hoffmann photo, 2 too, both have been published in Germany, I dont know of publications in France. --Martin H. (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok with the author... bye bye photos Rastrojo _(D•ES) 15:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Haiduc

Haiduc is from the English wikipedia and was banned by the ArbCom because of questionable activities, so he probably won't be back and won't be able to answer. If the image is intended for use on pages about age of consent in general, then it has an incorrect caption written in the upper half. Texcarson (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. I agree that the caption is incorrect. In fact, I'd just remove the caption altogether, that kind of information can be placed in the caption in the article page. My main disagreement was using a public forum for such a very minor matter - you could have just uploaded a new version of the image (or a new image) and been done with it. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Religious pictures

You may be an expert in these discussions as you are a part of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lord_Ram.jpg

1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aravana.JPG
2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guruvayurappan-1.jpg

--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Miss_Belize_07_Felicita_Arzu.jpg

Hello Dcoetzee, Regarding [17] I was talking to the nominator in #wikipedia-en-help and he said he would like to withdraw the nomination. I would close it, but I don't remember the template that is supposed to be applied. Best, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Art Project Images

Hey, I noticed you had the same idea that I did and you have started to upload public domain images from the super cool google art project. However, I couldn't figure out how to download the images / tiles directly and resorted to the low-fi method of taking a screenshot of the relevant page at the zoom level of my computer, this still gives a pretty nice image, but obviously the way your doing with the high resolution images is preferable. I don't know if its a highly technical process or not - but if not I would be happy to help out with any of the more sanely sized images that I can! Ajbpearce (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ajbpearce, I appreciate the offer - I'm using custom software to automate the process. Right now if you want to help the best thing you can do is download the images I've uploaded - here and at the Internet Archive - to your local storage so that they're less likely to be lost in the future. It'd also be great if you could find a list of existing images at Commons that have higher-res versions at the Google Art Project. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Its definitely worth us uploading these google art project images even for images that we have in notionally higher resolution here through other means though, because a quick look suggests the google versions are generally much better in colour fidelity and technical accuracy (and therefore preferable reproductions) than what we have: e.g compare http://www.googleartproject.com/museums/tate/fishermen-at-sea-90 with the notionally higher resolution File:Joseph_Mallord_William_Turner_042.jpg Ajbpearce (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite true :-) I'm targeting images we already have copies of first because I can use the existing images as a source of metadata as well as evidence that they're probably public domain (not all of Google's artworks are public domain). Dcoetzee (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for such good job!--George, 17:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank Google, they're the ones who really invested in producing these digitizations. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like things are progressing here with the Google_Art_Project page having already been created, its really great that google has enabled the sharing and documenting of so many important artworks, many for the first time. Its a wonderful contribution to our "cultural commons". If I might make a request for Fishing upon the blythe sand to be high in our upload queue - purely because the fact that it may have once been used as a catflap makes an irresistible DYK hook! Ajbpearce (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ajbpearce, I'm still working on preparation right now, but if you go ahead and upload a JPEG thumbnail (even a small one) and fully fill out its artwork template, I will be happy to upgrade it. I have most of the works from the Tate ready to go. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I created a little PHP CLI script that you can call with a Google Art URL and it will download all the parts and re-create a full image from that: [18] It's public domain, do whatever you want with it. Personnally I downloaded all the arts from their website (I have a set of scripts that parse their website to create a JSON list of all arts, can provide it to you if you wish too), at zoom level 4, it makes a 2.5G archive containing 1013 pieces of art (I ignored Kampa museum as it seems to only contain contemporary art, though not public domain). Oh, you can download pictures at any zoom level if you want, I just used the level 4 to have reasonably sized pictures. Thanks for your work :) --Bohwaz (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bohwaz, thanks, but I've already downloaded all the artworks at full resolution - the plan is to upload as high resolution as possible. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Great then! Keep up and good luck ;) --Bohwaz (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Single artwork templates

Hello Dcoetzee and thanks for your work on Google Art Project. It was proposed at template talk:artwork to use a specific template to make artwork infos easier to transclude. I would argue for using {{Category definition: Object}} for the infos and {{Object photo}} for images (see Category:Duck-shaped box - Louvre E219 and File:Duck-shaped box E219 mg 8652.jpg. Putting the info in the categories makes renamings etc. easier. I am not sure that it looks nice to have a big template at the top of the category but I think it is convenient. Would you agree on that ? And would you know how to adjust the image size to the size of the infobox ?
A technical question while I am here. The Metropolitan Museum has a fairly good online database, so I think it would be good to provide links to it. However I can't make it work. http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/collection_database/european_paintings/the_harvesters_pieter_bruegel_the_elder//objectview.aspx?OID=110000242&collID=11&dd1=11 works in preview mode, but the link breaks when the page is saved. Do you know why ? --Zolo (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the general idea of having details of the image on the category page - and as long as you include a sample of the image it will be okay if the description refers to details in the image, which I like. It will also highlight one of the images, which gives an opportunity to highlight the best one available.

Regarding your link, I examined the issue in detail and it lies in a bug on their web server in how they process referer URLs; they cannot accept URLs which contain a colon character (:) before the question mark (?). If you visit my user page at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3ADcoetzee and click the link, it'll work with that URL. You can also visit my page at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dcoetzee and the link will work from there too. You can still link to it from galleries, but not any page containing a colon. The best workaround I've found so far is to link the search on the Accession Number instead of the image page directly, like this: http://www.metmuseum.org/search/iquery.asp?command=text&datascope=all&attr1=19.164 Dcoetzee (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks, I'll do it this way at {{Met online}} (at least as long as they don't fix their bug).--Zolo (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's probably actually better to do it that way, because the Accession Number is probably more stable than the OID (an internal database representation for the work). Dcoetzee (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

About the idea of using a specific template for the artwork template, I think it would be more convenient (for headers, for the image in the cat, for "other versions" etc.) but depth limits are a real problem (User:Zolo/test4)--Zolo (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the upload I'll try to help with fixing descriptions and categories.

One minor point. Actually I think title template could often be removed when language is English, because in many cases the original title is not really in English. Google just didn't bother to give the orignal title (and more generally most artworks don't really have a title, so no real original language. I am not sure a German painting in an Italian museum should have an Italian title.

I have done some more tests for {{Category definition: Object}}. Actually the depth problem that we can sbe fixed. Should I use it for Google project artworks ? If you have some time you can comment at template talk:artwork#More extensive testing

One unrelated question (if you have some time too). Would you see any way to link to the Spanish National Archeological Museum online catalog? If I search say "escultura" I get results but the URL remains the same, same thing when I click on the artwork. If I click on a keyword below the image I get

http://ceres.mcu.es/pages/ResultSearch?Museo=MAN&txtSimpleSearch=keyword&simpleSearch=0&hipertextSearch=1&search=simple&MuseumsSearch=MAN|&MuseumsRolSearch=9&

But I can't replace the keyword by the accession number.--Zolo (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

{{Title}}

Hi, I noticed that you used {{Title}}, but provided the translations outside the template. The trouble is that the original language gets duplicated. What I had in mind was something similar to {{LangSwitch}} except that when the original language was different from the original language it was also displayed, with the name of the language given in the user's language. Is there anything wrong with that ? The code is probably ugly but I haven't found any other way to do it.--Zolo (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The designers of the {{Title}} template tried to account for this by including translation parameters in that template, but the set is incomplete, just English and Spanish (and if it were complete, it would be pretty highly redundant). I wanted to avoid excluding the language template for the original language if only for the sake of uniformity (which is important for automatic processing, etc) but it would be nice if it didn't have to be written and read twice. I don't have a good answer. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No it works for all languages (it works pretty much like {{LangSwitch}}). I tried to explain in the doc, but it was not easy to do using {{TemplateBox}}. Apparently it was not very clear. About automatic processiong, it would certainly be better to use the original langSwith but I do not see how to do that, without having to write out a template with 100s of parameters.--Zolo (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see now. That works nicely. I like the formatting of the translation in italics to highlight that it's unofficial. I'll stick to using {{Title}} from now on. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually both the original title and the translation are in italics because they are titles, except when they are in a language that don't use italics. The original language is in bold, though.--Zolo (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Luxo#rotatebot is stuck again

Hello Dcoetzee, can you help at User talk:Luxo#rotatebot is stuck again? Maybe we should switch rotatebot off (in his config file) and you can run your "rotatebot" if needed. Please answer at User talk:Luxo#rotatebot is stuck again and not here. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Picasareview

Picasareview bot is not working and all the reviewing is being done manually. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean, I checked and it has been running without interruption every 2 minutes. I restarted it just to be safe but it seems fine. I guess we won't know until the category has something in it again. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• It runs but it does not work. You can see it is not working from file histories; see this edit. Can you tell for the bots log? Snowmanradio (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no log but I can investigate this. It might have to wait behind some more urgent tasks though. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It has had the problem for at least 2 or 3 days. I wondered if the problem could be due to changes to the Wikimedia software or Picasa software. Has Picasa always been https? Snowmanradio (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That error indicates changes on Picasa's side, I can say that much. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is happening because the bot is looking for a link to the source on the page but doesn't see one (it doesn't recognise HTTPS URLs). Fixing this now. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

And fixed. Now HTTP or HTTPS source URLs should be recognised. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Splendid. I wonder if it would be best to run the bot every 10 mins rather than every 2 mins. I generally add the {{Picasareview}} template last, but if editors add it earlier it is likely to cause an edit conflict. As far as I am aware most bots leave about 10 mins to reduce the chances of an edit summary. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If avoiding edit conflicts is your concern it's better to have it wait until the image hasn't been edited in a sufficient period of time (like what, 5 minutes, 10 minutes?) The main reason for the 2 minute cycle is so that people who are eagerly waiting to see if it will be reviewed correctly can see right away. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops

Yes, I'm sorry about this mistake. I don't know why the software sometimes does and sometimes does not warn of edit conflicts. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

OTRS required for File:Hugo van der goes monforte altarpiece.jpg

My mistake. I did not understand the limitation of the copyright rules. Please do what is necessary. Thanks --Mattis (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Fisting_close-up.jpg

File:Fisting_close-up.jpg 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!

86.3.5.85 19:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Pieter Bruegel the Elder - The Dutch Proverbs - Google Art Project.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pieter Bruegel the Elder - The Dutch Proverbs - Google Art Project.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Google Art Project Images redux

I just noticed that these had been uploaded. I am doing some work on categorization, "other versions", expanding titles, looking up dates, etc., mostly on images useful as costume references. If anything I do mucks up any plans, give me a shout. - PKM (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi PKM, thank you for your help! I'm mostly working on other versions, cats from other versions, and replacing old versions with new versions with CommonsDelinker right now. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Can't the bot categorize these by at least the artist and the museum? Otherwise they are likely to sit unseen like all the other huge uploads that never get categorized? Johnbod (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • They are all categorized by artist. It's pretty hard to categorize them by museum because the museum categories are subcategorized by medium and I can't automatically determine the medium of all the images. This is why I left it for manual categorization. I'm in the process of placing the images in articles, so I assure you they'll be used. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• You mentioned somewhere that you want to know when another image is preferable to the Google Ar Project image. File:Lucas Cranach the Elder - Portrait of Johann Friedrich the Magnanimous.jpg is an example. How do you want this noted? - PKM (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

fixes for Google Art Project

Just two points:

• It seems that Google went wrong with dimensions of paintings in the Tate Britain: they should be divided by ten (probably because the Tate's database uses millimeters). Could your bot fix that while not too many painting descriptions have been changed by hand ?
• I think it may be good idea to automatically add category:Google Art Project through {{From Google Art Project}}, so that it can't be changed by hand.--Zolo (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Aha, so that's what happened with Tate, I was wondering! I can change them all to millimetres and hopefully revert the ones that got already changed manually. I'd prefer to have added the Google Art Project category with the template, but that seems to be not the convention (e.g. creators use separate categories and templates, often with different names). Dcoetzee (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately it turns out it's not so simple as that. Sometimes Google converted correctly to cm, and other times left it in mm, sometimes in the same image! See [19]. I dare not try to autocorrect these, although I may be able to flag suspicious ones if we had some kinda template for that. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry I should have checked too. I had created a {{Checked}} when facing with somewhat similar problems with creator. A {{To check}} would be a logical complement.
        
      • About categorization: creator templates no longer categorize because it got real messy with subcategories, but it seems a standard practice for source templates (see Category:images from Brooklyn Museum or Category:Images from the City of Toronto Archives for example).--Zolo (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
        • My only hesitation is that the Google Art Project images are also subcategorized to a lesser extent - e.g. there's a subcategory for gigapixel images, and one for details. Gigapixel images could go in the main category too, but it's cleaner to keep details out of the main category, as there will be zillions of these. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Apparently files for the various subcategories of Category:PD US Government are also categorized in the main cat. Since source categories are probably more useful for maintenance than for the end user, I don't think it is that much of a problem. But it is true it is less flexible.--Zolo (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No evidence PD

Please have a look @ Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mahasaraswati.jpg ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

File:CartaClow.svg

Hello Dcoetzee. Why was File:CartaClow.svg deleted? I can't see the derivative part of the work, if I'm not wrong, neither the stars, the moon nor the sun can have the original copyright per their simpleness, and the creative-copyrightable parts of the original card weren't reproduced in this new file. Can you give it a check? Cheers, --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 04:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see that it differs from the original, but I believe that the arrangement is still sophisticated enough for it to constitute a clear derivative work. Each of the elements by itself may or may not be uncopyrightable, but their combination is unique. In any case I'll restore and nominate it for deletion. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 18:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)