This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page archive.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself. The original talk page is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Since the subject of extraterritoriality of locations belonging to international organizations has been covered many times at great length, I could have simply closed the DR without comment. However, I did not understand your comment,
"Keep, same procedure as for the EU parliament in Strasbourg..."
We have consistently deleted images of the EU parliament building, so it appeared that you had not seen the earlier DRs. I therefore tried to summarize them for you. You think that's "mad". Sorry. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The UNESCO HQ and the EU Parliament are different extraterritorial entities. If folks are confident about deleting images of the parliament under French FOP laws, that might be not applicable for the HQ. It's not some nameless embassy, IIRC they have even their own post stamps (example). –Be..anyone (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
As I said briefly above, your argument has to boil down to the question, "If French copyright law does not apply at UNESCO Headquarters, what law does apply?" That is the same question that was asked many words ago at the discussion of EU Parliament images. In both cases, the answer has to be, "There is none". It seems to me that that argument is much stronger in the case of UNESCO than the EU Parliament -- the EU, after all, makes laws, while UNESCO does not.
I also wonder why you think that while it is well established that US copyright law applies at UN Headquarters in New York, you think that local law might not apply at the headquarters of one of the UN agencies.
IANAL, but I have no reason to assume anything about Italian laws for the Holy See and San Marino, or French laws for Monaco and the UNESCO HQ, Austrian laws for Liechtenstein and the UN buildings in Vienna, etc. Don't get me wrong, w:microstate, w:micronation, and w:extraterritoriality are of course different concepts. OTOH the UNESCO would be my first suspect for having their own rules wrt cultural heritage, art, and related freedoms, if their treaty with France, which I haven't read, permits that. And in all these cases it would be also interesting to know if there were actual decisions by French courts (possibly revised by the EU) wrt obscure "extraterritorial" cases.
About the stamps, UNESCO + UN Vienna + AT + DE was the department of my dad, I collected Andorra for some decades. And I've no clue at all if they'd use French or Spanish FOP rules, or rolled their own. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The (C)-time of this picture will be over in less than 48 hours. Could you please due to this be so kind to put the picture put back into life on January 1st. Thanks 4 your troubles.1970gemini09:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It is in Category:Undelete in 2015, so it will be handled routinely with the several hundred other files in the category. I don't know if it is done by hand or by a bot, but I do know that in past years by the time I woke up on New Years Day (Z-5)), they were all done. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Jim, a brand new question for the new year. The said file is a 1908 drawing from a 1947 dead artist. Now, what shall we do? Either consider it PD 'cause it was published in the U.S. or copyrighted because the author has dead less than 70 years ago? -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)19:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you are sure that the book was published in the US. The hits I get on Google say Frankfurt am Main. I think we have to say that the country of origin is Germany and therefore it will under copyright until 1/1/2018. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the country of origin is German and we have no hint that it was published in the USA before 1923, indeed. I was simply talking like we 'pretended' to believe that the statement was true, and therefore the question was what of both prevailed. In the said case I am going to delete the file anyway. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)18:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Thanks for making the copyright laws clear James. The photo is from "Der Untermensch" magazine with the photos published in 1942, which was an SS publication controlled by Heinrich Himmler, who is dead.
I don't know if the photo is anonymous because I don't believe any photographer in the magazine is mentioned. Doesn't that mean its anonymous? I will ask the person where I got the photos from if there is any photographer credited to make sure.
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Jim,
In your recent closure of pictures from the 1940s, you say The photographer is unknown to us but "anonymous" has not been proven. I agree that these images would be better with more information. But I think that we are usually much to strict about the requirements for these pictures. In most cases, you cannot prove the photographer to be anonymous. In addition, except for a few famous photographers, the photographer was never mentioned in those times. So we should change how we review these: if we have some information, we should accept that we cannot know who is the photographer. I hope you understand my concern.
Happy New Year! Regards, Yann (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
And Happy New Year to you and yours....
I disagree. In some countries, notably the UK, a work with an unknown creator can become PD if reasonable research does not find the name. This is intended to reduce problems of orphan works. In most other countries, however, it is only photographers that were truly anonymous that get the more limited protection. Just as we honor France's choice not to have FOP, we should also honor the choice that those countries have made, even though, in both cases, it means that we cannot keep images that we would like to have.
I also don't agree with "the photographer was never mentioned in those times" -- most formal portraits made back then had the name of the photographer on the front -- something that we rarely see now.
And, while I have you, please glance at my reply to Russavia below. I added the template warning after the image had been used on WP -- I doubt very much that any WP editor has seen it. I think it does Commons and WP no good to keep image that we are pretty sure are fakes. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we should start with renaming the file under the very valid criteria of the current name being misleading. Then remove it from use on projects where possible with clear reasoning for them. Then bring it back up for discussion on Commons; at this stage the uploaders can explain how the "fake inscription" provides scope to the image. It may be that they have a valid scope for such an image. If not, they won't have cause for complaint later on down the track. Happy new year to you by the way too. russavia (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have another problem: I am currently categorizing both men and women of South Africa. Now, the problem is that South Africa, as unitary nation, exists since 1912 (Union of South Africa, predecessor of the current Republic of South Africa), and before that year there was no 'South Africa' except for a mere geographical notation (to give an example, is not like my country, Italy, which exists as sovereing state since 1861 but even before, though divided into several kingdoms nonetheless was known as whole as 'Italy'). Yet there is people who lived in the place currently known as 'South Africa'. How should I categorize them? Maybe something like 'Colonial South Africa' as the same as the United States before 1776? -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)19:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Aside from reading Michener's The_Covenant_(novel) years ago and several biographies of Churchill more recently, I don't know South African history very well at all. I'll guess that you're thinking along the right lines -- before the Union, have separate cats for each colony, with them all in a new cat called, maybe, "Colonies comprising the Republic of South Africa". I see Category:Natal and Category:Transvaal. I don't know where Category:South African Republic fits in. Are they all in Category:Former countries in South Africa? I don't like that name, both because we probably wouldn't say "country" when talking about a colony and because "South Africa" covers more ground than just the present RSA -- arguably it's anywhere south of the equator. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Undeletion of Lutyens memorial images
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there. You were very helpful last year in the discussion we had here. Back then, I asked about undeletion requests. Would you be able to advise on the best way to request undeletion of the Arras Memorial images listed on my talk page from here down? My argument is that the architectural elements by Lutyens (died 1944) and Blomfield (died 1942) are now public domain, and the (generally younger) sculptors worked on specific elements of the memorials that can be taken into account when assessing the images on a case-by-case basis. An example of one of the discussions is here. I'm asking you first, as the deleting admin User:Fastily didn't seem to take account of the arguments I made at the deletion discussion. I have pinged Fastily as well, for their views. One additional point, and why I waited until now, is that I believe all the images of architecture in France by Lutyens (many of which were not nominated for deletion) were technically in breach until a few days ago, because he died on 1 January 1944 and the 70-year-term didn't come into effect until 1 January 2015 (70 years and then the next calendar year, IIRC). Do I have that right, and what are your views on undeletion of any Lutyens memorial images that were deleted? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Quick answer -- just before I go to bed -- is that if they are indeed the work of two men who died in 1942 and 1944, then they are now PD. If Lutyens's 1944 death is the reason for the deletion, then they do not require an UnDR, as images of works by creators who died in 1944 were routinely restored last Thursday. I'll have to look at the DRs in the morning and see. It would be helpful if you could give me a list here of the images you think should be restored. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
4 (undelete or open undeletion discussion - IMO, Arras Royal Flying Corps Memorial is de minimis here and it is not possible to take a picture of the memorial from this direction without the RFC memorial being included)
5 (keep deleted - though I can't remember exactly what this one looked like)
See what you think. One thing that was discouraging back then was that I made arguments in the deletion discussions that the closing admin appeared to ignore. I was arguing that the sculptures were PD, and he said FoP doesn't exist in France, which kind of misses the point (absence of FoP doesn't apply if a sculpture is PD). Fastily, if you are reading this, apologies for not raising all this back then, but the whole slew of deletions at the time (of images that had been around for years) was intensely discouraging. Depending on the results of these discussions, I may re-raise the wider issues in another venue. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I have:
(1-3) left alone
(4) opened an UnDR. While I think the sculpture is de minimis, some might not. (Later-- the UnDR has closed successfully.)
(5) left alone -- it is the Dick sculpture front and center
(7-12) restored
And, yes, you have the dates right above -- you didn't in the DR discussions. In most countries (maybe all), the period is calculated from December 31 of the year of death, so for a 1/1/1944 death, the copyright ended at midnight on 12/31/2014.
Many thanks for dealing with that. I will go and use some of those images over in en-Wikipedia now. Before I forget, a couple more questions:
(i) Is it possible to find out where the images were being used before they were deleted? I think I once suggested that where future restoration might be likely, that a list of the use of images be made before deletion takes place, but I suspect that doesn't happen very often.
(iii) Would it be possible to have copies of the still-deleted images (numbers 1, 2 and 5 above)? I would need to e-mail you so you have my e-mail address, I think, IIRC what was said last time.
Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
I believe its very inappropriate for you to use personal conjecture on the age of the image as part of your reasoning for deletion. Based on some research I did, the elephant as a symbol of the Republic Party dates back to the 1860s, and while those were originally caricatures it certainly allows for the age of the image to go farther back than 1965, while this article states that "Whether depicted as actual animals or as anthropomorphic representations, the Republican Elephant and its Democratic Donkey counterpart were firmly established in American pop culture at mid-century" which would suggest even before the 1950s. I would ask that you undelete the image. Fry1989eh?03:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
While you are certainly correct that the elephant as a symbol of the GOP is 19th century, that is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the age of the particular representation of the elephant seen in the image I deleted. Unless someone can show that it predates 1923 or was used with consent and without notice or renewal, then it cannot be kept here. Please remember that the burden of proof that an image is free is on those who would keep it, not on those who would delete it. Give me proof and I will happily restore it, but without proof, it cannot be kept. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
While we have no definitive date, your conjecture that it dates back to "maybe 1965" is wholly inappropriate and I'm quite sure you know it. There is enough supportive evidence that the image dates to significantly father back. If you will not undelete the image, I shall file an unDR. Fry1989eh?16:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is inappropriate at all -- I lived through that period and it looks to be of that style. I know it predates Ford, but beyond that, who knows? Your conjecture that it predates 1923 has even less basis and, in any event, the burden of proof is yours. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Since things like that are often pirated, it is necessary to prove that the RNC actually authorized the creation of the mug or any other use. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I was not in the US at the time, but I would be surprised indeed if a logo of this nature managed to adhere to copyright formalities for, presumably, decades. Obviously Fry's rationale is nonsense, but does this reach significant doubt? Эlcobbolatalk17:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Ok, I understand you, of course the "copyright" of someone's undersign belongs to him/her (regarding the personal rights). But, in this case how do you upload e.g. Benjamin Franklin's of other late person's undersign to the Wikimedia Commons?
Regards: Cyberguy999 (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Copyright is a personal right and is inherited. Therefore, if the creator is dead, copyright will belong to his heirs for the specified period, usually 70 years after his death, and they can license it or not as they wish. Benjamin Franklin's works are, of course, long out of copyright and therefore not a problem. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jim, I think the Commons' paragraphes are misunderstandable about the requred fields, because the sentences always mentiones the "file" not the original work. So every file created in a way of digitalization belongs to the person who digitalizes the original paperwork. In the other hand the original work belongs to the original author - of course. But, regarding your reply, ok, Benjamin Franklin's undersign was not a good example. But what about e.g. Ronald Reagan 's undersign? I do not (!) want to open an endless dispute abaout this but there is not clear what kind of practice do you follow about this? Regards: Cyberguy999 (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, in most countries, copyright lasts for a specified period after the death of the creator, usually 70 years. In the case of a joint work, such as the Declaration of Independence, the last death among all the creators starts the clock. While we generally think of copyright in terms of books, any text has a copyright unless it is very short -- in the USA the rule is that anything one sentence or longer has a copyright.
In this case, the work clearly has a copyright.Although you claimed to be the author and copyright owner in the file description, I don't think that is correct. Also, as noted, we do not keep images of text, so it has two reasons for deletion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, as at my previous reply I do not want to open a dispute. But let me inform you about the status of this paper. This is not belonged to a person, rather than a Foundation (in Hungarian language: Alapítvány), and this is a historical communication - and the value comes from its historical state despite of that is text only document. And because this was a communication/announcement therefore this is public domain as the Foundation originally intended. Regarding the aboves nobody owns the copyright. Regards Cyberguy999 (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, perhaps it is in scope -- I now understand that. However, there is still a copyright. Almost all created works have copyrights. The only exceptions are
laws and legal decisions in most countries
in a very few countries, all works where the creator is a government employee (this includes the USA)
works that are too simple -- text consisting of only a few words, not a complete sentence.
works where the copyright has expired, usually 70 years after the death of the creator.
The copyright originally belonged to the writer or writers of the document. If the writer(s) had a written contract assigning the copyright to the Foundation, then it belongs to the Foundation. If the writer(s) or the Foundation intended it to be Public Domain, then they must have declared that in a formal writing. If the formal declaration exists, then we need to see it. If it does not exist, then the document is not Public Domain. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the reply. The Foundation has been closed in 2009, by the founder (the widow) for some reason. On the other hand the Foundation belongs to my family, the founder is my relative and she transferred all of the rights to me. If you want to get a declaration from me that this paperwork is Public Domain, then hereby I state that this is that. This was the reason I digitalized the documents about the Foundation. Regards: Cyberguy999 (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it is much more complicated than that. First, as I said above, you will have to prove that the writer or writers of the document assigned their copyright to the Foundation. It seems to me unlikely that anyone would have taken that step. The assignment would have to have been in writing. Second, a Foundation is a separate legal entity that does not have owners. Only the trustees of the Foundation could have declared the document PD. Again, that would have to have been by vote and recorded in writing. If the Foundation was closed, then the disposition of its assets, including copyrights, would have been governed by its charter and not in the informal manner you describe. I think it is very likely that this document has an orphan copyright and cannot be used on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I think you are not right saying "it is unlikely" because the above mentioned Ferenc Sík was my uncle. The Foundation is separate but there is a founder (in this case the widow) who has the right to close a foundation and to end all of the activity (I don't think this law could be a Hungarian speciality). On the other hand most of the trustees are late persons (if you want to see the hungarian page please visit Sík Ferenc Alapítvány). Unfortunately the page is available only in Hungarian language. And I don't think you have any rights to force me to show a written proof to you above my copyrights (even in English language :-)). Otherwise I could have a right to get a proof from you that you have the right to get a proof from me :-) I think this is an obsolete and possibly endless argument, and during this time I have found an alternative solution. So good luck for the continous sweep the huge amount of pictures in Commons with unproven (or not DMCA appropriate) copyrights. I don't think that could be handled with either some bots, or "bigdata" algorithms and without a worldwide sui generis laws of intellectual property rights. Regards: Cyberguy999 (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The page you cite is formal Commons policy -- that's all we need. The opinion of WMF counsel is hardly a "talk page weasel" -- unless you can somehow get counsel to change that opinion, that's the end of any discussion. And, by the way, I fully agree with it. Bridgeman is a District Court decision, binding in only part of the USA. It is contrary to the law in many other countries. I see nothing to be gained by trying to extend Bridgeman further than WMF has already. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
A lawyer can never state as a fact what a court might decide at some time in the future. He can only say what his opinion is. So those words are as strong as you will ever see from a competent lawyer. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
State as fact would be yet another weasel (likely from another POV.) If this former WMF counsel had an urge to offer personal opinions he'd do that like everybody else, but if it's supposed to be some kind of official (as of 2007) WMF opinion "stated" fits. Of course he's not personally responsible for utter dubious weasels claiming to be a policy on commons. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Commons: Undeletion request:File photo of Maryann Corbett
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I would appreciate some advice. I am the subject of the Wikipedia article "Maryann Corbett." I and members of my family are the only persons who own images of me, or the rights to them. The talk page for the article asks editors to improve the article by adding a photo. As far as I can see, I am the only person on the planet who can do so.
I have tried to insert a photo, only to have it deleted. I submitted an undeletion request, which was refused by you on the grounds that my request might be an instance of identity theft, with the added objection that a claim of ownership by my husband, the actual photographer, would be preferred. See this page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive#Recently_archived_requests
These are my questions:
How can I establish my identity in a way that satisfies Wikipedia's editors?
My husband doesn't have a Wikipedia account and is uninterested in becoming an editor. Can he submit a claim of ownership of the image without one?
Although I regularly edit the articles for the Richard Wilbur Award, the The Willis Barnstone Translation Prize, and the Howard Nemerov Sonnet Award, my knowledge of Wikipedia procedures is limited, and I'd just like to be told what steps to take to add the photo that Wikipedia SAYS it wants.
I see that there was a link to OTRS in the Undeletion request, but sometimes we are a little too cryptic here -- my apologies for that. All that needs to happen here is for your husband to send a free license using the procedure described at OTRS. He should refer to the file by the name File:Photo of Maryann Corbett.JPG so that it is easy to locate. Note that capitalization matters, so it is JPG, not jpg. It would be helpful if he sent the message from an e-mail address that is traceable to you -- one at http://www.maryanncorbett.com would be good, but if that is hard, it will probably be all right without it.
We require people using the names of famous people to confirm their identity if they want to continue using that name, so it would be good if you sent a message to OTRS confirming that User:Maryannz is, in fact, Maryann Corbett. OTRS is confidential, so your e-mail address will be seen only by volunteers who have agreed to keep everything there private.
OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and very much understaffed -- their backlog typically runs three or four weeks. I try hard to encourage polite requests, so if you put a note here after he has sent the e-mail, I'll take a look at it and probably speed up the process.
As a complete aside, I note on WP:EN your work:
"Rehearsing the Durufle Requiem, late in 2001"
which has a broken link. My wife sang the Durufle last month, and will, God willing, sing it again at Carnegie Hall in June. I'd like to see the poem, if I could.
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Jim. Returning here to ask you about a couple more things.
(i) I had trouble finding the undeletion request once it had been archived. I eventually found it here. I usually find such requests by following 'what links here' from the image page, but that didn't work here. I suppose you have to follow 'what links here' for the image to find the deletion request, and then follow 'what links here' from the deletion request to find the undeletion request?
(ii) You may remember that a large number of WWI memorial images were nominated for deletion, with this summary at the time. More were deleted after that (as you can see from the long list on my talk page - I am hoping to at some point summarise the history of these discussions so it is clearer what happened here). The question asked over at WP:MCQ is here. There was yet more discussion here (that link takes you to 15 deletion discussions on en-Wikipedia). The thing I don't understand is that people there debated and pointed to Commons policies, about images that were moved from Commons to WP under the (possibly mistaken) impression that en-WP could host them when Commons could not.
(iii) Before I spend too much more effort on this, would an approach direct to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission help clarify things at all? It does seem rather sad to be circling 31 December 2016 as a date to be requesting undeletion of images of memorials by Baker (similar to the Lutyens images), but if that is the way it has to be done, maybe that is the way. It is difficult to put into words the feelings evoked by seeing days, months and years of discussions over this. Four years of a war to end all wars. Decades of building cemeteries and memorials to commemorate the fallen. People photographing the memorials over the years. And then (over the past few years) people arguing over whether any restrictions exist on the use of those photographs. Something just feels wrong about that. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
(i) Yes -- you can get at it that way. Knowing that I opened the UnDR, you could also look at my contributions. Or, simply look through the UnDR archive for for a date/time that was close to the time I said I did it.
(ii) The war memorials are simply architectural and sculptural works in a non-FOP country. Therefore their architects and sculptors are entitled to the protection of their copyrights. That is firm Commons policy. The fact that many (all?) of the creators were not French is irrelevant. The fact that they are non-French quasi-governmental memorials is irrelevant. The "expired Crown Copyright" mentioned in that discussion does not actually exist unless -- and I think this is very unlikely -- (a) the creators involved had work for hire agreements with the Commission, and (b) you can show that, as a legal matter, works created by the Commission had a Crown Copyright. Since the Commission is an inter-governmental organization of six governments, only four which recognize the Crown, I am not at all sure that its works would have a Crown Copyright.
I don't know WP:EN policy at all, but I would be surprised if WP:EN allowed images of sculpture in France except as Fair Use.
(iii)Again, while I sympathize with your point of view, the same "it's too bad that we can't keep" arguments could be made about many things -- works by Picasso, all modern architecture in France and other non-FOP countries, and so forth. Since I don't think the Commission holds any copyrights, I can't see how it would be helpful here. The only possibility I see is getting a license from the heirs. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim. I'm aware that some of the arguments (on both side, IMO) in the discussions so far (over several years) have been less than rigorous, but that is in part why I want to try and pull the various strands together and get a more detailed treatment of this, one aim being to avoid continuing angst over this (it would be useful to have something to point to). The irony is that it is mostly those who care most about use of these images who would end up doing this, but I think it will help.
On the actual legal points, I suspect that something obvious is being missed in all this. Briefly, the point you make about two of the current Commission members not recognising the Crown, that would obviously not have been the case when the Commission was formed by Imperial Charter in 1917. I remember making all these points in previous discussions, but can't remember what was said at the time (again, this is why I want to write a summary putting all the arguments in one place). I'm sure the issue has come up concerning what happened to copyrights when the British Empire became the Commonwealth, but this is complicated by not being a single country, but several with different histories.
On the works-for-hire argument (I've pointed out before that all the architects were salaried and paid by the Commission [sometimes for decades], but people seemed to ignore that, and I suspect that the devil of the details would be in the actual wording of the contracts signed), am I correct in saying that this only helps if the copyright is Crown Copyright and has expired, and that anything else would end up with that 95 or 120 years since creation term?
About contacting the current heirs of the architects, that is something that would be difficult, both finding them (what happens if I find that some of the architects died intestate?) and trying to work out what to say. Seriously, if you were one of these heirs, what would your reaction be to this if you found out that an online media resource/database/repository (Wikimedia Commons) was defending the rights of your architect ancestor under the absence of Freedom of Panorama in France? Would you thank them and start aggressively asserting rights that you maybe didn't know you had, or would you say you don't in truth know what contracts your ancestor signed, or would you try and release the rights that you might not have, or would you shrug and just say you can't help (or not reply)? Can you think of a sensible way to approach someone about this? Not a form letter, but something actually summarising the issues in a way that is easy to understand for someone not familiar with copyright issues? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
A couple of comments. First, I think, is that I think that a fair summary of both sides of all the various arguments made might turn out to be a good thing, particularly when (I say "when" not "if") we have the next DR on the subject. It is inevitable that more images of the various memorials in France will be uploaded and unlike some other difficult areas (outdoor sculptures at UN headquarters in New York, for example), there is not a single relatively short precedent to which we can point. So, by all means, go to it.
On the question of Crown Copyright -- you are certainly correct that in 1917 India was a colony and the Union of South Africa was an independent dominion, but even then there were four or five different nations on the Commission - Australia, New Zealand, and Canada were independent and the Union of South Africa nominally so. We speak of "Crown Copyright" when we mean copyrights owned by the government of any of these, but in fact five different sets of laws apply. Although the laws in the member countries have changed since 1917, there have always been at least five laws. Which of those laws apply to works owned by the Commission and why?
Indeed, why should any of them apply to works created in France? As I read the UK 1911 copyright act, it applies only to works created by a UK subject or resident and first be published in the UK. I don't see how any of the Crown copyright laws can apply to a work in France.
As far as approaching the heirs goes, I don't think it need be difficult -- you simply ask them to license whatever rights they may own -- a quitclaim. The need can be explained simply that the copyright situation is unclear and that Commons would like to be able to show photographs of their ancestors' works. Intestacy is not an issue. Someone who dies intestate has heirs, but the the heirs are selected by the Crown, not the testator. I don't aggressive assertion of rights is at all likely -- it costs money to assert rights and without any hope of anyone actually paying for the rights, who is going to spend money to assert them. I'll guess that there are actually post cards of the memorials now and I'll also bet that the postcard vendors are not paying royalties to the heirs. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Books with photos have been published as well. I should remember to look to see what acknowledgements are in those books in relation to the photos (in all seriousness, how do guidebooks deal with, for example, publishing photos of the Eiffel Tower?). No need to answer that here and now. I'll come back when (if) I've located any of these supposed heirs, and once I've made a start on the summary I'm planning (that may take a while to get started). Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The Eiffel Tower is not a problem, because Eiffel died in 1923. Your point is well taken, though. I suspect that mostly they ignore architects' copyrights and trust that they won't be sued. They're probably right -- while COM:PRP prohibits our using the same reasoning, they probably believe that the the architect will be happy to have his work shown. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Deletion requests/File:Advent a Hargitan plakat.jpg
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
OK, tell me why you think a poster created in 1986 is PD -- not covered by copyright. It is true that I don't read Hungarian, but I don't need to read Hungarian to know that a work less than 70 years old must be covered by copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Scientific transliteration
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Jim, a new question. I noticed that Slav originally in Cyrillic are transliterated from Serbian according the scientific transliteration like i.e. Dragan Džajić (which in his language is Драган Џајић), but the same doesn’t apply i.e. for Russian or Bulgarian names, which are transliterated according to the anglosaxon transliteration (i.e.: Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky whose scientific transliteration is Pëtr Il’ič Čajkovskij, or the Bulgarian Kitsa Stoyanova, whose ISO transliterated name is Kica Stojanova, Кица Стоянова). Either is that intentional or is one of the inconsistencies I must deal with? :-D -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)15:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Sergio -- I'm always happy to answer questions, but this one is out of my expertise -- I'm aware that there are various transliterations of words and names -- Peking and Beijing immediately come to mind -- but I don't have a clue here. I would try several things -- first look at WP:EN and see which it uses, if that doesn't help, I would use Google Translate to translate the name and see what it comes up with. I might also look and see who created the categories -- I would favor the methods used by experienced bi-lingual editors over those used by newbies.
Also, I'd guess that the transliteration of famous deceased people's names -- Tchaikovsky, for example -- probably were set in stone 50 to 100 years ago and may not be consistent with the way his name might be translated today. Therefore, I might expect consistency in the way such names are handled. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes thanks. It may also be like you say: on the other hand the Serbo-Croatian language can be written in both alphabets (the language is basically the same but whereas Serbs use Cyrillic alphabet Croatians use Latin) so what arrived to us is the Croatian version of a name (which is, Latin alphabet integrated with Slavic phonemes. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)08:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Dünya Atay
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Friend
Can you please explain "copyvios" rules? The images are planning to be used by artist's permission, Dunya Atay, she sent an email to permission-tr stating her permission of the usage of her artwork. If there a document she can sign maybe?
Thank you very much for your help--Gemalmazileti 09:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemalmaz (talk • contribs) 09:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Please note that on Commons, you must sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). The signature above, which begins "Kullanıcı:Gemalmaz" leads to a non-existent page because on Commons you are User:Gamalmaz. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but your sig reads [[Kullanıcı:Gemalmaz|<font color="#EEB422"><b>Gemalmaz</b></font>]] [[User Talk:Gemalmaz|<font color="#0000FF"><sup><u>ileti</u></sup></font>]] 22:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC) and there is no Kullanıcı:Gemalmaz on Commons. You must change your sig to User:Gemalmaz. As it is now, it is a redlink -- but because you give it a color in the sig, it does not show red. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That's good. It's very strange -- the only Turkish word I know is "Kullanci" -- because at least five or ten Turkish speakers have created a Commons page Kullanci:XXX. The same thing has happened with two or three German speakers, but no other language. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It still needs a source:
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I've never understood the need for a source for something that is completely obviously PD. Is it that we are worried that it is a fake? Who would fake an old autograph? And, even if he cites a source, who is going to go there and check? I agree that "own work" is not right, and must be changed, but beyond that, I think we have bigger worries. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
If you created this template, 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.
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!
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! You deleted this page with reason "Commons galleries are for collections of images, not text". But this page was important role for attribution (and credits) of 200 images (see there). These icons is used in POTY galleries and links to the authors are urgently needed. Maybe you restore this page or tell me another way to correctly specify the authors of these icons? --Kaganer (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I put the data on Talk:GNOME High contrast icons, which is a legitimate place for such information. However that's not a solution for the attribution problem. You must credit each author on each icon's file page, as is done with all other Commons images that require attribution. Putting the attribution two clicks (and page loads) away from the image is a violation of the license and Commons policy. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Question on French Copyright and works in the public domain
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi (Jameslwoodward), I have a question relating to Copyright and you seemed very knowledgeable a few months back when we were discussing a Congolese image. I would like to know if I can use several images that were created by authors who died over 70 years ago but whose work might not ever have been published. here[1] is one example. The image is from 1894 and the author died in 1940 but the copyright information is not provided. Please let me know what you think and thank you for your help. CheersMonopoly31121993 (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Generalizing about copyright often leads to trouble, but with that understood, as a general rule, except in the USA, copyright on a work by a known author is measured from the author's death, and publication is not relevant. Assuming the country of origin is France, then the rule is 70 years pma unless the author died on active duty in the French military, in which case it is 100 years. There is a 25 year rule for posthumous works, but that doesn't apply here. So it looks like you're OK unless the author died for France. I note that the source site claims that NC use is not free, but since the work is PD, we can ignore that under the WMF policy following Bridgeman. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. That is very helpful but my understanding is that "they must be in the public domain in both the non-U.S. source country and in the U.S." to be hosted on Commons and they must also have a US copyright tag. My problem is I'm not sure which U.S. tag to give these pictures in addition to the the EU or French ones. Thanks again!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I must admit that I don't completely understand the interaction of US and foreign copyright on very old images, but I don't think I have ever seen a 19th century foreign image challenged on Commons for US copyright. However, the US rule for images with known authors first published after 2002 is 70 pma. See File:PD-US_table.svg for a useful summary. THe tag is {{PD-US-unpublished}}. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I do object to the use of the British word "tram" to describe American vehicles. The American Heritage Dictionary does not even list "tram", although it does list "tram-car" as "chiefly British". However, that is not why I deleted the cats. They were confusing and inconsistent. You cannot sensibly have both
the two pairs of cats should have almost all the same members, since, except for the short Mattapan part of the Red Line, the only "tram" service on the MBTA is the Green Line. Since in both cases, the first had a handful of members and the second almost fifty in the one case and ten in the other, it is obvious that those doing categorizing here prefer the first to the second.
The category structure as it was before you deleted the two categories was consistent with use elsewhere on Commons, with categories for individual lines (Green Line and Ashmont-Mattapan Line) as a subcategory of the agency (MBTA). Just because the Green Line stops subcategory was much larger than the A-M stops subcategory does not mean that it was paralleling the MBTA stops category. I created all of the categories at question here with a very clear organization scheme in mind; what you saw immediately before deleting was the final categorization result (with a perfect hierarchical system) and not one being 'preferred' to another.
These do not qualify as viable speedy deletions; they were not duplicate categories, nor were they empty before you removed items from them. Please undelete them; if you still believe they should be deleted, then that is a discussion that should be had at COM:CFD and not here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Not that I don't understand your objections to the use of British words such as "Tram" to describe trolley stops, but this was intended to distinguish the stops from commuter rail and rapid transit stops. I believe we've had this discussion about the use of non-American terms before. In any case, as Pi pointed out, the Green Line isn't the only existing trolley system in the MBTA. ----DanTD (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
What neither of you have explained is why it is a good thing to have two categories that mostly overlap. At the moment I deleted the one pair, there were a few Green line stops in Category:Tram stops of the MBTA and many more in Category:MBTA Green Line stations. Very few, perhaps none, were in both. For the future, a newbie comes along with a photo of a Green Line stop and picks one or the other, so we end up with either some images in each, or an ongoing job of policing the cats.
Please remember that categories are intended to make it easy for a stranger to come to Commons and find an image for a particular purpose. Having parallel categories that have similar images doesn't help that. Having an extra layer -- a meta-cat with only two subcats as I suggested above -- doesn't help it either. And, by the way, using the word "trams" also doesn't help. A stranger coming here to find a photo of an MBTA trolley won't know the word "tram". I've been a railfan for almost 60 years (see File:CNSM 700.jpg) and didn't know the word "tram" in this context until I worked on the Ferrymead Railway in Christchurch, NZ, in 1997. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Why do you say "pre-Electroliner"? The green cars, the silver cars, and the Electroliners co-existed until the end of the service in 1963. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The Electroliners didn't come out until about 1941, right? So this one had to be made before they came out. I'd guess from the 1920's at the most recent, although it could be older than that. ----DanTD (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Jim, it appears that you happened across these categories when I was in the midst of sorting files into the Green Line and Mattapan line subcategories. That's why it appeared that the files were randomly spread between the two categories. That issue is completely fixed; all files are sorted into one of the two subcategories. You are correct that meta categories are not normally necessary with only two subcategories; however, due to the much larger category system that has been created for rail transport images, the meta categories of current and former MBTA tram stations are necessary to maintain the proper hierarchy.
The meta category also serves as future-proofing for any additional MBTA-operated tram lines in the future. The Urban Ring project, proposals for a Greenway trolley, conversion of the Silver Line Waterfront Tunnel to rail, or the simple redesignation of the Green Line with multiple colors for clarity (as may be necessary after current extensions are completed) would all create additional subcategories under Category:Tram stops of the MBTA. I spend a lot of effort in my Commons work creating category structure that will support future needs rather than require major reconfiguration. These two meta categories, allow for that future growth. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
As I said above, I'm happy to have you do whatever you think is best -- I don't feel strongly enough to continue this discussion. As you say, I jumped into the middle of your work, for which I am sorry, and misunderstood what you were doing. With that said, I think it is good the way it is now. If more "tram" service appears in Boston, that would be the time to add the meta-cat, not, I think, now.
I feel more strongly about the use of the word "tram" -- as I said above, I think it does a serious disservice to those who come to Commons looking for images to use unfamiliar words. There's no reason in policy or practice why we can't use "trolley" or "streetcar" to describe these vehicles in North American categories as subcats of the global use of "trams". You might look at the lede at Tram. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to recreate the categories; I believe they represent the best category structure not only in the future, but also now, and it appears that DanTD (another experienced rail transport contributor) agrees. I think that should be sufficient for undeletion. The reason I've continued this debate so long is because I spend a lot of time mucking around with MBTA images, so a faulty category structure (like was created by the deletions) causes a lot of practical headaches for me.
I believe the two currently deleted categories are necessary for proper hierarchy; the way you've sorted their subcategories causes a disconnect between sorting based on geography and by operator (a small difference, but important in rail transport). As such I believe it would be be reasonable for me to boldly recreate the two categories. However, I would much prefer that you undelete them, for two reasons: first, that preserves the edit history; second, that would mean that it was your choice (however reluctantly) rather than me snubbing you.
I recall the separate-terms-for-separate-geographies issue coming up before on both enwiki and Commons. Enwiki supports local variations in grammar within articles but keeps the same term for all article titles; Commons keeps the same term across all categories for consistency's sake. While I certainly agree with you that "trolley" is more common than "tram" in American English, the US represents a distinct minority of such systems, and I don't believe that localized category titles will ever be worth the loss of consistency from doing so. (Many non-English languages also use variations of "Tram"; Commons is multilingual and thus users from those languages will be best served with "Tram". But again, that's an issue that would require change via and RFC, and not by starting at low levels. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
On the first, I have said several times above that I am perfectly willing to have you recreate the categories. Since I don;t completely understand how you want to fit them in the tree, it seems much better to have you do it the way you want it.
On the second, I think that foolish consistency harms the project. It may seem good to someone looking over the whole project to have consistency, but that is not who we are serving. You and I can find any image we want, assuming it has anything like a proper category on it. A newcomer, on the other hand, may well come to Commons looking for an image of a Green Line trolley and not have any idea that he must look using the unknown word "tram". As I said above, I had not heard the word "tram" in this context until 1997 -- that's after 45 years of railfanning all over the world -- riding rapid transit in London, Tokyo, Singapore, Athens, Stockholm, Christchurch, Montreal, Toronto, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Washington, as well as the South Shore Line, the Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee and, of course, the T. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lffs.br
Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Jim. I have recently seen your notification of deletion of the files I have uploaded as Lffs.br. I am not sure what I should do at this point after your deletion. However, I can provide further detailed information on author/date/country of each image uploaded. Most of those files are scanned copies of photos that belong to my father's printed photo collection and digital image library (he is 88 yo and the sole owner of those photos), being all of them by now taken by an unknown person (author) on an unknown accurate date (between 1960s and 1990s) but certainly all in Brazil.
I am not sure what kind of the information you are requesting for those files. But, for instance, for permission and licensing purposes, would it be Ok if the files are tagged Cc-by-sa-3.0-br? For your information, my father wrote to permission.commons@wikipedia.org on 26/01/2015 at 15h07 an email that reads as follows (with the removal of full names here)--Lffs.br (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC): (text removed)
Amendments can been made to all files Gunnex listed for the deletion that you have implemented, i.e. inclusion of appropriate Brazilian permission and licensing information as well as author, date, and country information. Please retrieve them. This will save me a lot of time and further work. I believe those files can be retained by Commons accordingly. Best, Luiz.--Lffs.br (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Ref. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Lffs.br
Sorry, but it is not that easy. Photographs have copyrights in Brazil for 70 years after disclosure, so these are all still under copyright and will be for many years to come. Your father may own copies of the photos (prints), but he almost certainly does not own the copyrights and therefore has no right to license them. The copyrights are owned by the photographers or their heirs. Since you say that the photographers are unknown, the images are orphan works and cannot be kept on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks! Your clarification is precise and helpful. That whole lot of uploaded images but one are scanned copies of prints which were produced from the work of unknown photographers (1960s-1990s) who are the ones who actually own their respective copyrights. My father owns the prints but not the copywrights. That is clear. However, File:JAS 19910801.jpg is a scanned copy of a photo I took of my father. I am the creator and uploader. I own the copyright in this case. So I guess I have the right to have that photo restored and kept in Commons. In so doing, I can edit permission and licensing information and publish it under PD-self. Is it Ok?--Lffs.br (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. I will add up some further categories as you have suggested. Before closing this discussion on that set of deleted images, I still have only one last query on images of public places. For instance, File:Vista parcial de Ewbank da Câmara, início dos anos 90.jpg and File:Vista parcial de Ewbank da Câmara, início dos anos 60.jpg are digitised images of the same public places in the early 90s and 60s. The photographer is unknown in both cases. The image of the File:Vista parcial de Ewbank da Câmara, início dos anos 90.jpg is even posted on the official site of the municipality (http://ewbankdacamara.mg.gov.br/historia/). So would it be possible for you to restore both of these files under a specific license that indicate that copyrights are not applicable in these cases?--Lffs.br (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
If the 1960s image was published or commissioned by the government before 1983, it is possible that it is PD, but you would have to prove that, see Template:PD-BrazilGov. I see no reason to believe that the later image is PD just because it appears on a government Web site. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me01:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Jim, what this category should be about? I mean, if we talk about airplane pilots there's the category "Aviators"; if we talk about maritime workers who pilot either tugboats or pilot boats there's "Maritime pilots". Wouldn't be better that category is turned into a disambiguation? I ask advice to you because you may possibly know another use of the term "pilot" that I don't know. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)10:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC) P.S. Not to mention that respectively in Italian and French "Pilota" and "Pilote" means also the racecar driver...
See Pilots for a lot more uses. Those who steer tugboats and pilot boats are not "pilots" -- a pilot is a passenger on a pilot boat, which takes him out to a ship coming into a harbor. Maritime pilots are (almost always) advisers who give the ship's captain minute to minute advice on how to bring his ship into or out of port. Legally it's only advice, but it is a dumb captain who ignores it.
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Jim, Ref. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Giordano_Macellari - thanks for your response and for your clarifications! I just read the WP:COI. I've made mistakes but in good faith, In fact I did not hide that User:Ercomar was me, Giordano Macellari. I've made mistakes because I started writing on wiki just two weeks ago and I have not read all rules that are lots. As you suggested me I created my user pages on WP:EN and Commons. If you have time please check if what I wrote on my user pages is fine. Now I will send a message to OTRS saying what I have said to you on the previous topic. About the 3 photographs I am the copyright owner because since I am passionate about photography, I always carry with me the camera. I asked the people who were on the various places to take me some pictures with my camera; so no one holds the original photos, except me. Jim, thanks again for your time. User:Ercomar → Giordano Macellari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ercomar (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
When you have actually sent the message to OTRS, please let me know here -- the routine backlog there is several weeks, but I try to reward politeness and good faith efforts when I can and I can probably speed them through OTRS. There is a great deal to learn on both WP and Commons, so we try very hard to be helpful to newbies who are willing to learn.
Your user pages are fine. You should probably stay away from the WP:EN article from now on. Assuming that everything you say there is true, I think it is clear that you meet the WP:EN standards for notability -- the usual problem with autobiographies on WP:EN is that people who are nobodies think they should have articles that tell the world how wonderful they are. Thank you for donating some of your works to Commons and the world.
As for the three photographs, I'm sorry to say that you misunderstand the law. The copyright does not belong to the camera owner, it belongs to the person who actually took the photograph. That is true even if you had set the camera on a tripod -- taking good portraits requires catching expressions at just the right moment and it is that creativity that creates the copyright.
Finally, please start signing your posts -- on talk pages and in DRs. You do that by typing 4 tildes ~~~~ at the end and the system will automatically add your sig with a time stamp. You can customize your sig under Preferences > User profile in the upper right corner. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I have closed the DR, keeping all of the paintings and deleting the three photographs per my comment above. Thanks to User:Ercomar for his understanding and cooperation that made this an easy cleanup. I have already thanked GreenGiant, but thanks again for the note above. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jim, thanks for your patience with newbies. Often we make mistakes just because we are newbies and not because we want to create problems deliberately. I understood the "concept" of the photographs. Thanks for having kept the 20 paintings. --Ercomar (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
My five cents
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Jameslwoodward, as you complained that badly the other day about the load of the admin task on this web, today it made me write finally the improvements I think would lower your Admin job, here. I don't dive into programmation anymore that's why I don't do it myself. So here are my 5 cents for the Admin job, I bet it could lower your task if it is done. No hard feelings, these could be my last days here and on the Earth. --RoRo (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree. Although I have a lot of programming in my past, I don't know any of the tools required to do it here, so I can't really help, but I like all of your ideas. You may find that Special:CategoryTree helps a little. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Jim,
You where amazed that i did not no about the assumption of copyrights and 1885. I wanted to explain a little bit more about that.
I only ones got a deletion request with that date mentioned, at which i responded with a question why the requester for deletion took that date as the date copyright was no longer an issue. I never got an answer to that. You are the second one who mentioned that and now it is clear to me, although i find it sometimes strange that if for example a museum uploads pictures of the same kind, that it is not a problem an pictures are being kept.
I also like to mention that only some of my uploades with pictures of the same kind had a deletion request but were kept since the design was to simple to hold any copyrights or because it was labeled trademarked. So for me it is still a bit of a grey area.
As i have uploaded about 5000 pics of the same kind overtime, maybe you would mark them for deleteion as well, because i don't want to bring this project into any kind of trouble.
By the way, for me it is still very hard to get a clear picture of it al. Maybe i am not intelligent enough or it is the language barrier, but i find it very hard to understand all of it.
Regards, Alf Alfvanbeem (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I remember the comment, although not the context for it -- was it food tins? Briefly, 1885 -- 130 years ago -- seems like a reasonable cutoff. A photographer born in 1860 takes a photograph in 1885 at age 25 and lives to be 85 years old in 1945, the cutoff for pma 70. Obviously it could be earlier. A photographer, born in 1835, takes a photo at age 10 at the very beginning of photography and lives to be 110 -- not impossible, but for me, beyond a significant doubt.
I don't generally go looking for such things -- there is plenty to do here with looking for it, so I'm unlikely to delete any more of your images. Please remember that we have more than 24 million images on Commons. My best guess is that at any time at least 1% of those -- almost a quarter of a million -- should be deleted for one reason or another. More than 10,000 new images are uploaded every day. We have only 25 active Admins who do 90% of the work, so it should not surprise you that some of your images which might be problems have not been deleted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand either the situation or what you would like me to do. As you say, all three have uploaded works of Achraf Baznani. All three posted Deletes in the DR which named a fourth work by Baznani. The fourth work seemed to me a DW, so I deleted it. Baznani may or may not be notable -- he has articles on WP:DE and WP:FR, although the latter is tagged as not notable. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Jim, I'm not sure I agree with this block. Shustov hasn't been used since 2012 and Vshustov hasn't been used since October 2014. The relationship between the accounts is clear and has been deliberately made by the user. As long as only the single account, ShustovVal, participates in DRs related to the three (which has been the case thus far), I don't see that the multiple accounts are being used disruptively. Certainly this user is well into the realm of tendentious/disruptive editing, but that is a separate behavioral issue. I would be supportive of an unblock for time-served, with a warning about keeping future comments on-point and in appropriate venues. Эlcobbolatalk16:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The reason I did it is that he doesn't keep the accounts straight. see:
In both cases his use of multiple accounts has caused confusion for him or potential confusion for others. Multiple accounts are tolerated for specific reasons, but he doesn't match any of them. Even so, I'd leave them alone except for the examples above. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Right, the old accounts (Shustov and Vshustov) were warned by the script and/or had their files nominated, and the current account (ShustovVal) is responding. I suppose I don't see the confusion. Эlcobbolatalk17:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
are of Shustov's son, so they are personal images, but he has plastered them around four WPs, so technically they are in use. I think they are "own work" and therefore OK for copyright.
The other eleven are all of him and therefore copyvios -- he claims to have used a self timer, but that's plainly not correct -- in at least one case the actual photographer is in a mirror in the image. He's also a liar -- http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20CACO%2020080728022 is an amusing read which proves that he lied to the State about his income in order to get into subsidized housing. Dumb, because, of course, the State Income Tax Bureau knows his income. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, Jim
The image Rue Serpollet, 26.jpg has been deleted from Commons for freedom of Panorama in France, as announced. It is OK. I uploaded images with low definition upto French and English wikipedia to use them in articles.
I created deletion requests about recent buildings and artworks in Paris such as this one Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files of Paris in 1981 with bad file names. May you put an agreement for deletion on these deletions request. Because the other admin IneverCry often wishes to keep these images. Thanks. --Tangopaso (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, Jim
May you put an advice for deletion on this request. On the image, there are more colored and original pipes than on my Rue Serpollet, 26.jpg. But a wikipedian wrote Piping is a utilitarian object and there is nothing special about its arrangement that would give it copyright protection. Thanks. --Tangopaso (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
About Supercolisor.png
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Jim. Sorry for getting in touch with you here, but I saw no other way. I took the photo myself and yes, it is online in my band's official website and Flickr. I have no idea how I would proceed to send a "free license" or anything like that. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.2.149.159 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Volksdorfer Damm 268a, Gemeindezentrum, Hamburg-Bergstedt1.JPG
Hello, Jim, as a senior and very beginner on Commons I don't know how to repair the wrong file name. To be on the safe side could you be so kind and do that for me and than explain the single steps especially wich page to begin with? Thank you so much, --Vitavia (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
To change the file description, simply click on "edit" ("Bearbeiten") in the toolbar at the top right, make the necessary changes, and then click on "save" ("Seite speichern") at the bottom.
To change a file name, you add the {{Rename}} template at the very top of the file description page. If you click on the link to the template in the preceding sentence, you will find complete instructions. An Admin will then change the name for you. (I could do all of this for you faster than I can write it, but this is a teaching moment.)
Go ahead and do it, and leave me a note here when you're done and I'll check your work. Remember that Commons (and all of WMF) saves everything forever, so any mistake you might make can be repaired easily. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Good morning to Jim and many thanks for your instructions. Tried my very best: the only problem now was the decision between renaming criterion no. 3 or 5 and especially where to find the sign for hashtag, which I finally copied from the Wikipedia article. There seems to be an intermediate result on the file-page, could you please have a look at it and inform me? I am fan of "Learning by doing", too, and I used to do so from my beginning in the German Wikipedia in Nov. 2013. Commons rules are a very new challenge for me and I am very thankful for your help and understanding! --Vitavia (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks like you did fine -- our colleague Steinsplitter has already moved the file to the new name. You didn't get the rename quite right -- the hashtag is not needed, although Steinsplitter got it right. (see Template:Rename#Examples). The file looks good. My only question is -- is this the only church in Hamburg-Bergstedt? Does it have a name other than just "Hamburg-Bergstedt church"? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your teamwork help! The Bergstedt Church is the only cultural heritage church in that region. They have their own article Bergstedter Kirche in the German Wikipedia and their own official hompage. It is one of the eldest churches in Hamburg, there are of course other (smaller) religious communities to be supposed in that northern district of Hamburg. Thank you for your interest! --Vitavia (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Hard to say -- you never ask me the easy ones. I'd say "Welsh language writers", as "Writers in Welsh" sounds like maybe it ought to be "Writers in Wales" (ie writers living in Wales) which is not what you mean. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes I'm aware I never ask you easy questions and I apologise for that, but if they are not easy for you that are a native speaker of English you can easily figure out how even less easy are for me… Anyway I too supposed that Welsh language writers were more appropriate, though I didn't dare touching those categories before asking advice. Thank you. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)17:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
AAP Symbol.png
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I was exploring nominating File:AAP Symbol.png for deletion when I saw that there had been previous deletion discussion and I should contact you first. Commons:Deletion requests/Indian Election Symbols, Party Symbols and Logos was a bulk deletion request which you quite understandably declined as "Procedural close. There are too many issues here to deal with a DR this large." My specific concern is that this file was not the uploader's own work in the first place and has even be replaced by an image which is explicitly "the exact symbol as allocated by Hon. Election Commision of India"; it can't be licenced as claimed. I'm not at all familiar with Commons and anyway I'd be glad of your advice. NebY (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You say, "this file was not the uploader's own work in the first place" -- how do you know this? The file is widely used, so it cannot be deleted unless it is a copyright violation. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair question. I ran this Google image search on the first version and thought I'd spotted uses that predated the first upload. Now that I've gone through them in more detail, I'm not sure that any of those which are exactly the same really do predate the first upload. Sorry - I should withdraw my "in the first place" claim. But the latest version does still seem to be a problem; it's just a rescaling of the second version, and the second version was as described, "previous file was not the exact symbol as allocated by Hon. Election Commision of India so i've uploaded the exact symbol". Should we revert to the first version? I take your point about the wide use of the file and I'm not set on complete deletion at all. NebY (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
None of them are very good quality. Except for the wide use of the current version, I'd be inclined to revert toi the first version simply because it is the best quality and it's hard to see that there is much difference (other than quality) between them. Given the wide use, though, I'd be inclined to leave it alone. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the only clear difference I see is in the position of the band. Reversion could solve a problem we're having over using that file in the English Wikipedia article on the party itself en:Aam Admi Party following a lengthy discussion Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_33#Multiple_non-free_logos_for_same_organisation. Understandably, some think the party should have its symbol iin the article just like other Indian parties. That might be much easier to resolve if we didn't have a copied version here. (This is what set me looking here.) NebY (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Um, JIm, did you see that the photographer contacted the artist and is getting OTRS permission? Please undelete for a bit until we get this finalized. Montanabw (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please read the related de minimis discussions for the other files in the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rats and Silva 6619.JPG collection- and make the necessary correction. I am sure you will join me in pressing for a change in the mass-deletion system, so if the nominator make multiple suggestion in one keystroke- the opposer can write one comment to defend them.--ClemRutter (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yann and I disagree. In order for something to be de minimis it must be possible to remove it from the image without an ordinary user noticing the removal. Since the very point of these images are the copyrighted rats, I don't see how any de minimis argument can be made here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
…tell me: After this, it is your impression that I am a believer in this Nibiru crackpottery or any other form of pseudo-science? Because if it is, then I really need to improve my English skills. -- Tuválkin✉23:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
No, not at all. I think we disagree on how much space and credit Commons should give to crackpot theories, but I see nothing in your comments that even begins to suggest that you are a Nibiru believer. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion
Dear Jim, thank for your concern. 1) The source is the Journal Electroneurobiology (http://electroneubio.secyt.gov.ar/ ). It is a State e-journal licensing its material under Creative Commons (see far down in the Index page, above referred to). 2) The image is in http://electroneubio.secyt.gov.ar/general_archivos/mario_crocco_explicando2.JPG and is unrelated to PD-NASA 3) Also, it has nothing to do with Beanie Baby (and I have no idea of what is this reference) 4) I think we were talking about different images, so let´s me place again the same request. I´m quite unexperienced, so may you help again on this? Cheers, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.198.156 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. The deleted image at this file name is indeed a Beanie Baby, specifically this one, although not this image. It was uploaded by Señor BCM on 24 March 2014. Señor BCM also uploaded one other image,File:Mario Crocco.png (png not jpg), on 28 October 2012. That is a photo of a man that has been photoshopped badly with a fake nose, mustache, and eyeglasses. It is hard to tell, but I don't think it is the man shown in the image you cite above -- the face is much broader and he is clean shaven.
Wow, indeed he is not! Señor BCM seems to have been vandalizing the image, Jim. Thanks for showing me who Beanie Baby is! :-)))
As for the image you cite above, while I do see a CC-BY license on the page, I think the Journal Electroneurobiology is license laundering. I would be very surprised if they actually have the right to freely sublicense the photograph. Indeed, I would be surprised if they even had the right to use the image themselves. Tracking down copyright holders is time-consuming and I don't think a medical journal would bother. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed reply, Jim! Let me now ask you for advice, as to how get the correct image added into Commons. As I live some forty km from the Hospìtal, delayed this reply until I had a morning with some things to do nearby, and came to the Hospital´s Direction. A secretary there said me that the journal is owned by the Hospital (which is a State´s one), that Crocco still lives and is emeritus director of the journal (though now doing little more in it than technical orienting), and that all of the many images in the editorial page (the one of interest here, that we were seeing on her machine) are of current or past medical officers of the Hospital, so they are deemed public and got issued under the CC-BY license you saw. She also was shown the image on the page and, recognizing the landscape as a class in the open being imparted at the edge of an inner wood of the large institution, she said that it was taken inside the Hospital. So she said to me that the image is in the public domain because it was so taken (in a public institution allowing them), being afterwards also publicly licensed with such a purpose. On this info, Jim, may you kindly say me what should I do to properly add it into Commons? Cheers, --190.55.198.15616:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Since the outdoor class image you link above appears on the Journal's web site, which has a CC-BY license, then it should be OK for Commons. Forgive me, I do not remember -- has it been uploaded before and deleted? -- if so, let me know here and I will restore it. If not, just upload it and then promptly let me know so I can verify the license and add a {{LicenseReview}} tag. License review must always be done by a second person, not the uploader. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I am uploading it after finishing this notice, Jim - I thought it was uploaded before and deleted, but you showed me it may have seem Beany Baby. Thus it seems safer to upload it again - please give me ten minutes, JIm; thank again.--190.55.198.15617:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I failed. I was trying to upload the correct image but the Uploading Wizard says, "mario_crocco_explicando2.JPG There was another file already on the site with the same content, but it was deleted. 0 of 1 file uploaded". I now am going out for a while and in some hours will be back at the computer. I cannot see if the previous image was Prof. Crocco or Beanie Baby - so I´ll ask you to restore the proper photograph. Later, --Muchay (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Back home after paid job, Jim! The Commons´ file deleted by Taivo on 24 mar 2014 was named File:Mario_Crocco.jpg. I don´t believe it was Beanie Baby, but a proper image. The name "mario_crocco_explicando2.JPG" seems never used in Commons, since I found it only in the source medical Journal. I don´t know who uploaded the former one into Commons, as the notice found in the Spanish wiki, in [[2]], says "(act · ant) 13:39 24 mar 2014 CommonsDelinker (discusión · contribuciones) m . . (5909 bytes) (-17) . . (Bot: Eliminando "Mario_Crocco.jpg". Borrado en Commons por Taivo. (Fair use material is not permitted on Wikimedia Commons: commons:COM:TOYS)) (deshacer)" (Let me translate "eliminando" as deleting, and "borrado" as erased.) I never saw the other, badly photoshopped image with a fake nose uploaded by Señor BCM on 28 October 2012, namely File:Mario Crocco.png (png not jpg), but I might assume it also should have originally been a proper image, later supplanted by the same vandal. Let´s the mistery be. Anyway, what Wikipedia needs is at least a single photograph, and in uploading the one in the Journal (which I believed was the original deleted by Taivo, but now it seems to have turned at some moment into Beanie Baby) I experienced the mentioned difficulty. What could I do with it, Jim? Thanks again, --Muchay (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
For the record, again, the only image in the Commons log for the filename File:Mario Crocco.jpg is the Beanie Baby. As I said above, I see no reason why you can;t upload the outdoor class photo linked above. If the file name at the source doesn;t work, pick another. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I picked up several new filenames for uploading the archive, always to find "There was another file already on the site with the same content, but it was deleted." I tried assorting filenames with the person´s name included as well as excluded, even "Hosp_Borda_lecturing.jpg", etc., to no avail. In the end, I assumed that the uploading system is recognizing something, perhaps my machine (same as I used yesterday) or the image itself. Do you think it might be so, Jim?
Excellent! Old American efficiency, it seems! Now I will try to do my task ... Cheers!
Well, Jim, after all your good work, yet saga continues. I found several other images uploaded by user FP in 2007/8 and later deleted because of copyright misinterpretations. I sent a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org telling the story (they might perhaps contact you), pointing to the usefulness of those images and asking them for considering undeletion. Would you like that I also paste a copy for you here? Best, --Muchay (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
If they are from the same source, then I can undelete them. You need to involve OTRS only when a third party is involved that needs to give permission. Why don't you give me a a list here -- not the OTRS e-mail, I can probably find that there -- and I'll look them over. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you again, Jim! I found that user FP also uploaded several other images, all seemingly valuable in my field of interest (history of Latin American science) and coming from the same journal. They have been deleted (4 images) or tagged for deletion (one image), due only to license concerns (no controversies involved, or I was unable to track any). One of the FP´s uploadings is also an Argentinian Post Office´s stamp. Files are:
Great, Jim! I agree with your criteria, and this material plus the one I now found in FP's uploadings lists is tantamount to a treasure trove for articles on the history of Latin American neurobiology/neuropsychology, badly under-represented in all Wikis - and interestingly different from the Anglo-American well-known contributions in these fields, so that the notices in the articles might also help for a better reciprocal understanding and, so, (hopefully!) led to new technical developments. BTW, let me share the expectatives that the current availability of images inspires for my humble contributions in the following months. First, I'll try a detailed summary of Crocco´s extense works in Spanish (another knowledgeable user from Argentina seems also to be already working on this, chiefly on the social/biographical aspects; FP didn´t answer to a message from me and possibly is no longer active), then translating the article into English (maybe you are now curious about this topic, and certainly the language will benefit from native-speaker editings), then putting it into French too, and doing the same with Jakob´s work which has a better notice on es.Wiki but is also seriously incomplete on some areas. Carrillo is the better represented of the three scientists, and if appropriate I am planning to go to the Argentinian Central Post Office so as to ask for permission in order to reproduce on Commons his stamp image - once I get a formal permission signed on paper, I shall communicate it and recording the signing officer's data. I'm quite slow -have no much time available- but your kind help gave me impulse, better possibilities, and occasion for learning about FP's valuable uploadings for these projects. Thanks again!--Muchay (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Jim, thanks for your message! The full license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/) to publish this image was given on 01 Dec 2014 by license owner Ted BAUER (www.premium-modern-art.com). But I can ask him again to contact permissions-de@wikimedia.org directly. So please DO NOT DELETE this image!!! License is fully OK, maybe some missunderstanding concerning communication towards Wikipedia.User:Norbert Schott22:26, 02 March 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Jim, would it be possible that you undelete this file? Ted BAUER (www.premium-modern-art.com) sent the full publishing license on 24 Feb 2015 to permissions-de@wikimedia.org. The Wikipedia ticket-no. is #2015022410008844. Kind regards, Norbert .User:Norbert Schott22:29, 02 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jim, Ted BAUER is the CEO of www.premium-modern-art.com who is the global license owner of the works of James Gill. What do you need else? The artist will be at the art fair www.art-karlsruhe.de next weekend. As I will also meet the artist there, what would I have to do? Do you need a signed letter from the artist??? Kind regards, Norbert .User:Norbert Schott09:50, 04 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not sure why a living, active (albeit 82 year old) American artist has a German "global license owner", or even exactly what that means. Does Bauer automatically get a license to all of Gill's works as they are created? Does his license allow him to sublicense works to the world? -- That seems odd, because I think that Bauer makes money by selling reproductions of Gill's work and a CC-BY-SA license here would allow people to create posters and sell them in competition with him.
With that said, however, I would be inclined to accept a statement by and directly from Bauer, through OTRS, that says that he holds a license from Gill that allows him to sublicense Gill's work and that he grants a CC-BY-SA license for (list of works). That statement should not say "for use in Wikipedia" or words to that effect, which the present e-mail has in it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Request for blocking IP:125.41.79.101 IP:125.41.136.57 and user:Sisagester
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm here to report this user Sisagester and his IP addresses, he constantly changes information of iamges I uploaded on advertising purpose. Now he even changes the licensing information that you reviewed and confirmed on November 18, 2014. Please check the history. I feel he is very naive and annoying, also he changes other users' iamges in the same way, (File:Asphaltmischanlage Gesamtansicht.jpg and File:Asfaltinstallatie met paralleltrommel.jpg and some other images of mine). Very contemptible way to promote his websites. I already report him on the vandalism board. But no results. Can you help me blocking him? I don't want to involve any edit war. Regards and Thanks.
Please Delete Remaining Images from user baldwhiteguy
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi James. Given that you've deleted my images on 25 Feb, I request that as per my statements you now also delete all other images uploaded by me. The deletion request was fairly petty and stupid in my view - and I stand by that a non-commercial clause was a valid addition. Once again, Flickr's Creative Commons licence has a no-commercial option so I see no reason why wikimedia commons can't allow the same. It's very easy and just a matter of policy - and need never have been a big deal that led to my images being removed. I am the legitimate owner of those images. I am unhappy with my images having been pulled for what is essentially an internal policy issue (and which was very unclear to a new user). Wikimedia Commons isn't what I thought it was, or what it appeared to me to be ... although I clearly didn't do enough research or reading of the fine print prior to my uploads.
Basically, I do not agree to my images being hosted or offered through an organisation that feel doesn't respect my rights as a photographer or image owner. As stated in my submission on the deletion requests - if you delete SOME of my images then you must delete ALL of them. This is because I wish o dissociate myself completely from wikimedia - including the site's ongoing display of my remaining work. I will instead be offering them through Flickr's non-commercial variation of the Creative Commons licence. Bald white guy (talk)
As I said at the DR, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes commercial use. There are almost no non-commercial uses. In print, any use in printed matter is commercial unless the work is given away free. In education, any use is commercial except if it is in a school that does not charge any tuition or for books and materials. On the web any use is commercial except on a personal web site that does not carry advertising. So, you may chose whatever license you will, but you are kidding yourself if you think anyone can actually legally use an image that has an NC license.
As for your existing images, no, we will keep them. Your license is irrevocable and your attempt to have them deleted amounts to petty vandalism. If you persist along those lines, you will be blocked. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Allow me to add my 2 Rs. ;o) I think, and that was also Carl L.'s opinion, that if you choose the place, the time, the pose, the equipment, and ask a passer-by to take a picture, you own the copyright. You take all the creativity decision, the passer-by just push the button. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more. I've been a photographer for over sixty years, mostly amateur, but two or three stints as a professional. I can tell you that taking good portraits is very hard. Framing the image and pushing the button at exactly the right moment is the key to a good portrait -- everything else is just trivial in comparison. That's even more true now when the camera does all of the work of focus and exposure -- the only thing that is really left is picking the right instant. In effect, you're saying that there is no creativity in photography with a modern camera, and none of us would agree with that. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jim, I also have been a photographer for 35 years. The modernity of the equipment does not change anything to what I wrote above. It only reinforces it actually. In my example of a passer-by, with an old equipment, the photographer still has to adjust the focus. With an automatic camera in automatic mode, even this is not his choice. Of course, this only apply if the passer-by only push the button, and do nothing else. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Jee, I note that Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership was written by an intern without any cites that are on the point of the stranger taking the picture.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Yann: Hmm, I like your point, but only to a limited extent. Even with a fully manual camera -- no exposure or focus automation at all (my Leica IIIg, for example) -- getting the exposure and focus right was very mechanical, not creative. The hard part has always been pushing the button at exactly the right moment. If that were not so, we'd all be Alfred Stieglitz.
I can imagine a case where a person set a camera on a tripod and himself on a stool with a mirror to see himself (or, in modern terms, a large screen running from the camera output), posed himself, and then had an assistant push the button would be a case where the copyright would rest with the subject. I can't imagine that happening with a case like this, where both the framing and the right instant was under the control of the photographer. It would have to be at least a joint work, and, I think, more likely exclusively the authorship of the actual button-pusher. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The taking of snapshots by bystanders is extremely common. Analogies with professional photographers and works of art may not hold. Rather, someone, who is generally not a professional photographer, has a camera, sets it up, and asks a bystander if they wouldn't mind taking a picture. I have taken many dozens of these. They don't ask and don't know my name. I have no idea at all that I own anything. There may be cases where a photo is valuable and the bystander is known as well, the Ellen selfie is the well-known case. There, the camera was in the possession of Ellen, and another person who was also in the photo, was asked to actually take the photo. There, it is possible to assert some creative effort, but even there, legal opinion was divided. Possession, though, was clearly by Ellen. With ordinary bystander selfies, there are none of those indications of involvement. Because this situation is common, and is resulting in deletion requests and debate, I'd recommend Commons create a policy on it. Otherwise it's a formula for continued disruption. Yann's opinion matches mine, but, in addition, it matches common understanding. Users who have a selfie to upload, taken by a bystander, will think it is their "own work," so we have a setup for misunderstandings. The practical reality with these: there would never be a bystander asserting copyright. So if the images have been released by the person, they are free for use, under all realistic scenarios, it's much more clear than with the "Monkey selfie," where there is a real person asserting copyright who has threatened to sue, and who might actually win, lawyers are of differing opinions. --Abd (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting there. This is a big part of the problem of bystander selfies. There is no "case in point." So people are making up law. My objection here is to the asserted fixed position that the "creator" is always the person who pushes the button, as exemplified by a bystander who accepts a request to "snap a picture for me," who hands the camera back, often is unknown to the owner of the camera, seeks and takes no credit, etc., and, as a practical matter, would have enormous difficulty later asserting copyright, if it could be done at all. --Abd (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
No, we're discussing Commons policy. Commons is a free hosting site and as such can make rules of what can and can't be hosted here for free. Some people think Commons is obligated to take their photos and that is not the case where copyright is unclear. Please see COM:L for full discussion of the issues. Comment also here, whenever travelers give me their camera for "tourism shot" I always try to make it unusual. One time I took only their shoes, and then second shot their faces, in another I tombstoned a crying baby in over the guys head, like a hat. I'm a dangerous person to hand YOUR camera to... I take art, not photos usually. But even with their cameras on autofocus, those are my photos. Cheers! Jim, please see below & my talk page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Great, Ellin. You are making my point, in fact. Good luck with your claim of "my photos." You would almost certainly lose in court, wasting your own time and money and that of others. You have argued points that are not at all mine, for example, stuff about obligation. I will review whatever you point to.
So I looked at COM:L, wasting my time, since it is utterly silent on the issue. The core of the issue is the meaning of "creator," and the role of creators, which is what a court would look at. I am still looking for case law. None found so far. There are some citations below, though, that will take time to look at. I'm sensitive that this is Jim's talk page. I don't have any immediate issue with him, though obviously we disagree on some things. --Abd (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not a lawyer, but I have effectively acted as one, and prevailed in court. Always. I would never go to court with a losing issue, I'd settle. --Abd (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
"My objection here is to the asserted fixed position that the "creator" is always the person who pushes the button" What is the legal basis for that objection, and for the implicit contention that copyright would instead vest in the requester/camera owner because either the photographer "seeks and takes no credit" or would be difficult to find? Per the US Copyright Office, "The author of a work is responsible for its creation. Normally, the author is the person who actually creates the authorship being claimed. The only exception occurs when authorship is created as a work made for hire." (emphasis mine) A "work made for hire" is a term defined by statute and would not generally exist in the passerby scenario. Indeed, it is very well established that the person who causes the work to be fixed in a tangible medium (see 17 U.S.C. § 102) -- i.e., the photographer, creator -- is the author. Thurgood Marshall found in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 737 (1989) that, "[a]s a general rule, the author is the party who actually creates the work, that is, the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection." See also: Erickson v. Trinity Theatre, Inc., 13 F.3d 1061, 1071 (7th Cir. 1994) (person who fixes ideas in tangible expression qualifies as author); Childress v. Taylor, 945 F.2d 500, 507 (2d Cir. 1991) (expression must be fixed before creator is considered author); Ashton-Tate Corp. v. Ross, 916 F.2d 516, 521 (9th Cir. 1990) (person must translate ideas into copyrightable expression to be considered author); Riley Home Bldg. Corp. v. Cosgrove, 864 F. Supp. 1034, 1037 (D. Fan. 1994) (copyright ownership vests only in person who creates fixed, tangible expression); Balkin v. Wilson, 863 F. Supp. 523, 527-28 (W.D. Mich. 1994) (one must fix idea into tangible form to be author); etc. Эlcobbolatalk18:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
čeština∙Deutsch∙English∙español∙suomi∙français∙italiano∙日本語∙português∙русский∙українська∙+/−Click the "Signature and timestamp"-button to sign your talkpage contributionsAs a courtesy to other editors, it is Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, I saw you were an admin and I thought you would be a good person to contact about this. If i want to change my name from Disclaser to DiscLaser (capital L) who would I talk to?
Disclaser (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks Jim - the photo was copied from a work published 1927 - guess the originator could have lived well beyond 1945 - deletion agreed - cheers
Tfitzp (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is there a need for indef blocking this IP? AFAIR standard block for these kind of vandal IPs is a week. --Denniss (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know -- he is an IP who has done nothing but vandalize. Too be sure, it's only five instances, but still, he has done nothing constructive. I'd be inclined to leave it indef and change it if he requests it, but I don't feel strongly about it -- if you want to change it to a week, by all means go ahead with my blessing. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Jim, according to your conclusion, you should have deleted all the involved files, shouldn't you? Did you miss the two not deleted ones or you explicitly decided to keep them? Best regards --Discastotalk | contr. | es.wiki analysis18:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Jim. I was hoping I could get your opinion on this image. It was tagged for LR recently, but it's an 8 year old upload by a user who hasn't edited in over 4 years. The user looks to have been a trustworthy editor. The image is pretty widely used. You know the basic deal with 2006 uploading standards as compared to today's. I wonder if an LR is really needed or even possible, etc. Thanks for your time. INeverCry23:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
That's cool. I just started the DR yesterday, so there's plenty of time. I appreciate the help. I try to only bring cases to you that concern issues that're pretty rare. This one is a Youtube video with a CC license, but with an opening screen with a big CC-BY-NC-SA license. INeverCry22:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Many thanks for carefully studying the situation regarding a picture. Your input here is very much appreciated: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Helias_Doundoulakis_in_Camp_Crowder,_MO,_1945.JPG. This whole situation has been a headache for me, and very exhausting. I have acted according to what I thought was right, but my knowledge regarding copyright issues is minimal compared to yours. At least I'm comforted by the fact that my initial nomination for deletion was correct. Again, many thanks. Also, on your user page, which is very nice, I read "one used as as a refrigerator magnet." I tried to remove the repeated "as" but your page is protected. Have a nice day. Dontreader (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Great catch! The double "as" has been there almost five years, since I first wrote the sentence. I didn't catch it because on my screen the line broke between the two. Thanks very much.
As far as the DR goes, certainly your efforts are much appreciated, but I'd suggest that until you get more experience, you ask for help earlier if things get complicated. Certainly the next time, feel completely free to come here and ask for help. As you'll see above, even very experienced Admins ask each other for second opinions on things from time to time. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I seem to find little typos and tiny mistakes everywhere, all the time, and I'm glad you appreciated my discovery! Also, I think for now I will focus on nominating files for deletion that have clearly not been uploaded using a proper procedure, you know, the no-brainer situations (my track record is good in those cases). I know that there are just too many uploads every day, and not enough people that are willing to examine them, so I do try to help. The rules must be enforced. It's taken me over two months to get informal permission for my latest upload, sending many letters, and the owner has yet to send in the formal declaration of consent. God give me patience! Anyway, it's interesting that even you seasoned Administrators have doubts at times, although given the complexity of the matters here at Commons, I'm not surprised. Many thanks for your kind reply and for being willing to help me in the future! All the best, Dontreader (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Jim,
Even with your point of view that the passer-by or friend is always also copyright owner of selfies, I think that we should accept (and amend the policy accordingly) selfies made by passer-by and friends, because the subject is co-author. Some people wrote that each author can license a work without the permission of the other. Do you agree? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
No. As I said several different ways at the cited discussion, the circumstances vary too much, so PRP must control. Certainly there are cases where Subject hands a preset camera to Bystander, gives Bystander careful instructions about exactly where to stand and how to frame the image, and has Bystander shoot a dozen images, from which Subject selects the best -- that might be a joint work. But the typical case, where Subject turns the camera on and hands it to Bystander; Bystander steps back a few paces and moves left or right as he sees fit, frames the image also as he sees fit, gets Subject to smile and shoots one good image -- that case is clearly the Bystander's work with little creative input from Subject.
As for licensing a joint work, yes, any jointly held copyright, including one that is inherited, can be licensed by any one of the joint owners, but he runs a significant risk in doling so. The joint owner is responsible to the other owners for a fair division of any profits from the license and also responsible to the others for loss of possible profit if he gives the license away. So, if you and I are joint owners and I license it to Commons, if you can show that you could have sold the image, then I must pay you half the amount it would have sold for. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
With a bystander selfie, the bystander would be laughed out of court if claiming damages for loss of profit from an image where the bystander, by behavior, showed no interest in ownership. What is missed here is that in a bystander selfie, as defined, the subject clearly is a co-author, at least, there are too many creative elements involved. What you have been doing, Jim, is establishing that a bystander could be a co-owner, and I agree, technically, it is not impossible. As part of my research for this, I looked at what professional photographers, sophisticated about copyright, wrote on the subject. Yes, they might use professional expertise, but would never claim copyright. With a bystander selfie, the subject expects to own exclusive rights. It's completely obvious. And that is why subjects with bystander selfies routinely claim "own work." And then you have written, many times, that this is not possible.
One thing you have consistently missed is the creative activity of the subject, in deciding to be photographed with their own camera. We all agree that if a self-timer is used, the work is sufficiently creative (normally) to be copyrighted. If someone else participates, and is, say, creative in certain details, such as exact framing, or adjusts zoom, etc., they might be co-authors, however, with a bystander selfie, as defined on the draft at COM:Own work/Bystander selfie, they have abandoned that. Nevertheless, we don't need to know. A co-author may release. You might think that could be foolish, but professional photographers and lawyers, asked this specific question, considered that the subject owns exclusive copyright. And that is because of how the image is handled, the bystander could not release the image, because he or she doesn't have possession of it and took no action to establish rights, but acted in such a way as to clearly indicate no interest.
On Commons talk:Own work/Bystander selfie, I cite a case establishing that by arranging what is to be photographed, with the intention of creating the photograph, a writer who had retained a professional photographer -- who used his own camera -- was a co-author and could release rights. Yes, the photographer could -- and did -- claim copyright. Attempting to claim exclusive copyright, he lost. The writer, by the way, had already paid him a share of the royalties, as I recall. This matter is between the co-authors, and a deprived co-author may indeed sue the releasing co-author. Which would have no effect on a re-user of Commons content, properly released by a co-author. --Abd (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You take it for granted that a self-timer taken photograph has a copyright which belongs to the subject. That's not at all clear to me and I've never seen any case law on it. It is well established that images taken by fixed cameras -- security tapes, for example -- do not have a copyright. A self timer image is very similar.
For me, the only thing that matters in the average bystander photograph is the exact framing and the exact moment. All else is either set by the camera or irrelevant.
However, it is clear that we disagree, but if you expect to have Commons adopt your position as policy you need to get a lot more support than you now have. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. You've missed a major point with your argument about self-timer. If a self-timer image has no copyright, it may be hosted on Commons. Your argument would lead to not deleting such an image (at least not on the basis you have routinely asserted.) As to co-authorship, you have only focused on the creative effort of the bystander, which may or may not be significant enough to create a theoretical ownership. You have neglected legal opinion and case law which establishes that co-authorship exists where the subject participated creatively in creating the image, such as by acting out, say, an exercise for a video, setting a self-timer and handing the camera to a bystander to maintain framing. I was amazed when that explanation was given by the user, why would a self-timer be used? I asked him if he was sure. It was, he wrote, because he found that bystanders often didn't properly press Record, so he had to do it all over again." Hey, I've done that myself, thought I was recording and I wasn't! You called that person a "liar" because he claimed "own work" and then, in a deletion discussion, mentioned "self-timer."
I have no doubt, though, that with such a video, a bystander selfie as defined, the subject would own exclusive copyright. Period. It's not marginal. Your claim above of "significant risk" would not be approved by any knowledgeable copyright attorney. And it's irrelevant for Commons. This has been a frequent dispute, and it's time to end it. So, yes, this will be approved by the community. Did you imagine I thought otherwise? What I've been doing is developing fact and evidence, and soliciting participation on that page, getting the arguments clear, including yours, and that process is not yet complete. When it is, we go to the community, right? --Abd (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I have ever deleted a self-timer/tripod image, so I don't understand your comments above. Shustov lied about using a self timer -- if he had actually used one, with the camera on a tripod, the images would have been acceptable from a copyright point of view, although still out of scope.
All of the conditions you set forth above are special cases -- I agree that a small percentage of bystander images are joint works, but I believe strongly that the vast majority are not and since our policy always errs on the side of caution, we should not accept them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
I did not say you deleted the file. The camera was not on a tripod, and that was obvious. Rather, read what I wrote. The camera was held by a bystander, and a self-timer was used to start the video. Because the camera moved, or the photographer was visible -- there are various cases -- you assumed he'd lied. Shustov also had other photos that were stills, both as self-timer photos and as bystander assisted. Shustov did not understand what was going on and how to communicate what needed to be communicated. That's obvious! See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ShustovVal, the last DR. I had not noticed it before, but Shustov actually did write what I wrote above.[3] I had not understood it on the first reading myself. Shustov did not understand that, on the argument you have been following, the file would still be deletable, because of the "creative activity" of the person holding the camera. Actually pressing the button, especially for a video, is a minor part of it.
Thanks for being clear. This is what I found. All bystander selfies, as defined in COM:Own work/Bystander selfie are owned by the subject. Period. See the WMF legal opinion. It concluded exclusive subject ownership. I suspect it is possible to imagine rare circumstances where the bystander might have co-authorship. Frankly, I have difficulty imagining a practical case, and you have not asserted one. Bystander selfies are a special case!
The primary issue is not the degree of creativity exercised, the issue is the intention of the parties and the custody of the latent image. Above, you claim that it would be risky for the subject to release the image. However, could the subject simply delete the image from his camera? Would that be risky? By your argument, the same risk. You imagine that a bystander has the right to demand some sort of specific performance and rights from the subject, when, in fact, the bystander has, as the situation has been defined, completely surrendered whatever right might have existed.
You mention "out of scope." Most Shustov files were in use on WMF wikis, so "out of scope" would be incorrect. As to the file mentioned, delinker log. I see six pages cross-wiki with that gif. --Abd (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but it doesn't pass my sniff test -- I suspect that you are also suspicious, or you would not have asked me. He does not say that he is the photographer or that he is the heir of the photographer. I can't tell whether he simply does not understand that owning a copy of an image does not mean that you own the copyright or if he is actually lying, but I see no reason to believe that he actually owns the copyrights to "images taken from my Private Photo CoUectíon". . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes; I too suspicious. And I still wonder whether further communication will be helpful. Will make one more attempt, anyway. :) Jee13:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
FOREO_logo.svg
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I would say that a diploma always is given in order to publicly shown. Could You give me any other examples of diplomas which are covered by copyright laws ? If not, the matter of copyright surely must fall. At the time (October 2014) I also asked Västerås flight museum if I could use it at Wikipedia, and the answer was "of cource". Boeing720 (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
A simple university diploma, with only a name, date, degree, and a few words, will not have a copyright in most countries. However, the subject diploma has an image of a DC-10, a full sentence of text, and the logo of the museum which has a second photograph in it. Any of those three items would qualify it for a copyright in the USA and most other countries.
Most created works are made to be publicly shown. The fact that a sculpture, painting, or other work of art is on public display does not mean that it does not have a copyright. The only reason Commons can host any images of recent works of art is that in about half of all countries there are special exceptions to the copyright law which allow us to host them. No such exception applies to this work.
Verbal permission from the museum for use on WP is nowhere near sufficient. Copyright law requires that any license for a copyrighted work must be in writing. Commons and WP require that works hosted here be free for any use by anyone, not just WP.
Hi Jim ! Are You saying the museum isn't attowed to use a diploma such as this ? The photo of the DC-10 has been taken by the museum itself. And the simulator was more or less given to the museum , after SAS no longer needed the simulator. Pardon me, but this is all bullshit. Boeing720 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I assume that the museum has a license to the photographs on the diploma. Note that museums don't take photographs, people do, so the museum cannot be the initial copyright holder, but it probably has a proper license for them. The text is similar, so if the museum has properly licensed the photographs and text, then it has no problem -- the museum owns the copyright for the diploma. But that doesn't do anything for us here -- you do not have a copyright license from the museum and therefore you have no right to license it freely on Commons.
I'm not sure I understand why you think this diploma is any different from any other copyrighted work. I hope that you understand that you cannot simply scan a newspaper or magazine page and upload it to Commons. The same is true of the diploma. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
OK. I have only asked the instructor. However I am quite certain that the diploma is made by the museum, and given to those who has started and landed a DC-10 atleast once (in good weather it's not really that difficult after some attempts, provided You can do the same with a Microsoft Simulator (9 or 10 and chose a jet airliner). Anyways I'm planning to return to Västerås (it's around 550 km, of which around 470 is motorway) rather soon. Not that it matters that much, it's just that Tommy Isosalo who is stalking me, when he isn't stalking someone else. But what kind of information would be requiered , in order to make the diploma absolutely safe ? (I understand the photo part, but there is absolutely nothing that indicates copywright issues at all , in this case. www.flygmuseum.com + the instructors signature "Chico" is all I can find. (Off topic , the instructer came from Austria to Sweden when he was 4 years old just after the war, he told me. And his real name is Adolf + something very German. So I can understand he uses a nickname. A very nice man around 65-70 years old).
I appriciate You are doing Your work, Jim. I'm trying to avoid Tommy Isosalo, but that appears sadly not to be mutual. I've put another (approved) Commons photo of a DC-10 where the diploma was. Cheers and sorry for my initial sour attitude. Boeing720 (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You can certainly try asking the Museum for a free license. All the required information is at OTRS. Note that the museum must send the license directly -- we do not generally accept licenses forwarded by the uploader. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, all of his sculptures are under copyright and will be until 2084. Therefore all images of his work infringe on the copyrights unless freedom of panorama applies. Spain has a very comprehensive FOP law, but it applies only to work out of doors. The Passion Facade images are all covered by it. The subject sculpture, and other indoor works, are not.
I went through the images we have of works by Subirachs yesterday, see:
As for the image at WP:ES, it certainly infringes on the copyright. I don't know what the rules are there, and there is far more to do here than I have time for, so I spend little time on any of the WPs. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I have to admit that i had no clue about the FOP at all and guess i´ll have to reconsider my posting behavior at Flickr too. Thanks for your efforts Jim. KKnoefler247 (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Medium69
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hmmm. I'm not sure what happened there -- my closing comment suggests that I thought all of them had been deleted, but as you say, that's not correct. A fast look through them suggests that most, but not all, infringe the architect's copyright Jože Plečnik (1872-1957). Some of the subjects are probably utilitarian and copyright free. Under the circumstances, I think it would be good if you nominated the appropriate ones again. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The medal has a copyright. Since it is German, the copyright will expire 70 years after the death of its designer. The medal is from 1956, and while it is possible that it was designed long before that and that the designer died before 1945, there is no evidence of that in the file description. A derivative work of a copyrighted work requires permission from the creator of the underlying work. Since there is no permission from the medal designer, the image is a copyright violation. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Please, what's the legal status difference between these two files?
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Jim,
You voted to delete this file, and that was one reason I used to nominate this other file for deletion. I don't see any real difference because of the year range. Actually, although I'm trying to stick to the nomination for deletion of files that have outrageous problems, the Harry Scott Smith file caught my attention because the uploader stated that the author is unknown, and somehow he got away with that, without using a public domain rationale. At least the other uploader claimed to know the author, even though he was wrong. Could you please help me to understand the difference, if there is any, either on the nomination for deletion page or here? By the way, I know I got sarcastic with that guy, but I can't stand insolent behavior. I don't care if someone is a physics Nobel prize winner. The rules are what matter. Many thanks. Dontreader (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Jim. I'm glad you seem to agree that his pretentiousness was not my imagination, plus, as I thought, he was wrong; I just didn't know how wrong he was. It will be a nightmare, I suppose, to prove it's a PD file, but that's not my problem. Again that was a great learning experience for me, and I kept that PD file you shared in the discussion on my user page as a useful link. Thanks again for your generous help and time. Dontreader (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Akshardham Images
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
No, Administrator Fastily removed them because they qualified as speedy deletion. Keeping them here is a clear copyright violation. I put a DR on them to fully explain the problem, but he was entirely correct to delete them. The source site is NC and Commons does not host Nc images. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
the Jade Turtle
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Jim,
I am confused. I made a graphic of the jade turtle mandala, and submitted the graphic as my original. It was deleted on the idea that it is not public domain. Did I violate or not meet some guideline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshea19 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It was deleted because there was a question of whether the turtle is actually PD or not. If you actually drew it yourself without copying or looking at a previous work, then that is probably all right.
However, tt also has a NC-ND license, neither of which are permitted on Commons. You can solve that by changing the license,if you wish. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Stadelmaier
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Jim, You discus the copyright of images I posted on Wikipedia. You should know that the image is not a work of art. It is applied art, made in multiple versions. Van Woerkom, who made the design, did this as a paid job for the firm Stadelmaier, who for that reason is the rightful copyright owner of the image. It has been made in the fifties, those designs are not part of the copyright struggle between Stadelmaier and the new owners after the bankruptcy in 2010. The former director of Stadelmaier, and owner of the Stadelmaier archive gave me the permission to take the photographs and post them on Wikipedia. I hope this gives you enough information to accept these images on Wikipedia. If not, please help me to solve this problem. Thanks anyway, best wishes, René — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugtigheid (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Although in some countries the FOP rules make a distinction between art and applied art, that distinction is not important here -- whichever you call the works, they still have a copyright, and unless you can show evidence of a written agreement between the artist and the Stadelmaier firm, we must assume that the copyright remained with the artist. Simply being paid for a design does not transfer copyright, there must be a written agreement.
Given the circumstances, even if you can show that the artist transferred copyright to the Stadelmaier firm in the fifties, as you say, that firm went bankrupt in 2010. The copyright would have been an asset that was transferred as part of the bankruptcy proceeding and would not belong to a former director of the firm or the owner of the archives. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Raafat
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Raafat: You can ask Jim in the deletion request what kind of statement he is asking for. Sending to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org some documents proving that you are the heir would be definitive, but I suppose a lot less would be enough, too.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thai actress pics
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
(tps) File:Sonia Couling.jpg was uploaded 15 August 2007. How do you reconcile that it appeared here on 10 May 2016, without the man cropped out (i.e., a more complete version of the photo that thus could not have come from the Commons version) and where it was explicitly credited to http://mtvasiaawards.com? An even more complete version is here, also from 2006 and credited to MTV Asia Award. Эlcobbolatalk16:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
? An old DR that was probably not closed correctly -- you admitted there that you did not actually take many of the images, but I don;t know what it has to do with this -- elcobbola's comment seems to be right on point. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Barbie
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Jim, Thanks for your efforts looking at the copyright of the Barbie image, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Klaus Barbie (1913 - 1991) - SS-Führer - Bundesarchiv.jpg. I would like to respond to your remark "The e-mail from the Bundesarchiv, which Vysotky chose not to share with us here, says that it is not a Bundesarchiv image." I dislike public displaying (on whatever forum) of emails sent to me personally; that's why I sent the email to OTRS. Copyright of war images is an interesting issue, also because copyright of Nazi-material was taken-over by the German states after the war, and this copyright is now -in many cases- expiring. I will try to find the publication date of the Barbie image and report back if I find anything interesting. Vysotsky (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
While I agree that showing all of an OTRS e-mail is usually a bad thing -- one of the reasons for OTRS is that we do not disclose the e-mail addresses of those who write to it -- in this case, the writer is a public institution, with no expectation of privacy, However, all that I really would have liked to see in the DR was a comment that the Bundesarchiv said that it was not one of their images. If you had put that in the DR, then any Admin could have closed it and it would not have been open for a full month. Without that, it took an Admin who is also an OTRS member. We are struggling to catch up with a long backlog. The problem will get worse since INC, who has historically done about 7% of all deletions on Commons, has just resigned. Anything you can do to help your colleagues with DRs is appreciated. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Carlisle Military School
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Jim, I fully admit as a novice user on Wikipedia I am not well versed in all the technical notations required to address copyright "licensing". I have only used what I have personnally obtained from public sources, third parties, or pre-1923 (as I assume there is some sort of rule about that year). I sincerely want to make this page fully legitimate that follows all of wikipedia protocols. I would like for any editor who points out a violation to please offer some suggestions or workaround to help - as, again, I would be stumbling in the dark to figure it out on my own. Just as if someone edited the content, or objected to some inaccuracy, I would be more than happy to accept correction or fix it based upon making the article better. In the case of all the photos you have nominated for deletion I am at a loss for what the error is or how to correct it. Again, on all the photos I posted I know of none that have a copyright license - sort of like defending a negative - so please provide me some advice on the proper coding in order to keep these photos as they add much to the overall relevance of the article. Thanks for your interest and efforts in maintaining the integrity of wikipedia submissions - and again, I would appreciate any assistance you can provide. SandHills (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
First, a general apology for the impersonality of the DRs. Commons gets around 10,000 new images every day and deletes around 1,500. 15 Admins do 90% of that work and we have a long backlog. We just lost our most productive Admin to burnout, so I expect the problem will get much worse. As a result, we work quickly, using scripts to deal with problems and don't give much individual attention unless the uploader requests it, as you have, and very politely to boot.
File:PD-US_table.svg is a good, clear, summary of US copyright law. As you will see, 1923 is, indeed a magic date, and you will note that I did not include any of your uploads that were obviously published before that date -- and note, by the way, that in the US before 1989 "publication" (as that is defined in the law) is the important point, not creation. Files as old as 1895 may still be under copyright if they were not published until recently.
As I said in the DRs, I simply do not believe that all of your uploads are actually photographs that you yourself took -- indeed your comment on your talk page suggests none of them are except for the road marker.
One DR at a time:
First the road marker. That's easy, because it apparently has a date on the bottom -- it's just not legible in the file here. If the date is before 1989 then it is OK, because I don't see a copyright notice on it. Notice was not required after March 1, 1989, so if the date is later than that it is still under copyright. The burden of proof is on you. If it's still under copyright it can still be restored if you get the organization that created it to send a license to OTRS.
As for the rest of the photographs, if you can prove that they were published (a) before 1923 or (b) before 1989 without copyright notice, then they can stay because they are PD -- see the chart I cited above. You must provide a source for each. The author can be "unknown" if that is the case.
Note that photos from institutions that no longer exist are often orphan works and, therefore, cannot be kept on Commons, because we do not keep works that are still under copyright even if orphaned, see COM:PRP #4. Also note that the standard of proof, "significant doubt", is also set out at COM:PRP.
Finally, as I said in the DR, both the text and the logo on the poem had or have copyrights. The same rules apply -- if published before 1923 or before 1989 without notice, then the work is PD. It is up to you to prove that.
I note that our colleague Ellin has offered her help. Feel free to pick one or the other us -- we both have pretty good records of helping newbies -- indeed, if you look way back in my archives you will find Ellin stumbling much as you have as a newbie and my helping her along. She is now the seventh most productive Admin. All I ask, and I am sure she would agree, is don't ask us both, as that just wastes the time of one of us. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Possible sock puppet
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Jim,
Around a couple of weeks ago I nominated a file for deletion, and INeverCry deleted it (by the way, I am very saddened by his departure). I found the file uploaded again today by a different user, but I suspect it's the same person. To make matters worse, the subject is a politician running for office, and I think the Wikipedia page in Spanish is just there to promote him, so we can expect anything foul to happen. Please read this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Juan Manuel Carreras López.png and compare it with this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Juan Manuel Carreras López.jpg. To save you a second, here are the two talk pages: User talk:Caldou223 and User talk:BiografiaPolitica. Perhaps you have a different theory, but to me it looks like sock puppetry. I wonder what can be done. Many thanks in advance for your reply, as always. Dontreader (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
As you surely know, Checkuser can't find socks that are carefully deceptive, but the two you cite use two different operating systems, both of which are unusual, and are 500km apart. So it seems unlikely. However, as you say, the file is an out of process reload of the previously deleted file, so I closed the DR. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Haha. I should make it clear on my user page that I'm a big fan of The Chronicles of Narnia, and that as your first guess indicated, my name should be read as Don Treader (if I were a woman, I would have used Dawntreader). I think that's such a cool name for a ship, and The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is my favorite book of the series.
Many thanks for swiftly checking the IP addresses and for deleting the image. I have no idea how you detected two different operating systems, but that's awesome! I will keep the article about the subject on my Spanish Wikipedia watchlist and I'll inform you if I see that the picture has been uploaded again using yet another user name. Thanks again for your very kind help, Jim, and have a great day! Dontreader (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I have gone back to review all the documents in the HAER album, but though a book by Bernhardt is mentioned in the bibliography, this does not appear as a source for the plan the DR was about. If Bernhardt did publish the drawing, there would be little doubt this was a re-publication of the PGE plan for the pre-1930 works. Could you explain your DR closure comment a bit more?
User:Fae [copied from an e-mail written April 12, 2015 8:38UTC]
The source site explicitly says both:
" No known restrictions on images made by the U.S. Government; images copied from other sources may be restricted."
and
(in red) "Rights assessment is your responsibility"
Please reread the title of the item,
"Photocopy of diagram (from Station 'L' office files, Portland Oregon) General Electric Company pamphlet...".
It seems clear to me that this drawing was not made by HABS/HAER. It was simply copied out of a GE pamphlet. My best guess is that it came out of the operator's manual or maintenance manual for the generator. That then raises the question of whether the pamphlet is still under copyright. On that subject I would argue
a) The pamphlet almost certainly had a copyright notice. We don't know whether it was renewed or not. Companies like GE tend to be careful with their IP, so I think our "significant doubt" standard requires that we assume that it was renewed.
b) The pamphlet may never have been published within the meaning of the 1909 law -- the generator was unique and there may well have been only one such pamphlet.
c) Since the pamphlet was created in 1930, it was still under copyright in 1958 when the Skrotzki book used drawings from it. That new publication, by McGraw-Hill, with notice and renewal (A00000222451 & RE0000219001) started the clock running again, so, even if (a) and (b) are not correct, and most of the pamphlet is PD, the drawings that Skrotzki used are not.
French Hospital (La Providence) and David R. Russell
Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Dear Jim: I have this evening received notification on my talk page of "planned deletion" of the main image on French Hospital (La Providence) and David R. Russell, both of which are pages set up by me. To my astonishment I see that the images have been deleted forthwith and that discussion of the matter is closed. No warning was given to me of this deletion and therefore no time for me to comment on what is now an unfortunate foregone conclusion. In both instances permission was given to me by the copyright holders for the pictures to be used within Commons. In the various tags made available to editors at the time of uploading images the procedure for giving ocular proof of permission is not made very clear and you will readily see that I am rather new as a contributor to Wikipedia and therefore was not aware at that time of the email template for copyright holders to confirm their permission. I can of course readily obtain this permission by having the copyright holders write the appropriate email. I hope that steps will be taken by administrators to reinstate the two images removed so precipitately. Looking again at my talk page the notification messages have mysteriously vanished and without trace on the view history page; yet looking again at the two pages affected the pictures have definitely vanished from their respective pages. There seems to be something awry here and the procedural progress is definitely demotivating.Sedicesimo (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jim: Further to the above, I now see that there is a separate talk page for Wikimedia Commons and that your messages about the deletions are shown there. The fact remains nevertheless that I only saw the message this evening. Things may be set up so that Wikimedia Commons messages do not show up in Wikipedia and may therefore be missed.Sedicesimo (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Sedicesimo, Commons is not Wikipedia, these are separate wikis (even though linked in certain ways). I will advise you on your Talk page. I do not yet have any opinion on the deletion, but I can assure you that "discussion is not closed." It never is, and what is "deleted" can easily be recovered if needed, it is not actually deleted, it is merely hidden. One step at a time. Yes, this can be discouraging, and I understand that, and I'm sure Jim does, too. So simmer down, and we will see what can be done. --Abd (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I am writing a detailed coverage of all the issues I see, on your Talk page. That takes some time. That particular debate is closed. Period. You don't yet understand Commons process. There is further process possible. You have no clue how to do that, right? I'm going to tell you. It may be premature, etc. So, one step at a time. I will say one more thing here, Jim did not delete your file. I will explain what happened on your talk page. Yes, be reassured. --Abd (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Sedicesimo, please accept my apologies on behalf of the Commons community for the rude introduction you had to working here. Unfortunately, such things are inevitable. Commons gets more than 10,000 new images every day and must delete about 1,400 of them for various reasons. 90% of that work is done by 15 Administrators, so it is inevitable that we must work fast and rather impersonally. As you have found out after the fact, the DR process lasts a week and you could have commented during that period.
You can, by the way, set an option which will send you an e-mail whenever your Commons talk page changes. That will save your having to check here several times a week. Simply go to the upper right corner of any page and click Preferences > Notifications > and fill in your e-mail address and check the appropriate box or boxes. Note also that putting a request on your talk page to leave messages at WP:EN or elsewhere will not work. Many of the messages that come to your talk page are placed there by scripts and the initiator never sees your talk page at all.
The good news is that nothing is final here. WMF never actually deletes anything -- images that are "deleted" are actually simply specially marked so that they cannot be seen by anyone except Administrators. Since your images were taken by photographers other than yourself, policy requires that the actual photographers each send a free license using the procedure set forth at OTRS. Once that is done and the e-mails are processed by an OTRS volunteer, the images will be restored. While OTRS, like Commons, is badly understaffed and ordinarily runs a backlog of more than a month, in cases such as this where newbies have been bitten badly I will short circuit the process. Please let me know here when the e-mails have been sent and I will read and act on them appropriately.
If you have any more questions, please feel very free to come here and ask them. Commons can be a very steep learning curve, but most of the active Admins, including me, try very hard to make it as easy as possible for new editors. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jim: Thank you for your helpful message explaining the situation. I have now been in touch with both the copyright holders of the recently deleted pictures (Tim Rawle for the image of the French Hospital (La Providence)File:Frenchhospitalrochestermain.jpg and that portraying David R. RussellFile:David R. Russell.jpg. Mr Rawle tells me that he has sent an email based on the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International template to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I await a similar confirmation from Mr Russell. Thank you for your kind offer to short circuit the process to reinstate the images on the abovementioned pages. That would be greatly appreciated.Sedicesimo (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
[4] Apparently the word "just" was interpreted to be demeaning what you did. I did not mean it that way at all, and it did not occur to me that you would read it that way, so I'm sorry that I allowed that appearance. This was simply time sequence. I.e., you "frosted the cake," that is, made it perfect. I was congratulating you for going the extra mile, for your support for the user, both in explaining the situation, and then in promising to expedite OTRS, and undeleting pending that, as you just did, is fulfilling on that. So, once again, thanks. --Abd (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear Jim: Mr. David R. Russell tells me that he sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org yesterday (April 15th) based on the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International template granting permission to use the image File:David R. Russell.jpg. Your kind offer to short circuit the process to reinstate the image on the abovementioned page will again be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Sedicesimo (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Jim, thanks for the answer. Thats indead the second request for this image of the physician Egbert Braatz. I am sure, that it is a mistake of myself, not to be able, to give this from Japanese colleagues requested immage into wikipedia: The newspaper "Ostpreußische Artzfamilie" doesn´t exist since 1995. The "Franz-Neumann-Stiftung" in the "Stiftung Königsberg", in which I am a chairman and a curator, has got all the rights, to publish out of the wonderful simple newspaper with its unknown articles and pictures. This newspaper is a rich sorce for the history of the old University of Königsberg (1544 - 1945). Look at my Benutzer: Neumann-Meding - I have given very much biographies and pictures of the old University of Koenigsberg, todays Kaliningrad/ Russia in wikipedia. Therefore it is really frustrating, if wikipedia refuse to publish the photos, which are normaly much more than 70 years old. In my case the photo of Egbert Braatz is more than hundred years old (Braatz is born 1849 and he was perhaps 50 years old...) Well what is to do? You write: "It can be restored to Commons only if the actual photographer (or his heirs) sends a free license to OTRS or if the magazine sends a free license." Well the lastest I will do: Our "Stiftung" (foundation) is the successor of the "Ostpreußische Arztfamilie". That will mean, we have the licence, to give our knowledge out of this newpaper to the whole world. Look at http://www.franz-neumann-stiftung.net/FranzNeumannStiftung/franz-neumann-stiftung.html. See point seven. Well, dear Jim, if I have you in the line, please tell me, what I should do. The last year, I gave up (resigned) to work for wikipedia. I can´t tell the whole story as above, when I will present a picture to an article in wikipedia. Thanks for your help, yours Eberhard Neumann-Meding
--Neumann-Meding (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I have been not paying enough attention, but this is the first time that I have understood that you are associated with an organization that owns the rights to the magazine in which the image was published. As I said before, if that organization sends a free license to OTRS including a summary of the situation such as the one you give above, I think it will be restored.
Please understand the 70 years is recent in copyright law. As a rule of thumb, I assume that anything published after 1885 -- almost twice 70 -- is under copyright unless it can be shown that the photographer died before 1945. 1885 allows for a photographer born in 1865, taking the image when he was 20, with immediate publication, and living to age 80. Those are reasonable assumptions. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hello Jameslwoodward, You decided the deletion request to delete because "logos are usually treated different from code". I think this does not apply in this case, as the line quoted by User:Natuur12 explictly includes "content", i.e. artwork like logos. Also the README in the project's repository explictly includes artwork. There is no further statement about an exlusion of the logo, so it is obviously licensed under GPLv2+ as well. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
There's no "obviously" in copyright law. A logo is neither content nor artwork, it is a separate and distinct thing and in order for it to be covered by the free license, it would have to be named. As I said,. the Wikipedia logos are a good example of this -- everything on all WMF projects -- art, text, content, images, etc. -- are freely licensed, but not the logos. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually the Wikipedia-Logo is under a free license, only trademark stuff is also applied. And tradmarked logos are possible on Commons, as per COM:Trademarks. Would be a problem for all logos otherwise… --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a little misleading by virtue of omission. A dual system existed prior to the 1976 Act wherein state law governed unpublished works and federal law (the 1909 Act) governed published works, for which proper notice was indeed required as per above. But if the question is "any art produced in the United States before 1978 that doesn't include the copyright symbol is in the public domain," the answer is no. Published art produced (if produced also means "first published") in the United States before 1978 that doesn't include the copyright symbol is in the public domain. In the case of a sculpture, for example, it would generally not be considered published unless copies were distributed to the public or it were installed in a public location without measures to prevent copying, and thus it would not require a notice to enjoy copyright protection. Thus the "never published, never registered works" section of Hirtle. Эlcobbolatalk19:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right, of course. When I first started to reply to this, my first sentence drew the distinction between "produced" and "published", but I lost that when I decided to quote the act -- thanks for picking up on it. Now I'll pick you up on one: "that doesn't include the copyright symbol is in the public domain" is not quite right. "Copyright" or "Copr" also work -- in fact, strictly reading the law, the symbol is good only in the limited case where the makers initials or mark appear. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I see you removed the picture of Camille Dow Baker that I had added to Commons. It is indeed on the http://www.mtroyal.ca/Acade... site, but it originates from CAWST, the organisation she co-founded. I have email correspondance that I think demonstrates the picture has a suitable licence. How do I use this to convince you or anyone of this? EleriWall (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Since the image has appeared on a site with an explicit copyright notice, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer, must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. Unfortunately there are many bad actors who attempt to get images kept on Commons by forging e-mails, so only e-mails directly from the copyright holder will generally be accepted. Also please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and is badly understaffed -- the backlog there is often a month or more. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
File:Vysotsky portrait by Papa Jan.jpg[edit] Also: File:Papa jan at home.jpg File:Portrait of papa jan junior.jpg File:Vanga-the sight of the prophetess.jpg File:The death of titanic.jpg
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Jim!
Many thanks for your kind answer. I got your point that you can not undelete the files, cuse I'm certainly not the autorq but however we got OTRS written at the link bellow http://papa-jan.com/eng/index.html?copyrigjts.html. Is says, all the images can be published. How even the author by him self can upload here, when the Wikimedia recognizes the images as already uploaded and deleted and basicly doesn't permit any re-upload. What can be done in this situation? I hope your advice.
Best regards
Ivan
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Jim, let me explain to you why I think you are confused. The first time I open an account in wikipedia was to post this article, so when I create the account I was thinking the name of my account should be the name of the person I was writing, reason by which I put the name of my father Rodolfo Antonio Mendez Vargas ( I am Pedro Mendez Carvajal, his son). The person who appears in the portrait, and other pictures, the artist is my father, it is not me!. The pictures you separated in the group that I am allowed to post, are taken by me personally. The pictures where the artist is holding his own art was taken by my grandfather (both my grandfather and my father, passed away). The pictures were passed to me directly from my father, who received from my grandfather. I am Rodolfo Mendez's son, and I am grandson of Jose Guillermo Mendez (who took the pictures where my father is). My father Rodolfo Antonio Mendez Vargas passed away in 2004, if you check the article I wrote about him, you will see that he has a death date, otherwise, I would be a ghost writing here ;-)..could you please help me with this? I am trying to illustrate this article to have good information for the public. Please apologies for the mistakes but I am new here, let me know what to do. Thank you very much.--Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Good, thank you. For the images of the artwork, you need to send a license to OTRS explaining that you are the heir. For the photographs -- in all cases where your grandfather is the photographer -- you also need to send a license to OTRS explaining that you are the heir of the photographer. These two things can be done in one message. If there are any photographs for which none of the three of you was the photographer, they require a license from the actual photographer or his heirs. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
We clearly don't do this kind of redirect in biology. It should be suppressed.
you said yourself that you don't do biology.
you summary of vote closure is weid: if an external site has a link to Nyctiprogne, he will think we have 2 pictures for this genus. Sadly those pictures belong to another genus. That is bad.
2 or 3 persons were for the suppression and only you against
So can you explain me more what happened?
I am a wikilover contributor. I would hate to have to ask biologists contributors I known to get involved in such a petty thing.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it is a petty thing. The redirect has been in place for ten years. It harms nobody and may be helpful to outsiders who stumble on it while looking for images. At the DR, I said my piece and left it. The DR stayed open for almost a month and finally was closed by one of our colleagues who apparently agreed with me that when pages have been in place since very early in Commons history, they should be left, unless there is a compelling reason to delete them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Undeletion request regarding the following files
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
File:Bavaria S.A..png
File:Unidad Nacional para la Gestión del Riesgo de Desastres.jpg
File:COTECMAR.png
File:Migracion Colombia.png
Though you're right about the Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Colombia not being particularly clear on the translation, other files in wikimedia, in this case of a Colombian based company and an NGO of Colombia, are submitted with the {{PD-textlogo}}
File:Colombian Red Cross Logo.svg and File:Avianca Logo 2013.png
If those submissions are similar to mine, I want my uploads to be reconsidered.
File:Colombian Red Cross Logo.svg has nothing in it that is not PD -- the Red Cross itself is over 150 years old and is long out of copyright, if it ever had one -- the laws were different then. The Avianca logo may well be a copyvio. The fact that other stuff exists is never a valid argument -- my best guess is that around 1% of the files on Commons -- over a quarter of a million files -- should be deleted for copyvio or other reasons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Please lend me your rhino-hide coat again
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please tell me why a photo taken of a roadside marker violates any copyright? If there is a copyright on the historical data displayed I know of none - that data is in the public domain, much of it since 1892. The photo was taken by me. I am at a loss on how to disprove a negative dealing with Wiki editors. With no known copyright, how can I reference one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandHills (talk • contribs) 18:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
With some exceptions (detailed below), every created work -- art, architecture, music, and text -- has a copyright when it is created. Note that bare facts are not themselves copyrighted, but text used to express those facts is. Just as you cannot copy a book without a license, you cannot copy any other copyrighted text without a license. Historical markers are primarily text, so, as a general rule they cannot be kept on Commons unless one of these exceptions apply:
1) They were placed by the US Federal Government or the governments of Florida and California, all of whose works are PD.
2) They are in the USA and were placed:
a) before 1923,
b) before 1964 and there was no notice or the copyright was not renewed, or
c) before March 1, 1989 and there was no notice.
As I noted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:SCHistMkr.jpg the marker deleted there must be later than 1977 because it mentions that date on its face. There is no copyright notice on the marker, so, if was placed before March 1, 1989, it is PD. If placed after that date it is under copyright and will be until at least 2060. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Undelete of logo wydawnictwo skrzat
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
ORTS sent by CEO of Wydawnictwo skrzat - for publish only - but file has already been deleted (1 day after upload, there was no discusion nor time to send orts), worried that ORTS will fail since file already has been deleted. Should I upload it again ?
edit: noticed that most of polish publishers and companies are afraid to post their logos on their wiki pages - are those beein deleted aswell ? --Vanwartith (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The system is certainly not perfect. Please remember that Commons gets more than 10,000 new images every day. More than 1,500 of those are deleted, mostly for copyright violation. 15 Admins do 90% of that work. OTRS is also badly understaffed and may run a backlog of up to a month. Note also that Commons rules call for immediate deletion of obvious copyright violations such as this one.
It is never necessary or permitted to upload an image a second time. We never actually delete anything -- it is merely marked so that it can be seen only by Administrators. After the license sent to OTRS is reviewed, the image will be restored. I note you say "for publish only" -- if the license is not a free license for use by anyone anywhere including commercial use, then it will not be acceptable. Note also that "commercial use" is not as bad as it sounds. Trademark law would prevent a competitor from using a logo, but "commercial use" allows putting it in a textbook, or on a tee shirt.
There's a pretty good explanation at Commons:Categories. Basically, you figure out what categories you want and then ad [[Category:ABCD]] to the bottom of the file description.
Although Commons categories and those on the various Wikipedias are far from identical, it is often helpful to look at the cats on WP and use the same or similar ones on Commons.
I have started you off by creating a new Category:Liz Solari, so, actually, you don't need to add anything more to the individual images, although you could. You do need to fill out the categories at Category:Liz Solari.
Questions about "Taylor Davis" page being shutted down
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Good evening mr.Jim
My name is Giovanni, nice to meet you. I noticed that you canceled the Taylor Davis page I tried to create today, so this means I made mistakes somewhere. I thought that I respected all the rules, but something did not work. You left this motivation : "Empty or single image gallery - please see Common:Galleries". I gave a look as you suggested, but could not understand where I was wrong. I worked on several articles on Wikipedia, but this was my first article on Commons. Since I am "new" here, would you be so gentle to explain me precisely where I did wrong, and what procedure I need to follow for making things in a good way? Any suggestion is truly appreciated. Looking forward to your answer. My regards. Giovanni Armocida (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Armocida (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Wikimedia Commons is a repository for media files -- images, videos, and music. It is not a place for articles -- they belong in the various Wikipedias. Commons Galleries are all the pages on Commons that do not have a prefix such as "User:", "Commons:", "File", "Category:" and so forth. Galleries are intended for collections of files on a particular subject, and are not for articles. They must always have more than one image and usually have more than five. They may have a very brief -- usually one sentence -- description of the subject.
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'd uploaded this file, because there was a problem on file renaming site. The File:DPD logo.png han an error inside -- the graphic was missing, but the description contaiment still existed. I was trying to fix the error and restore it. But if you'd like to delete both of these files, there's no problem. Have a nice day :-) Wieralee (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Jim. I just reviewed this old file, and uploaded the Flickr high-res original. The first upload was done by sockmaster Yair Mesa, and has his EXIF rather than than the legitimate EXIF of the author. Yair Mesa may have photographed a screenshot, etc. Can you delete that first revision to avoid any confusion due to having metadata from 2 different Cameras? INeverCry21:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I was just thinking this might make it look like I reviewed my own upload. Perhaps just hiding the thumb would be better? INeverCry21:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Done I generally do not delete earlier versions -- just hide them. I also checked flickr and changed the flickrreview so there would be no question of your reviewing your own upload. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
On that subject
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is very badly understaffed. The backlog there often runs weeks, or even months. Assuming the license is correct, the image will be restored when it reaches the front of the queue. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi James,
could you please put the page Nederlandsche Vogelen back, you just deleted? I am working on it. I want to make tables of the images of all five volumes in separate pages. The images of this very important book in the history of ornithology are recently donated by the Royal Dutch Library.
Nederlandsche Vogelen/Vol. 1 is marginal as a Commons gallery -- galleries should be in gallery format, not tables, but I see its value, so I left it. However Nederlandsche Vogelen is not a gallery, it is an article about the book. Commons galleries are for collections of images, articles belong in the Wikipedias, not on Commons. I suggest you read Commons:Galleries, particularly Starting a gallery (3).
Dear Jim, I created the page again, and now added the first cover images etc. that I want to add. Please don't remove again without discussion! I always enjoy to get positive feedback on my talk page, of course. As English is not my native language, there may be language errors, etc. Friendly greetings, Dick Bos (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Fotos Azi Wolfenson
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Estimado James
Hice unos comentarios en el siguiente link User_talk:Ellin_Beltz#Fotos_borradas_de_Azi_Wolfenson_Ulanowski
en el cual expongo el porque las fotos si pertenecen al Sr. Azi Wolfenson y el me autorizo a su uso mediante una carta, la cual me gustaría hacercela llegar.
Le agradecería se tomara el tiempo en revisarlas y darme su opinion.
--Edwinjcb (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
edwinjcb
I have commented there, but please follow Ellin's and my instructions and have all of this discussion at the DRs, not on her talk page or here on mine. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Jim,
I recently uploaded the file that you can see in the headline, and the author sent in the formal declaration of consent today, but I just heard from him, and he says that an OTRS volunteer told him that the file lacked EXIF data. That really is a mystery. Could it be that something went wrong while running the program that reported no EXIF data? Sean Walker (the owner of the image) is practically the official photographer of the Redhead Express band, especially when they are on the road. He's quite a skilled photographer and videographer, and a brother of the girls. He is the legitimate author of that picture. Therefore, could you please examine the image independently to see if you find EXIF data? If the actual file on Commons doesn't have that data, then please examine the source I provided on the file page, which is from their Facebook fan page. I really do think that at least one of the two versions of that image must have EXIF data. I would be very grateful if you could take a moment to do me that favor. As always, thanks for all your help and your hard work here at Commons. Dontreader (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Unlike the other Redhead Express image that I uploaded from Facebook (also taken by Sean Walker), this one is categorized on Facebook as a "mobile upload", so I wonder if that might explain the problem. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
My initial reactions is, "So it doesn't have EXIF data, so what?" None of my own photographs on Commons have EXIF data, primarily because I use an old version of Corel PhotoPaint as my editor -- I'm comfortable with it, so why upgrade?
The uploaded image was identical to one on a Facebook page. I have no personal knowledge that the Facebook page is official and controlled by the subject. For all I know, it may be a fan site. Even if official, I have handled dozens of permissions requests where the uploader has simply found an image on the internet, assumed that made it fair game and uploaded it. Those uploads invariably do not have EXIF data. Having EXIF is not a requirement, but when it is missing it raises a question. The fact that the email came from an address that appears related to the band is a plus, but I had no idea the photographer was associated with the band. It wasn't stated in the original email, and while editors knowledgeable about the subject matter may know this, I did not. I thought it was worth asking a question, to find out if the person sending the upload was connected with the band. I'm puzzled that the person didn't simply explain that to me. I'm headed out the door and away from a computer until Sunday.--Sphilbrick (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
That's the unfortunate part of being so backlogged both here and on OTRS -- we're all working fast and can't give the kind of personal service that would really be appropriate. If we had more active OTRS volunteers, Sphilbrick would have been able to devote a little more time to this, and he might have gone to the band's WP:EN article and noticed the "Walker" names.
Thank you very much, Jim, for your kind and helpful reply. I have seen many images nominated for deletion in which the argument "no EXIF data" is used as part of the deletion rationale. One big problem is that I'm extremely ignorant when it comes to software-related terms such as metadata, EXIF data, etc. When I nominate pictures for deletion it's because I believe they are out of scope or I have found them on several sites even though the uploader has claimed "own work". But I am a peasant here, quite frankly. I wrongly assumed that all pictures lacking EXIF data were scanned from magazines or from other sources, and that the scanning process destroyed EXIF data. Now you've told me that your own pictures here on Commons don't have EXIF data, which I never could have imagined.
Also, I should have provided more information in my own letter to Commons after I uploaded that picture, which I have done with other letters for other pictures, to make the verification process easier for the volunteer. I know that you are all trying your best to make sure that copyright infringement does not take place, and I do appreciate that very much. Sadly, as we all know, countless people find cool pictures on the Internet and then they upload them claiming "own work", so it's unrealistic to assume good faith beyond a certain degree, and therefore I think it's necessary to ask questions sometimes, as Sphilbrick did in this case. I told Sean Walker what to say in his reply, and to let me know when he had replied, but after a few hours not hearing back from him I got nervous and I decided to write to you, and I'm very glad I did, as on previous occasions for other matters. I would have written on Sphilbrick's talk page instead, but I had no clue who the volunteer was. Sean simply told me that there was a problem because EXIF data was missing, and I was bewildered. I will write to Sphilbrick now, as you suggested; I'm glad he wrote here, so I can address the issues more effectively. I do hope Sean will also reply to him soon.
Dontreader, there are many things that go into the decision whether to nominate an image for DR or not and then how to close the DR. Lack of EXIF is certainly one of them, as most images these days do have EXIF coming out of the camera and its lack suggests that the image was lifted off the web. However EXIF was introduced only in the early 2000s, so earlier images and images processed with earlier software (such as my Corel PhotoPaint) will not have it. Also note that it is present only in JPGs and TIFFs -- it is not supported by other formats.
Small size is another indicator of problems, and, indeed, the subject image is smaller than usual camera resolution these days. But they are both only indicators and the fact that Sean Walker write from the bands domain is convincing for me.
I deliberately did not identify Sphilbrick here -- OTRS volunteers can and often do remain anonymous and he had not given his username to Sean Walker. I think this one is settled. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks, Jim, for the interesting additional information. I wonder if you could just tell me if you think the smaller resolution could be explained by the fact that the picture was taken from a cellphone. At least on the Facebook page, here, it says "From:RedHead Express's Photos in Mobile Uploads". I assume Facebook is right, but I don't know if cellphone pictures have lower resolution, although it makes sense to me. Also, as I wrote on Sphilbrick's talk page, Apryll Walker (the mother and manager of the girls) sent me that picture as an attachment, but maybe she simply lifted it off the Facebook page that has the image. She said it had been taken by Sean. I told Sean to write back to the OTRS volunteer and to attach the original picture if possible, and to briefly explain a few things, but Sean hasn't cooperated, which I find very frustrating. Anyway, if Apryll sent me the picture by merely downloading it from the Facebook page, I suppose that would easily explain the lack of EXIF data, but I'm not sure it's what she did.
To be perfectly honest, Jim, Apryll is a bit scattered, probably because she lives with seven children and two grandchildren, plus she's the girls' manager. The first time I asked her for a picture of the girls that she had taken, she sent me a picture taken by a professional photographer, from a photo shoot (I did some research and found the name of the photographer). I explained very clearly to her that she did not own that picture because she had not taken it. So I looked through their Facebook page and I found a picture attributed to Sean Walker, and I uploaded a cropped version, which worked out fine. But I hope she hasn't forgotten what I explained to her. I hope she didn't send me again a picture that belongs to someone else. As I said, she's rather scattered. I asked her last night to please confirm with Sean that it was indeed Sean that took the picture; she said that Sean was out and that she would let me know this morning. Well, I haven't heard back from her. I wrote to her again today, saying that things were looking better, but to please confirm with Sean that he took the picture, but she seems to be avoiding me. Either she feels insulted that I asked her that question, or it doesn't belong to Sean, or God knows what's going on. If they don't cooperate, I will tag the picture with speedy deletion. I'll give her until Sunday.
You have so much to do, so I'm sorry for this stupid soap opera. Sean should have replied to Sphilbrick sooner, with my instructions, and Apryll promised to write to me this morning to confirm Sean's ownership of the picture. I can't control others, you know. Thanks very much again, Jim, for your generous help. I really do appreciate it. Dontreader (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Jim. That category is driving me mad. Let apart the inconsistency of its sub-categories, it is not really clear what it's referred to: either murder victims by country of origin or by the country where the murder took place? That apart, at this point wouldn't be better having two separate categories, one for the country of origin of the murdered person, the other for the country where they was murdered? -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)15:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand -- the subcats all seem to be based on where the murder took place (People murdered in X). I'd guess that more than 90% of the time, the nationalities of the victim and the murderer and the location where it took place will be the same. In the cases where it is different, we can certainly put the file in both countries. What am I missing? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh well... I explain what I see as inconstent. The main category is Murder victims by country. That makes me suppose it's by country of origin. But the subcats are People murdered in country (instead of Murder victims from country) which instead makes me suppose that the victims are sub categorized by country of killing - not by origin. Hence my confusion. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)22:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Ahh -- I see your question now. I think it is just a convenient shorthand -- easier than "Category:Murder victims by country where the murder took place" -- I think the shorthand is OK, given, as I said, that in the vast majority of cases the country of origin and the country where the murder took place will be the same. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but you wouldn't say that in English. If wanted a good proper English shorthand you could say "Murder victims by venue", but "venue" is a word that many people whose English is not good will not understand, so, as I said, I'm OK with "Murder victims by country". . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
That would be very good. If you want them used, you must make them accessible, both by appropriate categorization and by good explanations. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
hi Jim re: my photo i took and purchased from Andy Freeberg
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
i did not know how to respond to your contact before as i am not a Wikipedia user, i took the photo with my photographer, Andy Freeberg, from whom i purchased the photo and ll the rights to it suggested i contact you here since he said i paid him for the copy write and right to use it anywhere i wish. please advise. my tech skills are not very good so i would need your advice on what steps to proceed; i dont even know how to sign into the account you say to use to leave me/you messages, but if you give me the steps i can ask my son to help. many thanks in advance, Louann Brizendine and my email directly is: Louannbrizendine@gmail.com
Sorry, I have no idea what photo you are talking about. You need to give me the file name, or the registered user name that is connected with the photo. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations Jim. Please feel free to use the yellow notice at the left every time you are working on something bureaucracy-related. Green Giant (talk)19:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Jim, I have been in contact with Harry in England and he mentioned he spoke with you. The office of Congressman Duncan Hunter contacted Harry and the office of Congressman Juan Vargas asked if he could contact them directly regarding this. I have known Juan Vargas since he started as a San Diego Council after Bob Filner was elected to Congress in 1992. Filner was the first U.S. politician I met with on this project in 1991 when he was the Deputy Mayor and Councilman of San Diego, he spent a year in Sweden and we spoke in Swedish, not Spanish. I sent Harry a copy of his letter acknowledging that meeting in 1991. In 1998, Juan Vargas as a San Diego City Councilman flew with me to Mexico City when I was negotiating with Alfredo Miguel/SACSA to build the Tijuana cross-border terminal, at the time GAP (Mexico's Pacific Airport Group) had not been privatized. I have sent a series of documents to Harry including correspondence with Senator Diane Feinstein's office from September 1993 when I was in Washington meeting with her and her project's director trying to save Ron Roberts TwinPorts airport proposal. I also sent Harry correspondence dealing with negotiations with Johnson Controls World Services (at the time the world's second largest airport operator)when they were interested in Mexico's airport privatization in 1996, and also sent him the name of the airbrush artist I used in 1991-2. I still have over a hundred emails dealing with the land negotiations 2006-2007 with Sam Zell's people in Chicago and the Mexican investors in Mexico City. In dealing with all these people, my images were used in all the negotiations between 1991-2007, i.e. from Bob Filner to Sam Zell. I also sent Harry a copy of the letter from Mexico's Presidential Commissioner Ernesto Ruffo Appel when I officially became the "enlace" to him on this project in 2001 and my last correspondence with the Under-Secretary of Mexico's SCT in 2006 before Sam Zell and the Mexican investors became involved with the project. The Tijuana cross-border terminal is now fully built and will soon begin operations. The current Mayor of Chula Vista, Mary Salas was also involved in this project and remembers when I briefed her when she was a City Councilwoman in the 1990s. Any way I could contact you directly?? You have my email which I have had for almost 20 years. My home telephone has not changed in 40 years and Harry and Wiki permissions has my cell number. Could we please talk, Respectfully Ralph Nieders Rnieders (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Gallery deletion
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I try speedy at first but some old user removes it, after then I must start deletion request, please see history. Shall I made some other way next time.--Motopark (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Aha, I see. I can't see why an experienced user removed your {{Speedy}}. It doesn't really matter, because I'm going to see it anyway -- I patrol new pages several times each day. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Obsidian Key deletion
Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Commons and Wikipedia require that images be free for all use, including commercial use, so the permission above is not sufficient for Commons or Wikipedia. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so, I updated the statement with a clear specification to (CC) license:
"We authorize the use of information and pictures from obsidiankey.com under (CC) license for information websites (magazines and reviews) like:
- Wikipedia.org
- Wikimedia.org
- Wikidata.org
- Freebase.org
If you are or represent a media (or website) who needs information and/or pictures from obsidiankey.com for Obsidian Key related pages or review please feel free to use the information and the pictures from this website on your articles and pages. You are NOT authorized to modify or change the copyright license of these information and pictures. To have a full read of the (CC) license, please click here.
We also authorize: Phantomz73 webmaster, to publish info and pictures on behalf of the band on Wikipedia, Wikimedia and Wikidata.
Please note: Our music is NOT part of this agreement, so for any enqury regarding our recordings or live performances please check out our Copyright notice, thanks."
Ok, so final version of the CC license release here:
"We authorize the use of information and pictures published on this page under (CC) license for information websites (magazines and reviews) like:
- Wikipedia.org
- Wikimedia.org
- Wikidata.org
- Freebase.org
If you work for (or represent) a magazine/webzine (or website) who needs information from obsidiankey.com for Obsidian Key's related pages or reviews, please feel free to use official information from this website on your articles and pages.
If you work for (or represent) a magazine/webzine (or website) who needs pictures from obsidiankey.com for Obsidian Key’s related pages and/or reviews, please feel free to use pictures published on this page. In case you need more or different pictures than what has been already used on sites like wikipedia, wikimedia etc… please contact us for an authorisation.
You are NOT authorized to modify or change the copyright license of these information and pictures. Before using information and pictures under (cc) license, please have a full read of the (CC) license here.
We also authorize: Phantomz73 webmaster, to publish info and pictures on behalf of the band on Wikipedia, Wikimedia and Wikidata.
Please note (1): Our music is NOT part of this agreement and is not released under (cc) license, so, for any inquiry regarding our recordings or live performances, please check out our Copyright notice, thanks.
Please note (2): Only pictures published on the link above are released under (CC) License, every other picture on this website is released under Copyright notice."
And the website bottom page now report: "Unless specified differently on a page content, all this website and its content is copyright of obsidiankey.com"
I hope this is now good enough for wikimedia, I verified all this and it should be fully compliant with CC-BY-2.5-AU which is the one used on wikimedia, I also uploaded these pictures and there is no watermark on them.
No, sorry. This is unacceptable for either Commons or Wikipedia:
"We authorize the use of information and pictures published on this page under (CC) license for information websites (magazines and reviews) like:"
Images on Commons or WP must be free for all use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works, see COM:L. The sentence above limits use to information websites. Note that the required license will allow, for example, people to print tee-shirts with your images and sell them. Also note that there is no "CC" license. The acceptable licenses are "CC-0", "CC-BY", and "CC-BY-SA". . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, changed again the message to match your new remark:
"We authorize the use of information and pictures published on this page under CC-BY-2.5-AU license.
You are NOT authorized to modify or change the copyright license of these information and pictures. Before using information and pictures under (cc) license, please have a full read of the CC-BY-2.5-AU license here.
Please note (1): Our music is NOT part of this agreement and is not released under CC-BY-2.5-AU license, so, for any inquiry regarding our recordings or live performances, please check out our Copyright notice, thanks.
Please note (2): Only pictures published on the link above are released under CC-BY-2.5-AU License, every other picture on this website is released under Copyright notice."
Thanks to you! Please can you undelete Obsidian Key page so I can update the links, this will avoid me to have to re-create the page which is forbidden, thanks, (Phantomz73) (talk to me) 18:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot and no problem, I added just the same kinda sentence in other 2 languages with the appropriate tags, also just found that also Sonic V category was previously deleted, could you please re-enable it to avoid re-creating it? Thanks in advance (Phantomz73) (talk to me) 19:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
AAA Galleries in Cat:people by name
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I took all of the galleries out of Category:People by name since that is a meta-cat that should have only sub categories in it. I'll delete the single image galleries, of which there are many and clean up the legitimate galleries, which often suffer from overcat and other problems.
Tnx, I undeleted two of the files which where still deleted and tagged them with the license review template. I pointed him/her to com:UNDEL is he/she wants the stamp to be undeleted. Natuur12 (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
hello! I have sent you an email. could you please tell me if you can help us? thanks a lot! --アンタナナ18:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I have not received the e-mail and, unless the matter is confidential (something for me as a checkuser or bureaucrat), I much prefer to discuss Commons matters here. It is both more transparent and easier to link. Others may also have comments here.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I note that you have placed the same message on the talk page of eight users:
Without knowing the subject of the e-mail, I can't be sure, but as a general rule, asking more than one colleague to do something just wastes the time of the others. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
oh, nothing so confidential here :) at least the part about help. we are looking for jury members for the local part of the WLE contest, and decided to contact you. the rating is to be done with the help of this jury tool and for this we would need some info that is to be sent via emails and cannot be published here (like email, password and login, etc). and yeah, in this case, the more the merrier :) --アンタナナ21:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Aha. Thank you for the compliment -- with 25,000 Commons editors to pick from, you picked the eight of us.
When is it? I will be away from the Internet, cruising in Nova Scotia, for all of July.
I see that round zero is 1/15 of the total and round one is a maximum of 100 -- that implies that there may be many more than 100 in round zero. How many do you expect? I'd be happy to do it, but I don;t have time to go through thousands of images.
Finally, although it doesn;t really matter now, I still have not gotten your e-mail.
thank you! we are supposed to have results before July, so it is perfectly okay :) but we are to have your email. could you please write to me? via E-mail this user. and do check your e-mail box for a letter from attolippipgmail.com. I'll be back with more details soon, but rest assured, you do not have to go through 15k of images :) --アンタナナ15:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Can you check your email box? I have sent you the password and login to enter the Jury tool. Best regards --Ilya (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello User:Antanana, before I answer you, I wanted to ask one of my friend on Commons who usually do judging for WLM Canada, but no answer yet. Foy myself, I'll have to decline sorry, I'm very busy with the launch of the French branch of The Wikipedia Library. Good luck guys, this is nice contest! Best regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I check my e-mail often and I have no messages from you. I think that in any case, I should decline -- I cannot see how you can possibly get through five rounds of judging before I leave on JUly 4. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Jim,
I need some advice on this ticket. My gut says that we can accept the photographs of Judith Tyberg. (The once taken by her should definatly be fine) But I am not sure. What is your opinion on this? Natuur12 (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Do I understand correctly that the uploader says that photos in question were taken with a camera belonging to the Center, and the photographers were unknown volunteers? If so:
First, these are not recent photos -- they must be at least 35 years old (she died in 1980), and this one says it is 55 years old -- so that it is unlikely that our uploader actually knows anything about who took them or with whose camera. They are in the archives of the Center, but might have come from anywhere -- a visitor, a newspaper photographer working on an article, a student, you name it.
Second, unless the Center had Work for Hire agreements in place with all of its volunteers during that period, even if our uploader has his facts right, the copyright still rests with the photographer, not the center.
So, sure, these are old and it is unlikely that anyone will actually complain, but PRP explicitly forbids that kind of reasoning. We often delete images that are far older and far less likely to have someone turn up to say, "Hey, I took that". I would not keep them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I send them a reply. If they are works for hire there should be some paperwork confirming this. Natuur12 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The East-West Center people claim to own copyright on images, but they do not know who took them, or when. I think they are confusing the ownership of a print with the ownership of the copyright. Their attempts are so frequent and strident that to me it appears this is promotional uploading - since all they're interested in uploading are images/recording of Judith Tyberg and the center. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of versions
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Jim. How do you do? I wanted to speak to an admin like you. Actually, I have some personal problems, so I want my versions of images uploaded by me in File:Opera browser logo 2013.png and File:Windows 10 Logo.svg to be deleted, I've no problem with other images uploaded by me and have no problem in versions uploaded by other users.
I thought that why to delete only my version, it will be better to keep the current version and delete all versions. So I added nomination for deletion in three images. The above are the reasons for deletion of two images.
And for the third one i.e, File:Google Chrome screenshot.png, there are copyrighted versions in the image i.e, Microsoft Aero, Aero has other license and are not allowed in Commons, you get that? So I want the versions starting from 15 and onwards with Aero windowed to be deleted. Rest are ok.
Please make these comments at the DRs, not here, so that they can be seen by anyone interested in the DR, not just those who see this page. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Adding year
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I think your question was answered in the discussion you cited. Although I don't like to see names like File:DSC123456789.jpg, I don't get much excited about file names as they are just identifiers. Good categories are far more important to the usefulness of a file. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the good advice! I'll try to imrove our categories once the files are all renamed so I can se them pretty much in a sequence which makes more sense to me. Eyesight is not what it used to be, I'm sad to say. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we kept them because it was clear that Rockwell and Curtis either gave permission or at least acquiesced in their publication without notice. I have changed the template accordingly. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Deletion
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! I've given my comments, in Opera logo image, an user said that deletion of my version is OK. Sadly, In Windows 10 logo image no one has commented yet and finally in Google chrome screenshot, an user said to keep.
So I wanted to say that, can you take actions on the opera and windows 10 logo. And as for the google chrome screenshot, I'll ask an user to express his views and then the action should be taken. PinnuDas17:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Jim,
would you kindly recommend me to choose the right license for the photographs you have marked for deletion?
I'm writing an article about an important person I've worked with and I've asked for photographs from her private archive. They were taken by some of our colleagues and were not published anywhere; I hope very much that the author(s) are not dead by now, but it's impossible to find out who took the concrete picture at an exhibition opening thirty years ago.
I assume I can publish these photographs under allowance of the current owner.
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
I'm sorry to say that this is a frequent problem here. It is very unusual for the owner of a photograph to own the copyright -- it is almost always retained by the photographer. Under the laws of most countries, transfer of a copyright requires a written agreement that is separate from any invoice for the purchase of a photograph and most photographers do not sell their rights in any case. It would up to you to prove that the owner of the photograph actually owned the copyright, which you would usually do by providing a copy of the transfer agreement.
I think you may find that the best thing to do, if the article is to be on a Wikipedia that permits Fair Use (which includes WP:EN, among others) is to upload the images there with a fair use rationale. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Closure
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This DN has been open for nearly one month. The uploader continued to upload pictures despite being told that social media permission was not enough, and I have blocked him for a month. I hope we can clear his thousands of uploads and close this DN. In so doing, I realized that I don't know how to remove thousands of images, the "perform batch task" visual editor was utterly overwhelmed by the quantity. I also closed the DN of his images which was below the one cited above. Any suggestions? Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC) PS, please ping, work is crazy this week.
Yeah, I used VFC but I had to split them into four batches of about 1,500 files each, together with a final batch of about 100. I tend to find that more than 1,500 files at a time causes difficulties. Ellin, I think the problem that you encountered was due to an empty file that VFC couldn't seem to get around, so I deleted that one manually before tackling the others. Green Giant (talk)01:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Trace of Soul
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Doc James: Jim may still be on vacation. The issue is that the EXIF data gives the copyright to ArcSoft, not to the photographer. I think a formal permission is needed in this case. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
No Yann; Arcsoft Exif issue was settled earlier as many trial versions prevent/set exif as they wish and copyright can't be claimed by the software company that way. Here Doc James may answering to Jim's one argument ("There is also the question of who owns images taken in a medical institution -- probably the institution."). But the other doubt still exists ("The issue here is that the uploader has made 93 edits on Commons of which 48 have been deleted. He has used at least one sockpuppet to file a DR on at least one image of his own very similar to this."). So the file may still kept deleted per COM:PRP. I can't see the deleted file; don't know the uploader. Jee11:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes I am only saying that the taking of a picture in a hospital does not mean the hospital owns it. This user's contributions do have issues. I am not saying we should undelete this image. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't remember the circumstances -- I have no objection if Steinsplitter or another Admin wants to unblock it. However, if it is not actually a bot, then it would be better if Arnd opened a new account with a name that did not include "bot". . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Pumps
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Jim, I stumbled into Pumps (shoes). Now, Pumps is a sort of portmanteau like i.e. football, which is short for Association football in England, American football in the USA and Australian rules football in Australia. On Commons I noticed that Pumps are used only for the type of shoes that in Britain are called Court shoes; actually the term pumps identify generally female slip-on shoes with or without heels (i.e. the ballet flat pumps or ballerina, as we Italians call them). What should we do? Or shall we consult a female admin? :-) -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)13:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
That's not what "portmanteau" means -- Portmanteau words are combinations -- "smog" for "smoke fog" and "motel" for "motor hotel" are the usual examples.
Like many words, "pump" means different things to different people. For me it means a slip on shoe, usually worn by women, although it can also mean a formal shoe worn with white tie by men -- I have worn black patent leather pumps in the distant past. The article at Court shoe describes my understanding of the word.
I think the category name is fine -- there are, after all, pumps for moving various liquids as well as "pumping iron" (working out with weights). What would you propose changing? (note the orange box above). . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you help me understand this copyright issue?
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Jim. :)
I was asked by a friend about the deletion of a photograph from Commons, and I looked at the discussion here. I find that I don't understand the ins and outs of the rules that affect this case, and I wonder if you could give me a layman's summary of why this file was deleted, and whether there's any way of salvaging it. The photo was one of a mural on the side of a building, and I get the impression that it was deleted because of the copyright on the building as an architectural work. Is that right?
I see that there is a relevant policy explanation here, and some further discussion of the legal issues here, but I'm not successfully connecting the dots. Any explanation you can provide would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus(talk)14:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Jim. In my recent history you can see that i requested renames of several Files under Criterion 2 (more detailed Information and so on). Is it possible that i get the rights to remove files into more specific Filenames please, as mentioned ? Thank you & Regards. Gary --Gary Dee (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Jim, i did not really read it as it is always somehow a bit orange up there ;). Just think about the sun, we are all enjoying it but never realizing how important she is for our life. It helps. Be back soon :) GaryDeeIP --2001:7E8:C0F9:5B01:AC:27C0:F61:6DEC20:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
A pie for you!
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Jim, I am working on a book for a children's book and the author has come across your photo and would like to know if we may use it? We can give you a credit line for the permission. Please contact me at eteresa-consultant@scholastic.com. Thanks, Emily — Preceding unsigned comment added by Find-it-girl (talk • contribs) 18:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Jim, you had closed this discussion and I should have been more careful to have checked for an old discussion before nominating the images again, for that I apologize. However, on looking at the original discussion and close, I would just like to say that most of the images are from 1960s when the subject was active in power. If that is not a persuasive argument, please re-close this discussion. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff17:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
The DR was closed. Policy forbids my deleting the file, particularly since an editor on one of the WPs where you deleted the file might object. In order to delete it, you will need to start a new DR. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Also thanks for clarifying - I should have specified that the photographs are my own work in the statement you clarified. Mabalu (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
14:50 deletions
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
File:Anverso de la foto.JPG (Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anverso de la foto.JPG)
File talk:Anverso de la foto.JPG (Talk page of deleted image)
File:Corazonesextradelmixines.jpg
File talk:Corazonesextradelmixines.jpg
Hey, you deleted all of the above files. In each instance in addressing the deletion request for each file I commented on the request per commons policy "If you think that the file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page." Why were my inputs not addressed prior to deletion? Rybkovich (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rybkovich (talk • contribs) 16:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
These weren't speedy deletions -- they were regular DRs. See:
In the case of a regular DR, the closing Admin will very rarely even see the talk page of the file. The appropriate place to comment is on the DR pages -- in this case, the pages I cited above. I made no closing comment because they were perfectly routine DRs for the reasons given. Please remember that we handle more than 200 DRs every day and delete more than 1500 files. A very few Admins do almost all of that work, so we work very fast. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Could I get your opinion on a public art photographing situation?
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I was considering uploading a photo or two of MacArthur Park from the period when it was filled with balls (most of those images should link to more info, if needed). I'm guessing that there's some distance from which the "original works" painted on the balls would pass de minimis, but just how much is something I could use some hints about. For that matter, can I safely assume that this project doesn't turn the entire lake itself into a copyrighted scene for the duration (the balls are not arranged in any way in the photos I have)? Thanks for any input you can provide, and please let me know if there's a better place to ask about stuff like this. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy to answer questions, but, of course, you'll get only my opinion and that of any talk page stalkers who happen by. You can also ask questions at the COM:Village pump.
This is a tough one and some of our colleagues will certainly disagree. First, of course, the images themselves must be your work or otherwise freely licensed. As for the question of the copyright to the balls and their arrangements, I think that very few of the images in the Google search you linked above would qualify for Commons. Any given ball would have to be small enough so that you could not see the pattern on it and any arrangement of the balls would have to be truly random. I suggest you upload three or four that you think might qualify and give me a list. I'll look them over and then, if I think they're OK, we can decide if (a) we simply let them go or (b) we should put a DR on them so that you can have a formal community opinion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
After some consideration of the above and the ostensibly charitable nature of the organization involved, I decided to seek their permission; we'll see how that goes. Thanks for the advisement. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Junkyardsparkle, it's very unlikely that that will work. If all of the arrangement of the balls was done by the organization's employees and they have executed work-for-hire agreements, then the organization could license any copyright they might have in the arrangement of the balls. However, as I understand it, the individual balls were painted by a wide variety of people, each of whom owns the copyright to any balls they painted. It is extremely unlikely that anyone could identify the painters of any individual balls and get the necessary licenses. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing that the individual painting may be considered volunteer work-for-hire? There are images of the balls on reputable stock photo sites, so there may be some existing license terms. In a practical sense, isn't the cautionary attitude on commons essentially to protect against any possible claim of damages by a rights holder? I would think the volunteers in this case would be safely outside of that possiblity, but then, I'm not a lawyer. As far as the arrangement, rest assured that the balls were being freely blown around by the wind by the time I was taking pictures, so that, at least, isn't an issue. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
According to the Precautionary Principle, we do not keep images unless we have a free license from the copyright holder, even if a lawsuit is very unlikely, so, no, the Commons cautionary attitude goes well beyond simply avoiding lawsuits. If it didn't, we'd be happy to have 70 year old photos from people's albums. And no, they can't be work for hire unless there was a written agreement and probably not even then, because such an agreement would fail for lack of consideration (payment or other value given the volunteers). Reputable stock agencies have a lot of images that probably can't be used except under a fair use exemption, which is fine in the USA, but I'll bet they don't license them for use in non-fair use countries.
Well, this makes me wonder about the hazy area between "art" and "decoration" a little, but I'm certainly not trying to open that can of worms here... I'm happy enough to give up on the idea for now, and try to catch up on the less problematic pictures I've been meaning to get around to. Thanks again for the discussion. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Why?
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Can you tell me,
why a picture with wrong perspective and bad colors better is, like the improved? And
As for #2, yes, see Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Posters. I don't read Hungarian, so no, I have not read the Hungarian law in the original, but I have read it in English and am also thoroughly familiar with both FOP laws in general and Commons treatment of them.
And, as I said in closing the DR, while I believe that these posters qualify under Hungarian FOP, that is not necessary for keeping the image here -- the posters are de minimis to the photograph as a whole. The fact that they can be seen in detail if you zoom in on the high resolution image is irrelevant -- Commons considers the de minimis question only at the whole image level. Note also, that I tend to be less accepting of the de minimis argument than most my colleagues who are very active -- that have closed tens of thousands of DRs. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. The link in the PS... I wrote it wrong, sorry!
Posters: We will ask 'HUNGART Vizuális Művészek Közös Jogkezelő Társasága Egyesület' (Visual Artists Collecting Societies association) for more to learn abaut. I hope, this questionable area will be enucleate then. I'm not sure you are right but I did not dare to exclude it.
I'm still not sure what your question is in the PS. "OK to type into your text from an another editor" can have two meanings:
Is it OK for me to use another editor (MSWord, or Excel) to type into my own text? Yes. Admins close DRs using a script called DelReqHandler, which automates much of the task, so we must click only four times and type a comment -- there are no page loads, so it is very fast. However, the space for typing the comment is only a single line box about 50 characters wide, so it is difficult to format a complex comment. Therefore, when I want to say more than a few words, I often write some of the comment in the DelReqHandler box and then close it. I then reopen the page for editing in the ordinary way to correctly format the comment. That's what I did in the edits you linked in your PS. Occasionally, if I have something very complex to do, I will load the whole edit text into Word or, more often, into Excel, in order to use their features to make changes more quickly and accurately.
Is it OK for another editor (another Commons user) to change my text? No, absolutely not, but that's not what happened in the edits you linked above.
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have an image of the overlook at the Flight 93 National Memorial visitor center, shot from near the end of the walkway that overlooks the crash site. It prominently includes the glass railing inscribed with a quote from Los Angeles fire captain Steve Ruda: "A common field one day. A field of honor forever." A much more distant and de minimis version is here [9], but the crash site is below the lip of the platform at that distance - one must feature the railing and inscription prominently to get it in the composition (and it's a compelling composition that way). I personally don't think that the railing is a sculpture or other copyrightable object -it's a non-sculptural building component inscribed with a quotation, but I'd like your views and those of talkpage stalkers before I upload it. Acroterion (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
If the railing is the same one as in the linked image above, then I don't think it is a problem. However, the USCO takes the position that even a single full sentence is copyrightable. You mention two, so I think that the image probably infringes on the copyrighted quotation. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I see two obstacles you must overcome to have the mural restored. First, if you are the artist, then you may need to show that you are a notable artist -- that you have a WP entry, or gallery shows, or other evidence of your notability. Commons does not keep personal art -- even monumental personal art -- of non-notable artists. Some of my colleagues may argue that the mural itself is notable by definition, so I would not worry about this issue first. Second, I note that the Einstein image is a direct copy from an AP photo that almost certainly has a copyright. I assume that some of the other images may also have a copyright, so you definitely need to prove the source of all of the images and their copyright status. Use of an AP image for the mural is probably a fair use under USA law, but Commons does not allow fair use, so a free license or Public Domain status is essential. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm assuming this second issue will be a contentious one because it is a notable mural by a notable artist, who despite using fair use images, created a significant work of art that is notable as a whole in the community. The use of this photo doesn't hurt any copyright holders. Photos of the mural are readily available on the internet and the use of the photo is used for informational purposes, adding significantly to the article about pantheism in recent developments and Levi Ponce. Would you be able to help me figure out what steps I can take to have this image included as a free license or Public Domain? Also, why is it that File:Warhol-Campbell Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg is allowed under fair use? Also, File:Barack Obama Hope poster.jpg Is their a limited path for fair use or some other way we could explore? Thanks NaturaNaturans (talk)
Both of the images you cite, which I have linked above, are hosted on WP:EN with fair use rationales. They are not on Commons and cannot be until their copyrights expire. Fair use is not permitted on Commons. Without a free license from the holders of the copyrights to the Einstein image and other copyrighted images, the mural cannot be hosted on Commons. I suggest you upload it to WP:EN with a fair use rationale and see if it is acceptable there. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
WHY DID YOU DELETE MY PHOTOS?!
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
First, please stop shouting. Commons editors do not respond well to being yelled at and doing it repeatedly is likely to get you blocked.
We assume good faith in our editors, that is, we take their word for the authorship of an image. However, once it becomes clear that the user has lied, particularly in cases such as yours where the images were suspect to being with, good faith goes away and we require solid proof that you are the photographer. That's hard to do, but you might try sending the original full size, unedited, images with their EXIF to OTRS and let an OTRS volunteer decide. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
I'd be prepared to vote for a policy change to COM:PRP that would allow us to keep orphan works when the circumstances were such that it appeared extremely unlikely that a valid copyright holder existed. This might include images that are more than X (maybe 70?) years old, where there was no information available about the photographer or images that belonged to corporations that had gone out of business and no successor corporation could be found. We would, of course, run a risk, but I think that the risk would be no larger than the one we run assuming good faith and in some de minimis cases. The image would have to have a tag that would clearly alert reusers that they were running a small risk.
OK, thanks for your answer. The issue will be probably be how do we assess that no information about the photographer is available, and that no successor corporation could be found. We need to write down a detailed proposal (with examples?), and that is the difficulty, as the devil is in the details. ;) Regards, Yann (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Nannaku Prematho
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
You have a good eye. The image is an obvious copyvio, one where policy requires "delete-on-sight" and I have done so. Unless you can get a free license from the movie producers, the best solution is to use the image on WP:EN as fair use. Since Commons does not allow fair use, it cannot stay here without a license. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The second one you cite is hosted on WP:EN, not Commons, and I am not very familiar with WP:EN rules on fair use. However, I'll guess that the use of the {{Non-free poster}} template is probably sufficient. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You have deleted the above file with the reason "Out of scope". That is a very general statement, could you state precisely what you mean?--Gerd Leibrock (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you read COM:SCOPE. We do not generally host PDFs except as needed by Wikimedia for source material. We do not host PDFs of textual material that could be set in Wiki markup if and when needed in WP articles. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I am the agent who originally accepted the permission. I have undoubtedly made some mistakes in the past, but when they are pointed out, I try to modify my process, so I get it right the next time.
I'm struggling to figure out how to do that in this case.
To briefly summarize, an authorized representative of Tampa Bay Lightning provided a photo to us, explained that it was a work for hire (which could plausibly explain why the EXIF identified the photo as taken by a professional), asserted that they were the copyright holder (as a result of the contractual relationship, one presumes), and licensed it Creative Commons CC-BY-SA.
As you know, we get many hundreds of photos with almost identical fact situations. Is it your position that we should be either rejecting these permission statements, or challenging them to provide us with some additional documentation, on the chance that they lied about being the copyright holder? That's not a process I intend to follow, so I'd like to understand that I'm missing something that distinguishes this from the usual permission statements, or I should retire as an OTRS permissions agent.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. I think you got it right, but ran into a bad situation. If I had processed the OTRS e-mail, I would have accepted the assurance from the media person at TBL. I don't know whether the person at TBL simply got it wrong, or lied, and it doesn't really matter, so let's give him or her the benefit of the doubt and assume a mistake.
I suspect that the TBL has a license from Getty to use the image in all of its publicity material, as part of its press releases and so forth. I very much doubt that the license from Getty allows TBL to sublicense the image to us under CC-BY-SA. Hence my deletion.
BTW, I think the situation at OTRS will certainly get worse -- as I explain above, I'm not going to sign the new 8,000+ word confidentiality agreement and I suspect others will take the same position. I think that WMF is abusing its volunteers by putting such a sloppy document in front of us and expecting us to roll over and sign. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I had forgotten it was you that wrote that essay. I've had a habit of procrastinating and I'm trying to overcome it, so when the agreement first came out I signed it immediately. I read your essay later and regretted signing it. I am worried about OTRS permissions. I did a presentation in DC in which I noted that in the last 90 days only three agents handled 97% of the Cpmmpms permissions. I was one of them and if I walk away, while the probably limp along but the last time I took a break the backlog exceeded two months. We'll see what happens this time.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Identifiable people in France
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I’m sure that your closing remark here was not a joke nor an error — if this is to be enforced, a huge chunk of our France images will have to be deleted. What are the details? (Old photos apply, too?, what’s the age threshold?) Is this being discussed somewhere? -- Tuválkin✉✇16:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you read Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people with reference to France. Unless you have their consent, it is illegal in France to take a picture of an identifiable person and also illegal to publish such a picture. Even stricter rules apply to minors. This is true even if the person is in a public place. There are some exceptions, but they are not relevant to the two cases today which were both images of two people who were the main subject of the image:
public figures performing their public functions or activities (not in private life),
people shown in a larger group (without distinction of one or more individuals),
people who are present in a public location (unless the depicted person is the main focus of the picture),
people related to news events of public interest or public information purposes.
Although these are non-copyright restrictions, they are specifically called out as restrictions that we must enforce:
"Some non-copyright restrictions, for example defamation or child pornography laws, might make it illegal to host certain images on Commons. Such images are of course not allowed, whether they have a free license or not. The most important such restrictions are personality/privacy laws which do not allow photographs of identifiable people which were made in a private place, unless the depicted person gives permission." (see Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions#Non-copyright_restrictions_that_directly_affect_Commons
Thanks for the (lengthy!) explanation — I will surely read the COM pages you point to. It is strange that Fastily, always so keen in finding reasons to delete files, did not see this coming. (In the light of current events, it is also “nice” to see how the French govenment protects the safety of its citizens and the interests of its journalists…) -- Tuválkin✉✇16:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion re engineering illustrations, elated to the russian trains upload Parovoz_LV_razmeri.jpg
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I can see what you are saying in the discussion, but I would not use the ward "certainly". Illustrating the dimensions and distances between the between the outside/engineering parts of a machine such as a train or an automobile, can be done in such a way were there is an illustration of facts without originality as I stated above. Drawings that trace parts and using simple geometry represent distances between those parts cannot be considered original. The drawings here are as simple of a representation of facts as can be done. The amount facts conveyed does not alter the lack of originality of conveying those facts, i.e. complexity of the facts that are represented does not produce originality as long as the facts are conveyed in as simple manner as it can be done. In what way can these facts be conveyed without violating copyright? I am not bickering I am justifying my point and expect the same in return. It would be interesting to read your interpretation of commons' stated reasons for our rules so can you quote the ones that you see as applicable to this matter. Rybkovich (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I mostly hang my hat on the fact that all engineering drawing is creative. Many many years ago, ten years before CAD, I trained as an engineer at Cornell and took a required year's class in engineering drawing. We were taught that all engineering drawing require some creativity, but general views of complex machines such as locomotives, require a great deal of it.
An example. Some years ago I made an AutoCAD drawing of a Big Boy. As an example of the creative choices required, every bolt head has on it information about its manufacturer and its specification -- how strong it is. AutoCAD makes it very easy to populate the drawing with detailed bolt heads -- you draw one and then insert the block everywhere it is needed. The question is, is that appropriate? At any but very large scales, it makes the bolt heads too prominent, so I chose not to do it. Do you draw pipe fittings, which are larger than the pipe they're used with, or simply have the pipes run together? If you do draw the pipe fittings, do you draw the excess threads that appear at every threaded joint? Do you draw the locomotive naked or with lagging? And so forth. Even simple things like where you put dimension lines and what dimension style you use will make the drawing more or less readable and therefore more or less usable. All of these choices have a tremendous effect on the final look of the drawing. This is why really good technical illustrators can make $100,000 a year.
Ahh I get the point. This is the main point re complex maps - they are considered original even though the decisions of which facts to present are mainly based on utilitarian not aesthetic reasons. I was also going to look at a US case which i think is specifically re car auto cads and will update you. Rybkovich (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Rybkovich, maps are interesting. As you see will on my talk page, I am a serious sailor, so I do a great deal of work with charts. Although I own 1,200 paper charts, most of our navigation is done by a black box which displays our position on a chart, as well as a great deal of other information. There are two sets of charts available for almost the whole world. The first are raster scans of the equivalent paper chart -- charts that have been produced by humans with a strong eye toward usability, albeit with computer drafting assistance. The second are vector charts -- charts that are produced on the fly by the black box from a database. They should be the better choice -- they allow you to customize the charts, so that, for example, all depths shallower than your choice are shaded differently, and can sound an alarm if your position moves over a depth shallower than one you choose. All other features can also be customized. The text stays constant size of your choice when you zoom in and out. Nonetheless, I, and, I think, most, serious navigators use raster charts. They are simply more readable and easier to use. I think that the ability to make something readable is certainly a creative work and deserves copyright. The vector charts do not themselves have a copyright in the US, although the database behind them may have a database copyright in some countries. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Fictitious Ottoman flags
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/Fictitious Ottoman flags, the fact that they are used in articles was precisely the reason why I nominated them for deletion; uninitiated users keep adding them to articles because they are named as if they are not fictitious, and since they are relevant to so many articles it is difficult to keep track of them and remove each time. If Commons policy requires keeping them, then I think they must at least be renamed per Commons:File renaming 2 and 3. We'll still need to remove them from articles one by one, but at least uninformed users won't add them again later, thinking they found the correct flag for that year. I think it would be best to rename them like Fictitious Ottoman flag 1.svg, ...2.svg, etc. It is important not to include years in the title as well; they are just as made-up as the flags themselves and they give a false sense of validity to the flags, like they were actually adopted at that year.
Once their use is phased out they can be deleted, or maybe not, it won't matter since it wouldn't hurt to have them on Commons with that name. But keeping those fictitious flags with their current names is extremely problematic.--Orwellianist (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This problem comes up several times a year. The appropriate solution is to add {{Fictitious flag}} to each file and then accept what comes. Commons policy is very clear on the subject -- we do not try to control what WP editors choose to use in their articles. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, let's not mention that they are fictitious in the title and just deal with it with the template, but the incorrect dates still need to be fixed. Commons:File renaming: "To correct obvious errors in file names, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms." I think it would be best to correct the names of those files and name them as they are, as fictitious Ottoman flags, I believe that's in line with the naming policy; but even if you disagree with that, it is absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect dates per commons policy. At the very least they should be named "Flag of the Ottoman Empire 1.svg" etc, just removing the incorrect dates.--Orwellianist (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't object at all to your renaming them either by adding "fictitious" or removing the dates, or both. I just believe that the primary notice needs to be {{Fictitious flag}}. Note that while we call it "renaming", the function is actually called "move" in the drop down menu between the star and the search box. Since you are not an Admin, you will have to leave a redirect behind, but that's a good thing because they are so widely used. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, the use of the fictitious flag template is warranted here, but it is quite misleading to have the title say that the file is something, and then have a template below that says it actually isn't. It's especially problematic because the files even dare to give precise dates; as if an imperial decree officially changed the flag at that year; when there isn't the slightest indication that it was used either around that time, or indeed, at any other time.
Since you don't object, I am requesting moves on all the files listed using the drop down menu. Can you approve the move? I don't oppose leaving redirects behind; it's probably for the best, as you say.--Orwellianist (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize you were a relatively new user -- I thought you either had, or I could give you, the File Mover Right. Since you have only 50 edits on Commons and fewer than 1,000 on all of WMF, I shouldn't do that.
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
James, thank you for looking into the license of File:Monique de Kermadec.jpg. I realise the contradictory licenses that appear on the web are confusing but surely the author's own site takes precedence? Let me know if you need more information to un-delete this image and how you wish to resolve this. I am new around here, as you can see, and would welcome your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlings217 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
The new WMF confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Although I have been busy in the real world for the last several months, I have also been very troubled by the requirement for signing a new confidentiality agreement. As I outline below, I think that the requirement is so poorly conceived and written that I have had to seriously consider what, if any, position I want as a contributor to an organization that makes such an unreasonable request.
I have decided not to sign the new confidentiality agreement required for OTRS and Checkuser status. I have three reasons for this:
First, as noted at User:Jameslwoodward, I have spent my career in the high tech world, usually as Chief Financial Officer. In that capacity I have both written and signed a wide variety of confidentiality agreements. They are typically 500 to 700 words. The documents that comprise the basis for the new WMF requirement have more than 8,000 words, and that does not include the various linked documents. I am a native English speaker and an experienced reader of complex agreements and I cannot fully understand exactly what the requirements are. I think that requiring signatures from our colleagues around the world, almost all of whom have less experience reading legalese and most of whom are not native English speakers, is just silly.
Second, while I understand and support the concept of virtual signatures, I cannot support it in this context – one where the document that is being signed is ill-defined, with many links. I have not followed most of the links, but I would not be surprised if ultimately this document set is several hundred thousand words. A virtual signature, like an old-fashioned one with pen and ink, should apply to a specific document -- a well defined set of words.
Third, every confidentiality agreement that I have ever seen provides that it does not cover information that the signer obtained outside of the scope of the agreement. A typical provision is:
”provided, however, that “Confidential Information” shall not include information (i) in the public domain by publication through no fault of the Employee, (ii) lawfully received by the Employee from a third party who was under no obligation of confidentiality with respect thereto, or (iii) required by law to be disclosed, but only to the extent of such required disclosure.”
The new requirement does not include such an exception and, therefore, signers can be sanctioned for revealing non-public information that they learned completely outside of their OTRS or Checkuser status. As an example, I know the real names of many of our pseudonymous colleagues because they have chosen to reveal them to me in e-mails. While I certainly respect their desire for anonymity, I should not be sanctionable if I happen to reveal one. I have explicitly asked the powers that be to clarify this, but they have not done so.
I would certainly be happy to sign a short – less than 1,000 words – self contained document (one with no links) setting forth OTRS and Checkuser responsibility to keep confidential any non-public information learned through the use of those facilities, but I cannot sign the present document and I strongly recommend that others think hard before they do so.
Thanks for this highly educational reply. I did signe because doing OTRS-work is my hobby which I very much enjoy to do. This said, I doubt that this agreement is even legally binding in my home country anyways because you are a) they used some sort or force to make people singe this. Namely revoking access if you don't singe without giving any change to review/revise the agreement. b) The English isn't understandable even for native speakers as stated above by Jim c) it isn't even clear if the OTRS-policy is on behave of the WMF or the OTRS-admins who have no legal authority to make such an agreement. d) It is indeed unreasonable and unrealistic e) The OTRS-admins could have reasonably suspect that this document isn't suitable for most of the audience which is a form of neglect. f) They are in neglect because they don't respond to request to clarify. Conclusion: the odds are that this agreement will not even held up in a Dutch court and I doubt this differs from other countries who are a member of the European Union. Natuur12 (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. I have my doubts about signing too. First, unlike Natuur12 above, I want it and keep it as my free time hobby. I usually sign NDAs (if ever) in context of a project work, in exchange of money. While my personal responsibility for eventual harm done when disclosing sensitive information cannot be disclaimed, this agreement creates a legal imbalance - one party asserts its conditions, the other party gets nothing in exchange. « Saper // @talk » 16:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion over how I counted words.
Since I did the word counts in a fairly rough and ready fashion using MSWord, arguably a careful count would come up with somewhat fewer words, so I rounded down to say "more than 8,000 words". . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
File:Krishna.jpg
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Jim!
Just FYI but the request for temporary undeletion of the above mentioned file was so that I could import it to Wikiversity as Fair Use there in the lecture v:Yellow astronomy. I had no interest in its being kept on Commons. Also, the image you mentioned as "The image is the second image on this page: http://blog.onlineprasad.com/23-super-cute-pics-of-bal-gopal-krishna-everyone-will-love/." Is not the image of the above file. A copy of the correct image, still carrying the name "File:Krishna.jpg" occurs on url=http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Krishna. It was probably copied from Commons back in 2012 or so. The statement "The image itself is copyrighted and the two figures in it are also copyrighted, so you would need to get two or three licenses in order to keep it on Commons." indicates the wrong image and I checked it.
I realize Commons and its Custodians deal with a lot of images per day, but in order for this process to work of importing deleted files from Commons to Wikiversity we need to better coordinate it somehow. Any suggestions? --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this situation is an anomaly. There have been five different files with the file name File:Krishna.jpg on Commons. The latest of them, uploaded on August 16, 2015, is, in fact, the two figures which I found and linked to and which you have named above. There is also a current file named File:Krishna.JPG (upper and lower case are different on WMF projects). The file at http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Krishna has never been on Commons with the name Krishna.jpg (either upper or lower case). It does, however, appear considerably larger at http://sankirthanam.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-to-see-god-everywhere.html. I don't think it possible for Admins to search deleted images on Commons by image, only by name, so I cannot tell if that image has ever been on Commons under a different name.
The five files with the name are (with uploader names and dates):
06:30, 16 August 2015 Vishnuvardhan817 640 × 640 (50,769 bytes) The two figures linked above
15:37, 16 May 2015 Krishna chotu 720 × 960 (81,503 bytes) Photo of two young men in informal dress
07:27, 27 March 2015 Krishnadahal 600 × 600 (147,127 bytes) Photo of a mid teen boy in suit and tie in front of a nondescript red building
23:14, 27 May 2013 Ossopunk 350 × 514 (46,487 bytes) (A copy of the same picture with slight better contrast and colour.)
23:25, 4 August 2005 Parvati~commonswiki 350 × 514 (30,811 bytes) (The Hindu God Krishna with holy cow) [drawing of haloed man with a flute leaning on a white cow and a peacock in the foreground.
So, the long and the short is that Commons has never had the image you were looking for under the name you gave. It may have had it under another name. In either case, I don't see how there is anything that needs fixing here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this! What I remembered of the image was Krishna standing in front of a white cow. The last file you described and the one I found on banglapedia both contained these parts of the image and were named "File:Krishna.jpg". I also found the last one you described on the web. The only way I could tell the difference was the mention of the peacock and the halo. The image on banglapedia did not show the peacock or the halo so the one I actually must have had in v:Yellow astronomy was either the last one you mentioned above or the second to last. This is not going to be as easy as I had hoped.
Originally I asked (with consensus at Wikiversity) at the phabricator for a way to upload files deleted on Commons to Wikiversity as Fair Use. They included "commons" for use with our Import tool but mentioned that by Commons policy I could not search for the deleted image but had to have it temporarily undeleted before import by a custodian. This test has pointed out the complexity but maybe not a solution. When I used the time stamp for the Commonsdelinker removal of the image from Wikiversity, it led me to the deletion discussion I mentioned in the undeletion request. Can you establish that either the last or the second to last image you found was the one the deletion request was about? --Marshallsumter (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
(Apologies for delayed response -- I've been away for Thanksgiving)
I'm not sure I understand the question. I listed five images above, in reverse chronological order. All five have had DRs. The most recent DR is for the most recent image, and so forth.
If you have the correct file name of a deleted Commons file, is is trivial to recover the file. Most Admins will ask you to e-mail them with your e-mail address so they can e-mail you the file rather than undelete it.
I think maybe you are still missing the point here. The image at http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Krishna has never appeared on Commons with the name File:Krishna.jpg or File:Krishna.JPG. That image is nothing like the two oldest images I described above. Yes, they both include a man, a white cow, and a flute, but the one is primarily blue, the man is young, and there is a tree in the background. In the deleted Commons files, the man is old, the image is primarily gold, and the background is blank. They are very different. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Copyvio?
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I want to nominate thumb for deletion because there is now a new version without the excessive tilt of the old version, in the Category:OLSH Convent, Daceyville.
Since several of the files in the category appear to be more or less identical, I think more than one probably needs deletion, but you don;t need me to do that -- just click on Nominate for deletion in the left column of any file page. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have announced my refusal to sign the new 8,000 plus word confidentiality agreement above, so I am reluctant to do any CU work until that is resolved. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Sutton copyvios
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I have been concerned at something I did about a year ago to this file [11]. It had been uploaded by another user but I then downloaded it and manipulated it to a different shape, and re-loaded it. My concern is that that it should not have been on commons in the first place, being a photo of a two dimensional work of art. My re-uploading would also have been wrong if this was the case and I am sorry. There is another image of a similar type [[:File:Scill_Mosaic,_Robin_Hood_Lane,_Sutton,_Surrey,_Greater_London_(2).jpg] . The user who uploaded them originally [User talk:A P Monblat] had had problems previously with copyright. SovalValtos (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Both images appear to be hand painted tiles. Please note that the UK FOP rule does not divide on 2D versus 3D as it does in some other places, but on "graphic works" versus "works of artistic craftsmanship". Hand painted tiles are explicitly mentioned at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom as being in the latter group and therefore covered by UK FOP. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you again for replying, and for the link. I see "The right to modify The panorama freedom is restricted to taking pictures of the actual objects. Generally, the freedom to modify such pictures is restricted" So I could still have been at fault in so doing and my modification should be deleted? SovalValtos (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The German law (which is the basis for the discussion you quote from) is much stricter than the UK -- the UK explicitly says that any permitted photograph is free of copyright restrictions. Therefore any derivative work of that photo must also be free. I don't see any problem with your image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hola, me podrías ayudar. Verás, descargué una fotografía de la tumba de un ex-presidente de Guatemala, pero la confundí con una foto que yo había tomado. Te pido que la borres porque la confundí con una de mi trabajo propio. Gracias. --ElisonSeg (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you could help me. You see, I downloaded a photograph of the grave of a former president of Guatemala, but the thought was a photo I had taken. I ask that because mistook delete one of my own work. Thank you. --ElisonSeg (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@ElisonSeg: He borrado la fotográfía. Para casos como este puedes añadirle lo siguiente a la foto {{Speedy|Uploaded by an error. It isn't of my authorship}}. --Alan(talk)10:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Why?
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Many articles do not have images. Needing an image is not a reason to keep one that has no valid license. Commons keeps only images that are freely licensed by the photographer.
User:Margarita_Korneeva is not the same person as the Margarita_Korneeva in the images -- the user is either a fan or a vandal -- that is common here
User:Margarita_Korneeva is the same person as the Margarita_Korneeva in the images, but she was incorrect when she claimed that they were her own work
In either case, we do not know who took the images and we do not have any license to use them. If (1) is correct, then there is nothing we can or should do. If (2) is correct, then the actual photographer or photographers must send free license(s) to OTRS. If and when the license is received, processed, and approved, the images will be restored. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, has a significant backlog, so it may be several weeks or more before the license is processed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for explanation, sir.
Margarita Korneyeva is an authentic singer of russian traditional romance.
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not super familiar with .commons deletion policy, so I'm wondering if you could direct me to whatever policy it is that mandates this rather broad apparent exemption for images that are in use somewhere? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I found COM:INUSE, which makes sense as it is meant to keep Commons from overriding local policies other WMF sites. However, as this image was only in use on en.wp and is in fact in conflict with local policy there on watermarked free images [12] I have taken it out of use. (For whatever reason, we seem to have had an ongoing problem with self-promotion from a few users from this region). I see now that I did this backwards, would you possibly reconsider the close or would I need to nominate it again? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm generally uncomfortable with an image being removed from one of the WPs and then being immediately deleted because it is no longer in use. It seems to me that the editors on WP:EN (in this case) should have an opportunity to object to its removal before it is deleted. So, no, I won't reopen the DR -- feel free to nominate it again and, if at the end of the seven days no one has objected, it can be deleted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks -- actually, when I am working fast, I'll click first on "[Keep]" (the file) and then on "[Close: Kept]", but while I'm clicking, the script removes the "[keep][del]" on the file and my target moves to the left, so I hit "[Close: Deleted]" in error. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
which all seem to be passport images uploaded by the same editor and which all ended up being deleted. Was the problem that I simply tried to combine too many files from different countries in the same DR discussion, or was there something else wrong? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
As I said in the DR, the rules are different country by country, so a mass deletion request for many countries is not easy to work with. Also note that several of those above are for more than one passport -- as I also said in the DR, if we're going to delete a passport from country ABC, then we should delete all of them. So, it seems to me that the best way to do this is country by country, as are all of the cases you cite above. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there,
I just seen that you responded to my Restoration of a deleted image post, thank you for replying. Just wanted to drop by and say my thanks. :) --Giooo95 (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
misunderstand?
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, no there was no misunderstand from me, but rather a confirmation that I had not changed my mind, my English language misunderstood you! :) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I just wanted to clarify. The Russian article where the map is currently used is under a deletion request and, by knowing how strict the policies regarding articles are on the Russian wiki, it's beyond doubt that sooner or later the article is going to be deleted, leaving the file unused. Therefore I believe that you keeping the article was rather premature. --glossologist (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I would have kept the map whether or not it was actually in use. It is absolutely firm Commons policy that we do not get into disputes over borders or maps. Please remember that the person who created the map feels just as strongly the other way. Please read COM:NPOV. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid you haven't grasped the point. It's not a matter of point of view. The map is not based on any sources (or at least no one has so far provided any) and is effectively a piece of fiction created out of thin air by the uploader (not representing anyone's POV). Thus, the file is clearly out of project scope (COM:SCOPE: "Scope part 1: Files <..> Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose"). --glossologist (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
No, you haven't grasped the point -- it is firm Commons policy that we do not get into the middle of arguments over the authenticity of maps. There is no "No Original Research" rule here. If the map is not accurate, it will not be used, but it is not our business to make that decision. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Re:
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Jameslwoodward, the image File:2.5 Ayuda AB.jpg was not recreated, I changed it. The original was deleted because it was a screenshot of my computer to show what's happen when u cross the mouse over a pic. I have changed the image to choose one of my own job (this one). If u read the discussion, u can see it. There's no reason to hold the template. Please, don't remove it again, now it follows the Commons rules. Ph03nix1986 (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You are correct that the {{Dont recreate}} template was not appropriate when I placed it. However, by recreating the file outside of process, you have made it appropriate. As I have just posted on your talk page, please decide whether you want to be a valued member or just a nuisance who breaks multiple rules. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
User:DDemq-MuséumLille
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello
I hope my english is not too bad so that I can explain the situation...
You have decided to block this user (User:DDemq-MuséumLille) because of an "inappropriate username" but it's a mistake. I can assure you that this user is really working for the Muséum of Lille and I asked him to create a new username containing it (before this, his username was "User:Denis Demarque" and it could have made problems with his employer...). Wikimedia France and the Muséum of Lille have a partnership, named "GLAM Lille - Musée d'histoire naturelle", and you can check that we have created templates, categories... for this project (it's only the beginning). This user is a beginner on Wikipedia and on Commons and I hope you will soon end the blocking and allow him to continue with this username. Regards. --Cbyd (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Done Aha -- normally we block user names that are institutions -- primarily because we want one person per user name. That way we can develop relationships -- learn that User:X is always accurate while User:Y needs to be checked. So, in this case, you are telling me that this user name actually belongs to and will be used by only one person -- Denis Demarque -- and that the first part of the name tells us all that.
In order to avoid Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DDemq-MuséumLille and things like it, an authorized official of the Museum should send an e-mail to OTRS saying that Demarque is authorized to upload photographs under a free license. Note also that one of the images in that DR, File:Vase anthropo-zoomorphe MHNLille.jpg, has a copyright notice in the EXIF. It names both Philip Bernard and the MHNL, so we will need permission from Bernard. (If Bernard is an employee and the image is a work for hire, then he should not put his name in the copyright line in the EXIF).
None of the works in that DR have a copyright themselves -- only the photographs do -- but if there are cases where the artifact in the photo is still under copyright, then that must also be dealt with.
Your English is fine, by the way -- a great deal better than my French, which I studied for eight years in high school and college, a long time ago. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion
Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code:
Circular 92 - Copyright Ownership and Transfer
(b) Works Made for Hire. — In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.
And, by the way, the definition of "work made for hire" at Section 101 severely limits the term -- your cite covers only "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment" as that term is defined in the USA and works where the parties explicitly agree in writing to "work made for hire" treatment.
Not true, the agreement can be in writing (it must be to retain any rights by the contractor) but it as the law permits be a oral contract as in the case of the painting that I contracted to have done of my photo. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract this one was witnessed and for you to dispute that, implies bad faith upon the ONLY aerial photographer that this site ever had. :) Have a nice day! --WPPilot (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
WPPilot, I'm not sure I understand your point. As I said above, the copyright law is very explicit -- at 17 USC 101 the definition of works made for hire is clear. They are limited to (1)"a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment;" or (2)..." if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire."
So, if you commission a painting by oral agreement, the copyright remains with the artist. More generally, you can't transfer any copyright by oral agreement.
And, I'm not suggesting for a moment any bad faith on anyone's part, least of all yours. Copyright law is very complex, US copyright law even more so, and it's not surprising that you are not as familiar with 17 USC as those of us who have spent a lot more time on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You must be right and my copyright lawyer is wrong. "The creator of the photograph, i.e. the photographer, holds the copyright to the photo and, unless they've expressly given permission for its use, making a painting based on a photo would infringe the photographer's copyright. In terms of US copyright law: "Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Hiring a person to paint it does not transfer ownership of the image to him/her." Are you claiming that by ALLOWING that painter to paint my photo, it transfered any rights to the image, to that painter???--WPPilot (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
"Legally, painting a photo is a copyright violation. This is called a “derivative work”. Under U.S copyright law only “the owner of copyright (the photographer) has the exclusive rights to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies [and] to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work” (17 U.S. Code § 106).
While a “transformative” change is a fair-use exception that may apply only when the original image has been altered “with new expression, meaning, or message” simply “changing a photo into a painting” can be the basis of a civil copyright lawsuit, if the painter did not specifically own the photo. “Turning photography and movie stills into paintings and drawings” is illegal copyright violation if (a) the original work is under copyright protection; (b) you do not have written permission; and (c) your image is not sufficiently different in “expression, meaning, or message”."
I am quoting ref: http://photosecrets.com/can-someone-sell-a-painting-of-a-photo-that-i-took --WPPilot (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Your lawyer is right; a painting of a photo without permission is a copyvio. But it doesn't make the photographer the copyright holder of that painting. It still remain as a copyvio and no one can use it. The same applicable to any derivative work created without proper permission or violating license terms. They remain as copyvios without making original author as the copyright holder of the derivative works. So in your example, the family need to buy the painting for single use or the copyright of the creative input if want to make "copies". To buy the copyright, it needs transfer of prior formal permission (not the verbal one already given as far as I understand) to the painter make that painting from the photo. Otherwise, the painter can't sell it to any or publish publicly as it is a copyright violation. Jee06:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Unless the owner of the photo, is the sequent owner of the painting and the painting was done at the request of the copyright owner, that would be the original photographer. That is fact makes it a licensed directive work that retains the original copyrights of its creator. Yours truly. The artist, doing as he was requested, by the copyright holder and then providing the work for the did not and could not in any way assume any copyright, it remains intact with the original owner. That, as he explained would be me. –All parties are in agreement (after an offer has been made by one party and accepted by the other). –Something of value has been exchanged, such as cash, services or goods (or a promise to exchange such an item) for something else of value, in this case watercolor paint and a canvas. It does not need to be in writing for me to retain my rights, in fact that is a given. --WPPilot (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
No. You are making a mistake that we see often here. The owner of a physical created work is usually not the owner of the copyright to the work -- in US law and the law of most (but not all) other countries, the copyright remains with the creator of the work unless there is an explicit written agreement to transfer it (see 17 USC 101, above). In this case there are two copyrights, one for the original photograph and one for the painting. The painting is a derivative work of the photograph, so any use of the painting requires a license from both the photographer and the painter. Creating the photograph of the painting did not create a third copyright because Bridgeman found that photographs of paintings do not have enough creative input to be copyrightable. Commons has adopted Bridgeman as policy. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
So then the act of handing the painter my photo and asking him to paint it transferred ownership of the copyright to him. Copyright lawyers do not agree with this in California. Did I grant ownership of my copyright to the painter when I had him create the painting from my photo, the answer is NO, according to the law the copyright REMAINS the sole property of the photographer that created the original work unless I granted the painter a right to reproduce for public use, something I did not do. I hired him to paint it for me. The creation of a durative work, at the owners request does NOT create a "second copyright" as you have suggested, at least according to lawyers, perhaps your a lawyer??? btw, (on another note) I am impressed with your circumnavigation's, can I ask what you did them in? I am sailing a 51 footer (http://blog.gaastraproshop.com/wp-content/uploads/ker-51-varuna-rolex-middle-sea-race-2012.jpg) from San Francisco to So Cal next week. Cheers... --WPPilot (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
"Transferring copyright/ownership" and giving "permission to make derivative works" are very different. We need only the latter in these cases. And when somebody make the derivative, he held the copyright of the creative input from his side. Only he can release the derivative work. See this example suggested by CC. See how it is implemented here and here.
There are two people here with creative input in the painting, the original photographer and the painter. Both of them have copyrights in their work. This is entirely analogous to a photograph of a building -- surely you understand that if you photograph a building that is still under copyright that the building's copyright is not affected, and that the photograph has its own copyright. Except as permitted by FOP, we cannot keep the image of the building on Commons without a license from both the architect and the photographer.
And, again, you have emphasized that you are the owner of the photograph, when, as I understand it, you own the physical photograph but do not have a valid written transfer or license of its copyright.
Swan really is the perfect boat for a trip like that, she is fast comfortable and built like a brick .......I now sail J Boats and have FD as well. OMG: image of the building, I own and took the original photo in question here. The building is long gone. I have had 2 lawyers now, in Hollywood that deal with intellectual property tell me that considering I took the original photo, I own it and rights to reproduce any derivatives I have made. With that I will drop this, I have to pack my foulies for tomorrows ride down under the golden gate and down the coast (she reaches at 17knts in a 15 knot breeze) but with a crew of 2, I have my hands full. I don't mean to be "argumentative" as you put it, I am just frustrated with the projects & many of its "caricatures and users" as a whole. I might load a photo or 2 from the trip but I will cross that bridge when I go under it (the Golden Gate :) Cheers!
"Protection for "architectural works" under § 102(a)(8) is available only for those works created on or after December 1, 1990.[21] This means that a building cannot have been substantially completed before December 1, 1990, nor can a work have been published before that date. However, if the work was unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings before that date, it maybe still be protectable. Protection for architectural drawings as "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural" works under § 102(a)(5) is valid if created after 1976." ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States#Requirements_for_copyright_protection_in_an_architectural_design Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States
--WPPilot (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
In using a photo of a building as an example, I was just generalizing -- I had no intent to specify any of your work. And, yes, I ignored the fact that architecture in the US did not have a copyright before 1990 -- take the example as a case in France -- you need a license from both the photographer and the architect.
I wouldn't say that Sweetwater was particularly fast, but she was 10,000 pounds over weight with voyaging gear and supplies. Our best day on the circumnav was between Bermuda and Providenciales, 215 miles in 24 hours, an S/L ratio of about 1.28. We did Puerto Ayora, Galapagos to Nuku Hiva, 3013 miles, in 18 days -- 167 miles per day. On the other hand, the Atlantic crossing took forever. She doesn't have the legs under power to go the southern route. The northern route, with the lows to the south, so abaft the beam, had a lot of ice, so went the middle route, with the wind on the nose the whole way -- some days we reefed and unreefed -- zero to three reefs -- two or three times.
Almost all of Category:Golden Gate Bridge are from land, so a few from the water, including underneath, would be a good addition. There are several lighthouses on the route, too, depending on how far offshore your navigator takes you and how much of a reach your lenses have.
Sounds like a lot of hard sailing but you really can not go wrong with the comfort of the Nautor's Swan. We hope for 200 mile per day for the next 2 days but it is all a broad reach, surfing (double handed) in a maxi racer. I have 10mm to 600mm in my kit so I should be able to get a shot or two here and there. Cheers!--WPPilot (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
25 knot gusts at 3am rounding Point Conception, (in the middle of December its a really powerful place) we had to jibe our number 2 spin with a crew of 5 while surfing at 17 knots. Ouch. Back on dry land, Wow. Got great shots of the bridge. --WPPilot (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
With a good crew, on a well rigged boat, and taking it slow and easy -- you weren't racing, except maybe your own expectations -- the jibe should be OK -- and, since you didn't tell us a bad ending, I guess it was. My first thought was that you might have taken the chute down and hoisted it on the other jibe, down and up both done behind the main, but that might have been riskier.
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Can you reopen and then vote "keep"? The font is unusual, and explanation of the font as ineligible for protection is needed. --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
im not sure id you received my reply as you did not acknowledge.
you said
"You have vandalized the content of Wikimedia Commons. Please stop. If you continue making inappropriate edits, as you did to File:Lake at dusk - 1.jpg, you may be blocked from editing Commons. You may test freely in the sandbox.
We very rarely delete images that have been uploaded to Commons with an irrevocable license, particularly when some of them are very striking works. I understand that you are unhappy with the slow progress of your Request for Undeletion, but vandalizing Commons will not help that.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)"
i replied:
"ok not sure if this is the right way to respond. this system is very confusing. did not mean to vandalilze, read somewhere long ago that was the proper way to mark an image for deletion, upload a new version with an X. guess that was incorrect. As to the deletion,I want to remove these images, that are my own work. that should not be considered an unreasonable request. even with a creative commons license i am still the copyright holder and they should be removed if i request it. I originally intended to post these to wiki for posterity so they would be available forever. it has become apparent that anyone can nominate an image for deletion based on spurious reasons (as happened to my picture mild afterglow.jpg), and unless i vigilantly defend them and check on them they will all likely be removed over time. i am going to post them on a private server where they will be available. please remove my work from wikipedia commons as i have requested and please reply that you have received this message as i dont understand this messaging system at all. thanks, paul."
and today i add:
How can it be vandalism when it is my own image i am trying to remove? My own work. granting a creative commons license does not give wikipedia commons ownership of my work. Please remove the images as requested, and i would appreciate a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulisawoof (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
While it is true that you own the copyright to your images, when you uploaded them to Commons, you did so with an irrevocable license. "Irrevocable" means just that -- you cannot decide later that you want to take back the license. We very rarely delete images at the uploader's request if they have been here more than a few days. You ask, "How can it be vandalism when it is my own image i am trying to remove?" -- suppose one of your images was, properly licensed, on the website of the Boston Globe? If you somehow went on that site and put an X in place of your image, you could certainly be prosecuted for vandalism -- irrevocable means irrevocable.
As for "it has become apparent that anyone can nominate an image for deletion based on spurious reasons" that is simply not true. Images can be deleted for good reason -- we delete more than 1,500 images every day -- and we recognize that the process is not perfect, which is why we have Undeletion Requests. Fewer than 1% of all deletions get an UnDR and only about 10% of those are immediately restored. So, out of 1,500 deletions a day, only one or two are mistakes.
The reason your image was deleted is very simple -- it appeared without a free license on the web. Because we have many uploaders who think it is a good thing to find images on the web and upload them here without regard to copyright, we have a firm rule that all images that have appeared elsewhere must have a free license via OTRS. If we had many more active volunteers and many fewer copyright violators, we might be able to do it differently, but with only a dozen very active Admins doing most of the work of dealing with ten thousand new images every day, we must follow rules.
So my image appeared "without a free license on the web" and was deleted. That can happen again and again and is beyond my control. anyone can download my images and repost them elsewhere, leading to deletion nomination and apparently no check on which image is the original. that is unnacceptable. And now even after i had filed an undeletion request it has been many days and the image is still not restored. Apparently a committee has to decide on the validity of my request? This is not what i bargained for. At some point i will be gone, and unable to file undeletion requests, and i had hoped the images uploaded by me would be available permanently. You may be operating in a legal grey area where i maintain copyright but not control of the images i created, but it is not right to keep them here against my wishes. I'm not asking to revoke the CC license just to remove them from wikipedia commons. So "very rarely", what do i have to do to qualify for this consideration?--Paulisawoof (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
"Very rarely" is my attempt at politely saying it isn't going to happen. You are certainly asking to revoke an irrevocable license -- there is nothing like "a legal grey area" here -- you agreed to license the images and Commons posted them. It's black letter law -- you signed a binding contract and you are stuck with it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
yes i'm stuck with it until one of my images reappears elsewhere and is deleted from commons after im accused of stealing my own work. There is "black letter law" and there is doing what is right. You sir, are wrong. Stick that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulisawoof (talk • contribs) 2015-12-10 22:22:51 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) No, you are wrong: The suspicion of unauthentic authorship claim that may lead to the deletion of an image uploaded to Commons should the same image be found elsewhere online only applies for those whose uploading date to Commons is later than that of the other instances of it elsewhere online. So, if you published your work elsewhere, you should provide a proof of authorship thereon, or thru COM:OTRS. -- Tuválkin✉✇01:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
We have roughly 30,000,000 images on Commons. Assuming that one image per day is erroneously deleted (as detailed above), that means that the raw odds of another of your images being deleted is staggering. And, all you have to do to prevent even that remote possibility is to send a message to OTRS. The only thing that has held up the undeletion of the one image is your refusal to do so. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Done While you are not an Administrator and cannot delete the file quickly, you could have just put a {{Speedy}} tag on it. That would have had the same effect, probably faster -- many Admins handle Speedies, but only I would see this page and I am not always here.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. One reason for contacting you, other than because you have helped in the past, is that I thought that the uploader might need some form of formal discouragement from doing the same again. IMHO their editing on Wikipedia leaves more than the usual amount to be desired .SovalValtos (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
You can also add {{Dont recreate}} to his talk page, as I did. It is not that I want to avoid work, it is that I like to encourage non-Admins to do as much as possible to leave more time for the limited number of active Admins to do work that only Admins can do. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought I gave a good explanation in my closing comment, but I'll take another shot at it for you. Although Natuur12 is a respected colleague whose work I trust, I think that decision was not correct. You will find that it isn't common for two Commons Admins to disagree, but it's not rare, either. We are often dealing with arcane bits of law where there is very little case law to guide us. It's entirely unclear where someone claiming copyright in the flag might bring an action and what country's laws the court might apply. That's one reason that we try to simplify things by requiring an image to be copyright free in only two places -- the country of origin and the USA. If we required that images be free everywhere, we would lose many of them -- all of those whose authors died after 1915 and all of those whose authors are unknown, for starters.
The flag is too simple to have a copyright in Israel or the United States. The source country of the image is not Australia, it is Israel. The flag may or may not have been manufactured in Australia, but that is irrelevant, as we regularly ignore copyright status in the country of manufacture -- witness all of the American sculptors whose works are on permanent display in Germany and therefore have images on Commons. If we delete this flag, then we must delete all of the images of works of Alexander Calder and Richard Serra, among many others, because they are all under copyright in the USA. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
What? Am I reading straw man arguments or something? We are discussing consistency. This lead to confusion among readers and editors. The flag still belongs to the aboriginal flag, regardless of manufacturer. If you disagree, why not asking for undeletion or ask him/her to reconsider? --George Ho (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
To explain the logic I used: If I make a drawing and I publish it in the Netherlands the source country is the Netherlands. If someone uses a machine (like a printer) to make a copy of my drawing and he/she publishes it in France after I gave him/her permission to do so the source country remains the Netherlands if I am not mistaken. I believe the same logic applies for the flag. The original flag was create and published in Australia. If someone makes a copy of the flag in Israel (or anywhere else) and “publishes” it in Israel Australia remains the source country. Even if there are some slight modifications because of technical issues like different calibrated machineries etc. The design is supposed to be the same. And yes, this is a case book example to show the kind of topic Commons admins can disagree on. Natuur12 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Natuur12, your argument is good, but not complete. You argue that the work was first copyrighted in Australia, so copies made who-knows-where have Australia as the country of origin. How do then you account for the fact that we keep images of works made by Alexander Calder in the USA that are on permanent display in Germany? That's not simply a copy, but the actual copyrighted work. Your line of reasoning clearly calls for the deletion of thousands of images of sculpture and other art made in non FOP countries which are on permanent display in FOP countries.
If you remain unconvinced, I suggest that Natuur12 or George Ho file another DR, to which all three of us can respond, but not close. A neutrally worded notice on AN or the Village Pump telling of the DR would probably be good, something like:
We keep those sculptures because the issue is unsettled. One day we might have to delete them depending on how and if the lex loci protectionis principle is applied by the US court. However, in the past the WMF accepted a takedown notice for German sculptures. The flag isn’t covered by a FOP-provision since it is neither on permanent display nor is it applied art. If the flag was covered by Israeli FOP we could host it under the same rational as the sculptures created by Alexander Calder but this is not the case. I won't start a new DR right away since there is also a discussion taking place at com:AN. Natuur12 (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks to me like it is on permanent display -- fastened to a rock wall with a placard under it. I would also think it fits within the Israeli definition of "applied art" at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Israel. Flags, by their nature are "meant to deliver useful information" -- in the case of national flags, the nationality. I would find it very hard to argue that they are artistic works that are meant simply to please the eye.
Looking at it another way, in the English translation of the Israeli law, we have "Artistic work" defined as "drawings, paintings, works of sculpture, engravings, lithography, maps, charts, architectural works, photographic works and works of applied art" Aside from literary works, dramatic works, and musical works, those are all of the categories that can have a copyright in Israel. I don't think you can say that a flag belongs in any of them except, probably, "applied art". If a flag isn't applied art, then it doesn't have a copyright in Israel.
For it to be permanently on display I would expect some better protection like being behind plastic. And if there is no FOP exception there is also no provision which could legalise the use of this photograph since it is still a copy of a flag which has Australia as the source country. I have a better idea than starting a new DR since that will take weeks. Yann stated that he agrees with you and that makes two against one. How about I start an undeletion request and invite some of our Israeli users to participate? Whatever the outcome is, it is final. This way we can resolve the inconsistency quite fast. Natuur12 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) It is not subject to an FOP exception in Australia, the source country of the flag. Under Article 5 (3) of the Berne Convention, a country may only use its own copyright rules but can't rely on the copyright rules of other countries. Therefore, Israeli copyright rules are null and void in Australia. See for example de:Hundertwasserentscheidung: the use of an Austrian photo of a specific Austrian work was covered by a copyright exemption in Austria but not in Germany, and the use of the photo was therefore ruled unlawful in Germany. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Either way is fine with me -- either a DR on the one or an UnDR on the other. I agree to accept it as final, but how do we count votes? You and I and Yann are obviously OK, but can we agree not to count votes from anyone with fewer than 1,000 edits on Commons? That puts George Ho in, so actually it's 2-2. A tie goes to deletion, I think. Leave either one open a week? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that we should also decide that the new DR or the UnDR shouldn't be closed by one of Jim, Yann, Natuur or George, and preferably not by someone who has commented on the requests or one of the related discussions either. I'm not sure if Commons has a version of w:WP:INVOLVED. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
It certainly should not be closed by Natuur12 or me. George can't but I'm not sure why Yann could not be the closer -- he has not been involved so far. Or you, Stefan, for that matter. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
A week sounds fine. I will open the request tomorrow. We can always ignore unmotivated votes. @George Ho: please be patience. There is no rush. I will start a discussion regarding the deleted image at com:UNDEL. Natuur12 (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hey, I'm not so stupid to pretend a painting to be a piece of design, the table top has a marble mosaic on (not a painting), designed by Prampolini, but not made with his hands (it's a piece of industrial design, made and assembled by machines), and I took a photo of it in a museum section dedicated to design, not a painting gallery. Please reevet your deletion, as your motivations are invalid. Thank you --Sailko (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it looked like a painting to me. However, no matter what it is, it is a created work and Prampolini (or possibly his employer) has a copyright until 70 years after Prampolini's death. The fact that it is made by machine is completely irrelevant. Toys, all kinds of printed works, mass produced sculpture, and many other copyrighted works are made by machine.
As for my motivations, I have no hidden motivation in deleting this image. Although I see now that I have nominated several of your uploads for deletion in the past, I hadn't looked that up when I closed this DR. I don't know Prampolini and have no attitude toward himor you one way or the other. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, this is really not clear to me. We have policy saying utilitarian items are not eligible for copyright (me made example of a Ferrari car), so what's the difference with this table top? Where is the policy you refer to? Thank you. --Sailko (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
"If the object has an original printed or embossed design on its surface, there will be copyright in that design even though there is no copyright in the 3D shape. This might apply, for example, to a cup with embossed surface decoration. A similar situation can arise if there is a label on the object with copyrighted text on the label. So, unless the printed or embossed design or label text is old enough to be public domain, or is too simple to be copyrighted, a photograph of the article may not be uploaded without the designer's permission."
Does Italy exempt utilitarian works from copyright protection in the first place? Most European countries do not seem to make any difference between utilitarian objects and non-utilitarian objects when it comes to copyright protection. See for example this: the French supreme court ruled that the use of photos of two different (obviously utilitarian) chair models was in violation of the copyright to the chair models. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In fact i've not published it! The picture as it is is NOT on my webserver. It is made of many small images put together via software and it has slyly captured by means of some trick.
This may be not a matter of copyright but it is a matter of unfair competition as it took me a lot of time, efforts and money to get to photograph that painting and it is not fair that now it is put on the web at full resolution without my approval.
Furthermore i think that keeping it in high resolution is something far beyond the purposes of Wikipedia that should promote the knowledge of the painting, not supply high resolution images made by professional photographers who make a living with their images. If you keep just a low resolution of the image is ok for me and it is enough for the knowledge purposes that Wikipedia should aim. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.21.45.5 (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but the comment I made at the DR closing is absolutely solid Commons policy -- someone who photographs a Public Domain work has no copyright or right allowing him or her to control use of his images. If you had not wanted the image shown here and elsewhere, you should not have put it up on the Web, either in pieces or as a whole.
Contrary to your second remark, it is precisely a goal of Wikimedia Commons to have high quality images of all Old Master paintings. We are a repository for all possible uses, including, for example, scholarly printed works on Giuseppe Tominz. This is by far the best image we have of one of his works and there is no way we are going to give it up. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Candy
Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I'd say these two are right on the line. It would certainly depend on the country of origin. They might be OK in the USA, but not in the UK. I'm not so sure about Sweden, but the standard seems to be low there, so I'd say, probably not OK. I'd probably delete them, but some of my colleagues would probably keep them. That's with respect to the question of copyright in the candy itself. The images also have a copyright, so unless you yourself was the photographer, you would have to get a license for the images.
I am sorry i was unclear, i of course ment that i myself would be taking photographs of that type of candy. This is complex, is there anyone in http://english.bubs.se/pickn-mix that you think i can take a image of? (Bubs is a large brand here in Sweden and to have some image in the article would be nice.) /Hangsna (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I would be all right with Sour Tutti Frutti ovals, but, of course, those are the least distinctive of the candies. I am probably a bad person to ask because I tend to be a little more careful than some of my colleagues. You might ask Yann -- I would go along with whatever he said. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This logo seems PD-textlogo to me. So OK if you take the picture yourself. This one is a bit less clear. Contrast is poor, so it is difficult to see if there is anything more than letters. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bubs Hallon-Lakritsskalle.jpg appears to have an invalid closure rationale. In particular, this sentence is wrong: 'Essentially any creative design has a copyright unless the work is entirely utilitarian, and even then, any decoration that is not utilitarian has a copyright.' There is no exemption for utilitarian objects in Swedish copyright law, and there are plenty of cases where utilitarian objects such as chairs, lamps and clothes have been declared copyright violations of other chairs, lamps and clothes. If something non-utilitarian is sufficiently creative to be protected by copyright, then something utilitarian of equivalent creativity is also protected by copyright in Sweden. The idea that utilitarian objects are ineligible for copyright is typically true in common law countries, but is not always true in other countries. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Stefan2, I don't follow you. I guess my generalization about utilitarian objects was incorrect, but the fact that utilitarian objects have a copyright in Sweden strengthens my rationale -- it doesn't make it wrong. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I guess that countries which grant copyright protection to utilitarian objects also get different originality criteria than countries which do not grant copyright protection to utilitarian objects. For example, COM:UA says that cars are not copyrightable in the United States (so you can upload photos of United States cars), but COM:TOYS says that toy cars are copyrightable in the United States (so you can't upload pictures of toy cars). In countries which protect utilitarian objects, there should not be any difference between real cars and toy cars: you can either take photos of both or neither. It appears to be untested whether Swedish copyright law permits photos of cars or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Anything new?
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Jameswoodward My file got deleted unnecessarily. I own the copywrite to the image but sombody nominated it for quick deletion. I did not know how to use the syntax and procedure/protocal to pled my case but I did read that I had to convert the file to regular deletion request so i can speak about it. It originally got deleted because i put in the dates incorrectly as to when the image was taken because i thought it meant when i uploaded the image on to wikicommons. I am new to this wikipedia and just went the page i am working on to be completely up to date. May you please tell me how we can fix this problem .. Thanks so much File:Shirley Joyce Katz Pavilion at it's completion on Sep 18, 1949.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhanimov2284 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
First, reloading the image after it had been deleted is a serious violation of our rules. Please do not do it again. The correct procedure if you object to a deletion is to post a request at Commons:Undeletion requests.
Second, you claim that this 1949 image is your "own work". It seems unlikely that you actually were the photographer, so which of these is true:
you actually were the photographer;
you were not the photographer, but you own a paper copy of the photograph;
you were not the photographer, but you own a paper copy of the photograph and you have a written agreement transferring the copyright from the photographer to you or to someone from you have inherited; or
something else?
Note that owning a paper copy of a photograph gives you no rights to the copyright -- copyrights must always be transferred or licensed by an explicit written agreement. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
I just saw you deleted this file with the explanation: VOA images after June 1913 are NC and therefore cannot be kept on Commons. This however semms only the case for the English-language services of VoA. The contents of amerikaninsesi.com, are – like the ones of other foreign-language services – still released into the Public Domain. I wonder if more files were prematurely deleted on the basis of that incomplete discussion… PanchoS (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't read Turkish, so I must rely on Google translate, but I have looked at several pages on www.amerikaninsesi.com and I do not see any indication of a CC-0 or PD declaration. In fact, if there is no mention of copyright, then the site would be All Rights Reserved. If you can point me to a reason why you think the site is PD, please do. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It's June 2013, not June 1913. Note the statements about the Chinese and Ukrainian editions at the bottom of Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-VOA. It seems that the PD statement only was removed from some language editions of VOA. It is possible that some editions still contains that statement. The end date does at least depend on the language edition. I assume that June 2013 is the end date for the English-language edition of VOA. We need to check all language editions and determine if some are still PD and what the correct end date is for those which no longer are PD. We should also determine if it says something about the English version of the copyright statement taking precedence in the event of any discrepancy between the copyright statement in English and the copyright statement in other languages. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. What a mess. Clearly (see below) the VOA intended to make all of its material NC in 2013, but didn't bother to change some of the foreign language web sites.
"This website, all websites linked in the ‘Sites by Language’ tab at the top of this page, as well as all news, information, and features available on these websites (collectively, “VOA News and Information Websites”)..." -- all languages are included in “VOA News and Information Websites”
"By using VOA News and Information Websites you agree to be bound by these Terms of Use" -- therefore all languages are bound by the Terms of Use at www.voanews.com.
"The content appearing on the VOA News and Information Websites is intended for your personal, noncommercial use only. You may download the downloadable content items appearing on the VOA News and Information Websites for your personal use only." since "VOA News and Information Websites" includes all languages, our template is correct for all languages.
I just read (with Google translate) the UKR site, and it says it is PD for VOA material, but points out that much of the material on the site is AP or otherwise not PD. As I said above, as far as I can see, the Turkish site has no copyright statement.
Given the very broad statement on the parent site, I think we must ignore the PD statement on the UKR site and anywhere else a similar statement appears and treat June 2013 as the cutoff for VOA material from all sources.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that it would be a good idea to ask VOA what VOA means. Also, what happens if a user only reads the Ukrainian version and this person is unaware of the differences between the English and the Ukrainian version? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it's clear what VOA means -- whether a note to them will get them to change the various non-conforming sites is another question. Most bureaucracies are slow to fix mistakes. I added a note to both {{PD-USGov-VOA}} and the DR which may help to eliminate problems of that sort. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: IMHO, it's not clear at all what VOA means. Not having removed the public domain clause from a number of (possibly all) foreign-language sites might have a number of reasons beyond laziness. It might be due to public pressure and/or pressure by local, including independent, media who have been relying on VOA material for years, possibly arguing that the decison would pretty much go against the aims of VOA, which includes providing news material to kickstart or support precarious media landscapes. It might also be due to reluctance by VOA's foreign offices. Given that waiving the public domain clause on the English-language page seems to be connected to VOA's expansion into English-language services for U.S. news, it also remains unclear whether the decision was intended to have any implications at all for the foreign-language services. I therefore agree with Stefan2 that before deleting any images from VOA's foreign-language services, we should contact VOA for clarification, and I would add, we should do so officially and in the public. Most certainly it would lead to a clarification in one way or the other. It is in the interest of copyleft to do away with greyzones, and even if the immediate result of a clarification might be imposition of a copyright, it constitutes a departure point for pressure groups to push VOA or the U.S. government towards revising its policy. --PanchoS (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
"Given that waiving the public domain clause on the English-language page..." is not a correct summary of the wording. As I said above, the main VOA site, voanews.com, explicitly calls out an NC license for all of the VOA language sites. The language which I quoted above is very clear.
Although I think VOA's position is perfectly clear, I have no objection to your trying to get an answer out of VOA to clarify their position. The fact that the main VOA site says that all of the their material on all of their language sites is NC argues strongly against your thought that some of the language sites may have a different policy, but it is possible that I am wrong.
With that said, however, I think that we still must delete material that was taken from any language site that does not have a clear free license. Since the Turkish site has no free license of any kind, we must assume it is copyrighted with All Rights Reserved.
To me, it would seem that the English version is null and void if a user who is unaware of the English version only reads the Ukrainian version. It is unclear what happens if a user is aware of the discrepancies between the two versions, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey Error in {{reply to}}: Input contains forbidden characters. I really don't intend to be nitpicking, but how is "Given that waiving the public domain clause on the English-language page..." not an accurate summary of the situation. There used to be a public domain clause on the English-language page, but isn't anymore. And while I agree that for images, unlike for text, audio and video files, the wording is not perfectly clear, how is there "no free license of any kind" on the Turkish site, if it is specified on a "Terms of use" page given at the bottom of every single page? I still believe no images, let alone video files or screenshots, may be deleted before we have received an authoritative answer by VOA. Again, I'm neither trying to nitpick nor to game VOA's unclear directives, but VOA content is far too important for the coverage of a number of countries to throw it all away, unless necessary. And if your concern is just whether you did anything wrong, then I can assure you that I don't consider this "your fault". We should continue discussion at a more visible place though. Cheers, --PanchoS (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I missed the terms of use -- Google Translate shows nothing like it on the main page, but I finally found it off of the site map. You are correct that the site has a declaration of PD for all VOA content.
However, our Precautionary Principle requires us to delete when there is a significant doubt over the status of an image. Since the main VOA site is very clear that all of VOA -- all languages -- are licensed NC, that raises a doubt that passes the "significant" level and requires deletion. Only if VOA confirms that the various subsidiary sites are PD can we restore them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
People of ...
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I am sorry to bother you again so soon. The copyright of a panorama image of mine[13] has come into question. I took the individual photos in France in 2007 and stitched them just before uploading this year. The potential problem is apparently that I included the Welsh made sculpture as a detail. See [14]. I see three possibilities;
Get permission from David Petersen the creator
Pixilate the sculpture, as the usefulness of the image is the panorama showing the location of the sculpture rather than the detail of it.
Leave it as is as the sculpture is a trivial part of the scene.
The difference between your image and the one in WP:EN is that yours is of a work in France and the other is in the UK. I suggest you read COM:FOP, which does a pretty good job of explaining the difference in rules between France (no FOP for anything) and the UK (fairly broad FOP for architecture and sculpture). After reading that, if you have further questions, feel free to ask here.
Some of our colleagues will argue that de minimis applies here. I'm not sure. While it is a wonderful picture of a beautiful countryside, it's pretty clear that the sculpture is the center of interest, even at full scale. The usual test for DM is if an ordinary viewer would notice the difference if the problematic item were removed. It's pretty clear that he would in this case. Incidentally, in judging whether DM applies, we do not look at the possibility of cropping to show only the sculpture -- while a severe crop would clearly fail DM, we look only at the whole image and, if kept, warn users that a crop may be a copyvio.
So, if it fails to pass the DR, you should try hard to get the sculptor to give a CC-BY license using the procedure at OTRS. Since a different instance of the sculpture already appears on Commons, that may not be too hard. Pixellation is a last resort, though in this case it would be better than usual because the sculpture is small. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The other image referred to (File:Red Dragon (2991069111).jpg) is a different sculpture, and is not suitable for use in the W:Mametz Wood Memorial article. Jim, that image page should presumably have the {{FoP-UK}} declaration. Should I retrospectively add this declaration to any images to which it applies? SovalValtos, if you contact David Petersen then please ask if we can also use a close-up image of the scuplture. We used to have this picture. I would like to include both your image and a close-up image. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both for your time. I am not aware of a deletion request having yet been made. I am finding the French case law quite complicated, so I cannot yet say I understand it all. de minimis might be applied in different ways depending on the article. In Mametz Wood Memorial I doubt that the pic should be used without permission or pixilating. On the other hand if used in Siegfried Sassoon as the interest would be on the layout of the land and the wood, the memorial would be a trivial part of the image, so more likely OK.
Chasing up Petersen to get him to give a CC-BY license using the procedure at OTRS is beyond me at present. I found that he lived at St Cloud and stood for the Assembly, so perhaps his contact details could be got from a local paper. I am not local and not keen to go off Wikipedia. Even pixilating would take me an age trying to learn the procedures.SovalValtos (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I doubt if the subject of the accompanying article makes any difference, the same rules would apply if the image were only in Commons. An alternative to pixelation is to explicitly obscure the monument with an opaque rectangle, with a note explaining why. Copyright protection probably extends to the stone plinth (designed by Petersen) and possibly also to the pillar to the right of the plinth. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I have now uploaded a blurred image thanks to the help from an opportune article on the help desk. I hope that that is the end of this. SovalValtos (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Fintry
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I was looking at your talk page and the name Fintry caught my eye. As well as the boat and the village near Culcreuch, there is a house named that in Brook, Surrey, England. I took quite a few photos a couple of years ago of it and its grounds (13acres). It is what I would call a gentleman's residence built I think in 1904. The architect was Hennell who later went to Canada. It had been in use in 2013 by a philosophical society for several decades. An interesting result being that much of the original furniture is still in situ. Since my photo sortie their website now has a number of other peoples' images. I may upload a couple of my pics to commons as a taste for some aspects not covered in theirs. SovalValtos (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the RMAS link. As well as you say small towns (eg Cromarty) many are quite small villages including Clovelly, Fintry, Froxfield and Holmwood. How about your adding a photo of a survivor? SovalValtos (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I was only suggesting that you took a photo of Fintry and uploaded it to commons. I have changed the captions on all the images on Royal_Maritime_Auxiliary_Service#Vessels to make it easier to tell what class the vessels are in. My change of the layout has been less successful. I have added the Category:RMAS Fleet Tenders to the images that did not have it. SovalValtos (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The captions are good, but the two that you added to the cat are RMAS vessels, but not fleet tenders, so I took them out of the cat.
As you might guess, I have many good pix of Fintry. Actually there is one in the category, see Horta Marina Calling Cards.jpg -- she's the blue hull behind the Danish flag. I haven't uploaded any full pix of her because she is much modified -- as are many of her sisters -- and therefore no longer looks anything like she once did. see www.mvfintry.com for before and after pix. I'm also a little hesitant about putting up too much personal stuff -- as an Admin, I come down hard on that many times a day, so I need to be even more careful than the rules allow. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was wondering about your thoughts on the rest of the files in this category and its sub-categories. There are some that are obviously copyright infringements, but I'm not sure about all of them. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll go with my closing comment -- a single brick is probably not copyrightable, but almost any combination of more than three or four bricks probably is in most countries, and almost all of the special Lego pieces are. In the case of the assemblages that are derived from Star Wars things such as File:Venator-class Star Destroyer.jpg, there are three copyrights since the Lego model is a DW of the Star Wars original.
Of course, if the creation has only bricks in it, is made by the photographer/uploader, and is not a DW of a Star Wars or other copyrighted object, then the one license would cover the photograph and the sculpture. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!!
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2016 !
Remember:
Look sweet...
Eat everything...
Seek the warmest spots to nap and purr...
Try to wait until after to demolish the paper and ornaments...
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* * * Happy Holidays 2016 ! * * *
* Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! * Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année! * Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! * ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! * Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! -- George Chernilevskytalk22:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The people who walked in darkness
have seen a great light;
those who lived in a land of deep darkness—
on them light has shined...
For a child has been born for us,
a son given to us;
authority rests upon his shoulders;
and he is named
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
--
May you all have health, peace, and prosperity in this season and in the year to come.
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Jim,
I saw you noted Freedom of Panorama in retaining this image. I am wondering: doesn't that only apply to permanent public works? And wasn't the Bansky exhibit a temporary one? (and wasn't it always intended to be a temporary one?). And in this case, would it still (in your opinion) fall under Freedom of Panorama for the UK? If so, could you explain how? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Regards to your recent deletion of clone trooper images, one of them contained a TIE fighter exhibit. Are Star Wars vehicles, replicas or scale models, also copyrighted? Wolcott (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Vehicles can be tricky. In the USA, if the vehicle is useful, even if fanciful, such as KITT or the Batmobile, there can be no copyright, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Utility_objects. However science fiction vehicles that could not actually be useful on earth, such as TIE fighters, will have copyrights. Aside from that, all scale models have copyrights, without regard for whether the original had a copyright or not. So a photo of a replica of a TIE fighter has three copyrights, all three of which must be licensed for use on Commons -- the copyright held by the photographer, the copyright held by the maker of the replica, and the copyright held by Lucasfilms for the original TIE fighter.
Note that the rule that utilitarian objects cannot have copyrights is much looser in some other countries, notably Scandinavia. Many objects that would not be eligible for copyright in the USA will have copyrights elsewhere. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
You just have deleted File:Man_with_a_full_back_tattoo._Black_and_White_image.jpg
It is used in several Wikipedia articles and every contributor agreed to release it under the free license.
It was only a matter of several days to get through the process of obtaining the formal permission from tattoist - it is New year season now.
What is the process now? Shall the photos be uploaded again or is there is a way to restore the file and get through permission process in scope of that file?
And I see that you are doing the same action with other images from the same request. What is the way to continue now? Undeletion request or uploading from scratch?
Do not upload the file again. If you do so, it will be deleted and you will be subject to sanction for breaking Commons rules. If and when the tattoo artist or artists provide free license[s] via OTRS and the license[s] are reviewed, the image will be restored without any further action on your part. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
But how can request through OTRS be sent if the work is already deleted? How the artist can reference to the work? Shall he just put the links to the deleted pages in his mail to OTRS ? Another question - what about links to the deleeted pages used in the wikipedia articles? They will not be automatically restored after the image is restored, do I understand it right? Vitaly Repin (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The license should refer to the file name above. You are correct that restoration on the various WPs will not be automatic. It is best to ensure that material is free of copyright problems before you use it widely. When in doubt, ask -- I and many other admins are frequently asked to give opinions on questionable works. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Just to summarize my understanding before executing the plan: there are different artworks which were used as a base for tattoos:
Back tattoo. Based on: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schnorr_von_Carolsfeld_Bibel_in_Bildern_1860_239.png I suppose, only tattoois authorization is required for the photos of the back (as photographer authorization has been already granted during photo upload). He needs to send the mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org per template (and include URLs of all the back photos, including deleted ones).
Chest tattoos. They are based on Le Petit Prince illustrations by Saint-Exupéry, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy book image, statue of Gagariun in Moscow. My understanding is that permission shall be given by tattooist but it is not enough - more permissions shall be obtained from other stakeholders.
Whom to contact to get perimissions for the original works or art mentioned above? My current understanding is:
w:Pan Books for "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
Wikipedia explains that Saint-Exupéry's works are copyrighted in France but not in the rest of the world. More details here Do I understand it right that permission should anyway be requested beciase commons are available globally? Any idea who is copyright owner - whom to request permission from?
Gagarin. The image of the statue is already used in Wikipedia. But after reading Wikipedia articles about FoP in Russia and laws of Russian Federation, it looks as a mistake for me as no permission was obtained. Any idea how the permission shall be ontained (from whom) in this case? (I think it makes sense to start this process not only for tattoo but also for photographs of the statue). Vitaly Repin (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The procedure is set forth in detail -- including a sample e-mail -- at OTRS.
Pan Books is correct for Hitchhiker. For the Little Prince, the US copyright runs from 95 years after first publication -- until 1/1/2039 (see File:PD-US table.svg) -- and the French copyright until 100 years pma (2044), so you definitely need permission from its publisher. For the Gagarin sculpture, you need permission from the sculptor.
Note, by the way, that asking for permission from the two publishers and the sculptor may set off serious problems for the tattoo artist and the person with the tattoo. The tattoo work clearly infringes on the copyrights of the three works. That means that the owners of the copyrights could demand both financial compensation from the artist and the destruction (removal) of the tattoos. While the latter is probably unlikely -- a Merchant of Venice situation -- the former is entirely possible since the artist was almost certainly paid for the work. Since the two books are extremely valuable copyrights, this would not surprise me at all. Do you really want to open that can of worms? I certainly would not do it without pointing out the risk to both the artist and the subject and letting them decide. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Working too fast, I think. You might well be right that it is fairly recent -- say 1920s. It reminds me a little of N. C. Wyeth, although I don't think it is his work. Thanks for keeping me honest. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks …
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Aloha Jim, The PWC image was removed. The description stated Template:Pd-notice. Can you please share your amazing Wikipedia expertise with me? Where should I have added that to the image when uploading it? The image is public domain. Any content within APAN, a site operated by the U.S. DOD - Defense Information Systems Agency, is Public Domain. When reviewing the sourcecode on the site, there is no copyright information nor is there licensing agreements. Respectfully, Sa sylvan (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
APAN.org is vague about what it actually is. It acts for the DOD, but is not a government site (".org", not ".gov"), so we cannot assume that anything on it is PD. In particular, the site's terms of use explicitly prohibit reuse of material on the site:
[Users must not]:
"2. Duplicate, license, sub license, publish, broadcast, transmit, distribute, perform, display, sell, rebrand, or otherwise transfer information found on APAN (excluding content posted by you) except as permitted in this Agreement or as expressly authorized by APAN;
...
8. Rent, lease, loan, trade, sell/re-sell access to APAN or any information therein, or the equivalent, in whole or part;"
I think it is dead wrong. There are three copyrights in play --
the copyright for the photograph;
the copyright for this particular rendering of the Yoda character, which is owned by the creator of this mask; and
the copyright for the Yoda character, of which this mask is a DW.
We have a license for only the first of the three. The only thing of any interest in the image is the Yoda mask -- I don;t see how anyone can say it is de minimis. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep, same procedure as for the EU parliament in Strasbourg..."
Done
3) Yes, I need your e-mail -- I don't seem to have it from last year -- perhaps you never sent it.
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete in DR/Monssif Hands.jpg. In the same DR Prismoa and Bestforone posted a 
Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
gmail.com. I'll be back with more details soon, but rest assured, you do not have to go through 15k of images :) --アンタナナ 15:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC).svg){kind=logo}
--Junkyardsparkle (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![85 File:Vysotsky portrait by Papa Jan.jpg[edit] Also: File:Papa jan at home.jpg File:Portrait of papa jan junior.jpg File:Vanga-the sight of the prophetess.jpg File:The death of titanic.jpg](#File:Vysotsky_portrait_by_Papa_Jan.jpg%5Bedit%5D_Also:_File:Papa_jan_at_home.jpg_File:Portrait_of_papa_jan_junior.jpg_File:Vanga-the_sight_of_the_prophetess.jpg_File:The_death_of_titanic.jpg){kind=link}
#File:Arras_Memorial_and_Fauberg-D.27Amiens_Cemetery_10.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_SS-F%C3%BChrer_-_Bundesarchiv.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flight_93_NMem_PA2.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baku_Olympic_Stadium_(BOS)&curid=25594946&diff=692382707&oldid=692322614#/media/File:LogoBOS.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sutton,_Surrey_London_Heritage_Mural_edited-4.jpg){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mametz_Wood_Memorial#/media/File:Mametz_Wood_and_memorial._Composite_September_2007.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petersen_(sculptor)#/media/File:Red_Dragon_(2991069111).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Spanisharmada.jpg&diff=183162463&oldid=182708433){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
