User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/2011/10
 | 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. |
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Psychrophila leptosepala 9051.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Now you can promote !! 
Hi Wsiegmund.
Thanks to some french wikipedians (if you understand french language a little, you may read this, it is very interesting), the statue's identification is complete now (except for the author, which will remain anonymous). I've completely reworked the file description page with a lot of infos and links. Would you please have another look ? Many thanks in advance.--Jebulon (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the information and links. It is much better. I think it is a QI. I try to do it before I photograph the art work, but it is hard to remember to photograph the description card. The museum catalog number is particularly helpful since it identifies the work precisely and succinctly. Good work. Myrabella is a treasure. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- oh yes she is ! I allways photograph the description card in museums... I don't remember why I did not in this case. As the author is unknown, maybe there was NO card. Anyway, it was an interesting ID hunting. Thanks for promotion ! --Jebulon (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Valued Image Promotion
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Caltha leptosepala (White Marshmarigold).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
De minimis
You made a claim about de minimis here. Please read this to see that it 1. no longer is recognized in the same way in the US, 2. is primarily for fair use arguments, and 3. must be out of focus, obscure, etc., in that it is "not recognizable to an average person". This is a really common error. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- P.S., if this image qualifies as "de minimis", then items like a coffee cup with a Starbucks logo with nothing else in the image would. That has clearly been deemed as not the case and such images are quickly deleted as copyright infringement. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you point me to a specific page in Julie Cromer's paper that applies to the image in question, please? It appears to primarily discuss sampling in music. Thanks, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is about de minimis a whole, and if you read, very little is actually about music. Cromer's piece is that it was never actually codified and that courts are ignoring it now. It also goes onto explain that it only applies if an item is not obviously recognizable. Furthermore, none of the cases provided talk about this image, so asking for specifics in a piece that apply to a new situation is a little odd. Note the quote in the piece: "visual or pictorial works must not be sufficient for the average lay observer to distinguish the original work". That is necessary for de minimis in the United States. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see that the words, "visual or pictorial works must not be sufficient for the average lay observer to distinguish the original work", may be found on P. 20 of Julie Cromer's paper. To quote from her conclusion on page 58, "[de minimis] is a necessary defense to the tort of copyright infringement". In my opinion, it is applicable to the nominated images. Others may disagree; so be it. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- The reason why she says it is a necessary defense is because it is no longer respected as one. We must abide by the law, and "de minimis" is not legal but only a defense and this is not part of the law. "The abolition of the de minimis defense with respect to any medium covered by the Copyright Act does not serve to promote creativity, but to stifle it." - To argue for "de minimis" is to argue for something that no longer exists in the US, which means any de minimis argument isn't allowable. But anyway, it is only about "trifles", which means that it can't be the subject of the image. Even the picture's taker recognizes that the image is inherently vital to the subject and isn't de minimis, so he is asking the company directly for permission. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see that the words, "visual or pictorial works must not be sufficient for the average lay observer to distinguish the original work", may be found on P. 20 of Julie Cromer's paper. To quote from her conclusion on page 58, "[de minimis] is a necessary defense to the tort of copyright infringement". In my opinion, it is applicable to the nominated images. Others may disagree; so be it. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is about de minimis a whole, and if you read, very little is actually about music. Cromer's piece is that it was never actually codified and that courts are ignoring it now. It also goes onto explain that it only applies if an item is not obviously recognizable. Furthermore, none of the cases provided talk about this image, so asking for specifics in a piece that apply to a new situation is a little odd. Note the quote in the piece: "visual or pictorial works must not be sufficient for the average lay observer to distinguish the original work". That is necessary for de minimis in the United States. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you point me to a specific page in Julie Cromer's paper that applies to the image in question, please? It appears to primarily discuss sampling in music. Thanks, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Valued Image Set Promotion
Congratulations!
The set of images you
nominated
for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Abies grandis foliage.
Abies grandis foliage.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Done, I hope it is OK. Thank you for your interest in this photo. --Dtom (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good. I added the heading parameter. Southeast looks like the direction of the view, but please correct if wrong. I think it is a good illustration of the subject and put it in the article on English Wikipedia. Best wishes, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
A stir at Commons:Blocking policy
Could you please take it to talk page? This change apparently fell from the skies and left some folks unhappy. My own take it that, yes, sysops may block anyone for everything, but then truth shall never be put in writing. For BEANS's sake, may does not belong there. NVO (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I read the discussion, but doubt that I have much to add. I trust that you and others will improve the language that I suggested. Thank you for your thoughts. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)