User talk:Avenue/Archives/2013

Another redraft of Photographs of identifiable people

Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people#Another redraft

I would very much appreciate your comments on this redraft. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 08:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Credit for photograph

Hi, My name is Alexandra Edwards and my father Edmundo and I are writing a book about the ethnography of Rapa Nui (a.k.a. Easter Island). Chapter 3 deals with the Rapanui gods and how they correlate to other Polynesian gods. Your photograph of the Maori god Tāne would go great in the section that discusses that god. I would like to credit the picture with your actual name if possible (rather than user:Avenue). The book will be independently published in black and white and only 1,000 copies will be printed, but hopefully more will come and someday in colour. Please tell me what I should do regarding this matter. My personal email is <redacted> THANK YOU!!!

I've replied via email. --Avenue (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand that email went astray. I've replied by email again, but in case that doesn't get through, I prefer to be credited as Avenue. I've released my rights over that photo to the public domain, however, so you don't have to credit me. Please do credit the carvers, though. --Avenue (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Appropriately Licensed

You participated at the earlier discussion on licence choice for Featured Pictures. A number of users felt that such restrictions should be made at policy level. Please comment at Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed. This is a proposal to amend this licence policy to disallow future uploads where the sole licence is inappropriate for the media (e.g., GFDL for images). In earlier discussions there were a number of comments that, while reasonable opinions, did not align with Wikimedia's mission for free content. Please read the FAQ before commenting. Thanks -- Colin (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

new Commons brochure draft

Thanks for your comments on the Commons brochure draft. We're getting close to a final version, and I've put up a new draft that includes a lot of the suggested changes from the previous version. Please look it over if you have a chance, and post any final suggestions or corrections.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks!

		The Commons Barnstar
		Thanks so much for giving feedback on the Commons brochure! You can see the print version here. Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Fear uncertainty and doubt

It is precisely to avoid "Fear uncertainty and doubt" on behalf of our reusers that the precautionary principle exists. So in order to remove such FUD, all such images will be deleted. Colin (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with the first part. For the second part, if no one can establish reasonable legal grounds for thinking an X-ray image (say) is PD, and the copyright holders won't provide OTRS confirmation that it's freely licensed, then I can't see good grounds for keeping it on Commons. However I think those are two big "if"s, especially with respect to "all such images". --Avenue (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The FUD also exists with uploaders such as James and Hellerhoff. Should they continue with this project if someone might delete their work? Your "reasonable legal grounds for thinking an X-ray image (say) is PD" is a positive test whereas COM:PRP is negative: "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted". In other words, merely thinking we might be ok isn't enough. You have to know and per COM:EVID prove that your particular x-ray is PD. This can't be done. Colin (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree the wording of COM:PRP is uncompromising, and we are often ruthless about weak evidence in settled legal environments. But I'm not sure we are actually quite that strict on uncertain legal situations in practice. Our treatment of graffiti comes to mind, as well as our practice for URAA images before Golan vs Holder. If others agree, perhaps COM:PRP could be tweaked a bit to reflect this. I'd also note that COM:EVID is worded a bit more generously: "the burden of proof lies on the uploader [...] to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed [...]" [emphasis added]. --Avenue (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well my experience is really from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Computed tomography of human brain - large.png, and all I see is uncompromising interpretation of policy. I saw this attitude before with the case of the child who wanted to delete his butterfly pics. The Commons I want is one where people work together to find a solution to a problem. Not one where someone wakes up one morning and decides to delete a featured picture. You've got more experience of this than me. Is there scope then for us to come to some arrangement like with graffiti? James and I have emailed and spoken to lots of people about this and they find it ridiculous. We are risking a decimation of our image library purely on principle. Whether anyone is brave enough to nominate a mass deletion I don't know, but nominating this FP for deletion is enough to make a valued contributor like James (look at his conribs) seriously consider giving up. Professionals are giving hours of their valuable time to this project, only for someone to delete images on whim. Colin (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think a graffiti-style approach probably wouldn't help with German images, or others subject to Lichtbildwerk-style protection, because the legal situation seems clearer there.

None of our policies are set in stone. (Some are required by the WMF, but even that can change.) All it needs is enough people determined to change them. (I'm not so determined, at least not yet. I'm still trying to think the ideas through.) The first concrete step to take is probably to raise the possibilities in the x-ray RFC, argue for them there, and see what reception they get.

I'm not sure that many images are really deleted on a whim, but I think many deletion closures (especially one-word ones - e.g. "Deleted") could give that impression. I can understand why that happens, but agree it's not a good situation. That's probably a separate issue, though. (And yes, I have a lot of respect for James and his work, even if I don't agree with everything he says.) --Avenue (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrt your first two sentences: yes. But again you see the other guys saying consensus means nothing, that these are written in stone. I mean, Commons deletion policy doesn't even mention the word consensus -- we're just providing information to the closing admin who can decide his interpretation of policy overrides any misguided argument. After all, what do physicians and radiographer's know compared to someone sitting in their pyjamas at the keyboard armed with the power of Google search? Also there's a common stated argument that policy can't be changed through a deletion discussion (typically used in the porn debates). I think that particular deletion discussion is not tl;dr for anyone else to join. Plus it is too focused on one picture in Sweden. We need a bigger scope. Those taking pot-shots at individual x-rays aren't brave enough to put their name against the nuclear option. In my view, they should either stand by their argument or agree that it is not in Commons' interest to pursue it. Colin (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Let suppose you are right about US. We could scrape the US medical journals for images. That's good. But the bad news about Germany is the radiographer is the copyright holder and they don't even require a creativity test -- they protect mechanical photographs for 50 years. How does Hellerhoff stop someone deleted the thousands of images he has uploaded. He's not the radiographer. Colin (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't followed the discussions at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Computed tomography of human brain - large.png, just browsed through it. So I'm not sure I've caught all the nuances, or whether the 50-year protection in Germany does cover Hellerhoff's uploads. But if they are protected, and we have no free license from the rights holder, that's not a good situation, and I don't think it's something we should routinely accept in the future. But I've been wondering whether we could extend the time period for COM:GOF in this subject area, due to the widespread presumption that rights clearances weren't needed here. --Avenue (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the sort of pragmatic thinking we need. Because the dogmatic approach taken by Eleassar and Stefan4 would require all of Hellerhoff's pictures to be deleted. It's pretty nuclear for him. Colin (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

See User talk:WhatamIdoing#Sourcing expert required. Perhaps could contribute too. Sadly I think the source you found is not going to help and the nuclear option is still on the cards unless some fresh and authoritative thinking is done. Colin (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Beginning of the end

I see you are still discussing Swedish copyright law at the village pump. Meanwhile User:Eleassar has started deleting highly used x-rays and other medical images while the copyright issues remain unclear and in a way guaranteed to lose such images and their contributors from Commons and Wikipedia. An AN/U on him isn't achieving anything quickly. I forecast all radiographic images will be removed from Commons shortly. Almost none of them are correctly licensed and most of the "own work" claims are highly dubious. Rather than doing anything productive about this, our deletion-zealots just trashing a collection amassed over nearly 10 years. Perhaps all commons cares about are dick and breast photos. -- Colin (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I was actually looking at a source discussing US law. The implications of multiple authorship could be important for radiological images too.

Eleassar hasn't deleted any images. He isn't a Commons admin, so he couldn't even if he wanted to. --Avenue (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Block review

Thank you, Avenue, for the support in the discussion, and your sense of justice. Now I at least know how political prisoners feel: not good at all. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ultra7

Regarding "undeletion per Эlcobbola" - given that I have serious concerns over the accuracy of Эlcobbola's analysis of what the images show and their apparent belief that if an image isn't in Wikipedia it isn't of use, it would be helpful if you could clarify this comment with your own words. Ultra7 (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've commented further at COM:UR. --Avenue (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

??Query brick placed on photo of anencephalic baby

Can you please explain your rationale for regarding this stillbirth as an "identifiable person"? Did it even ever have a name? I rather think that you should either identify it or, if you cannot do so (and thereby cannot show that it is an "identifiable person"), remove the brick. Nobody will ever identify something that never lived. Kelisi (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The question is not whether I can identify this baby, but whether anyone can. This parents might well be able to identify it from this photo. I'm not sure whether it would legally qualify as a person (that might depend on the jurisdiction), but regardless from the legalities, I think the general moral point behind Commons:Photographs of identifiable people also applies here - i.e. that uploaders should usually obtain the subject's consent (or parental consent) before uploading photos of people taken in private situations. I'm sure that if I was one of the parents and this picture was uploaded without our consent, I wouldn't be happy.

The uploader has occasionally been active on Commons since then, uploading File:Encephalocele2.jpg for instance, again without any indication that parental consent was obtained. --Avenue (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The uploader's original information seems to have vanished when the image was uploaded to Commons. The old caption on the old image page seemed to claim that the picture had been taken as part of the uploader's professional duties (he claimed to be a doctor). There was thus never any question in my mind about permission. Kelisi (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with avenue. It is worth looking at Wikipedia's deletion discussion and Talk Patient images as well as the Commons:Patient images essay. IMO, such an image requires consent, though we can accept the uploader's written statement (if offered) for this rather than OTRS, which is unsuitable for patient images. As it stands, this image has no declaration of consent. I believe the original caption said "I am a doctor and I have photographed it myself" which doesn't indicate this was done "as part of their professional duties". In fact, if it had been taken as part of their professional duties, we almost certainly couldn't host it as the copyright would likely belong to the hospital. From the exif data on other images this person has uploaded, these are taken with his mobile phone. The user Almazi is still active on Wikipedia and I guess is from Pakistan. Ethical standards among doctors vary enormously by country, with the UK very strict in this regard and countries like India and Pakistan near the bottom (look at any league table of ethical standard by country). The user has been asked before about consent and not replied. I think we can take it from his silence that he did not have it. -- Colin (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Colin. I agree with most of what you've said here. In particular, we should not assume subject/parental consent was obtained simply because the uploader is a doctor (or claims to be). And as I said above, I think we should require at least an assertion from the uploader that such consent was obtained to continue hosting this photo. --Avenue (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Legality vs. FOP status

Hi Avenue,

I think you did not answer to my point: if a country FOP allows pictures of 2D works, why do we care whether the graffiti is legal or not? I am posting here, because 1. I am asking in a general case, 2. I don't want Eleassar to bring irrelevant issues to this question. Best regards, Yann (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I did try to answer it. I see two possible reasons for keeping a photo of a graffito/mural in such a country (all assuming the photo is taken by the uploader, and freely licensed):

1. We can show the photo qualifies for FOP. Typically this requires that the graffito/mural is permanently/indefinitely displayed at that site and that the site is public. (Both are true for much but not all graffiti.) For some countries it requires reporting the work's title and author, where possible. (Often this is possible for legal murals and impossible for illegal graffiti, but not always.)
2. Alternatively, per COM:GRAFFITI, we can keep it if the artwork is illegal graffiti, and not a legal mural.

The essential point I was trying to make is that FOP is not automatically available for all graffiti/murals (e.g. if they are not in a public place). If we can show that the artwork was illegal, we don't have to establish that it qualifies for FOP to keep it.

Conversely, if we can show the photo qualifies for FOP, we don't have to show the artwork was illegal to keep it. And if we can show both, so much the better. Both FOP and graffiti are complex areas, where jurisdictional details could rule out a certain use/reuse (e.g. derivative works, for FOP). Establishing that the artwork was illegal may make the difference between being able to use the photo in a certain way or not. --Avenue (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailled answer. That's much clearer, and I agree with you. Yann (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Religion in NZ plot

Religions of New Zealanders in the last four censuses.

Hi Avenue, do you have R source code for this plot? It looks like it was produced using the ggplot2 package. Tayste (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see File talk:Religious affiliation in New Zealand 1991-2006 - bar chart.svg. It would probably be worth making an updated version now that the 2013 Census figures are out.[1] These are detailed but do not seem to include an overall "Christian" total. I think the total of the figures for each Christian denomination should be close, since not many people would report having two denominations. We can always update it again in April when Stats NZ releases more info. --Avenue (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Streisand Estate.jpg/2

Please revisit Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Streisand Estate.jpg/2, as there is an ALT proposed by Alchemist-hp which edited the image to improve its quality, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for advice

Thank you for your comment at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Streisand Estate.jpg/2.

I'd really like your advice:

The image was edited to be improved further.

What else can be done to adjust the image so you think it'd be satisfactory to you for Featured Picture quality?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Not every image is suitable source material for a featured picture, and I don't think this one has the potential to make a Commons FP. Yes, the edited version is better quality, but Commons FPs are not just about technical quality or educational value (though both play a role). The composition here seems unimpressive to me. --Avenue (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Any other ideas for anything else I can do about it to improve it and make it more suitable for FP? Anything at all? -- Cirt (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Once a photo is taken, the composition is pretty well fixed (apart from rotating, cropping etc). The composition here means that the photo needs explanation before it grabs your interest. In other words, it has no immediate wow. I see nothing that can be done here to fix that, or at least nothing that retains the essential point of the picture. --Avenue (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, thank you for your thoughtful explanation, -- Cirt (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Jimbos comments wrt CC desaster

Hi Avenue, in case you are still online and in the mood, you might take a look at Jimbos comments wrt our current CC problem.[2] I consider his comments as being rather superficial as well as totally misrepresenting our efforts in this problem. I am not an en-native speaker, you might express the "truth" in a better way. Of course, only if you feel to do so. (Just as evidence for our reaction to this problem: Commons:Forum#nachtr.C3.A4gliche_Voll-Enteignung_seitens_CC.3F, de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#H.C3.B6here_Aufl.C3.B6sung_automatisch_auch_unter_freier_Lizenz.3F, de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Wikimedia_Deutschland_e._V.#Bundesarchiv_und_CC-BY-SA). Thank you and a merry Christmas to you. --Túrelio (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather disappointed in Jimbo's response and have told him so. I'm also disappointed that he's chosen to attack Commons from a position of ignorance, saying we will be petty and refuse to delete the images. While I agree that is all too often the case Commons, it absolutely isn't for this issue. I think it would be useful to discuss how we can track down potentially mislead donors. This would also give an idea of the scale of the problem. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments at :en. To get an idea about the scale of the problem, see the number of files in Category:Images from the German Federal Archive, >80,000. All (or nearly all) of these are still in copyright, as there is no PD-gov in Germany. As one can read in Commons:Bundesarchiv/de, it is based on an official agreement between the donor and Wikimedia-Germany and on the assumption that these 800-pixel (longests side) images can be licensed under CC-BY-SA. I assume there are more large image donations from all over the world, based on the same erroneous premise. --Túrelio (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The GLAM section I added is particularly shaming. Note the "some institutions in the UK are making lower resolutions images available for re-use under an open licence while reserving high resolution versions for commercial sales and licensing". Would be good to find out which and who advised them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some high-ranking WMF folk were in the room when such "legal advice" was offered. -- Colin (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed by Jimbo's comments. I hope to find time to respond later today. --Avenue (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm annoyed enough by the attitudes on display there that it's probably better for me to stay away for now, especially since Colin and Saffron Blaze have responded to some of the less constructive comments. --Avenue (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)