User talk:Jameslwoodward

Archive
Jim's
Archives

2009-2010
2011
2012
2013
1st half 2014
2nd half 2014
1st half 2015
2nd half 2015
1st half 2016
2nd half 2016
1st half 2017

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

My formal name is James L. Woodward, but I prefer to be called "Jim"

the copyright's terminationEdit

  Special:Diff/236472117.  Thank you very much --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wellington Building photo deletionEdit

[moved from a category created for this comment] It would appear that the copyright for my recently sumbitted image on the Wellington Building entry is being questioned.

I was the project architect for the heritage conservation component of the Wellington Building between 2008-2016. I assure you that the photo (Wellington birdseye.jpg) is one of several taken by a member of EVOQ Architecture staff (namely Philippe Laflèche phil.lafleche@gmail.com, who has since left our firm) for promotional reasons. I myself requested that bird's eye photos be taken from the vantage point of the Confederation Building, where we were also designing a window restoration contract at the time. A series of comparable photos taken from a similar vantage point at different times of the day are available for reference in the following location: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nejkxb7u0opqjdt/AABGppAoUAX-drnMtM4LZDg_a?dl=0

With this in mind, I request that the photo be reinstated.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Estein (talk • contribs) 15:59, 9 March 2017‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline 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.

Opening a subject in two places at once is a waste of your time and mine. I have responded at the UnDR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

DREdit

Hi, please see my reply to you at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Morris County New Jersey Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Beatyestown Highlighted.svg. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done Thank you for clarifying that -- "update" has more than one usage in this context and I assumed that the geography had changed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Comparación de gestores bibliográficos deletionEdit

You deleted the file "Comparación de gestores bibliográficos" Commons:Deletion requests/File:Comparación de gestores bibliográficos - 6a actualización (junio 2016).pdf. I do not understand why no uses of the file are listed. It is used (at least) in the following articles:

- would I have to add them manually in wikimedia commons for them to show?

The original source is an English language file published under Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0). ShareAlike means that if you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. Does this not include a translation? If it does, the translators have to make their translation available under the same license, which they do, since the translation bears the same copyright information. Did I get something wrong, here? Pahi (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

First, I suggest you read my closing comment to the DR again. The problem here is that a translation creates a new copyright, which is owned by the the translator(s). As I said there, although you have credited the translators, they must give a free license to use their work and there is no evidence that they have done that. In order to restore the file to Commons, both Martín Bertrand and Patricia Rodas must each send free license using OTRS.

Second, the Wiki software automatically keeps track of and lists every use of a file that is properly linked elsewhere in the project. However, at least one of the links used in WP:ES is incorrect:

  • [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Comparaci%C3%B3n_de_gestores_bibliogr%C3%A1ficos_-_6a_actualizaci%C3%B3n_%28junio_2016%29.pdf wikimedia.org/Comparación de gestores bibliográficos - 6a actualización]

will not properly show up on the file page. The software sees it as an external reference, not a file from a related WMF project. Instead, you should link it as any other Commons file like this:

  • [[:File:Comparación de gestores bibliográficos - 6a actualización (junio 2016).pdf]]

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. I am a little surprised, I must admit. I had thought that if a document includes the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0), this was enough to declare it Creative Commons. Also, as it says on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing, an exception to derivative work applies, at least as far as copyright in the US goes, since the intrinsic nature of the text is utilitarian. If I am mistaken, I will of course ask the translators to send in the request. I corrected the links to have them point directly to the file (which is not there, at the moment). Some links appear in the reference section, and I do not see how I could follow the bibliographic format at the same time, because it is not compatible with the appearance of the direct link in Commons. Pahi (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There are two copyrights here, both of which must be licensed. The first, for the original work in English, is correctly done. But, as I said, there is nothing from the translators. Since you do not own the copyright for the Spanish translation, you cannot license it with CC-BY-SA any more than I can. When the translators send their licenses, have one send it first and wait for the automatic answer, which will give the ticket number. Then have the second one put the ticket number in the subject line. When that is done, let me know here, and I will expedite the clearance.
Just as any other Wiki link, you can use the pipe character (|) in the middle of a file link to display different text from the name of the linked file. I think this what you might want:
[[:File:Comparación de gestores bibliográficos - 6a actualización (junio 2016).pdf|wikimedia.org/Comparación de gestores bibliográficos - 6a actualización]]
which will display as:
wikimedia.org/Comparación de gestores bibliográficos - 6a actualización.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The first translator sent her license yesterday to permissions-es@wikimedia.org, but there was no automatic response. Is that correct? Pahi (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why she did not get a response. It is Ticket:2017031410017286. Please have the second translator put OTRS Ticket 2017031410017286 in the subject line the second message. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The second translator has sent his email, too. Is that sufficient so that you can restore the file? Pahi (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Just a final question: now I remember why I did not hot link the file before: Look at https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendeley under "Véase también". The file is shown with a thumbnail. I would rather only have the link. Is this possible? Pahi (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, found it: a colon in front of :File: will not display the image. Pahi (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm, disadvantage: :File: will have the link disappear from the wikimedia page. Any way around this? Pahi (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand the problem, but I don't know if there is an answer. Try asking at The Village Pump. If there is not a solution, I suggest you put a note in the file description with links to the WP:ES uses of the link. That should keep it from being delweted again as "unused". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The solution is not to use File: or :File: but media: to avoid the thumbnail and still have it show on the mediacommons page Pahi (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

TheatreEdit

Hi Jim. I'm not particularly interested in the file, and have not observed closely who's doing what, but it attracts my attention that every now and then red-link new users pop up to edit File:Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese insurgencies.png and almost nothing else other than that. FYI. Have a good week-end. --E4024 (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Louis A. Perrotta photoEdit

Hello Jim and Thank you for your time. I see that a photo File:Iphone feb2017 314.jpg from the page Louis A. Perrotta was removed. This photo belongs to the subject's daughter, taken by her in her personal collection. It was taken in New York in the 1960's and is the property of his family member Vera Perrotta of Huntington NY, who is allowing its use on the page. Thank you. --Mgenzac (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Who was the photographer? Apparently it was not you, as you claimed when you uploaded it. Making incorrect claims here just creates more work for you and the other editors and admins.
As I said in my closing comment:
"Owning a paper copy of a photo does not give you the right to freely license it any more than owning a paper copy of a book allows you to make and sell copies. In order to restore this, we need a license from the actual photographer or his heir, using OTRS."
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please lookEdit

Hi Jim: Would you look at File:La Crosse Lager.jpg and its license? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Inca Kola Advertisement Hartog Bell.pngEdit

Hi James. Peruvian copyright law indicated that images had a 20 year copyright protection. The Inca Kola advertisement that you deleted is in the public domain. The photographer of the image is unknown, which was not uncommon in Peru (the image legally belonged to the company, Inca Kola, not the photographer). I've studied Peruvian copyright law on images not too long ago. Please do let me know where you're getting your information from about Peruvian copyright law; otherwise, please restore the deleted image. Thanks.--MarshalN20 (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting my information the same place you should be getting it, namely Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Peru. If that is in error, then you should take steps to fix it, but otherwise it is our standard reference. I note that you have on your User page "Link to Peruvian copyright info". That link produces a document that is clearly not the 1996 law, so I suspect you are working with obsolete information.

The cited article says, among other things:

"The Peruvian copyright law of April 23, 1996, which entered in force on May 24, 1996, states in its transitional provisions that "[works] protected under the previous legislation shall benefit from the longer terms of protection provided for in this law". It is unclear whether that also applies to works where previous shorter terms had already expired."

That lack of clarity means that we cannot know beyond a significant doubt (Commons standard of proof) whether of not the image is PD even if we knew it was published before 1976. We also don't have a publication date, so it may well have been first published in 1976 or later and therefore have been under copyright when the terms definitely were extended under the 1996 law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The publication date of the image is 1968, per [1] and [2]. The image copyright expired in 1988, based on the 20-year copyright law that preceded the 1996 copyright law. What exactly is unclear about it? The "unclear" statement is a reflection of the author's lack of understanding, but not of the law. What is perfectly clear is that an image that has been in the public domain since 1988 has been deleted here under the claim that it is not PD. This needs correction. Regards.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
And, no, James. I shouldn't "be getting" my information solely from here. The Wikimedia page on Peru clearly lacks the historical depth to fully understand that country's copyright law. We should always strive to better our understanding of things that we don't know. I don't know how to improve the current Wikimedia page on Peru, but it seems that you do. Instead of criticizing me for where I acquired more information Peruvian copyright law, would you be so kind as to help update that page so as to avoid any further (ie, future) misunderstandings. Thanks.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

When a country changes the term of its copyrights, either of two rules can apply:

a) the new term applies only to works that were still protected by copyright under the old law at the time of the extension. Examples include:
Australia
Iraq
Lebanon
Poland
b) the new term applies to all works, including those works whose copyright had expired under the old law. Examples include:
Argentina
Armenia
Jamaica (partially retroactive)
Netherlands
Paraguay

The 1996 Peruvian law reads, at the end:

"DISPOSICIONES TRANSITORIAS - PRIMERA.— Los derechos sobre las obras y demás producciones protegidas de conformidad con la ley anterior, gozarán de los plazos de protección más extensos reconocidos en esta Ley."

Which WIPO translates:

"Transitional Provisions - First. The rights in the works and other productions protected under the previous legislation shall benefit from the longer terms of protection provided for in this Law

And Google translates:

"Transitional Provisions - FIRST.- The rights over works and other productions protected in accordance with the previous law, shall enjoy the most extensive protection periods recognized in this Law.

My reading of that is that the 1996 Peruvian law belongs in category (b). The work we are arguing about was clearly "protected under the previous legislation" until 1988. If the 1996 law had not intended to extend all copyrights it should have read "The rights in the works and other productions which are now protected under the previous legislation" or words to that effect.

Therefore, I think that the summary I cited above and which you mocked is probably incorrect, but not in the direction you would prefer. However, since we do not know beyond a significant doubt which applies, it should stand as it is.

It is possible that there is case law on the subject. Certainly if you can cite one or more relevant cases on the subject, we can amend the summary as necessary. However, the burden of proof is on you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Suiside Inferno DeletionEdit

Hello there, I just wanted to ask about Suiside Inferno being notable. What does he have to do in order for him to have a Wikipedia article about his music career? He has been mentioned in articles, has a Google knowledge graph, songs in major stores, barcodes etc. Please provide feedback with details for undeletion, that way our team can properly provide Wikipedia with the correct information so Suiside Inferno could have an article.

Thanks again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suiside Inferno (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 March 2017‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline 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.
That's not an appropriate question here -- this is Commons, not Wikipedia, and, as a general rule, Commons follows the lead of the various WPs on the question of whether an individual is notable or not. Suiside Inferno can never have an article on Commons because no one has articles on Commons -- they are out of scope. Commons is a repository for images, not a place for articles.
Are you yourself actually Suiside Inferno? Or someone else writing about him. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Restore photos plzEdit

Hi Jim this is the ticket number: Ticket:2017030710002984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Australianblackbelt (talk • contribs) 14:47, 15 March 2017‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline 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.

As I said at the DR:

"....Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored." .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your time and reading this message i appreciated and I understand you time is valuable and limited as volunteers. This wikimedia process is more difficult for me that creating wikipedia pages from scratch specially since I am just a highschool drop out. Kind regards.(Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC))

File:Mozilla Firefox logo 2013.svgEdit

Can you please tell me why is this file is kept on Commons when Mozilla says "you may not alter our logos in any way"? (other file which lines up for this call File:Mozilla Thunderbird logo.png).--Canopus Grandiflora 22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Good question. I would say that the license is an ND and therefore not permitted. The disucssion at the DR did not rais that at all. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Should I renominate it for deletion?--Canopus Grandiflora 19:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, a good question. It will certainly be a contentious DR. You certainly can if you want and I will support it unless someone comes up with a credible reason why it can be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
James, you know very well the "you may not alter our logos in any way" is a Trademark restriction! And also you know the Mozlilla Foirefox and Thunderbird logos are explicitely licensed under the MPLv2 license. So, why you're still questionating that? Your advice to Canopus Grandiflora should be consistent with your closure at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mozilla_Firefox_3.5_logo_256.png. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
That was six years ago -- do you really expect me to remember something I did six years and several hundred thousand Commons actions ago? You have a better opinion of me than I do.
Having said that, in re-reading that discussion, I'm not sure that my conclusion was correct. I think the DR is a good idea to clarify the situation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

DR by JimEdit

Hi Jim. I think there is a mistake about the File:Ata1.jpg. This is not a "personal" file. It is a rare pre-1935 pic of Afet Inan with Ataturk. Ataturk died in 1938, after a long agony. Pictures older than 70 years are in the public domain in Turkey and this one is at least 80 years old. Please correct the mistake. Cheers. E4024 (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • The file has no relation to user Avilaroman either. E4024 (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
E4024, you are certainly correct that it does not belong in that DR. Thank you for catching it. I am not sure, however, that you are correct that Turkish images are PD 70 years after creation -- see: Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Turkey. It's either 70 years after publication or 70 years pma depending on who owns the copyright. It turns out that it is a bug in VFC. Avilaroman uploaded an image with this name in 2006, which was subsequently deleted. VFC included this image in his upload list. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Official pic. Thank you very much for keeping it. E4024 (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

File talk:Château de Beauregard - Jeanne d'Albret & III of Navarre.jpgEdit

Hi Jim- Would you have a minute to look at the above talkpage of yet another problematic image uploaded by Каволо? I nominated it for deletion, but was turned down. Another editor has since fleshed out the description and sourcing, but I think that just introduced new problems to a file I suspect we should not have. Thanks in advance. --Eric my en.wp talk page 16:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done see Bridgeman. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim! --Eric my en.wp talk page 17:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Apple logo black.svgEdit

I am not sure about this file:

  • The license template says, "was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977", but if I am not mistaken, this logo was not used in 1977. Actually, the company was formed in 1996, and the logo of Sir Issac Newton under an Apple Tree was used, which was designed by Ronald Wayne who is still alive.
  • It is not made up of simple geometric shapes.
  • Apple Website Terms of Use says, "All text, graphics, user interfaces, visual interfaces, photographs, trademarks, logos, sounds, music, artwork and computer code (collectively, “Content”), including but not limited to the design, structure, selection, coordination, expression, “look and feel” and arrangement of such Content, contained on the Site is owned, controlled or licensed by or to Apple, and is protected by trade dress, copyright, patent and trademark laws, and various other intellectual property rights and unfair competition laws."

The file was never nominated for deletion, but I don't think it is fit for Commons. What to do?--Canopus Grandiflora 23:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

How old are you? I am surprised that you could say that Apple was founded in 1996 -- most of us know it as one of the two remaining founders of the personal computer era -- it dates to 1976. The Apple logo shown above was applied for as a trademark on March 20, 1978 and first used in commerce in 1977 -- USPTO registration #1114431. Any use of it for the next ten years without notice or registration of its copyright would have rendered it PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
While rewording that 'this particular logo was used in 1996' to 'The company was formed in 1976, when the logo featured Newton' this error took place. This is because the template says this logo was released in 1977. The multi-coloured logo was used in 1977, not this particular logo.--Canopus Grandiflora 12:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, the official USPTO registration shows this black logo first used in commerce in 1977. That's conclusive evidence that the logo was first used during the notice-required period. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Isn't it 95 years after the first publication? (COM:PD)--Canopus Grandiflora 14:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest you learn File:PD-US_table.svg by heart. Until January 1, 1978, a copyrighted work in the USA had to "notice" as specified in the 1909 copyright law. If it was published with the permission of the copyright holder without notice, then it instantly became PD. Since this apple was used in commerce in 1977, that applies. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Olympia Traveller.jpgEdit

I have uploaded a better version: File:Olympia Traveller de Luxe (1977).jpg , so File:Olympia Treveller.jpg could be deleted.

Carl Ha (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  Not done It's not the same model typewriter.

If you do upload a new version of the image of the Traveller, please do not create a new file. Simply click on "Upload a new version of this file" which is below the file History box. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible deletionsEdit

Photos of some artworks by a living artist were added to Commons a few days ago. Should these be deleted? They are in Category:Peter Dreher --Jdsteakley (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Peter Dreher. Next time, please just do it yourself. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

romeinen in NederlandEdit

Hi Jim,

(edit to translate from Dutch)

You deleted my category just a moment ago, and I understand a lot of people are busy keeping Wiki's tidy. This week I got help from HenkvD and I get a lesson every month by Ronn.

I'm new, and you chose to delete 'Romeinen in Nederland' before I was ready with it. I am slow, but I'm busy. I would like to make that category and add, for example: Ancient Rome.

I believe this is the right way to add a Dutch category and link it to an active English page.

Isn't there a time limit to moderate other peoples work? I mean: if you notice an addition is 5 minutes old, could moderators then wait until my intentions become more clear? Is that workable of impossible difficult for moderators?

What's your opinion on the category 'romeinen in nederland', if it will soon contain a huge part of archeological object from Museum Het Valkhof and others?

Kind regards H. Molenaars 20 maart 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHV GAC (talk • contribs) 10:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline 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.
You did not create a category, you created an empty gallery, see Commons:Galleries. As a general rule, an empty gallery can be deleted on sight. In order to avoid that, you must either put at least two images in it, use the {{Underconstruction}} tag, or add a couple of words to that effect.
As for Category:romeinen in nederland, it is not allowed. With the exception of Latin names of biological taxa, Commons categories names are in English for technical reasons. see Commons:Categories#Category_names. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
There is already Category:Ancient Roman categories in the Netherlands with a multitude of subcategories so I think you don't need to create a new one. De728631 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both. MHV GAC (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

'File:Lou Sander 2015.jpg'Edit

I posted a response on the file deletion page, or whatever it is called. I hope I am following the proper procedure. I am familiar with procedures on the English Wikipedia, but not so much on the Commons. Lou Sander (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lou Sander 2015.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I have the original photo in size 4032x3024 pixels. I cropped it and photoshopped it to remove reflections in my eyeglasses. Then I saved it in a smaller size. You suggested that I upload the original version, which I am certainly willing to do, but a bit reluctantly at this point. The "Upload a New Version" seems to default to the same filename, which concerns me. I DO NOT want the uncropped, unphotoshopped image to appear on my user page or anywhere else. I am concerned that the original image may replace my painstakingly prepared version, and in fact I have a slight preference not to release the raw photo to Wikipedia. Please let me know what to do here. BTW, the metadata about the image includes the name Zanieski, including in some sort of copyright field. He is a neighbor of mine, and I had borrowed his camera to take this picture. I don't know if his name comes directly from his camera or from some processing he may have done before he sent me the file. Lou Sander (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It would be fine if you uploaded the original, as cropped and photoshopped, but not in reduced size (except, of course, for the crop). And, yes, the Upload a new version will load the new image over the old -- that's the point. You should add to the file a note along the lines of "Zanieski is the person from who I borrowed the camera." .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I photoshopped it and reduced its size all at the same time, so I don't have what you'd like me to upload. I suppose I could once again work on the original to take out the glare, but that seems like a lot of work just to satisfy somebody's suspicions about a photo I took myself and uploaded in good faith. Don't they assume good faith where images are concerned and the uploader provides an honest and detailed explanation? Not to be a jerk about it, but I find myself wondering why there is such an insistence on having a large, high resolution photo. Lou Sander (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, frankly, I work mostly with the part of Commons that deals with problem users. I have run into a great many very plausible liars, so while I 90% believe you, there is still a 10% residual question. I'm not at all sure why a person would deliberately downsize an image of himself that he was uploading. Also, one of the reasons that Commons exists is to have good images available for others besides Wikipedia -- that actually works. A small image is much less usable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I will try to photoshop the original today or tomorrow, and replace the existing photo with it. FYI, the whole world does not revolve around people wanting good images in the commons. I created that small photo (and a series of others like it) to use on my own websites and other publications, for example HERE (scroll to the bottom of the page) and HERE. Unlike the extraordinarily suspicious and editor-unfriendly Wikimedia Commons, a lot of us have a need for, and routinely work with, smaller versions of images. I honor your selfless work for Wikimedia, but I do not appreciate your suspicions, and I do not appreciate the annoyance and work you have put me through. I am not any sort of "problem editor". I am just trying to provide illustrations that will be useful on Wikipedia. Finally, and it's a minor point compared to the inconvenience, extra work, and anger arousal, I am not happy that anyone, possibly an identity-protected someone connected with some sort of identity theft scheme, requires me to upload high-resolution images of myself. As I recall, low-resolution images are OK for book covers, film posters, etc., (but you know more about this than I do). Why not for humans? (No answer required. I do not want to cause anyone any extra work.) Lou Sander (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Lou, again, it is an unfortunate fact of Commons life that we get many people claiming to own the copyright for images that they do not. Most of them are simply ignorant of the law, but a substantial number are deliberately lying for one reason or another. The liars are often very plausible. Therefore, while we accept "own work" when there is nothing about the image to raise suspicions, we require proof when there is any significant doubt about an image. You may find that unfriendly, but the fact is that it is entirely intended to protect the actual copyright holder. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I have uploaded a replacement photo, HERE. It was made from a different original. Please let me know if it meets your standards. Lou Sander (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The photo is great -- good size and you are either very lucky or very skillful with the self timer work. Thanks for your effort with this. I would ask that you add categories -- maybe writers from America, 19?? births, Alumni of ?. People is way too generic -- see if you can drill down to the most specific categories that describe you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Your spell checker hates my nameEdit

Hiya Jim: Your spellcheck keeps changing me to Eileen.  :) It's really "Ellin" sounds just like "Ellen" but I'm named after my godmother "Ellin MacKay Berlin" (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/30/obituaries/ellin-berlin-85-a-novelist-dies-the-songwriter-s-wife-of-62-years.html) so I get it spelled "Ellin". HUGS! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Ellin, it's not my spell checker -- I have it trained to accept "Ellin Beltz" and most other colleagues' names. Of course, the spell checker also accepts "Eileen", so it's no help in getting your name right. It's just my wayward fingers. I know your name and I believe strongly that people's names are important, so please believe that I try hard to get them right, the spirit is willing but the body is weak. I'll try harder. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
No worries, Jim, I've lived with Ellen, Eileen, and "hey you" my whole life!! :) HUGS!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

March 1, 1989Edit

The point I made had nothing to do with the absence of a copyright notice. My reference to 'legally' was whether volunteers or reusers were at risk in the light that all reasonable efforts had been documented to determine copyright claims, which might then contradict the presumption that federal publication provides a default of PD. The case in point poses no risk to any volunteer, or the WMF. Similarly, the same logic applies to whether under Commons policies the level of doubt can be assessed as 'significant' or not. At the current time, these cases depend on a subjective determination by a deleting administrator. -- (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

We had an image that had first been published on a Texas web site. We have no idea who the photographer was, but, as I said, it is virtually certain that he or she was not a Federal employee. The fact that it later appeared on a Federal site proves absolutely nothing. There is not and could not be any rule that says that everything on a Federal site is PD, so I can't fathom why you think we could have kept it. Sure, there's little risk of a problem, but that's true of the vast majority of the images we delete and that line of reasoning is expressly forbidden by PRP#1. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Cdfi/ClevermercuryEdit

I'm quite confused by your statements at Cfdi's page. What WMF rules are being seriously violated? The fact that en:WP:STRAWSOCK's statement "Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project" refers to an arbitration case, and not to some WMF rule or policy, appears to tell against that idea — why would it cite some decision by en:wp if there's a global policy on the subject? Also, on one discussion, the Clevermercury account simply asked a process question, while in the other discussion, the connection between the accounts was acknowledged; there's no attempt to influence one discussion by both accounts, and there's no way the connection could be missed on the other discussion. Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

PS, do we even have a sockpuppetry policy here, or do we just use the one from en:wp? Obviously we enforce no-disruptive-sockpuppetry, but between the fact that COM:SOCK goes to Commons:Requests for checkuser (why would it do that if we had a sockpuppetry policy) and the fact that Commons:Requests for checkuser links to en:WP:SOCK (again, why do that if we had our own sockpuppetry policy), I'm wondering if we've basically incorporated en:WP:SOCK by reference into our own policies here. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact is that he made edits in two different DRs using two different accounts and then, several days later, when called on it, disclosed it formally on the user page of one of the two accounts. Since then he has consistently claimed that it was properly disclosed before the fact. Even if he had done that, he would still have been in violation of the rule since no one can possibly be expected to have read and remembered such disclosures for all of our 25,000 users.
If he had just said "Oops, sorry, I made a mistake", it would have passed without drama or block. However, he has ranted outrageously that there is a conspiracy against him and that he has not broken any rules. For policy, see the lead at Category:Sockpuppeteers, which says:
"The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position...." [emphasis added]
At Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pycckhcoz we have:
"Another frivolous deletion request is here, on a related image:" (Cdfi)
"Why has this image not yet been deleted while the other one" (Clevermercury)
At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait of Dragut - The Drawn Sword of Islam.jpg
"Keep Faithful reproduction of public domain images remain public domain." (Clevermercury)
"Discussion of deleting this image is not based on any logical reasoning." (Cdfi)
In both he is clearly expressing the opinion that the images should be kept and, therefore, using multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for a position. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Not a rules violation, but a problem of form and courtesy; one of the C-twins sent a summoning ping to me, and the message was something like "don't talk on my talk page." Seriously! Troll-level "we've seen better". Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

A question of CopyrightEdit

This question revolves around the page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Crest_Craft_Patches

There is an issue that has arisen, it's actually been going on for some time, where some of the Crests illustrated in this Wiki Commons category have been duplicated and are for sale on eBay. The seller is not making any comment about the origin of the patches for sale nor whether or not they are original or modern duplicates but it is well known his business is to copy other designs and sell them. Clearly, other identical examples of the patches in this Wikimedia category exist of course so one can’t definitively prove that he is copying these specific images. Ironically, the high quality of the images in this Wiki category lends them to probably be the best reference examples for copying.

Penny, the daughter of the original owner, designer and manufacturer, agrees that it is improper for someone to duplicate and sell “identical” designs created by her father and has authorized me to act on her behalf with eBay to try to have this individual stop selling the Crest Craft designs. I have sent in several NOI's (Notice Of claimed Infringement) to eBay with specific examples of the the copied Crest Craft designs and I've referenced examples of the design to the Wiki link. Here is the link to one (of many) examples:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/311813766789?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

which duplicates:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RCAF_2_TTS_Camp_Borden_Aero_Engine_Tech._circa_1950.jpg

___________

I guess my questions are:

  1. Is there in fact a copyright infringement on Gus Werle's Crest Craft Ltd. designs irrespective of the Wiki connection? Am I correct that (in Canada) there is at least a 75 year copyright on his creative designs?
  2. Is there any infringement of this Wiki page and the images contained therein, if one copies and sells the designs without credit to the original designer or manufacturer?
  3. Are these images (on the Wikimedia Commons page) considered, "copyrighted images"? I think I know the answer to this one - no.

I have just received back the following comments from eBay:

Dear Wayne,
Thank you for contacting the eBay Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) Program in regard to your report for listings:
381972981034, 361921216761 311821550156, 311821550199
We understand that this is a pressing matter and eBay wants to assist you in protecting your intellectual property rights. From the information provided, however, the nature of intellectual property infringement you are attempting to report is unclear. First, if you are hoping to report on behalf of Penney Werle, we will need a signed letter of authorization from Penny Werle that includes the full name, address, email address and phone number of the person who is granting authorization. Also, before we will take appropriate action regarding copyright, we will need a link with exact examples and we will not take action on images or designs found in the public domain. <emphasis mine>
If you still feel the listings are infringing upon your intellectual property rights, please respond to this message with the requested information so that we may investigate the matter further.
Thank you for your concern in helping to keep eBay a safe and reputable forum in which to conduct business. We appreciate your participation in the VeRO Program.

AND:

Before further reviewing this claim, we will need a link to the copyrighted work other than the wikimedia commons link. The VeRO department will not take action on items found in the public domain and wikimedia commons describes itself as "a media file repository that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all". In addition, please submit a letter of authorization that includes the full name, address, email address and phone number of the person who is granting authorization or Penny Werle in this case.

___________

To this end, I have again contacted Ms. Werle, who is elderly and not entirely computer literate, to obtain the detailed information required by eBay, via snail-mail.

Sorry for the poor formatting on this comment (relative newbie) and for being so wordy but I felt the details were important. Your thoughts and comments will be most appreciated.

Regards, Wayne --2001:56A:F352:9500:A1CB:2F12:B1CA:20CA 20:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


Hmm. Much as I would like to be helpful, I must first strongly remind you that I am not a copyright lawyer. Here at Commons we are almost entirely concerned with reading and interpreting the laws of the various countries to the best of our abilities. The details of actually enforcing a copyright are not relevant here. So everything I say below is my best guess and may well be wrong.

Following your numbering:
1) Canadian law calls for a term of 50 years pma on copyrightable works other than photographs and works subject to Crown Copyright. However, while Commons takes the position that any individual creation of a coat of arms or crest has its own copyright, if these crests are close copies of the originals used by the military, then they might not have copyrights of their own. If they were created for the military from designs provided by the military, then Crown Copyright would apply, for which the term is 50 years after first publication. Checking that would require looking at the documentation of the government orders. I'm not entirely clear whether:

a) The government came to Crest Craft with a design or
b) The government told Crest Craft it needed a design for such and such a unit and had Crest Craft design it

and whether

A) Crest Craft sold the patches to the government
B) Crest Craft sold the patches to distributors and/or retailers directly to the soldiers and others.
C) Whether Crest Craft was the only manufacturer of patches for some or all of these units.

The answers to these questions will make it possible for me to suggest routes of inquiry for you.

2) That depends on the answers to the questions above. 3) ditto

Are you reasonably sure that the eBay patches are not actual Crest Craft patches taken from old stock or uniforms?

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
_______________________________

As for your question, "Are you reasonably sure that the eBay patches are not actual Crest Craft (C.C.)patches taken from old stock or uniforms?" I am positive they are replicas in every case selected.
Your question and points are excellent Jim. I can see I'll have to do some homework. I would speculate that in most cases, the items selected would have been ordered by the individual units or Squadrons and paid for by the Unit/Squadron members themselves, thus your option::B)
Accordingly, most patches ordered would have some tacit approval by the Squadron or base commander but to call it a "government" order?? I don't think I could say yes to that in general. I'm sure in some cases they were ordered and paid for by the Government by I think determining that now on an individual basis would be impossible.
Yes,to :C) C.C. patches would have been unique manufacture for any given design request and issue. Gus, the owner of C.C., probably made thousands of unique designs over the 35+ years he was in business.
Regards,
Wayne

--A much better place (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I assume from your answers then, that Crest Craft actually did the designs, perhaps guided by what the unit actually did and by a description of what the unit thought would be appropriate. If that is correct, then Crest Craft certainly owns the Canadian copyright, which will last for 50 years after the designer's death. I'm pretty sure that if he died after 1946, the URAA applies and there will also be a USA copyright which will last either 95 years after first publication (effectively creation), if created before 1977, or the later of 70 years pma or 12/31/2047 if created after 1/1/1978 (I think).

The copyright holder can collect damages for misuse of the copyright, which is certainly the case with the eBay seller. However, note that he has made approximately 10,000 sales at $10 each -- around $100,000. While you may be able to stop him fairly easily on eBay, a suit to recover damages will cost tens of thousands of dollars and Crest Craft seems to be only a fraction of what he is selling -- there may not be enough there to make a suit worthwhile. You could, though, get a friend to buy a patch, thus getting his address and have a lawyer send him a formal cease and desist letter. That might or might not accomplish anything. You might also find that he is copying patches belonging to companies with deeper pockets whom you might join in a suit. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Skydrive logo.svgEdit

Just a reminder: you closed the deletion review as "done" but didn't actually restore the file. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done Thanks, got called to breakfast. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a reason but hardly an excuse for neglecting your valuable administrative work. Maybe we should introduce the pancake slap to go along with the trouts.   De728631 (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:MTR Lightrail icon.svgEdit

Hi,

The deletion request was just to get rid of the copyrighted version but leave the simple "text icon" as this image is referenced by dozens of EN:WP articles. I created the simple version to fix the issues without breaking copyright and someone else changed it for the recreated copyright violation version. So could we have the simple version restored? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done Thanks, the DR was not clear to me what was wanted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)

Category:Local nature partnershipsEdit

Hi Jim Could I get you to recreate the category you just deleted, please? I thought it best to create the brand new category prior to uploading an image into it - but you beat me to it by about three minutes. You might also care to assess the image I uploaded into it- if you think it will require a formal permission from the organisation, I can arrange for that to be emailed as per procedure. But as the person who created the image, I hope the information I put with the logo will suffice. Cheers. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that -- we're fairly aggressive about cleaning out galleries and categories that don't meet the rules, and about one time in 100 it catches someone a little too early. And, yes, I'm sorry to say that you should have the organization send a free license using OTRS. If you get them to do that promptly, I won't hang a {{Delete}} tag on it, but someone else may. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Jameslwoodward".