User talk:Jameslwoodward

Return to "Jameslwoodward" page.
Archive
Jameslwoodward's
Archives

2009
2010
1st half 2011
2nd half 2011
1st half 2012
2nd half 2012
1st half 2013
2nd half 2013
1st half 2014


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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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



Undeletion requestEdit

Copy from here:

In answer to the question, "Why Germany"", I have to say that my understanding is that this is a German version of the card -- somewhere above there is mention of contacting ATI Germany. However, if it is not a German version, then US law applies, since ATI is a subisidiary of AMD, a US company. US law, like German law, is not interested in the main subject of the image, but in the whole thing, and de minimis applies only if the problematic work can be removed without it being noticed by most users. Please remember that the "main subject" concept applies in only a few countries, and generally only in connection with FOP, not general issues of DWs.
I agree that Fastily's closure is correct -- not just because he closed it on my side, but because in order to restore an image there must be a clear consensus for it. COM:PRP is very clear -- it must be proven beyond a significant doubt that the image is OK. This was 3 to 2 in favor of not restoring -- even 3 to 2 the other way would not have passed that test..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Some corrections: There is no german version of this card - in fact I haven't noticed any country specific version of any graphics card (BTW: Why should it matter if it's a german version. A german version could be also be photographed in poland or on the high seas). I contacted Sapphire Germany (neither AMD nor ATI, since all you see on this image (cooler, artwork, fan) is made by Sapphire. Sapphire Tech. Germany is a coincidence, it just led me there from the contact page. "de minimis applies only if the problematic work can be removed without it being noticed by most users" I can only find that information ("[...]could easily be removed without even the slightest impact on the appearance of the actual object to the average viewer[...]") in this section: Commons:De_minimis#Germany - again german law, which does not apply here.
2 vs. 3 (or the other way around, it doesn't matter) is not sufficent but 3 vs. 30 would be?
Thanks for talking the time to replying to me --D-Kuru (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

OK -- as I said, I did not understand why Germany was involved. Sapphire is a Hong Kong company. We don't have a general rule for choice of law in cases where the issue is application of DM to internationally available products. I think that if the issue came to trial, it would be in the USA and the US court would apply US law, since there is no reason to apply any other. As for 3-2 or 2-3, it is not really voting, it is whether there is a significant doubt. I don't know exactly where "significant" stops, but when several experienced users see a doubt, that is significant. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess germany was involed because I contacted Sapphire Germany and have a de-M lable on my userpage - maybe hints for germany. I do think the same way that if it would be send to court US law would apply. We may do not have a general rule for such a special case (and I think there is no real need for that since it would be pretty specialised), but the already existing de minimis page is a pretty good start.
I do have to asked this again: If there is no part of the image which is prohibited by law, why not apply Common's comunity guidelines which do already exist (like Commons:De minimis)? And I just can't see any reasons (following these guidelines) to keep the file deleted. --D-Kuru (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to look again at Commons:De minimis. The copyrighted works in all of the examples there are so small that you can't see what they are at the size on the page. On the other hand, the woman on the Sapphire card is easily the most eye-catching thing in the image -- some would argue it is second to the fan, but I disagree and even if it is second, it is certainly important to the look of the card and the image. The best way to think about is -- if the image were changed to a man, would anyone notice? In the case of the examples at COM:DM, if the Dark Knight poster were changed for a different movie, or if the seat back screens were changed for a different screen, no one would notice unless it was called to their attention.

So I read de minimis yet again to see if I missed something the last time. If you scale down my original upload to the size of GT2 - Flickr - CarSpotter.jpg on the de minimis page (which is about 220px width) you can see the woman as good as you see the dark knight poster. If you look the image with a width of 200px you see that the fan is the most dominant part in the image. Even with 400px the woman is such a small part that the fan is still dominating the image. Looking at the images in a small resolution does not change anything since the full resolution is the one which is uploaded. When you open my image, display it full screen and take a step back so that you can see the whole image, the woman is not the most eye catching part of the image.
Would anyone notice if the woman was changed to a man? Good question! Let's put it to the test: I use the figure of the Sapphire Readeon Tri-X R9 290X since it's again an image by Sapphire and a man. The result can be visited here. Would anyone notice the exchange? Well, at least I know and I count as somebody, right? Let's get some more exaples: Would anybody notice if the large image on the museum front would be replaced in 17723 EscherMuseum.jpg. Since the author died in 1972 the image is not PD-old. Let's look at GT2 - Flickr - CarSpotter.jpg again. The Question must be again if anybody would notice the exchange of the Dark Knight poster, right? Do you notice any difference if you look at this image or this image? Yes? OMG, I see an incoming DR for that image since the poster can't be replaced by any image without anyone noticing it. But wait! It can't be that easy, can it? The question which should be asked is: Would somebody, who has not seen the original image, think that any of the images couldn't be that way? When you just look at the rebuild image why shouldn't all of them be that way.
Now the interesting part which seems to be some kind of bear trap that just do not want to get off this discussion: For de minimis it does NOT matter if anyone would notice if the image would be changed. That's german law. I'm going to list all the questions I can find on the de minimis page (add one if I forgot any):

  1. Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless.
  2. Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful.
  3. Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the subject, and is essential to the subject (eg blacking it out would make the file useless) but the work is shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity, so de minimis may apply.
  4. Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the image subject, but is not essential to the subject (blacking it out would not make the file useless)
  5. Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable.
  6. Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is an unwanted intrusion to the image subject which unfortunately cannot easily be removed.
  7. Copyrighted work X is visible, but not identifiable
  8. the file is in use to illustrate X
  9. the file is categorised in relation to X
  10. X is referenced in the filename
  11. X is referenced in the description
  12. X cannot be removed from the file without making the file useless
  13. from other contextual clues (eg by comparison with a series of uploads by the same uploader) X is the reason for the creation of the file.
  14. A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out.
  15. If the existence of the poster makes the image more attractive, more usable, or liable to cause more than insignificant economic damage to the copyright owner, then a de minimis defence to a copyright-infringement action will probably fail.
  16. "[...]if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement[...]"

I have answered the questions in the undelteion request and the original DR so I skip them. The only two questions which could be considered against the image are 2) and 16). Some may consider the woman as main part of the image, some not - both points are about the topic, that the copyrighted part is somewhat essential to the image. If it really is an essential part of the image than the card with a man as cover would be completely useless and would have no educational value. The woman is replacable and the image could still be used to be an image on any Wikipage about the Radeon HD 5000 series video cards. I guess the reason why some people see the woman as main part (or center) of the image is because her head is right in the top left spot of the two-thirds rule (until today I didn't know that the image is cut that way). So if some people see the woman in the center they get fooled by the two-thirds proportion.
Let's look at this from a different view. If my image is not OK why are ANA B747-400D(JA8956) (3581611620).jpg, ANA B747-400D(JA8956) (4394180017).jpg and all similar images OK (I guess they will get a DR soon). Why is Palais du Louvre 47 2012-06-29.jpg OK, if half of the image a covered by the copyrighted pyramid of the Louvre. Why is Paris Disneyland 10 2012-06-26.jpg OK when it's showing 3D artwork in Disneyland (France does not have any FOP).
For concerns that anybody would not notice the copyrighted part, the image can be tagged with {{De minimis}} to prevent further crops.
Again a long post and I would like to hear from you about it! --D-Kuru (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no question that de minimis is largely subjective, but, again, the principal test in most countries, is whether the copyrighted work can be removed without the average user noticing the difference. Not whether it is the main subject, or occupies a particular fraction of the area, but whether its absence will be missed. Since that's clearly not the case here, the woman cannot be called de minimis. As for all of the other images you cite, please remember that we have more than 20 million images on Commons. My best guess is that at least 1% of them -- 200,000 images -- should be deleted, so feel free to hang a {{delete}} tag on the Disney mushroom, et al. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If the text is about the image's "essential part" then it is subjective, because different users see different things as essential to the image. Maybe not largely subjective but important parts are. "the principal test in most countries, is whether the copyrighted work can be removed without the average user noticing the difference" I can't find that anywhere! Where do you find that? --D-Kuru (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's what de minimis means -- a minimal thing, a trifle. See de minimis..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I read this page a few times and I know that. My question still is where on this all mighty de minimis page it says that "the principal test in most countries, is whether the copyrighted work can be removed without the average user noticing the difference" --D-Kuru (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, that's what de minimis means -- the thing is unimportant enough so it can be removed without the removal being noticed. My statement that you quote is a brief summary of the law in more than 100 countries, but that is not to say that those particular words appear anywhere -- certainly they do not appear in the laws, although the German law, quoted somewhere in this long discussion, is very close. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting different view on what de minimis means. en wikipedia says "De minimis is a Latin expression meaning about minimal things". Neither on the de minimis page on Commons nor in Wikipedia is there anywhere a place to find which says de minimis means that "the thing is unimportant enough so it can be removed without the removal being noticed". There is "de minimis non curat praetor ("The praetor does not concern himself with trifles")" and "de minimis non curat lex ("The law does not concern itself with trifles")" Trifle: In other words bagatelle, mere nothing or peanuts. That has nothing to do that it can be removed or that somebody has to notice anything.
"in more than 100 countries" where have you taken that from again? "is not to say that those particular words appear anywhere" if it's something like it I'm happy as well, but these words (or somthing close) arent't anywhere to find in the law or they would have been written down otherwise somewhere on Commons. --D-Kuru (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, those words don't appear anywhere -- that's a summary of my knowledge of the law in many countries and of my experience with the issue on Commons. I have probably deleted several thousand similar images with de minimis questions. Since my reversal rate is well under 1%, I guess that the community thinks that I have a good understanding of what is and what is not de minimis. That includes this one, which got a good discussion at UnDR, including several very experienced Admins who chose not to restore it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hola!Edit

Quisiera incluir imágenes de las monedas de euro en las páginas correspondientes para ello pero no se si no lo ha hecho algien antes porque esas imágenes estén protegidas por copyright... He buscado y no consigo saberlo... Podrias ayudarme jim? Gracias!--62.151.120.235 21:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Images of Euro coins cannot be kept on Commons because, as you say, they are copyrighted. You may be able to post them on some of the Wikipedias as "fair use" -- the rules are different from one language to the next. I am not even sure of how the "fair use" rules would apply on WP:EN and certainly don;t know anything about WP:ES, so I really cannot help. Sorry. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude on your talkpage, Jim, but I may be able to help. English Wikipedia has a category for such images → w:Category:Euro images, although the gallery is disabled so you have to click on each link to see the image. Spanish Wikipedia does not allow fair use images at all. They rely almost entirely on images from Commons. Hope that helps. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
"Intrusions" that are helpful are always welcome here -- don't apologize -- thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Schorborn Forsthaus.jpgEdit

You decided to keep this file. Of course you are right: it is not the same file as the newer one. On the other hand, in the old file nothing can be seen, that could not be seen on the newer file. So probably no one will ever use the old scan with the lower quality, dust on the scan etc. I just don't want to be the user with dozens of low quality images that are never used. In future, i have to think twice before uploading any photo of non-perfect quality, even if it is needed at the moment, if there is no possibility of replacing it, when better photos of the same object are uploaded. And I have to think twice about uploading another photo with better quality. --Dehio (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

We often keep more than one image of the same thing. In this case, I kept the older image because it showed the trees and shrubs, while the new image was apparently taken in winter. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@Dehio: - From an artist point of view the older version shows more atmosphere (ambiente). If the the other should be part of an architectural documentation it is sufficient only if it is levelled upright. Better to keep both for different purposes. --Maxxl2 - talk 14:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe if I'd had to make a decision, even I would have kept it. But I doubt whether it will ever be used anymore in Wikimedia projects, that's why I requested to delete it. @Maxxl2: I took the photo in 2004 because it showed more atmosphere than other Photos of this building in the internet and in books. Only Wikipedia doesn't need much atmosphere, but documentation. Everyone can improve and level upright the newer photo. If you want to do it, consider that the only upright things in this building are the windows. --Dehio (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Please remember that "But I doubt whether it will ever be used anymore in Wikimedia projects" is a far too narrow view -- Commons is a repository for the whole world, not just WP. Commons images of mine are in use as a refrigerator magnet, on a calendar, and on the web site of the Boston Globe as well as various other places on the Web. It is difficult to predict what images will be used and where. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please suggest how to replace Filaret_Kolessa_phonograph_cylinder_collectionEdit

Hi! Can you suggest how I should correctly implement what I was trying to do at Filaret_Kolessa_phonograph_cylinder_collection? The idea of the page was to display all the Kolessa phonograph recordings as a wikitable instead of <gallery>, in order to group them appropriately (sometimes one piece is represented in a sequence files) and to display some additional information and files like images of the cylinders etc. I.e. my plan was to create a page similar to Well-Tempered Clavier.

It was empty because I was just uploading the files and simply didn't yet manage to add them to the page. I also would be glad if the text of the page could be rescued somehow, because I haven't saved it anywhere else. --YurB (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the file as User:Юрій Булка/sandbox1. It is always better to create new pages in a sandbox so that all of the initial edits take place in space that you control, and then copy it to a mainspace page when you are ready. We get around 100 new galleries every day. Almost all of them -- perhaps 90% -- are either mistakes or vandalism, so we are fairly aggressive about deleting those that do not follow the rules.
Galleries should be in Gallery format, not Wikitables. You can do a lot with that -- see, for example, Lighthouses in Maine. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --YurB (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Need some clarificationEdit

Hello Jim, thank you for closing File:Lord Shiva.jpg deletion discussion and I'm sorry for being rude there. But I was wondering if you can clarify this words I suggest that you do not do any more work on Commons. which you have commented there. Thank you. Jim Cartar (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What I actually said was, "Unless you can lose the attitude, and learn a little more about copyrights, I suggest that you do not do any more work on Commons," which, I think, pretty much explains itself. Your aggressive attitude, threatening Eleassar in the DR and on his talk page wasted a lot of our time as did having to explain to you that sculptures of gods do, in fact, have copyrights and that the burden of proof is on you, as the uploader, not on the DR nom.
We all recognize that copyright is a complex subject and we try hard to be helpful to newbies, but I, and most of my colleagues, have little patience with newbies who make threats and waste our time. Your polite apology above goes a long way toward addressing my comment above -- if you keep that in mind, you'll do fine here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/01/Category:Female writers from the United StatesEdit

How do we deal with this? I suppose that the main objection is Why the norm must be "male" and the exception "female"?. Nonetheless I suppose that creating the correspondant category "Male" (I'm not only talking about American writers) would help the main category not to get overcrowded; in this case we can see them as "technical" categories, though I acknowledge that in such matter gender is not topic. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a very hard one. You're wrong either way. If you have a separate category for women (leaving aside athletes and the other areas where it is actually relevant), you are putting them in a ghetto, as one of the cited comments said. But you are also making it harder to find them and categories are supposed to be structured to help find things that outsiders are searching for. It might be a case where breaking the overcat rule would be good -- put them in both Cat:Writers and its subcat Cat:Female writers. The same is true of black writers and others.
Probably the best thing would be to split all such cats into male and female, but it's such a gray area that I have no interest in spending any effort on it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm loosely translated you are telling me that one can't either win or draw and neither quit the game.. :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying that I pick my controversial topics carefully and this isn't one I choose to spend time on. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


Juan Ramón Plana GalleryEdit

Hello Jim: I have created this gallery and suddenly it was deleted. I´m not very handful with images and wikipedia at all. You said this is just for images and no text. I agree with you, but please let me do it, now I don´t know how to begin the process, leaving just images. Thank you for your help --Madmentwo (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim, as I´m untrained, do you think that I can create again the page Juan Ramón Plana but taking off the text? thank you, --Madmentwo (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem was that because you did not use the gallery format correctly, the images did not show at all and I deleted it because it appeared to be a gallery without any images. I have fixed it. As you will see there, the gallery format looks like this:
<gallery>
File:FirstFile.jpg|caption1
File:SecondFile.jpg|caption2
File:ThirdFile.jpg|caption3
</gallery>
You do not use [[brackets around the filename]] or "thumb".
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Fastily#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hauinger Buurefasnacht 2014Edit

Hi Jim, hope you're well. A user has contested my closure of this DR on my talk page. This user won't take no for an answer (at least not from me), so if it's not too much trouble, would you be willing to evaluate and provide a third opinion? Thanks, FASTILY 08:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Happy to help. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! -FASTILY 08:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Re:Edit

It is a software error. Use the VCF and kicks well. I rarely command to remove manually. Occupy semi-automatic programs, as mentioned before. I do not know how it happened?. Best regards. ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 02:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

StatsEdit

Based on your comments earlier today, I ran some numbers fome here

(UNDEL/ DEL ) * 100 = Percentage reverted
( 3360 / 424103) 100 = 0.79% Fastily (biggest dog)
( 610 / 75575 ) 100 = 0.80% Jim Woodward (big dog)
( 12 / 1836 ) 100 = 0.65% Ellin Beltz (small kitten)

I feel a lot better, our ratios are all similar even if I'm no where near the number of edits as you all!! I aim a beautiful rainbow ray of sunshine to you for all you do here. If there is something more I can do to clear the backlog than the poke poke poke I've been doing for the last month, please let me know! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Hi,
The number of UNDEL is the number of files an admin have undeleted, all included, not the number of his/her deletions which were undeleted. Just to be clear. ;) Regards, Yann (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Then where does the other UNDEL number come from? Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Where is the "other UNDEL number"? Yann (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Ellin, as Yann says, the Undel number on the database report is the number of Undeletions done by the Admin -- the number of times that an Admin has restored a file, any file -- and is unrelated to his or her deletions. What you'd like, I think, is the number of my deletions that were subsequently undeleted, but I don't think there's a report for that.
Several months ago, when Fastily was under nonsense pressure, I counted manually a lot of UnDRs -- getting both the number of UnDRs filed against Admins and the number of times that the Admin's deletion was reversed. That's where I get the fact that while Fastily actually has more UnDRs filed than the rest of us, the percentage of times he is reversed is less than average. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

YannEdit

Hi, could you please have a look and perhaps comment at [1]? I consider myself a good working editor here but feel concerned about Yann's actions. Thanks a lot. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a close call, particularly since a significant part of it is a coat of arms that is probably PD. I might have gone the other way on the closure, but it isn't worth fighting over..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Uploads more copyvios after nominationsEdit

Hi Jim: Could you look at this nomination and user uploads please? Seems as if the user continues to upload more of same after the deletion nomination, but doesn't reply to the nomination. There's nothing on his talk page but the deletion nomination notices either. I hope your day is going well. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You can post a note on his talk page or use the "notify this user" link which has "End copyvio - Give user a final warning because of previous copyright violations". Sometimes it takes a short block to get a newbie's attention. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I did it manually, because I couldn't find the "notify this user" link... Any clues? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Notify this user is in the tools menu in the left hand bar, about 12 down from the top. It's optional -- you have to enable it by checking the box at Preferences>Gadgets>User Messages. If you haven't done so, you might want to spend a while on that page figuring out what is useful for your mode of working. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

People of/People fromEdit

So all the instances I've seen of "from" being uses are wrong? Or are they holdovers from before the "of" guideline was enacted? Nightscream (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong? I'd hesitate to say that with any force. It's too subtle. If I'm traveling and someone asks, "Where are you from?", my response would be "I'm from Boston", but if I'm home (in Boston), I'd answer, "I was born and brought up in Chicago". If I were to categorize myself on Commons, I would use both "People of Chicago" and "People of Boston", but only "People from Chicago", not "People from Boston", even though I've lived in the Boston area for almost fifty years. I'm sure that other native speakers would disagree. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Historical marker – Florida Heritage SiteEdit

Hello, Jim. Ellin Beltz suggested that a question I posted at the village pump might be up your alley. If you get a chance, please could you take a look over there and offer your opinion? Much appreciated. – Wdchk (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much for answering, I knew you had that one on the tip of your tongue. FYI, for California State Historical Markers, the bear is DW from the bear on the California state flag. I have since learned who the artist and the sewing creator of the California state flag were and they're both dead quite long enough for that bear to be PD.  :) Just sayin' for when you get to the Golden State. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Your help on a few thingsEdit

Hi Jim! I have a couple things which need help. This first gallery of a user, has stuff that looks old, but it all has "self" licenses see here and the second thing is that I couldn't find where to close "Files in Category:2010 Comic-Con International" this deletion request. It didn't print right on the main page for that day and is one of the few items holding that page open. Third item is this file where an uploader totally unclear on the concept overwrote a large good quality image with a small crummy one. He really doesn't seem to know how to use editing software, he finds big good images and turns them tiny. Thank you for all your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

1) I suggest you do a mass DR of the cat Category:Lo mas sublime (film 1927) -- VisualFileChange will make that easy. Then see what else you have. It is, of course, possible that all the relevant people died before 1944, so perhaps the film is PD, but I wouldn't bet on it. Also, Spanish works by authors who died before 1987 are covered by the 1879 law. The definition of covered works is very broad, so I'll guess that movies are covered, but since they were invented post 1879, I might be wrong. See http://www.derecho-internet.org/node/365 Article 1.

2) DelReqHandler does not work when the DR is the second (or more) time around, so you have to close it by hand. Add {{delh}} at the top of the new one DR, type four hyphens at the bottom (which sets as a rule (typographer jargon for "line"), type your comment and four tildes, and then add {{delf}} at the bottom. DelReqHandler is new since I became an Admin -- we used to have to do them all this way.

3) Please try to educate him on the use of "thumb" and other resizing-on-the-fly tools. To get the original image back, go down to File History and click on "revert" in the second box in the bottom row.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


From yesterday's queries... (1) has been mass DR'd, (2) I closed the discussion exactly as you said, and it worked, (3) aha! that's how it's done! Again thank you for all your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again! One more [2]'s user page is 100% about himself. What happens to those? His picture was missing permissions. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I have little patience with User Pages of people who have done nothing here except create a user page, so I would probably delete it on sight as a violation of COM:ADVERT. If you're not feeling quite so bold, you could just hang a DR on it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
DR'd with COM:ADVERT, thank you for the advice. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Problem or not?Edit

Hi Jim,

Had planned on uploading this Sharon Tate photo but I see Corbis has it claiming copyright to John Springer Collection. Springer was a collector of various celebrity photos and not AFAIK, a photographer. The actual owner of the photo is 20th Century Fox and you can see there are no marks front or back. Conversely, we have File:Sharon tate still.jpg and its derivative File:Sharon tate still-2.jpg at Getty with the implication there's a copyright-" Getty Images provides access rights only and does not license the copyright in the image." The site it was taken from says, "We've spent a lot of time preparing these scans, so please don't use them for personal gain. You're free to download them, but that's it. Please send us an email if you would like to use any photos or other content on our site for commercial purposes." Thanks for help, We hope (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Publicity stills are a complicated and difficult area that I have not done much with. I'm inclined to ignore DoctorMacro's claim, because preparing scans does not give them a copyright -- in fact, their claim probably qualifies as copyfraud. However the question of whether the underlying image is PD or not is one I'm not qualified to tackle. Sorry I can;t help more. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Jim, We hope (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this the same as the image deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohenjo-daro.jpg?Edit

Mohenjo-daro.jpg

. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No. It's almost exactly the same angle, but the deleted image was taken from a point closer to the pit, over the fence rather than through it, and the people in the background are different.
The uploader has uploaded quite a few images, all taken with an Olympus XZ-1 and all good sized, so I see no reason to doubt that they are, in fact, his own work..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Great, I'm glad to hear that as it's a nice image. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

New curiosityEdit

Hi Jim: I found [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_with_PD-Denmark50_but_no_explanation_why_the_photograph_is_public_domain_in_the_United_States_-_exempt this category]. Reviewing several of the images, someone has done a really good job on adding all those PD-US-1996 tags but the images still show in that category with the warning attached. I looked at the files in edit and I can't see where the hidden category is that keeps an image in that category even after the US tags were added. Any advice? As always, thanking you for all your hard volunteering. (Esp. riding herd on me, now that INC is gone!) Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked at two or three and they are in Category:Media with PD-Denmark50 but no explanation why the photograph is public domain in the United States - exempt. I don't think there is anything magic about it -- the person who added the US tag just didn't remove the other. With the URAA changes I'm not sure what should happen to these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Then I shall just leave them! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cocoa Processing Company Building (Cocoa Silo).jpg‎Edit

Hi Jim,

I don't understand your comment there. Either there is a copyright on this industrial building, or there is none. You seem to say that there is a copyright, but then you closed the DR as kept. This doesn't seem logical to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. All buildings, industrial or not, have copyrights, but this is a silo, which is not a building for copyright purposes. It's in the same category as a water tank or a fuel tank -- actually, it's a tank for cocoa, so the comparison is good. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clarification. BTW, do you know any court case where an ordinary industrial building has a copyright? Never seen a DR about that here, although we have numerous recent images of them, even when there is no FOP, nor a citation. Yann (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
No, but I rely on the simple meaning of the words. In almost all countries, "architecture" has a copyright. It is explicitly called out in the various laws because architecture is utilitarian and therefore would not have a copyright without its explicit mention -- it did not have a copyright in the USA until 1991. "Architecture" covers all buildings. Just as there is no requirement for quality in a painting -- any painting created by a human has a copyright -- there is no requirement for quality in architecture. A building is sufficiently complex so that originality is always present, unless, of course, it is an exact copy. The US law is quite explicit -- all architecture has a copyright, but not details such as stock windows and doors. In the US, architectural plan books of very simple houses have a copyright, which has been enforced. I don't see any basis for your argument that industrial buildings, or simple buildings, don't have a copyright and, except for one case, of very simple modular houses in the EU, no one has been able to cite any case law to support you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
If you don't have any court case to cite, my interpretation is as valid as yours. Your interpretation is based on US law, but it is certainly not valid everywhere, and I am not even sure it is a correct interpretation of US law. In most countries, originality is the first requirement to get a copyright. This is also true in US law. I am not sure how this applies to architecture in US law, but I don't see why architecture would be exempted from this requirement. At least in France, and I am quite sure in some other countries, the threshold of originality applies to architecture. Of course, this threshold is different according to the local interpretation of originality, and in US law, the threshold is much higher than say in UK. So in most cases, a purely utilitarian building does not get a copyright, because the same utility requirement would produce the same building. I think it applies to factories (like File:Pierre Bénite PUK1.JPG) and shopping malls like (File:Romilly-sur-Seine - Centre commercial Le Marais.jpg). This is quite different than buildings created for lodging (or other purposes), whre architectural creativity takes a much bigger part. I am ready to be proved wrong, if you have some counter-examples. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You have come to the principal reason that I don't push back against those of your closings with which I disagree. I think I'm right, because any building design requires much work, however much a non-architect may think it is similar to another building. I think that by definition any building that isn't a direct copy from the same drawings is original. It is not correct that the same utility requirements will produce the same building -- no two sites are the same, they differ in ground conditions, sun exposure, noise exposure, wind exposure, and budgetary limitations. However, I realize that the whole subject of copyright brings out strange court decisions and laws. Since the only copyright laws I am really truly experienced with are the USA, where FOP covers buildings, I don't fight what I see as mistakes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, since you mentioned paintings in your previous message, threshold of originality also applies to paintings. Carl L. said that most works by Gene Davis would probably not get a copyright because of lack of originality. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I respect Carl and that surprises me -- would you please give me a link to his comment? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Last modified on 19 April 2014, at 10:11