Open main menu
This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page archive.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself. The original talk page is located at

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Hanns Diehl illustrations

Hi Jim:

Regarding I think that I've found out how to do what's necessary.

Open-source Ticket Request System. If the owner of the art sends an email to, on which she says that she owns it and that she has given me permission to upload it as open source, public domain (we can figure out which of the attribution categories she'd like), we can upload it and use it on a Wikipedia page. Please, don't tell me we need to attach a copy of the artist's will to prove that she has the necessary rights.

Thanks, George

An earlier nessage:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by George.boeck (talk • contribs) 13:07, 01 January 2016 (UTC)

You pointed out that my photographs of Diehl's art don't count as something owned. Okay, no worries. The owners of the art want images of it placed on Wiki Commons so I can illustrate an article I have uploaded to Wikipedia about Hanns Diehl. The art exists as paintings and photos. They have never been published before. Is there a way to edit the deleted pages, indicating that the owners of the images wish them to be freely available? It doesn't look like it. Darn! To see how it works I uploaded a photo my wife took: [[1]]. Here's how the page looks in Edit:


English: Photograph of the side of the Theater An Der Josefstadt in Vienna.

|date=2016-01-01 |source=This photograph is owned by Erika Esau who took the picture. It has never been published previously. |author=Erika Esau |permission=

How do I indicate that I have permission to upload it? Am I making this more complicated than I need to?

As ever, thanks for you help and patience, George.boeck

First, although we will probably ignore it, your uploading an image that your wife took is a copyright violation. In every case where the upload is not either PD or the uploader's own creation, we require a free license from the actual creator via OTRS.
As for the more general problem with images of Diehl and his work, as I said at UnDR, owning a photograph (paper or digital) or a painting does not make you the owner of the copyright and gives you no right to freely license the work. So, in order to have the photographs of Diehl on Commons, you must have the actual photographers or their heirs send free licenses to OTRS. To have images of his paintings here, you must get Diehl's heirs to send a free license.
If that is not possible, you could wait a year -- since Diehl died in 1946, his paintings go into the Public Domain on 1/1/2017. For both the paintings and the photos you could use WP:EN's Fair Use rule. That would not allow use of more than one or two paintings, but that's better than none.
If you have further questions, please feel very free to ask them -- copyright is a very complex subject and Commons can be a difficult place for newcomers who do not ask for help. Although in most ways the fact that we get 10,000 new images every day is a blessing, the fact that 2,000 of them must be deleted makes a lot of work for a very limited number of volunteers. As a result, we tend to work too fast and be too cryptic. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
First, As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion).
Second, please put new messages at the bottom of the thread -- you inserted something above that I think I dealt with above, but I will repeat it here to be sure:
Owning a copyrighted work -- sculpture, painting, photograph, book, CD -- does not give you the right to freely license it to others. You certainly understand that you cannot make and sell copies of books or CDs and the same rule applies to all other copyrighted works. Therefore the owners of Diehl's works do not have the right to license them for use on Commons. That right belongs solely to Diehl's heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

  Classical, but still... thank you for your work on Commons! Yann (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The traditional greeting

  Dear friend
Happy New Year and best wishes!! Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Madelgarius

Madame, Monsieur,

Je m'aperçois que vous avez proposé à la suppression une cinquantaine d'images téléversées par Madelgarius, dont certaines tirées d'ouvrages anciens. Je remarque, par exemple, cette gravure File:Pierre-Joseph Braemt (1864).jpg qui est tirée d'un article publié en janvier 1865 par Edmond De Busscher [2]. Il est impossible, sauf si l'auteur aurait publié cet article à un âge improbablement bas et était mort à un âge improbable élevé pour l'époque, qu'il soit mort depuis moins de 70 ans, délais légal pour que l'article et l'image (non signée) soit dans le domaine public.

Je vous invite donc à revoir au cas par cas cette liste.

En attendant votre réponse, je vous prie d'agréer, Madame, Monsieur, mes salutations respectueuses.

--H2O(talk) 20:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Leonidruss

Two files were not deleted. Please take a look. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Grandourse

Hello Jim,
You are right, Chantal Legendre gave me the authorization to fair use his photography's in Wiki Commons, but it was a verbal agreement only. I understand now I have to abide laws, so I will ask her to send to OTRS all the necessary licenses to be able to publish legally his pictures in the Wikipedia. Would CC-BY-SA 3.0 be ok ?
Is there something else I should do ?

Concerning the portrait in the infobox, she would prefer a smaller size, the wide one being kind of arrogant, showing a lack of decency, I hope you to agree with her, thank you.

Guilty Grandourse --Grandourse (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The selection of the image and its size at Chantal Legendre is entirely up to the editors at WP:FR -- it's not my decision. I deleted the three smaller versions of the file because Commons much prefers to have the largest possible size of images -- up to 100MB for an ordinary JPG. WMF software can then rescale the image on the fly to any smaller size that's wanted.
She can send one license to OTRS for all eight of the files -- please be sure to have her list them all using the file names at Category:Chantal Legendre. If you let me know after she sends the e-mail, I can speed up the approval process.CC-BY-SA 3.0 is fine. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear answer Jim,
I will let you know when it will have been sent to OTRS.
Things will be much better this way, so thank you again.
Grandourse --Grandourse (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jim,
A new chapter in the story : Chantal Legendre is not sure about the rights she owns on the actual pictures, those with true rights and those with only fair use. So she decided to make a new series of photos with her own camera, to be certain she owns all the rights. The paintings and sculptures are from her hands obviously.
I have tried to pull out the actual pictures from the Wikipedia article, with no success. Because the rights of these pictures are not definitely improved I do think now that it would be better to delete them from the Wiki Commons, but I know I am not allowed to do this. What do you think I should do ?
When I will have the new bunch of pictures, I will import them into Wiki Commons, and Chantal Legendre will send to OTRS a declaration of authorization about the new files. I will let you know, of course.
I beg your pardon about all these misgivings, I am a beginner, this is my first article in the Wikipedia, but I'm learning, thank you.

Grandourse --Grandourse (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Grandourse, please advise her that photographs of paintings do not have a copyright of their own -- the only copyright that concerns us at Commons for such photographs is that belong to her for the painting itself. There is therefore no need to redo any of the photos of the paintings -- it would be better and easier all around if you did not do so. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jim,
I am trying my best possible English, but my practice is poor, so I believe my last message was not clear enough to you.
Chantal Legendre was not very satisfied about the pictures I did choose into her library. This is also the reason why she decided to show better pictures of her works, and she is shooting them actually, they will be different ones than those contained into Commons, and taken by her own camera. They will show more homogeny inside her art and will better serve the Wikipedia article she said. I am trusting her advice, she is the artist, such am I not.
When she will send me all the new photographs, I will stare at them first and if it seems ok, I will import them into Commons, and I will advise you, and she will send the OTRS declaration.
Does it look convenient like this ?
God gracious, Wikipedia is not so easy at all, but I perfectly understand why.
Thanks for your amiable guidance, and let us go on.

Grandourse --Grandourse (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Your English is fine -- my understanding of your message above is that she was worried about whether she had copyright to the images. Now I understand that her concern is that the photos are not as good as they might be. If she wants to take new photos, that's fine, but, as I said above, she should not do it for copyright reasons.
Make sure that when she sends the e-mail to OTRS she is clear that she is both the photographer and the painter. Since the photos will not have a copyright, that is not vital, but the fact that she is licensing the paintings is. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Bonjour Jim,
Chantal Legendre sent me the new pictures she made of her works, and yes, they are much better than the one I did choose myself, I have imported them into Commons so I can put them in the Wikipedia article. If ever you look at it, I believe you would agree.
I told her to specify to OTRS (the .fr side) she was the author of the works and the pictures too, like you said to me. I hope it will be ok.
I thank you much for your help, I must tell you that having a polite and sociable exchange is a nice pleasure. I hope I won't worry you again, but in case, be sure I will dare to do it, because of your helpful instructions, thank you again.
Grandourse --Grandourse (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


Hi James, I need some help. I just saw this and I'm having issues with some OTRS files that I handled. If you check the files uploaded by the user (I didn't handled all of them) some seems to be the same case as File:Chianciano Museum.jpg. Even the if the sculptures creator it's related with the photographer, it still derivative work? KrAngus Guilherme¶ 11:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you read COM:FOP. As you will see there, the rules vary widely from country to country. Although the files don't say, the sculptor is from Denmark, so it's a good assumption that the sculpture is in Denmark. In Scandinavia, in Denmark, Finland, and Norway FOP applies only to architecture, while Sweden is much broader, allowing it for all artistic works. I've hung a {{Delete}} tag on his uploads. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!Angus Guilherme¶ 11:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Take a look on the other files uploaded by the user. There's about 20 others tickets on the OTRS queue. These that I handled I merged then. I just sent an email asking for the permission from the sculptures author; Would it fix the problem with derivative work? Angus Guilherme¶ 12:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I've tagged all of his uploads, save one for no valid permission. The OTRS messages that I read were all from a g-mail address, not directly from the creator (or heirs of the creator) of any of the works shown. To keep them we will need licenses from the creators or the heirs, sent directly from the creator (or heir) to OTRS. I've seen too many forgeries to accept anything less -- these are usually fans who want to ignore copyright in order for their favorite artist to be shown on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sinar7.jpg

Hi Jim, you might also want to close the one at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sinar8b.jpg. De728631 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Myrotvorets-Krym1.jpg

Hi Jameslwoodward, did you forgot to delete the file in this case?--Wdwd (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Thanks. Admins use a script, DelReqHandler, for closing DRs, and sometimes it hiccups and leaves things undone. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Samarkand photocollage.jpg

Hi! You deleted the following photocollage according to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Uzbekistan. Ergo, the buildings in the photocollage are medieval and built before 1917, of course. --Ochilov (diskuto) 13:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


In order to keep a collage, all of the files in it must be free. At least two of the images in this one are recent buildings. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Elliott Moglica, Toronto.jpg

Dear James,

Thanks for your time and contribution to Wikipedia.

I'm Edeard Moglica. I noticed you have deleted the photo "File:Elliott Moglica, Toronto.jpg". Please note that I have uploaded this photo and I'm the author of it. Thus, I contributed this photo to Wikipedia. Also, I have notified Wikipedia that this photo can be used by them. Now, since I have not published this photo to any newspaper, etc. - I have decided to gift this photo to Wikipedia. I As such, respectfully, I address you to allow this photo to be used by Wikipedia.

Thanks again for your time and consideration.



— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Although you have not logged in, I assume you are User:Poet.moglica . Since at least two of the works you uploaded were clearly copyright violations, all of your uploads were suspect. I don't understand who you are. Your username suggests that you are the poet, Elliott Moglica. Is that correct? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

20€ banknote photo DR

Now, that was weird. Is your fellow admin (and my fellow euro-user) @De728631: wrong? If so, an explanation, please? -- Tuválkin 18:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said in my closing comment, see Commons:Currency#Euro, where it says:
"On intangible reproductions (e.g. websites), the word SPECIMEN must be printed diagonally across the reproduction in Arial font or similar, in a non-transparent colour contrasting with the dominant colour of the note. The length of the word must be at least 75% of the length of the reproduction, and the height of the word must be at least 15% of the width of the reproduction. The resolution of the image must not exceed 72 dots per inch (dpi)."
The subject image is more than 72 dpi and does not have the word "specimen". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Did you also read how a reproduction is defined by the ECB? De728631 (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, read Commons:Currency#Euro. If, for some reason, that is wrong, then it needs to be changed before we consider this particular case. Until it is changed, Commons Admins are bound by its requirements -- that the image be no more than 72 DPI and that it be marked "SPECIMEN". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
(tpw) The Currency page is an essay rather than a policy or even a guideline. It attempts to summarise copyright law, but cannot be considered definitive, nor a community consensus, nor necessarily up to date. In this way administrators are not "bound" by it, nor should it set any black & white requirements (legal cases are rarely black & white). It should be considered, but administrators are free to interpret it, and in practice new cases of images being kept or deleted which may not easily align with the essay are a good thing, as those cases help push interpretation, may refresh the essay with new sources and improve understanding. -- (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The Wikimedia currency page might be an essay, but the section regarding the euro is a direct copy of this ECB page. The links on the ECB page suggest to me that the text concerned is law throughout the European Union. Martinvl (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The ECB writes also that "where there is no risk of confusing reproductions of euro banknotes with genuine euro banknotes however, such reproductions should be permitted." [3]. With the twisted note and the distorted view in the image you can't confuse an extract from this reproduction with a genuine banknote. Neither could you use a printout of the entire image to pay your bill. De728631 (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
You have repeatedly cited a 2003 PDF. The rules have changed since then, and, as Martinv points out, the current web page does not contain the words you keep repeating. Also, I don't see that the subject images are "twisted" as you describe them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think I've read somewhere that the word 'specimen' isn't needed if the copy is unusually big or small or not in tangible form, but I can't remember where. A digital copy is unlikely to be mixed up with a real banknote. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
That's correct -- see Commons:Currency#Euro. If you make a printed image of a banknote bigger than 125% or smaller than 75% then there is little risk of confusion and "SPECIMEN" is not required. But, since a digital image can be printed at any size, they require "SPECIMEN" and no more than 72 DPI to prevent using a good printer to print fakes from the digital file. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BGWItt

You removed the images due to what you referred to as lack of copyright. On one hand, I was told that the use of my copyrighted material was too close to what I had published. Then you tell me that my material isn't able to be determined to be under my right.

What do I need to do?

Please let me know, in an understandable message, with out a million redirects, how to include these images on my pages.

Brian Witt Shamrock Club of Wisconsin director of media

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BGWItt (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 January 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.
  • It is also a courtesy to cite a link to the image or images you are inquiring about. When you leave a message, the recipient should not have to do research to determine what you are talking about. Please remember that Commons gets about 10,000 uploads every day, of which about 2,000 must be deleted. Most of this work is done by 10 active Admins. One of us may have dealt with 1,000 images in the past week.

You have uploaded 13 images, a combination of scans of photographs and logos belong to various organizations. You claimed "own work" on all of them, but that seems unlikely to be correct. At least one of the images is a halftone, probably from a newspaper. All of them are small and none have EXIF data. It is fairly common for new editors to scan photographs that they own and upload them as their own work, hence our colleague's comment at the DR:

"No confidence that any of these images was created by uploader as claimed "self" on all uploads. This includes logos of various organizations, and parade photos from multiple years in the 1960s and 1970s. Looks more like an internet collection than own work."

Owning a copy of a photograph, either paper or digital, does not make you the owner of the copyright. That is almost always held by the photographer, his heirs, or, in at least one case of yours, the newspaper which published it. In order for an image to be "own work", you must be the actual photographer.

File:BGWStPatCurrachParade.jpg 1535x1000 is the only one of the lot that is large enough so it could be restored without change if you are actually the photographer.

Both of the following are very small and have no EXIF data. If you are actually the photographer, please upload them again at full camera resolution:

If you are the actual photographer of any of the older images, please rescan them at a higher resolution and upload them again.

For all of the images where you are not the actual photographer, a free license, using the procedure at OTRS, is required:

  • For the logos, the e-mail must be from an authorized official of the organization (usually a corporate officer)
  • For the newspaper image, the newspaper must send the e-mail
  • For the other photographs, the actual photographer must send the license. If a single photographer took more than one image, he may license them all with a single e-mail.

In the cases where the actual photographer is unknown, the procedure in the US to prove that the image is in the public domain depends on the source of the image, but in general it is difficult and unlikely to succeed.

I have tried to be understandable. I did use several links (which is what I assume you mean by "with out a million redirects"), but I see no point in reproducing a page or two of material here on a subject that you may or may not understand already -- it is far easier for us both to use a link.

If you have further questions, please ask them.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

El anillo del Capitán Beto

Hello Jim. I'm confused. You recently decided to delete a drawing made by me to illustrate the SP-WP article El anillo del Capitán Beto. Your argument was "Personal art has no place on Commons".

I don't know exactly what you mean about "personal art", but I saw a lot of drawings in WMC, Jim. Due to the restrictions about copyrighted images, sometimes the only way to illustrate an article is by making a drawing. Can you explain this rule to me, please? Kind regards,--Roblespepe (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I have read the article El anillo del Capitán Beto, but I'm not sure whether an actual ring exists or not -- all it says at the article is that Ariel Rojo Rolando created a drawing of it in 1978.
So, your drawing falls into one or the other of two places:
  • If it is a copy of the 1978 drawing or of any actual creation of a physical ring, then it infringes on that copyright and cannot be kept on Commons with a license from the creator.
  • On the other hand, if you drew it from your imagination, as described in the song, then it is personal art. Commons policy is that we do not keep personal art from non-notable artists. The drawing I deleted looks not like the ring itself, but like the front of the bus, with the driver wearing a prominent gold ring.
Of course, I may be missing something in translation here. If so, please explain. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok Jim. I drew it from my imagination to illustrate the article. So Jim, we can't use drawings if we aren`t artists, but we can use photographs without been artists? I'm not discussing the policy but I don`t see the point, if the goal is to illustrate a Wikipedia article. :-) Don't pay me atention, I'm only snarling. Thanks for your time, Jim--Roblespepe (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Whatever is photographed must have an educational purpose. While there may be photographic skill and creation in a photograph, there is not the photographer's imagination. Photographs that are personal art -- that do draw on the photographers imagination -- are not permitted either. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) On that note I'd like to point out that fan art is actually allowed on Commons to a certain extent. Based on individual considerations of the image, it may be used if
  • "It is realistically useful for an educational purpose, as required by our project scope (note that "self-created artwork without obvious educational use" is specifically excluded);
  • It does not breach any copyright owned by the rights owner."
In this case I would agree though that a mere illustration of the article is not sufficient to keep your file because imho it doesn't add to the educational value of the text. De728631 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Καρτ ποστάλ Ασπιώτη

Hello. I strongly disagree that the gallery Καρτ ποστάλ Ασπιώτη is "out of out of project scope" per your deletion summary.

  • Per Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories "Allowable content includes: Educationally useful, classified collections of images or other files, along with small amounts of explanatory text."
  • Per Commons:Galleries "Galleries exist to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons"

The gallery Καρτ ποστάλ Ασπιώτη fits perfectly in these policies: structured collection of classified images, provided by a GLAM. It is not and cannot be an encyclopedic article: it is a structured gallery.

Please undelete the gallery Καρτ ποστάλ Ασπιώτη, and nominate it for a regular deletion if you still think it is out of scope. -Geraki TLG 14:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. We have a communication problem here. Since User:Actia Nicopolis created both the Greek language gallery you cite above and the English language version which is now User:Actia Nicopolis/Postcards by Aspiotis, I left him a message on his talk page explaining that he could transform the gallery into an acceptable format fairly easily, see, for example Lighthouses in Maine.

I see that you recreated the gallery -- a violation of Commons policy. Note that two different experienced Commons Admins reached the same conclusion about the format -- that it is not used on Commons.

Your comment:

"It is not and cannot be an encyclopedic article: it is a structured gallery."

has hundreds, maybe thousands, of counter examples on WP:EN.

Therefore I think that the Greek language version should appear on WP:GR and the English version on WP:EN.

As I also said on his talk page, you can't have two Commons galleries that differ only by language, so even if your rationale is correct, you must pick whether you want this one or the one at User:Actia Nicopolis/Postcards by Aspiotis. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. I was not aware that User:Actia Nicopolis created two language versions of the gallery. The one that you deleted was multilingual with english and greek descriptions (as per Commons:Galleries#Starting_a_gallery) with only the title in Greek (as per Commons:Galleries#Naming_conventions) and of course the original captions.
  2. The page was speedy deleted, although I had asked in a summary that if someone still believes it is out of scope to nominate it for regular deletion. I would expect that courtesy, and if it was me, as an admin in WP for the last ten years, I would grant such a request.
  3. You give WP:EN examples of lists of notable items (accompanied with images, but not lists of images). These postcards are not notable as seperate topics (the publisher is, and there is an article about him), and this gallery would fall under en:WP:NOTGALLERY and en:WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
  4. But the case is not about Wikipedia but Commons. Beyond examples of some majority format of galleries, there are more in Commons:Galleries#Examples and among them Cloud. The format of a gallery depends on the subject, and how it can become useful and not something that does not have many advantages over some category. I am not aware of a policy about an obligatory format for Commons galleries. On the contrary: Telling us that we should remove descriptional text making the collection less meaningful, and maybe replacing the table of images with just a series of images, making it less structured, would bring it far from the scope of existence of Galleries.

--Geraki TLG 22:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the only substantive response I will make here is to your #2. Aside from whether it was an appropriate Commons Gallery, the page had two problems -- it was identical to the English version except for the language and it was a page that had been deleted and then recreated. Both of those are reasons for a {{Speedy}}. As for the overall question, as you well know, Other Stuff Exists is never a good reason for keeping anything -- I would guess that at least 1% of Commons pages -- more than a quarter million -- should be deleted. If you wish, you may take the question to Commons:Undeletion requests, where I will oppose it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

About the two problems: 1) since you moved the "english" version in user namespace, then the multilingual was not "identical" with some other gallery in page namespace. Recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus is a reason for speedy (COM:CSD), but this gallery was previously deleted as speedy not a community discussion. BTW this "other stuff" is still an example in an official policy and I don't see it speedy deleted or nominated for deletion.   -Geraki TLG 14:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

image deletion (NehalDaveND)

here you can see what was I trying to say. But User:Ellin Beltz is not responding. He wrote A) and B) after that he didn't reply single word so how I can solve the problem in image ?
His points are -

(A) A series of devotional pages, with words superimposed on unsourced images claimed as own work and clearly not. (B) A series of images all of Facebook size of World Yoga Day from widely varying locations. I do not think it was possible for a single photographer to get these locations on a single day. No metadata on the yoga pictures, even though user had upload series of other photos with a camera which reported metadata prior to these uploads.
My answers are -

  1.  : I can't understand your point. What is the problem in these images ? I had made these images in my computer with my knowledge. I didn't take this text or image from any third person. This is the open source. This is very harmful if you delete images without any reason. Please tell me in detail what is the problem in these images.
  2. Yoga day in whole Gujarat and India done very well. Before that day I called my friend and old colleagues to give me images of Yoga Day. I told them Please upload your images on faceook I will take those images from there. Ex. File:शालायां योगः.jpg here first man who wear red shirt. He is my friend Drumil Pandya. In his friend list you can see my name NehalDaveND. Like this I took images from my friends. Please tell me what is wrong in this?

NehalDaveND (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

1) First, the images consist of text over pictures. You did not indicate the source of either the text or the pictures, both of which have a copyright. Second -- they are out of scope -- personal art works created by uploaders are not permitted on Commons, see COM:SCOPE.

2) As for the Yoga Day images, as Ellin suspected, you were not the photographer. Each of your friends owns the copyright to the image that he or she took -- they are not "own work" as you claimed. I also think they are out of scope -- a non notable group of people in an unidentified place doing yoga does not serve any educational purpose. In order to have them restored each of the actual photographers would have to send a free license to OTRS. Each photographer would have to show that the location was a "public place" within the meaning of Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#India, and you would have to convince the community that they are in scope.

And, by the way. Ellin Beltz is a woman. It is polite when you do not know to say "His or her" rather than just "His". She never saw your comments on your talk page. As it clearly says in the notice box on your talk page:

"Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry."

Because you ignored that instruction, your comment was not seen by anyone. Please understand that Commons gets about 10,000 new images every day. We must delete around 2,000 of them for various reasons. About a dozen editors, including Ellin and me, do most of that work, so we work very fast and do not go searching for explanations from editors who do not comment at the Deletion Request. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fur. The Full Saga, 2004, book cover

Hello Jim, I do not understand your argumentation, maybe it's my bad English:

This is not the actual book cover, so it misrepresents the work and is inappropriate.
The image is a part of a documentation about fur literature. Why is this not the actual book cover? Thank you. -- Kürschner (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Because it has been pixelated. There is no possible educational use for a fake or pixelated book cover. Use of this image would misrepresent the book and possible be actionable in some countries. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright for time lapse video

Hi, I wanted to ask about Commons:Deletion requests/File:ThePavilionAtOleMissConstruction.PNG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ThePavilionInterior1.PNG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:ThePavilionAtOleMissNight1.PNG. I'm surprised by the assertion that there's no copyright for unmanned devices, because extending that logic, wouldn't it also holt that there's no copyright for photographs shot on timer or any photographs that are part of a burst sequence (not to mention the fact that the uploader likely took stills from an edited video, not the raw footage). This isn't like the w:Monkey selfie where a photograph was produced by accident - it was the school's intent to film the progress of the arena's construction, and you'll see that the camera moves into the building once the exterior is complete. Thanks for your time. Ytoyoda (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, We usually consider video surveillance camera footage to be exempted from copyright. I don't know if this is permanent enough to be in the same category. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
As I said in the closing comment, there is no case law on the subject in the US. There is a case in the UK that went the other way, but it has been heavily criticized. It is apparently clear that in the EU there would be no copyright. See Threshold of originality for a summary on the subject. In this case, it is clear that some editing has been done -- there is no footage of nighttime or of days when nothing was happening, presumably weekends and holidays. I don't think qualifies as creative, as it easily could be done by a timer, photocell, and/or motion detector. Moving the camera once is also not creative. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that link - I had a hard time finding discussions about unmanned cameras online (that didn't involve the monkey selfie, anyway), and except an attorney advising an owner of a time lapse video to seek royalties from reuse, though that should obviously be taken with a grain of salt. Ytoyoda (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. I changed the license to {{PD-ineligible}}. I will upload the whole video then: File:The Pavilion at Ole Miss construction time-lapse.webm. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Jim, you are misunderstanding European law:
  • If a film meets the threshold of originality, then the film is protected as a cinematographic work for 70 years after the death of certain people. If the film was created before implementation of the w:Copyright Duration Directive, then the copyright term is sometimes extended in some countries because of complex rules in older copyright laws. It is unlikely that a film from the surveillance camera would meet the threshold of originality, so such films would typically only be subject to some of the other rights. Note that the page you are linking to on English Wikipedia only discusses this right.
  • If the film contains a 'video recording', then the video track is protected from 50 years from publication of the video recording, or for 50 years from the first fixation of the video recording if not published before then. This right is not based on originality, so a film created by a surveillance camera would typically be subject to this right as long as the film has a 'producer'. I'm not sure who the producer would typically be, though. The person who set up the camera? The person who ordered that person to set up the camera? Someone else? An animated film doesn't seem to be a 'video recording' and therefore doesn't seem to be subject to this right. I don't know if this right is applicable if you only use individual film stills from a film.
  • If the film contains an audio track, then the audio track is protected for 70 years from publication, or from 70 years from the first fixation of the audio track if not published before then. There is some suggestion somewhere in an EU document that the duration of this right is extended to the term of the cinematographic work if the film as a whole meets the threshold of originality, so the shorter term might only be applicable in the event that the film doesn't meet the threshold of originality. This right is also subject to the requirement that a 'producer' exists.
  • In some countries, individual film frames are protected as 'photographic images', with different copyright terms in different countries. This right is also subject to the requirement that a 'producer' exists. It is possible that some countries only grant this right to film frames which don't meet the threshold of originality as film frames which meet the threshold of originality are protected under a different article in the copyright laws. Also, most EU countries do not seem to have this photo right at all.
The four different rights may also have different rights holders, making it complex to obtain a permission to use the film.
Stefan, I'm just quoting from the case book cited above :
"In the law of continental European countries, according to Pascal Kamina, there is "little doubt that 'works' such as security camera videos would not satisfy" the requirement of originality."
If you think that's wrong, then it needs fixing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
That section only discusses the part of copyright protection which depends on originality. You also need to consider whether some material is subject to protection under one of the other rights which is not based on originality. Originality alone is an imperfect criterion for establishing if it is useful to protect something by copyright. In the United States, the solution has been to use a very irregular originality criterion (which thus doesn't only consider whether something is original). For example, File:Best Western logo.svg contains more originality than a typical photograph of a person or a building, yet it is only the photograph which is copyrighted in the United States. In Europe, the solution has been to use a more regular originality criterion but then create a lot of different neighbouring rights which protect certain non-original things which still need to be protected in one way or another. For example, a sound recording is by definition always non-original in Europe since there is only one way to record sound, and so sound recordings are protected by a neighbouring right instead. USA seems to use some kind of originality-based criterion in one way or another, although I have no idea how to apply that criterion since there really only is one way to record sound: by pressing a button on a machine. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
"since there really only is one way to record sound: by pressing a button on a machine." I suggest you try telling that to the person in charge of this monster. More seriously, even basic recording machines have treble and bass controls, so there is more adjustment possible than with a point and shoot camera. Also, I think the US rule is not based on the originality of the recording itself, but on that which is recorded. A speech or musical performance done without script or score (an off-the-cuff speech or a jazz player just creating as he plays) does not have a copyright unless and until it is fixed -- recorded or written down. So the copyright in the sound recording is based on the originality of the performance or whatever else is recorded, not the recording itself. Unfortunately, that line of reasoning breaks down if the source is not original -- bird songs, for example, but even those recordings can have copyright.
Back on point, if you think the WP:EN article I cited needs fixing, by all means do it. Until someone does, I and others will use it as a reference on this subject. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I need your advice

Dear Jim,

You proposed to delete these files:

I recently created a Wikipedia article about Robert Avakyan (Авакян Роберт Петросович) and placed his artworks.

Robert Avakyan is a well-known and talented artist who has created a large number of paintings, graphics and sculptures. He is also the author of many monuments.

All submitted images are the property of the author's family and placed with the consent of relatives.

Currently, the article is in the Wikipedia Incubator It will be made an English translation.

Tell me, please, how to sign the images that they have not been removed?

Thanks for your time and consideration.
Avakyan62 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Avakyan62, there are two issues here, copyright and notability.
You say that the images are the property of the author's family -- unfortunately, that is not relevant. The question which needs to be answered is who owns the copyrights to the various works? As a general rule, owning a work of art does not make you the owner of the copyright. That almost always remains with the artist. Since I see at Инкубатор:Роберт Петросович Авакян that Avakyan died in 2002, that means that one or more of his heirs is the owner of the copyrights. In order to answer the copyright question here, one of the copyright owners must send a free license to OTRS. The e-mail should include an explanation of why the writer is a copyright owner (son, daughter, named in the will, etc.).
As for the notability question, I have read a Google translation of the WP:RU article. It seems to me likely that his accomplishments will qualify him for an article there and at WP:EN, so, unless WP:RU rejects the article, that should not concern us.
However I note that you are the only author of the article at WP:RU. Your user name suggests that you may be related to the artist and may, therefore, as a family member have a financial interest in publicizing his work in order to make it more valuable. I don't know that rules on Conflict of Interest on WP:RU, but on WP:EN they are quite strict, and an article written by a family member would be unacceptable. At the very least, you must disclose your relationship (if any) on the article's talk page. See WP:COI. see below .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
(tpw) Hi, that's an interesting conclusion. Can you provide a link to Commons policy that could force the same response on Commons, or is this advice that will remain limited to actions on Wikipedia? Thanks -- (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Although I know that somewhere there is a Commons policy statement on COI, I found the following while searching for the Commons statement, so thank you for starting my search. See which sets forth five rules to be followed on all WMF projects. Unless Avakyan62 is completely unrelated to Robert Avakyan by blood, marriage, or financial ties, he is clearly in violation both here and on WP:RU. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd half forgotten about that consultation. It does not represent a policy for Commons as the community did not implement it, and it remains a (draft) version on meta with no projects as far as I am aware adopting it in that state, although the FDC uses it. As I recall it was a knee-jerk response by WMF legal to fuss in the press about Wikipedia in 2012/13. With hindsight in 2016, Wikimedia Commons should treat it with caution before justifying any administrator action on it, or advising contributors that they must follow it.
It may be worth raising on the Village Pump if you believe COI is an issue for Commons that needs a policy like this, as it might then turn into a proposal to establish the consensus. -- (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
As I said above, I think there is a Commons statement on the issue somewhere, but given that the WMF Board has set forth a global policy, I'm not sure anything specific to Commons is necessary, or even relevant, unless for some reason we wanted to set an even more restrictive policy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mount Hope Christian Center; Burlington, MA; back entrance, south side.JPG

You wrote "deleted" but kept the file and the rationale you gave implies that you meant to keep the file. Consider amending the rationale to avoid confusion. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks -- Admins use a script called DelReqHandler to close DRs. When you click "keep" on the file it moves the target for clicking "Keep" on the whole DR and sometimes when we're working fast, we end up clicking "Delete" for the DR when we meant "Keep". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Мои файлы

Я подал заявку на восстановление файлов загруженных мной прошу восстановить в личной пространство. --Bobyrr (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. I have commented at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#.D0.9C.D0.BE.D0.B8_.D1.84.D0.B0.D0.B9.D0.BB.D0.B0. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

File:DBI boardwalk.jpg

Thanks for flagging File:DBI boardwalk.jpg. I've been trying to keep my eye on that user, since they seem to not understand copyright & citing sources. Elisfkc (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Julio da Luz (4916705607).jpg

Hello Jim, sorry to disturb, but 2 files were not deleted in this DR. thanks. Rodrigolopes (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


We seem to have two entire musical albums and covers Category:The Simple Life (Josh Woodward album) and Category:The Wake (Josh Woodward album) by a non-notable artist. The only wiki article is on es:wiki but it's a little light on references. Do you think this was a promotional upload and do you think that some/all of it should be nominated for deletion? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Good question. I think that he is notable -- see the comments in the left column at I also think there is no copyright problem -- as noted there he puts CC-BY on his work.
The question is, do we want to be hosting music for the world? Or should we be leaving that to I think maybe this deserves a wider discussion -- at the Pump or at ANB.
BTW, as far as I know he is not closely related to me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Do you wish to start the wider discussion at the pump or ANB? Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
My Commons To Do list has far to many things on it already -- run with it, if you wish. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


Hi Jim, This is very useful. Could you please copy it somewhere in COM:FOP? Thanks a lot! Yann (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yann Where? We already have Commons:Freedom of panorama/table -- although I've always used mine for quick reference, Commons:Freedom of panorama/table may actually be easier to use, because it's in alpha order. Of course mine has 31 more countries, but we can fix that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


Hello, for countries which museums are considered as public space and where the FoP can apply stay the distinction between permanent exhibition and temporary exhibition. In most case FoP should apply only for the first case. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

An artist exhibited in such a museum during 2 weeks or one month should not see his work fall in PD IMO, and a lot of museums have areas for temporary exhibitions. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I assumed that it had to be a permanent installation unless otherwise noted (Kenya, Thailand), but I've added a note. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of images: Mod1aa.jpg + Mod2a.jpg

Hello James

Realised that you have recently removed two images of mine Mod1aa.jpg Mod2a.jpg.

Unfortunately I'm not on wikipedia everyday to reply to disputes by others.

Reason given was "a screen shot is obviously not the work of the uploader so they cannot provide a valid licence"

Some context, these are personal mail boxes of members who faced disciplinary action. Mail boxes only accessible by the affected indviduals and the sites's direct administrators.

These images were given to me personally by the affected members to include in the write-up of the incident and the license given to me to use them.

Kindly restore them please.

Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salientcat (talk • contribs) 07:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so. In the first place, neither you nor the members involved own the copyright to the words and icons shown on the screens, so they are both copyright violations. Second, they are out of scope, having no general educational value. Commons does not exist to provide public hosting of files that you might need to settle these off-Commons disputes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello James

Appreciate the time taken to address the issue. Acknowledged on the icons issue which i concede as more than fair.

Educational value wise, they exist as substantiation to otherwise colloquial claims on my country's biggest forum over freedom-of-speech restrictions, as articles of provenance.

However acknowledge your request on not to burden the Common's database. Seeing how the situation is similar to Reddit Controversies, I'll be following the format used on the Reddit Wikipedia page and kindly request that links pertaining to it remain so.

Thank you again

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salientcat (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Salientcat, I don't understand "kindly request that links pertaining to it remain so". Please explain. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi !


You deleted recently the decorative image of the french portal of the Palaeontology

and some others. Logically, if the composition of the portal isn't OK, all this images aren't OK and must be deleted, and also this other one

"sister image" of Paléo1.jpg, decorative image of the french portal of the Evolution, also created 2006 by Elapied with some images uploaded in Commons by other contributors until 2006. Wishes, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC) (retired)

No. The problem with File:Paléo1.jpg is that Commons policy requires that for composite images, each of the constituent images must be listed in the file description with the credit due to the photographer. As you see from my markup of your list above, all but one of the constituents of the deleted composite were CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, so posting the composite without credits was a copyright violation. We delete copyright violations. It is embarrassing to note how long this was posted without being deleted.

On the other hand, File:OEV6.jpg has its constituents correctly listed and credited, so it is fine. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Denis Gusev - Neva Pro Show.jpg

Здравствуйте! Вами был оставлен файл File:Denis Gusev - Neva Pro Show.jpg, в EXIF-данных которого указано, что он был изменён 25.12.2015. Здесь файл был размещён 09.11.2015 с логотипом «VАNАKOV» и на фото, размещённой в Википедии явно видно затушёвывание надписи. С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see that the file appears elsewhere. It would have been helpful if you had said that in the DR, instead of your rather cryptic message there.
I don't read Russian and while I think Google did OK with your message above, it is not helping me at all at I am going to ask for help from my colleagues who read Russian.
User:EugeneZelenko|Eugene, User:George Chernilevsky|George, User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter , will one of you do whatever you think is best in this case? Thanks very much. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks indeed that the file was uploaded to the external website with a logo two days after it was shot; subsequently, the logo was removed, and the file was uploaded to Commons. The name of the uploader is the same as the name of the person in the picture. I would say we need OTRS, and as far as I am concerned the file can be deleted until OTRS has been sent.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guggenheim-Helsinki-Design-Competition-gh.jpg


You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guggenheim-Helsinki-Design-Competition-gh.jpg as "Deleted", but File:Guggenheim-Helsinki-Design-Competition-gh.jpg still exists. Was it intentional to leave the file in place for now?

MKFI (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Max Mosley interview photo nominated for deleting

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 00:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I have left comment on the page where request has been made but I want to raise your awareness as I am prepared to fight this bureaucracy started by Nyttend. His comment how hard is to enter office of famous people is insult for journalist and in this occasion Mr. Mosley entered mine as he was in Skopje.

As I have explained that has grown up into complete sport dedicated portal, now the archive is available on new location:

Please advise me if I need to make more moves in order to stop destructive behavior of that (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that Nyttend's comment was not accurate, I am troubled by the fact that you cannot explain the absence of EXIF data on only this one of your uploads. We get a great many people who try to claim images as their own work here in order to get them onto Commons, so we are naturally suspicious. We must work from impressions and experience and without an explanation of the EXIF, I am inclined to close the DR as deleted .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad, Stoops Ferry, Pennsylvania, 1907.jpg

Hi Jim,

Just wondering where you found the information that led to this rational. I would like to create a PD template based on the image archive publication with other images from HistoricPitt. Thanks again. Seattle (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

From my perspective, this is fairly straightforward -- at least as far as US Copyright law goes, so I may not answer your question on the first try because I don;t understand which aspect of it you don't understand. Also forgive me if I cover you ground that you thoroughly understand already.
My rationale was based on the fact that the work was "published" within the meaning of the 1909 Copyright Law by adding it to the archive. I think there's case law on that, but I don't think anyone will argue the point -- by putting them in a public archive they were mde available to the public.
It was also based on the fact that they were published without notice. Under the 1909 Act, anything published had to have a copyright notice affixed to it. That changed, first slightly and then completely under the 1976 Act. Until 1977 notice was required, period. Then from 1/1/1978 until 3/1/1989 works had to have notice or be registered within five years. Therefore, unless registered, any photographic negative made available to the public in the 1970s has to be no-notice. See File:PD-US table.svg for a useful summary of the law.
You won't, however, be able to apply this reasoning to all images at the archive -- the key is the date they were added to the archive and in what form. Negatives plainly don't have a copyright notice. Photographic prints might, although I think you could assume not. Anything in printed form -- newspaper clippings, for example -- would be a problem, because you'd have to assume they were copyrighted.
If I haven't covered your question, please try again. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Canadian (22263483230).jpg

I'm afraid I don't understand why File:Canadian (22263483230).jpg was deleted. I see no discussion, and the poster has made it clear elsewhere (cf {{RogerPuta}}), that the images are in the public domain via PD-heirs, not simply the Flickr public domain mark. I see no ambiguity here. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

See the fourth bullet point under Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses:
"In particular, the license must meet the following conditions:
  • Republication and distribution must be allowed.
  • Publication of derivative work must be allowed.
  • Commercial use of the work must be allowed.
  • The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable." [emphasis added]
The heirs may have said that the images are PD, but there is absolutely nothing to prevent them from changing that to All Rights Reserved. While they could not recover damages for the period when they had said the images were PD, they could certainly force all users to stop using them immediately. If they, or anyone else, truly wants to put an image into the Public Domain without the possibility of change, they should use CC-0 which says, among other things:
"To the greatest extent permitted by, but not in contravention of, applicable law, Affirmer hereby overtly, fully, permanently, irrevocably and unconditionally waives, abandons, and surrenders all of Affirmer's Copyright...." [emphasis added]
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The point seems unwontedly technical and grounded on undisclosed facts. The specific declaration, 'They were scanned and posted by Marty Bernard, are in the Public Domain, and may be used with attribution to "Roger Puta"', has no suggestion of anything other than a full release (emphasis added). I don't see how that declaration could be revoked, nor how such a revocation would affect images already transferred in good faith with a verified license. Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
As I quoted above, a full irrevocable release needs to say just that. If that were not the case, then the CC-0 license would not need such explicit wording. There are no words anywhere here which suggest that the heirs intend the license to be irrevocable. While I agree that it is unlikely that they will actually revoke it, heirs sometimes do funny things. These are nice images and could easily be used in a book or in other profitable ways. The heirs, seeing that, could easily decide to cash in. Commons policy is very clear and there is nothing technical about the difference between irrevocable and not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
If Commons is so clear on that why was I given no warning, no indication of any kind, before the images were deleted? I had no reason to suspect that the licensing situation was faulty. If I'd known there was a problem I could have started on the OTRS process, which I've done before. Surely the situation wasn't so urgent as to require immediate deletion with no recourse? Mackensen (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I've decided I'm going to go through the OTRS process for these. In the interest of avoiding future heartache and bitterness, could you please clarify the exact question I should ask of the uploader? I was planning to inquire with the public domain declaration was made irrevocably, but is even more required? Mackensen (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that we get around 10,000 new images every day. Around 2,000 of them must be deleted, mostly for copyvio or inadequate licenses. Ten Admins do half of that work (and 25 do 90%) so we work quite fast. That is why images that are not properly licensed qualify for {{Speedy}} treatment -- we do not want to add several hundred DRs every day to an already out of control list.

You need to get one of the heirs to declare that he or she is an heir, owns the copyright and wishes to license it as any one of CC-0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA. Note that the template {{RogerPuta}} contradicts itself in that it calls for attribution of a PD image. An image that is truly PD does not need attribution. So if the heir wants the images to be truly PD, then use CC-0, but no attribution can be required. On the other hand, if they want the images to be credited, then they must use CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Full instructions, the form of the document, and the e-mail address are at OTRS. If you notify me here after the heir has sent the e-mail, I will expedite the process through OTRS -- otherwise it will take several weeks because OTRS is also badly backlogged from lack of volunteers. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you, I'll see what I can do. I realize that Commons administrators face a significant workload, but given the real confusion over Flickr's public domain mark at least a template, or a tag, or something, would seem preferable to simple deletion. This is particularly the case given that when transferring from Flickr you're warned to replace PD-mark with something more appropriate, which one does, at which point the warning goes away. To have the image suddenly deleted later is jarring, at best. Mackensen (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Sigh... There are many aspects of Commons that I wish we could do better -- but we simply don't have enough volunteers. As a result, it can be a fairly difficult environment.
I just dropped a note on Commons talk:Flickr files announcing my intention to clarify the instructions there. Maybe that will help, although I suspect many (most?) editors who upload from Flickr never read it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ping. I received a reply from Marty Bernard which confirms the status of the images and forwarded it to permissions-commons (ref 2016020210001676). Thanks again for your assistance. Mackensen (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

OTRS appears to be down and I have a stomach bug, so this may not happen immediately. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry to hear that and I hope you feel better soon. There's certainly no rush at present. All the best, Mackensen (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


Hi Jim! I'm sorry but I don't frequent the Commons and so I'm less familiar with the rules on this side. I noticed this deletion because the "Scientist" page is on my watchlist at English Wikipedia. The justification for the deletion seems to be that it contained a copy of w:File:Rosalind Franklin.jpg which is under copyright. However the page for w:File:Rosalind Franklin.jpg has a copyright tag which seems to indicate that using the image "on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation" or "to provide visual identification of one or more specific individual(s), or an identifiable gathering of them", "qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law". To the uneducated eye (like mine), this makes it sound like it might be usable on the Scientist page? There's a very real chance I'm misunderstanding something here. If you've got a minute, a brief explanation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair use is permitted on WP:EN, because it is possible to create a legal rationale for why the particular use there is "fair". On the other hand, Fair Use is not permitted on Commons. Commons is a repository and that is not a Fair Use. see Commons:Fair use for the full policy statement. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. Sorry I hadn't put together that distinction on my own. Thanks for your time Jim! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sportguru

Jim, I do not understand why you have deleted the images off of the Athlete page "Chris Gudzowsky". The images on the athlete profile are of myself, who I own the rights too. Some pf the images can be found on my Facebook because I have also uploaded them to my Facebook.Others, being 2 others were from photographers who gave the images to me, with permission to use. Specifically because I know the sports photographers who take photos for our sport.

Thanks for your time,


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportguru (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 February 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.

Since we do not know who Sportguru actually is, policy requires that when an image has appeared without a free license elsewhere on the Web, that the actual copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. In the case of images taken by others. the actual photographer must send the license or you must provide a copy of the written license which meets Commons requirements. Note that casual oral permissions to use an image on WP is not sufficient -- both WP and Commons require that images be free for use anywhere by anyone for any use. Note also that in most, maybe all jurisdictions, copyrights must be licensed or transferred in writing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Postcards by Aspiotis

Dear Jim,

I understand that you did not yet see my user talk page Actia Nicopolis. I also understand that you found the page Postcards by Aspiotis following the rules of Commons pages.

If so, I will expand it in the same way.

Many thanks for your assistance.

Nikos Actia Nicopolis (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had a stomach bug and just got back to Commons. I think it's good -- see my comment on your talk page and thanks for your effort. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much Jim. All the best with your stomach! Nikos Actia Nicopolis (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


Hi Jim, I just merged this into another ticket you own. Just wanted to give you a heads up, because the ticket isn't the most straightforward. You've already accepted the permission regarding the specific image referenced, so I haven't replied to it. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

OTRS appears to be down and I have a stomach bug, so this may not happen immediately. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Not much you need to do after the upgrade... just thought I'd let you know so it doesn't blindside you. Feel better soon! Storkk (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's a glass of fennel tea for your stomach. Get better soon! De728631 (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Max Mosley

Would you mind deleting File:Max Mosley during a interview (crop).jpg? See my comments about it at the DR; thanks. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for missing it. Under circumstances where it's obvious it's just an oversight and nothing more complex, I have no problem with your simply deleting it -- I'm happy to do it, but don't stand on ceremony. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Ursula Stock, 803.jpg and others

please wait some days, permission is on the way--Gerd Leibrock (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ursula Stock says, she has sent an email with the permissions.--Gerd Leibrock (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Fine. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the message can be processed. If the DR closes in the interim, the images can be restored when and if the license is accepted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket is #2016021010017368. The message did not come from Stock's public e-mail address, so I have replied, asking her to send a license from that address. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Bruno Frank, 110.jpg and others

have you got an idea what other licence could be applied?--Gerd Leibrock (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I doubt there is any way to keep these. They are not old enough to assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years -- that cutoff is around 1885 -- so unless you can prove that they were actually published before 1946 they cannot be kept here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Damyan Iliev.jpg

I'm sorry for not explaining the case thoroughly enough, but when I said that the photo is owned by my family, I also meant that we're the authors of the photo. To be specific, the picture is taken by my great-grandmother - the daughter of the person on the photo. It is currently kept in the personal family archive by my grandmother, who is practically the daughter of the photographer and that's where I got it from on paper, before I uploaded it here. What should we do in order to restore the file?--Peseca87 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

See my comment at Commons:Undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boron5 a Boston terrier.jpg

You wrote:

File description: "This portrait of our dog, Boron 5, is modeled after an unattributed photo of a Boston Terrier found on the internet. January 2010", That makes this a derivative work of the photograph from which it was taken. "Unatrritbuted" does not mean there is no copyright and since there is no evidence that the photograph was freely licensed, we cannot keep this unless the artist can get a license from the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I responded on that page, but since I didn't hear anything, I'm noting here what I wrote there:

Let me say it differently: This is a portrait of our dog, Boron 5, using a pose and perspective from a photo of a Boston Terrier found on the internet. The drawing is of my dog, done entirely by me. The pose in the photograph was more interesting than any photos I had taken of Boron. I don't believe copyright in a photo extends to the pose of the subject in the photo. Rsperberg (talk)

ːEven their colouring is the sameǃ [4]̴̴̴̴

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SovalValtos (talk • contribs) 22:12, 14 February 2016‎ (UTC)


See my comment at the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
A pattern appears [5] and [6]̴̴̴̴
No, the drawing at File:Emperor_Penguin_Adelieland.jpg was made from File:Emperor Penguin Manchot empereur.jpg, which Rsperberg properly credits. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

ːːːːSorry, my mistake. I should have checked.̴̴̴̴

Roger Puta images

Hi Jim, I hope you're feeling better. Did you have a chance to look at the OTRS submission for the Puta images? It's #2016020210001676. All the best, Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you.
On OTRS, I see:
"Roger can't revoke them. He's been gone for decades. Mel and I agreed we want the maximum number of people to enjoy and learn from them without limitations. I see no reason we would change that. There is no way I'm going into flickr and change the copyright status on 10,000 or more photos. Out of courtesy we hope his photos will be attributed to him. They are yours to use. Hope they assist in your efforts."
This says nothing about how or why the writer has the right to license images taken by Roger Puta. The writer is not the heir, so all we have is his claim.
In order to use these images, I think we need an e-mail directly from the heir, Mel Finzer, giving either a CC-0 or a CC-BY license. As far as I can see, at the moment we have an intermediary telling us what the heir decided. He also says, "I see no reason we would change that." That's far from a declaration that the license is irrevocable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I see no reason to spite our faces like this. Absent contrary evidence these images are properly in the public domain. Puta's images have belonged to Finzer since at least the early 1990s because I've seen them published and credited to Puta, but from Finzer's collection. Finzer has the images. I'm not going to start demanding to see wills or probate records because I'm not a ghoul. The distinctions in public domain declarations are no doubt lost on these old gentlemen but it's clear that they intended to release them into the public domain as they understood it. Only for technical reasons did he not reclassify them on Commons, but it is clear that this was the only reason, and if he did do so then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Shame on Flickr for providing an option that is so easily misunderstood.
These images are properly in the public domain. There are no heirs who will challenge that donation. The declaration was intended to be irrevocable, but technically hamstrung because Flickr is an ass. We are doing ourselves no favors here. Mackensen (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
This is not a Flickr problem -- I would have the same problem if the Flickr images were marked CC-0. We also have no need to see wills or probate records -- I'm willing to stipulate that Finzer is the heir.
However, we have nothing except a third party assertion that tells us that Finzer has freely licensed these images. We are in exactly the same position as we are with any third party image, and that requires that the actual copyright holder give us a free license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason to not accept him at his word, that he and Finzer made the decision and that he's doing the digitization. These people are pretty well known in the North American railfanning community. Mackensen (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we get a great many people who want images to appear on Commons who make incorrect claims about copyright. That is why we have a very clear and firm policy on the use of images where the copyright belongs to a third party. I see no justification for breaking that policy in this case. We expect to have a free license from the actual copyright holder. We ask for and get many such licenses every day. You certainly have enough experience on Commons to understand that while we Assume Good Faith when a user declares that an image is "own work", we do not make such assumptions in any other circumstances. It will take Mr. Finzer all of five minutes to send a message to OTRS declaring that he owns the copyright to all of Puta's images and that he licenses them as CC-BY. Please have him refer to ticket #2016020210001676. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
You're right, I do have enough experience on Commons to know that. I also like to think I have that I would have the judgement to recognize when I was carrying a technical point too far to the detriment of the project. I have no acquaintance with Finzer. I don't know if he's alive, or if he uses email. Assuming all these things are true, I would have to go back to Bernard, ask him for Finzer's contact information (quite intrusive; if I were in his place I don't know that I would do so), and then go from there. I found it difficult and embarrassing to contact Bernard the first time ("Hi, I know you released this to the public domain but you used the wrong incantation can you please clarify your intentions"), and I'm reluctant to go even further when I have no confidence that even this would be enough. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"Hi, I know you released this to the public domain but you used the wrong incantation can you please clarify your intentions" misses the point. He did not and could not release them into the public domain because he does not own the copyright. He asserts that Mr. Finzer has given him that right, but such an action requires a written agreement. This is very typical of the sort of assertion we deal with every day. If this were only an image or two, I might let it go, but apparently it is potentially thousands of images, so it is important that we get it right. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletions request for File:Caloenas maculata Brian Small.jpg

I am wondering why File:Caloenas maculata Brian Small.jpg was not deleted. In the deletion request, your reason for resolving it contradicts that you kept it, as you say the license likely was not changed. Will the image be kept? IJReid (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lots of aviation geeks in 787 t-shirts (10832989443).jpg

Hi, this photograph is correctly released by the photographer, and the DR was not related to identity issues or intrusiveness. Could you review your deletion and restore the image to avoid setting a case precident that extends our interpretation of privacy that could lead to unnecessary deletions? Thanks -- (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The photograph was correctly licensed, but that says nothing about consent from the subject for publishing an image of him taken in a non-public place. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, sure. However consent in these circumstances has never been a prerequisite on Commons. I'll take your reply as a refusal to undelete. Thanks -- (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
There are certainly many images on Commons that do not conform to various policies, but Other stuff exists has never been a reason to keep an image. Policy if very clear:
"The subject's consent is usually needed for publishing a photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a private place, and Commons expects this even if local laws do not require it." see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
An airplane, just as a London bus or the train to Manchester, is not a private place. On a 787 you even have an air marshal keeping an eye on the public. -- (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
We disagree. On an airplane, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It is similar to, although less obvious than, the example here: Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Consent. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jim. In my opinion to the extent you book and you buy your place, seat or chair flight with a precise number, for the duration of the flight, this place is indeed yours, not public, for the flight. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The same is true of Ferris Wheel rides and theatres. This photo is clearly consensual, not intrusive, nor has anyone complained. It is a bad precedent to establish. -- (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
COM:PRP explicitly prohibits our consideration of whether anyone has complained about an image. The subject may have consented to the photographer's taking the picture, but that does not mean he consented to the image being published on the Web with a demeaning file name.
Open an UnDR if you want, but we're done here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
PRP says nothing about consent. There are no legal cases that have ever found a commercial jumbo flight to be a private space. However as you are entrenched, I shall reflect on how best to apply your novel interpretation. -- (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but that is true only for images taken in a public place. The United States is even less strict. The question here is whether a passenger on a commercial airplane has an expectation of privacy and whether "geek" is a demeaning term. Of course the latter can be corrected by changing the image title, but the former cannot be changed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The argument is overly hypothetical. We should stick to copyright as supported by legal cases, and to firm cases of IDENT rather than spending our volunteer time deliberately seeking out problems against the project goals. See Commons:Undeletion_requests#File:Lots_of_aviation_geeks_in_787_t-shirts_.2810832989443.29.jpg. -- (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It is precisely an Admin's job to seek out problems. Commons goals are both to have many good images and to have all images conform to local and US law. There is a constant tension between the two and Admins and concerned editors are constantly balancing them. While I agree that the question of expectation of privacy on a commercial airline flight is not cut and dried (and that this turns out to be a special case, see the UnDR), but if this had been Air France on an internal French flight, policy would clearly require the deletion, special case or not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
There was a similar case in File:C751C-Interior.jpg.png brought up on otrs-l in October 2015. It was a shot of an interior of a Singapore train. Everyone who expressed an opinion (including Jim, but also a number of others), stated we should follow COM:IDENT. (In the end, the photo was deleted due to copyright ownership not being satisfactorily established in ticket:2015100210012623). Storkk (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Storkk. you might like to add this to the UnDR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Meh... it was more for 's information than anything else, and you've already restored the file, but I can see the logic in adding it there too. I think I should be able to mention who else chimed in agreeing, but am not 100% certain that doesn't violate some section of the agreement. sigh. Storkk (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I decided against it for various reasons, mostly that I feel strongly that closed-room discussion should have no place in deciding precedent for on-wiki decisions, and also per my and others' opinions expressed here. Storkk (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, open discussions in places where they may be noticed by colleagues, should establish community consensus or policy improvements. Do you believe that nominating File:Humanitarian_aid_OCPA-2005-10-28-090517a.jpg for deletion would help establish the need for a specific grant of consent from subjects who may have had an expectation of privacy? -- (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
A wonderful case, thank you for bringing it up. It is such a great image that there can be no question that we want very much to keep it, but equally, it is a clear violation of the child's privacy rights. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Humanitarian aid OCPA-2005-10-28-090517a.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • That's not to delete or undelete the file but I disagree with you Jim, Australian law say : "Exceptions might arise in cases where certain acts are done in what is technically public space, but "where a reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy" (e.g. a secluded part of a public beach): "it is an offence punishable by a fine or imprisonment to photograph a person to provide sexual arousal or gratification if the person is undressed or engaged in a private act in circumstances where a reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy, and he or she has not consented to being filmed. A private act includes using the toilet, bathing and engaging in sexual activities not ordinarily done in public"
that's mean, in my understanding of course, no consent is required even in a place with an expectation of privacy until the person(s) are not engaged in a private act. The sentence above is quite clear or I missed something? Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
oh, I missed the main sentence "Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent". It's my fault, sorry for the inconvenance. Forgot, regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

PDM File:Metroliner (24291720919).jpg

Could you undelete this file? Based on the information given the license was correct. Thanks -- (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

For the same reasons File:City_of_Los_Angeles_(24031253554).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) should be undeleted. Thanks -- (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please read the long discussion about Roger Puta images above. We have no evidence that Marty Bernard has a license from Roger Puta's heirs to freely license Puta's images. He asserts that he does, but such assertions are common here, and our rules require that the photographer or his heirs provide a free license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This is inconsistent with {{RogerPuta}} being in use by 76 files on Commons. Either that's right and the undeletions should be okay, or the rest should be subject to a deletion request. -- (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I saw little point in nominating the 76 files for deletion while the issue was still being discussed above. If Mackensen cannot get a proper license from Puta's heir, I will open an appropriate DR. If you want to discuss the Puta files further, do it above, not here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It's an inconsistent approach. If there is to be a DR for community discussion, then the files linked here should be undeleted and made part of it, rather than preempting any outcome. As your user talk page is not a replacement for a DR, I don't want to start encouraging using threads here like they are on the record for these cases. -- (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that all of the Puta files, deleted and undeleted, should go into a DR if that becomes necessary -- I hope very much that it does not because Puta made thousands of great images and it would be good to have many more of them on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment regarding 'national origin'

Looking back the the discussion you had here earlier, about the Aboriginal flag...

The 'country of origin' for a copyrighted work is defined in article 5 of the Berne Convention... it's here. Essentially, first publication is the defining act, in most cases. Various national laws also define 'points of attachment', that can give a work a 'domestic' copyright... in Israel, for example, a work by a citizen of Israel is protected as an Israeli work even if not first published in Israel, even though other countries would assign it to the country of first publication. All the nations of the Copyright Union have then passed 'enabling' legislation that gives works from other member nations equivalent protection to their own works (usually, with some caveats about if another nation fails to reciprocate). Freedom of Panorama laws don't 'remove' the pre-existing copyright, they simply give a complete defense against any action for infringement.

In the case of the Aboriginal Flag, the creator was a 'qualified person' under Australian law at the time he created it (his 'point of attachment'), and the original publication was in Australia (in the 1970s). Thus, under the treaty, Australia is the source country, and other treaty nations are bound to respect that copyright. Any later manufacture or publication in another nation does not affect that. Other nations might not actually 'protect' the specific work (as under the TOO) on the same basis that they would not protect a domestic work, but the copyright still 'exists'. That would imply that (assuming it's actually below the TOO) a reproduction of the flag made in Israel would not be infringing, under Israeli law, but it would be infringing when exported to a nation that would protect the original, because they are bound by treaty to respect the Australian copyright.

Freedom of Panorama would change this, if it applied to the flag, because the 'new work' (the photograph), as a work of Israeli origin, would 'by statute' not be infringing... FOP is essentially a license for reproduction granted by the action of the law itself instead of by the copyright owner. Even if the actual copyright itself is from non-FOP 'country A', and the photo was taken in FOP 'country B', the photograph was a non-infringing copy, under the laws of it's source nation (B) and so would, even in country A, not be infringing (presuming the absence of some local law declaring otherwise) ... its a legally produced reproduction. Revent (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly my position -- that our interpretation of FOP is such that an image of a copyrighted work actually made in a non-FOP country is OK for Commons if the work was shipped to an FOP country and displayed according to the FOP requirements there. Alexander Calder sculptures in Germany are, for me, the most obvious examples, but I suspect we could find a painting in one of the countries that permits FOP for indoor paintings (Algeria, Armenia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, Israel, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, The Netherlands, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Peru, Slovakia, Uruguay, and Vietnam}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Denis Gusev-004-1.jpg

Hi. Please review your closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Denis Gusev-004-1.jpg in light of your closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Denis Gusev - Neva Pro Show.jpg. Also, please help me to understand how an uploader's intent to delete an unused file can go from COM:CSD#G7 on day 7 to "no valid reason for deletion" in a deletion request on day 8+. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jeff G.: (regarding the CSD) It's because we can't really 'see' if an image is used or not. Images can be hotlinked to by external websites, or used by other wikis through COM:InstantCommons, and those usages are invisible to us. A week was chosen, long long ago, as the dividing line where we should defer the deletion to community discussion... a 'courtesy deletion' can still happen, by consensus, but admins are only mandated to assume that the decision would be for a courtesy deletion if the image is less than a week old. Since a DR generally stays open for a week, keeping the file while waiting for discussion gives the exact same likelihood of undetectable use. A request for courtesy deletion of a 'old' file, without a consensus, should be denied....the CSD are only intended as a means of avoiding bureaucracy when the decision would be obvious. (regarding the images) I can't answer for James, but in the case of the deleted file the argument changed from a very 'generic' statement to providing actual evidence that the image had been previously published (which mandates confirmation of licensing by OTRS). His 'initial' closure was the same in both cases, and thus consistent... it only changed in one case on the basis of additional information. Revent (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It's clear that I was inconsistent and should have deleted the one file after Eugene commented on the other. I have done that now.
I don't understand the discussion of COM:CSD#G7. The person filing the DR in both cases had a different username from the uploader so COM:CSD#G7 does not appear to have any application here.
However, please note that it does not say that an uploader's request to delete a file must be honored within seven days, but only that it can be handled as a {{Speedy}}. For the first seven days, the Admin handling the request is free to deny the speedy treatment and require a DR; after seven days he must convert it to a DR. In both cases, he should refuse the uploader request if the file is in use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleted ogg files

IngridC-Curtin (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC) can you please explain the issue with these files?

There are several copyrights in musical performances in Australia. There is one belonging to the composer, the lyricist, the producer (you, presumably), and each of the performers (the musicians and singers). In order to keep such files on Commons, there must be free licenses from each of the various copyright holders. The best procedure is to have one of them send a license to OTRS. That will generate an automatic response with a ticket number. All of the others should then include that ticket number in their messages to OTRS. I recognize that this is cumbersome, but Commons and OTRS procedures are optimized for images, which have only one copyright.

Note also that musical performances of this kind are on the very border of being out of scope. We do not generally keep musical performances unless the performers are noteworthy. As performances in a little-used language, I think these may be OK in that regard, but it is entirely possible that our colleagues may decide not to keep them on scope grounds even if you go to the trouble of getting them properly licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


Hi! Sorry, my english is very bad, in no... but I have an idea... I'm writing this to some hungarians, but i'm nor sure, that it get to the correct forum. Would it be very difficult, if by the upload by the "Release rights" not my work it could only be continued, if the following datas are given:

  • Author(+citizenship)+death year


  • First publicated (with warning: not the creating year!) year+name of the publisher (madia, journal, ...)

and the licenc will automatically generated (yes, i know, then must be the licenc-parameters from the licences "readability")? ...If it is correct... It was understandable? Fauvirt (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I hope that Google translate can do a good job of this for you into Hungarian. The only Admin who shows any skill with Hungarian is User:Grin and his last post here was last August.
I think you understand correctly, but I will repeat in my words:
In order to keep an image that is not "own work" on Commons, we need to either (a) have a free license from the copyright holder or (b) know that it is PD (public domain). For PD, the rules are different country to country, but for most of the EU, you must prove either
  • (a) who the author was and that he died more than 70 years ago -- that is in 1945 or earlier during 2016 - or
  • (b) that the work was published more than 70 years ago and that the work was anonymous.
Be careful -- "anonymous" is very difficult to prove. We see many images where the author is unknown, but the fact that we don't know who he was does not make the work "anonymous" -- you must prove that when the work was published, the author was not known. That is usually very hard.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for replying to me!   Yes, Grin is very busy.

I understand more as far as I can write. I think to you is more difficult to understand me...   Yes, you are right, what I suggested is just for PD. I also know that "anonymous" is very difficult to prove. But I think if the uploader by PD give author as unknow and he meets with, that he must give the first publications date+place and have a link to what some like this: File:World copyright terms.svg, maybe he think about that it is perhaps not a public domain...? maybe I'm naive... maybe just hopeful.   But perhaps less errors without completely self-PD-templating... What do you think about? Fauvirt (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I would stick with just the EU -- in fact just the continental EU, as the UK is different. My comments on "anonymous" are based on the EU -- the rule is different in the UK -- if you can show that you have done careful research and cannot find the author, then it is PD in the UK. In the USA, simply being "unknown" is enough. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

hmmm... even think about it... I will not give up so "easily"...   Good night! Fauvirt (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Devecser-001.jpg

Sorry for this, but just now come in my mind... can you closed this deletion request if you have time?... It's already so long "open". Thank you! Fauvirt (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand it -- the OTRS ticket is in Hungarian and Google translate does not make sense of it, so I think I should not close it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, no problem! :o) Fauvirt (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


Hi James. I wanted to tell you that this article you just deleted is about a glam project through which we are uploading a bunch of images of the "Museo Nacional de Artes Visuales de Uruguay". Please undelete it so we can continue editing it (and give it a proper look). Thanks, --Zeroth (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but I don't think that our rules permit a page such as that on Commons. The Commons namespace is reserved for articles about Commons -- generally tutorials and policies. Articles belong in WP. If you think I am wrong, please give me a link to a similar page on another museum.
There are two ways that you could do some of what you mention above.
First, you could create the gallery page Museo Nacional de Artes Visuales de Uruguay. Galleries are intended to show off the best images of a particular subject. Metropolitan Museum of Art is typical. Note that only a very limited amount of text is permitted in a Commons gallery -- a sentence or two. Articles such as the one I deleted belong in WP and the gallery should be linked to the WP articles in various languages.
Second, you can create an {{Institution}} template, which can be used on all of the relevant images. As you will see, that also has very limited text. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Jim, the article is not about an institution, but about a GLAM project, like every other listed here: Commons:Partnerships --Zeroth (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Aha -- with my 350,000+ contributions and actions on Commons, you would think I had seen everything, but I have never seen one of those pages before. I'll restore it.
However, the fact that I have never seen one raises the question of whether such pages are a good use of your time -- not that I'm your target audience, but that they are obscure and therefore may not be reaching any audience at all. You certainly should create a gallery page for Museo Nacional de Artes Visuales de Uruguay and link it to Commons:Museo_Nacional_de_Artes_Visuales_de_Uruguay. Also, I would put the best images in the gallery. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, its a way to keep record of the GLAM projects in commons. As you see in the linked page, there are dozens of pages regarding these agreements. Their primary use is not for showing the contents of the GLAM project but to state the process, when it happened, who has involved, the extent, etc. That has nothing to do with a galery or a source template which have their own uses.--Zeroth (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. A record of each project is a good thing. Thanks for teaching me something new. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jason Lin

No content, you can delete! -- 18:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Neil Peng and Peter Huang.JPG

The image is blurred, to request removal! -- 18:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

To nominate a file for deletion, please use {{Delete}} by clicking on "Nominate for deletion" in the left column of the file page. Poor quality is not a reason for a {{Speedy}} deletion, so I cannot simply delete it on your request. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Only for curiosity

Is "I disagree" a valid argument? Especially if the one who "disgrees" has the buttons to put in practice what he/she agrees or disagrees? The picture is not important, just one of many I uploaded; but the principle? Best. --E4024 (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not? Your opinion is that the image should be deleted. My opinion is that it should be kept. As a general rule, we try to keep images, so in the case of a tie, it seems to me that we should keep it. I don't often nominate images for deletion for quality reasons, but if I had done so, I would happily accept if one of our colleagues decided to keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2016-SWC-Pride-Logo-Vert.png

Regarding File:2016-SWC-Pride-Logo-Vert.png, this is the logo for this event. I am the Marketing and PR Director for Stonewall Columbus. Stonewall Columbus is our organization, Columbus Pride is our event. I created the image so there is no copyright infringement issue. Are we able to remove the "deletion request"? -Kathy Crowe

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KatCrowe (talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 February 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.
  • First, as it says above, please sign your comments.
  • Second, please be careful not to delete existing comments. You erased the thread "Only for curiosity" from above.
  • Third, as I said at the Undeletion request, the appropriate place to make comments or requests about a Deletion Request is at the DR. That is a public place seen by many people. A talk page, while also public, is seen by a small fraction of the number of people seen by any DR. It's not my DR, so I am certainly not going to close it against policy. Therefore, please go to Commons:Deletion requests/File:2016-SWC-Pride-Logo-Vert.png and comment there.
  • Last, you appear to be in serious violation of WMF policy on paid editors and conflict of interest, both here and at Columbus Pride. I suggest you read and comply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Music lanka

im sorry for the wrong save of the page,i was editing and unexpectedly clicked the save button Musiclanka

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fasoftco

Hi there,

Thanks for deleting the spam images associated with this user.

I notice that the deletion summary simply says "deleted", but two of the images are still in existence. Was this intentional?

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Admins use a script, DelReqHandler, to rapidly close DRs. Occasionally it hiccups and doesn't delete when asked. Thanks for telling me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
No problem! I thought it might have been a cache issue or delay in processing at first, that's why I waited a couple of days. If I see that happening again, I'll let the admin know.
Thanks for the feedback. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
(Thanks for all the other deletions as well!) Ubcule (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Archive search question

Hi Jim, I wanted to ask you a question re searching undeletion requests archives. Specifically the discussion regarding the image of a re-drawing of a wall painting. Clindberg provided some very good analysis and I wanted to look over it again. Is knowing the name of the file the only way to find that discussion? Thanks for the advise Rybkovich (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

None of the search functions on WMF projects are very good. You might If Carl commented on the UnDR, you could look through his contributions and see if you spot it. You could also look through mine, but it's a much longer list. I remember the case, and would guess it was two or three months ago. You might ask Carl -- maybe he can date it more closely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Got it, thanks very much Jim. Rybkovich (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


Progress update with the images which were deleted by you in December, 2015 (discussion link) OTRS request has been sent by tattooist for several images. Response got: "Permission has been accepted, but only for images that were not deleted as derivative of non-free content. I have made the necessary modifications to the file page." E.g., this image has been accepted:

but not the files which were removed. In particular:

I guess this is an error as these images are not derivative of non-free content. How shall we proceed further to finalize the process per our discussion in December? 10:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

  Done These are derivative of Die Bibel in Bildern (Revelation) engraving by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld, 1860, but that is long PD, so I don;t see any problem here now that we have the tattoo artist's consent. They're beautiful images -- thank you for your perseverance in making it possible to keep them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Benutzer:Unternehmen Alpen '78

Würdest du uns bitte freundlicherweise erklären warum du unseren Account Unternehmen Alpen '78 gesperrt hast?

Sollte es sich um den Titel handeln, stellen wir klar, dass es sich dabei nicht um ein Unternehmen im kaufmännischen Sinne handelt. Vielmehr war das Unternehmen Alpen '78 eine alpinistische Unternehmung, bei welcher erstmals die Alpen in ihrer gesamten Läge, von Wien bis an die Ligurische Küste, überschritten wurden.

Diese Erklärung fand sich auch auf der User-Page bevor sie von anderer Seite gelöscht wurde.

Macht es einem Neuling nicht so schwer, dann würden sich mehr Menschen mitzumachen trauen. In der Hoffnung auf baldige Freigabe unseres Accounts


Das Unternehmen Alpen '78 - Team

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rächer d. Enterbten (talk • contribs) 6:27, 27 February 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.

Commons accounts are personal, not organizational. Over time we can develop relationships with individual people, and learn to trust the judgement and truth of some people, while being more careful with others. Since we deal with 10,000 new images every day, of which 2,000 must be deleted, trust helps a great deal in making decisions about the actions of our colleagues -- we can work faster and more accurately.

An organizational account makes it impossible to know who we are dealing with -- it might be trusted person John Doe, or new user Sam Smith -- we have no way of knowing. Thus we forbid organizational accounts.

Also, if I understand correctly, this is an informal team -- there is no formal legal organization with this name. That means that if a team member uploads an image with the team account, they cannot say that it is "own work", but must declare the name of the actual photographer. That, in turn, requires that the actual photographer send a free license to OTRS for each image. That creates considerably more work both for the uploader and for OTRS volunteers and Commons Admins. It is far easier for each person to simply open an account and upload his or her own work.

The rule is that each account belongs to one and only one person. It is possible for a single person to have more than one account, but as a general rule, one account has one person and vice versa. Each of the members of the team can, of course have their own account. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Diese Argumentation greift in unserem Falle nicht. Diese gemeinschaftliche Unternehmung fand vor zwischenzeitlich fast 40 Jahren statt. Da heute nicht mehr zu klären ist, welches Foto damals von wem gemacht wurde (das Urheberrecht nicht mehr einer einzelnen Person zuordenbar ist), haben wir beschlossen unsere Werknutzungsrechte gemeinsam unter dem damaligen Expeditionstitel Unternehmen Alpen '78 wahrzunehmen. Als Synonym für unsere gemeinsamen Rechte. Rächer d. Enterbten (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternative Rechtsmeinung: Unternehmen Alpen '78 ist mein persönlicher Nickname, da ich der Initiator dieses Unternehmens bin. Und die Wahl meines Nicknames ist doch frei, oder? Rächer d. Enterbten (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Daher: Unternehmen Alpen '78 ist mein persönlicher Nickname.

Unter Hilfe:Benutzerkonto anlegen ist ausdrücklich festgelegt, dass ein anonymer Benutzername gewählt werden kann. Keine der Ausnahmen unter Ungeeignet trifft auf mich zu.

Ich ersuche um sofortige Freigabe meines persönlichen Accounts. Rächer d. Enterbten (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, our rule is firm. You may not use the group name for your account here. Also, if you cannot identify the photographers for each image, then each person who might have taken them must give a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Why did you deleted all my photos Jameslwoodward?

Why did you deleted all my photos? A lot of work put all the photos. I did everything correctly. I am the person who is in the photos. Why u deleted it? --Andredimauro (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

AS you say, you are the person in the photos. Therefore you were not the photographer and are not the copyright holder. Only the copyright holder can freely license images as required here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The following photos:

They were made with my camera made for my personal collection and therefore the copyrith rights are 100% mine. I ask that you put them back where they were. Iam the copyright holder. --Andredimauro (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ownership of the camera is irrelevant. Unless you have written agreements with the photographers transferring the copyright to you, the copyright belongs to the photographers. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

OK then I say, or rather, I confirm that I DID THESE PHOTOS with an "automatic trigger", "camera's timer" this good for you? Iam the photographer. Copyrights are 100% mine. Or else I can now only post on my page the type of photo like "selfies" made with cell phone? I'm saying the Copyrights of the pictures are mine. And I am giving to Wikipedia to illustrate my page. I ask you again to put the pictures mentioned in the previous comment back to my page. --Andredimauro (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

First you say one thing, now another. I don't believe you..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Tell me if I'm the own that in the pictures, which would be the point in lying about me to own the copyright of the photos? Who can be better than me to talk about it?--Andredimauro (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Re Moka Express

I strongly disagree with your 2nd deletion reason re shape if the images are of the 3 expresso makers here - Under your argument if the shape alone is sufficient for copyright-ability then would that argument not apply to most car designs that we normally do not consider as copyrightable? I found my old copyright class outline! This is from it: Test for conceptual separability: the 6 approaches:

  1. 1. The artistic features are “primary” and the utilitarian features “subsidiary”. Kieslstein-Cord
  2. 2. The useful article "would still be marketable to some significant segment of the community simply because of its aesthetic qualities." Nimmer
  3. 3. The article "stimulate[s] in the mind of the beholder a concept that is separate from the concept evoked by its utilitarian function," Judge Newman dissenting in Carol Barnhart
  4. 4. The artistic design was not significantly influenced by functional considerations. Brandir (bicycle rack). It reports to the process rather than what we actually see.
  5. 5. The artistic features "can stand alone as a work of art traditionally conceived, and ... the useful article in which it is embodied would be equally useful without it." Goldstein. It seems to put back to the conceptual and physical separability. (+ Pivot Point dissent= Mara mannequin).
  6. 6. The artistic features are not utilitarian. Patry

I think that for any argument that you make for why one/some of the standards do not apply to the expresso maker you will also have to show how a similar argument would not apply to shapes of cars thus them still remaining uncopyrightable. BUT I'm primarily contacting you to link you to the outline itself as I know you will be very appreciative of its info on practically every type of issue :) Rybkovich (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be great to go over things that you find interesting/unclear and/or helpful to our cause Rybkovich (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
See Category:Moka Expresses and, in particular, File:Coffee pot Moka.jpg for examples. Note the unique ten sided tapered form.
I think you may be correct with respect to USA copyright -- it clearly fails your point (3) and is weak on several others, but I am not so sure with respect to copyright in much of Northern Europe, where the bar to copyright for utilitarian things is much lower. In any event, it was more of an aside than a main point -- the logo was the main issue.
I will wade through the document as the spirit moves, thanks. Remember that while the USA is certainly very important to Commons it is only one of many, and to some extent our problem with USA copyrights is made easier by the 1923 rule and the requirement for notice and renewal before 1989 -- maybe half of all discussions of USA works can be closed on one or the other of those. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I find your comment very condescending, hopefully I misunderstood it. My intent for sharing the outline was not to provide you with something I felt necessary for you to consider when making your decisions and arguments. I provided for you strictly out of sharing my joy of finding the notes and sharing with you, someone that is always seeking input on the issues that are not clear to you rather than drawing the line and standing by it like allot of others. I am referring to you stating "I will wade through the document as the spirit moves," and to "some extent our problem with USA copyrights is made easy by the 1923 rule and the requirement for notice and renewal before 1989" something that I would not be aware of only if my understanding of our issues was very basic. I have always respected your opinions and would be surprised if what you said was not caused by a misunderstanding, in which case I would not have any lasting issues. Or if I misunderstood the comments themselves and there was no condescending intention behind them. In that case I also have no issues. Rybkovich (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Apologies -- I thought for a little, but obviously not hard enough, about how to say politely "I'll certainly read it because the subject interests me and I'm always looking for new input, but it's a dense 93 page document, so it won't be the first thing I do." I tried for a light touch and obviously failed miserably. Sorry.
I find that some days I do easy things on Commons, like working on current DRs and some days I tackle the oldest DRs that have thousand word arguments with the two POV fighting like wildcats. Right now I'm wading through complicated and contradictory specifications and instructions for a significant upgrade on the boat's instrumentation, so my bandwidth for dense writing and other hard things is pretty well exhausted right now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I was hoping that I misunderstood as I am always appreciative of your input and welcoming me to the complex issue discussions. Rybkovich (talk) 17:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: File:Telegram Sticker.PNG

By mistake, I noted another image in the application (it was from a Deletion request). I changed the image link for clarification. Now is Telegram Sticker.PNG.--Diego Sanguinetti (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Posting here is not appropriate when the subject is an active UnDR. Please see my comments at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Telegram_Sticker.PNG. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

URAA-affected files

Going forward, should we tag files that have had their copyright restored with Template:Not-PD-US-URAA? This was part of the conclusion at Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. I'm guessing this was the basis for keeping several files I tagged for deletion by Zanhe. Jolly Janner (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, probably yes. As a practical matter, there are thousands of such files, so no one will expect the tag. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I have no intention of tagging all of them, but I think it could be helpful to tag some of Kingoflttuce's and Zanhe's uploads since they frequently appear on the Main Page of Wikipedia. I think there were three of which last month alone. Jolly Janner (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

March deletion thumbnails

Hey Jim, I am trying to keep up with the March deletion requests. But something is off about clicking on the dates of the month and going to that date's deletion requests – no images come up. Could you please look into that when you have time? Category talk:Deletion requests March 2016 Thanks Rybkovich (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never seen that class of category before and I don't know how it is created -- the category must be added to the files, but it doesn't appear in the file history. Try a note on ANB -- someone will know. I always just go straight to the log via Commons:Deletion requests#Latest requests to be closed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
It is added with the {{delete}}-templates that are added. I think the issue is that the links on the category is doing &from=7 when it should do &from=07 (for 7 March). Josve05a (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Jonatan -- can we fix it, or is the problem buried deep in code? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
This might fix it for this category, but may break other categories. Will investigate. Josve05a (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, my stupid bad..
Ok, so I figured out a better way. Could you please change from
 | 1 | 01 = January
 | 2 | 02 = February
 | 3 | 03 = March
 | 4 | 04 = April
 | 5 | 05 = May
 | 6 | 06 = June
 | 7 | 07 = July
 | 8 | 08 = August
 | 9 | 09 = September


 | 1 | 1 = January
 | 2 | 2 = February
 | 3 | 3 = March
 | 4 | 4 = April
 | 5 | 5 = May
 | 6 | 6 = June
 | 7 | 7 = July
 | 8 | 8 = August
 | 9 | 9 = September

in Template:Delete/layout. Josve05a (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  Done I think I'm correct in saying that that will fix it prospectively, but that DRs before now will not be changed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes they will (after a purge), since the template is transcluded and not substituted. Josve05a (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Jonatan, I don't think we've fixed it. There are no images under the "8" button in Category:Deletion requests March 2016 even though there were definitely new DRs after I made the change at 12:16. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh wait...I think I messed up...oops...hang on...Josve05a (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, never mind me...sorry. I was right in my first comment, but screwed up during template testing. I'll look into it later tonoght. Please revert the change. :/ Josve05a (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for everyone's help. The issue appears to be resolved. Links to yesterday's and today's deletion requests are now working (10th and 11th). Rybkovich (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Some advise

You've been involved in deleting several of my deletion nominations but I'd like some advise on which way to go with the image uploaded by Foxhunter22. In fact you have deleted at least one of his uploads. I first discovered some of the uploaded images are in fact National Library of Ireland's images based on the post on the enwiki media copyright questions page and I will refine those I can find to save them. However, he claims every image uploaded as his own, but refuses, by default, to address the issue of actual sources so their copyright status can be checked. I have given him advise on this talk page User talk:Foxhunter22#File:Cyrilb.jpg but his response only confirms none of the images are his and also that he does not respect any copyright. In fact it's quite a rant you may want to read first. Should I just start a mass deletion nomination or post a notice at one of the ANs or COM:VPC? Ww2censor (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

As you say, it's quite a rant. I looked over his contributions and, with a very few exceptions, they seem to be copyvios. As his rant makes clear, he has no interest in paying attention to copyright and claims that anything he touches is "own work". There's no EXIF on any of them, even those that he might credibly have taken, and few of them have useful categories or descriptions. Therefore, a mass deletion using VFC is probably the only thing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I never knew about VFC, having done them manually. What a great looking feature, so I'll review the images that look old enough to be kept and then nominate the rest. If you don't mind maybe you can just verify I've done it correctly, so I'll drop you a note when it's up. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Ww2censor -- a few VFC tips, then. You'll see, although not, I think with Foxhunter22, that as you look at a VFC image, the first line is the EXIF camera, if any, so you can rapidly scan for no-EXIF or a user with an unlikely collection of cameras. Then there's a line that has links to the cats (which show up as a tooltip if you mouseover) and the license, then file name, upload date, and size. If you click on an image, you it loads as a new page. Warning -- a nuisance is that all the files for a given user don't necessarily load unless you scroll down to the bottom and push the "more" button. You can very easily mark only half of a user's files if you don;t pay attention. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I noticed some of those things. Thanks for the advise. Ww2censor (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I have concerns about the images uploaded by Foxhunter22 as well. I came across them while doing work on the Nelson's Pillar article on en-Wikipedia. I created Nelson's Pillar, Dublin here for the image galleries, but left out the ones uploaded by Foxhunter22. If someone could do a mass deletion nomination, that would be best, I think. See also en:Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#File:No18.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Foxhunter22. Carcharoth (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: I was going to start a mass deletion soon but first wanted to see if any files are rescuable before that but 6nations rugby today and tomorrow have interrupted me rather as well as some work in the house. Maybe Sunday evening or Monday unless you want to start it. I've already nominated some individual ones for deletion. Ww2censor (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
What would be great would be information about where the photos are from. Some might be obtainable under a free license. There are some great photos there, but unless the uploader tells us where he is getting them from, there is not much that can be done. Maybe ask again (despite the rant last time). Carcharoth (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • PS. Anyone want to help getting old postcard pics of Nelson's Pillar from here? Worth writing to whoever maintains that site? Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


Hi James, Sorry to bother you but I think you forgot to delete File:ExteriorShot.gif?, Thanks and Happy editing :), –Davey2010Talk 15:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Emporia State Athletics logo.png

Hello Jim, please reconsider this, as the reason is valid. I've tagged successfully dozens of this and lower. User: Perhelion 15:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand "I've tagged successfully dozens of this and lower." -- The deletion was requested because there is now an SVG, but we rarely delete preexisting raster files when a vector file is added. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
If this would be true I would stop my activity here completely a long time ago. PS: same successfully last month from me [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] etc... (you seems the only exception here) Please add your unwritten rule here COM:Redundant. If not I would discuss this on a wider place, because it would be very stupid to do things with very random admin decisions. Would this be ok for you? Regards User: Perhelion 21:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you read Commons talk:Superseded images policy. It's clear that your simply saying that the image has been superseded is grossly insufficient -- you must specify why the new image is better and, among other things, that there is no history that needs to be saved for copyright or other reasons. It's also clear that it is entirely up to the closing Admin.

I tend to keep preexisting PNGs. Aside from the reasons above, it saves nothing to delete the image. While most experienced Commons users understand that an SVG can be downloaded and edited as a PNG, many outside users will pick the PNG because they know and understand it and have never seen an SVG before. A PNG seems much more user friendly to the average computer user. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


Hello, in regards to we would like it renamed as you suggested so that mail servers will hopefully pull our current logo from wiki commons. The file should be renamed something like File:NixonPeabody-logo-until-May-2012.jpg. Thanks for your consideration.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 March 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.

  Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

File:MilesWatson 2ndBaronManton 1950or1951.PNG

You deleted the above file, apparently disregarding my good faith assurance that I own the copyright. The photo was taken by my grand-mother, the wife of one of the subjects, and is my personal property and copyright, as I clearly stated. Please will you restore the file. I am surprised you did not message me if you required further assurances.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The author was listed as "unknown" and you still didn't release this in the deletion request, so it's no surprise that it was deleted. Anyway {{PD-heirs}} might be a workable solution, but I don't know how legitimate that license tag is. Jolly Janner (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

First, please remember that Commons gets around 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 1,700 of them. Two thirds of that work is done by a dozen active Admins and our backlog is currently growing. If we had more volunteers, we might be able to give things more personal attention, but as it is, we work fast. Unfortunately, we get hundreds of good faith assurances every day from people who don't own the copyright, so, despite our rule that we "Assume Good Faith", that goes away when there are grounds for suspicion.

The file description says:

Source - own collection, own copyright
Author - unknown photographer

It is very common for users to believe that just because they own a paper copy of a photograph, that they own the right to license it. That of course is not so -- any more than owning a book gives you the right to sell copies of it.

As I said in my closing comment, "Deleted: It is impossible for USER:Lobsterthermidor to own the rights to an image taken by an unknown photographer -- transfering a copyright or licensing it requires a written agreement, signed by the photographer. If LT had such an agreement, he would know the name of the photographer." You clearly stated that the photographer was unknown -- your first mention of your grandmother is above.

In all cases where the uploader is not the photographer and the image is not an upload from a freely licensed site, policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. If your grandmother actually took the image and you are one of her heirs, you may explain that in your e-mail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, will follow the OTRS procedure as you suggest and send an e-mail, thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC))

Some pics from Fortepan

Dear Jim! (@Sepultura) I'm not a fan from Fortepan, but in the case of Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive#File:Hungarian_Bofors_29M_8_cm_anti-aircraft_gun.jpg: by the two pictures and the photographers Lissák Tivadar and Konok Tamás senior are the donors of the photos (they are in the "FOTÓ ADOMÁNYOZÓK" list: means "donors of the photos") - so it can be assumed with full rights that the images are legally licensed from. What do you think? Fauvirt (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. The images are from 1942 and 1943, so, while is is barely possible that the photographers are still alive and provided the images with a free license, it seems very unlikely. As I said at the UnDR, Fortepan doesn't seem to do much checking of copyright and I think these images fall into that category. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, what you mean! As I said, i does not like Fortepan (for the same reasons) but... in the case Lissák Tivadar and Konok Tamás senior are the copyright owners (theirs families), those who give the images under a free license - here is an news report from the Lissák-legacy and from the Konok-legacy (unfortunately for you in Hungarian)... Can these Commons manage somehow? Fauvirt (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see that there is a possibility here. The two "legacy" cites you give were not great, but readable in Google translation, but I don't see that they say anything that connects the two photographers with Fortepan. However, I would be OK with your opening another UnDR for the two images and see what the community says. I'm not sure I will support the UDR, but I will say that you have brought new information and deserve a chance to see what the community says. It would help if you could get User:Grin, our only Hungarian speaking Admin, to comment, but he's not very active here on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

File:51°28’11.0”N 0°12’53.0”W (Holm Oak, Quercus ilex) Fulham Palace, London, UK. 2015.jpg

Hi Jim, You selected 3 of images to be deleted. I have replied on my User_talk:Omi4D, but I am concerned they will be deleted before I have fully explored all the avenues as to why they should not be deleted. If you could re-look at them I would be grateful. Thanks Omi4D (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything on your talk page, but I have commented at Commons:Deletion requests/File:51°28’11.0”N 0°12’53.0”W (Holm Oak, Quercus ilex) Fulham Palace, London, UK. 2015.jpg. That is where any discussion should take place. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The sculptor has emailed the 4 OTRS for the 4 images to permissions-commons. He only received 2 automatic replies for the 4 emails he sent. Is this normal? The four images are

I have put a notice on these discussion pages that the email has been sent. Is this correct or should it have been placed elsewhere.? I appreciate your advice Thanks. Omi4D (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why he received only two bot replies -- there were four messages, which I have merged into one OTRS Ticket:2016031610008285. For future reference, it is preferable to send only one e-mail with a license for any number of specified images or a general license such as "any of my work uploaded by User:Omi4D".
I have added the {{PermissionOTRS}} tag and corrected the author line on the four images and withdrawn the four DRs. I wish all newbies followed instructions and responded as politely as you did. Thank you for your contributions. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Jim. Thank you for taking the time to explain and advice on the correct protocol. You have been very helpful Omi4D (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


Hi Jim, you deleted this photo. It is licensed under creative commons - Can you please restore it? Thanks --Cedewey (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The source appears to be a collection of images from many different photographers. I doubt that its owner has the right to sub-license images there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Used fair use images

I am concerned about the number fair use of images which are being deleted while in use on other projects that allow fair use. (E.G. File:Daily Mail 31 December 1940.jpg) Is there no process for copying or at least alerting other projects about these deletions?

Rich Farmbrough, 19:21 20 March 2016 (GMT).

I agree that it's a problem that could use attention -- although my reason for that is not the same as yours. The problem concerns me because from time to time, Admins are asked to restore an image in order that it can be moved to a WP. That takes more Admin time than getting right in the first place.
First, please remember that Commons gets about 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 1,700 of them for a variety of reasons. A dozen Admins do around two thirds of that work. The rest of it is done by the other 235. If we had more active volunteers, we could do better in a number of different ways, but as it is, we are currently falling behind in dealing with Deletion Requests. There is no capacity to take on any additional manual tasks.
There are four people, or groups, who might help with this problem in DRs. The person who nominates the image for deletion could post a note everywhere it was used. Since a large fraction of the nominations come from the same dozen Admins, this simply can't happen. The uploader is notified that his or her image is going to be deleted. I'd guess that fewer than 20% of such notices are actually seen during the seven days a DR is open. One of the persons commenting on the DR could do it -- but most DRs do not have comments. And, the closing Admin could do it, but again, there's no time.
DRs are, I'll guess, about half of the deletions. The others are {{Speedy}} -- either done on sight by an Admin or after the tag has been added by a non-Admin. Again there's the question of where we will get the time to take on an additional task.
I could imagine a bot going through the DRs and posting such a note. In order to be seen and acted on in the seven days a DR is open, it would probably have to go on the article page, not the talk page, in the WP. I'm not sure how the WPs would feel about their articles being defaced with a warning note. You have both written bots and are vastly more experienced on WP:EN than I -- is that possible?
Another thought that occurs is to add a note to the top of each DR along the lines of:
"Please note that this image may be deleted seven days after the nomination. If you believe the image should be uploaded to a WP as a Fair Use image, please do it now. The closing Administrator will not do it."
That's just an unformed thought -- I'm not sure I like it.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


Hi James, Thanks for the VFC suggestion - The only reason I didn't use it was because I didn't even know it even existed, I just assumed everyone added them all manually....,
Well I've installed it now so that'd make life easier, BTW thanks for nominating the rest for me - Very much appreciated! :)
Thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 14:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Temporarily re-store files

Hello! You have recently deleted the following files:

They were actively used in other Wikimedia projects, including Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia's, but you did not care about notifying these projects or about uploading the files locally. Please, re-store the files so that they could be transferred. Thank you! --Alexander (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexander, please remember that Commons gets about 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 1,700 of them for various reasons. Two-thirds of that work is done by a dozen Admins, while the rest is done by the other 235. If we had more active Admins, we could offer better and more personal service to Users, but as it is we are not even keeping up with the deluge of Deletion Requests. Also note that after roughly 8,500 images deleted every week, perhaps two or three requests like this arise, so it is far more efficient to respond after the deletion than to place notices before every DR and {{Speedy}}.

You might like to comment above at User talk:Jameslwoodward#Used fair use images

Please let me know here when you are done. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The files have been transferred, thank you!
Regarding the rest of your message, I am sorry, but it is the problem of a very poor organization on your side. Or course, you can't manage thousands and millions of images manually, it's obvious, yet I have not seen any single attempt to organize things in a better way, so that bots could do the job. Instead, I see how Commons admins happily spend their time on doing things that can be done by very simple scripts. I have an impression that the majority of active admins here not only lack their own knowledge of scripting, but they hardly understand how scripts work, which means that everything is organized in a very inefficient way, and other people can't run scripts either. Being specific and addressing the topic at User talk:Jameslwoodward#Used fair use images, I have to say that there is no way of running a bot for fair-use images, because it is not possible to separate fair-use images from the rest of deletion requests. I mentioned this problem more than once, but I have not seen any understanding, let alone any interest of the Commons community. I rather heard "we don't care about other projects", which seems to be the current stance shared by the community. --Alexander (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Alexander, I think your blanket comments are off base and inaccurate:
"I see how Commons admins happily spend their time on doing things that can be done by very simple scripts."
What things? For several years we have handled DR closings with DelReqHandler, a script which allows us to close a DR with one click plus one click per image. If there are more than a few images to delete, VFC will do the work. Since our rules require that at least different two humans look at each DR (the nominator and the closer), I don't see how a bot or more scripting could be helpful. Similarly, handling {{Speedy}} tags, the other big time sink, requires an Admin's eyeball, not a bot's. We also spend time nominating files, but that is handled by a script for single files or VFC for multiples. So again, what things? What suggestions do you have to make operations here more efficient? I think I can say with certainty that the most active Admins would welcome anything that would help us stay ahead of the deluge.
As for your comment about fair use images, I don't see any necessity to separate the fair use images -- simply place a notice on all WP article that have an image with a DR -- if the first bot's brother removes the message when the DR closes, then the fact that there may be nothing that the WP editors can do is irrelevant. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not talking about closing deletion requests. This has to be done by humans, but there are many other things that bots can do. For example, this conversation with User:JuTa was very strange. He complained about hundreds of non-existent categories and started creating them by hand, although bot could easily do this, thus releasing admin's time for a more useful activity. Another example is about image categorization. Images uploaded during WLE/WLM have all necessary metadata, so they can be categorized fully automatically if there would be a way to link existing Commons categories to Wikidata. Does anyone work on it? No, and nobody even understands how crucial this thing is. Instead, people still assign categories by hand, move images back and forth, and so on. If you prefer doing this way, fine, but please, do not complain that there is not enough manpower on Commons. You simply do not use it efficiently.
Regarding the fair-use images, there is no way bot can select images that are deleted because of no-FOP. If you know a working algorithm, please propose one. With sufficient detail, so that I could program it. --Alexander (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Categorization is not a task reserved to and done by a very limited number of Admins. Improving categorization might free up a few minutes a day for the dozen Admins that do most of the deletion work. I spend maybe five or ten minutes on Cats weekly. The critical resource on Commons is Admins who do deletions. If we can speed them up, we can offer more personal service to the community.
Again, I proposed that whenever a DR is opened on a file that is in use in any WP article, that the article page gets a notice that it may be deleted in seven days. Presumably the notice would be in the correct language. Although we're talking about fair use images here, it seems to me that the editors of the WP article might want to comment on the DR of any image from their articles, whether fair use was available or not. I know that only a subset of the WPs allow fair use, but for that reason, I think we might ignore that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, you asked me how make things more efficient, and I gave you examples. If admins do not want to close deletion requests, it is a question to the community whether such admins should keep their flags, and whether deletion requests are considered as the most important task here. My personal opinion is that they are not important at all, especially those of no-FoP images. Isn't it better to keep no-FoP images as long as you can not handle them properly?
In my opinion, your suggestion of posting notifications does not solve them problem. It simply transfers this problem to other projects and rests upon the assumption that people in these projects are less busy than you, that they can spend their time on deletion requests and image transfer, but this is definitely not the case. --Alexander (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Same request as above:

Thank you! --Alexander (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexander.   Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The files have been transferred. Thank you! --Alexander (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

More User:Foxhunter22 images

After saving a few images I tagged the rest of these at: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Foxhunter22 but for some reason, using VFC it added those images to a previous deletion nomination page. I'm not sure how that happened, if it really matters, or if it can be fixed to a new unique page name. Anyway I said I'd let you know when I had done them. Ww2censor (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a problem -- VFC always uses the same DR names "Files uploaded by XX" or "Files in Category XX". DelReqHandler (the script that Admins use to close DRs) handles them correctly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Cool, I was just a bit surprised. Thanks again for the advise. Ww2censor (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Roman Miroshnichenko.jpg

Hi Jim, just in case you didn't see: this picture you deleted was reuploaded immediately by the same user. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually he uploaded it twice -- as you cited and as File:Roman Miroshnichenko (guitarist).jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Calling Jim

Turkish pogachas. Try them, preferably with Turkish tea, they're wonderful.

Jim, can you please check my previous edit? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I assume you meant this: File talk:Constantinople(1878)-Armeni mrs.png. If so, comments on File talk pages will usually go unnoticed and you were far too polite -- it's not a joke, it's vandalism, plain and simple. The user is a vandal and is probably going to be blocked soon. The better thing to do would have been to post a note at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism. However, all's well that ends well -- I reverted the edit and warned him. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

MMM. They look good. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleted files, uploaded by Виолетова

Hi Jim, I am very confused with your action on deleting my 9 files, uploaded as Wikipedian in Residence at the State Archives of Republic of Macedonia. The files had category Wikipedian in Residence at DARM, as 425 other files, uploaded with my other username. By the way, I have two usernames - Cyrillic one and one with Latin letters. I ask you to bring them back, because the Institutions will loose faith in collaboration with Wikipedians at all. Note: CC-BY license is used in Wikipedian in Residence work here: Files provided by the DARM and here: Files provided by MANU or here: Files provided by Numismática Pliego, and many other works of Wikipedian in Residence.

If there is need of any letter of intend I have to send to OTRS first to have permission to use CC-BY license for files provided by the Archives, please let me know. Regards, -Violetova (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what more to say -- I think that Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Виолетова is clear. I was very surprised and disappointed to see a WIR make such a series of basic mistakes -- you cannot license another person's work with a CC-BY as if it were your own. The only persons who can license a work as CC-BY are the actual creator, his heirs, or a person who has a written license from the creator or his heirs. It also follows that if the creator is unknown, then a CC-BY license is impossible and the only possibility is to prove that the work is PD.
At least one of the photographs, File:Sala na zasedanieto.jpg, is obviously too recent to be PD -- although the file description says "1944", it has a fifty star USA flag, so it must be later than July 4, 1960, the date on which the fifty star flag was adopted. (Before Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959, the flag had only 48 stars.)
For the other photographs, you must first prove that they were actually "anonymous", not merely that you do not know who the photographer was. That is usually very hard to prove. Then you must prove that either they were not published until at least seventy years after they were created or that they were published before 1946.
As for the written works
in both cases, your file description says "Author=Anonymous". They are signed documents, so obviously that is not the case. In order to have them restored, you must prove that the authors died before 1946 or get a free license from the author's heirs via OTRS.
Finally, it seems that on least some of your uploads in Category:Files provided by the DARM and Category:Files provided by MANU you have used a CC-BY license for files where the author is unknown. As I said above, that is not possible -- only a work with a known author can have a CC-BY license. Unless you can prove that they are PD or otherwise can be correctly licensed here, they also must be deleted. Let me anticipate one possible response from you -- you might like to say that the two institutions -- DARM and MANU -- own the copyrights and can license the works. In the case of works where the author is unknown, that is not possible. The only way that they could own the copyright to works they did not create would be if they have a signed agreement with the author or the author's heirs and, of course, if they had such an agreement, then the author would not be unknown.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your explanation and analysis. Can you use the same logic to analyse the coin from 1812? Author is web site (why this is OK?); there is OTRS note and a CC-BY license is used. The file is considered the most valued image on Commons. About Violetova uploaded files, DARM owns the materials and files which I uploaded in the institution name. At least, the written works could be restored, I will change licence from CC-BY to PD for them, while I'll have to check with the Archives for photos's history. Thank you. Regards, Violetova (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question about the image of the coin. The coin itself is from 1812, so it is clearly PD. The image has a CC license from the company that owns the copyright -- either it was a work for hire or the company licensed it from the photographer. There is no problem there. If you are trying to use the argument that we have other violations of the rules on Commons, please don't. We have over 30 million images here. I would not be surprised if 1% of them have incorrect licenses -- that would be over 300,000 files. I could probably find a dozen images that actually have the same problem yours do.
DARM may own the materials, but as I explained above, it cannot own the copyright to anything where the author is unknown. Therefore, as I also explained above, you must prove that the works are PD.
I don't understand this: "At least, the written works could be restored, I will change licence from CC-BY to PD for them" -- before they can be restored, you must determine who the authors are and that they died before 1946.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
It is my English, sorry, didn't mean to argue. I just wanted to figure out about the copyright, authorship, license and PD issue. Before I uploaded files as WiR, I checked files and photos here on commons, to see how the others WiR use them, so I thought I understand. The written materials are official documents from Serbian Consulate in Skopje, from the period of 1900 till 1918. According to law to go in public with 100 years old documents, the written materials could be published. Regards, Violetova (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Aha. That's OK -- although there is no 100 year rule -- they were PD the day they were created.

"Official texts of political, legislative, administrative and judicial nature and their official translations are in the public domain: Article 16." see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Macedonia.2C_Republic_of.

That does not cover photographs, though. 10:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said - "At least, the written works could be restored" Regards, Violetova (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Understood -- on Commons, confusion sometimes arises from language difficulties, so I probably am more careful than I need to be to make sure that every detail is understood. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Anderson Silva boxing.jpg

Hello and sorry for my English. This photo I was personally given by the journalist in question, with the authorization to use it. It does not matter it removed, but I wonder how to prove a similar situation in the future, so as not to make the same mistake. Thank you for your attention.--Skyzmma (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Policy is very clear, when you upload an image the following are no problem:
  • A photograph where you actually pushed the button on the camera
  • In the public domain (PD) -- a scan of an old book or photograph, for example
  • PD by law -- photos by a USA Federal employee, employees of California and Florida, and employees of a very few other countries
  • Scans or copies of other works that PD by law -- stamps and banknotes in a few countries for example
  • Somebody else's work which is still under copyright -- the actual photographer must send a free license directly to OTRS. This is true whether or not the image has already appeared on a copyrighted web site or in a magazine or book. If you aren't the creator and the work is still under copyright, then the actual creator must license it.
By the way, I see only one thing that even hints that you are not a native English speaker and perhaps that was just fast typing -- I sometimes leave words out. There's certainly no need to apologize.
("It does not matter it removed..." >> "It does not matter that it was removed...")
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks.
P.S: I'm French. I understand almost English in oral, but written is harder (thank you google trad).Skyzmma (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

File:গল্পগুচ্ছ (চতুর্থ খণ্ড).pdf

Hi! About your rationale of keeping this file because of lack of additional material. The work does contain addl. material. The exhaustive appendix (p. 226 to p. 266) about the background history of the stories was written by Pulin Bihari Sen (1908-1984) as mentioned in the colophon. The work was edited by Kanai Samanta (1904-1995) (also mentioned in the colophon). Best, Hrishikes (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hrishikes, it would have been easier for us both if you had said at the DR that the subject work contained new material. We have only two Admins who read Bengali and only one of those is at all active, so it was almost certain that this DR would be closed by someone who could not read the colophon. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not think about mentioning it initially because I thought that 1962 publication was sufficient logic. I'll try to do better next time. Hrishikes (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary removal of old photographs

On 21/3/16, in your justification for removing a couple of photographs from the Lupton Family page, you wrote:

Family photos require a free license from the actual photographer via OTRS. .    

The photographs you removed were of Joseph Lupton who died in 1894 and of Barbara Lupton taken during her time at Cambridge (1910-13). Whatever OTRS may be, can it tell us how to obtain a licence from the "actual photographer" for photographs of that period? This business of imposing modern ideas on historical artefacts only harms Wikipedia and those of us who have tried to edit sensibly can easily find better ways to spend our time. I have had to post this a second time to try to get it to remove the "unsigned" message which nevertheless quoted my Editor name. --Gardencitizen (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Subject is:
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barbara Lupton.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joseph Lupton.jpg
In the UK, created works remain under copyright for 70 years after the death of the creator. Therefore, a photograph from 1894 could easily still be under copyright, if the photographer was born in 1874, took the picture at age 20, and died in 1946 at age 72. Commons policy is that you must prove either that you own the copyright to any work you upload or that the copyright has expired. Neither has been proven here.
It is usual practice here when you open a discussion to provide a link to the subject. I should not have to do research to find the images you are discussion, particularly when they are not your uploads. Please remember that since March 21, when I closed these DRs, I have made close to a thousand edits and other actions on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Query about image deletions

Hello Jim, please be patient - I am new at this game.

I am building an article about a now defunct cricket club called Old Belvedere Cricket Club. The club existed from 1950 to 2012. I was a long time member and over the years I took many team photographs. Some I had mounted in frames and displayed on the clubhouse walls. Since then all the original photos are lost and all that remained in 2012 were the framed ones. I took possession of these and scanned them. I then uploaded them to Commons as my work. You have deleted a selection (not all?) of them and I need please to know why?

Now, six of the photos I uploaded were from 1936 and of course not taken by me. They were taken by a member of the old boys team depicted therein. He donated a framed set of the six photos to another club where they were displayed for many years. He died in 1945. Irish copyright lapses after 70 years so I felt entitled to use the photographs.

Based on the above, is it in order for me to undo the deletions?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GDMorgan (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.

First, it is never permissible or necessary for you to upload images a second time. I have just deleted four images that you reloaded that had been deleted previously. Note, but the way, that images that contain only text are out of scope and will always be deleted.

As for your question above, you don't give me a cite and the four images I mentioned above are your only deleted uploads, so I can't see what I did and why, but as a general rule you are correct. If you cite the actual photographer as author and note that he died in 1945, there should be no problem. If you give me a list of the six files, I can fix them.

I also suggest strongly that you take more care in your uploads. I happened to look at File:1971 trophies.jpg. If I had seen it in other circumstances, I would nominate it for deletion as useless to Commons. It says only that it is a 1971 cricket team -- not even what country they are from. That's true of many of your team photos. This, and some others, are also obviously scans of halftones, so even if you are the author, the source is the newspaper, not "own work".

I assume you are not Pat Dineen, so you cannot claim that File:Kevin O'Riordan.jpg is your own work -- we can't keep it without a free license from Dineen via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for those comments. I take what you say on-board.

  1. The 1936 photos are named "1936 Past vs Present n.jpg" where n is from 1 to 6. I have tried to undo one of the photos but it appears to be 'gone'. It would be great if you could recover them please.
  2. You say several of the photos are halftones. True. In 2000 for the 50th anniversary of the club I produced a printed booklet for each of the members. The booklet contained articles and associated photos (taken by me). I have lost the soft copy of the booklet and can only scan the hardcopy to get the photos from it.
  3. Your reference to Pat Dineen: Pat wrote the article in the booklet but the photo of the man being referenced is mine.
  4. The booklet contained several pages of statistics. Are you saying that I cannot scan those pages and use them because they are not images? How then could I reproduce them in the article?

Hope that's not too many questions!! GDMorgan (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I took the liberty of numbering your questions. There are never too many questions -- usually too few. I'd much rather answer questions than clean up messes made by people who didn't ask.
1) OK, I found File:1936 Past vs Present 1.jpg and its mates. Who is User:Popgdm who uploaded the files? I don't want you to disclose his real name, but I need to know what his relationship is to you and the club. What is the name of the photographer who died in 1945? Will you promise me that if I restore them, that you'll promptly give them good descriptions and categories? Along that line, I have created and added a few images to Category:Old Belvedere Cricket Club. You should do more.
2) OK. It probably will head off a future DR if you put this comment in each of the relevant file description.
3) Dineen's text is copyrighted, so keeping it requires a license from him or her. Or, you could simply crop out the text and upload the image by itself over the existing one. That's also true of any other files that have text other than a simple identification list.
4) Yes. As a rule anything that can be set in Wiki markup must be.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Jim, I am struggling to stay on top of this Wiki World! This Wiki stuff is like being dropped into the Unix world. Four tildes to signoff!! Very intuitive. Rant over!! I have learned meantime how to do ordered lists and appreciate you doing that to the issues I raised. Let me try to respond in an orderly way:

1) I am user Popgdm!! Having uploaded some photos using my original ID, I formed the mistaken impression that I should create a new ID (GDMorgan) for the OBCC article. My thinking was that I could hand the ID over to another younger member to maintain the article. I realise now that I should have just one ID and that there is no sense of ownership of an article. My error. Regarding the 1936 photos I will certainly do as you request as quickly as I can learn about categories and how to add image descriptions. That may not be too promptly but will get my best effort!! The man who took the original photos was Sean Murphy (I must admit that this is second hand information that I cannot definitively prove but am confident of its veracity).
2) I will do as you suggest regarding the half-tone scans of the booklet. When I learn how to do it!!
3) I am trying to contact Pat Dineen to get his approval to use the scanned article. The photo would make no sense without the article. In what form would his approval be required? Would an email from him be sufficient?
4) I am really struggling with this one. If I scan a booklet page that I created containing tabular data, then I own the image. I can see nothing in the Wiki help pages that prohibits my using this? To attempt to recreate numeric tables using Wiki markup seems unreasonably onerous. What is behind the ruling that such scans cannot be used?

GDMorgan (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, ~~~~ is not very intuitive, but like the [[linking brackets]] and {{template braces}}, it avoids character combinations that are not likely to be used for other purposes. More than you needed to know ~~~ gives just the sig and ~~~~~ gives just the date.

  1. OK -- as a rule, having multiple identities is discouraged and if both undisclosed and used deceptively to edit the same page, it can be a serious violation. Since you did it with good intentions, no problem, but I suggest you pick one or the other. I have restored the six files. You edit a file description the same way you edit here.
  2. Good.
  3. Dineen must follow the instructions at OTRS.
  4. See Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_a_media_file, the second bullet point. The rule is enforced rather strictly, so even if I shrug it off, if you try to use them, they will be deleted. It's not a copyright issue -- as a rule, such tabular data has no copyright -- it's a question of the way things are presented on a WP page. Using a Wikitable allows maximum legibility on any screen from a a few hundred pixels wide to several thousand. It also makes it possible for a vision impaired user to have it read by the computer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
1) Thank you, I have found the six files. I have added descriptions and categories. Perhaps you would please check that they are adequate?
3) I have managed to contact Pat Dineen and he is sending the OTRS email to release the article. This may take a day or two.
4) I am working on this
5) Of the original 50 photos I uploaded 18 have been deleted. They appear to be arbitrary - mostly team photos like others that are still there. I would like now to restore the missing 18. Can I do that myself? Can I even see them? Or should I upload them again if they have been truly deleted (BUT, you said I should never do this)?

.     George . . . . GDMorgan (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I see only four files that you have uploaded that have been deleted and not restored. They all fall under #4. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible they were files I uploaded using the other ID 'popgdm' ?? If so, how should I proceed to fix the mess? .     George . . . . GDMorgan (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

George, I have restored all of them except

Please categorize and better describe them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Jim, I have done as you requested. There is still just some confusion:

But still missing are:

Regarding file:George J Morgan.jpg this photo is for another article (about my father). I took the photo from an old (1934) family photo album. I assumed it was taken by my grandfather. Your advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. I would especially like to restore the photo.

.     George . . . . GDMorgan (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

How good is your assumption that your grandfather was the photographer? If you are sure beyond a significant doubt and are one of his residual heirs, then you own the license and I'll restore it. If you're not that sure, then we can't restore it.
You're right, I restored file:Kevin O'Riordan.jpg by mistake, but we'll leave it for now.
I did not restore File:John Prior.jpg because of the text present in it. Who wrote it?
As I noted above, the remaining files uploaded by User:GDMorgan all fall under point #4 above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding my father's photograph, yes, I am the residual heir. It was in amongst other personal family photos and for that reason I believe that he did indeed own it. I have no other means of establishing its origin and hence have no significant doubt. On that basis I request please that you restore it.
Regarding the Kevin O'Riordan photo I am still awaiting a response from Dineen (he is over 80 years old!!). I will monitor it closely. Thank you for leaving it there in the meantime.
Regarding the text associated with File:John Prior.jpg, I wrote the text. It was part of the 2000 handbook I prepared for the 50th anniversary. It was simply a few interesting facts about the man in the photo. Can you please restore?
Regarding the file:best XI.jpg Please delete this. I will replace it with a photo and a Wiki table.
As for the other tabular scans I find the restriction somewhat unreasonable - but I realise you don't make the rules! To recreate the data in tables would take hours of work and hence they won't appear. Is it permissible to link to an external source which contains the scans?

.     George . . . GDMorgan (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wondering please if you have had a chance to consider my responses above. Especially in relation to the photo of my father. GDMorgan (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  Done I have restored File:John Prior.jpg and File:George J Morgan.jpg. On the latter, you must change the author line to show your grandfather's name and add a note that you are his heir. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Martin Medina (Composer).tif

Hi Jim. Thanks for your hard work on Wikipedia and for bringing to my attention the 'flagrant violation' of Wikipedia policies. Having read your comment, I have now deleted the article. With respect to the photograph which I requested to be undeleted, you wrote "I don't see how the subject of this can also be the photographer". I can confirm that I am the subject and the photographer. I used my Canon EOS 1100D using the RS-60E3 remote switch while I was recording a vocal in my studio.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medinm01 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Medinm01 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, but it's much better to make comments at the UnDR, where the community is likely to see and act on them. As far as the article goes -- although it is certainly better if third parties write bios, I don;t think you need to delete it, provided that you disclose your real name on your WP:EN User page..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jim. Thanks again for your advice. I'll add the information regarding my ownership of the photograph to the existing undeletion request. Best wishes MMedinm01 (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


Hallo Jim, sorry for that inconvenience, but can you undo all actions regarding File:JinMaoTower.JPG? This was a test for me, if my request is indeed valid. I thought that i fail, nowhere in Category:Jin Mao Building the architect Adrian Smith is mentioned. How tight is the Chinese law? Can we tolerate this or have to delete the files? Or should somebody inscribe this information? Exist instructions regarding that issue? Thank you --Ras67 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ras67, thanks -- I probably should have found the architect and added him rather than deleting the file. I think I have added him to all of the relevant files in Category:Jin Mao Building and its sub-cats. What a nuisance -- thank God for VFC.
You say
"This was a test for me, if my request is indeed valid."
Yes, your request was valid. But before you make any more DRs for Chinese buildings, you might learn to use VFC and add the architect to the "|Author=" line in the File descriptions. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Does Chinese FOP really require attribution in all situations? Under Swedish law, attribution is required in accordance with 'good manners', but 'good manners' do not always require attribution. For example, 'good manners' tend not to require attribution if it is too difficult to identify the name of the author, so I suspect that you usually do not need to attribute the author if you walk on a street and suddenly discover an unsigned architectural work of which you wish to publish a photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
" work may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon." (see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#China.2C_People.27s_Republic_of)
That reads like "all situations" to me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:LPL 2016-03-22.JPG


You forgot to keep or delete File:LPL 2016-03-22.svg (this one is in use).

Thanks. Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)



Thanks for your help in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Germán Mera Cáceres.jpg. I was wondering if you can all the other files of the user Jair2016 (You can see the list ofhis uploaded files in his user talk page: User talk:Jair2016). Thanks --  Remux - Nunca Olvidaré, que me enamoré de la más hermosa flor. Ĉu mi povas helpi vin iel? 13:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

When you nominate for deletion more than two files from the same uploader or category, please use VFC -- it is much faster for you and also faster for the Admin who closes the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WMF what?

Sorry, about that and that, but from when we don't follow URAA for post-1976 Italian photographs? Then, should Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cavarrone, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nuovo Cinema Paradiso (film).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nando Gazzolo 1981.jpeg and only God knows how many others be restored?... I regularly follow such PD-ITALY-related discussions, it's the first time I see such a similar outcome. You are not necessarily wrong, but could you point me the topic(s) where it was discussed and eventually allowed to upload in Commons post-1976 PD-ITALY images (which are therefore PD in Italy but not in the US)? It would be extremely useful for future discussions and to request further undeletions. --Cavarrone (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA which shows overwhelming support by Commons editors for fundamentally ignoring the URAA unless it is proven that it should apply -- it is basically the opposite of our normal policy of "delete unless proven beyond a significant doubt that it is free". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the link, but then... should the deleted images I pointed above (including a few uploaded by me myself) be restored, or their cases are different? As far as I can see, these cases were not apparently "proven" differently from the two recent 1978 screenshots (i.e., the rationale in all of them was that the Italian copyright expired when the URAA already applied). Cavarrone (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
But Jim, your close is wrong. Even though there is community consensus saying that all images deleted due to URAA should be restored, it just apply only to files deleted before 2 April 2014. Those files you kept are new files. {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} says that Images whose copyright was restored in the U.S. by the URAA are no longer accepted at Wikimedia Commons. New files should not be uploaded with this tag, or they will be deleted. So please delete them per URAA and COM:PCP. Poké95 09:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, stating it as a "WMF policy" is inaccurate, because it was not made by the WMF, it is the decision of the community. So please don't state it as a "policy made by the WMF". Poké95 09:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Poké, three things.

First. I remember seeing somewhere an opinion from WMF counsel that we were not going to delete any URAA images until and unless we received at least one DMCA takedown notice.

Second, I don't understand your reasoning. Maybe the community doesn't understand its reasoning. You're saying that we're going to restore all URAA images deleted before April 2, 2014, but delete all images uploaded after that date. Why is that date magic? Or is it possible that your comments are an April Fools' Day hoax?

Yann, you closed the discussion I cited above. Would you please help here? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

But why does {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} says that Images whose copyright was restored in the U.S. by the URAA are no longer accepted at Wikimedia Commons. New files should not be uploaded with this tag, or they will be deleted.? No, this is not an April Fools joke, I am serious. If admins are not going to delete newly uploaded images that has its copyright restored by the URAA, then {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}'s text needs to be changed. Thanks, Poké95 11:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, your "first" is just saying that it is the opinion from the WMF, not a policy. Poké95 11:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
WMF legal may choose to provide opinions (as might other lawyers) but this is not the same thing as controlling Wikimedia Commons' policies. The community takes account of legal opinions and established law but the consensus may well be to prefer some legal opinions over others, or to judge some aspects of the law as overly hypothetical to take action on. The URAA discussion sucked up far too much volunteer time in my view, we would have been better off getting a grant to pay for publication of more authoritative expert opinions, if that would have helped, but amateurs debating it after we had such a large vote seems a waste of time. I suggest Pokéfan95 drops worrying about it and it would help if Jameslwoodward accepted that administrators take action supported purely by project policies and credible consensus, not because WMF legal or a WMF employee expressed a view which might change or be withdrawn in a year. -- (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree with that. The WMF Board is ultimately in charge of all WMF activities, although it may choose to delegate authority to the communities. With that said, however, my problem here is that I'm not sure I understand what community policy is -- User:Pokéfan95 seems to be saying that the Commons community has decided to restore all URAA images uploaded before April 2, 2014 and delete all images uploaded after that. That just doesn't make sense -- why is that date magic? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  Comment instead of following the normal procedures Pokéfan95 decided to nominate the files for speedy deletion after they where kept. Natuur12 (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Jim made it very clearly. There was a massive support by Commons editors for keeping these files. After some people were not happy with this decision, and made another vote, trying to reverse the first decision. I am not going to comment much about that, but I think this was an error. I am very disappointed by people being utterly vindicative about this issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I may have missed some discussions, but I don't think there was massive support. There was an initial push to mass-delete everything with the Not-PD-US-URAA tag, but many of the files thus tagged actually were OK, so the mass delete was abandoned. The WMF wasn't very explicit, perhaps not wanting to dictate policy, though I think they did say we should follow U.S. law (which includes URAA). I thought most of the guidance was at m:Wikilegal/Use of Foreign Works Restored under the URAA on Commons; they do say they will not provide legal advice, but do recommend that files be deleted on a case-by-case basis instead of mass deleted -- though nothing of the sort of "keep everything except DMCA requests". The only ones that the WMF will proactively delete are ones involved with a DMCA request -- so the rest is more left to policy. The other problem, though, is that they reiterate that Commons should not host material on a fair use basis, which frankly is exactly the situation when hosting files we know to be copyrighted via the URAA. We just won't claim that defense if a DMCA challenge is issued; we'd delete. So it's more a matter of policy -- if we want to change to a policy of just "PD in the country of origin while allowing URAA works to be deleted upon request", we might be able to do that. That's a pretty fundamental policy to change, though that was basically the policy during the time the URAA was being challenged, even though it was highly unlikely to be overturned (and the issue at question didn't involve our use anyways). I would be very hesitant on much more recent photographs known to be covered by the URAA such as the ones made possible by PD-Italy... the odds of problems with re-use go way up with those. Photos more recent than 1978 also need to qualify for {{PD-US-1978-89}} as well -- they could still be copyrighted by avenues other than the URAA. But if we have a policy of "PD in the country of origin and the US", then US law includes the URAA like it or not -- I don't see a fundamental difference between works copyrighted because they had a valid notice versus those restored by the URAA. On the other hand the DMCA is part of the law as well, giving the WMF an avenue to ignore technical copyright violations until a DMCA request is filed. Commons normally goes to fairly large lengths to determine PD status per the COM:PRP policy; allowing known-URAA works is basically contradictory to COM:PRP. But, we have done it in the past -- I don't remember any agreed-to policy to keep such works since, other than they should be looked at case-by-case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say "massive", I said "overwhelming", which I think is a fair statement. At the two discussions on Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA, the first vote was 119   Support and 19   Oppose. In the second it was 19 and 1. (I did not read the whole discussion again -- simply counted the two templates -- so I may have missed one or two who expressed an opinion but did not use the template.)
I tend to agree with Carl -- although I don't like it much, since I don't see why the USA should extend copyright far beyond the protection in the home country, it is the law of the USA. However, I think the clear consensus of our colleagues is that we ignore it.
We also have the following statement which is quoted at the same discussion:
"The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees said on February 20, 2014 regarding Deletion of Content that "The WMF does not plan to remove any content unless it has actual knowledge of infringement or receives a valid DMCA takedown notice. To date, no such notice has been received under the URAA. We are not recommending that community members undertake mass deletion of existing content on URAA grounds, without such actual knowledge of infringement or takedown notices."
I'm not sure what they meant by "actual knowledge of infringement". There's very little that I have actual knowledge of and it certainly doesn't extend to the copyright status of foreign images. I may have an opinion on the matter, but I don't have any actual knowledge. So, for me, it appears that the WMF Board doesn't want anything deleted unless we get a DMCA notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
For 'actual knowledge', see wmfblog:2016/02/10/anne-frank-diary-removal/ for an example (deletion of s:nl:Het Achterhuis (Anne Frank)). In other words, if someone sends an e-mail to WMF's 'designated agent' for DMCA takedown requests, and this e-mail contains sufficient information about the copyright status of the file, then the Foundation is required to take down material. It seems that more evidence is needed than when the copyright holder sends a normal DMCA takedown request.
Also note that Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA is null and void as it was overturned by Commons:Review of Precautionary principle. The precautionary principle essentially says that we do not keep material if there is a substantial risk that reusers may run into legal trouble by using the material, so if the WMF wants to keep the material on Commons, the WMF would essentially need to assure that reusers in the United States won't risk running into legal trouble if using the material, something that the WMF hasn't done to my knowledge. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, I guess I missed that discussion. As for "actual knowledge of infringement", that is their liability protection under the DMCA -- as soon as they have "actual knowledge" they must act to remove infringing works. A DMCA request is basically a notification that they can't ignore. So, their protection from liability rests on not having actual knowledge -- so it behooves them to stay out of Commons policy in this regard, for sure. From 17 USC 512(c):
(1)In general.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider—
(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
Now, you can argue that files appear to have been restored by the URAA and delete on that basis, but you can also argue that we can't have "actual knowledge" unless we really know the publication history (was it simultaneously published in the US, thus avoiding the URAA, etc.). So, it could be valid policy, although it contradicts the "PD in the US" rule that we have. On the other hand, if we go that route, for a couple of the movie stills linked above, I think that {{PD-US-1978-89}} status must also be proven -- such works may have already been under U.S. copyright before the URAA, and would still be now if that was the case. It will probably be true for the vast majority of photographs that there was no notice, but assuming that for movies and magazines might be too much. As an addendum, they have recently gotten a DMCA request under the URAA I'm pretty sure -- they deleted some Anne Frank stuff; see their blog posting. In that, they mention that "actual knowledge" can come from being informed by a third party, as ruled by the 9th circuit. There is also something called "red flag knowledge". Granted, in the Anne Frank case it's possible that U.S. copyrighted subsisted without the URAA, but the URAA makes it a near slam dunk. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Another thing: How does URAA work with respect to films? It seems that Italian law contains 'cinematographic works' but that individual film frames aren't part of a 'cinematographic work' but a separate 'photographic image' (which isn't a work). On the other hand, United States law seems to define 'cinematographic works' as something containing everything created specifically for the film (including individual film frames). URAA seems to restore 'works of copyright', and which country's definition of a 'work of copyright' should be used when the definitions differ? Also, what counts as a 'cinematographic work' under United States law often counts as dozens of different works under Swedish law. Under Swedish law, a 'cinematographic work' essentially seems to be a film in script form, as letters written on a paper, with everything else being separate works. Due to EU standardisation, this mainly affects who the original copyright holder is, but it also complicates the calculation of the Swedish copyright term for pre-1995 (?) films. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
    • That is an interesting question. I suspect the U.S. would use its own definition of "work" when it comes to film frames... the U.S. uses its own law to determine the scope of copyright, so the film owner would probably have a case for infringement, though I'm not sure there has been a direct precedent. The U.S. would use foreign law to determine who the copyright holder actually is (per Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier). If the Swedish term had been retroactively standardized by January 1, 1996 (and I think they did in late 1995), I'm not sure there would be any further effect for the U.S., unless the term under the older law was longer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Under Swedish law, a film could easily consist of dozens or hundreds of different works with different authors. The former law defined the copyright term as life+50 years, with the copyright term for each of those individual works running independently of each other (and thus having different expiration dates). EU law redefined the term as 70 years after the longest living of four different people, but without making existing copyright terms shorter. If some of those authors died more than twenty years after the longest living of those four people listed by the European Union, then some parts of the film will remain copyrighted for a longer term than the EU term (provided that the film was created before the EU directive was implemented). Since the United States copyright term on the URAA date only was 75 years from publication, there should be few situations where all of the four 'EU people' had been dead for 70 years without the film having been published before 1921, so there were probably few if any films which weren't restored by URAA. The interesting thing is neighbouring rights. A typical photograph doesn't meet the threshold of originality in Sweden and is therefore only protected by copyright for 50 years from creation (25 years from creation if created before 1969, 10 years from creation if created before 1951). If I remember correctly, SOU 1956:25 notes that screenshots from photographic films are photographs, and if the screenshot doesn't meet the threshold of originality, then I think that it would be unaffected by the EU film copyright term as it only is supposed to affect those parts of the film which meet the threshold of originality. Therefore, you might find that many screenshots have a much shorter copyright term and that many screenshots were in the public domain on the URAA date (unlike the film as a whole which was still copyrighted). The same appears to be the case with screenshots in Italy.
Under United States law, USA restored the copyright to those works which were not in the public domain in the source country on the URAA date. In the United States, all of the Swedish works, as well as screenshots which are not works at all, would count as a single work (which United States law refers to as a 'motion picture', I think). USA then finds that this work is partially in the public domain in the source country and partially copyrighted: the copyright has expired to some screenshots, but the music is still copyrighted. Would USA restore the copyright to the work (as defined under United States law) in full or in part (based on source country copyright status)?
Another issue is that Swedish law may state that the film has hundreds of different copyright holders: this cameraman holds the copyright to the screenshots from this scene, that sound technician holds the copyright to the sound track of that scene and some composer holds the copyright to one of the songs in the film. I presume that it is complicated to use a film if the film has hundreds of different copyright holders from which you need to obtain permission before using the film as it takes a lot of time to locate all of them, so I presume that the copyright to the entire film is transferred to someone, or that someone is given the right to license the entire film on behalf of the copyright holders. The EU directive only affected the copyright term but not how you identify the author or copyright holder, so I presume that the old complex rules still are used for identifying the copyright holders to films. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Chinese FOP

Hi, I don't think artistic works include buildings according to the Chinese law[15] as buildings cannot be 设置 (installed) or 陈列 (displayed). Anyway I've started a discussion [16] in zhwp to seek others opinions. --Baycrest (Talk) 14:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Baycrest, I don't read Chinese, but our summary at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#China.2C_People.27s_Republic_of and the translation at's_Republic_of_China_%282010%29 mention only "artistic work", so if the summary and translation are accurate and architecture is not included in "artistic work", then there is no FOP for architecture at all. As far as I am aware, the term "artistic work" means much the same worldwide -- any work that has a copyright except literary works -- text. Note also that Article 3(4) lists "works of fine art and architecture" at the same place.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think that a building can't be installed? A building is typically installed when constructed. Also, a building is typically displayed as long as you are not placing objects in front of the building which are hiding the building. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
A Chinese Wikipedian told me that Supreme People's Court in China has confirmed taking and publishing photographs of outdoor artistic work (including buildings) doesn't infringe copyright even without mentioning the author. Source: [17]. --Baycrest (Talk) 15:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
That directly contradicts our summary of the law and the English translation of the law cited above. Please give me the name of your source. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The name of source is Sina Finance. Below is the relevant paragraph:
固然对公共建筑物的照相留念不需付费,但如果又将上述照片复制发行并谋取营利,又是否涉及版权侵权呢?诸如上海的东方明珠、北京天安门都曾被广泛印制在各类纪念品上。青岛的标志性建筑物“五月的风”曾被用于海信手机屏保,该建筑物的设计者也据此提起诉讼,该案的核心问题则在于,公共建筑雕塑的照片能否用于商业用途。最高人民法院在其司法解释中明确规定,室外艺术作品的临摹、绘画、摄影、录像人,可以对其成果以合理的方式和范围再行使用,不构成侵权。这也就意味着,对于公共建筑雕塑的照片,允许在“合理的方式和范围”内使用。同样,在“天坛大佛”被印制在IP电话卡的案件中,法院审理后最终也认为,该行为属于“合理使用”的范围,不属于侵权行为。 --Baycrest (Talk) 05:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Although the photographic pictures of public buildings free of charge, but if you turn the above photo copy issued and to seek profit, and whether it relates to copyright infringement? Such as Shanghai's Oriental Pearl Tower, Beijing's Tiananmen Square have been widely printed on various types of souvenirs. Qingdao landmarks "May the wind" has been used Hisense phone screensavers, also the designer of the building pursuant to sue, the core issue of the case is that public buildings can be used for commercial photo sculpture use. The Supreme Court clearly defined in its judicial interpretation, copying, drawing, photography, video man outdoor works of art can be its outcome in a reasonable manner and scope of the re-use and does not constitute infringement. This means, for public buildings, sculpture photos, allowing the use within the "reasonable manner and scope." Similarly, in "Buddha Statue" are printed in the case of IP phone cards, the court hearing and ultimately believe that the behavior is "fair use" of the range, it does not belong to violations.
translator: Google

That is a "fair use" argument and Commons does not accept fair use. If we did, we would use the relatively liberal USA fair use law and keep many images that we now delete. The Chinese law very clearly states that the author must be named:

"work may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon... in the case of: copying, drawing, photographing, or video recording of an artistic work located or on display in an outdoor public place." emphasis added

Please make the appropriate changes to your photographs of copyrighted Chinese architecture. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

“合理的方式和范围”doesn't mean "FAIR USE", it means "reasonable manner and scope". Finally the supreme court defined it is "reasonable manner and scope" to publish “天坛大佛” and Qingdao's landmark “五月的风” commercially. Please revert your changes made to the relevant photographs of copyrighted Chinese architecture. --Baycrest (Talk) 15:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
You are arguing in circles. "Reasonable manner and scope" is exactly the meaning of fair use -- there is a clear limitation there on the use of the images. For example, if one were to take detailed photographs of all of a particular architect's buildings and publish them in a book that would not be a reasonable scope. Such a limitation is unacceptable on Commons.
I really don't understand your problem here -- it's entirely appropriate, even essential, to provide the name of the creator of a work even if the law doesn't require it. Why do you object so strongly to naming the architect? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Haruna Ikezawa

No content! -- 17:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

So.... If you think it should be deleted, use {{Speedy}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2015 aerial photographs of Bangalore

Hi there,

I mentioned you in the discussion at Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2015 aerial photographs of Bangalore (since you closed the discussion we were discussing(!)).

Feel free to contribute (or not) as you wish. All the best! Ubcule (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of photographs of Grete Kellenberger and Daisy Dussoix

Hi Jameslwoodward,

From what Morningbastet has told me, she has followed the procedure to ask permission to upload a photo that has been given to her directly by someone who had all the necessary rights and has handed them over to her officially.

Could you explain your decision please?

--Nattes à chat (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Daisy Dussoix.jpg
File:Grete Kellenberger 1956.JPG
It is important to remember that active Commons Admins may delete more than 100 images a day. When you ask a question such as this, particularly when you are not yourself the uploader, it is courteous to provide the correct names of the files involved.
In both cases, User:Morningbastet claimed that the files were "own work" -- that she was the photographer. Our colleague, ghouston, questioned that at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Morningbastet. Morningbastet did not respond there. From what you say, his question was correct, she was not the photographer, and she gave no evidence that she had any right to freely license the images. Therefore, I deleted the files completely in accord with our rules.
When an uploader is not the actual photographer of the image, then either the image must be in the public domain for some reason or the uploader must prove that he or she has the right to freely license it. That can be provided by the actual photographer sending a free license to OTRS.
You say "given to her directly by someone who had all the necessary rights and has handed them over to her officially." You and she should remember that owning a paper copy of an image does not give one any right to freely license it. Any license for use here must come directly from the actual photographer, unless the photographer has formally transferred or licensed his or her rights in a written agreement. In the that case, whoever holds that license from the photographer must provide a copy of it with the OTRS license e-mail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see:
which are Morningbastet's remaining two uploads. The first infringes on the copyrights of the two paintings pictured and the second is against policy. While the GIF format is permitted, its use is discouraged for all files unless animation is required and we do not keep new raster files when there is a preexisting SVG. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Jim, I was talking only about one photo concerning Grete Kellenberger, sorry for not mentioning the name of the file. I have send the procedure to Morningbastet (including the OTRS email address) and Elisabeth Di Capua the actual photographer has uploaded herself the photo successfully today. I imported it in the following article. For the others I have no clue, and apologize of any inconvenience my question might have caused. --Nattes à chat (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Jim, I am Morningbastet and first of all I would like to apologise for my lack of experience. But I am a fast learner, if well taught..:) ]

In good faith:

  1. I received copyright assignment from the "owners" of the images of Grete K and Daisy D., through e-mail communications. Please advise clearly and simply who should communicate precisely what to whom in order to be able to keep these images in WikiCommons?
  2. I personally took the photo of the library. Again, please explain clearly and simply the precise steps I should undertake. What written agreement? What text? To send to whom? How can I figure out who owns the copyright on those posters? How do i ask them for a license?
  3. Pour le lormetazepam, I simply noticed that a methyl group was missing. The preceding image was wrong, and I placed the correct image. Which I found on Internet, I think on another Wiki page.

I wish that the steps to follow were explained a little bit more clearly. Thanks for your help.

One simple question: by any chance would it work if the owner of the rights deposited the images this way, e.g. sending a email to: To: I hereby affirm that I, choose one: [name, am] or [represent copyright holder's name,] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of choose one: [the media work][1] or [the work depicted in the media][2] or [both the work depicted and the media][3] as shown here: choose one: [web page of the content] or [in the attached images/text].[4] I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [Sender's name] [Sender's authority (if applicable. E.g. "Copyright holder", "Director", "Appointed representative of", etc.)] [Date]

What about non-commercial license? does it make any difference, ids there a different form?

Another question: The canvases (that i took a photo of :*Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salle de séminaire du Département de Biologie Moléculaire, Université de Genève.jpg were exposed in the public, outside a building of the University of Geneva, for about one year. they are also reproduced in a book, the catalog "Faces à Faces". They were bought from the University of Geneva from the Workshop of Roger Pfund. Subsequently, they were purchased by the Department of molecular biology to decorate their seminar room. my question is the following: who owns the copyright that you state I infringed? You say "The first infringes on the copyrights of the two paintings pictured". Who do you think owns the copyrights. Thanks for your clarifications. Morningbastet

"But I am a fast learner, if well taught..:) ] " I'll try to teach well, and, please, if you now or in the future don't understand something, please ask me or one of the other experienced editors here. For the most part we try very hard not to bite newbies, but occasionally they get bitten because we're badly understaffed and work faster than is good.
One at a time.
Grete Kellenberger and Daisy Dussoix: The vast majority of countries protect works for 70 years after the death of the author (post mortem auctoris -- PMA), if he or she is known. The two women were Swiss, so Swiss law probably applies and that is 70 years PMA. If the author is unknown, then the Swiss copyright term is 70 years after first publication. Since these were apparently photographed in the 1960s, they must still be under copyright whether the photographer is known or not.
That means that the copyright is owned by the photographer(s) or his or her (or their) heirs. If the photographer(s) are known, then in order to restore the images, the photographer(s) or heir(s) must send a free license directly to OTRS using the form and instructions linked here. Note that you cannot forward the permissions -- they must come directly from the copyright holder. If the photographer(s) are unknown, then the images are orphan works and cannot be uploaded to Commons until their copyrights expire roughly twenty years from now.
It is possible, but very unlikely, that the photographer or heirs licensed the rights to a third party. Such a license must be in writing. If that is the case, then the third party can give permission for their use here and elsewhere also via OTRS, but such a permission must be accompanied by a copy of the written agreement by which they acquired the right to further license the images. Note that a common misunderstanding is that owning a paper copy of a photograph gives one the rights to license it freely. That is not the case any more than owning a paper copy of a recent book gives one the right to make and sell copies.

As I said, I think that the classroom image infringes on the copyrights for the two paintings on either side. Our colleagues may disagree and you certainly may comment at the DR (linked above). As a general rule, you cannot upload images of anything that has a copyright without permission of the creator. There are complex exceptions (which we call "FOP") to that rule which vary widely from country to country. For example, in France, there are no exceptions, so we have very few photographs of modern French buildings or works of art. In Switzerland, on the other hand, you may freely photograph and publish photographs of any copyrighted work that is on permanent display outdoors. If, as you say, the paintings were on display outdoors, visible from a public street, then any photograph of them taken during that time would be OK, but once they were moved inside, the exception goes away. If the photograph is deleted -- if our colleagues agree with me -- then the only way to have it restored would be to find and get permission from the artist, again via OTRS.

As for the lormetazepam -- I'm not a chemist, but I did see that your upload was different from the version in place in the article, so your change was in the right direction -- thanks to you the article has ended up with a correct illustration, even if it was a little roundabout getting there. Since both gif files and raster files for chemical symbols are deprecated (not preferred) here, I went to Category:Lormetazepam and found an existing SVG file that was identical to your upload except that it uses "H3C" instead of "CH3". If you want more on the subject of choice of file types, see COM:File types. Note also that with some exceptions, Commons categories are in English, so your addition of Category:Pharmacolgie came up as a red link. Category:Pharmacology would work, but is far too general.

As for non-commercial licenses they are not permitted here. Almost any use is commercial -- the only important exceptions are web sites owned by an individuals that do not have advertising and free distribution in schools that do not charge tuition. Most web sites (including Wikipedia, since we ask for contributions) are commercial, as are all printed works, including textbooks, unless they are distributed free and without advertising. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Jim, thank you very much for your explanations. As I understand therefore, it is a matter of discussion whether it was right or not to remove the picture I took? As you said, the canvases lost their copyright once they were exposed outside for many months. Now, why would they have re-acquired it once they are displayed in a PUBLIC room in a PUBLIC building (the University of Geneva is a public University and all the classrooms are accessible to the public). I really do question this decision to remove the photo i took. I have a few more questions and comments (if you are so kind to answer):

  1. can one deposit images in Commons, instead of WikiCommons?
  2. regarding the issue of orphan works etc, 70 years from the death of the person sounds like an awfully long time. Furthermore, how can you prove who was or who was not the photographer of a certain image? Let'a assume somebody says he/she is the heir of the photographer, and gives copyright to X ad Y (or to Commons). Does Wikicommons require legal proof (copy of testament, birth certificate etc) of the fact that the person is the heir, and that the photo was actually taken by the photographer whose heir has the physical photo?

Thanks again. Morningbastet

"As you said, the canvases lost their copyright " -- no that is not what I said. I said "any photograph of them taken during that time would be OK". Works subject to the FOP exception do not lose their copyright, it simply becomes OK to publish photographs of them. That comment of mine may actually be incorrect. Swiss FOP applies only to works that are on permanent display outdoors in a place visible from a public street. Once they were moved inside it became obvious that they were not, in fact, on permanent display outdoors, so perhaps they were never subject to the FOP exception. Although some countries (the UK, for one) allow FOP for works in indoor public places, the Swiss law covers only outdoor display. The subject is complex -- see User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox2 for a summary.
  1. The formal name of the project is "Wikimedia Commons". A few people shorten that to "WikiCommons", but almost all of us simply say "Commons". All three names refer to the same project.
  2. Seventy years is the length of copyright in almost every country. A few are shorter, notably Italy, 20 years, but only for non-artistic photographs. The volunteers who assess and approve license use their judgement. If John Smith says he is the heir of Susan Smith, the volunteer will usually accept it. If the names are different, he or she will often ask for explanation. As for determining who the photographer was, again, the volunteer uses judgement. If it came out of a family album of photographs all of which were taken by the licensor's grandparents, no problem, since he is the heir of either of them. If it came out of an album with many sources, then the photographer must be proven beyond a significant doubt. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jim... I'm hesitant to put this here and muddy some waters even further, but since it's already an exercise in pedagogy and an illustration of how copyright laws are extremely complex..... photos without artistic merit (i.e. simple point and click shots) are not protected in Switzerland. Storkk (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I had completely forgotten that -- we don't deal with Swiss images much. I read Copyright law of Switzerland and I have to say that I think these are closer to the Marley image than the Meii. Neither is a studio portrait, but I think that both caught a characteristic expression and both are carefully cropped to a good balance. With that said, I am by no means expert on the Swiss case law. I'm going to take them to UnDR and see what our colleagues think. see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Two_Swiss_Files.
Morningbastet, an Undeletion Request is a formal request to the community to reconsider the deletion of an image. It is, in effect, the opposite of a Deletion Request. While you are certainly welcome to comment there, I am not certain you have anything to add, as the question revolves on a point of Swiss law and has nothing to do with the provenance of the images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Question from protection of a page

Hi! Could you protect this category from anons? Thank you in advance for howsoever! Fauvirt (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment obliteration

Hi Jim... apologies, I mistakenly obliterated your comment somehow (possibly clicking "edit" on a diff and then missing the warning). I've put it back, but sorry about that! Storkk (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No harm, no foul -- I wish I could type more cleanly and never had to take two or three edits to make a comment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Me three on that "wish I never fumbled"! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Help

Hey Jim, wanted to thank you for your help with the Tyson Foods logo upload I made. Trying to navigate everything the best way with my COI and didn't mean to create a dust storm! Thanks again for your help. Rgoodman85 (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Rgoodman85, you are very welcome. I don't see that uploading a high quality logo is in any way a COI - it can only add to the article. Thank you for providing it.
As long as you are declared (which I know you are), I also see nothing wrong with cleaning up spelling and diction and correcting clear misstatements of fact (date of corporate founding, addresses, officer's names, etc.). Anything more gets more problematic. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for giving your valuable opinion to keep the Tyson Logo incorporating my Best Western objection. I suppose you'd factored in that WMF's stance is presently fluid after Bernie Sanders Logo DMCA and But if the text is combined with some basic shapes, it may qualify for copyright protection [18] with WMF's guidance now tending on the conservative side. Unfitlouie (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it is more a matter of it not being worth the trouble to fight a DMCA takedown for a few images. We have 30 million images here and if we lose a few from not responding to over-aggressive DMCA notices, so be it -- far better to use limited resources on issues like the Swedish FOP question which affect thousands of files. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


I saw your delete close for File:IAC-pune-protesters2.jpg. Thanks, you were correct that the file was in scope. It seems I missed spotting this other file File:IAC-pune-protesters3.jpg which is a color adjusted derivative of the file you deleted. As this is equally (if not more) of a copyvio than its deleted parent, will you delete it too or does it need a deletion request of its own ? Unfitlouie (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

  Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz official portrait

You nominated Ted Cruz official portrait for deletion on December 4, 2016. There has been no real valid reasoning to support the request provided. However, there has been analysis that only points to the fact that it was created by a U.S. government employee (U.S. Senate photographer) while he was performing his job as a government employee, indicating that the picture has no copyright and is therefore in the public domain. Your original nomination and the comments in response can be found here: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ted_Cruz,_official_portrait,_113th_Congress.jpg. Since absolutely no real reasoning has been provided to delete it can we wrap this deletion request up? -- MaverickLittle (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

MaverickLittle, I see that you are a new user here. I suggest that you need to understand that in order for an image to be kept on Commons, the uploader, or someone else, must prove that it is PD or properly licensed. We see many images on official government sites that are copyrighted, including several official portraits of Presidents and other officials, see Category:Official presidential painted portraits in the White House. Until your research, for which I thank you, there was no evidence of who the photographer was in this case. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The EXIF data was already on the image page. Now I know that EXIF is easily edited, and I know that it's the uploader's responsibility to show licensing, but they had already done this, and done it correctly to our usual standards. Constructing tenuous theories afterwards that an unattributed image warrants deletion (and it wasn't unattributed, it was attributed correctly in the machine-readable metadata, just as it ought to be) is to ignore AGF towards image uploaders. Commons is extremely good at ignoring AGF, but it only seems to happen when there is some other agenda at play. In particular, images involving Ted or Heidi Cruz are subjected to bizarre standards of proof, far beyond anything usual. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I resent very much the implication that I ever deal with images in any political way. It is true that I think that Cruz is a bigot -- for his wanting to prevent Muslims from coming to the USA in defiance of the constitution, but that did not enter my mind. Instead, I saw an image where the author line was and at this moment still is "United States Senate" and hit the "nominate for deletion" button. I did not look at the EXIF, which was, perhaps careless. Please note that over the years, one of my hot buttons has been people's assumption that anything on a Federal web site or anything in the White House is PD, which is one reason I was able to cite Category:Official presidential painted portraits in the White House above.
Also, while we should extend AGF to uploaders, I wish I had a penny for every time I've seen a newbie claim "own work" on a scan of someone else's image, so even that there AGF must be used carefully. When a newbie takes an image off a Federal web site and names the author as "United States Senate", I can assume that he did so honestly, but he can still be completely wrong. If I was careless in not looking at the EXIF here, what about the uploader who should have named the author correctly? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I just want to point out that your comment above where you claim you did not mark the photo for deletion because of politics that you went right ahead and shared your biased and incorrect political opinion about Ted Cruz. Of course you have a right to make these incorrect, biased statements but the talk pages of Wikipedia is not a forum for your misguided, incorrect, biased statements. Please keep your misguided, incorrect, biased statements to yourself and do not share them on these talk pages. They are inappropriate and they are wrong-headed. Just keep it to yourself. Go to another website to spout out these personal political opinions of yours. It has been said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."--ML (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, since you made the incorrect, biased, inappropriate comment above about Ted Cruz, I would like to know if are even aware that what you wrote is completely and totally false? Did you intend to make a false statement or are you honestly so misinformed that you are unaware that what you wrote of above is simply not true? I am not trying to drag this out but I would like to know what exactly your intent was when you wrote the false statement about Cruz?--ML (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
My intent was to freely admit that I don't like Cruz, but to say, once again, that I do not let my political views interfere with my work here. As I said above, I have seen and nominated for deletion many images that have appeared on Federal web sites that were not the work of Federal employees. Since you said only that the image was authored by "United States Senate", I saw that as a red flag. The Senate itself does not take pictures -- they are taken by Senate employees, in this case one for whom you had a name. As for my comment, you say above both that you want me to explain and that you want me to keep quiet on the subject. Given the choice, I will keep quiet. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Let me correct you in several ways. I did not upload the picture. It was uploaded by another editor almost three years ago. I had absolutely no role in uploading the image or documenting the image. I have only been involved with this picture since YOU nominated it for deletion. So your claim that I---and I quoted you directly from above---(you said only that the image was authored by "United States Senate") made an incorrect claim about the image and that was a "red flag" for you. I understand why you might have thought the phrase was a red flag, but you are flat out incorrect in your claim that I wrote that. I don't know where you are getting this false information. I have had ZERO role in the upload and documentation of the image. As for your political views, I think it is absolutely correct that you should remain dead quiet with your political opinions because they are based upon ignorance and confusion and have no place in civilized society. You stated above (I think that Cruz is a bigot -- for his wanting to prevent Muslims from coming to the USA in defiance of the constitution) Cruz does not want to stop Muslims from entering the USA. Not only have you provided me your opinion which is inappropriate and unwanted on this forum it is also full of misinformation and you should shut it down because you are only going to encourage others who share your inability to get facts straight. Ted Cruz has NEVER, in the history of the world, stated that he wants to stop Muslims from entering the USA. There is a Presidential candidate that did make that policy proposal and his name is Donald J. Trump, maybe you have heard of him. I would not bet my home on whether you have heard of him since your understanding of the facts is far from accurate. Ted Cruz only made the policy proposal to upgrade community policing in Muslim neighborhoods currently in the USA. Community policing does not violate the constitution in any way whatsoever. Community policing is practiced all over the USA and it is very much constitutional. Your claimed goal of your ignorant remarks was to show that you do not mark images because of politics but you failed miserably in that goal because you engaged in spouting off ignorant and uninformed political comments while denying that you do such a thing. Please, for the sake of all that is good and holy in the world, just keep your uninformed, incorrect, inappropriate political opinions to yourself or you are liable to encourage others that are equally uninformed to fill these talk pages with more misinformation and monkey dung. Thank you in advance.--ML (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@MaverickLittle COM:AGF and civility are required at all times on Commons. Two wrongs do not make a right; one wrong doesn't require emotional outbursts, nor do two, three or forty-three. I realize this is a U.S. presidential election year and that emotions are running high. That is no excuse for anyone's behavior. I'd point out that: (a) copyright is a complicated thing, (b) Jim thanked you for your research help on the image and (c) Jim is entitled to his own political opinions (right or wrong) - just as you are. So now, please drop the stick, stop beating the horse and please go back to sorting pictures. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Fine. It would just be nice if he going to make a statement that he at least get the facts straight. This is not a matter of opinion. Yes he has a right to his opinion, but he does not have a right to his own facts as Daniel Patrick Moynihan said. Cruz NEVER stated that what he falsely accused him of doing. Just get the facts straight.--ML (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
ML, I would prefer to continue this in private, but you have not enabled "email this user".
Unless you believe that The Nation, The New Yorker and VOA are all liars or misquoting, I think you owe me an apology. The three articles (and a wide variety of others) make it fairly clear that Cruz has proposed exactly what I described above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't owe you an apology. I just read The Nation article and they took Cruz's comments about Syrian refugees and said that he was talking about all Muslims. That article is political propaganda, pushing forward an opinion. And, yes, The Nation has a right to its left-wing point of view and it has a constitutional right to slant facts however they want to, but Ted Cruz did not say that Muslims have no right to enter America. You have not provided an article that quotes Ted Cruz as saying that all Muslims show be stopped from entering America. So, once again, keep your uninformed, political opinions to yourself. This page is not the place for it. As for my e-mail, the e-mail that used to set up the Wikipedia account has expired. I need to update that email address with another one. I understand why you think that Cruz said what you claim he said (because you read a series of left-wing political propaganda pieces that make that false claim) but unfortunately the facts do not support the claim. And no where in those articles is Cruz saying that all Muslims cannot come to this country. Cruz does not even say that he would apply a religious test to immigrants. The Nation and the other left-wing opinion pieces make that extrapolation but Cruz's actual words do not support your claim. Have a good day!--ML (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
My comment above did not say "all Muslims", so your rant is off base. Enough of this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is true, you did not state "all Muslims" but you did say, "wanting to prevent Muslims from coming to the USA" (that is a direct quote) and Cruz has NEVER said "Muslims" like you claim. He did say Syrian refugees; he did not say "Muslims". Your claim is an extrapolation of Cruz's well defined comments and it is not supported by facts. If your claim was true, which it isn't, then Cruz would be against individuals that happen to be Muslim from immigrating to Michigan from Canada or the United Kingdom. But he isn't against that so your "Muslim" claim fails as the good faith repetition of the extrapolations and hyperboles from a series of left-wing political propaganda pieces. No apology is warranted therefore no apology will be given. Enough is right!--ML (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually he made a clear distinction between Syrian Muslims and Syrian Christians and said explicitly that he would refuse the first and accept the second. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Once again, he did not say that "he would refuse" Syrian Muslims (an exact quote from you above). The VOA article was correct when it quoted Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale University law professor, who said Cruz "is much more careful" than Trump. "He’s not proposing a religious test. He’s saying we must look closely at people from certain countries." So once again, he is not proposing that anyone violate the Constitution (contrary to your incorrect claim) and he is not proposing that we stop "Muslims" from entering the country. Also, nothing that you have stated contradicts the fact that if a British or Canadian or Australian or Indian or Chinese Muslim felt like immigrating to the U.S. there is NOTHING that Cruz has proposed to stop that individual's immigration so your original claim falls flat in its overboard, incorrect, false claims. Please keep these false, incorrect political opinions (because that is what they are) to yourself. And since other admins will not tell you to stop I will ask to stop jamming your incorrect, false, overboard political opinions on to this talk page or any other talk page. Go to a political discussion page outside of Wikipedia if you feel you must engage in such political propaganda. The talk pages for articles in the Commons is not the place for it.--ML (t) 01:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi Jim, This is regarding your comment. As I understand it, {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-old-70-1923}} apply whether the work was published in USA or elsewhere. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for File:Poster of Be My Cat- A Film for Anne.jpg

Thank you very much, James, for the help with undeleting my uploaded poster, and for dealing with OTRS! All the best, Adrian


Hi dear Jameslwoodward. Thank you for saving the pictures and sorry for a Misunderstanding. I can't conversation with you in English language very well, so I visit google translate to find a word that means more removing space around the missiles in the pictures. I didn't know what I can use to send my mean exactly so this was my fault. I'm not a impolite user. I just want save size of the pictures. Thank you and sorry again.Saman-1984 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Why keep a wrong image?

Hello Jim, I don't understand your rationale for keeping the image. Pictures get deleted for lesser reasons than that, and I've seen plenty of placeholders for such missing pictures. Why is that different for this one? It is a just botched screenshot that is wrong and unessential and that can easily be replaced with an more current one, if so desired. --SebastianHelm (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It is well established Commons policy that we do not second guess editors at WP. The subject image is in use and therefore cannot be deleted from Commons except for copyvio. And, please note, that if you were to unilaterally removing it from the place it is used, that would probably be construed as vandalism. If it's wrong, then upload a replacement that is right, or go to WP:KA and convince the editor there that it should be removed -- I know that may not be easy because I doubt you can read Georgian, but that's the way we do it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Francesc Bergos Image deletion

Hi Jim, i just saw you've deleted the image of Francesc Bergos. It's a picture of my personal file (he was my grandfather). Can you please guide me on the process of inserting his picture and how do I label it to be accepted by wikipedia? I appreciate your attention to this matter. Cristina

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristina Toletti (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 April 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.
I actually deleted eight of your uploads at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cristina Toletti, so I am not certain which one you mean. On all of them you claimed that they were "own work" -- that is to say that your were the author of the document or the photographer. That was obviously not the case, so they were deleted.
Owning a paper or digital copy of a copyrighted photograph does not give you any right to freely license it any more than owning a copy of a recent book gives you the right to copy it and sell the copies. Similarly, owning a copy of a document gives you no rights -- they are held by the writer or his heirs.
The copyright law in Uruguay calls for the copyright to last 50 years after the death of the photographer (post mortem auctoris - PMA). It is therefore barely possible that this is free of copyright - in the public domain (PD):
In order to prove that, you must prove that the photographer died before 1966 (50 years ago).
Since this was taken in 1940, I assume its country of origin is Spain, (according to the WP article he moved from Spain in 1942) so it is still under copyright because the Spanish rule was 80 years PMA at that time.
This might be PD if the writer died before 1966:
The other images all postdate 1966 and therefore are still under copyright in Uruguay. In order for the photos and documents to be restored to Commons, the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer (or the writer) or his heirs, must send a free license to OTRS. If you cannot determine who the authors were, then the images are orphan works and cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Where to find proof of "copyleft"?

Hi Jameslwoodward. I saw that you had deleted most of the images that were uploaded by DSLR EOS with the exception of File:Nikon Coolpix L840 (B) - 2016.jpg and File:Nikon Coolpix L840 (C) - 2016.jpg. Is that because they were tagged by the uploader as "copyleft"? If so, where can I can proof that that is indeed the case? Regards, - Takeaway (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I just discovered where these images came from and the uploader was lying, they are copyrighted images taken from - Takeaway (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Admins use a script, DelReqHandler, to rapidly close DRs. Occasionally it hiccups and doesn't delete when asked. Thanks for telling me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers! - Takeaway (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by David Alves 2016

One file was not deleted. Please take a look. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Admins use a script, DelReqHandler, to rapidly close. DRs. Occasionally it hiccups and doesn't delete when asked. Thanks for telling me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Sunrise over the North Pacific.jpg

Hi Jim, could you double-check this deletion, please? Given the uploader, I don't think the deletion rationale (which was DW-related) is plausible in this instance. If you decline to restore it on scope grounds, that's one thing, but an image from a major contributor from 2006 might be given some leeway if the DR was not scope-related, I think. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It was one of 17 I deleted from Commons:Deletion requests/File:神戸の夕焼け1982、Img747.jpg. We have around 400 sunrise pictures from the USA alone -- who am I to say this particular one is out of scope? The DR was made by Stass1995 - a solid citizen who has several thousand edits in the Commons namespace -- so I checked half a dozen of the images (but not this one), all of which had Google hits, and deleted the lot. If you think that the uploader on this one is OK, then by all means restore it, or I will, if you wish. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim... and certainly no slight on Stas1995 was intended. I'd rather not restore it myself without going through COM:REFUND, so if you are satisfied that this specific one is not likely a copyright violation, I'd prefer you restore it. Let me know if you feel differently. Storkk (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim! Storkk (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Appealing a "keep" decision on three items out of a recently closed mass DR

Hello, Jim,

as this mass DR that I opened remained on my watchlist, I saw your processing. But there are three files where I was surprised by their keeping:

Your keeping rationale seems to be based on clothing related guidelines as a fallback of COM:COSTUME, I'm dissenting with that: the key point seems to me to be that „If the costume is purely utilitarian and has no distinct or original graphical features - for example, if it's the kind of clothing that an ordinary person might wear on the street or on the job - then it is permitted under #Clothing above.“ Those Metroid costumes should fail this test, I doubt that they are true clothing, but more likely fan art. Additionally, the weapon replicas that the cosplayers are holding may fall afoul of COM:TOYS while not being de minimis as integral part of the "artwork". File C ("Samus alone") got already its source speedied away.
The Mario image has the same issues: not utilitarian, as it is a full body costume including a mask. Its source was also speedied; you even deleted a mirrored version of the same image. Kind regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: Just saw that File:Star Wars video games stations.jpg has the DR note left on the file page too. Grand-Duc (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
First, it seems to have been a bad day for hiccups in DelReqHandler -- this is the third DR that was not handled correctly (see above). I have deleted the Marion file and hit the keep button for your PS.
As for the other two, it is my understanding that in the USA any clothing (except masks) falls under the "utilitarian" rule even if it is not clothing that would ordinarily be worn. As you say, the presence of distinctive graphics can change that -- a tee shirt can clearly have a copyright, but that's not the case here. That's confirmed by the 1991 policy decision on costumes and masks by the Copyright Office which says "Costumes will be treated as useful articles and will be registrable only upon finding of separable artistic authorship." Thus I think that the costumes in both of the remaining images above are free of copyright.
As for the weapons:
A) Is that a weapon? I thought it might be a coffee thermos. I think it's borderline de minimis, but if you say it's a weapon, I can delete it if you want.
C) I think this is on the far side of the borderline -- the weapon is relatively small and blends somewhat into the background. I think that if it were carefully removed from the image that most people would not notice the difference and that is my test of DM.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thermos, funny, indeed! Well, I don't how the prop was actually made, why not by using a thermos as a starting point (Geordie LaForges's VISOR was made based upon a hairring from the daughter of a staff member from Star Trek's filming IIRC). But the fashion of holding the thing looks for me clearly like the handling of a SciFi a weapon: "muzzle" pointed upwards in a "high ready" fashion, some kind of magazine, and the whole device seems to be an integral attachment to the body of the figure. If the DUCK doesn't get shot and roasted here, I'll be truly puzzled.
As for things I want: that's learning at foremost and no worries abut technical hiccups, they're more or less unavoidable.... And that could be done by discussing any subject, which is part of the fun in contributing here. I think that the next time when I encounter a cosplay image made on US soil, I'll remember your opinion about costumes and check whether the questioned clothing has copyrightable prints on it, it's just another step to memorize when assessing images in maintenance queues. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I get a check the page deletion for B-Nasty

I can provide references for the artist on

There are also a few other references such as allmusic, I checked and no other artists seems to be referencing so what exactly is the problem?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Officialbnasty (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 April 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.
We have more than 30 million pages on Commons. It is undoubtedly true that you can find similar pages and images that should be deleted but have not yet been. By all means feel free to list them here or tag them for deletion yourself.
In order for images of people to remain on Commons, the uploader must prove that the images serve an educational purpose, usually by proving that the individual is notable. That is usually proved by the presence of a Wikipedia article. B-Nasty does not have a WP page or any significant Google hits.
Please do not start a WP:EN article yourself without first reading WP:COI - you may not write your own article. You should also read COM:ADVERT as it applies here and there are similar rules on WP:EN. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi Jameslwoodward. Can you help me please? Thank you. Ks [在这里找到答案] 19:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC).

Please use {{Speedy}} .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rafaelsimao01

One file was not deleted. Please take a look. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Same problem, thank you. Feel free to clean up that kind of problem yourself, if you wish. I will always comment if I am deliberately keeping one or more files in a general deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Artes Marciales Mixtas.jpg

I think this should have been deleted too as part of the mass deletion (and I fully understand the presentation of the DR was confusing  ). Cheers, — Racconish ☎ 19:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It probably wasn't the presentation. Admins use a script, DelReqHandler, to rapidly close DRs. Occasionally it hiccups and doesn't delete when asked. That's happened quite a bit this week, see the notes above and below this one. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by John Wooler

You closed this as delete, but kept one file. Was there an error? The kept file still has a {{delete}} template. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. DelREqHandler seems to be hiccuping more and more -- that's three or four in the last week (see above). As I said to Eugene, feel free to delete any that you see like this one. I will always make a comment if I intend to keep one or more files in a mass DR. 10:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi Jim: The system burped on this close, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Isatvca too. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yup. I tried three times to delete those. I should have marked them as fair game for any Admin. When you see that knid of thing, please feel free to delete them yourself -- I will always make a comment if I intend to keep one or more images in a mass delete. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)

Sure thing! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Andrei Krioukov

Hi Jim, thanks for the hint! For the files which I uploaded, the license owner (Andrei Krioukov) already sent the Wikimedia Commons licenses Attribution Share-alike 4.0 on 25 April 2016 to (one e-mail for each image). I tried to create a "Commons"-folder with those images (if you go to Andrei Krioukov in the German Wikipedia and then click on "Commons") but didn't succeed yet. Maybe you can have a lock? Regards, Norbert

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NORPpA (talk • contribs) 09:54, 26 April 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.
I am sorry to say that the e-mails all came from an anonymous address so OTRS should not accept them. The artist has a web site which has a contact address, so the permissions must come from there. Please note also that the artist can send one e-mail for all the images -- individual e-mails are a real nuisance and will just slow things down.
You created a gallery here, not a category. I have fixed it, see Category:Andrei Krioukov. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted photo of Nihal Atsız

Hi Jim,

I saw that a file that I uploaded, File:Nihal ATSIZ.jpg, was deleted as a result of the request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nihal ATSIZ.jpg. Unfortunately I was away from Wikipedia at the time, so I could not join the discussion, but I believe the file was in public domain per Template:PD-Turkey. The user who requested deletion said "There is no proof that this picture is a public domain"; I am not sure what he/she meant by 'proof', but the photo is dated from the same time as File:Nihâl Atsız -11.jpg, ~80 years ago. The Nihal Atsız website that duplicates it cannot be the owner as it fits to the cases listed in the article 12 of the Turkish copyright law. The note at the bottom of the website state that we are free to distribute the content as long as we attribute it to the website, but in this case we don't even need to do that, as the file has already been released into public domain long ago.

COM:UNDEL suggests contacting the deleting administrator first to explain the situation. Is it possible to undelete the file, or would you advise listing it at COM:UNDEL first?--Cfsenel (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Although there are a few countries that start the clock running upon creation of a work, Turkey is not one of them. In order to apply the rule which you cite, you must show that the work was published anonymously more than seventy years ago. The fact that the author is now unknown is irrelevant -- the only thing that counts is that the work was published anonymously. As a practical matter, the only way to do this is to find a publication of the work before 1946. There is nothing in the file description or at the source that proves either that work was published anonymously or that it was even published at all until recently.

You are certainly free to post a request at UnDR, but you will get the same response there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Permission request from copyright holder for picture containing (but not only) original work

Dear Jim, I would like to upload again the image of the Bimol Seminar room where there are 2 canvases by the graphic artist. I plan to ask the artist to send a message to, in which the artist states his consent. However, I wonder whether there is a way to formulate the consent to agree to license (for example under CC-BY-SA 4.0 ONLY the photograph of the seminar room that includes the 2 canvases, rather than the images of the canvases themselves. In other words, the copyright holder may allow me to upload a picture that I took (of which therefore I have some copyright), limited to the part concerning his work, without necessarily implying that the separate images of the canvases would become available for use for commercial purposes . I am not sure I explained myself, but basically what i mean is that I would like the artist to keep copyright of the two works, while at the same time allowing me to keep the copyright of the images of the works contained within the photograph i took. What would then be the text of the permission consent he would have to send to OTRS? Thanks a lotMorningbastet (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The artist could say that he or she was licensing the use of the paintings for only the subject photograph and not any other images of the paintings. That does not prevent someone from cropping your image to just one one of the paintings and putting it on tee shirts. That's probably unlikely, since both paintings are partly obscured by chairs.
Note also that you must not upload the image again. If and when the artist gives permission and that permission is accepted at OTRS, then the image will be restored to general view. Be sure that the artist refers to File:Salle de séminaire du Département de Biologie Moléculaire, Université de Genève.jpg in the permission e-mail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I have another comment/question regarding the suppression of the images of the canvases. These canvases are actually reproductions by a graphic artist of previously existing photographs. Notably , the canvas of Grete Kellenberger was made using as a template the photograph of Grete Kellenberger-Gujer that is currently on the Wikipedia. fr page. Now, does the artist actually own the copyright of this work? Does it not belong rather to the author of the photograph (that was copied, basically, and rendered in colour), who is the daughter of Grete Kellenberger, Elisabeth DiCapua? I am basically arguing that the canvases are themselves DERIVATIVES of photos (which they are) and as such the copyright belongs to the original author of the photo, not the author of the canvas. Morningbastet (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There are three potential copyrights here. First, the one for your photograph, which you have licensed. Second, the one for the paintings. Although they are derivative works, paintings made from photographs are sufficiently creative to have their own copyright everywhere as far as I know. So, we need a license for them. Third, as you say, there could be a copyright for the photograph, but we have concluded that the photo is PD, so no license is required. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category: Postcards by Peter Emilevich Bendel

Request for undeletion, it's {{PD-RU-exempt}}, several experienced users agreed to that and voted for keep!

I'm new to the system here, but that way it really is silly, ridiculous and seems just not all right.
A similar text goes to User:Jcb who deleted them in the end.
Jim, I really don't understand your doing at all. The files existed for a long time, they were {{PD-RU-exempt}} and no one doubted it. There are more stamps and postal cards from Peter Emilevich Bendel online. There are probably thousands or hundreds of thousands painted stamps and postal cards from other painters that are licensed by {{PD-RU-exempt}}. So if you think you are right, go ahead and delete more... delete them all. That would be the only correct consequence of your doing. You are selfcontradicting, because there are still more of similar licensed files online.
Besides you destroyed days and weeks of my work, to put the article of Peter Emilevich Bendel together and categorize and show some of his works. I did this as a favor to my father in law, he's aged 80 and has known Peter Emilevich Bendel as a friend in his life and wanted him to be honored. You are frustrating him too. People, forget it, I'm not going to invest any other minute of work here, if that's the result of it. Why invest any work at all, when people like you come at the end and destroy everything, despite any other reasoning. I'm out of here. --ScriWi (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know everything. In most countries stamps that are taken from in-copyright art are not PD, but I acknowledge that that may not be the case in Russia. That's why it takes at least a nominator and an Admin to delete something except in the obvious cases that qualify for {{Speedy}}.
This sort of situation is why we have Commons:Undeletion requests. As noted above, I am away from my usual high speed Internet connection, so I may not respond to messages here or there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Jim, thanks for your response. Sorry I started this while you're on the move. I wish you a nice trip.
Thanks, I applied for undeletion already, but my hopes are low. In my experience, people find begging unattractive and so it's rarely successful. But what can I do in this situation? It's my only option. I was hoping the files will be kept, because there were several votes vor "keep!". User:Jcb deleted the files anyway and wrote that a Deletion Request is not a vote. What is the discussion for, then? I don't get it. --ScriWi (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
As I'm sure you know, copyright is complicated, and not always logical. Commons has 25,000 users in any given month. Only a few hundred of them are actually knowledgeable about copyright and many fewer than that really understand issues like this one. The discussion can certainly raise issues which the closing Admin should (and usually does) consider, but many comments in DRs are from people who don't really understand the issues.
In this case, I have not commented in the UnDR -- partly because I have poor Internet access, but also because I suspect that the decision will turn on a close reading of the actual Russian law in Russian, which I can't do. In most countries, when the postal authority licenses a copyrighted work for a stamp, it gets only the right to reproduce the work on the stamp, not the right to sublicense the work for other uses. I think that is probably the case here, which is why I made the nomination, but you may be right. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I learned and know that copyright issues are complicated. But I also learned, concerning Russia, in some points like stamps and postal cards it's totally different to "most countries", so you should please not try to apply your knowledge from "most countries" to these files, e.g. see in the UnDR the comment of Grebenkov (and others). Many, many, many of these files with license {{PD-RU-exempt}} have been online for years without any objection. This led me to the conclusion after hours and days reading copyright hints, that it would be ok. Oh well, it's like always, I'm a person with a lot of bad luck and again proved to be this time. As soon as I invest work on this, the modified files are deleted. Perhaps it's my fault, because I dared to enter Peter Emilevich Bendel to the creator line. If I just had left the creator line as it was ("soviet post") nobody would even have noticed any problem. :-( But still, it seems unfair to me, that only Bendel's works are now offline, even though all of you discuss the validity of licensing of russian stamps/cards in general. As already discussed in the UnDR, it seems inconsequential to delete the files of specific users, although there are doubts about russian copyright issues or {{PD-RU-exempt}} in general. :-( --ScriWi (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

As you will learn, if, as I hope, you continue on Commons, the processes are not very well organized for consistency and probably cannot be -- we are all volunteers and organizing volunteers is like herding cats. We get 10,000 new images every day. Most, but not all, of them are reviewed by experienced users and we delete about 1,700 every day. My best guess, admittedly with little basis, is that at least 1% of Commons images -- 300,000 of them -- should be deleted. So, yes, it's unfair that other images like yours have not been deleted, but that's part of the system that I've thought about and can't see any good way to fix. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

  • It's not the case that these images are hidden somewhere in the dark corner where no one looks at them. See, e.g., Commons:Deletion requests/File:USSR EWCS №33 Union of Artists congress sp.cancellation.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ahmatova original stamp.jpg etc. Lots and lots of Soviet and Russian postage signs were subject to deletion discussion and were kept. As I stated in UnDR, they may have their problems but so far were generally allowed on Commons. There must be a proper discussion about their status and amendments to COM:STAMPS clearly stating which stamps are allowed and which are not. Don't make it look like a ghetto-style justice, when cops just randomly arrest someone who happened to be on their way and ignore thousands of other people doing the same thing. It'll only make people hate the cops. --Grebenkov (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Jim. I appreciate your respectful response and explanations. It's probably one of my mistakes, that I've always seen Wikipedia and Commons as a professionally organized encyclopedia platform, successfully reaching out for maximum correctness. It's good to understand your view of reality. As a beginner I didn't know this from experience. But in this case, we should all try to find improvements. :o) I'm just very sad that, with my first contributions on Commons. I dug into such complicated issues. I hope the files will be restored, because I didn't mean to harm other usages of the files. And also "sorry", I didn't intend to cause this big fuzz around them. ;-) --ScriWi (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Fuzz (sic), lol. I think that might be called perforations! Let's hope it get resolved without starting some big deletion process. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about the misspelling, very embarrassing, of course I meant fuss. ;-) But I'm with you and your hopes. --ScriWi (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) An occasional slip of the fingers is quite acceptable, though not in articles, and in this one was quite funny so brightened my rather dull and windy day. No problem ScriWi. Ww2censor (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Haha, that happens if I just try to be nice, I make a fool of myself. ;-)
I'm with your hopes, but I can't share your good moods. All this discussing and waiting seems rather senseless to me. Jcb has already been pinged to restore the stamps of Peter Emilevich Bendel by Butko and ~riley and probably just ignores it. So even if the discussion's summary tends to undeletion of the files, there is no encouragement and no action to undo the mistake of deletion. It's really frustrating. It seems a respectful idea to leave it to the closing admins, but if they refuse to do anything about it, the system is simply not working. I really wonder how you all got along with it so many years. --ScriWi (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Got a question for you, sir

Jim! I have a sticky wicket and thought of you as you have handled some like this in the past. The file in question is called File:Goux - chateau.JPG. We have an OTRS complaint from the owner of the chateau claiming that the photo was taken on private property. My French isn't very good, and I am relying on Google translate, but he is most emphatic. The photographer insists otherwise. She has provided geocoordinates for where she was standing when she took the photo, and they are displayed in the file description. I have had more than a little difficulty independently identifying this location, but eventually did it-- for all the good that did me, as I still cannot ascertain if the "way" is a PROW or not, and I could find nothing, even in a French Google search, to tell me. I have the client insisting the act is a violation of his privacy (which certainly seems like it could be the case) and the photographer with a long history of complaint-free photographs insisting with equal emphasis that she has played by the rules. The former has not yet provided me with any independent documentation of the legal status of the way, only his assertions and insistence. Am hoping that perhaps you can drop me 2¢ worth of your own thoughts ("WWJWD?" What would Jim Woodward Do?). I would be very grateful if so, as I am at a standstill right now. Thank you!! KDS4444 (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi KDS4444: Jim has a note at the top of his page that he is away for a couple more days. I remember the deletion discussion on this chateau. The photographer stated she was on the public way I see no reason to doubt her on her location, especially as I can see the perimeter wall and the sidewalk in the image. I looked up the Chateau on Google Earth,-0.0322978,99m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en. You will notice there are no walls but the perimeter wall between the house and the street. Therefore, since the only wall on the property is the outer one, and we can see it in this image, this was taken from outside the wall as the photographer stated. From the photometrics, I believe this image was taken from the perspective from the range (26 meters long) shown by,-0.0316499/43.6185269,-0.0319352/@43.6187001,-0.0338293,396m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0?hl=en towards the house. I believe it is most likely from the north point of that line because that is the edge of the formal stone wall as shown in the image which permits visualization of the front view of the house. There is really no other place from which this image could be taken. I fail to see any lack of privacy on this image; I live in a tourist town, we are totally accustomed to having our houses photographed - else why live in a house - have a tent instead or stay in a hotel. Cheers Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey, Ellin! Thanks for responding for Jim. The concern of the property owner is that the path from which the photographer took the picture is supposedly a private path: "Could a person legally stand on your lawn and take pictures of your livingroom?" Something along those lines. And despite its appearance (in the photo) as a public right of way, and despite what might have appeared at the time to be such to the photographer (that despite what the client insists would have been a chain and sign at the entrance at the time the photo was taken indicating that the way was for emergency access only, the general public "interdit"), my own difficulty locating the "street" using Google Maps (I could find half a dozen or so "Chemin de l'eglise" but none next to Goux) suggests that it is possible (though as yet far from certain) that the image was indeed collected while (technically) standing on private property. The building may be unremarkable, but that is beside the point: without freedom of panorama (and even with it), I believe (am I wrong?) that if you are standing on someone else's private property and you take a photo of something there without the owner's "permission" (express or implied), you may not publish that photo (so many parens and quotation marks.... Sorry!). This seems to go along with the general legal concept of the right to privacy within the bounds of one's own home and on one's legally owned and otherwise secluded land. A person should not have to stay in a tent or rent a hotel to achieve this level of privacy: they should only need to live in a place from which no one of the general public may see them, one way of which is to purchase all of the surrounding land. If I sneak on to Tom Hanks' estate here in Los Angeles and manage to snap some shots of his front porch and he complains about it (or even before then), the photo should come down as I had no right to go creeping up on Tom, never mind take photos of his home (which I am sure is VERY far from any public right of way!). The legal footing of this particular image aside for a moment, what are your thoughts on that? KDS4444 (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Ellin. I've got a good connection for the next couple of hours...
Looking at Google Maps satellite view it seems to me that the photographer was standing on a road that serves a number of houses -- one that might have a gate, but that unlikely has a chain and sign as described. From Commons point of view, even if the photographer were on private property, that would be a non-copyright problem which might give the property owner a cause of action against the photographer, but not against Commons. While we do enforce local privacy laws with respect to people, we do not do so with respect to property, so I would be disinclined to delete the image even if it could be shown that the photographer was on private property and that has not been shown here.
With respect to your broader question, it depends on local law and on the circumstances. In many (most?) US states you can freely walk on private land for a non-criminal purpose (which may include hunting) unless it is "posted" -- that, is unless "No Trespassing" signs are erected at frequent intervals (as specified by law) around the perimeter. You must also leave if the owner asks you to.
While that would not extend to going right up to a house and taking interior photos through a window, it is certainly OK in much of the US to take exterior photographs while standing on private property at a reasonable distance. I have done this myself occasionally while taking photographs of National Register of Historic Places buildings. On the other hand, there are countries in which even photos taken from a public street are not OK -- Google Street View is not available in Germany for this reason. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I found two websites that seem to agree with you. The first stated that in the U.S., "If a photographer raises camera to his eye and clicks the shutter, a photograph has been taken and becomes the (intellectual) property of the photographer, even if he was standing on private property when the photo was taken." The second said, " are free to photograph on private property unless/until the owner informs you otherwise via a notice or by telling you directly. If you don't stop they can ask you to leave and if you refuse they can get the police to remove you. Any photos taken (either before or after notification) are yours. You own the copyright and they/the police can't force you to delete them or stop you making use of them." I haven't been able to find any specific commentary for France, but I will attempt to explain these things to the client and see how he responds. My thanks to you both! (though so much for the "quickness" of my question). KDS4444 (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

sang sûre is not accidental, it's censorship

24 mai 2016 à 14:12 Jameslwoodward (discussion | contributions) a supprimé la page Discussion utilisateur:Éric Messel (Accidental creation: content was: "Censure ? Pure et dure… -- Cyril Delacour (User talk:CyrilDelacour|<span class="signature...", and the only contributor was "CyrilDelacour" ([[User talk...)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CyrilDelacour (talk • contribs) 17:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

explanation (fr)

(sorry, accidental 'enter' push)

Cyril Delacour (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed censorship of a special sort. Both Commons and Wikipedia have no place for the personal art or opinions of users unless they can prove that they are notable according to our standards, which you have not done. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Notable ?

Personality cult… not good for your soul.

Some things I did are known, but not my name :

thumb|Le bonheur d'être simplement là

If you just want TV, books & newspapers, don't use internet, thanks, and don't call it "free". Political censorship, what else ? Do you hunderstand french ? And M. Éric Messel erase all entry of this on, of course. His censorship and yours don't give me a chance chance. Finance, debt, money system are NOT my personnal things, but perhaps yours. I like philosophy, art, my daughter and life. You're opinions are "personnal" too.

Look at the work of M. Messel (censorship) :

But here youre perhaps more "notable" than me, enough ..)

I realy don't like fascism. Cyril Delacour (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Commons has about 25,000 individual contributors in any month. We have rules, which are the same for all users. Commons is not Facebook or Flickr, so if you want to post your personal art and opinions, you must prove that the world as a whole values your art and opinion. As a general rule, Commons will not keep art from artists who do not have an article on their native country WP. So, you can't prove notability to me -- you must prove it to your colleagues on WP:FR, who, apparently, also believe that your uploads are not appropriate. You may think that having and enforcing rules is fascism -- my colleagues and I believe that not having and enforcing rules is anarchy.
Note also, that all of your cites above are to talk pages, which have a very different standard from main space. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
What do you want ? TV, newspepar, cinema ? Ok, so… here for TV : (videomaker and multimedia) this is for FR3 national (at morning, ok).
For newspaper about me : (w:fr:Manuel Pradal on the same page but with a shorter article)
For cinema I'm here (as actor but I was the photographer and the father of the youngest girl of the film : 4 years, 11 weeks of work as actress !) :
for my pictures of this movie it's here (only "perso" b&w, director ask me color for this film) :
and somme newspaper but I'm not a notable artist of my country. No. But as an activist, few seconds make that : (how many results ?éputé+terrasse ) but there is no my name. But if you want the justice act : you can read the Hollande président réaction, or prime minister and so…
BUT, more important : the picture "le bonheur d'être simplement là" : this picture is a "notable" work.
So I think I have my place here, and my work too. I just whant some respect for my work and myself like everibody here ! Respect… I don't want erase your work, or Messel's work ! So, just respect. My name erased from here : so don't search my name, look at with your eyes my work, think with yourself and not notable sources plz - Cyril Delacour (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @CyrilDelacour: Commons is not censored, and never will be. Your images were deleted because it doesn't conform with our project's scope. As Jim said above, you have to prove your notability at fr.wikipedia, not here. You may want to join a real-time chat in IRC at channel #wikipedia-fr (If you're new to IRC, click here). And no hard feelings please, your drama won't work. Thanks, Poké95 03:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Since you're French, maybe Yann (a native French speaker) can help you. Poké95 03:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The "drama" is censorship about children's work for w:fr:Tom le cancre and my daughter rapt by justice, the "drama" is that w:fr:censure and about politics on money and so, the "drama" is with obscurantism and lies about "democraty".Cyril Delacour (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
This isn't getting us anywhere. All of our policies, including this one, are established by the consensus of our 25,000 editors. If you don't like the policy, you're welcome to try to change it, but coming to a well established organization and complaining that you don't like its policies is simply foolish. If you don't like it, either try to change it, or go away. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
« the consensus of our 25,000 editors » ??? Do you believe that !? Money is used whithout consensus by everyone, but ask them if they want an other money than the bankster's money : I think this question may made a consensus. But at this time, nobody can vote for that, and I'm an activist for a real democraty against this real plutocracy (this is not in encyclopedia but it is the truth and this truth is here an object of censorship, what else ?). Cyril Delacour (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Stop your trolling. This isn't about the file anymore. As Jim said above, if you disagree with our policies and guidelines, either fork, try to change our policies, or go away. Poké95 23:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Files are about money, democraty, philosophy and fiction. I'm not trolling, I talk about censorship and I don't want it. If this files will be erase you never see me again here ! Cyril Delacour (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Why the hell are you still saying that Commons is censored? Commons is not and will never be censored. See COM:NOTCENSORED. Just because we deleted your files, it means censorship. No. We deleted your files because they are out of our project scope. If you are not a child, then read the project scope. What is the point of keeping files that are out of our project scope? Wikimedia Commons only hosts files that are free and have an educational purpose. Again, if you disagree with our policies (including the project scope), change it, fork, or go away. It's simple. This shows that you're trolling. Poké95 00:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Plutocraty don't say about itself it is a plutocraty, plutocraty say about itself it is a democraty. Censorship don't say about itself it is censorship, censorship say about itself it is not in project scope. The project scope is "educational media content", and truth is "educational media content". My files say the truth so there are "educationals medias contents". Cyril Delacour (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I just saw your files that are nominated for deletion, and they seem to be used. Per COM:INUSE, I voted keep on all your files. I should have look at the files before commenting. IMO, your files are in scope. Thanks, Poké95 12:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Pokefan95, please reconsider your   Keep. Use on pages in the User namespace and in discussions such as the one here do not make a file in scope.

"An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project..."

In order to qualify for COM:INUSE, the file must be used on a WP main space page or "for some operational reason such as within a template or the like." The only exception is for a "small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal Commons user page" provided that the user is actually a contributor and not merely a self promoter trying to use Commons as Facebook. I think this case is borderline on the latter issue, but probably OK, so I did not nominate File:Cyril Delacour.jpg for deletion.

Quotes above are from Commons:Project_scope#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The files nominated by Éric Messel are :

File:Inversion des valeurs humaines par la valeur symbolique placée à la mesure de toute chose.jpg
File:Argent Roi - Dette Souveraine - Peuples Déchus.jpg
File:Confrontation avec le député PS Pascal Terrasse lors des européennes à St-Montan.ogv
File:Caricature Pascal Terrasse.jpg

And if you hunderstand french you can recognize the subjetcs : politic, economy, money, phylosophy, cinéma etc. Et si vous comprenez bien le français vous pouvez voir ici la portée de mon propos sur un "essai personnel" dont l'objet est de prendre en main les connaissances partagées par wikipedia sur les notions de démocratie et de souveraineté monétaire (dans un État que je dénonce être un État de non droit, preuves à l'appuis et autour de Tom the truant) : Banque Citoyenne de France Cyril Delacour (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@CyrilDelacour: fichtre, ça rime à quoi, cette excitation? Tu es le troisième Français à la suite que je lis/rencontre et qui déraille lorsqu'il est confronté à une ou plusieurs demandes de suppression de fichiers qu'il avait contribué, alors qu'il s'agit simplement d'une démarche codifiée pour assurer un standard minimum de Commons dans le cadre du scope. Une explication de ce comportement m'intéresse vraiment! Sorry d'or interfering on tour talk page, Jim. But as Cyril is consecutively the third(!) Frenchman that I met on Commons who's getting really excited when confronted to something that he dislikes, I wondered if there's a chance of getting some more explanation about this way of acting..., Salutations, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Je ne sais pas pour les autres mais pour ma part j'ai été désigné par le député Terrasse comme "une personne localement connue pour présenter des troubles mentaux" et la presse nationale l'a relayé sans me laisser de "droit de réponse". Avant cela les médias relayaient les mensonges du réalisateur w:fr:Manuel Pradal pour couvrir le travail dissimulé d'enfants (dont ma fille) sans non plus vouloir me laisser le démentir avec comme preuves des documents officiels de DIRECCTE. Et encore avant cela l'image de ma fille a été utilisée lors de festivals internationaux de cinéma au mépris de mon opposition pendant que leur "justice" me retirait l'exercice de l'autorité parentale. Alors quand ça tourne à la dictature (et ça ne doit pas concerner que ma petite personne) il n'est pas étonnant que quelques-uns s'en plaignent, sauf bien entendu, ceux qui y participent : il n'y a pas de dictature sans peuple pour l'accepter, et y participer. Voir pour les preuves : la source 1ère c'est la réalité et la 2nd c'est un témoignage sincère (et sourcés donc, puisqu'il y a tous les documents "officiels"). Bon courage. Cyril Delacour (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

De la prison pour un œil-au-beurre-noir maquillé et se faire enlever son enfant pour s’être opposé à son travail dissimulé pour un film de cinéma, c’est cher payé vous ne trouvez pas ? Cyril Delacour (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Merci, je peut me faire une idée, à présent. Salutations, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted photo of Nihal Atsız

Hi Jim,

I saw that a file that I uploaded, File:Nihal ATSIZ.jpg, was deleted as a result of the request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nihal ATSIZ.jpg. Unfortunately I was away from Wikipedia at the time, so I could not join the discussion, but I believe the file was in public domain per Template:PD-Turkey. The user who requested deletion said "There is no proof that this picture is a public domain"; I am not sure what he/she meant by 'proof', but the photo is dated from the same time as File:Nihâl Atsız -11.jpg, ~80 years ago. The Nihal Atsız website that duplicates it cannot be the owner as it fits to the cases listed in the article 12 of the Turkish copyright law. The note at the bottom of the website state that we are free to distribute the content as long as we attribute it to the website, but in this case we don't even need to do that, as the file has already been released into public domain long ago.

COM:UNDEL suggests contacting the deleting administrator first to explain the situation. Is it possible to undelete the file, or would you advise listing it at COM:UNDEL first?--Cfsenel (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Although there are a few countries that start the clock running upon creation of a work, Turkey is not one of them. In order to apply the rule which you cite, you must show that the work was published anonymously more than seventy years ago. The fact that the author is now unknown is irrelevant -- the only thing that counts is that the work was published anonymously. As a practical matter, the only way to do this is to find a publication of the work before 1946. There is nothing in the file description or at the source that proves either that work was published anonymously or that it was even published at all until recently.
You are certainly free to post a request at UnDR, but you will get the same response there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jim, thanks, and I'm sorry for the late reply, I can only log in to Wikimedia intermittently nowadays. Normally what I saw in Wikimedia is the interpretation of the article 12 of the Turkish copyright law does not require such a high standard of proof; on the contrary, it is applied very liberally, and there are a great number of similarly licensed files on the Commons, uploaded by Turkish users (although, come to think of it, it may also be because nobody bothered to report them), and if the correct interpretation is different, that is news to me. For example, does the other file that I mentioned, File:Nihâl Atsız -11.jpg, need to be deleted? That file has been on the Wikimedia Commons for 7 years without being deleted, and it seems you didn't speedy delete it for apparent copyright violation after I mentioned it.
As a second question, as I said, I think the deleted photo was from which says we are free to distribute the content as long as we attribute it to the website. Can the deleted photo be restored with a different license, like Template:Cc-by-3.0? They didn't attribute their photos to other sources, implying they own them; but then again, they may have just been sloppy and assume, as I did, that they are not subject to copyright.--Cfsenel (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
First, we have more than 30 million files on Commons and, although we have around 25,000 editors in any month, about a dozen of us do more than half of all the work. We have no systematic way to look at files, so my best guess is that at least 1% of all files should be deleted -- that's more than 300,000 files -- so it is not surprising that you can find examples of files that have escaped attention.
Second, the copyright rules for works where the author is unknown for one reason or another vary widely from country to country. It's not surprising that editors who are not very familiar with the rules might think that 70 years is the magic number, as indeed it is, but you have to be careful when the clock started. The Turkish law is clear -- the clock starts on publication, so you must prove that the work was published more than 70 years ago.
Finally, if the source site owns the copyright -- which is possible, although unlikely, then they can demand attribution, but unless they make the license irrevocable, the image cannot be kept on Commons. More likely is that they own a paper copy of the photograph but not the copyright. That gives them no rights -- their requirement of attribution is copyfraud -- either the work is PD, in which case no attribution is required or it is still under copyright, in which case they cannot license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Images uploaded by Ipeape

Jim, The photos of Mons. Herrera are part of my property, I am part of his family. I scanned them in low resolution and uploaded. So, I am sharing the photos with the community. The only photo that could be problematic is the satellite one of the airport, I don´t know if Google has any copyright about it. Bests Regards.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipeape (talk • contribs) 00:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The rights to a photograph are exactly the same as the rights to a book. Surely you understand that you cannot make and sell copies of a recent book? Owning a copy of a photograph, whether it is digital or paper, gives you no right to use it commercially or to license its use to other people. The copyright is owned by the photographer or his heirs.

As for Google, there is a clear and explicit copyright notice on every Google map. What did you think when you were removing the notice from the Google map? That removing the notice and claiming that it was your "own work" made it OK? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted photo File:Fig 2 Porciones de datos.jpg

Hello Dear Jim

I appreciate your work and I think it is very important to improve articles.

With all due respect I would ask about why the image was erased?

being the scientific subject, in the image is put the author and years of publication mentioned, as well as the corresponding reference in the article.

Considering that this only provides a better explanation of the underwater environment of the area.

The image indicates the author and date of publication, also mentioned in reference.

The image was presented and published in the Venezuelan Geophysical Congress of 2002. Was presented in posters and is also in paper.

It was created and published in Venezuela. And Venezuelan law, in its article 46 and article 6 of LAW ON COPYRIGHT, chapter II, The limits of rights.

Article 46. Whenever the name of the author and the source are clearly stated, it is also permissible: The inclusion of an already published work in an original scientific work in order to clarify their content to the extent that justifies this purpose.

Article 6 .-.... The work is estimated disclosed when made available to the public by any means or process...

In this sense does not violate the law of copyright.

Many students of geosciences have mentioned to me about how good of having information areas like this, little illustrated in books. It is a pity to deprive them of information. Lectores2021 (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectores2021 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 01 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.
I am sorry, but I do not understand. Above, you say that " the author and years of publication mentioned". However, in the file descipription, you said that the author was Lectores2021 -- that it was your own work. Are you. in fact, the person who drew the original work? If so, it will be possible to restore the image.
As for Article 46, it is of the nature of a "Fair Use" provision. While Fair Use is permitted on some WPs, it cannot be permitted on Commons, see Commons:Fair use. Article 46 limits the permitted use " to clarify their content to the extent that justifies this purpose." Commons images must be free for any use anywhere by anybody. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Jim Thank you very much for the prompt reply. I now understand better the use of Commons. Answer your question: Yes I am the person who dew the original work. Lectores2021 (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I see your request at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Fig_2_Porciones_de_datos.jpg. Generally, it is a waste of your time, and the time of your colleagues, to raise an issue in two places at once. Therefore, I have closed your request there without action.
Are you one of Deiros, Sackett, or Malavé? If so, we can restore it. Since it was published elsewhere before Commons, we require more than your simple statement. Please follow the procedure detailed at OTRS. When and if the OTRS volunteer accepts your statement, it will be restored. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it is OK. Probably will be faster, if I look in my records data of the same area, I can make and load another figure to illustrate the article. Thank you for your consideration. Lectores2021 (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


Hello , As previously wrote, I am the grandson of the writer in question , she has no son , and I have his total approval to create the wikipedia page in his name . The photo in question (one that precisely portrays in his studio)It has been taken from me at the time for the publishing house who then conveyed on the web. In addition to Google Images it is one of the photos without rights and even labeled for reuse. So really I do not understand what the problem is best regards Simone Mancinelli--Simone041976 (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you the actual photographer that made the image? If so, there is no problem but because the image has appeared on the Web without a free license you must confirm that using the procedure at OTRS. If you are not the actual photographer, then in order for the image to be restored the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS.
Forgive me for asking (my only other language is French and it is much weaker than your English), but you say "his total approval", "in his name", and "in his studio", but "she has no son". "Laura" is a woman's name in English. Is your grandparent a man or a woman? It doesn't matter to this problem, but I like to refer to people correctly.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Guide me

Hi James. Some people in english wikipedia told me my uploads about Iran men's national volleyball team, are not free and we can't use them in articles and remove our pictures in en:Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification! Please say your opinion. Thank you.Sarbaze naja (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I think the discussion at WP:EN is mostly saying that using only photos of the Iranian team is not neutral -- that seems to say that if we can't have photos of all teams, we can't have any, which seems silly to me. However, I don't work much on WP:EN, so I don't know whether that is good policy or not. There's also the question of whether these are actually free -- if I understand the template correctly, in order to use the template, images must have a watermark that says they are from the news agency. These don't. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi again. According to my experience, Mr [Javid Nikpour] is the sport photographer of the news afency. He is following Iran national teams around the world. Definitely he will go to the Rio (Olympic games) and take valid photos. So, we will have many valid images of the competition ... Sarbaze naja (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
See my comment at User talk:Noncommittalp .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
YAHH! I Saw it. I excited! Thank you. This is your favorite. I will remember this.Sarbaze naja (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request?

On what grounds would you file for a DR, because of a chart that I created, uses sourced information to base my image on? The image is what would need to be considered for a copyright vio, not the sourcing. In the future it may be best to contact the editor directly for clarification (on situations like this), than bog down the DR request page – Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that Commons gets around 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 1,700 of them. A dozen Administrators do half of that work and 25 do 90%. At the moment we are falling way behind, so we do not have time for personal notes -- better to raise issues in a DR where it will be seen by a wide variety of Commons editors. I wish that it were possible to do otherwise, but we have nowhere near the human resources to be more personal.
As for this case, except for any that might be exempt by law (e.g. works by US Government employees), the deck plans all have copyrights. You named sources for them. The usual use of that word on Commons is the place where you got the image, not the information to enable drawing the image, hence my comment in the DR, "It is possible that those were used only for background, but that needs to be clarified.". Please remember that a significant fraction of the 1,700 daily deletions are images where the uploader thought that assembling a group of images from various sources made him the author.
Excellent work, by the way, and thank you for the clarification. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, Fair enough - Thanks you FOX 52 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request: F-22 assembling

Jim since I have your attention, if you have a moment can you look at this DR, you ruled on one with similar circumstances, which I've mention in this request - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Phêrô Nguyễn Văn Hùng.jpg
This is posing as someone else in the name of the uploaded image! -- 05:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean or why you put your message here. These both have Deletion Requests and will be discussed there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright of books

Jim, I'm not getting any comments on the above post (related deletion request here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:உமார் கயாம் (புதினம்) நூலட்டை.jpg. Could you take a look and see if you can weigh in? This impacts quite a lot of files on Commons. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting -- thanks for bringing it up. Commented at the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

IP Block exemption?

Hi Jim. I was hoping you could give me a hand and some pointers, as this is the first time I've dealt with these matters. Apipo1907 is receiving messages indicating he is blocked. From reading around, I think this has to be a consequence of an IP range block... I've read Commons:IP_block_exemption, but thought it would be prudent to ping you for guidance first. The user's global edits seem unproblematic, and the user is a sysop on lnwiki (although this is due to a request at meta rather than a community decision, their edits seem good). I'm unsure about the abusive range, since I don't think I can check that myself. Storkk (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw your note on his talk page first, so I've already pinged the other active Commons CUs by e-mail to make sure that this guy is an innocent bystander and not the actual target of the block. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I think I was most confused by Commons:IP_block_exemption's instruction that "When considering IP block exemption, the editing history of the user and the abusive range concerned should be carefully reviewed..." but that seems impossible for non-CUs, correct? Storkk (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Correct -- only CUs can investigate IPs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Prepared food exempt from copyright?

I'm no expert, but it seems to me the decision in the second discussion here was made in error. Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. There's plenty of precedent. There is nothing in the copyright code or in the case law that says that if you make something out of plastic, it has a copyright, but if you make it out of chocolate, it does not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Care to weigh in? Maybe JCB has a valid point about useful articles? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Jcb has historically demonstrated an inadequate understanding of copyright, which contributed to his being de-sysoped and was the direct impetus for me to write the models essay, as his closures in that area were inept and disruptive. Jim's comments above are spot on; in the United States, for example, bakeries with a degree of legal sophistication (e.g., those in a corporate structure with a legal department, such as Whole Foods) routinely decline custom orders that request copyrighted figures. The law does not care whether a "tangible medium" is frosting, chocolate, metal or stone. Alternatively, cases involving plating (food arrangement) are commonly brought, but settled, indicating it is at best an unresolved issue (COM:PRP then comes into play). As a reasonableness and thought test: notwithstanding that Disney would not concern itself with such "small potatoes," I don't believe a competent person would argue that Disney would not prevail if it decided to pursue this food item as infringing. In Germany, the "Geburtstagszug" decision famously expanded the threshold of originality to applied art; I don't know of it yet being tested on food (the case is 2013), but it is generally agreed that food arrangements would enjoy copyright protection (see, for example, die Welt). Эlcobbola talk 19:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, e. I have weighed in at the DR talk. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Logo and Stamp

Is there any problems with the FSC Rupandehi Pages. ...In any network Our FSC Rupandehi has uploaded photos and logo...etc fpr Farmers Day 27th Jestha programme and for farmers respect in Nepal. If u have taken food then respect Farmers. ...promise with ishu god. If u have any difficulties or dough their then confirm with FSC Rupandehi Email address.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev Dhawal (talk • contribs) 16:47, 17 June 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.

I have great respect for farmers -- I have been one myself in a small way. However, everyone here must follow Commons rules. I deleted the page because everything on it had either been deleted before or will be deleted in seven days because none of the files had or have licenses from the photographers.
Note also that it is a violation of Commons rules and a nuisance when you upload files a second time after deletion. If you do it again, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)


Hi, Jim, thank you for finding some time to look at our contributions at NeuroMat. You have raised some relevant questions, and I will answer them specifically below.

  1. We have disputed the deletion of File:Projeto Pesquisa Midia Ciencia.pdf, and without answer to our complaint this file was deleted. I apologize for not knowing we were not allowed to publish this file again. Yet, this file is of true relevance: it is the actual project that a research funding agency in Brazil has granted us to hire the very first Wikipedian-in-Residence in Brazil. This belongs to the Commons, since it is a relevant document for Wikiversity and anyone who is interested in researching WMF projects and scientific dissemination. What should we do about this?
  2. Let me say that username MGromov is by no means inappropriate, according to the username policy. It is not a promotional username, it is not disruptive, it is not misleading and it is not offensive. It is just a pseudonym, that has no connection to the name of our research institute, that is called NeuroMat. Could you please explain more specifically why you have blocked our group user name, so I can dispute it with proper arguments? So far, I see no valid reason for this block, considering Commons rules.
  3. Thank you for your concern about Template:MAV-FMVZ USP-license, and let me say I need your help. We were able to secure a very interesting partnership with the Museum of Veterinary Anatomy, at the University of São Paulo, that has decided to offer hundreds of images to the Commons. We published the template and the four first pictures with good faith, assuming we were granting appropriate credit (to the museum and the photographer), but I understand there is a specific procedure, that you have called "OTRS license". Could you please direct me to further instructions about what this license is?
  4. I see you have mentioned again this "OTRS license" to justify the deletion of a lot of material we have uploaded. I looked up the page Commons:OTRS and was unable to find the place where the rule that files that are uploaded by collective users are not considered "own work". Could you please help me to get this specific understanding right, so I can see how to deal with this issue?

I appreciate your help, and please let me just reinforce that, though we might have made some mistakes, our activity in the Commons --as in any other WMF project-- has been done with good faith and hoping to contribute the best we can to the projects. Joalpe (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite and speedy request for clarification. My colleagues and I know that there is a great deal to learn here about copyright and, in particular, Commons handling of it, so we try to be helpful to new users who are polite and who ask rather than just blundering ahead. If anything I say below is not clear, please feel free to ask for clarification. Let me also say that the issues you raise are not new -- they have arisen many times with museums and with groups working together, so the answers I give you are, for the most part, well established.
1) The appropriate procedure is to post a Commons:Undeletion request where the issues will be discussed. I will oppose such a request, not on the grounds of scope, but on the grounds that the document has a copyright, which is almost certainly held by all persons who negotiated it, and therefore in order to post it here you will need to obtain licenses from all of the copyright holders.
2) The issue with the username is that usernames are personal -- there can be only one person using a username. The reason is that we deal with people on Commons as individuals. We rely heavily on knowledge of individuals, knowing that if User:X says something it can be trusted, but that User:Y often makes mistakes. Usernames used by more than one person blur that, so they are forbidden. Also, as I explain more fully below, a group can never claim "own work", so anything posted by a group username must have its copyright verified independently which is a nuisance.
You may, if you wish, create user names such as User:MGromov-Joalpe, with the second half of the name identifying the individual who is doing the work for the organization. If you do that, you should declare on both User:Joalpe and on User:MGromov-Joalpe that they are the same person and never use both names to edit or comment on the same page -- keep your personal work (if any) completely separate from work for the organization.
3) As I said in the DR, I looked at the English version of the museum's web site and I found no evidence that it has allowed its works to be licensed CC-BY-SA. Perhaps I missed it, or it appears only on the Portuguese version, in which case you can cite it at the DR and the DR will be closed. If it does not appear on the web site, then an authorized official of the museum must send a free license to OTRS, using the procedure and license form found there. That is the way that we receive and verify licenses from third parties. A volunteer at OTRS will examine the license, make a decision, and take appropriate action. The message and license sent to OTRS can be in Portuguese or English.
4) Copyrights are personal. At the time of creation of a work (taking a photo, creating a painting, etc.) they are usually owned by the creator. The only exception is the case of a work for hire, when the copyright is owned by an employer. MGromov is not your employer, so that cannot be the case here. MGomov is not the author of any works -- individuals are -- and since it is not a legal entity (a corporation or formal partnership) it cannot be the copyright holder for any of the works. If it were a legal entity, then the individuals involved could have transferred their copyrights to it and it could license them, but, as I understand it, that is not the case. Even if that were the case, since all copyright transfers and licenses must be in writing, we would require written evidence of the transfer, again using OTRS.
Again, please feel free to ask questions. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarifications, Jim. I will follow the trend and answer point by point.
1) I understand that differently from the original reason for deletion --that considered the document to be out of scope, which seems to me unjustified-- there is a justified copyright concern. In order to address this concern, I should emphasize our research institute's website is licensed under a CC-BY license, that appears to be recognized as in accordance to the Commons. So, would it be according to the Commons rules if: (a) I uploaded the document on our CC-BY website; (b) I disputed the deletion based on scope in the proper space you have aforementioned; and (c) I mentioned that once I upload the document again I would make sure not to claim authorship and attest that the coypright holder has published it with the appropriate license?
2) I looked up the information that shared user names are prohibited, and you are right. Sorry for not paying attention to this earlier. As we say in Portuguese, "vivendo e aprendendo," or "We learn by living." Yet, because of the concern I address in (4), I would like to see the possibility of redefining the role of the MGromov account --instead of considering everything that was done under this account to be invalid. I hope the solution I suggest in (4) may be considered valid.
3) You are right that there is no mention of the release of images by the MAV (FMVZ USP) on the English version of their website. There is actually no mention on the Portuguese version, either. There is a mention of this work here, in Portuguese. We have just started the process of uploading pictures from their very rich collection, and we are handling the upload of the pictures we have included on the Commons as a pilot project. And I am glad we did, because we now have the opportunity to understand the appropriate procedure before the "grand upload" comes --as I said, we are expecting hundreds of pictures to be included on the Commons as a result of this partnership. I will shecdule a meeting with the director of the museum, so we can work on the OTRS license. Just to make sure we get things right: (a) The museum is the legal owner --though they hired a professional photographer to take pictures of their exhibit, and the photographer is mentioned as the author of the image--, so is it enough if the director of the museum sends the OTRS license?; (b) We are about to upload hundreds of images, is there a way to submit an OTRS license without having to discriminate each of these hundreds files?
4) Instead of blocking Mgromov, would it be OK if this account became an alternative user name for Horadrim? This is a former student of mine, who has been granted a fellowship to become our very first Wikipedian-in-residence. We would of course make the necessary profile change. And from now on, he would make all uploads as Horadrim. This might seem a tortuous process, but I found no evidence that this role-changing would be against the Commons rules and it would be a way to avoid having to upload all images that were already uploaded once again. What do you think?
Again, thank you for your help and for caring for this project. Joalpe (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

1) That won't do it. As I said above, the copyright to a document is held by all of the authors, so the copyright holders must license its use. Commons is careful when looking at material on a CC-BY web site to make sure that the person posting it with a free license actually has the right to post it. If he does not, we call it License laundering|. I think the only solution is for one of the writers to send a license to OTRS. If you tell me when that has been done, I can speed the process. Make certain that he or she refers to the file name File:Projeto Pesquisa Midia Ciencia.pdf.

2) see (4)

3) First, an extra complication. An image of a created work such as this wonderful cow actually has two copyrights, both of which must be licensed or otherwise free. The photographer has a copyright, and the creator of the cow has a copyright. Fortunately, Brazil is one of six countries with the very broadest of freedom of panorama laws (see COM:FOP which you should read), so if the cow is on permanent exhibit in a public place there is no problem. The museum is certainly a public place as required by the broad Brazilian FOP, so no problem. However, any images of works that are not on permanent display in a public place would probably require a license from the creator.

With that understood, if the museum hired the photographer and was careful to get a work for hire agreement from him or her, then an authorized official of the museum can license works for Commons. This can be done by naming particular files (not what you want), stating that all uploads by User:X of museum images are covered by the license (this requires trusting User:X to never upload an image that the museum does not want to freely license), or by saying that all museum images are covered by the license. The museum should remember that a CC-0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA license is irrevocable and allows commercial use, so that if the museum makes money by selling its image, it may certainly continue to do that after licensing them, but they will be available for free on Commons and someone could take them, make postcards or tee shirts, and sell them on the street outside the museum.

Note that if the museum does, in fact, have a work for hire agreement with the photographer, it is entirely the museum's choice as to whether the author line says "Author=John Doe" or "Author = MAV". If the license is CC-BY or CC-BY-SA they may specify exactly how they want the attribution to read -- the license sent to OTRS should say what they want.

4)Since Horadrim has made no edits on Commons to date, I can delete his account and change the name of the MGromov account to Horadrim. That does not answer the question of who holds the copyrights to the various images uploaded as the "own work" of MGromov unless that is Horadrim in every case. If some were made by others, they must send a license to OTRS.

Minor point -- Capitalization is important in user names -- you mentioned User:Mgromov above -- that is actually a different, inactive account. The one we are discussing is MGromov.

More important point -- I will be going on vacation, with limited or no Internet access, beginning July 3. While many of my colleagues would be happy to deal with this, you have me up to speed, so it would be easier if you keep things moving along so we can hopefully get it all put to bed by then. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Jim, thank you again for your prompt and helpful reply.
(1) Got it! I am one of the authors, so I will submit a license to OTRS today to solve the issue of our research project on wiki-scientific dissemination.
(2) See (4).
(3) I have just checked with the Museum, and the legal owner of the images is the museum. The photographer was hired under a temporary contract called in Portuguese "Contrato de prestação de serviços, em caráter eventual, sem vínculo empregatício, para criação determinada de imagens," which according to the Brazilian law guarantees that the legal owner of the images is the entity that has hired the service. As a model to submit to OTRS, would this be OK?:

I hereby affirm that I, Maurício Cândido da Silva, head of the University of São Paulo Museum of Veterinary Anatomy (MAV FMVZ USP), represent the University of São Paulo Museum of Veterinary Anatomy, who is the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of all museum images.

I agree to publish all museum images under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International, according to the following template: .

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

(4) Horadrim is the copyright holder of all pictures we have uploaded. I agree with your suggestion to change the name of the MGromov account to Horadrim. What should we do to make this happen?
Thanks a lot! And thanks for directing me to the document on Freedom of panorama; this is fascinating! Joalpe (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The form of license you give above is good. Make sure the Director sends the message from an address that obviously belongs to the museum. If you tell me here after he has done it, I will deal with it.
As for the name change. I have made a request at You should watch that page, because the Steward who does the change will probably have questions for you or Horadrim. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Jim, I am just passing by to thank you for your patient orientation throughout the process of solving our mess. This kind of interaction is what makes small projects such as the one we are working on in Brazil and big projects such as all the sum of all human knowledge be worthwhile. I was delighted by this constructive interaction. Just so you have an update.
(1) Solved.
(2) and (4) Almost solved (Pending for technical issues).
(3) I have communicated the museum that they need to submit a license to OTRS, with the model you and I have agreed on. The director of the museum is making a consultation to two professors at the university, and you should hear from them soon, hopefully before July 3, when you leave. In any case, since this will be worked out I have been bold and uploaded images on Wikipedia entries of interest. We will set up an edit-a-thon to improve the same content in Portuguese and then upload the pictures. As soon as the license to OTRS is solved, we should start to upload hundreds of high-resolution pictures from this museum.
All the best and if we do not talk before have a safe trip. Joalpe (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion on FoP

Hi Jim. Can you take a look at the images in Category:Naghsh-e-Jahan Stadium? This is a 2003 stadium in Iran, but looks utilitarian to me, with no architectural elements that could be considered above COM:TOO. I just wanted to get your opinion on whether these are OK regarding Iran FoP? INeverCry 18:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that line of reasoning won't work. Article 2, #7 of the Iranian copyright law specifically calls out "Architectural works, designs, sketches and buildings". I am not familiar with the case law in Iran, but in the United States similar wording means that all buildings, even the simplest, are covered by copyright. A building, even a very simple one, is a very complex thing and requires thousands of creative decisions. This one has a complex and innovative roof structure, so even if the ToO could be applied to some architecture (which it cannot), this stadium would certainly be far above it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I had my doubts on these. There's a few more in the parent cat that may require DRs as well. Here's the DR for these: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Naghsh-e-Jahan Stadium. I left out two that showed a man and seats and grass and seats. INeverCry 20:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I've put together a couple more mass DRs for new stadiums in Iran: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Imam Reza Stadium, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ghods City Martyrs Stadium. INeverCry 20:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


File:Peachoid.png You were involved with a previous discussion on this water tower. Please take a look at this file. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done, thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Need your advice

Hi Jim, sorry to bother you again. I have left a message on your Wikipedia talk page. You can ignore that message. I see that you spend more time in commons and I really need your advice. I am creating an article for my advisor. 1. You said this is violation of WP:COI. What should I do next? Much of the contents are from his CV and personal website. 2. I have uploaded his picture but was deleted due to some copyright issue. But this picture is used long by himself and all his students. I really do not know who is the photographer. Thanks! Joestc (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It's no bother at all -- Commons is a difficult place for new editors and we try hard to answer questions.
First, COI -- as you saw, I am much more active here than on WP:EN, so I can't really speak with authority about issues there, but you certainly should create User:Joestc with a brief note saying who you are and that Leung Tsang is your professor. You should probably do the same here on Commons. You should also read WP:COI carefully and try to understand that even if you wrote a perfectly neutral, unbiased article, there would still be an appearance of COI and that is what WMF works very hard to avoid on all of its projects.
As for the image, if you do not know who the photographer is, then it cannot be used on Commons or WP:EN -- it is likely that it will be under copyright until at least 2100 and perhaps well beyond. Orphan works cannot be kept unless they are old enough to assume that they have met the requirements for public domain. A brief summary of the relevant law is at File:PD-US_table.svg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi James. How about this one, compared to the originals? It combines a 'condensation' of two maps into one map; does that make it 'something new'? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the combination of the two has a copyright of its own. However it is also a derivative work of each of the two combined works, so in order to use it on Commons, you would need to get licenses for all three. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Eh.... I do not fully understand. Let's make a list:
  • Even if I make a combination of the two, Underhill is the copyright-owner?
  • If I draw a map which gives the place of origin of R1a, based on text; namely Underhill (2014), who writes that 'R1a originated in the vicinity of Iran'; when drawing this info into a map, without having seen a map by Underhill himself with this info (I don't even know if he drew such a map), is that still derivative? Or is that okay, since it is based on a dataset (a small one, only one piece of info)?
I have to confess that I find this stuff quite complicated, but does seem to get a little bit clearer. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Earliest distribution and highest frequency of R1a (Underhill 2010)
From Commons:Derivative works#Maps:
"Maps aren't copyrightable, if there was only one way to effectively express that idea. The court found that there was сreativity involved in the idea here was to bring together the available information on boundaries, landmarks, and ownership, and to choose locations and an effective pictorial expression of those locations. But the protection that each map receives extends only to its original expression, and neither the facts nor the idea embodied in the maps is protected."
If drawing circles or lines, or painted areas, to represent high frequencies, is the only way to represent this info, then it wpuldn'be copy-righted? On the other hand, I could also use names, maybe with different sizes, for the places/regions with the highest concentration; would that be something new? Or wouldn't it? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Jim, in addition (I'm reading Commons:Derivative works): if Underhill (2010) writes that R1a1a is mostly found in north-eastern Europe and north-India, and I use that written info in a map, is that a violation of copyrights? Or is that "fair use," since I use a small part of information from the source? And how far extends "effective pictorial expression"; drawing lines and colored areas on a map can hardly be called an original idea, can it? I'm going to check the original article, see what they write. Bets regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I've just checked the articles (2010 and 2014); no way to draw any such map from the information written in there, except for the general information that R1a has it highest rates in eastern Europe, est-Siberia, and south-Asia. That would do for a general, wouldn't it?
The only way for a more specific description is to feed 8,000 pieces of data into a computer-program... So, I just sent an email to mr. Underhill, asking for permission for re-use. No idea if he will even respond, but at least I can try, can't I? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, if you draw a map with another map in front of you, using the other map as the reference for the one you are drawing, then your map is probably a DW of the other. Your map may have a copyright of its own, but any use of it infringes on the copyright of the other. (There will probably be a third copyright, unless you draw your base map from scratch or use a PD map as your base).
If you take a PD base map and add circles or shading or whatever using raw data given in text or tabular form, then you are not infringing because the raw data does not have a copyright.
I said "probably" above. If you work with the Underhill map in front of you and his map shows data using colors, then simply changing the colors doesn't get away from it being a DW, but it, as you suggest, you use circles of various sizes or something different from coloring, then your work is not a DW. This can be very subtle --there is not a clear boundary.
If Underhill agrees, please have him send a free license using the procedure at OTRS.
And that, as noted above, is probably my last word on the subject. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User Simpleshow foundation

You are apparently on vacation/holiday, but this is a matter you've been involved in before, and there is no big rush.

Here it would appear that user "Simpleshow foundation" is indef blocked. Here, that user has uploaded (yet another) video -- on 10 March 2016. (Most but not all of that user's videos are Here.)

The article 'Sleep hygiene' on English Wikipedia is one of the articles I watch, and the video has been added there today by user "Norma jean" who states that she found it on Commons. I may argue for deleting it from the article, as at least one "fact", isn't. (Isn't a fact.)

I am very seldom on Commons, so if you reply here please give me a heads up on English wikipedia (same username). Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you post a request at Commons:Requests_for_checkuser -- my colleagues will handle it for you. I would do the CU myself, but we're offshore right now and although our WiFi repeater is working, it's very slow. 10:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC) (also posted on WP:EN)
I'd suggest it's not a checkuser issue... it appears they were only ever blocked for having an inappropriate username, so creating a new username would have been perfectly acceptable, I think. There may be COI/paid editing issues on enwiki, but I think that's a different question. Have a great trip, Jim! Storkk (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Underhill (2010)

Hi Jim,

Underhill did respond! And he's okay with the use of the map at Wikipedia!!! Here is his mail:

I am OK with your using the map(s) from
Underhill PA, Myres NM, Rootsi S, Metspalu M, Zhivotovsky LA, King RJ, Lin AA, Chow C-ET, Semino O, Battaglia V, Kutuev I, Järve M, Chaubey G, Ayub Q, Mohyuddin A, Mehdi SQ, Sengupta S, Rogaev EI, Khusnutdinova EK, Pshenichnov A, Balanovsky O, Balanovska E, Jeran N, Augustin DH, Baldovic M, Herrera RJ, Thangaraj K, Singh V, Singh L, Majumder P, Rudan P, Primorac D, Villems R, Kivisild T. 2010. Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a. Eur J Hum Genet 18:479-484
Assuming you agree to the following conditions
1) That you cite the publication adequately including full name of journal, etc
2) That you declare (perhaps in your figure legend for the map(s) that you use), that any interpretations and/or inferences you make based on the frequency distributions shown on these maps are yours alone and not necessarily those of the authors of Underhill et al 2010
This way, readers will clearly understand that my co-authors & I take a position of neutrality, rather than thinking that because I grant permission to reproduce images, I am necessarily endorsing any interpretation(s) you make regarding themodern frequency distributions shown in the publication.
Best wishes,

So, what do I do next? Does it mean we can use the original maps from Underhill et al. (2010)? Which license should be used; I guess a limited license which only permits the usage within Wikipedia? And does this copy of his email suffice? I mean, who garantees that I didn't write it myself? I figure the full text of the email (except my name) should be included; should that be added to the Licensing-section? I hope you can help me here. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Joshua Jonathan: That permission is not enough. They should agree to release their map under a free license, like CC-BY-SA-4.0. And they should send an email to the OTRS. Thanks, Poké95 07:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Pokéfan95! I'll have to consider if I've got enough guts to ask this to him, but thanks anyway. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Pokéfan95 is correct -- that won't do it. However, if Underhill reads the CC-BY license (, I think he will probably find that it covers his issues -- attribution is required and that the creators do not endorse the particular use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I've had further email-contact with him, and I'll leave it as it is; that is, no maps from him. It was worthwhile anyway, having contact with him; he's very carefull indeed. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Please (Fauvirt)

Would you please have a look at this: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#License reviews by bad licences? Fauvirt (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons page Gerhard Drekonja

Hi Jim, could you please undelete Gerhard Drekonja? I'm planning to upload more pictures in the next few days. Thank you! Hans Urian (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done -- It's helpful if you put a note on the page -- "more coming soon" -- or the like. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You are right. Thanks! Hans Urian (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Jim, you should have said to put a note on the talk page instead, I undid their addition of the note, which resulted to User talk:Pokéfan95#Your edit in Gerhard Drekonja...   Poké95 08:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Poké95 -- No, in the case of a blank or single image gallery, putting a note on the talk page won't help -- the gallery page will simply be deleted and the talk page with it. See {{Underconstruction}} for a quick way to do it and note that it calls for putting the template on the gallery page itself, not the talk page.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Yours sincerely, Szm100 (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

A heads-up

You participated in Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Wire Issue08v7.pdf. I am letting everyone who weighed in there that it has been nominated for deletion, again, at Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Josve05a/The Wire v. Stock images.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Azusa Tadokoro

Disappeared content! -- 04:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand what you would like me to do. It is an empty category which, as far as the log shows and I can remember, I have never touched in any way. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Bankers from Vietnam

Disappeared content! -- 11:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Copied from e-mail

Hello Jim,

i'm novice on Wiki. I've created an article about my farther Кравченко Володимир Григорович. He is creator of medical preparation Cidipol and I added scans of his patent in Russian Federation and trade sign certificate for Cidipol. Yes, sure, they are not mine but I want to show it for others. If I broked wiki rules in some way would you say what should I do in such case. Thank you. My regards

Andriy (Avkpol)

First, except for matters that require confidentiality, communication on Wiki matters should take place here, rather than by e-mail.
As for the two documents, since you did not actually create them, in order to keep them on Commons, you must show that they are free of copyright, (a) because they are old, (b) because the creator has freely licensed them, or (c) because the law of the country where they were created make them automatically copyright free (that is, in the Public Domain). Also, you cannot license them as CC-BY-SA -- scanning a document created by someone else gives you no rights which you can license.
I don't know if Russian patents are PD or not. The first bullet at {{PD-RU-exempt}} suggests that they may be, but "may be" is not sufficient here. If the "trade sign certificate" (is that what we would call a trademark registration?) is a government issued document, it may also be PD under the same clause.
I suspect that one of our colleagues will answer the question at each of the DRs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

[Copied from e-mail]
Hi, excuse my writing here but I didn’t find on the page where could I reply. Should I edit page? Anyway, you didn’t make clear the situation for me. I understand I must wait for your colleagues decision? From other side these documents belongs my father as patent/trademark owner, what the problem with it? e.g. you are not issuer of you driver license but you are owner of it. Does it mean you can not scan it and show in internet? Please say me exactly what and how should I do.Avkpol (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

In order to add comments on a Wiki talk page, you can click on "Edit", either at the top of the page or at the top of the section.
I am sure that you understand that if you buy a book, that you cannot make copies of it to sell -- that is the whole point of copyright. What is true of a book is true of any created work -- art, writing, architecture, and so forth. Owning the original (or a copy) of a created work gives you no right to make copies -- that right is almost always retained by the creator.
In your driver's license example, in most countries (and 47 USA states) the copyright to a driver's license remains with the issuer, so you do not have the right to make copies of it. That is particularly true if there is a photograph, as the photograph definitely has a copyright while the printing on a driver's license may be too simple to have one.
It is up to you to prove that these documents are not subject to copyright in Russia. As I said in my earlier reply, that proof may come from one of our colleagues who is more familiar with Russian copyright law. If that does not happen, they will probably be deleted.
For reference, these are Commons:Deletion requests/File:QScan08302016 200819.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Цидіпол товарний знак.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Above you say "Russian Federation", but Кравченко Володимир Григорович says that he is Ukrainian. Were the documents created in Russia or in Ukraine? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Кравченко Володимир is for sure Ukrainian and lives in Ukraine. The documents were created: one in the USSR yet ( Trademark registration issue year 1987) and another one in Russian Federation(Patent, 1993). The term of patent and trademark was expired already and they have rather historical sense.
So, ok, let`s wait for your experts decision. How long it may be? Avkpol (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
DRs must stay open for a week. Usually others will comment during that time, but there is no requirement. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Role accounts on English Wikipedia

There are two experienced English Wikipedia editors, user:FastLizard4 and user:Mlpearc, who are at the beginning of advocating for a new role account function on English Wikipedia.

The role account would be so that people with organizations and projects could get "account creator" rights to register many people for new accounts at in-person events. On English Wikipedia, there is a limit of 6 account registrations per IP address, so if people meet in one place, then one way to register a group is to have someone use this userright to register all attendees after the first 6.

I thought that you might care about this because it is another path by means of which the Wiki community is getting advocates for role accounts. I am not sure if Commons has a registration cap of 6, but if it does, then I can imagine the precedent of English Wikipedia pouring into Commons as more people organize photo walks. I live in New York, and we only occasionally have hosted photo walks in the past, but we have a big one coming up in October at en:Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/CommonsLab and there is some talk of doing these much more often.

Since you care about policy around role accounts I thought I would let you know.

As I have said before, my preference is for clear policy. I get pressure from both sides to both use and avoid using role accounts. There are organizations which are beginning to have a financial stake in this issue, and Wiki contributors who are investing in the outcome on either side of the issue. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry , thank you for the note. I have enough to do on Commons without getting into battles on other projects. I also have much less problem with the concept on WP:EN because the copyright issues are very different.
On Commons, I firmly believe that an account should have only one user.There are two reasons for this.
First, users come in all qualities. We have honest, careful, knowledgeable users, some who are none of those, and users in every combination of them. Having three major roles (Admin, Bureaucrat, and Checkuser), I get to know that pretty well. Since active Admins, in particular, are in short supply -- 90% of Admin work is done by fewer than 25 people -- it is important to Commons that we be able to work fast and accurately. Over time we get to know most of the active users -- who can be trusted to be honest, knowledgeable, and careful, and who cannot. If accounts have more than one user, then Admins lose that important help to their work.
Second, I don't think that a responsible and careful institution would want a Commons account that had more than one user. Since the point of institutional accounts is to allow institutions to upload and freely license some of their archive, the Commons user must be given permission to do this. In most jurisdictions, for an institution to give away its property, the governing body (Board of Directors or Trustees) must approve. Suppose an institution has ten people using one account and one of them is fired for cause? At the very least, the institution will have to change the password on the account. At worst, the fired person will have uploaded images that were not authorized and the institution must request their removal (this has actually happened). If ten people have been uploading images, how do we figure out which images are problems? Damage control is a real issue.
I see no reason why an institution cannot simply use separate accounts with similar names -- "User:National Institute of Geology User Smith" and "User:National Institute of Geology User Jones", for example. That solves both problems while maintaining the ability to know the users and keep track of their individual work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Your arguments are entirely sound. I support you in everything you are saying. I am not one who needs to be convinced.
If you wish, please change the existing policies to forbid role accounts. You have respect of other Commons users and can unilaterally delete and change policy. You already know the issue at the username policy - just delete everything that says role accounts are allowed and explicitly state that they are not allowed. If it helps, I will help identify all the policy that needs to be changed to forbid the practice, and I will list all the Commons accounts that are role accounts for institutions so that they can be blocked until the name changes.
I am behind you on this. The thing that I am not ready to do is deny that there are two sides doing two different things and ignoring that the other side exists. Until the issue is resolve, or someone wants to force things one way or the other, I am comfortable pointing out that there are two sides doing two contradictory things and that both sides refuse to have a discussion with each other to resolve the issue. Here is how I rank the current options in my own order of preference:
  1. Either side dictates that the other has to be eliminated. Either role accounts are clearly allowed or clearly forbidden.
  2. Both sides exist in direct opposition to each other, clearly contradicting each other and giving contrary guidance on what to do, and this conflict is openly acknowledged. Various users create role accounts or advise to avoid creating role accounts, and everyone acknowledges that one side or the other is doing something wrong without clarifying the issue.
  3. Both sides exist in direct opposition to each other, clearly contradicting each other and giving contrary guidance on what to do, but everyone lies and says that they see no conflict and that the rules are clear. One faction creates role accounts, the other forbids it, and both sides refuse to acknolwedge that the other side is creating Commons policy that either says to create role accounts or forbid them.
Right now I think the Commons community is somewhere between 2 and 3 on this list. I would prefer the situation to be more strongly 2, and even more prefer that some dictator force the issue to number 1. If you are ready to change policy and start blocking established role accounts then say the word and I will join in, but I wish for someone else to take the lead on this and actually be ready to block role accounts when they are identified. As soon as some established Commons contributors with sensitive relationships with organizations are pressured out of their accounts I think that could settle the issue. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Now could be a time to speak up and post a comment, if you wish to start a conversation. I really do not know what to do except regret that so much precedent is being set on both sides without any conversation or agreement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Suzuki motorcycles

I spent a lot of time making the structure. I wanted to continue today. Clear the gallery 12 hours after its creation, it's really not cool. Can you put it back , Thanks Camulogene77 (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It may not be cool, but we get 10,000 new pages ever day and delete 1,700 of them, so if you create a new page that is out of scope, it is inevitable that it will be deleted (single image galleries are not allowed).
In the future, either populate the gallery immediately or add the {{Under construction}} tag, as I have done in this case. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Falastin newspaper

How does copyright laws apply to uncopyrighted material? The book features an image of members of the newspaper and in the caption it says something around "after writing to the Jordan Press Association, it turned out that all pictures, drawings and articles published on Falastin (1911-1967) was published under public domain, including this picture." --Makeandtoss (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

With very limited exceptions, and none that might apply here, all created works have a copyright from the moment of their creation. While it is possible to put copyrighted works in the public domain with an appropriate license (for example see there is no such thing as "published under public domain". In order to restore this image, we would need to know what such license was actually used and whether it actually applied to all of the work shown on the page.
Also note that the statement you quote is very unlikely to be accurate -- there were, as I said at the UnDR, three different sets of rules in place from 1911 to 1967 and different licenses would be required for the latter two. As I also said there, work done under the Ottoman Empire is PD, and I suspect that the statement applies only to that period. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
What if it was published under CC0 1.0 or any 1930s equivalent? This newspaper is seriously old and I have been storming archives in Jordan trying to find what license it was published under, I managed to find a really old library with a book about Journalism in Jaffa, the newspaper's hometown. The book is in Arabic and the "published under public domain" is a rough translation of "تم نشرها تحت الملكية العامة". --Makeandtoss (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
First, since the book speaks of something that cannot be, it is suspect as a source of accurate information. Second, even if the book is roughly accurate -- that the newspaper did, in fact, explicitly put its content in the PD throughout its life under three legal regimes -- we would have to see the actual license to ensure that it is valid, irrevocable, and applies to everything in the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I have contacts with the descendants of the newspapers' founders, potential copyrights holders of potentially copyrighted material. What kind of document are we looking for? Governmental? Company-wise? Press association? --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Since the book that makes you think the paper is PD is not accurate, I can't tell you what sort of document it might be -- whatever supports the book's assertion that the paper was PD through three very different legal regimes.
As for the descendants of the founders, it is unlikely that they own any copyrights. It is much more likely that the copyrights belong to whoever bought the assets of the company when the newspaper closed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Since the book mentioned the Jordan Press Association, is it possible that Jordan became responsible for the copyrighted material since it was a Jordanian law that closed the newspaper (Falastinː 1917-1948 British Mandate Jaffa, 1948-1967 Jordanian occupation Jerusalem, never under Israel) ? --Makeandtoss (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Nvm, I have located the publishing company. --Makeandtoss (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Kwame Nkrumah mausoleum11.jpg

Hello Jim,

I Trust you're fine. What do you think about the above file? Wikicology (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be added to my DR of all the files in the mausoleum's category -- the wall clearly has artwork on it and it is far far from de minimis.

OTRS verification

A user has uploaded a film poster and mentioned that the mail has been sent to OTRS for proof, but the user does not seem to be associated with the film. As an administrator, can you verify this? File:HAN Official Poster.jpg Coderzombie (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no recent (last five months) OTRS message with the words "HAN Official Poster". I tagged it for {{|delete}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


Please take a look at this discussion. It's related to one you were involved in in the past., and your expertise would be appreciated. Thanks. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

File:San Francisco medical cannabis program ID card.jpg

Hi Jim. Is there any reason this would be PD? It's an upload from a globally locked sockmaster. INeverCry 22:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Works of the State of California and its subdivisions are PD, with only a few exceptions. I think {{PD-CAGov}} applies to this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. I've fixed the license. INeverCry 22:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Google Art Project works in Museo Reina Sofia

Hi, could you undelete all photos in the list taken before 1937? As the files are deleted, I cannot tell you which these are. -- (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be before 1936, as 1936 images don't go out of Spanish copyright until next January. Since the Spanish Civil War ran from 1936, I don't think any of them are out of copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I've added the undelete category for 2017, on the basis that quite a few are about to have expired copyright under Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Spain. Thanks -- (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, now removed without any explanation. It's the sort of rudeness I expect these days, you'd think this was a primary school playground. diff. -- (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jim, could you please make as statement whether 'on the fence' means you agree or you disagree? People start interpreting to their advantage. Jcb (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Jcb, stop creating personal argument please. I have no "advantage" to gain here. I neither uploaded these files, nor do I profit by them. My interest is correctly to preserve Commons' collections of high quality public domain images. This is not a role playing game where you must win something or defeat others. -- (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

My "on the fence" means just that -- in the absence of additional information, I think it is an even money bet. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

So no reason to start undeleting criticless in 2017 then. Jcb (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The claim that the addition of the undelete category was disruptive and the subsequent use of sysop rights to indefinitely protect the deletion request were highly inappropriate. I have raised the matter for review at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Review_of_a_protection_action. Using sysop rights to "win" personal arguments is not why they are granted by the Commons community. -- (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I have emailed the Google Cultural Institute for a clarification. I would have tried the Museum, but the photographs are not on their website as far as I can tell. Should that get any results I may forward for the record to OTRS. -- (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Malaysian copyright

I posed these questions to another editor about a month ago but never got any response even though they have been active. Anyway, your answers to copyright questions always seen good, so I would like your opinion on this one. My concern stems from a question about their stamps. I did some research and wrote up an initial summary at Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Malaysia. I also found a working link for the copyright act which is dead on the general copyright page section but I've fixed that. I'd like your opinion on my concern with the fact that since 1992 the post office is now a corporation, so is there any real difference from the government work 50 year rule and the corporate rules, or post-1992 is the copyright period determined by the life of the author. However, I have not seen any records of the authors or engravers, like we do for France where the stamps often have the name of the engraver and designer on the stamp. This WIPO page may be of help and this does not mention corporate works.

While I'm on the subject of stamps, no one ever responded to my question on Libyan stamps now archived at: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/07#Stamps of Libya. If you have input on that I'd also appreciate it. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I think your reading of Malaysia is probably correct. It's clear that government works are covered for fifty years and I think it likely that once the postal service was privatized, its works would follow the pma rule, unless the anonymous rule applies. However, I think this introduces an unnecessary question and complication into the case book. The issue is moot until 2042, since any post-1992 work must be under copyright until then no matter how the rules are applied. While we often take a very long view here, I trhink we can safely not worry about this question.
I also agree that Libyan stamps are under copyright for thirty years from first publication. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles and diagrams are original

Articles and diagrams are original and self made, not copied.Each article of Wikipedia having its own educational purpose .I do not know higher label English.Dear sir I have done a mistake to create a page of "Solid geometry" that was to using of Autopetrol button.This was blunder and wanted to undone but suddenly electric discontinued due to storm.Please excuse me for this.Thanks.Nagric 05:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

--Nagric 05:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The deletions can be discussed at the various DRs. Discussing them here does little good. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Some open/some closed

Hi Jim: Did you mean to do a partial close on ? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the confusion and thank you for a good catch. I added a note to that effect. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Quacks like a duck

Before asking for an undeletion, please enlighten me: Are you going to argue that the puny area the painting takes on the total photo is however not de minimis, or you’re going to admit that you closed the DR as you did based on bad faith against me and ? Did you even look at the photo? Couldn’t it be that it would retain most of its useability if the painting was blurred or blanked? Will you be consequent and file analogous DRs for photos (e.g.) of similar events? Or did you consider (easy to do, after I categrorized it) that if this other file (and 265 others) can show in toto Federal Duck Stamp competition entries (based on the Flickr stream blanket license, but accepting that the contest org. had the right to licensing), then a de minimis inclusion of one such paiting in an otherwise properly licensed photo should never be deleted on copyvio concerns?…

I personally find “funny” (*) that you added in the closing remarks that this photo is «Maybe in scope, maybe not». Yeah, sure: Not in scope a jury sitting to chose images for a widely known US postage stamp emission, a subject that turned out to have a some coverage in Commons — almost 600 items for 2012, 34 for 2011, and yet only a handful for other years (now a handful minus one). *(Actually, I find it deplorable, not funny, but this kind of downplaying helps me keep some sanity when dealing with these cases of… lets go with «casual negligence», to keep me off admin bullying.)

Ever mentioned how deeply disappointed I am with some of your actions here? Oh, I did: Long ago. And I still am.

-- Tuválkin 16:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you and I have totally different interpretations of de minimis. The area that a work occupies is never relevant if it is the focus of the photograph. The title of the image is "Female shows her paintings". I can't believe that you are arguing that the painting is de minimis -- it's the whole point of the photograph, that the painter is showing off her work. In order for something to be de minimis, it must be completely incidental to the purpose of the image -- in this case, the painting and other things on the wall to the right are de minimis, because the image would have the same effect if it were a blank wall.
I did look at the image. I did not know or consider the fact that the painting is a Federal Duck Stamp entry -- clearly, knowing that, I wouldn't think it is out of scope. The whole point of my remark is that I didn't have to consider the scope issue, which is more subjective, when I saw a clear infringement of the painter's copyright.
As for bad faith against you and Fæ, yes I occasionally find you both annoying, but you also champion unpopular causes and are right more often than wrong, so I take you both seriously. In this case, as I now understand it, you were entirely right on the scope issue, but you both missed the fact that it's a copyvio. Since copyvio trumps scope, I ignored your comments. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Since «copyvio trumps scope», I suppose you will now procede to have deleted as copyvios around half a thousand photos and illustration scans from Category:Federal Duck Stamps and foll., based on the notion espoused by you that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has no right relicensing competition entries. Or you may find out that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does indeed have the that right, and all these images are safe from deletion — but you’ll have to undelete File:Female shows her paintings.jpg based on that same finding. So sorry for the annoyance caused. -- Tuválkin 00:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Are you enjoying making me the bad guy by giving me only limited information, in dribs and drabs. Did this painting in fact become a Federal Duck Stamp? Why didn't you say that above? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I’m not enjoying, at all. Why do you think I took a long break from Commons? Not because I was bored with categorization, let me tell you, but because I was nearing being burned by the hostility and negativity of so many people, many of them (indeed, all of them but two) being admins, like yourself. You and Jee read Fæ’s defense of a photo and immediately saw an opportunity for scoring points by favouring its deletion; I saw a photo under threat of deletion (because Taivo, an admin, has no clue about what scope is — incompetence is also something I don’t enjoy witnessing) and did what nobody thus far wanted to do: 10 min. of “research”, to find out what that photo might be about (as the info in the filepage is, as mentioned in UDEL, ridiculously useless): I did google the slogan visible in the background to find an obscure e-mail concerning the U.S. duck stamp competition, and from there I found we have already some 600 images about it in Commons. That’s what you call “unpopular causes”, I gather: Fighting the combined tides of deletionism of some (omg so many files we need to keep these numbers down!!) and the cronyism and vanity of others (repository shrepository!, Commons be a fancy portfolio of my very cool photography, and my buddies’ — up untill I get all huffy and decide to leave, that is). No, I’m not feeding you partial information to make you look bad: I stated my case as clearly and completely as I could; you guys (in UDEL and in the DR) are just not paying enough attention. This is a case about of the validity of relicensing rights over competition enties by the Wildlife Service. -- Tuválkin 11:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In this case as the locus of discussion in the DR was not DM, it would have been helpful if you had mentioned you were thinking of closing as a DM failure. If I had seen this raised in the DR, I would have added my view that it easily matches the case book of images which fall within DM. The argument that the painting is the 'focus' of the painting is not the whole truth of what is going on in that painting as the judging, the woman and the other paintings in the competition are also part of the composition.
The artworks appear to be displayed at, which use an ARR default, but it's worth noting that the FWS require entrants to the Duck Stamp competition to agree to "I grant exclusive rights to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its designees to use, alter, copy, publish, and display my artwork for reproduction and promotional purposes as they see fit without compensation to me".[19] Though this may not be the identical competition, it's quite normal for Federal department competition entrants to waive rights this way, which may explain why photographs taken at this competition were shared as public domain by the FWS. -- (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Interesting, but not definitive -- your cite is from the Junior Duck Stamp contest, which is not the same thing at all. Also note that while your cite gives the USF&WS the right to do what it wants with images, it does not put them in the public domain. The claim of ARR on the Flickr site is entirely analogous to the Sacejawea dollar - the government owns and enforces the copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The reason I said "Though this may not be the identical competition" was because I was aware that this was not the same competition. You have said you think I'm irritating, but please presume good faith, thanks. -- (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I said "annoying", not "irritating", which is very different. I assumed that your remark meant to say it was a different year, not a different competition. Bad assumption on my part. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Dictionaries disagree with you. -- (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You can find the 2015 regulations at (hard to find as it's not indexed). The FWS has significant rights, which extends to photographs that they publish that were taken at competitions and the artist then has no claim over publication of those photographs (so the DR closure was incorrect with the statement you made of "in order to restore it we will need a license from the woman pictured"). We can say for certain that any winners that get turned into stamps are public domain. They have been published at -- (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not correct. See my comments at the UnDR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Now the file has been successfully undeleted, this category may be useful to retain here if you need to search your archive, Category:Photographs by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region. I'm in the process of populating it. -- (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You made the following comment at the UnDR:

"In which case the website terms are incorrect or misleading. FWS website terms (implicitly contract law) do not override Federal law as it applies to property of the USPS, and stamps of artworks dating before 1978 are by default public domain."

I don't understand your reference to the US Postal Service -- these are not postal stamps -- they are sold by the USF&WS and are required purchases for anyone who hunts waterfowl. My understanding is

(A) The USF&WS gets an exclusive license to the copyright of every duck stamp contest entry allowing it to use the works in any way it wishes.
(B) The USF&WS web site terms cannot, of course, override Federal law, but they do not contradict it. Federal agencies can and do own and enforce copyrights for works created by third parties. Notable examples are US Postal Service stamps after 1978 and the Sacajawea dollar obverse.
(C) The USF&WS can choose to freely license none, some, or all duck stamps. It has chosen to put CC licenses on some duck stamps and duck stamp art as shown at Flickr. Again, that does not mean they are all free.

I think perhaps we need a new template for images showing duck stamps or duck stamp art. We're using Flickrreview to show a free license, but that covers only the reproduction and not the copyright for the original art. Perhaps something like:

"This is an image of a USF&WS Duck Stamp, or of art that was submitted to the annual contest for selecting art to be used on stamps. Its copyright was licensed to the USF&WS by the artist as a condition of entering the contest. The USF&WS has chosen to license this image as shown above, but it is not PD and requires credit to the artist."

A fast look at the category you cite tells me that at least a few of the images in it do not conform to the license -- they do not name the actual author of the art work -- the author is not USF&WS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

With regard to stamps, thanks for the correction. I had presumed these were postage stamps rather than license payments. This part of American culture is alien to my experience.
I'm letting my script run through the collection which may take a while. I'd rather avoid having another template created, but it may be sensible to mass add some advisory text if that helps reusers and take a later view on correct attribution where this is missing. Note that I am automatically rejecting files that use the Flickr PD-Mark and am not using the special Commons PD F&WS template, so I believe the only uploads will be those with a justifiable CC-BY release purely based on the official flickrstream license. -- (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I defer to your judgement on all of the above -- I do think it would be helpful to have some indication of the unusual license status of the paintings, but whether it is a template or added text is your call. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Comic mural Olivier Rameau, Dany (Daniel Henrotin), Brussels.jpg and more

Hi Jameslwoodward,

This is for the topic which I opened on the 25th September, which I see that has already been closed. Regarding your answer : "FOP only works on the copyright belonging to the artist who created the public work. It does not allow use of works that themselves infringe on other copyrights. We cannot keep an image of Charlie Brown just because someone has painted it on a wall in an FOP country without a license from Charles Schultz's estate. Unless the mural shown in File:Comic wall Le jeune Albert, Yves Chaland, Brussels.jpg has a license from Yves Chaland's heirs, we cannot keep it, either", I did not think about it and I did not know that FOP does not work in such cases. But if it is true, all the murals in Brussels are of course derivative works. And unfortunately this means that in fact, all the pictures in the category Category:Parcours BD should be deleted. It is really a pity. Is it possible to open a request for deleting all content inside a category? Thanks. --Ferran Cornellà (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

To answer your technical question first, yes, you can request the deletion of all (or some) images in a category or uploaded by a specific user with the tool Visual File Change. I will do that shortly with the category you mentioned.
As for the broader question, unless you or someone else can show that the mural painter had a license from the creators of the comics, then the murals infringe on the comic author's rights and cannot be kept on Commons. The only way we can keep these is if that can be shown or if the comic author (or his heirs) sends a free license for the mural photographs to OTRS. It would be up to you or any other uploaders to make that happen. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer and thanks for your help! --Ferran Cornellà (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

FOP in Mozambique

Hi Jim. You were prevously a big help in clarifying things at en:File talk:Peachoid-gaffney.png#Copyright discussion, so I am wondering if you might also have any comments about en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 28#File:Zimpeto-stadium.jpg. I am not sure if this is a case of "replaceable fair use" and think it would be helpful to hear from others with a little more experience in this kind of thing. Anyway, if you have some spare time and can take a peek, then any clarification you can add would be most appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Jim. Thank you for your comments at the above-mentioned FFD discussion. My I eyesight must be getting worse because I actually didn't notice it was a drawing and not a photograph of the stadium until after reading your comment. Anyway, thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Scope comment

Having just now added a lot of requests for CommonsDelinker, I decided to see whether it were active (I really should have done that before leaving the requests) and noticed that it was enforcing a DR that you'd just closed, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vestavia Hills High School logo.png. No complaints about the deletion or the "in this case" rationale: I'm simply questioning the first sentence in the close rationale. If I nominate a file for deletion purely on SCOPE grounds, without identifying any other problems, and you find a WMF page where it could reasonably be used and you add it to that page, why should the file still be deleted? Assuming that you're doing it in good faith, that there aren't reasons (such as here) to dispute that it belongs there, of course. By adding it to such a page, you've actively demonstrated that it meets COM:INUSE; the general rule appears to be that you can fix scope problems by adding the image to another WMF page after a DR is posted. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

By that reasoning the uploader could prevent any image from being deleted on scope grounds, so we generally don't allow it. If we did allow it, then savvy uploaders could easily add their out of scope images to WP pages on the sixth day of a DR and claim that they were in scope. That wouldn't work if the target page were very active, but I'd guess that for 99% of the WP pages even an image that was really blatantly wrong might not be caught for a few days or even weeks.
This case is a perfect example. According to the uploader, the image had been placed on the page and subsequently deleted at some time in the past, so the page's community of editors had already decided that it was out of scope.
We've even seen pages created in difficult languages, sometimes by people that don't read the language, to host images that had DRs on them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Understood, but all the items you mention are good reasons to dispute that the image in question belongs on the page(s) to which it's been added, reasons to dispute the good faith of the editor adding the image. Imagine that I'm going through the DR log and I notice a discussion for a file with the name of a person whose en:wp article I recently edited, an article with no image, so I add the photo to the article and then vote *{{vk}} Now in use at [[:en:wp:pagename]]; clearly in scope. ~~~~ The whole point of a DR is to debate issues related to the image: if other DR participants or the closing admin should think that the addition was done in bad faith or in cluelessness, they can always say "That's just an attempt to keep the image, not a good use". If nobody sees any problem with the addition, why should the image be deleted? It would be enough of a bother at en:wp, since we'd have to do a local upload there, but outright harmful for places like es:wp with no local uploads. Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
In your example, you're not the uploader. That's fine -- if a third party adds it to a page. The problem with "If nobody sees any problem with the addition, why should the image be deleted?" is that in the cases we're talking about, nobody has had a chance to see anything wrong with the image. The uploader has added it to the page at the last minute. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
In the DR rationale, you didn't specifically distinguish between an addition by the uploader and an addition by someone else; if your words above, mentioning the uploader's actions, were meant to make this distinction, I missed it. I'm significantly less concerned than I was before. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

VOA files

Can the VOA files related to after June 2013 be uploaded to our Commons? --Mhhossein talk 17:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know where that long battle finally came out. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It resulted in massive undeletion. Jcb (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Does it mean that I have to withdraw my RDs? --Mhhossein talk 06:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
That would be great. Otherwise we would have to keep-close them. Jcb (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You deleted this image (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vestavia Hills High School logo.png) with the rationale that there is no evidence that the logo is real. If you just scroll down on the home page that you linked to you would have seen it. Also this news report also shows it. Could you please undelete the image? --Majora (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

And if that isn't enough there is also this from the school itself that shows that this is the logo. --Majora (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done I'm not sure what's is going on at the school's home page -- the version that I saw this morning did not have the new logo. With that said, though, the news story is fairly definitive. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

All files are original and for purpose educational only

--Teacher1943 (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

removing Category:People by name

Hi, you recently removed this cat from a lot of people - see here. I guess this was done by mistake. Could you please undo this? Thx. --JuTa 17:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks -- I regularly remove images from Category:People by name, but, as you say, this was unintended. I'll clean it up. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Anomabu Hereo's Park (2 of 6).jpg

Hi Jim,

I trust you're fine. It seems you forgot to take care of the above image. Wikicology (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Admins use a tool called DelReqHandler which speeds up closing DRs by a factor of ten -- however it occasionally hiccups and forgets a file. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Jim. Wikicology (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Privacy rights in Egypt

Hello Jim, I was pinged there, but I'm wonder if the source provided by me in the DR is sufficiant to amand our guideline. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that although the cite was helpful to the specific case, I would be uncomfortable using it to frame a general rule. It gives an impression, but not a rule..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The Azores

Technically Iceland and the Faroes aren't on Europe. Geologically speaking, islands such as Iceland, the Faroes, and the Azores are not on any continent, as they are oceanic islands. But its conventional to group oceanic islands with nearby continents. The only reason the Azores aren't in the main file is because they enlarge the file width a lot despite not being very big and also because some Russian contributors got upset that the map showed some islands in the Atlantic but not the rest of European Russian. Just thought I would let you know :) Rob984 (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Press = Publishing?

Hello Jim, I have a question that maybe only a native speaker of English can answer. I casually found out that the category Press is uncategorized (briefly, it doesn't exist). Since it was improperly populated by several photographs which hadn't got anything to do with it, I removed them. In order to keep the place occupied, though, I have temporarily soft redirected it to Publishing (I had also thought to Newspapers, but "press" is not only newspapers: it is also journals, magazines and so on), thus I needed your advice to see if it was an appropriate choice. Regards. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. "Press" has a number of different dictionary meanings. The one you are circling around is usually used as "the press", as in the longest running US TV show Meet the Press (i.e. "Meet the Newspapers" or "Meet the News Media"). It also has a number of other meanings, mostly derived from the basic word, which means "to push together", hence "printing press", "cider press" (to squeeze the juice from fruit", and so forth. These days I think we would use "media" as a parent category covering newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, etc (or "News media", which we have). "Publishing" is too broad -- book publishers are not part of the press and if you asked me to name a single publisher, I would probably say "Random House" rather than "The New York Times Company". So I think the category should be a redirect there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I redirected "Press" to "Media" then. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brushstroke (Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía, Madrid) (4655430225).jpg


You comment on this DR was over an hour after Natuur12 closed it, perhaps because you had it open for editing that long. Could you undo your edit as a gesture of good faith please? My own experience of being raked over the coals for simply adding a category to a DR after closure, may be a learning point. Thanks -- (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I had written it before I saw the closure, then went to breakfast, so I think it is a legitimate addition, particularly since I disagreed with your assessment that FOP failed on the grounds of "permanent" -- I agree there's no FOP, but on the grounds of "public place". not permanence. Technically, I should move it to the talk page, but we both know that no one will ever see it there. Your own experience was a peculiar case, with which I disagreed and, by the way, your addition is still there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Btw of this, how should be Works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public places intended? I mean: either a work permanently located in the same public place or a work permanently located through public places only? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I read it (and similar words in other FOP countries) to mean, that the work must be in a public place (as particularly defined country by country) and that it must be permanently located in one place. With that said, though, very little is permanent. If Mme Tussaud's, in London, rearranges its displays so that a figure is moved from one hall to another, I think it still qualifies, both before and after the move as long as the intention in both cases was that it was permanent. Similarly here, the work was moved within the same museum and now has been in the same place for 10 years -- that's permanent within the meaning of the law. But a work that is put up for Christmas every year would not be permanent. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Tussauds is a weak example. The exhibition is strictly an expensive ticket-only entry and the models are copyrighted and are moved around regularly;[20] it would not surprise me in the least if at some point we revisit this interpretation of UK FoP and end up deleting these en-mass as bending the intent of "open to the public". -- (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom explicitly quotes an expert source that says that "The expression "open to the public" presumably extends the section to premises to which the public are admitted only on licence or on payment." While that may be wrong, I see no reason to substitute our limited expertise for that of a UK expert. Copinger and Skoane James on Copyright is in its 17th edition, so presumably it is not often wrong. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand the circumstances, however the situation is that I and other contributors cannot reply "on the record" in that deletion request. Effectively you have created a privileged opportunity for you to make your (undated) statement post-closure that run counter to Natuur12's closure. This is not fair on the closing admin, that had no opportunity to read your remarks before closure, and it is a poor example of how discussions are conducted openly in deletion requests. Were you not an administrator I would feel it appropriate and within our norms to revert your edits. We have no policy that specifically states "do not make comments in DRs after they are closed", presumably as most of our community finds this obvious. If you wish, I can gain some alternative views on a noticeboard, but it would seem a lot more sensible for you to take onboard the point in good faith, and revert your additions and/or move them to User talk:Natuur12 in the form of a request to re-open the DR. Thanks -- (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy to do whatever Natuur12 feels is appropriate. I see no use of privilege here -- it did not take Admin rights to add the comment. As a general rule, helpful comments from experienced users seem to be welcome post-closure even though the closure heading nominally forbids them. I could cite examples from almost any DR log. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure, for this single case we can agree in good faith that the closing administrator is completely free to revert or keep in your comment. However I imagine most contributors would consider me an experienced user. If we are to accept post-closure comments may be made in a general rule, then I would like to see this in the guidelines and protect contributors from any repercussions, such as getting blocked or having threats of blocks, so long as their comments are made in good faith. In this way I might reply to your post-closure comment in the DR without reopening it at some point in the future, unless the guidelines put an arbitrary time-limit on doing so, and thereby it would be clear that you have no special privilege to insert post-closure opinions associated with your sysop or 'crat status. -- (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what UK common law has to do with an artwork in Spain (civil law.) Anyways, comparing German law with Spanish law is a bit tricky. While they both have a civil law system there is a difference between German civil law (which the German system is based on) and French civil law (which the Spanish system is based on.)
Personally I don’t mind if Jim’s comment stays. He spend a lot of time wring it so the least we could do is making sure it can be easily found by someone who wants to challenge my closing via com:UNDEL. (But this is merely my personal opinion and it only applies to comments that actually add something though adding a timestamp would be nice.)
If you want I can re-open the DR Jim. FOP is a complex issue after all and there is no rush when we are dealing with complex cases. We can even invite some of our native Spanish college’s to reply. Natuur12 (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would do whatever you think is correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I reopened the DR. Natuur12 (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:File:MichaelJacksonAma.jpg

Hola Jameslwoodwad, cambié el enlace de la fuente, ya no es madonna fan, ya que tenía los derechos reservado, éste archivo no es exclusivo de ésta página, por ésto no es de ellos.Andresc30 (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not believe that you are the photographer of this 1984 image. I cannot help you here -- you must discuss it at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:MichaelJacksonAma.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted:Wikimedia Commons Film Poster - We are all explorer fish

Hi Jim, you incorrectly deleted my submission of the official film poster for We are Explorer Fish, 2016. This is the official poster, and I have full rights to publish but I am a new User. The poster has been submitted to the International Movie Data Base and my Official Website. What do I need to do to get it approved?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendinghorizons (talk • contribs) 12:27, 07 October 2016 (UTC)
The image clearly is covered by our policy on speedy file deletions #1. There is no evidence that you, the uploader, have the right to freely license it. In order to have it restored to Commons, an authorized official of the movie production company must send a free license to OTRS. (Note that such a license will allow anyone to print and sell copies of the poster or the art in it). Once the license is received, read, and accepted, the image will be restored without further action on your part. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks or even more than a month before the license is acted upon.
I also deleted several other of your uploads. The same procedure is required for them -- that the actual photographer send a free license to OTRS or, if the copyright has been formally freely licensed in writing, that the licensee send a copy of the license. Note that most licenses of publicity photographs permit their use for publicity purposes but do not allow the licensee to freely license them for all purposes. That right almost always remains with the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

12:24, 7 October 2016 Jameslwoodward (talk | contribs) deleted page We are all explorer fish (Empty or single image gallery; please see Commons:Galleries: content was: "File:Film Poster - We are all Explorer Fish 2016.jpg|alt=Official Poster We are all Ex

Hi Jim, Can you please undelete the page. I created the page to show, and verify, that the film was produced by a single artist: me. There is no "official" from the Film Production company, only me. I am an artist. I can chose to have my work protected under VI$COPY: the visual artist copyright agency in Australia, or put my work in the public domain. I provided links to the official website, and the International movie data base (which requires numerous verifications and checks) to show the Film poster, was my own. As an independent artist, without an official photographer, who is clearly new to Wikimedia Commons, how do I make contributions without this happening again? Hire someone like you? Is that the way this works?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendinghorizons (talk • contribs) 12:57, 07 October 2016 (UTC)
If the film company is only you, then you are the "authorized official". A license sent over your signature from an address at or would be fine. Such a message would confirm that User:Bendinghorizons is actually Sarah Jane Pell and would eliminate similar problems in the future. As I said at the UnDR, we do get fans and vandals claiming to be notable people in order to break our rules, so we are fairly careful to confirm identities. As it stands right now, while I think that you probably actually are SJP, you could be a fan or a vandal.
And no, you cannot "hire someone like [me]". It is a serious violation of our rules for paid editors to work on WMF projects, see WP:COI. I think it is fair to say that I am a highly trusted member of this community and if I were to accept money for doing my volunteer project work here, it would blow that trust away in a heartbeat.
Finally, while we can restore the film poster image after we get the license, single image galleries are prohibited, so the gallery page will not be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Plymouth Citybus buses not in route service

Hi Jim. I'd invite you to reconsider this close, because I think you've approached it wearing the wrong hat. When I was an admin on en:WP and now that I am an admin here, I've always thought that unless there was a clear policy reason not to do so, consensus should prevail and the closing admin for a discussion should apply that consensus. If you disagree with the deletion reasons advanced, an admin can always oppose with his own reasons, but I would think it improper to substitute his own opinion against the consensus. As to the merits of those galleries, I'd just mention these snippets from Commons:Galleries: "Usually, they are created to give a sample or overview of all the media on a given topic." and "Galleries should not be created if they merely duplicate the purpose of a category". On the latter point, you say "if it is useful to even one reader, it has served its purpose"- but if the user no longer edits here, and the gallery has served its purpose, what reason is there to keep it? Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I strongly agree with Jim, this kind of gallery allow to sort the images in an impossible way with the categories, and who can say it is not relevant for at least one person? By definition all images in a gallery are also in a category unless they are needing category or uncategorised. I find that it is not a good idea to delete such storage simply because one do not get the relevance, even more in a case where it took likely a lot of work to sort the images. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    • (Edit conflict) You strongly agree, however did not contribute to the discussion. However, my principal concern is with the process, not the merits of the gallery. There was consensus, which was overridden. I disagree that in this case all images are also in a category, because my experience with the creator of this gallery is that whereas he was quite keen to add bus and route details, the basics were lacking such as a precise location and "buses in.." categories. This makes work for people like me to do, especially if they're not geograph images, because then they are much harder to locate within UK categories. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I did not contribute until now, and even I did not notice this dr until now, that are facts, another fact is that if I had close the Dr, I would have keep it too, as per the reason written by Jim and me, and that, despite any consensus. Because my jod is not to follow consensus when I think this one is wrong. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
(written before I saw Christian's comment, thank you CF)
Both you and Nilfanion are Administrator-colleagues whose opinions I respect. If this were a single image of poor quality, I would probably defer to the majority, because I believe strongly that we do Commons no favor by cluttering up our categories with mediocre images -- far better to have fewer images of great quality. However, it is not an image, but a gallery. One gallery does not create clutter, because it appears only as a single line in the appropriate category. For someone looking for a particular Plymouth Citybus, the thirty galleries are a far easier place to go than Category:Plymouth Citybus which has 30 galleries and 3,277 files in itself and five subcats.
If I had followed Nilfanion's request, and deleted all of the thirty galleries in the category, then someone coming to the category looking for an image of a particular bus would have to go through 2,856 images and five subcats, images which are sorted only by more or less arbitrary filenames. I think that would be a serious disservice to our users. Because galleries can be sorted into subgroups, as these are, I find them much easier to use to find a particular image than categories.
You could recreate the thirty galleries as categories, but even then, the images in each category would not be usefully sorted and some would contain more than a thousand images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Note that now, as far as consensus goes, we have four experienced Administrators, split 2-2. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrong move

Hello Jim. I wrongly moved Category:Osman Faruk Loğoğlu to Category:Ömer Faruk Loğoğlu. Can you please kindly revert it for me? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I corrected it, all by myself! :) --E4024 (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mpv icon.svg

File:Mpv icon.svg is not the same one as used on The license of the actual icon of mpv is GPLv2+ (though incorrectly stated to be LGPLv2.1+ in the source code repository).

The copyright holder Chris just sent an OTRS permission today. Ticket #2016101110008753. The derivative work File:Mpv icon.png File:Mpv icon.svg is in violation of the GPLv2+ license as stated in the OTRS ticket (but I'm not the copyright holder).

Regardless, if you claim the derivative work in PNG format vectorization (SVG) is below threshold of originality, please remove the CC BY-SA license notice. 16:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC) (edited: 16:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC))

You also questioned where the mpv project is based in. The copyright holder of the logo – Chris – is from the United Kingdom according to his website. UK has a very low threshold of originality, so I believe the SVG upload by User:Tlebeau is a probable copyright violation. Though while irrelevant to the subject, the "mpv project" consists of about 65 free software contributors around the globe, and there is no central foundation or organization to hold copyright for the project. 16:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have renominated the file for deletion. 17:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of photos - refering to legal situation of wrong country

Hi Jim, you deleted two photos that I had uploaded: File:Klösterle Tag des Denkmals.jpg and File:Klösterle Truhenorgel Mattitsch.jpg. You were refering to the legal situation in Germany. But, please take into consideration, that these pictures were taken not in Germany but in Austria. regards, --Niki.L (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right -- careless of me. I don;t read German, but the description tells me "Carinthia". However, while the Austrian law is not quite as difficult as the German, it is clear that there can be no commercial use without permission and that makes them ineligible for Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not understand this reasoning. As far as I know, "commercial use" is concerning purely personality rights, and thus never a reason for deletion of a file on commons?? But I am completely inexperienced in such legal questions. @Herzi Pinki: You are an experienced user from Austria; may I ask you to please evaluate the legal situation in our country for such photos, taken in public appearance? thanks, kind regards, --Niki.L (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I think I remember the image with the organ player. It was a public event (Tag des Denkmals) with free entry. Acc. to Commons:Country specific consent requirements / section Austria, the commercial use of such an image is only a problem if this use infringes with personal rights. Thus it is the problem of the user of the image, not of the uploader or commons. You cannot use the organ player for a müsli advertisment, but you can use it in a book about organ players: In this context "commercial use" is purely {{personality rights}}, and thus never a reason for deletion. That's my understanding. Jim, can you please rethink your decision? regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. "Commercial use" has two very different meanings. The first is when you use the image in an advertisement, with or without a caption such as "so and so (pictured) likes Product X". That requires permission everywhere as far as I know. The second is the broader commercial use prohibited by an NC license. That would include using it in any book or periodical unless the work were given away free and carried no advertising, any web site that carried advertising, acted as advertising for its owner, or solicited money, in fact, almost any use except a purely personal web site or perhaps a teacher using it in a classroom in a school that did not charge tuition. An NC license is much more restrictive than most people realize.
Since the first use always requires permission, we don't worry about it much on Commons. It is understood that such a use is always prohibited without a model release. It is the second use that concerns us and is the reason why we don't accept NC licenses. Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements distinguishes between the two and, when it mentions "commercial use", it means the second kind. Thus, in effect, any Austrian image of an individual without permission from the individual in effect carries an NC license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
"I disagree. "Commercial use" has two very different meanings. The first is when you use the image in an advertisement, with or without a caption such as "so and so (pictured) likes Product X". That requires permission everywhere as far as I know. " - It must be noted that Urheberrechtsgesetz does not distinguish between commercial and non-commercial use. This distinction is made by the CC license. Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements falsely claims the requirement of consent for commercial publications. It cites the "legitimate interests" of the depicted, but by the judciation i cited downwards, this is not violated by commercial use. "Legitimate interests" could be violated by depictions of the private life, demeaning or misrepresenting depictions which can be, but are not necessarily caused by commercial publications. -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
"it is clear that there can be no commercial use without permission and that makes them ineligible for Commons" - I do not see any legal base for such a claim and would like to see relevant judicature. Per § 42e öUrhG, i do not see any basis, on which the persons in those pictures could claim any rights on those pictures. -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Commercial use may include the legitimate interest of the people depicted to benefit from the use of "their" image, e. g. in the form of renumerations. I'd say that article 78 applies when it comes to publication without consent that could violate such interests. See also this commentary which says that publication without consent would be allowed without commercial intentions of the publisher. De728631 (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The paragraph you mentioned says: "Bildnisse von Personen dürfen weder öffentlich ausgestellt noch auf eine andere Art, wodurch sie der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht werden, verbreitet werden, wenn dadurch berechtigte Interessen des Abgebildeten oder, falls er gestorben ist, ohne die Veröffentlichung gestattet oder angeordnet zu haben, eines nahen Angehörigen verletzt würden.". This could be translated to "Pictures of persons may not be publically exhibited or spread in another way that makes them accessible to the public if they violate legitimate Interests of the depicted interests of, if he is deceased, of a near relative if he has not allowed or requested the publication". This is not applicable, as it was decied in 3Ob443/55 "§ 78 UrhG. verbietet die öffentliche Ausstellung und Verbreitung eines Personenbildnisses, wenn dadurch berechtigte Interessen des Abgebildeten verletzt würden. Es soll also jedermann gegen einen Mißbrauch seiner Abbildung in der Öffentlichkeit geschützt werden, also insbesondere auch dagegen, daß er durch Verbreitung seines Bildnisses bloßgestellt, daß dadurch sein Privatleben der Öffentlichkeit preisgegeben oder sein Bildnis auf eine Art benützt wird, die zu Mißdeutungen Anlaß geben kann oder entwürdigend oder herabsetzend wirkt (Lißbauer, Die österreichischen Urheberrechtsgesetze, S. 311).". Translated: "§ 78 UrhG prohibits the public exhibition and spread of a personal picture, if it violates legitimate Interests of the depicted. Thereby, anyone shall be protected against the abuse of his picture in the public, especially if by the spread of this picture he is compromised, that his private live is exposed to the public or if his picture is used in a way, that could cause misinterpretations or has a derogatory or demeaning aspect (Lißbauer, Die österreichischen Urheberrechtsgesetze, S. 311).". As none of these criteria are met, there is no violation of a legitimate interest of the depicted. Having noted this, i would like to see a valid legal interpretation regarding the commercial use of personal picture. The Urheberrechtsgesetz does not distinguish between noncommercial and commercial use - this distiction is made by the CC license. -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for waltzing in like this but I believe you are mistaken Jim. A creative commons license doesn’t affect personality rights and you are confusing personality rights with copyright. Commons only cares about copyright when it comes to a non-commercial restriction.

Our policy is pretty clear regarding allowing images when there is a non-commercial restriction regarding personality rights in place:

"The right of publicity is the right to control the commercial use of one's likeness. The most obvious example of this is in advertising (and it applies whether or not the advertisement itself is for commercial purposes). This right concerns the subject of the photograph and is distinct from the photographer's copyright license which may impose its own terms or grant freedoms regarding commercial reuse. All images hosted on Commons must allow free commercial reuse from a copyright point-of-view, but the subject of the photograph may still refuse permission or demand payment for such reuse. However, this right does not affect the hosting of an image on Commons, rarely affects the use of an image on a Wikimedia project, and is only likely to affect advertisemental/commercial re-users of the image. Note that in some countries and US states, the right of publicity may persist for some time after the subject's death."

Therefor I do believe it is okay to host those two images. Natuur12 (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Natuur12, that is exactly the distinction I made in my first reply above -- that there are two uses of the term "commercial use" - advertising and appearing in a textbook, etc. We don't care about the first because such permission is required everywhere. Therefore in our summary of permitted uses of images of individuals we ignore the first because it is prohibited everywhere and, in our summary, we pay attention only to the second, non-advertising meaning of "commercial use". Therefore, any country in the summary that calls out "no commercial use" means that the image would have an NC license and that no use in a commercial setting is permitted. Now, perhaps the summary is wrong, but a single DR is not the place to address that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I still do not understand: why have you deleted the files, although commons' policy states "However, this right does not affect the hosting of an image on Commons" ? If you feel that commons policy is wrong, a single DR is not the place to address that. --Niki.L (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I think I understand the view of Jim. There is a copyright for the photo but also a copyright for the subject, though when subjects are physical persons this is called privacy rights. If one compare this to the FoP laws, we have some countries that allows to publish photos of sculptures but only for no commercial reuse = NC implicit license = not allowed here. This is the same here, within the Austrian law, you can not use in any way this kind of image without the subject consent for a commercial purpose. This is a NC implicit license. This is exactly the same thing for NC FoP cases, as we are not a commercial web site, to publish a photo here is not a copyright infringment, only the commercial reuse is a copyright infringment, so we have the right to publish our photo with the license of our choice, but concretely nobody can't reuse the image unless fair use, and our policies don't allow this. To allow privacy right infringments (within some countries laws, I precise that the photo must be free in its country of origin) when you use {{Personality rights}} is indeed not a very logical point of our guidelines and policies, because concretely the only possible legal use of such photos will be under fair use or with the consent of the subject(s). Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
It's almost like thanks to a magic template, we will allow to upload images of modern buildings in France (FoP with NC reuse allowed), saying (transposition of {{Personality rights}}): "Although this work is freely licensed or in the public domain, the creator/artist(s) of the artwork(s) shown may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses unless those depicted consent to such uses. In these cases, a model release or other evidence of consent could protect you from infringement claims. Though not obliged to do so, the uploader may be able to help you to obtain such evidence. See our general disclaimer for more information.". In summary, this is fair use. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Your statement "within the Austrian law, you can not use in any way this kind of image without the subject consent for a commercial purpose" is simply wrong, as far as I know. As two other Austrian users have already stated in this discussion, the Austrian law does not generally prohibit the commercial use of photos. The law is just protecting "legitimate personal rights". According to Austrian jurisdiction, this means, a person must not be shown in a very private moment or in an embarassing situation. But a photo of a person who appears in the public (for the discussed photos: even as an artist or as a presenter at a public event, well announced by name in supraregional media!) and who is pictured not in any embarassing situation, does not fall under this law. --Niki.L (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
If that is correct, then the place to take this discussion is Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements. We have guidance pages for exactly this purpose -- to help all of our editors understand the various country's laws, even though they may not read the language or refer to them often. We do not simply say "oh well, the guidance is wrong, we'll ignore it". So, first get a consensus to change the guidance, then come bck here and I will gladly restore the images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Jim, I was not quite precise in my first statement, sorry for that.
Jim, we will follow that path, no doubt. If your opinion holds, thousands of images of public performing artists are threatened to be deleted in contradiction to being kept until now. Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements states quite clearly that a permission might be necessary for commercial use, but in this context "commercial use" is purely {{Personality rights}}, and thus never a reason for deletion. {{Personality rights}} states
Although this work is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses unless those depicted consent to such uses. In these cases, a model release or other evidence of consent could protect you from infringement claims. Though not obliged to do so, the uploader may be able to help you to obtain such evidence. See our general disclaimer for more information.
, which puts the burden of lawful usage solely on the user, not on the uploader. Please see also the comments for Austria on the Country specific consent requirements: According to the Austrian Copyright Law it is illegal to publish or distribute any picture taken of a person without permission if their legitimate interests are affected. Although you may be legally entitled to publish the picture if the person is not shown in a private situation and the picture is not used in a misleading or derogatory context or for publicity purposes, this would be illegal if the person successfully claims violation of their legitimate interests. Therefore it is strongly recommended to obtain permission from the person depicted in the photograph(emphasis by me) Strongly recommended is just some kind of opposite of necessary.
The risk that remains is that the depicted person might claim violation later on. This is quite unlikely for a public performance without the explicit interdiction of taking photos (otherwise these photos would put the risk on the uploader for taking photos when not allowed).
IMHO there is no need to change the guidance, but clarification could help. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Jim, your interpretation of the law and of commons adherence to non-copyright restrictions is simply wrong. Please check with other admins and repeal your decision yourself. We do not follow personality rights, just copyright. And the Austrian law cited is a personality rights regulation - despite being codified in the Urheberrechtsgesetz. Continental European legal structure is complicated for those with Common law background. But that is not a valid reason to delete pictures. --h-stt !? 19:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Since I do not make any claim to be expert in Austrian copyright law, I have nothing to add to the discussion. I simply followed the Commons summary as it existed when I made the deletions. If the summary needs to be changed, then those who read German and understand the law must do it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
No, you did not. You tried to interpret the listing and went astray there. The summary is fine and the pictures are fine, too. Just your assumption was not. Please restore the files yourself, then it can be done without further bureaucracy. --h-stt !? 20:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Again: Commons Admins cannot be expert in the copyright laws of 150+ countries, so we rely on advisory summaries such as Commons:Country specific consent requirements. That clearly stated that commercial use of images such as this one is not allowed. Several of you say that that is incorrect. That may well be the case, but until the summary is changed by Commons consensus, I am bound by it.
When and if our colleagues who understand the Austrian law change the summary and the change has a few days for outher colleagues to examine and approve, then you should take this request to Commons:Undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Jim, the policy states: In this context "commercial use" is purely {{Personality rights}}, and thus never a reason for deletion. That's what people are trying to tell you, not that the summary is wrong. You are looking at the situation from an US common law perspective while "European law" doesn't work that way. Natuur12 (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I filed an undeletion reuqest. See here. Natuur12 (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Natuur12, At Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Austria, it says "Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent." I don;t know where your quote came from. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The footnote of the summary-table. Natuur12 (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Translate title chapter geography

Hi, I have not created the model correctly, I admit but I'll do better. the model that you have deleted was already used on several pages. Can you cancel your removal? thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Camulogene77 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  Done Aha -- sorry -- all I saw was the single word "Geography" and I didn't realize that it was there in several languages. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Semolina with milk dessert

A generous slice of "sütlü irmik tatlısı" (semolina with milk dessert) from Turkey. The sauce was made of quince.

All for you. You know why. Enjoy it. --E4024 (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

E4024. Perhaps I am slow this morning, but the only interaction we have had recently is Wrong move, above, which you fixed all by yourself without my doing anything. So why the gift?

And, by the way, in American English we would probably call this "Cream of Wheat", as I've never heard of "Semolina with milk". Whatever we call it, it looks good, particularly with quince..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm learning how to. We don't call it semolina with milk either; it is called "sütlü irmik tatlısı". I should try the "cream of wheat" to compare. Someone made a nice remark about Atatürk the other day; if it wasn't you I'll have to cut a half of the slice to spare it for that person. :-) --E4024 (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
This does look good. I love Grießbrei as we call it over here, and I love quinces, too. So if you have half a slice to spare you know whom to call.   De728631 (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yes -- it was in a DR where someone had said that several images of Ataturk had been deleted and thought it was prejudice -- I deleted the image and added that, actually, I am an admirer of Ataturk. Despite the current difficulties, Turkey is certainly in much better shape than many of its neighbors and I think Ataturk must be credited with getting it on the right path. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Roger Puta

Hi Jim, I noticed your edit Template:RogerPuta and the discussion at [21]. Do I understand correctly that these images are now considered acceptably-licensed for Commons? All the best, Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I simply clarified that we had an OTRS message from Puta's heir. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Deaths from drug overdose

Hello, Jim, I created this category, but now I have a doubt. Usually in Europe we mean as "drug" only the psychoactive substances like i.e. cocaine, heroine, LSD and such. Is very unlikely we mean as drug stuff like barbiturics, generic medicines, headache pills and tablets and so on (morphine is a border case because it might be used both legally as painkiller for terminal ill, and a bit less legally as drug). Thus I wished to know whether commonly over there "drug overdose" means also misuse of, say, psychiatric medications. Thanks. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that in the USA the implication of "drug overdose" is that the drugs were in one sense or another not legal or not appropriate. Thus the death of Michael Jackson would probably be characterized as "drug overdose" even though all of the the drugs present in his system were legal because the prescribing physician, Conrad Murray, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Similarly, I think we might use "drug overdose" to describe a suicide by taking a lot of acetaminophen/paracetamol even though the drug is OTC. We would be less likely to use it in cases where the overdose was accidental or the death resulted from a drug interaction. If you wanted to clearly state the case for the narrower interpretation, you might use "Deaths from overdose of illegal drugs" or "deaths from overdose of psychoactive substances". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, indeed when we talk of "drug overdose" is because someone has accidentally died because of misuse of psychoactive substances. The other case (so to say, Marilyn Monroe) we use to say "suicide by misuse of [, say,] barbiturics". Curiously, death by misuse of legal drugs is always classified as voluntary whereas deaths from cocaine or heroine are considered accidental. I guess that the distinction arose from the fact that "illegal" drugs have a threshold of fatality too low to distinguish between accidental and voluntary death.... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Anyway "Deaths by cause" is a mess. It confuses categories which topic is the cause itself with others which topic are the people dead for a given cause.


Mr. Jameslwoodward, think twice (or better three times) before doing anything.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Romek88 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.
If you upload copyright violations, they will be deleted. That doesn't take much thought. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 Interface.png


You deleted this image as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Archimëa. This was a slightly different case than other images in the request (not a photo) and you did not mention it in the rationale. Could you please explain me why you decided to delete it?

As I said in the deletion request, the background is taken from File:SH5 - 3ème personne.png and other elements do not come from screenshots of the game. Is the placement of those elements in the picture in the same way as in the game a copyright violation? Was there another reason?


Orlodrim (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons gets 10,000 new images every day and ten of us delete most of around 1,700 images every day. Inevitably we work fast and occasionally (about one tenth of one percent) make mistakes. I am not sure I considered this image when I deleted the lot six months ago. Looking at it now in detail, I see no useful educational purpose. On the face of it, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 -- both the subject and the details of the interface are not correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The file was in use in Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 before it was deleted, which should be enough for it to be considered within the scope of Wikimedia Commons, per COM:INUSE.
The purpose of this file is to explain the placement of various elements in the UI, not to show their real aspect (because anything else would be deleted).
If you do not see a reason to delete it for copyright reasons, could you please consider restoring it?
Orlodrim (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  Done Thank you for your patient explanation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


Hallo, what can be done in order to keep the pictures?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunde1 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 19 October 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.
Questions about open Deletion Requests should be made at the DR. I have copied your question there and responded. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Notice about Samsung Galaxy Note 7 devices (29986812710).jpg

Because I didn't expect outright deletion so soon, but moving it to Wikipedia instead. Would it then be more feasible to reupload the file to Wikipedia under the fair use provision? -Mardus /talk 11:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The DR was open for a week, which is the prescribed time. Very few DRs stay open longer now that we have our backlog under control. I hope it stays that way.
I don't know the WP:EN rules on Fair Use well enough to know for sure. If you choose to go that way, then you should upload directly from Flickr, not from Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia is about the only Wikipedia that permits screenshots of proprietary software and websites, and I've successfully uploaded a few images there. The original notice image been deleted from Commons already, and the Flickr2Commons tool only uploads to Commons (AFAIK), and not Wikipedia proper. Uploading to Wikipedia would require a manual upload. I'll see if I can find alternative photos of notices that are more public (as in Public Domain) and less original in their layout and communication. -Mardus /talk 17:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
As I said in the DR closing, the problem is not the software or icons, the problem is that the text is copyrighted. In the USA a single sentence or more of text has a copyright, so the only notices of this sort that could be kept on Commons are ones that were clearly written by Federal employees in the course of their work or were otherwise PD or licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Jail / Prison

Every time I discover something fascinating. What's the correct - formal - name for a correction institute? Either jail, prison or penitentiary? To give you an example, we use the Italian equivalent of "jail" as vernacular, "prison" as colloquial in polite company, and "penitentiary" in formal - official speech. Are there any difference, at least in the U.S., between a "Jail", a "Prison" and a "Penitentiary"? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Essentially, you go to jail until your trial, then you go to prison. and would give a more nuanced take on the US difference between Jail and Prison, and "penitentiary" is North American for "serious prison". Beware of the UK alternative spelling of gaol for jail. Storkk (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I mostly agree, thanks, Storkk. I think it may be a little more subtle, and I suspect there are regional differences across the fifty states and, of course, across the Atlantic. Here in Boston, jails are one of the few functions of the counties and are run by Sheriffs. They are typically used for pre-trial detention and short sentences after conviction. Prisons serve for longer detentions after trial.
If you were awaiting trial for a federal crime I'm not sure the word "jail" applies. After conviction in Federal Court, the criminal goes to a United States Penitentiary (serious crime, high security), a Federal Correctional Institution (medium security), or a Federal Prison Camp (minimal security, white collar crime. All three could be called "prisons" although the latter are often referred to as "country clubs". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hm. Interesting. And couldn't we just find a neutral definition like i.e. "Correctional institutions" as mother category for any type of detention centre (Or even "detention centre" itself)? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding FOP

Hello Jim! I reread the FoP rules for Spain and I am not sure about your assessment that the rule stipulates outdoor only. Might be lost in translation tho. As you probably know, not a complaint. Can you help me out pretty please? Cheers! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know much Spanish, so I can only comment on what others have told me.
The law reads:
"Las obras situadas permanentemente en parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas pueden ser reproducidas, distribuidas y comunicadas libremente por medio de pinturas, dibujos, fotografías y procedimientos audiovisuales"
Both at our general copyright by territory page and at our FOP guidance page, the Spanish is rendered as:
"The pieces of work situated permanently in parks, streets, squares and other public ways can be reproduced, distributed and communicated freely..."
The translation at WIPO reads:
"Work permanently located in parks or on streets, squares and other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated...
The only word that has raised issues is "vias", but in A DR may six months ago where the issue was raised, Spanish speakers said that "ways" was good. Although a "way" might be covered, there's nothing there that can be read as including museums. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "vías públicas" in spain is the exact translation of "Voie publique" in french, which means literally in french "Espace public" and in english Public Space. A "voie" in french can indeed mean a "way" in english, however in the same way as "Voie publique" in french is not translated by "public way" in englich, I don't think it is the case for the spain version. Therefore I think "parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas" is "parks, streets, squares and other public spaces". Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Then why does WIPO, which is the international body responsible for coordinating IP for the world, translate it as "thoroughfares"? I think it is very problematic to read a lot more into the word than WIPO does.
By the way, I think you should use EN-3, not EN-2. I have never seen an problems with your English. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The issue is words and expressions are not the same thing...two single words can be translated in a way, and then associated mean an other thing...but I'm going to attenuate my comment above, after a little research, if in french "Voie publique" is generaly used in the sense "public space", it seems the plural "voies publiques" can indeed refer to all the "public ways" (road, streets...). Furthermore I have just a few notion of spannish and I'm no more than a ES-1 therefore my transposition of the use of the french into the spannish is maybe a bit too presumptuous though french and spanish are quite similar. So I maybe was a little fast, but in all cases I agree that this sentence, if it is not about the entire public space, is about all ways (situed in public space) allowing passage, travel and transport of goods and people. And indeed this refers not to interiors of public buildings (included museums). Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The article in Spanish about vía pública reads: Una vía pública es cualquier espacio de dominio común por donde transitan los peatones o circulan los vehículos (A public way is every common space of passage for either pedestrians or vehicles). Thus vía pública encompasses generally streets, roads, squares, pedestrian routes, and so on. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
SERGIO, "way of passage" says to me that it might include the hallways in an indoor mall. Is that correct? What about museums? Or is it just outdoor streets, alleys, pedestrian paths, and the like? What about subway platforms? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
espacio de dominio común means a public way of passage (in Latin languages public means of public property: roughly said, things paid with our taxes). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This may be helpul, at the begining of the page 108, the text is copyrightable and I don't want to copy it, but in summary, with the help of google tranlation, I understand "...only... its exterior facade, ....not reaching inside...." Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
What on earth have I started here? So, before posting anything from the inside of any building in Spain we have to research who paid for it? That can't be it. Maybe we can dig a little deeper with a RfC instead of filling this talk page? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


File:HMS_Perfection_1902.svg Why?????

  • Preliminary design of Invinsible class described in:
    • 1) Roberts, John. Battlecruisers. — London: Chatham Publishing, 1997. — IS BN 1-86176-006-X
    • 2) British Battleships: Warrior, 1860 to Vanguard, 1950. A History of Design, Construction and Armament, by Oscar Parkes, 1966
  • In both books the chain of projects is:
    • 1) 1902 - HMS Perfection
    • 2) 1904 - Unapproachable
    • 3) 1905 - design A/B/C/D/E
    • 4) 1906 - HMS Invinsible
  • What else is needed to prove that it was not my idea, but actually relates to the subject of the article? --Sas1975kr (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't doubt that there was thought of a ship similar to your drawing, but unless you can cite an actual drawing of the design, your drawing has no basis other than your knowledge of warships of the time and a vague description. We don't host speculative images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not "my knowledge of warships of the time". This is from that source --Sas1975kr (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, fair enough, but that brings up the obvious question -- what is the book? When did its illustrator die or why do you think the book is PD? The two books you cite above have English titles, so it probably isn't one of them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
1)In response for request you wrote: "we would need some evidence that this looks like the actual preliminary design". I gave back links to Roberts&Parkes.
2) "what is the book" - this book was shown in the description of the file. Паркс, Оскар. Линкоры Британской империи. Том 6. Огневая мощь и скорость. — СПб. : Галея Принт, 2007. — 110 с. — IS BN 978-5-8172-0112-3. This is translation of Oscar Parkes books. Original source image - British Battleships by Oscar Parkes, p. 487
3) "When did its illustrator die" -why? Yes, they based on this book. But this is image of non-copy­righted works of industrial design. I drew this image. I am autor. --Sas1975kr (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No, actually industrial design drawings -- and almost all other drawings -- have copyrights. Unless the illustrator died before 1946, the drawing that formed the basis of your SVG was under copyright and your SVG infringes. The UK law at Chapter 1, paragraph 4, includes:

"(1)(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality
(2) “graphic work” includes—
(a)any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan,"

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

51 Design documents and models.
(1)It is not an infringement of any copyright in a design document or model recording or embodying a design for anything other than an artistic work or a typeface to make an article to the design or to copy an article made to the design.
(2)Nor is it an infringement of the copyright to issue to the public, or include in a film [F122or communicate to the public], anything the making of which was, by virtue of subsection (1), not an infringement of that copyright.
(3)In this section—
“design” means the design of any aspect of the shape or configuration (whether internal or external) of the whole or part of an article, other than surface decoration; and
design document” means any record of a design, whether in the form of a drawing, a written description, a photograph, data stored in a computer or otherwise.--Sas1975kr (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Chapter 1, paragraph 4 is for "Artistic works." Even if this image is "Artistic works":
52 Effect of exploitation of design derived from artistic work.
(1)This section applies where an artistic work has been exploited, by or with the licence of the copyright owner, by—
(a)making by an industrial process articles falling to be treated for the purposes of this Part as copies of the work, and
(b)marketing such articles, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
(2)After the end of the period of 25 years from the end of the calendar year in which such articles are first marketed, the work may be copied by ::making articles of any description, or doing anything for the purpose of making articles of any description, and anything may be done in relation to ::articles so made, without infringing copyright in the work.
(3)Where only part of an artistic work is exploited as mentioned in subsection (1), subsection (2) applies only in relation to that part.
(4)The Secretary of State may by order make provision—
(a)as to the circumstances in which an article, or any description of article, is to be regarded for the purposes of this section as made by an ::industrial process;
(b)excluding from the operation of this section such articles of a primarily literary or artistic character as he thinks fit.
(5)An order shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6)In this section—
(a)references to articles do not include films; and
(b)references to the marketing of an article are to its being sold or let for hire or offered or exposed for sale or hire.
Parkes book published in 1966... --Sas1975kr (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, paragraphs 51 and 52 which you quote above are irrelevant, as they deal with making articles from the design. You can, therefore, under UK law (but not US law) make a ship from the drawing in the book without infringing on the drawing's copyright, but you can't make a copy of the drawing.
We're not getting anywhere here. I suggest you post a Commons:Undeletion request and let our colleagues decide whether you can copy a drawing out of a book without it infringing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
you forgot to add to request my files:
from this category Category:Invincible class battlecruiser
File:BL 15 inch Mk I naval gun in section.svg
and many other...Sas1975kr (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Jim, I would support an undeletion, perhaps you could reconsider your position here rather than UNDEL? The closure "In order to restore this, we would need some evidence that this looks like the actual preliminary design." does not sit well with my understanding of project scope, as we often host original educational illustrations without a quality assessment of sources or requirement for citations. No copyright basis was used for deletion and the illustration as described seems reasonably based on factual descriptions by other researchers, so could easily be okay for use in Wikipedia articles or by the general public. Commons' scope does not put a requirement on administrators to delete all original content, so long as the educational value is clear, and certainly we do not want to get into a position where we might be deleting material based on qualitative judgments relating to context. By the way, I can see than Sas1975kr is not putting the case particularly well in terms of Commons policies, hopefully that does not make much difference on outcome. Thanks -- (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@:Situation more difficult Sas1975kr (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added a comment in the DR. -- (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
, I would not object to keeping files that a user made up from his or her own knowledge, provided that they were clearly marked as speculative. For example, simplifying this case greatly, if a potential design for a ship was described as having twelve guns and there was no other description, the ship could have twelve turrets, six turrets of two, four turrets of three, or, less likely, three turrets of four. The likelihood of each would change from era to era. Any drawing of the ship might be useful, but it would be pure speculation as to which arrangement was intended and where the turrets were placed and should be so marked. As it turns out, the subject drawing is not speculative because it was copied from a book that is still under copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I accept these points. The DR could do with having the different types of files separated. It would be great if Sas1975kr could help out by marking those that are claimed as original creations rather than close versions of diagrams from a book. -- (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Running in circles... Jim, your deleted this file as "speculation"... --Sas1975kr (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I said above,
"We're not getting anywhere here. I suggest you post a Commons:Undeletion request and let our colleagues decide whether you can copy a drawing out of a book without it infringing."
That seems an even better idea now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
At this moment you placed the request to delete all of my work. It does not make sense to write a separate post. --Sas1975kr (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
This you will delete also?? --Sas1975kr (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


Hello, is this work of mine okay? It is a derivative work of a picture I found posted on a Korean board website, but it's only made of two circles and Hangul characters. Oppashi   talk 13:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It might not be OK in the UK, which has a special copyright for typesetting, but I think it would be OK anyplace else that I know of. OF course I'm guessing at North Korea, but you have to draw the line somewhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Same goes for this right? Oppashi   talk 18:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes -- as long as the words don't form a full sentence, anything like this should be OK anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


"Fırın sütlaç" (rice pudding) from Turkey

H, Jim. Can you please delete the last image I uploaded. It was a group of three pics, I did not notice and one can be copyrighted. I will load again after cutting it. Thank you very much. --E4024 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  Done E4024, it looks to me like all three are copyvios -- or at least will require sources and evidence of why they are PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  • The image of a delicious Turkish dessert that you can't even taste on-line, :( would not change your mind to save the food and drinks pricelist pic, right? Oh my... --E4024 (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
All three clearly had a copyright at one time. You need to show if and why any of them are now PD. The menu will, I guess, be almost impossible, because the copyright was probably owned by the restaurant (I assume it is a restaurant menu, but it doesn't matter), which is probably long out of business, so it is an Orphan copyright.
While rice pudding is one of my favorites, bribery is against the rules here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Seals of US states

Hi! What are the regulations on seals (emblems) of American states? Are they subjects of copyright? Oppashi   talk 20:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

See Commons:Coats of arms. As a general rule, the written description, the blazon, does not have a copyright, but individual representations do. So if you draw a state seal from the blazon, no problem. If you look at five or ten existing drawings and paraphrase them, also no problem. If you copy an existing specific drawing, that could be a problem unless you can show that it is out of copyright. I note that we seem to have all fifty at, although some are better than others. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes I found it but 'sup with this? I know, it's on enwiki not Commons but I wonder how can it be a non-free logo? Oppashi   talk 13:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, as I said above, any new realization of a CoA may have a copyright. This one may or may not, but no one has looked hard enough to tell. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay thanks Oppashi   talk 21:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by VoilaMe

The photo of Jon Tester is 100% a government work - it appears on his official website, and the metadata is consistent with official photos taken by the official United States Senate Photographic Studio. I think that one should be restored, at the very least. Connormah (talk | contribs) 13:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to open an UnDR, which I will oppose. The EXIF shows no names or source, only that it is from Photoshop. There is no evidence at all that the photographer was a Federal employee whose job is photographer. The fact that it is official photo means nothing -- there are many official portraits excluded from Commons because their creators claim copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so by that measure, then you'd have no problem deleting every single image at en:List of current United States Senators, then? Connormah (talk | contribs) 20:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I haven't looked at any of them, so I can't say. I do know that I have just now deleted two files from Category:Official presidential painted portraits in the White House because it is well established that all of the post Carter presidential portraits are under copyright. If I were a US Senator, I might very well not use a photographer employed by the Senate -- I would expect to get better results from a high-end professional. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Oshkosh TAK-4 Independent Suspension System

Hi Jim

I was just about to add some images to this page before you deleted it. Can you please give me some advice? If I add "Oshkosh TAK-4 Independent Suspension System" as a category to an image, will it automatically be linked to the "Oshkosh TAK-4 Independent Suspension System" page in Commons? Or do I need to add it manually. Sorry if it's a stupid questionǃ I'm still learning the correct do's and don't s of Wikiǃ

Thanks --Wolpat (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

First, we are very diligent about deleting empty galleries -- they turn out to be mistakes almost all of the time. When you create a new gallery, either add at least two images immediately or put a note on top that it is under construction. The template {{Underconstruction}} is convenient but not essential.
Second, no, galleries are intended to be careful selections of images from one or more categories. They may have captions, which categories cannot. So, adding an image to a category does not add it to any gallery.
Third, you've learned one of the most important things about Commons. We all understand how steep and difficult the learning curve is -- I still ask questions (see below). Most Admins are not only willing, but happy, to answer questions because it's easier than cleaning up messes afterward. So keep asking.... .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jim

--Wolpat (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi, there are some orphan redirects left over from your Apex deletions. I'm not sure if a bot takes care of these. Example -- (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

, I think so, but am nowhere near sure -- how did you find the one? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
By looking at what linked to the deleted file. Presumably orphaned redirects get flagged in some way and could be queried, but I can't remember seeing that in action before. I find Commons:Database reports/Broken redirects but it looks defunct. -- (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I'm having a senior moment, but I'm not sure I know how to look at what linked to a deleted file -- unless you looked before it was deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, I poured cold milk on my freshly ground coffee yesterday, rather than hot water. It happens to everyone. The 'what links here' in tools works for deleted files when you open them as a page. example -- (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Aha, thanks. Do you know which others -- or should I look at all 48? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I suspect this was a mass renaming to change the year in the title, so it'll be all of them I'm afraid. I would have suspected the deletion tools should have a way of following back redirects, it's a definite hole if this does not exist. -- (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I got all set up to do it quickly (made a list from the deletions log and changed 1990 to 1986), and found that User:Jcb had already deleted them. Thank you very much, Jcb. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
We have Special:BrokenRedirects which is updated every one or two days. I monitor that report from time to time. Jcb (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

False claims used to to justify a close.

You used false claims to justify your close, re. files of User:Xerxessenior. Contrary to your claim, the Pentax Optio M10 is not a cell phone. (Has Pentax EVER made a cell phone? <thwack> (sound of a fishslap))

You wrote, User:4nn1l2 comments, "Today, most people have a cell phone, which typically has a camera, and a digital camera." However, these two images were taken with two different cell phones -- that is still possible, but certainly raises a significant doubt, which is our standard of proof.

To my eye, there's no "significant doubt".

Please retract the false claims at [22] and reopen the close so someone still-uninvolved can close it.--Elvey (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"False claims" is a serious charge. If you actually believe that I am a liar, then you should also request that I be removed from Administrator, Bureaucrat, and Checkuser. I do make mistakes from time to time, but I never make false claims. I suggest that in the future if you find a problem of this sort, you say "made a mistake", "screwed up", or "erred".
As for the problem, the two files I referred to in the DR are:
As I said, two different cell phones. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


Eh. Is this some stress place? I created a page and went away for some hours and when I come back it has been deleted. Does things have to be done with a certain time space or something?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by *Treker (talk • contribs) 10:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.

We are very quick to delete empty galleries -- they turn out to be vandalism or mistakes almost all of the time. When you create a new gallery, either add at least two images immediately or put a note on top that it is under construction. The template {{Underconstruction}} is convenient but not essential. And please sign your comments. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't sign. I couldn't find the ~ symbols here like on wikipedia.*Treker (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer

This is a complex copyright issue, and I don't feel the community has all of the facts. I have strong views, but I do not read Italian, so cannot research this properly, certainly I am not in a position to contact the relevant agencies to ask questions (which I have done for defence images and Government agencies in English). The deletion request is just about the template, but even if deleted does not resolve the issues raised by the past actions of WMIT or their apparent legal advice. Could we find a way to make this a formal issue for WMIT? They have volunteers who have been pretty active on Commons, and they are a very well established Chapter. It would be easier for them to ask for specific expert advice, or even fund a small project to pay for someone's expenses to resolve this in a more pragmatic way.

Frankly, deleting holiday snaps of the Roman Forum from Commons is logically bizarre. I doubt that the Italian government expects this to happen or is interested in enforcing it, compared to, say, asking the BBC for permits to film there. Were WMIT able to 'sell' the PR benefits of a minor clarification to the right agency to promote open knowledge, without removing the right to demand permits on-site for 'professional' photographers, I suspect this would all snap into place. I'm just not sure how to shift this into a credible commitment on WMIT.

Maybe @Federico Leva (WMIT): could recommend a way forward so that those Commons volunteers with a passion for ensuring we understand copyright on this project will feel more confident in any outcome? -- (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "deleting holiday snaps of the Roman Forum from Commons is logically bizarre", but we do a lot of things that are logically bizarre -- not having a better policy on orphan works, for example. If a copyright clearly belongs to a defunct company or to a person who died without heirs (both hard to prove, but not impossible), then I think we might keep the file.
The problem comes when one of the holiday snaps, taken with a modern cell phone with lots of pixels, gets made into a beautiful poster and is sold in Rome. I don't think we want to be in the middle between the entrepreneur who made the poster and the Italian government.
I'm afraid that in matters like this I am much less pro-active than you. I've enough on my plate here without trying to work out solutions to this kind of problem -- although I have just taken on the MacArthur Fellows question (see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive#File:Khot_2016_hi-res-download_3.jpg). I don't think there is an easy solution, unless the Italian government is willing to change its rules. Maybe we can get that -- it happened in Russia, to a limited extent with FOP. Short of that, I think the agreement that was negotiated is an NC license. That's not acceptable to Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Sas1975kr


Let's start with a clean slate? If our overall goal - the creation of files with a pure content, I am ready to discuss all their types. The disposition of each. There are no problems with copyright / can be recycled and left / in any form can not be left. I suggest to open several separate requests for each of the types of files and discuss them separately. If this is of course anyone is interested ... --Sas1975kr (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place for any discussion of your files. While technically public, discussion here will get far less exposure than at the DRs or at an UnDR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I propose to open the DR. If this is of course anyone is interested. --Sas1975kr (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Postal History of Preveza

Hello dear Jameslwoodward

I intended to add far more images of cancellations of Austrian post offices at Preveza. I thought it would be usefull to add a few lines about the cancellations. Sorry if I started writting the text and only added two images so far.

If you think that such a gallery would stand at Commons, please, revert the deletion. If not, I kindly ask you to send me a copy of the text as it was before you deleteted it.

Many thanks for your assistance

Actia Nicopolis (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

As the deletion note said, Commons galleries are for collections of images; articles belong in Wikipedia. There is far too much text here for this be an acceptable gallery page -- one or two sentences is typical. I can send you the text, but you must enable "e-mail this user". Go to Preferences (in the upper right) > user profile (which is the default page), near the bottom. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

Hi Jim, could you give a second opinion on this closure? I found it so obviously disruptive that I have just rollbacked it. The file is still completely unsourced, but I think that it's completely unacceptable that this is closed again by the same administrator. I did not renominate it to see it closed again by the same administrator who erroneously closed it the first time. Jcb (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

See also this and the offender redoing his action. Jcb (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Instead of re-nomination the file you could have asked me to clarify my closing which I did the second time I closed it. I asked for an independant review. I am not the boogie man Jcb, you can ask me to clarify an action. And please refrain from using words like “offender”. Natuur12 (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I think I have done all I could in earlier cases to talk with you, e.g. here, but I have been walking against a wall several times. Jcb (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the way I communicate, by all means. Discuss it at my talk page, bring it up to AN/U or ask for an independant review of my closings but let's not re-open DR's without providing new arguments. Natuur12 (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Your expertise on copyright issues

Hi Jim, There is currently an interesting and confusing technical discussion going on about changing all of Wikipedia's content from 3.0 to 4.0 licenses. It seems like something you could help the community understand. I hope you wouldn't mind taking some time to contribute on Wikimedia page titled "Talk:Terms of use/Creative Commons 4.0". Thanks! Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It's actually on meta at
Like many such discussions here, it leads with a lot of misinformation. Jrogers appears to be on top of the issues and speaks with a far more authoritative voice than mine. I can be much more useful to the project in ways other than wading through 11,000 words of argument, much of it wrong. While I don't object to the change, I don't see a major benefit either. The actual wording of our license agreement borders on irrelevant -- people will do what they will do, not obey the exact words of the agreement. The only change that is significant to me is the change clarifying the attribution requirements which I like. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this Jim. I hope it's alright if I leave the comment now that you've responded to it. I really appreciate your insight.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Contributor Award.jpg

Please Review this file Contributor Award and confirm that everything is ok.If it's not please let me know what should i do. The formation of reward will be something like this-

  Special Award
For your tireless correcting contributions. Arian Writing (Talk) 19:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Arian Writing (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure what you are trying to do. "For your tireless correcting contributions" is not clear English and I don't have any idea what a "correcting contribution" is. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

MikoFilppula (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Dear Sirs, I am here telling you that I have made a 45 year useful improvement to bidding-fee-auction method and Dr Martin Shubik's Dollar Auction method.

To me it seems that there are some individuals who is not interested in hearing about it. I'd like to request that constant 3rd party objection and attacks are taken somewhere else. Please let me practise my 1st amendment rights and stop infringing on my authors rights. stop your unlawful harassment.

File:Turku University Bidding-Fee-Auction Event.gif
Turku University Bidding-Fee-Auction Event
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MikoFilppula (talk • contribs) 14:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This Facebook bidder tried to convince Exhibia administration that he was really a monkey and not a human pretending to be a monkey on Facebook.

File:Facebook Primate Bidder.jpg
Facebook Primate Bidder
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MikoFilppula (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Nawaab Syed Shamsul Huda

Images are more than 60 years old and PD tag added under Bangladeshi and Indian copyright laws on behalf of Category:Nawaab Syed Shamsul Huda. Please advise.Rosepal8 (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The proper place to discuss this is at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nawaab Syed Shamsul Huda. Bangladshi law requires that the photographer has been dead for sixty years. These are at least twenty years too recent to make that assumption. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

My Facebook and Google bidder avatars.

Hey Dude,

Stop discriminating and infringing my constitutional rights.

My website Exhibia terms of service:

Information Collection, Use, and Sharing We are the sole owners of the information collected on this site. We only have access to/collect information that you voluntarily give us via email or other direct contact from you. We will not sell or rent this information to anyone.

I own the copyrights in the bidder avatars by contract.

We are not making any claims for individual privacy rights, however 'bidder avatars" and "bidder names" are considered by law to be gaming avatars and by law gaming avatars are not protected by privacy laws.

How does Exhibia determine if content should be removed for a privacy violation?

For content to be considered for removal, an individual must be uniquely identifiable by image, voice, full name, Social Security number, bank account number or contact information (e.g. home address, email address). Examples that would not violate our privacy guidelines include gamer tags, avatar names. Exhibia reserves the right to make the final determination of whether a violation of its privacy guidelines has occurred.

File:Discrimination-Free Zone entrance Notification by Miko.jpg

File:Exhibia Google and Facebook dual-verified bidders.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MikoFilppula (talk • contribs) 13:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.
I doubt very much that you have a written license from each of the photographers of each of the images that I deleted. If you do, then you would be required to send a free license to OTRS together with copies of all the license contracts. However, even that would not get the images restored -- they, and your articles, also violate COM:ADVERT. Note also that if you replaod thses images again against policy, you will be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

MikoFilppula (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Dear Sir, I am not here to cause trouble or in any malicious intent or belief. I have made a useful improvement therefore do the bidding-fee-auction method and I am faced with ridiculous stay-in-home wanna be attorney objections.

MikoFilppula (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)and I am able to privde each users Facebook auth:token key stored into my database to your registrars for each bidder avatar. Please advise me what is the easiest way to do this?

Example Facebook Auth keys:

{"access_token": "EAAB1mPIXcrsBAEtAKB8ZBUGSDxKPAIm1rpFvjylxM6ZCgZAZAh232LVzzxJv8JxeiUwoI8Y2u1JTKCO1EIjQLde6j97nhXjbBMEZBMXAQJdXJycc8zQ22eZA7m7aBXqQvNF0aWBUMKcpQZAfYMiLGll9WEZCiL7XtSDjoXvjUt8QuwZDZD", "expires": "5183999", "id": "1137292662992093"}

{"access_token": "EAAB1mPIXcrsBAK7V6FwYZCyVih4YARWQbZCkM57fDaZAGuXJ2G9TBwaqZBMXe7F9BKCbVaPTpGAOlwqZBhfhTMZBoKGMK1eaIGjrHtXhfDOrf12QsmFkLrBhAiR8hw3bP2g3ORsgmTYF6xZBjySzlVPD4tGTomSZBsGpf6exLHmjcgZDZD", "expires": "5183999", "id": "144723582662626"}

{"access_token": "EAAB1mPIXcrsBAK3jNkGZCnBZC8McEX53IbKnTUKZC9yZCCOLQ8xz5bex9C3gpZCFCtCDdDdfLOQW3FhPqAZAPcqEfNTyt8e5ewmWlMAPieK2a1ZB7TsDYd0FmkBKH0tQJ8EeD5rQZCnhDOwhdLOF2TQfuyPv2D7cCPAZD", "expires": "5184000", "id": "10202369395072217"}

You miss the point. The subjects of the photos do not own the right to license them. That right is owned, in each case, by the actual photographer and in order to have them here, you must provide a copy of a written license from each photographer via OTRS. However, as I also said above, everything you have attempted here violates our policy at COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

MikoFilppula (talk) You have no legal grounds to make a privacy complaint on anyone else behalf! and you have no legal grounds to raise privacy concerns on Facebook's behalf nor the photographers behalf. Facebook Picture rights

"We appreciate your concern. Our license or sublicense does not affect ownership or copyright privileges for material on the site. Facebook uses user content in connection with various features and services on the site (for example, displaying it in profile pages, photo pages, news feeds and other messages to users' friends, etc.). Additionally, though it may not happen often, there are cases when law officers and judges issue subpoenas or other legal orders requiring us to provide certain information about specific users for use in court.

Aside from such scenarios, however, we do not currently share any information with third parties except with the user's consent (for example, if a user elects to add a third party application), and we never sell your information to anyone."

Commons has perfectly good legal grounds to enforce its own policy. We do, in fact, enforce privacy rights when appropriate, but the fundamental problems with your images are, again, that (a) they violate our policy on self-promotion at COM:ADVERT and (b) there is no evidence that their photographers have given you the right to freely license them. The next time you upload a copyright violation, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Bidding-fee Out Of Scope - Current state of the Art

State of the art Dear Sirs, please see:

State of the art (sometimes cutting edge) refers to the highest level of general development, as of a device, technique, or scientific field achieved at a particular time.

I am here to inform you of the new state of the art in bidding-fee-auction systems. The new generation comes with Facebook and Google verified bidders, as can be seen for Exhibia bidder avatar galleries.

I would like to get a formal response, with consideration, that I can't help but to feel, that the "Facebook generation of bidding-fee-auction state of the art" is hushed from Wikipedia.

Meanwhile Wikipedia is full of pages related to the "old generation, penny auctions".


Miko--MikoFilppula (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

deleting a moved file

You closed the debate at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amir Mirza Hekmati USMC.png, and deleted the page linked to from there (File:Amir Mirza Hekmati USMC.png). However, Illegitimate Barrister (talk · contribs) moved the file to File:Amir Mirza Hekmati, USMC.png after I started the deletion debate; you deleted the redirect, but not the file itself. Just a heads-up. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  Done, thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fr. Josafat Ivan Skruten', OSBM (1894-1951).jpg

Hi, I do not understand your closing statement. Are you deleting this image on suspicion that someone might be claiming publication rights, or for some other reason? -- (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at my revision there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It does not add up for me. The photograph was taken before the subject died. Hence before 1952. Just to reiterate the alternative reasoning, there would have to be a claim of publication rights for us to worry about publication rights, we should not be deleting images which are public domain by an age calculation on pure suspicion because we cannot prove a negative for hypothetical claims of publication rights (which in practice are rare, and even then with PD by age works are often invalid). -- (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Checking CRT, if the photograph was unpublished at the time it was taken (which seems very unlikely considering the subject and formality), then we factor in "photographs lose copyright protection ten years after picture was taken". This makes a hypothetical late publication right even more unlikely than I previously envisioned. -- (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I slowed down, and corrected it again -- sorry for the screw up. It is PD if:

  1. It was taken before 1942, which allows ten years to pass before the law changed in 1952,
  2. The photographer died before 1946,
  3. It was published before 1994 without a copyright notice, or
  4. It was published with notice before 1946.

We have no proof that any of those apply. Your say it is unlikely that it was unpublished -- why? This is clearly a scan of a photographic print, not a halftone, and the vast majority of portraits were never published. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it's slightly bizarre to say that this portrait for an OSBM monk, of which there were around 600 at the time the photo would have been taken, was not published until after his death. Looking at the photograph the subject appears between 30 and 40, no older than that. For the dates to meet the tight constraints of your second deletion, the photograph would have to have been taken in the last 9 years of his life, making him need to be at least 48 when taken. He just does not look that old. Secondly you are deleting on suspicion of a claim of a publication right (for which you have produced no evidence). This again means that the photograph must have been published after 1952 but before 1961, any later and a claim of publication right would be invalid. If there were a claim of publication rights, then it would have expired long ago, as the period of publication rights is a lot shorter, but here's the kicker, I don't believe publication rights existed in 1961 or earlier in Poland and certainly not for photographs taken by unknown photographers.
Please undelete and we can put these considerations in the DR. Unless you think an UNDEL is now needed? -- (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand your bringing up "publication right". If the law is not as I summarized it above, then please tell me, but I don't see any reason why there needs to be a publication right out there.
I also disagree strongly with somehow assuming that just because we have a paper print of a photo of a man that it was published. Even if you argue that it is beyond a significant doubt that a photograph of this man was published at some point, you still need to prove that it was this particular one that was published. Although there were many fewer photographs made back then, this man might have been photographed dozens of times. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you need to sit and work out the logic table. Whether it was published or unpublished seems to make no significant difference to a PD status under PL IP law. There's not sufficient here to be concerned under the PRP. -- (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
That's not how I read Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Poland. Under the 1926 law, valid until 1952, photographs became PD ten years after creation. So any photograph taken before 1942 became PD before the 1952 law came into force. In this case publication didn't matter (#1 above). A photograph taken after 1941 fell under the 1952 law, under which you either have to show publication with or without notice, or the death of the photographer (#2-4 above). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'll drop this case. I am not convinced this was the right outcome and I'd still assert this is below the significant doubt threshold. PL law is complex to interpret for pre-1952 photographs and we are both amateurs for this region. However without some Polish volunteers expressing interest and views, it's better to avoid eating up more volunteer time than our due diligence implies.   -- (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Old charts

Who needs this bullshit file?

Hi Jim,

I don't know how to get this policy ever changed, but who will ever use old outdated JPG charts? In chemistry we have delelted hundreds of obsolete files, and that was a good decision.--Kopiersperre (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the argument for keeping old time series charts is less persuasive than that for keeping old logos or maps, but the chart is properly dated, is unlikely to ever confuse anyone, and it costs nothing to keep it. We have nothing like it for a later period, so it may serve some purpose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Postal History of Preveza again

Hello Jim,

I have activated my email on this wiki. Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. Please, send the text there. Best wishes Actia Nicopolis (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)   Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

An old discussion

The case seems resolved to my eyes. Could you please check my comment here? Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 06:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

  Done Thanks for your effort to clarify that situation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. That was what I could do. --Mhhossein talk 15:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible unjust deletion requests, possible abuse of process.

Dear Jameslwoodward, I fear I am the subject of unjust deletion requests, which could either be due to bot-usage or due to my previous minor fame/infamy, which due to the controversial nature of my very public campaigning it has made me a target for abuse of process. How can this issue be flagged for investigation?

I am contacting you because you previously ruled "keep" for one of my images in 2011.

What are your views on this current case regarding my images. See basic income, and various self-portrait images regarding my identity as a public figure.

On 3 Nov 2016 a user made various mass deletion requests regarding my images, 15 mins after I uploaded one image, although the majority of my images were uploaded in 2010.

Perhaps it is not unreasonable to infer the 2010 images were appropriate (not to be deleted) in 2011, because only one image was flagged for deletion in 2011?

It is also worth noting, regarding the current mass deletions, three of the images were threatened with deletion in 2011 due to a question of permission, permission which I had to email to prevent deletion. Surely if the images were unsuitable in 2011, when the "missing permission" issue arose, they would have been flagged for deletion in 2011 instead of merely being subject to a request for copyright permission?

Being a former public figure, of minor fame, I worry I am being unjustly targeted, a possible bias in these flaggings, which could especially be true considering the provocative nature of my fame and campaigning? SRHSP (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not at all sure what I was thinking in 2011. I agree with my colleagues that none of your uploads have a place on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Hah, too bad you can't reverse that keep decision. I am tempted to remove all my presence from Wikiemedia because I really don't like the anti-freedom people and ethos here, but I will at least leave that image just considering your regret, which you can't reverse. SRHSP (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, there is no reason why I cannot ask that my keep decision be reversed. Although we are very free with material which is within our scope, Commons is not Flickr or Facebook -- we do not keep personal work from people who are not notable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Well I think the work is of educational value, in scope, and I think having a Wikipedia page about my campaign gives me sufficient notability.SRHSP (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Karol II rumuński.JPG

Hi, you removed the Polish license, but now it has not license at all? Jcb (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Under Licensing you will see that I put:
"This work is in the public domain because before 1996 there was no copyright on ordinary (non-artistic) photographs in Romania and only a ten year copyright on artistic ones."
There is no appropriate license tag covering this. Do you have a better idea?.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I put a pd tag, revert if it is not fine. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me, thanks! Jcb (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks -- I had forgotten that possibility. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Impact crater in the natural baundary LEVADA.jpg

Hi Jim!

License to the image Media:Impact_crater_in_the_natural_baundary_LEVADA.jpg has been changed by the author on your request to CC-BY-SA

Best regards

--Латуха Валерій 16:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Latuha1 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 05 November 2016 (UTC)

  Done Thank you for changing it -- it is a nice image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

MacArthur Foundation images

Because Margaret Stock is a hot topic in the news where I live, this issue came across my watchlist on en.wp. I'm far from enthusiastic about the notion that we're using award winners to promote the award itself and still using the term "biography" when most of the bios on the encyclopedia are merely coatrack articles to the award and hardly biographical in nature. Anyway, I see that multiple photos of Katherine Gottlieb were deleted as part of this. I haven't had the time to be as active on this site as I'd like and this was one of many things I let pass without prior comment. If I remember, the metadata of the Gottlieb photos said "Copyright Associated Press" or simliar, so I would question what rights the Foundation has to the photos, let alone what rights could be transferred over to here. I've come across quite a number of photos with similar questionable copyright status on this site apart from this particular issue, but like I said, I haven't had the time to ferret all that out.RadioKAOS (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The issue with the MacArthur Foundation images is that the Foundation licensed them to everybody as CC-BY-NC, which is unacceptable to Commons, and as CC-BY only to the media, which is also unacceptable. I clarified that through OTRS with the Foundations and after a DR, we deleted them all. You are correct that some of the images on the Foundation's Web site listed AP and other sources for the images. By the time I noticed that, it was moot, since we had already decided to delete them.

Anyway, you can certainly upload images of Fellows as Fair Use on WP:EN. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Related. Jee 13:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that link, Jkadavoor, but it was too lengthy for what I needed. In case anyone misunderstood, I've generally been opposed to this notion that a person's title(s) and/or perceived celebrity status should drive the direction of content on here, rather than the availability or non-availability of free images. I've largely been disappointed, but it seems that there's a lack of warm bodies around to do much about stemming such a tide (with some topics, it could be safely called a train wreck). As it pertains to Margaret Stock, you can see here that I took and uploaded a photo of her myself, rather than randomly scavenged something off the web as many others appear fond of doing. If others were that proactive, it would solve a lot of problems.RadioKAOS (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Some pictures in Africa

Hi Jim, I added a comment in Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#The_way forward (pictures you deleted). Some of the pictures should not have been deleted. More generally, I think we shouldn't be so strict here. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous claims

Belated reply regarding whether you made a false claim or a mistake: It seems I'm the one that made a mistake. Sorry about that. I'm not an admin so I couldn't see that File:Aldi empty leer.jpg was not taken with a Nokia E72-1. All I could see was that two cameras were mentioned: a Nokia E72-1 and a Pentax Optio M10, one of which was NOT a cell phone, and I seem to have misread things. Although I still see little reason for "significant doubt", I defer to your judgment, as you can see more info than I can, and I don't know what your definition of "significant doubt" is. It strikes me that I have owned perhaps 10 phones with cameras; I doubt that's outside the range of what's normal. I have at least 17 cameras I own in the very room I'm now in; I doubt that's outside the range of what's normal among contributors. (Yikes! I'm in a w:panopticon!)

As for the language I used: there's a huge difference between making a false claim and lying. The latter implies intent to deceive; the former, like "made a mistake", or "erred," does not. I certainly didn't accuse you of lying. In any case, I'll try to use the language you suggest - it is clearly better, as it implies positive intent rather than implying nothing either way. Thank you for suggesting it. Feel free to move or copy this comment into your comment archive. --Elvey (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

File:172622 7fe4a9d3d4a61a1607cd56952b324d81 normale.jpg

Hi Jim. I hope you are well. Perusing the uploader's other files, I had added the above to this DR, under the same rationale. It was quite easy to miss, buried in the other text. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  Done As you say, easy to miss. When I add something to a DR, I put it right up under the headline like this:

That makes it easier for the closing Admin to spot. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Still needs source

Hi Jim: File:Taffy at Desmonds 1956 advert.jpg which you closed as "keep" still needs a source. As closing admin, I would hope you could provide that? The description is set up as a "fair use"... and Source in the description reads "private collection; original image 1956". Private collection is not a source or we'd open the flood gates to all kinds of claims of "I own it, therefore copyright is ok." I think if it's from a private collection, they could tell the name, date of publication, else it has no source and we're only guessing as to date, etc. Please revisit this one. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Ellin -- please don't apply the rules to the point of losing images that are in use. It is obviously a 1950s ad and has no evident copyright notice. Therefore it is almost certainly PD -- certainly beyond a significant doubt. Just to be doubly sure, I ran a search in the copyright renewals -- that's easy because the relevant ones are on line -- and there is nothing for Desmond's that comes even close. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

European Heraldry

Hi Jim : thanks for your consideration to the serious matter of copyright in relation to heraldic images posted at I certainly appreciate that erring on the side of caution is better than reckless behaviour on the part of Wiki and by extension its contributors too. However, what confounds me is on what basis does European Heraldry believe it has any entitlement to "copyright" someone else's coat of arms? This website specifically attributes the display of individual arms to a particular person or family and in so doing automatically nullifies any copyright - I would be able to agree with you were the heraldic artist(s) of European Heraldry simply creating pretty pictures but by their own admission they are most definitely not - in fact they are attempting to usurp the rights under English law (which is reciprocally recognised in most countries worldwide) of those genuinely entitled to respective armorial bearings. In short, European Heraldry's claim is bogus and I simply cannot see how this website's owners could begin to mount a credible legal action of image copyright when it is so patently obvious - they make no bones about it - that they are using someone else's coat of arms. I do hope I have explained this well enough - but a bogus copyright logo is absolutely worthless. Anyway let's work through any apprehensions or misunderstandings - looking forward to hearing from you. Best wishes, L'honorable (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

PS. this is the direct equivalent of me going round slapping copyright logos on images which are not mine (and then claiming that they are mine). Any such preposterous "claim" would be laughed out of court immediately (so long as someone such as the defence counsel had the gumption to point out that these coats of arms are governed under English law).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by L'honorable (talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.
Sorry, but the law does not support your position. As you certainly know, a CoA is described by a blazon, and a blazon cannot be copyrighted because there can be no creativity in the description of a CoA -- it is set by rules of heraldry. As you also certainly know, there are many different ways to draw the various items that make up a CoA. See, for example, the many castles at Category:Castles in heraldry, which includes several cases of two or more CoA drawn from the same blazon, but looking quite different. This ability to create the various items in the artist's style is the creativity required for copyright. Therefore, any individual representation of a CoA does have a copyright, until it expires.
Also, while I have your attention, when you upload a file from Flickr or another external site, as you did at File:St Philip Howard.jpg, it is important that you put the same license on the file as was on the file at Flickr. Also, you must promptly request a {{Flickrreview}} or {{LicenseReview}}, which must be done by an Administrator or a License Reviewer. This third party action serves as proof that the license was such and such at the time of upload. While licenses are not changed frequently at external sites, it does happen and without a review in place, the image would have to be deleted.
Finally, at File:Losange des Bourbon.svg you added two categories. Be careful not to overcat -- in this case Category:Coats of arms of French princesses is in Category:Coats of arms of women, so adding it was overcat.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: thank you for your prompt reply & since this has never been tested before the courts I don't believe it is quite correct to state categorically that the law doesn't support my position. Anyway, rather than going round in circles it is nonetheless good to correspond with one who is cognisant of the law. Given that my sole aim is to improve Wiki's (what is in some cases woeful) coverage of heraldry I trust that I have your full support in doing so, sans European Heraldry images that is! Many thanks. Best wishes, L'honorable (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

deleting my picture

hello jim you gave me an answer about deleting my portrait. you said i could change the name or someting like that; i am really not familiar with wikimedia, so i don't know how to do it. ist there no way to delte my potraits, i guess nobody ist using them? how can i proof you that this is really my? thanks for your help! ragards, simon SMP123456789 (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Kardinal Alojzije Stepinac.jpg

File:Kardinal Alojzije Stepinac.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hi, I don't understand the closure. Is the rationale that because it may be unpublished, there might be publication rights, or that you find it credible that the photograph was never published before 1970? The latter rationale seems extremely unlikely to me, for a photograph taken in the 1930s and with nobody able to identify a photographer. -- (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Even back in those days, photographers on assignment, especially portrait photographers, took more photographs than were actually published. All of them, published and not, went into archives. Since this is scanned from a photographic print and not from a halftone, there is no way of knowing whether it is the one that was published (assuming that any were) or one of the six or a dozen that were not. Since the 1970 clock starts on publication, in order to keep this, someone must prove beyond a significant doubt that this one was published. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I see it the other way. Given that it was taken in the 1930s, it's more an insignificant doubt that it was both unpublished during the subjects lifetime, remained unpublished for at least a decade after his death, but then (oddly) was published sometime after that when there would have been plenty of stock images and archive images that were presumably better (otherwise it would have been published). It's beyond significant doubt in my view that this was published during the Cardinal's lifetime because other circumstances are bizarre. Certainly we should discount the option that this was never published, as we find copies around the internet from all sorts of dates. ... and if it were unpublished, who exactly is claiming copyright, it seems in that remote case that copyright would be limited and already expired.
I'm thinking this is worth some alternative views at UNDEL as this boils down to the subjective assessment of what "significant doubt" means. Do you mind if I take it there? -- (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Again, it is almost certainly one of six or a dozen images shot in a portrait session. It's a paper photographic print, so it does not by itself prove that it was published. It was probably taken from a archive along with the others taken at the same time and someone decided to scan this one. The person making the choice may or may not have known which of the several (if any) had been published before, so there is certainly a significant doubt that he or she picked the same one.
The fact that you find copies around the Internet says nothing about it being published before 1970 -- in fact, the reverse. Since the ones on the Internet are scans of photographic prints, they had to be made after scanners came into commercial use in the early 1980s, well past the Croatian cutoff of 1970. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I hold that there has been no evidence that this photograph was one of several, in fact as there are no close matching official portraits of the Cardinal that one could deduce were part of a series at the same sitting, just this single photograph, it is highly probable that this was the official published portrait at the time. This seems to be hunting around for increasingly thin reasons to delete a photograph or a notable religious historical figure, where there is in truth very little doubt that it is public domain by age, and that the photographer remains unknown.
Again I'd like to take this to UNDEL, as I just do not see this old photograph having the significant doubt that policy expects for deletion. At the end of the day, in legal terms Commons only needs to demonstrate reasonable effort to identify a copyright holder to legitimately continue to host files. There has been no copyright holder asserted, in particular there is no claimant for publication rights, not even Getty Images, and so the decision as to copyright rests on the assessment of age. -- (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletetion of a picture

Hi james, You validated the deletation of my pic : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Front face of a Turkish work permit.jpg I would like to know why exactly ? And is there any way i can fix this ? As i think you may have deleted it because it is an infringement of the copyright, and it is a design of the Turkish government. Could you please clarify that, Thank You. Ata Kurumsal (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

As was said several times in several different ways at the DR, you do not have the right to freely license it because the copyright is owned by the government of Turkey. The law on copyright of government works varies widely from country to country. In the USA, such a document would be free of copyright, but, in many countries, including Turkey, most government documents including passports, work permits, and the like have a copyright. See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Turkey.
Please remember that owning something does not mean that you have the right to copy it or freely license it. We all own books written by other people. We can read them, sell them, destroy them, lend them, but we do not have the right to copy them. The same is true of all created works -- we can own the object but very rarely have the right to copy or freely license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. It helped me to understand better. Ata Kurumsal (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Simon Michel.jpg

Hi Jim, I am contacting you as you closed the DR. Do you know what's going on with this file? SMP123456789 claims something has changed, i.e. [23]. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Upon further thinking, I think we could delete this file. It is not used, and I am not even sure this guy is notable. He doesn't have a category on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Yann. That thought crossed my mind during the DR, so I looked him up -- he is a professional photographer, see He has worked for Esquire and Cosmo, among others, so he's arguably notable. Therefore I decided to keep the one, rather than delete it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Aggression : David & Goliath

Hi Jim : have you sanctioned recent comments about Heraldry on Wiki at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by L'honorable? I am more concerned about heraldry being properly represented on Wiki than internal squabbles. So please tell me whether I am welcome here or NOT. L'honorable (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC) PS. ever since exposing an anonymous contributor I have been subjected to untold aggravation, including anonymous edits, attributions, etc... PPS. it is as if it would be better were I to be bullied out of town. Please advise whether my efforts are of any help to Wiki at all... Sorry if not... & I could go on (but I won't because it is not worth it)....

& so Jim - what has caused this latest? svp...

"So please tell me whether I am welcome here or NOT." Difficult question. You waste other editors' time arguing points that are solidly established in the law and in Commons policy. Many (most? almost all?) of your uploads have been deleted for various reasons -- I just deleted two more, one a clear copyvio, and the other a clear NC license. I also tagged a third for a DR. You have uploaded a few useful files, but I think most of my colleagues who have interacted with you would say that your contributions aren't worth the time you waste. I'm not ready to say that yet, but I'm not far from it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
OK I have got it - my integrity is being called into question. Fine - let matters rest. L'honorable (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
PS. what I don't get is that I have tackled some topics on Wiki which have been thoroughly substandard... & am trying to introduce pictorial illustration accordingly - but....
Would you like me to go through how many illustrations should be deleted from Wiki right now?
I could spend the rest of my days doing so...
It is not at all a question of your integrity. It is a question of your willingness to work carefully and not upload files that are obviously copyright violations (I just tagged another for deletion) and you willingness to accept the fact that Commons as a whole understands copyright much better than you. Long arguments about black letter law are, as I said above,simply a waste of your time and that of other editors.
As for "Would you like me to go through how many illustrations should be deleted from Wiki right now?" -- my best estimate is that at least 1% of all images on Commons -- more than 300,000 -- should be deleted for one reason or another. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, my best estimate of heraldic illustrations on Wiki could rise to over 25%.. so where should we start this? L'honorable (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Btw my sole aim is to contribute not to be a deletionist, but if need be (and by the way my credentials are pukka) ....
Is it worth the bother? (well over a quarter of Wiki's heraldic illustrations should be deleted - when attributed to the wrong family)

Look - I am not here to be a problem - but that last post about deletions re Heraldry regarding me being banned by English Wiki was blatantly hostile. If you support that type of behaviour then so be it - it said I never learn hahaha.

Before signing any posts I want to know whether you believe I am a credible person or not - frankly if this is the way that Wiki descends when a most educative correspondence was had then I am incredulous... Not worth engaging with - if the likes of you know who rule the roost...

And, what is wrong with the Major Gerald Loxley images svp? L'honorable (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain how better to describe "a family photo taken on Major Loxley's birthday in 1946" if indeed this is a just cause for deletion?
one would think that the coats of arms uploaded by me were erroneous the way that Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by L'honorable puts it! Let's have a detailed look at Heraldry on Wikipedia if so!! L'honorable (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: rather than me being demonised - easy to do because I have stupidly put my head above the parapet by saying that Wiki is not all right on Heraldry - could you be so kind as to acknowledge my comments to you regarding Gerald Loxley (which unless I am thoroughly mistaken have been identified solely because I uploaded them!)? If you know better let me know - at the moment I believe Wiki Commons could face ridicule... L'honorable (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC) @Jameslwoodward: this has all got out of hand since you know who got involved.... This is getting to the stage where I cannot say anything - so amen. L'honorable (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think my comment at the DR is clear, albeit terse. Alice Loxley took the photo. Therefore it will be under copyright until 1/1/2026, 70 years after her death. It can't be kept on Commons unless the person (or one of the persons) who now owns the copyright to the photo freely licenses it. That person is almost certainly an heir, but since they had no children, finding heirs may be difficult.
And, as I warned you on your talk page, removing a {{Delete}} tag is a serious violation of Commons rules. Don't do it again or you will be blocked.
Finally, please stop using {{Ping}} and {{Notif}} for me on my own talk page -- As you should know by now, I am notified of every edit made here and pinging me is simply annoying. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know that (about pinging) but now I do. So, in the case of Alice Loxley I am the heir - what proof do you need? Since what was presented in good faith now has to descend into this type of procedure? Please advise promptly. L'honorable (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
PS. this is no way to carry on, unless I am thoroughly mistaken - especially if Wiki now wishes me to publish a copy of her Will just to prove this? L'honorable (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: this is a serious matter so I would appreciate your immediate response - it also involves two images which you have proposed for deletion. Why such hostility towards me all of a sudden - after all we were recently engaged in educated discussion about eligibility of coats of arms on Wiki & now you threaten me with being blocked? This, at least to me, is not the sign of reason. Please acknowledge without delay - many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I note you were quick to admonish me earlier but RSVP. Cordialement, L'honorable (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Why the silence?
L'honorable, if a user does not respond to you, look at his contributions log and see if he is actually doing other things on Commons and, therefore, ignoring you, or if he is not doing anything on Commons, in which case he is likely living his life.
Note that blanking someone else's talk page is not allowed. It's mine -- you can add to it, but not remove comments. If you change your mind about a comment you have made, you can use strikethrough . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Help requested

Hi Jim, could you have a look at this page to see if you can help to resolve a few files with unknown copyright situation? Jcb (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Jim, could you add the following to that analysis under File:Rf-4c-68-0568-zr.jpg‎? I'd add it myself, however the page has been protected against edits, so it's an admin only discussion.

This search shows 280 matches, all seeming to have been transferred from en.wp. The images are well used for such a set, with at least one I noticed having credible references to NARA. The named collator and their connection to the named society is credible, going by even if the site is no longer there. I suggest adding the lot to a category so that they can be researched further, even though there must remain doubts with the information so far. Thanks -- (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

, check the search you cite -- when I click on it, it comes up with no results.... .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Fixed terminal character. -- (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This Note on Admin board

Can you possibly verify and pass or fail these images based on the given OTRS permission ticket? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

These three images also have the same OTRS ticket. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Roger Puta, the photographer of thousands of good railroad images has died and left his images in the care of Mel Finzer and Marty Bernard. They have posted them on Flickr, all with the PDM. Fundamentally, Bernards's OTRS e-mail says:
"Mel and I agreed we want the maximum number of people to enjoy and learn from them without limitations. I see no reason we would change that. There is no way I'm going into flickr and change the copyright status on 10,000 or more photos. Out of courtesy we hope his photos will be attributed to him."
That isn't perfect, but my judgement is that the clear intent is that they are irrevocably PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank You for your help here, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jafr alien invasion.jpg

Hi Jameslwoodward, could you please revisit this deletion request you have just closed? You are giving the rationale per nomination despite the point that the original reason for deletion, i.e. “no source”, was proven false within the DR. I would understand a rationale regarding COM:SCOPE which was also discussed. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I hesitated what to do with this one. There is a source, but is it in scope? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
If you were using DelReqHandler before "per nomination" became the default closing comment, you had to enter something. When it seemed to me that discussion made the decision clear, I often used a single ".". I guess I would be happier if the default now were "per discussion" instead of "per nomination", because that would cover a larger fraction of the cases. But, it isn't so I changed it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim! --AFBorchert (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of closed discussions to determine deletion candidates

I am increasingly concerned that an admin-only discussion is being used to decide which images should be raised for DRs or not. If a group of selectively appointed admins are pre-determining which images go to DR in the first place, I can't see anyone wanting to start creating the case against deletion. The admin rights very clearly do not put administrators in a position above community consensus processes, and no administrator should be gaming the system to by-pass our common understanding of the limitations of these rights.

Should deletion requests be both created from the exclusive discussion, and that discussion treated as "evidence" supporting deletion requests, I shall raise this as a case for former wider review on the application of COM:Administrators. Thanks -- (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I have seen only one instance of this and I don't see a particular problem. Although I myself would not restrict a discussion to Admins only, if a small group wants to have a restricted discussion, they will, whether on Wiki or by e-mail. In the several hundred DRs every day, it is a drop in the bucket and, in any case, it will have to go to a public DR for a week. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2015 Disney Channel logo.svg

Not that I want to particularly argue about this... I don't feel strongly about it, it's 'if at all' only barely above the TOO, and I mainly DR it simply because past DRs had removed essentially the same thing.

That being said, it's not really a 'typeface'... the "Disney" itself is Walt Disney's signature, and has been used widely by the company, for decades, without the 'mouse ears'. Reventtalk 21:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

If it is letters, and only letters, no matter how complex, or what they are formed from, then it is a typeface. Typefaces do not have copyrights in the USA. Names and signatures also do not have copyrights. It is, of course, a trademark, and is protected under trademark law, but, as you know, that does not concern us on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked account

I do not understand why the account École des chartes has been blocked? Is it because you have identified legal problems for the 3 deleted images? This is the account of the École des chartes of which I am the webmaster. A public institution would not take the risk of publishing photos of which it does not have the reproduction rights. The photographers transferred ownership of the photos to the École nationale des chartes. Would you like to receive a written record? Should we provide proof every time we publish an image? I suppose there are simpler ways. We are well prepared to do the right thing but could you explain how to document the image to avoid these problems of right and blocking? Thank you and cordially.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ENChartes (talk • contribs) 10:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.

On Commons an account must have only one actual person using it, so organizational accounts are not allowed. There are two reasons for this.

First, users come in all qualities. We have honest, careful, knowledgeable users, some who are none of those, and users in every combination of them. Having three major roles (Admin, Bureaucrat, and Checkuser), I get to know that pretty well. Since active Administrators, in particular, are in short supply -- 90% of Admin work (1500 deletions every day, among other things) is done by fewer than 25 people -- it is important to Commons that we be able to work fast and accurately. Over time we get to know most of the active users -- who can be trusted to be honest, knowledgeable, and careful, and who cannot. If accounts have more than one user, then Admins lose that important help to their work.

Second, responsible and careful institutions don't want a Commons account that has more than one user. Since the point of institutional accounts is to allow institutions to upload and freely license some of their collection, the Commons user must be given permission to do this. In most jurisdictions, for an institution to give away its property, the governing body (Board of Directors or Trustees) must approve. Suppose an institution has ten people using one account and one of them is fired for cause? At the very least, the institution will have to change the password on the account. At worst, the fired person will have uploaded images that were not authorized and the institution must request their removal (this has actually happened). If ten people have been uploading images, how do we figure out which images are problems? Damage control is a real issue.

There is no reason why an institution cannot simply use separate accounts with similar names -- "User:National Institute of Geology - John Smith" and "User:National Institute of Geology - User Jones", for example. That solves both problems while maintaining the ability to know the users and keep track of their individual work.

Unless the upload is a photograph of a 2D work that is out of copyright (PD-old), there are potentially two issues when an institution licenses images to Commons. Is the uploader authorized to grant the free license and does the institution have the right to license the image?

The first is dealt with fairly easily. An authorized official of the institution must send a message to OTRS stating that Commons User:X has the right to upload images for the institution and license them under a CC-BY (or any other free license that the institution chooses). THe OTRS volunteer will then put a note on X's User page with the OTRS ticket number and each upload will have the {{PermissionOTRS}} template.

The second is harder, because there are two potential copyrights to deal with -- that belonging to the photographer and that belonging to the creator of the work shown. If the work is 2D, the first is not a problem. If the work is 3D, but PD-old, then the second is not a problem. If the uploader is the photographer, then "own work" can apply. But, in most cases, the museum must prove that it has the right to freely license both the photograph and the work shown. That is usually accomplished by sending a copy of the license(s) from the photographer and the creator of the work. If the photographer is on staff and {{Work for hire}} applies, a simple statement of that will suffice, that is, in the file description, the author should be shown as:

Author = Photographer: John Smith, staff photographer of X Museum.
Sculptor: Susan Doe

Of course, if Susan Doe has not been dead for 70 years (in most countries), the museum must furnish via OTRS a copy of the license from Susan Doe or her heir that allows the museum to freely license the work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Answering your specific questions:

  • Is it because you have identified legal problems for the 3 deleted images? No, as explained above, no institutional accounts are permitted.
  • This is the account of the École des chartes of which I am the webmaster. Unfortunately, it is fairly common for individuals to claim that they are someone else, so you must prove that using OTRS.
  • A public institution would not take the risk of publishing photos of which it does not have the reproduction rights. Also unfortunately, staff of many large public institutions do not understand copyright and believe that because the institution owns the work, it has the right to freely license photographs of it. Therefore we require that the institution prove that it has that right.
  • The photographers transferred ownership of the photos to the École nationale des chartes. Again, many people say that when it is not correct."
  • Would you like to receive a written record? Should we provide proof every time we publish an image? Yes, see above."

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign for User:The Photographer

Please excuse me spamming you, which concerns Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign. My contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. I has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and it is very expensive for me to acquire this equipment. I has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a camera with a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.

Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. Even a modest donation will make a difference if many people contribute. Thanks. --The Photographer 13:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User:The Photographer, first, please take a look at User:Jameslwoodward. The panorama there was taken with a 50mm lens on a Nikon D1, handheld. It is not perfect, but it shows that it is possible to take excellent 180 degree panoramas with no special equipment other than a reasonably good camera (3 megapixels). If I were you, I would not waste my money on a tripod head.
Second, I am not at all certain that asking colleagues for money on Commons is a good idea or even permitted. We all have equipment we would like to buy and I fear a barrage of similar requests. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Jim, apologies for poking my nose in here, but I think you've missed the point here. Firstly, that panorama is pretty terrible by modern standards. The stitching lines is extremely obvious, there is no attempt to blend the stitching and the resolution is very low. Secondly, what Wilfredo is proposing to do is not a simple handheld 180 degree panorama of distant objects. A panorama using your technique would completely fail in an interior, where parallax is a big factor. A proper panoramic head eliminates parallax errors and ensures a 360 by 180 degree view (a full photosphere) at a professional level. With all due respect, he doesn't need your advice on whether he needs the head or not, he already knows that for what he proposes to do, he does need it. Whether you're willing to help him is another story completely, of course. Regarding his donation campaign and the fear that it will lead to other similar campaigns, this is not the first time anyone has asked the community for help, and nor will it be the last. There is no need to worry about a slippery slope here. In any case, it is one of the better ways to get quality equipment to our colleagues in poorer countries so that they can try to address the systematic bias inherent in Wikipedia and Commons. If you don't want to contribute, that's fine, just say so, but there's no need to disparage the request. Diliff (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
While I agree that Jim's panorama comparison was perhaps inapt, it may have been a case of being somewhat nonplussed by first seeing this on COM:VP, then–presumably when that failed to generate enough interest despite the campaign reaching 246% funding before these messages–having a slipshod, botched copy/paste job, where Wilfredo hasn't even deigned replacing "his tripod" and "for The Photographer to create" with "my tripod" and "for me to create" or personalizing the message in any way, unsolicitedly plastered on his talk. I know that this is so far removed from what I consider to be reasonable that I am frankly flabbergasted that this is being defended by you and Colin. Storkk (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Storkk, the response to this campaign has been overwhelmingly positive, with many thank-yous and many donations. Now you are making fun of The Photographer's text changes, as someone who does not have English as his first language and isn't highly fluent in it, that's something I'm "frankly flabbergasted" to see. This is an international project, COM:MELLOW requires you to make allowances for language and cultural differences. It's a campaign to benefit Commons photography of part of the world that is grossly under-represented, not to get someone a job or just a nice Christmas present. *sigh*. -- Colin (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not flabbergasted at any grammatical errors, nor am I criticizing anybody's command of English. Are you seriously suggesting that a failure to fix his own username with the word "me" when copy/pasting your message is due to a language issue? Storkk (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Storkk, of course you are criticising his abiltiy to write English. Yes, I wouldn't have a clue how to do that in Portuguese. Good grief!. Do you realise that User:The Photographer had his camera and lenses donated by another Commons user many years go (having only had a poor quality compact camera and not able to afford anything better). Since then he's used that old camera to create 86 featured images (only a dozen people have created more), 655 quality images and 35 valued images. That track record of high-quality photos is higher than all the "Wiki Loves ..." competitions ever run put together. And is of an area of the world where we don't have lots of contributions. So cut some slack. This isn't some rich kid in London wanting a freebie to add to his already impressive photography hobby. It's one of the most cost-effective ways this community can support the creation of high-quality media content. -- Colin (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This comment will be my last here on this topic, since I think we're at loggerheads. I do not think it is reasonable to spam requests for donations (for any purpose) to people's talk pages, and consequently I do have some disdain for the initial message. If you re-read what I wrote, my incredulity is reserved for you and Diliff. I find your suggestion that the inclusion of the phrase ... the potential for The Photographer to create ... (emphasis obviously mine) is due to a language issue, difficult to read except disingenuously, and whether you or I could write that in Portuguese or Amharic or whatever is neither here nor there. Had the request been written by Mark Twain, I would have thought it inappropriate; the apparent lack of care and personalization of the messages just made it worse. For the record, I think that the number of donations received is a poor metric to judge the overall worth or impact of an unsolicited campaign for donations (email spam works too, and heck, even email spam often attempts to address me by name). I respect both you and Diliff... and so perhaps my strong gut feeling that of course we don't need an explicit rule not to solicit donations on talk pages is incorrect and we should have an RFC. Storkk (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC) (to be clear: I respect both your and Diliff's judgment, and I respect all three of you immensely as photographers Storkk (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC))
(Edit conflict) Diliff, I certainly didn't intend to "disparage the request" and I don't think I did so. I intended to suggest, from sixty years of experience taking photographs professionally and as an avocation, that spending money on a panoramic head would not be my choice. Certainly my Wick image is not great -- I said so -- but, it was all done by hand before good computer stitching was widely available. It does show Wick harbor pretty well, which was the intention.
Taking single tier close-in panoramas, I simply use a piece of 1/4" (6mm) aluminum with two 1/4" holes to mount the camera on a tripod with the center of rotation under the lens front. $10 for an 8x8" sheet, cut to size, from several Web vendors. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
It isn't single-row panoramas he wants to take. This sort of high-resolution photo simply isn't possible without a full pano head. And the 180x360 panoramas absolutely require it. -- Colin (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Gorgeous photo, thank you for licensing it here -- and, of course, you are right -- for multi-tier, you need to be able to pan and tilt with the CoR at the end of the lens. I'd do it with pieces from my scrap bin, but I fully understand that not everyone has the same facilities or skills. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure you could conceivably sail around the world in a glorified tin can that you built yourself too, but it's much more practical to have a proper boat built for purpose by professionals. ;-) Anyway, it seems that there's nothing more than really needs to be said. You've expressed your opinion on the campaign, and you're welcome to have it (and to an extent I do understand, few people enjoy unsolicited requests for money), but plenty of others have seen the value in contributing and it has achieved most of its goals in just a few days. Diliff (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You know, Diliff, you really know how to hit home hard. Although my wife and I sailed around the world in a Swan 57, we now live and cruise aboard a "glorified tin can" -- while we did not build Fintry's hull, deck, and deck-house, all of the systems and interior are our own work or done by subcontractors under our supervision. One of her sisters is in the "pretty terrible" Wick panorama which began this discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted image

Hi James, I wonder why an image is deleted because of its size. This deleted one shows the actual view to the cascade, the [viewpoint] of both others is not longer available. So the article gets lost of information. If you and Yann think only big pictures are welcome, you could have answered my question for a recommended size, and I could upload a lager copy. I just told you what the reason was to use not a full size image of my own picture. I think wikivoyage lives from local acquired information. I also added the openstreetmap with the new viewpoint and way down there. But this behaviour of fast deleting remembers me to WIKIPEDIA style. As you can see in the amount of contribution in wikivoyage, I can not be sure what size would be appreciated. If you only dont want to have "smal" images in commons, just tell me. --Hohi2009 (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Your reason for the size, "The small size is to prevent the image by using it in a commercial way", is directly opposite to the policy of Commons. As Yann said, if you don't want your images used commercially, then don't upload them to Commons. As a rule, we expect uploaders to provide images at full camera resolution. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
If I change my mind and upload a full HD version would this be accepted by your rule? --Hohi2009 (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to upload a new, full resolution version, using the same file name. Please let me know here when you have done so. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Clandestine culture files for deletions

Hi jim , I nedd your help please....about the pictures i had uploaded I am the coppyrights holder of thoses image because i took with my camera at the galley where the exhibition was displayed and i ask the gallerist if I could take the pictures and use on internet and wikimedia commons and he say ( yes } ...latter I was on the street taking more pictures of the same artist and i was back to the gallery and they give me the right yo use any image of clandestine culture that I had , to used on any media,,,,,,on internet aand print news...but i understand if there's anything that I have donne in a wrong way please help me with information or anything that I should do in oder to keep those files safe and published....what is... without a free license from the I need one ,,and how to get it ,,,and how to send it to you,,,,,any information will help ,,,as you had notice some of my pictures has alredy been used on wikipedia and wikidata article and I don't want those be afectec by my files or removed .....ok jim , james,,,I realy like to keep those files on Commons Wikimedia.. thanks for your help in abance and write to me at anytime....I want to learn more ,,,thank you..millylove60.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Millylove60 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.

Please see my response at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Clandestine culture which is where this discussion must take place. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Follow up

Hi Jim, we still have User:Jcb/temp this open case. Did you already contact Yann about it? Jcb (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

  Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Chair Yellen meets West Philadelphia Skills Initiative Program.jpg

I passed this image earlier but now I am not sure if it is really free as copyright appears to belong to an individual entity of the Federal Reserve--the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. If I made a mistake, please delete this image ASAP. I have not marked this separate image. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The template was badly worded -- I've modified it. 38% of all banks in the USA are members of the Federal Reserve System and their work could not use this template because they are owned by their public stockholders, not the Federal government. However, the Fed has branch banks in 12 cities, including Philadelphia, all of which are subsidiaries -- owned by -- the Federal Reserve Bank, and any of their works can use the template.
  • Thank You for your response, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Colombian copyright law

Hi. A few minutes ago you deleted a series of old Colombian photographs, with the closing DR rationale that anonymity had to be 'proven'. However Colombian copyright very specifically includes "unknown" in the definition of "anonymous" and so precisely the same rule applies when the author/photographer remains unknown. You appear unaware of this. Can you please revisit these deletions? If not, then I'll have to invest the time raising UNDEL requests. Thanks -- (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that in our summary, but there's no standard set forth for "unknown" -- an uploader could easliy crop away a signature and upload the image as unknown and we would keep it. Surely someone has to actually do some relevant research?
In any event, the law starts the eighty years with publication and there is no evidence of that at all. These are not halftones, so they may not have been published until recently. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The standard we should apply is that set by court cases in Colombia, using the local act's specific definitions, not Commons' ad hoc neologisms. I'll take these to UNDEL. I don't think it's worth it in terms of our volunteer time and effort to keep on bouncing around thin arguments for pre-1923 photographs, which are not clear deletion candidates per guidelines or policy. If someone produces relevant legal precedent, then they can be revisited but honestly these are so unlikely to have a verifiable copyright claim in the future, they are hardly worth making a stand over. Thanks -- (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
, on the one hand I agree with you completely -- it seems silly to be defending the rights of an unknown copyright holder from a hundred years ago. On the other hand, as Commons editors, I believe we are bound by COM:PRP, which tells us that we must do exactly what we think is silly.
Rather than argue about this type of thing with the frequency with which we do, and waste time continuing the argument at UnDR, why don't you address the underlying problem and propose modifying PRP so that an image more than 100 years old with an unknown author, no matter where it is from, can be kept on Commons.
I think we would take far less risk with such a policy than we do on a regular basis with assuming good faith when a newbie uploads an image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mike_Goad_Images_on_Commons comment

If you can, just take a look at this comment on the Admin board. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  • OK, Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Costume donna Diana Sport.jpg

Hi, thanks for deleting the file: I was about to do it, but got conflicted :)

I wanted to clarify the question: even if the photograph seems to be from 1955 (from the info on the website) so in PD-Italy, it must be considered for Italian law with an artistic merit, because there is the choice of the model's expression, the lights/shadows, and the composition: it is a fashion photo. "Artistic photos" (in contrast to "simple photos") have the 70 years after the author's death rule that applies.

Cheers, --Ruthven (msg) 12:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right, but the issue is moot because we don't have a date. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:London June 21 2016 037 Memorial for Jo Cox at Parliament Square (10) (27787978786).jpg

Hi James, I've not come to argue but I'm a bit confused with your closure at Commons:Deletion requests/File:London June 21 2016 037 Memorial for Jo Cox at Parliament Square (10) (27787978786).jpg ?, How can text be copyrightable especialy those that were written on a memorial board ?, Is there any policy for this ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

hey great deletion - now try this handwritten sign on File:50p a pant (4746731770).jpg Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Purely functional text with no creative input, hence not copyrightable. This file has a sad history, and I don't think it's worth digging it up again. Suffice to say that 4 admins have now refused to delete it, albeit not on an allegation of {{Copyvio}}. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Davey, you ask "How can text be copyrightable...?" How can it not be copyrightable? Text was the first subject of copyright back in 1662 in the UK and it is called out specifically in the United States Constitution. There are dozens of individual messages in view on the board that were a full sentence or longer. Each of those messages has its own copyright in both the United Kingdom and the United States.
Slowking4, File:50p a pant (4746731770).jpg is not a full sentence, so has no copyright in most places. "Short phrases" (to use the words of the USCO Circular 1) do not have a copyright.
that is a complete sentence of eight words, and very creative. don't be fooled by the infinitive. subject is implied. and "UK's low threshold of originality," cuts both ways; although i see you are intent to have it both ways. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 11:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)