User talk:MichaelMaggs/Archive//2007

Deleted Image Smithwick's_ale_billboard_NYC_May_2005.jpg question

Regarding the deletion of this photo, could you clarify something? According to the reasons you gave for deleting the image, am I correct in saying there should be no images of Times Square, New York (and by that I mean pictures that take in the Billboards)?--Trounce 20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Times Square itself is obviously OK, as are pictures that happen to include billboards as a minimal or incidental part of the overall street scene. What is a problem is photos of the billboards themselves or images where the billboards appear as a prominent element. Photos of that type infringe the copyright in the printed billboard design. I'm afraid that applies even though the boards are in a public place and are there for advertising purposes. This is a common problem with photos of posters, in the same way that it's a problem with photos of CD covers, book covers, film stills and the like. --MichaelMaggs 20:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Manhattan Bridge Construction 1909.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Manhattan Bridge Construction 1909.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 12:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Sandcastle at Neptune Festival.jpg

Thank you for your note. I debated that picture before I uploaded it, before finally concluding it was probably OK. However, I didn't know that freedom of panorama was not available in the US. So, my education in the laberynthine world of image laws continues. However, I appreciate your polite and friendly note. Cheers.--Kubigula 16:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. Not everyone by any means responds so positively to the deletion of one of their uploads! I only wish US law allowed this type of image. The UK is a bit better, but even there sculptures are OK only if they are sited permanently in a public place. Regards. --MichaelMaggs 16:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Boardgames

Hello,

We need pictures of boardgames to illustrate articles about them. Why do you want to delete all these pictures ? This is a nonsense. Rsalen 05:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Because we can't host copyright violations. The game designers have copyright in the board design as well as the design printed on the box. Photos that show such designs, other than in a peripheral or incidental way, infringe the designer's copyright. The same problem arises with computer games, but I'm afraid that the desire to have images to illustrate an article can never trump copyright law. If you want to use such images on eg the English Wikipedia you might consider uploading them there instead as the English Wikipedia allows Fair use claims, which Commons does not. --MichaelMaggs 06:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)--MichaelMaggs 06:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

These pictures are used on the french Wikipedia that doesn't allows Fair Use. On the french wikipedia, they ask us to download pictures on commons. So, what can we do ?

And why don't you ask for the deletion of all the boardgames pictures ? These images are not a copy of the front box or the board. They are pictures of the game in situation. It's very diffrent.

Why do you want to delete Image:Monopoly Junior.jpgand not Image:US Deluxe Monopoly Tokens.jpg, Image:German Monopoly board in the middle of a game.jpg or Image:Monopoly board on white bg.jpg ? Can you explain me the difference between these images ?

Sorry for my bad english. I'm french. Rsalen 09:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos where the primary subject is the game board and/or box are not allowed on Commons: please see Derivative works. Whether the game is in use or not doesn't matter, although if the game is only a minor or small part of the overall scene it may be ok. Some of the game images we have are allowable for that reason, but none of the ones I have tagged. Monopoly is an unusual and special case as the design was the subject of a US patent in 1935 (see W:Image:DarrowPage1.png), and patent drawings are normally public domain, but modern versions such as the 'Junior' version are still in copyright. I'm sorry to hear that the Fr Wikipedia does not allow Fair Use, as that does indeed mean you will be restricted in the images you can use. We didn't write the copyright laws, but we do need to respect them. --MichaelMaggs 16:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin things

Thanks for the support :-). Maybe if I'm still involved next year, and maybe if I can resist doing battle over points of principle (I think admins need to be a little more pragmatic :-) ... --Tony Wills 00:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please Undelete Iorek Byrnison and Lyra Belacqua

While your view of copyright might apply to posters and suchlike, a statue in a public place, as this was, on public display and specifically for use as a picture background, as in this case, is not copyrighted in the reproduction. The image, taken by me as a accredited reporter for wikinews, are (cc-by-sa-3.0) and can be used on Wikipedia and Wikinews (de.wikinews allows only pics uploaded on the commons). On en.wikipedia the remaining picture is a CV while this picture was not. Please revert. --Gwyndon 01:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Models and statues are copyright, and your image I'm afraid infringes that copyright. The fact that it was in a public place makes no difference. Please read Commons:Derivative works. --MichaelMaggs 06:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've read that page - and public places make a difference - see Commons:Panoramafreiheit#Public_places. This is "Freedom of Panorama" under German law (and I'm not just quoting wikimedia information, I just recently passed my media law exams for journalists). Plus (2) I was there as accreddited reporter for WikiNews, accredited with the BookFair organisation for taking pictures of what I see, meant for publication, and (3) I took the picture with the consent of the exhibitor present with the models. Please accept that this is not a clear-cut case for speedy deletion. ---Gwyndon 23:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, art 59 says "It shall be permissible to reproduce, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, works which are permanently located on public ways, streets or places..". This was a temporary, not a permanent exhibit, and the exception does not apply; hence my comment that being in a public place in this case makes no difference. The whole concept of Panoramafreiheit is predicated on the necessity for the subject being on permanent display. Your status as a photographer is relevent only if it means the copyright owner has provided you with written consent to use your images in any way you wish, including commercially (as you know, that is an absolute requirement for Commons). To be honest, I doubt that the film-makers would grant you or any other photographer a licence that wide, but if they did please send a copy to OTRS where it can be formally logged. I'm afraid that without such formal evidence it wouldn't be right for me or anyone else to restore the image. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I was also referring to the press privilege of art. § 50. I feel any copyright in this matter is also void under German law according to § 57. Personally, I would prefer if the Commons would adopt a policy according to § 46 where German copyright law is concerned, but that is a matter beyond this day and picture. I am confident that I could get a written permit by the rights holders or their German representatives, but I have to admit the quality of the picture might not merit the effort. As I'm not anonymous on Wikimedia but a person with name and address where legal claims by the film studio could be placed, I'd be willing to exculpate Commons from any legal claims concerning my pictures and take personal responsibility for any of my uploads - but I can, of course, accept that this is not how things are handled here. Thanks for taking the time to argue the matter anyway. --Gwyndon 01:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Art 50 does not apply to us as it permits only "reporting on events of the day by broadcast or film and in newspapers or periodicals mainly devoted to current events". We fall into none of those categories. Art 57 reads "It shall be permissible to reproduce, distribute and publicly communicate works if they may be regarded as insignificant and incidental with regard to the actual subject of the reproduction, distribution or public communication"; the main infringing element in your image (the model of the bear) is fundamental, not incidental. --MichaelMaggs 07:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Answered on the Undelete request: The model does not appear in the movie, neither does the doll on top, neither does the combination of both figures in the way this image shows - it is not part of the movie, not fundamental at all, but incidental promo material which is not made of n-dimensional reproduction of the protected work. Anyway, if this merits further discussion, let's do it at the undelete request. --Gwyndon 10:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bloody frog.jpg

Hi Can you please tell me how my image Image:Bloody frog.jpg is out of project scope?

I find it hard to envisage any conceivable Wiki project finding any educational content in such a photograph. --MichaelMaggs 21:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's truly outside the project scope (which I believe it is too) it should be deleted, so I have nominated it (well the high res version, this one is just a scaled down duplicate). --Tony Wills 10:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No more contributions

Hi Michael,

I'm quite fed up with the harassment and insults ([1] [2] to name just a few recent ones) of user Tomascastelazo, in so far that I'm seriously considering stopping my contributions to Commons. For someone who is only editing on FP has has a very negative influence on me. I'm sorry. Lycaon 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sad to hear that. I don't see anything personal, just a tendency to say what he thinks without considering the recipient's feelings. I'm afraid this is not the first time he has offended a long-standing contributor (it was Alvesgaspar last time), and I have asked him to think more carefully before posting. Don't let him get to you, the hassle isn't worth it, but your contributions here are. --MichaelMaggs 07:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear ! :-) Your contributions are greatly appreciated by most of us, and I was wondering just how many high quality photographs you managed to make on that relatively short trip to Africa :-). I don't think I've had the pleasure of receiving a review from Tomascastelazo yet ;-), I suppose his comments will only matter to me once I've seen enough of his feedback to decide whether I trust his opinions :-) --Tony Wills 10:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for supporting me in my successful RfA! Rocket000 15:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Dear MichaelMaggs, The controversy of what some may perceive as "sarcastic comments" centers around one user. It is a two way street. I really do not relish on having confrontations, however, I will not sit quietly either. I have been very tempted to say goodbye to this, but really, the possibility of contributing to a much larger audience outweights some of the small difficulties. Also, I consider that my input as far as critiques is valuable, as well as some of my photographs (and I admit that in some critiques, I take the liberty to add a little literary spice). I have been around photography for a long time, and though I am far from being a complete authority on the subject, I am knowledgeable on the matter, much more than a few cronies around. I´ve said this before, and I say it again: The way that people "judge" photography here, from the perspective of the discipline of photography, is deeply flawed. It is done from wrong assumptions and paradigms of the subject. Result: many talented photographers will just not hang around, and as a consequence, Wikipedia will not accumulate very valuable material that otherwise would. There is nothing wrong in accepting ignorance, what is terrible is to not accept it. All it takes is a little opening of the mind and heart. Regards, --Tomascastelazo 16:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hi,

I sent you an email a week ago; did you get it?

cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't, no. Would you mind sending again please? --MichaelMaggs 22:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Grooh! Lucky I sent myself a copy as well. :) Resent now. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Really sorry - just found it in my deleted items. I have replied, the answer is yes. --MichaelMaggs 11:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

JPEG artifacts

What exactly are JPG artifacts and how do you spot them? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

They are blocky-looking features which can appear in an image as a result of compression of the image into 'JPEG format' (the most commonly-used format for photographs) . They are particularly obvious when the image has been compressed a lot. Have a look at w:Compression artifact where you can see an example. --MichaelMaggs 18:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so the thing to do is take it at high res and not compress it? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

JPEG format is normally preferred for photos so there is always some compression, but yes, the less compression the better. Hi res pictures are nearly always preferred, partly because they will have fewer or less-obvious artifacts and partly because they show more detail and can be blown up more. --MichaelMaggs 18:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

SVG vs PNG

Image:Ruby_logo.svg is tagged as a dupe, but its dupe is png, aren't we not supposed to delete in such a case even if it's a lower resolution? I've mainly been working in the duplicates category now that I'm an admin here. On en.wiki I mainly do socks, and checkuser and arbcom clerk stuff right now. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

PS what if they're both the same fmt but one is a lower res? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an area I don't know too much about. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 07:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask Lar. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nominating images by others as FPs

Hi, Michael

This is in response to your message "Nominating images by others as FPs". Normally I'd response there, but since it's been seven months since your original post, I figured my response might go by unnoticed.

I'm afraid there is no easy way to search for Wikimedian-uploaded pictures where the photographer has identified himself as PH-3 on his/her user page. The "easiest" way (that I know of) would be to load the upload log of each user in Category:User_PH-3 and then sift through that, although I'm not sure if that really fits your idea of "focussing the search down", as it will still involve a lot of sifting.

So, not great news, but I figured you might appreciate an answer, even if that answer was "not really". Cheers, Anrie 14:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. --MichaelMaggs 06:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Need a sysop

Hi. There is no sysop avalible at IRC and I saw you are active at the moment. Can you please block him for me? He does not seem to be willing to learn. Best regards, ^{__ ABF __} ϑ 08:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Already done, thanks anyway. ^{__ ABF __} ϑ 08:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Mimus-polyglottos-002 edit.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Mimus-polyglottos-002 edit.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 17:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)