Open main menu
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.


Database right

Hi, Rd232! I've noticed that you've removed the section on the "database right" from Commons:Licensing,[1] but have not found the rationale and the consensus for this. Could you please explain at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maps of Slovenia why you have done so? Thanks a lot. I see that it is for example still cited at Commons:Copyright rules by territory - full#Database right. Was it moved to that page because you considered it relevant only for certain countries or did you have some other reason? --Eleassar (t/p) 11:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary gives the reason: move much material which isn't *policy* to Commons:Copyright rules by territory. COM:L is about Commons policy, and documentation about copyright and related legal issues doesn't belong in the policy. The need to respect those legal issues is entirely independent of Commons policy, and mixing the two up was a bad idea. Rd232 (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you think that the database right (as e.g. applicable in the United Kingdom) is irrelevant in regard to the inclusion of material into Commons? --Eleassar (t/p) 12:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
No. Only the other day I pointed out the database right issue to someone wanting to import PD-Art/scan materials from a UK source. But the need to take into account database right doesn't arise from Commons policy, and documenting how it works and where it applies is not something that a policy page should do. Rd232 (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. In Slovenia, the database right is independent from the copyright and this seems to be the case also for the UK (see here). I think that it should be explicitly stated then that in some cases copyright-unrelated restrictions may be the reason for the exclusion of material from Commons. Currently, Commons:Non-copyright restrictions states: "Non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia,[1] and the licensing policies are accordingly limited to regulating copyright related obligations." --Eleassar (t/p) 12:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Well technically Commons:Non-copyright restrictions is correct: violations of database right is not, AFAIK, accepted as a reason for deletion from Commons. The issue is that violating database rights may create liability for uploaders, especially for uploaders resident in the relevant jurisdiction. See User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat for one example of a user not resident in the UK, being threatened by a UK institution. Rd232 (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for having clarified this. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Rd232 (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you know of some template that can be used to warn reusers of such database-related restrictions? --Eleassar (t/p) 20:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
No. I can't quite see how it would be used, either. Rd232 (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It would have the same use as e.g. {{Soprintendenza}} or {{SpomenikSVN}}. I guess that if there is no such template yet then one should be created to warn reusers that the may be liable for reusing these files without an explicit permission by the database right holder. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but those templates apply to the file they're labelling. Database right only kicks in if you're using substantial numbers of files; it should rarely be an issue for reusers. I think rather than a template, we could consider expanding Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia and Commons:Non-copyright restrictions to explain a bit more about how non-copyright restrictions (including database rights) may be an issue for reusers. We could also add a paragraph on database rights issues for uploaders, and maybe expand other issues as well in terms of how they affect uploaders. There's really three separate non-copyright restrictions categories: (i) things that affect uploaders (ii) things that may cause files to be deleted from Commons (iii) things that affect reusers. This could be made a lot clearer, but it may lead to a lot of duplication if not done carefully. Rd232 (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that the database right applies not only if you use a substantial number of files, but also if a file includes a qualitatively or quantitatively substantial amount of the database. So yes, it does apply to files in such cases. Otherwise, I agree that the guidelines should be expanded. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't imagine a single file, even a PDF of a whole book, causing database right issues. But if you have some examples, sure, we could develop a template for such cases. Rd232 (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that all the files in Category:Locator maps of municipalities of Slovenia have such a problem, because they derive from this SHP file. It originates from the Geodetic Administration of the Republic of Slovenia and is an accurate map of the borders of all municipalities in Slovenia. This means that it is a substantial part of the database by content and by extent. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I see; I don't know enough about database rights to comment on that. Maybe posting at COM:VP will get some useful input. Rd232 (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
No problem posting at COM:VP, but I think that we have already agreed on this in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maps of Slovenia. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. Well let's try and expand the REUSE etc guidance. Rd232 (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to tech chats

Hi! I saw that you're interested in the software side of Wikimedia, and I wanted to invite you to watch and participate in our live tech chats, which include video streaming. The next one is next week and you'll be able to watch, live, via screensharing, as a developer fixes a bug, including investigation, a git commit, getting it reviewed and merged, and closing the Bugzilla ticket.

Hope this is of interest! Best wishes, Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager at WMF (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Move request

Can you please take a long at Template_talk:Motd/04-28? Some of the requests in Category:Commons_protected_edit_requests are months old, and what I'm asking for is pretty straightforward and shouldn't result in controversy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

done that one. Straightforward requests tend to get done in a few days to a week, but some harder ones can linger a very long time. Rd232 (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try being more patient next time. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


Hi Rd232! Dein Kommentar bei Commons:Administrators/Requests/Krd fand ich sehr sinnvoll. Ich habe das in der Vergangenheit auf der deutschen Wikipedia erfragt aber wurde sofort abgeblockt, damit, dass das offiziell sei (so erinnere ich mich jedenfalls). Hast du da bisher irgendjemanden auf deine Bedenken aufmerksam gemacht und falls ja, was war die Antwort? Gruß Hekerui (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ich habe schon mal die Frage gestellt (irgendwo, irgendwann), und ich hatte so in etwa die Antwort gekriegt, dass es OK ist weil die deutsche Wikipedia kaum in den USA benutzt wird. Neulich kam wieder dieses Thema (z.B. Commons:Requests_for_comment/Non-US_Freedom_of_Panorama_under_US_copyright_law) und da wurde diese Theorie angezweifelt, und es waere doch schoen, mehr Klarheit zu schaffen. Rd232 (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


Hi Rd232,
I do understand your stance on the comments in question — and I agree that groundless accusations of racisms are not very welcome here — but I feel that it would've been better if you striked the comments rather than removed them; discussions are much easier to follow (and I count in those archived, too) if all comments are left intact. PS Sorry for not restoring your closing comment in time — King of Hearts (talk · contribs) beat me to it. odder (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If the comment has been responded to, yes, removal is a problem for understanding. But striking is normally reserved for the person in question retracting it. I suppose I could have done a [edited by Rd232] kind of annotation. But I thought simple removal and a note to the poster was better, since the sentence was entirely clear without those couple of words. Rd232 (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


A kitten for you!

for helping peoples like me

Messiecalme (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks :) Rd232 (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

NASA images

Hi Rd232. I noticed you were around, so I figured I'd ask you about this. File:International Space Station star trails - JSC2012E052677.jpg and about 50 more like it are in Category:Copyright violations at the moment. They're tagged as NC on Flickr, but does this matter since they're by a NASA employee? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 19:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. It's probably worth discussing at COM:VPC rather than just deleting them. Rd232 (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I've posted the question there. Should we leave these files as they are, with the SD tags on them, while this is discussed? INeverCry 19:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
There's a substantial danger someone else will delete them... maybe convert it to a DR then. Rd232 (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I've converted them: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Copyright violations. INeverCry 20:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Deine Änderung von Vorlage PD-Art

Bitte mal vorbeischauen: COM:FORUM#Was ist das wieder für ein Mist? --тнояsтеn 17:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Assessments issue

Hi, you may be the best person to address Template_talk:Assessments#Broken_for_set_nominations. At least, I can't see what the code is trying to do, so I don't know what's wrong with it... Rd232 (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly but in order to do that the templates need to (at least briefly) have their protection reduced so I can edit. The templates are:
I should be able to quickly fix the issue after this. I'd rather not sandbox or {{Editprotected}} it as a single missing } would break everything everywhere.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 22:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, done. Rd232 (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I was able to extend all three of the templates to also handle sets and did not even needed to make any modifications to Template:Assessments. You are welcome to re-protect them if you like but I would prefer them semi-ed so that I can more easily fix them if any other problems or feature requests arise - of course you could re unprotect them later too :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 23:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. I'll leave them for now. Rd232 (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Petr Vodicka knot images

Thanks for organizing the description pages; I'm not always very good at coercing diverse information into a predefined bureaucratic format... AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

OK :) I was happy to find the original source and confirm they were PD. Rd232 (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

your deleted photos

Hi, an author requested that you delete his/her photos and you made it so. However their photos were here at a sister project and I'm thinking they burnt out and paniced, hence the request. It might be possible that Wikinews publishes the story, though, if the contribitors work on its style enough. What is the process to undelete the images? Can you pretty please do that or do I have to get author permission first? Thanks. Gryllida (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The photos were not in use at the time I deleted them, because the author removed them from the Wikinews story. Generally we delete unused recent uploads at author/uploader request. So if you want them back, ask the uploader for permission. You can also try COM:UDEL to see if someone is willing to undelete without that permission. Rd232 (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Rd232/Archive 6".