Open main menu


Friar HouseEdit

Hi SlimVirgin,

Do you want a daytime photo of the house? If so, I can take you a photo next time I pass by it with a camera.

cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 16:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi cmglee, that would be wonderful if it's no trouble. Germaine Greer and Clive James both lived there, so I've added the image to her article. It would be good to have some of the street too, because the point is not only to show the house but also something of the area. I like the image you took because it includes the sign for the Eagle on the left, though including that means there is less of the house. SarahSV (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Sarah! I've uploaded four photos of Friar House and Bene't Street:
Hope that's useful!
cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 15:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
cmglee, these are wonderful photographs, thank you! You're an excellent photographer. I'm going to use the fourth one, File:cmglee Cambridge Friar House from The Eagle.jpg, because it shows the house well and has the Eagle sign too, which is perfect. Thank you again! It's very kind of you. SarahSV (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
It's in place in the Cambridge section of Greer's bio, next to the description of her room in the house. It looks good! SarahSV (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for the compliment and barnstar, Sarah, and it's a pleasure. Good update on en:Germaine Greer, too. I've also updated en:Bene't Street and en:Free School Lane with photos and info about Friar House. Feel free to amend or add to them. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 09:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:St Edwards Passage, Cambridge (evening).jpgEdit

Copyright status: File:St Edwards Passage, Cambridge (evening).jpg

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:St Edwards Passage, Cambridge (evening).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Ronhjones  (Talk) 03:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ron, I'm not sure what further thing you need. Sean Hickin took the photograph in 1986. He describes which camera he used, what kind of film he used, the approximate date he took it, and that it was originally too dark, and he has released it into the public domain. What else is needed? SarahSV (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
See COM:PDM (and expand the hidden sections in the template on the image page) - he has not released it into the Public Domain. He has added a "Public Domain Mark" which means that he believes it's in the Public Domain (because it's too old, or US Gov, etc). A PDM is not an irrevocable license - as you know we must have that here. He needs to change the designation to "Public Domain Dedication (CC0)" if he wants to give away all rights. Flickr has made a right pain of it's choices. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Ron, surely this is splitting hairs. He is the author, so if he says it's in the public domain, then it is. I asked him to release the image for use in an article, and that's the template he chose. I don't know whether Flickr offers more than one PD template, and I don't want to harass him about it. SarahSV (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The conclusion at COM:PDM is that we don't accept a PDM - the other option I quoted ("Public Domain Dedication (CC0)") is exactly the Flickr item one needs to choose - it gives the image an irrevocable CC-zero license. The PDM template I put on the image page took some editors a lot of collective effort to get enough information in it for the user - it was not done lightly. It can always be changed to to DR if you like, I'm fairly certain of that sort of outcome. The current tagging regime gives a user enough time to make contact with the Flickr owner (or add a standard PD template if that applies). Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Ron, I've emailed him but last time it was four months before he responded. Because Flickr makes people create Yahoo accounts, and probably few use Yahoo nowadays, it can take ages to get replies. Please wait at least a month before deleting. Also, I can't find anything in the discussion you referenced about authors using that template. If the author says there are no copyright restrictions, that's a release. SarahSV (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
You don't have to use yahoo e-mail on Flickr, you can set the contact email address to whatever you want. Mine is my current e-mail address. I don't normally delete images I have tagged. Suggest you add a note to the talk page. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
It does not distract from the fact that a PDM is not a license, it's just a mark - says "The Public Domain Mark is recommended for works that are free of known copyright around the world. These will typically be very old works.." Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Ron, when I last checked, Flickr did force people to set up Yahoo addresses. You can then add another address, but a lot of people don't bother, and therefore it can take ages before they see their Flickr emails. This is a known problem when trying to contact photographers via Flickr.
As for it not being a licence, the Creative Commons site lists it as a licence. See "In this section". Licensing types --> public domain --> CCO and Public Domain Mark. You are right that when some unconnected person adds it, it's not a release (but that is true of any licence), but when the copyright holder adds it, it surely does count as a release. If the copyright holder says "there are no copyright restrictions", that's a release. Not all releases have to be in the form of "I hereby blah blah". SarahSV (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
If he has said "there are no copyright restrictions" then there would not less of an issue, he actually says Another picture from the Mamiya Press, circa 1986 and before the redevelopment of the Arts Theatre (I was working there at the time) - which in itself is a bit off - when you work for someone in this country, it's very normal that the work you do has copyright belonging to the company. If he was working for Mamiya Press and took the picture for them, then he has no authority to give away the copyright. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
The Mamiya Press is a camera. But no matter. I've read more about this, and I understand the distinction now between the licences. I think it's a distinction without a difference for practical purposes in this case, but no matter. I'll wait and hope that he responds. SarahSV (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Moving files in batch uploadsEdit

With collections like Fortepan, when you rename a file it is good practice to leave the batch identifiers in the file name, like Fortepan 60957. This makes mass processing and searching a lot easier. Thanks -- (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi , sorry about that, and thanks for pointing it out. I've added "Fortepan 60957" to the file name. SarahSV (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Christina Hoff Sommers, 18 November 2015.jpgEdit

Um. Sorry, but I don't think the source licenses that video as Creative Commons Attribution. Commons:Where is the license on various sites?#YouTube should explain it - basically click the "SHOW MORE" text, and it will either say "License Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)", or, as most often, won't. There are actually a few other possibilities,, --GRuban (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@GRuban: I searched for her name and used the "Creative Commons" filter, and that video came up third. SarahSV (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Er … are you quite sure? Because here is what I get when I switch on the Creative Commons filter:
  1. TRUMP & ---! Christina Hoff Sommers and Nick DiPaolo Trigger #SJWs
  2. Social Justice Warriors Get Owned In Epic Rant By Comedian (Crowder)
  3. Feminism with Christina Hoff Sommers
  4. The War Against Boys - Christina Hoff Sommers - Part 1 of 3
They're all "Creative Commons Attribution license" (well, at least marked that way; I have doubts about the 4th, since it's a video of a still photo, which I view with suspicion).
I do get that when I don't switch on Creative Commons:
  1. Joe Rogan Experience #724 - Christina Sommers
  2. Christina Sommers - The Effects of Women's Rights
  3. Christina Hoff Sommers on Feminism
  4. Christina Hoff Sommers | The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special Ep. 18
The video in question has moved to the #1 position - I wouldn't be surprised if that were at least partly because you and I have been looking at it several times over these two days! Try those results links in a private or incognito window, and I think you'll see much the same. We can probably get better screenshots of her from some of those in the first category. And preemptive apologies for the videos' content; the people who like Ms. Sommers are apparently not always among the nicest people in the world. --GRuban (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
That's odd. I've done the search three times, and the same videos come up. I search for "Christina Hoff Sommers", then I go to the filter and click "Creative Commons". <> The following are returned:
"#73 ... Louder With Crowder"
"Social Justice Warriors Get Owned ..."
"Joe Rogan Experience #724 - Christina Sommers"
I believe I noticed a change in YouTube a few months ago. It was always the case before (that I recall) that when I did a search like this and filtered it, I'd see "Creative Commons" or "Standard YouTube licence" under "show more". But now often I see neither, which means I have to rely on the filter and hope it's correct. SarahSV (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Ech. I do see it there searching for "Christina Hoff Sommers" with the restrict. I am still skeptical, I admit, but there definitely was a period during a YouTube UI change when the licenses did not show. Maybe this is left over from there, or maybe they're trying a new one. There's clearly a bug somewhere, but whether it's a false positive in the search or a false negative in the license display … I don't remember anyone at YouTube I can ask to check. Carry on. --GRuban (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to email the uploader, or try to. If I can't contact them, I'll ask that it be deleted. Ditto if they say it's not free. If they say it's free, I'll forward the email to OTRS. Will let you know either way. I only uploaded it because I thought it might be better than the current image, but when I tried it on preview, it wasn't, so the whole thing was a waste of time anyway. SarahSV (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
My compliments on your integrity. You're a better man than I am... so to speak. Yes, none are that good, that one I put up was the best I could find at the time, and it looks like the available field hasn't gotten better. I had hopes for this one but it seems to be directly taken from which is NOT attribution licensed. If you're in a writing people mood, you could try to write her directly, she has a gmail address on I admit, I try asking the subject for an image occasionally and almost always get either ignored or turned down. --GRuban (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I realized you had uploaded the original. It's hard to get good images from YouTube; I've spent ages stopping, starting, stopping, to find a frame where there's no blur, no grimace, etc. I did consider emailing her, but I can't currently face having to explain about free images, and OTRS now makes things even harder for editors forwarding releases. They prefer them from the copyright holder directly, so that's another hurdle: having to explain to subjects that they must email OTRS themselves. SarahSV (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I forgot about this, but I've just emailed them. Will wait a few days for a response, then if there's none (or if the news is bad) will request deletion. SarahSV (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, you're human. That happens.   Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
They didn't respond, so I've asked that it be deleted. [1] SarahSV (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "SlimVirgin".