User talk:CrafterNova

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, CrafterNova!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status of File:Gettyimages-630967616-612x612.jpg

I saw your note on the talk page of File:Gettyimages-630967616-612x612.jpg. Unfortunately, tracking down the copyright status of recent works that are not your own can require quite a bit of research. You've uploaded a Getty Images rights-controlled photo ID #630967616, apparently obtained from the CBS photo archive, so we are going to need evidence that this photo is in the public domain and that those who want to use this photo don't need to purchase a license from Getty Images.

Commons requires that a work be either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work (see Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_US_and_non-US_copyright_law). The source does not identify the photographer or where the photo was taken, but does mention that it was taken in March of 1942, when Janet Huntington Brewster was in the UK working for the US broadcasting company CBS. If the country of origin for this photo is the UK, we will need to show that it is in the public domain in both the US and the UK. If the country of origin for this photo is the US (which is plausible since the photo is from the CBS photo archive), we will will just need to show that is in the public domain in the US. Country of origin is usually determined by where the photo was first published, but we don't have the publication history for this photo.

For UK copyright, copyright rules can be found at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom. From there we can see that in the UK that the copyright term for photographs with an anonymous author created before 30 June 1957 is 70 years after creation if unpublished or 70 years after publication if published within 70 years of creation. This work might be in the public domain in the UK as a work by an anonymous UK photographer, created before 30 June 1957, if it was never published until after 2011 (1941 + 70) or if first published before 1952 (2022 - 70). So if we knew that this photo was first published before 1952 and this publication took place in the UK, then the UK copyright to this photo has expired. The Commons copyright tag for this situation is {{PD-UK unknown}}.

For US copyright, copyright rules can be found at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States. US copyright term can be tricky because the US used to have some complex copyright formalities that could cause a work to fall into the public domain if the author failed to comply (see Commons:Hirtle chart for an overview chart). However, the most common situation is that works are protected for 95 years after publication, so works first published in the US before 1927 are in the public domain. The Commons copyright tag for this situation is {{PD-US-expired}}. Unfortunately, this photo was created in 1941, so it is not possible for it to have been published before 1927.

Long story short, this photo is not obviously in the public domain, and unless you're able to track down a lot more information about the publication history of this photo, it will probably be deleted. —RP88 (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@RP88: Then I hope it is deleted already. I have found similar photos in this online library so I will upload one of those instead. Please recheck and make sure that these files in the Five College Compass Digital Collections are in public domain(s). CrafterNova (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think there is something wrong with your link — it is a link to your own talk page. If you have a specific photo you wish to ask for copyright advice about the best place to ask for advice on Commons is probably Commons:Village Pump/Copyright. More general questions can be asked at Commons:Help desk. —RP88 (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The link is fixed now. The is the raw link to the online library having relevant images: https://compass.fivecolleges.edu/object/mtholyoke:16227 CrafterNova (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why you think the linked photo of Janet Brewster Murrow is in the public domain. The archive's copyright statement says that works in their archive may be protected by copyright, and that it is up to any potential reuser to determine and obtain permission from any appropriate copyright holder. If you are looking for a photo of Janet Brewster Murrow that you can upload to Commons I think your best bet is to search for a photo of her that has a clearly identified photographer who is still living and then contact the photographer and ask them to release their photo of her under the terms of a free license like CC-BY-4.0 (see COM:VRT for that process). —RP88 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That's going to take a lot of efforts, but thank you for mentioning the VRT. CrafterNova (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Vitaly MalkinG.jpg

File:Vitaly MalkinG.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Lord Belbury (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Ring-count category for File:Penicillin Roquefort toxin.png

Could you clarify the reason for this edit? There is the main C6/C6 fused-bicyclic core, plus two epoxides (one fused to the left-hand C6 ring, one spiro to the right-hand C6 ring). DMacks (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

My bad, the structure is so crowded, I didn't notice the epoxides. But then it looks like a tricyclic compound because the other epoxide (bonded to the right-hand C6 atom) is not fused to the right-hand C6 ring.

The article Tricyclic says:

Tricyclics are chemical compounds that contain three fused rings of atoms

whereas Tetracyclic says:

Tetracyclics are cyclic chemical compounds that contain four fused rings of atoms, for example, Tröger's base

Clearly, the compound has 3 fused rings, so according to my analysis, it is a tricyclic compound. —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 10:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I've occasionally seen that sort of distinction, but it seems to fall apart because I don't know anyone who considers bridged structures (example: bcyclo[1.1.1]pentane) as non-polycyclic, even though it contains no fused rings. Polycyclic states that spiro is in-scope (and even tethered single rings!), not just fused. That's consistent with 1993 IUPAC, which lists fused, bridged, and spiro among the subtypes of polycyclic.[1] But then 1999 doesn't have a category for "polycyclic" at all, and never actually defines the term "ring system", but 1999/2013 discusses spiro/fused/bridged together in the polycyclics sections of the preface. I'll ping en-WPCHEM for clarification to make sure the articles are in sync with current recommendations. DMacks (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm may not be completely correct, but that's just been my experience with the nomenclature, be it IUPAC or trivial. —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 08:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)