User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive5

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward

This archive covers 2012

Special:ListFiles/Kit-arras

Question: if you look at Special:ListFiles/Kit-arras you'll see a lot of uploads with enormously varying dates, all claimed to be "own work". It's not plausible, but the images appear to have been scanned from print (I can't find any online, from the sample I checked). What's the right thing to do here? The "own work" claim isn't disproven, just highly implausible. Rd232 (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, highly implausible. If these were recent uploads, I might just go through most of them with Special:Nuke, but User:Kit-arras has done a fair amount of work on several articles on WP:CA, so a soft touch would be good. I suggest a mass DR on almost all of them. I would leave a note on http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuari_Discussi%C3%B3:Kit-arras (he was last active there in November 2011).
List them out in groups such as (I'm just showing examples):
On the other hand:
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I might come back to you if I can't figure out how to do a mass DR... Rd232 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I do it sort of backwards:
  1. Create the DR page, with the heading "===Deletion of files uploaded by User:Kit-arras===". your reason and sig. (Note that it is a three equal (===) section head, not two.
  2. Add the DR page to the bottom of the day's log as a transclusion -- just like the rest in the log.
  3. Add the notice to one file -- see Commons:Mass_deletion_request #2
  4. Notify the user.
  5. Then either go through and tag each file by copying the tage from above, or use AWB to do it faster. If you've never used AWB, this might be a good time to try -- or I'll do if you point me at the list.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips! I have used AWB a bit, and will probably try it for the task. I'll try and do this tomorrow. cheers, Rd232 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

PD-Iran

Jim. File:Turkey.Konya064.jpg was drawn in 1960, but it's not credited (the author is unknown). Can we apply {{PD-Iran}} to File:Turkey.Konya064.jpg ? Takabeg (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how we can. PD-Iran requires us to know when the creator died -- for all we know, he is still alive.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Help!

Hello Jim

Could you help me with setting talk page archive. At first, I set User:MiszaBot to archive messages each month but after that I set it again (also move User_talk:Morning_Sunshine/Archives/2011/December to User talk:Morning Sunshine/Archive 1). But now, the bot archives my messages to User_talk:Morning_Sunshine/Archive_4 and I don't know why. Can you do tis for me. Thank you very much and happy new year--Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully I could resolve this. Sorry for meddling. I hopy you don't mind. -- RE rillke questions? 12:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind at all, thank you for jumping in -- I was out of commission yesterday with a stomach bug. As you see, I don't use a bot for archiving, so I would have declined the request anyway.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File moves

Thanks for your offer to help with the file moves. I just tagged the two files in question:

–Grondemar 00:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. The quality leaves something to be desired. Are they really useful, particularly the second one?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the moves, but you forgot to change the .jpg file extensions to .JPG. I just tested at en.wp (see en:File:2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl Jordan Todman Andre Dixon Terry Richardson.JPG) and the file is not coming across due to the mismatched extension. Regarding usefulness, the pictures are currently used in the en.wp Featured Article en:2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl. Unfortunately it is difficult to get freely-licensed high-quality sports pictures, especially of specific games. –Grondemar 00:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. I just clicked the tool, which should have changed it to your requested name. Anyway, done now.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your help! –Grondemar 00:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disappointing

Herby connected me with harassment and I asked for proof. That is how our policies work. You tried to say it was merely his opinion, but that does not make it acceptable. That not only do you think I was wrong for seeking proof and that pointing out his accusation is damaging, but you think I should be banned for it is really, really disturbing and I am utterly appalled by you. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Herby, I, and a number of other experienced users believe that your behavior feels to them and others like harassment. Each person is the judge of his own feelings, so you have no basis to say that that feeling is wrong. Behavior that cause others to feel harassed is unacceptable, whether or not you intended that you feel that way.
You might have rescued this with a general apology along the lines of, "I did not not intend to harass anyone and I am sorry if anyone felt harassed," but your response has been quite the opposite, along the lines of "I didn't harass anyone."      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Harassment is a legal term and is only to be used with solid evidence. As an admin, you are supposed to know this. It is incredibly damaging to claim harassment without proof. Your statement right there that you feel harassed without any proof is not appropriate admin action. You have to provide evidence for such a claim or it is a breach of civility. I will not apologize for baseless accusations that are stated only to try and destroy my character. We have such actions banned by our civility policy for a reason. Furthermore, your claims are along the line of "I feel Ottava eats babies and I demand he apologies for it." If you can't understand how that is so highly inappropriate then there is a major problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. A person can feel harassed, threatened, insulted, any number of things, even if the other person had no intention of creating such feelings. I remind you of your own words, "I don't harass people - I annoy or bother" -- you may intend to annoy or bother, but the target can easily feel harassed, particularly if the annoyance is repeated. The OED defines harass as "to trouble or vex by repeated attacks"; my desk dictionary says, "to disturb or irritate persistently". Both of those seem to apply here. Certainly I am not alone in my feelings.
I don't see that this is getting us anywhere. Unless you bring something to the discussion besides intransigent denial, it should probably end.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
"Feeling harassed" is not real nor is it allowed to be used. You need evidence or the claim is actual incivility. I've already asked for admin to look into this and if you don't strike your claims and apologize for absolutely unfounded claims then I will ask for you to be blocked. Just because you are an admin does not give you the right to violate civility and act like that. Negative claims need evidence. You can't try to get out of that. We have policies and you are expected to abide by them. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, nonsense. A person can walk into a USA or British court and get a restraining order against someone else if they are feeling harassed. They must convince the judge that the feeling has a real basis, but it does not rely at all on the intentions of the harasser. The words above are harassment -- you are repeatedly coming to my talk page and attempting to get me to change my opinion by threatening and insulting me. You prove my point for me. If, instead of writing them, you had telephoned me the three times and said those things, I could easily bring you to court here or in Britain.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
"get a restraining order against someone else if they are feeling harassed." Which makes it a legal problem and why you need evidence before making these claims of impropriety. All admin know that. Why are you acting like this isn't important? And if you want to claim I harass you for pointing out that you are behaving problematic, then you are going exactly against policy. Your own example and your claims that this is the equivalent of calling you or some such is exactly why you should be blocked, because your defamation and nasty attacks on my character are 100% prohibited. How do you not know how utterly wrong you are being right now? It is incivility of the highest form. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Your notification because you think you have the right to make some of the nastiest incivility and try to hide it behind a few words such as "I feel". That isn't allowable and that you don't get it is really disastrous. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Pannwitz

Jim. Kragenspiegel of Helmuth von Pannwitz indicates one of Generalleutnant. And he was promoted to the rank of Generalmajor in 1943 and then promoted to the rank of Generalleutnant in 1945 ([2]). What do you think of images in this category. As long as I understand, none of them is PD-old. Takabeg (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I just added {{NoUploads}} to Category:Olaf Jordan because Jordan died in 1968. Everything in the cat is a copyvio unless it is hanging in one of the few countries that gives FOP to indoor paintings.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Merci. By the way, File:Sait Faik bust.JPG is also Recep Tezcan's work (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sait faik abasıyanık heykeli.JPG). Takabeg (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Proper file name

Jim, is this a proper image name format Pg-297-Alcatraz-Island.jpg? We can use this in our Books, one being an English transcription and the other a translation for the Spanish Wikisource area. We desire to retain the page numbers to omit confusion for us within the two works and especially in the Spanish translation of an English book. If this is not correct then please tell me what we can use. I will follow the suggestion of going back and setting the images already uploaded with a name behind it as shown here and as suggested as being a necessity. I believe I understand your points you have made. Thank you and Peace, William Maury Morris II (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The name isn't perfect, but I understand your concerns and we can certainly live with it. If you could live with Alcatraz-Island-Pg-297.jpg, that seems to me a little better, but not essential. I'd be happy to make the name changes for you if you give me a list here.
Please be sure that you also add an appropriate description and categories on each image. Remember always that Commons is a general repository, not just for projects with WMF, and outside users need good categories and descriptions to find images. The benefit from the time you are spending on this project is multiplied when you make the images accessible and usable by many users.
I appreciate your willingness to be creative and cooperative with this -- thank you,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I am certainly willing to do as you say in all of this. We both work for free so others can benefit. I was not aware of how images are supposed to be handled or I would have done them properly with the first image. I need to change many names at this point. I plan to use the same categories because all of these images come from the same book. I counted "hits" on Maximilian I of Mexico 22 times within the text of the book. I have always cited my source and added image the caption with that. But I certainly see the need for renaming the images. However, many of these images, with the book being about Old Mexico and Her Lost Provinces, are using Spanish captions of people's names and of places. In one area I recall, about Tombstone, the images are about old west outlaws including "Billy the Kid", "Doc Holliday, &c. -- So, the book covers *a lot of names and places.* Sometimes they are in English and other times they are in Spanish. I thank you for your kindness and good manners. William Maury Morris II (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Rather than respond to this on Fred the Oyster's talk page, I copied it here:

insert: Jim, you are very late. If the images were named wrong then we should have been told so on out talk page from the beginning. But we weren't. I sought out and found out what happened. There was Fred's explanation placed here. I have completed my reply to *him*. Now, if you want to delete those images you just go ahead and do it because I will only rename any new images and that is only if I upload any more new images. This entire situation came into being only because you two were not on alert to tell us what you have stated so late. Delete them or rename them. I myself do not care although others do. The name of the book, as you should and probably saw, is "Mexico, California and Arizona; being a new and revised edition of Old Mexico and her lost provinces." The Categories cover those "lost provinces" of Old Mexico. The book mentions "Maximilian I of Mexico" several times and thus it is that he was included in the Categories. It also covers all of the territories (and people in those territories) so those are listed for -- or relate to -- all of those categories. I uploaded the last two files properly as Fred asked. 'Nuff said, William Maury Morris II (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, but please keep in mind that Commons is growing at a rate of around 250,000 images per month -- some 8,000 per day. In any given month we have around 25,000 editors, but the vast majority of them are uploading images, not watching for problems. We have 250 Administrators, but most of them are not very active -- half a dozen do half of the Admin work.
It would have been best if you had asked for counsel at some point before doing a lot of work, but, of course, you had no way of knowing that that was a good idea. I hope that you will soldier forward and clean up whatever needs it. I can offer advice and counsel, but not a lot of editing.
As far as the category questions -- as I noted in my first comment above, categories are best when they are as specific as possible and helpful to all. The image I cited is plainly not in all of the places mentioned, even though the book is about them all.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


Jim, here is a *complete list* of all images and page numbers. Placing the page number at the end as you've suggested is fine. I sincerely do thank you for re-naming the images already uploaded and named. My Respects, William Maury Morris II (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
---
William Maury Morris II list of files
*File:Pg-5.jpg   >>>   File:Mexico Showing Present And Old Frontier - Pg-5.jpg
I have edited your list (Word and Excel make this sort of thing very quick) to show the short name and the new long name, both to make it possible to work with it and to check the existing files. As you see, many of the files for which you requested a rename do not exist. Please remember that Commons filenames are case sensitive. Please go through the list and make the necessary corrections. When you are satisfied, I'll rename them all.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Jim, I sincerely do thank you. You have excellent manners and are most helpful. The files that you stated that "don't exist" have not been uploaded yet. I was in the middle of uploading files when I noted that one had been renamed by Fred. So, I stopped and sought out why it had been renamed since I did not know the reason. Let us go ahead with what you have already done. Rename the files that can be renamed on "Commons" and I will rename the rest of the files I need to upload according to your list. How does that sound? Kindest regards, Maury ( William Maury Morris II (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done Yes, please. Certainly upload any more according to the naming convention we have agreed on. And please don't forget to change the categories appropriately.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Proper file name Redux

Jim, not quite ✓ Done. There are still images that I have uploaded that have not been renamed by you. I really do not mind renaming them but I see no way to do that. How would I rename a file? I came online to fix the categories, fixed only one thus far, but will do the others as time permits. I have been renaming the files in the Book that I am working on to match those files that you did rename. It was then that I encountered some online that still need to be renamed. I will avoid uploading any more images to prevent confusion later in all of this. But I don't know how to "rename" an already uploaded image. I believe that I am not allowed to do so. Kindest regards, William Maury Morris II (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)



Help, is there a simple way to delete my owned uploaded picture?

I wonder is there a simple way of deleting a picture? I am not good in scripting or codes. I have uploaded a picture that I own, so I am the legal owner. I just want this picture deleted.

File:Douglas Harding & Wolter @ 3-4 Nov.1984 .jpg

I am reading all types of difficult stuff about how to make a speedy delete request. Please can somebody help me. This should not be so difficult I hope.. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menno23 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 January 2012‎ (UTC)

The image File:Douglas Harding & Wolter @ 3-4 Nov.1984 .jpg is still in use on :nl. Why do you want it deleted? --Túrelio (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
As Túrelio suggests, the image is in use. When you uploaded it with a CC-BY-SA license, you licensed it for use anywhere for all time. That license cannot be revoked, so you do not have the right to demand that it be deleted. If you have a good reason, we might consider your request.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms Algeria (1830-1962).svg

That file is one of those pure fictional images heavily used in several wikipedias in a totally wrong context. Can you delete it? I do not want to do the job of delinking it, as this can be easily done by the CommonsDelinker.--Antemister (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but my position on these is to stay clear of them -- that putting a note in the description, or adding {{Disputed coat of arms}}, or both, is all that Commons can do without getting into a morass. It's up to the individual WPs to decide whether or not they want to use it then. In any event, it certainly doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, so you'd have to do a DR -- even if I wanted to do it, the rules don't allow me to just blow it away.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Iosephus II Imperator Romanus Sacer

Hi, don’t you think we should at least move this page? I have some basic Latin knowledge and this name is actually only used on Commons and on our beloved clones. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I left a message at User talk:Gryffindor. He moved it from Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor in the first place. I tend to agree with you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

DRs

Hi Jim, Could you please have a look at these DRs (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), either to keep or to delete them. Regards from Iran AMERICOPHILE 16:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue, except for the one I kept, is that we need to know that they were in fact published. Newspaper and other photographers in those days would usually take more than one image -- not a lot, because press cameras were clumsy, but usually more than one. We need to know that these were not simply extras that have turned up recently. The only way I can see to do that is to trace back through the immediate source until you find a paper version -- that will, of course, tell you immediately if it came off a printing press. If the paper version is a photographic print, then you're still in limbo, although if the print is from a periodical's file, often there will be publication information attached.
There is also the possibility with a couple of them that they have been in a family album, unpublished.
I know this isn't the result you hoped for, but it's the best I can do.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for closing those Drs. Could you please do the fifth one (FoP)? AMERICOPHILE 16:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I'm qualified to do that one -- the issues are much more subtle.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

I just wanted to inform you that I've put two DR's closed by you there and that I have, given some reasons lying in the past, the opinion that you should not close "No-FOP-in-Russia" DR's at all. - A.Savin 17:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Architecture and copyright

Hi Jameslwoodward, in a recent comment you stated

[..] USA, where all architecture is copyrighted [..]

to which I would like to object. As outlined in this article, standard features do not count as original works and the eligibility for copyright is restricted to architecture that is habitable by humans (p. 7). That means that, for example, according to US law bridges are not eligible for copyright. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It is an interesting and useful article. I don't think it disagrees with my comment, which was largely in the context of a discussion of threshold of originality. I had never thought that bridges and the like were "architecture" -- they are "civil engineering", at least in American English. And I was speaking of an architectural work as a whole, not of details -- I certainly agree that you cannot copyright an ordinary door or a window for the simple reason that it is utilitarian and must pass the same test as any other utilitarian object.
Some time ago I decided that I would stay out of FOP discussions. Some of our colleagues seem to be offended by the fact that we cannot host images of public works in some countries because of their copyrights. That leads to heated discussions. Recently I started closing FOP discussions again. Someone has to do it and this one had been open for two weeks. Then bang -- I get accused of incompetence and not-neutral behavior for deleting when the consensus was clear for delete -- four on the delete side (including me and the nom) and two on the keep side, one of whom didn't make a lot of sense. Ah -- enough whining, sorry. Thanks again for a useful article.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This is interesting news also to me. I would have counted bridges (File:LightningVolt Mackinac Bridge.jpg) as architecture without much thinking. Could this please be incorporated to the FOP-U.S. section on our FOP page. --Túrelio (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The point is moot for our purposes. If a bridge (in the USA) is architecture, then an image of it is OK by reason of FOP in the USA. If it is not architecture, then an image of it is OK because there is no copyright to infringe.
The latter seems to be the case, see also http://ipmall.org/hosted_resources/IDEA/33_IDEA/33-1_IDEA_1_Altman.pdf, another article which leads right to the same point.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
My rationale to have this put on the FOP page, though legally FOP would then not be relevant, was that this might be the most effective place to spread this information, as people look there if they are unsure whether something is o.k. --Túrelio (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree, and have already made changes there -- please take a look and edit freely. I also noted the two cites above on the FOP talk page.
Actually, it adds one subtle thing which I missed above -- since bridges (and so forth) do not have any copyright, images of them do not have to pass the FOP tests for permanence and visibility from a public place -- even temporary bridges in non-public places are fair game. Of course I don't think there will be very many images that fit that description....      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Zhao Boju

Bonjour Jameslwoodward et bonne Année 2012. J'ai voulu créer la catégorie de l'article Zhao Boju que je viens de publier et je crois avoir fait une erreur. Merci de l'avoir supprimé. Je vais la reprendre correctement. Cordialement --Colibrix (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OTRS

Hello Jim

Could you have look at File:Egyptian blackmailer Mortada Mansour ARABIC.gif and som other uploads of user and check whether the permission is valid as this user adds OTRS permission without being one. Thank you. Best regards--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket number leads to a discussion in Portuguese which appears to give permission for all of Latuff's work on WP. I'm not certain that the license is free enough and I'm also not certain that the sender is the cartoonist, but I think a Portuguese speaker should probably do the investigation -- Google translations are not good for subtle questions. If the license is OK, then our non-OTRS user is OK adding the template to Latuff images because, as I said, the OTRS discussion covers all of his work -- I think.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

JMSDF

Jim. What do you think of File:JS Sōryū (SS-501) 01.jpg ? They say Everyone can freely quote and reprint contents of the website of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, under the condition of citing the source of the content. However, please be careful to some pictures whose copyright belongs to others. The copyright of images "Parsley-chan" (Paseri-chan) and "Prince Pickles" (Pikurusu-ooji), comic "Prince Pickles: A Jouney to Peace" (Pikurusu-ooji Heiwa eno tabi) belong to Taro Tomonaga (「(c)友永たろ」). "Parsley-chan" (Paseri-chan) and "Prince Pickles" (Pikurusu-ooji) are available for personal use only. Takabeg (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure I understand where your question lies. I assume that this is not one of the images whose copyright belongs to someone else, so I'll guess that you are concerned that
"Everyone can freely quote and reprint contents of the website of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, under the condition of citing the source of the content."
is not quite free enough. "Everyone" covers commercial use, so my only concern would be derivative works. A lawyer might say that a DW was a problem, but I would probably keep it if I were closing a DR.
I also call your attention to:
"Works corresponding to the following are not eligible for copyright (Article 13).
2. public notices, instructions, circular notices and the like issued by organs of the State or local public entities, incorporated administrative agencies ... "
I am by no means a Japanese copyright lawyer, but I think the web site of JMSDF is a "public notice" and JMSDF is clearly an "organ of the state".
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Denniss put this tag. And then the uploader トトト send e-mail to JMSDF, but e-mail was not deliver. Now the uploader got tired of waiting and put speedydelete tag toh all images that he has taken from the official website of JMSDF. I think we don't have to ask permission. Takabeg (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I created a mass DR. I wasn't sure that you know how to do a mass DR and I wanted it done before one of my colleagues started deleting them from the {{Speedy}} tags.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sandro Mazzatorta.jpg

Please delete after you closed it. Thank you, --Polarlys (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry -- DelReqHandler was acting up a bit -- I may have missed others. Ordinarily I'd be happy to have you delete it, but I see you were the nom here, so that's not OK.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ggggggg.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eliobio.jpg

Here are a couple more DR's that were marked delete and the file is still there. I deleted the files for you as per your comment on the prior talk message. Hope you are ok with that. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I often close DRs when others have done the deletion, so the reverse seems perfectly reasonable to me. The only thing to be careful of is that sometimes it will be a case where an Admin did in fact delete the file and then someone reloaded it. Unless there was a good reason, that requires a note on the offending uploader's talk page.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

İstinyePark

Jim. As long as I understand All images uploaded by User:Akinon and this image of User:Akinon onder are under the copyright of İstinyePark (You can find these images in the website [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] etc). Maybe "Akinon" means Akinon Design Studio. But I'm not sure whether this company created them or not. And even if Akinon Design Studio created these images, these images were created on behalf of İstinyePark. In this case, can these images become public domain ? Takabeg (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it looks like Akinon and Akinon onder simply grabbed them off the web site. Why don't you do a mass DR?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I controlled them again. They are very similar but not same. Takabeg (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Autopatroll

Hello Jim

I see that you have granted both autopatroller and patroller for User:Americophile. I think that autopatroll is now redundant and I have removed it. Please tell me if I am wrong. Thank you. Best regards--Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that you are correct, thanks. I wish this were more user friendly -- an Admin should not have to remember which bits to set.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I've tweaked COM:Patrol a very little bit. The redundancy is mentioned there. Rd232 (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we should just ignore it. Why, for example, when a 'crat creates an Admin should the 'crat bother to remove all of the now-redundant bits? I don't mean to pick on Hoangquan, but why should he feel that it's a good thing to remove the autopatrol bit from a patroller? It surely doesn't affect the way the system actually deals with rights. I could even argue that showing all the bits makes it clearer to all exactly what rights any individual has.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree the redundancy is harmless, and may help make things clearer. Rd232 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked User:Watch Indonesia!

Hello Jim! I searched for years now to find someone, who accepted to load up pictures from East Timor. Watch Indonesia! gave me the permission, as long as they are mentioned as source. Because the OTRS-System is too complicated, we decided to make an account for the organization, so they (or I for them) can load up any time new pictures, without asked everytime, if we are the copyrightholders. Of course, the name of the account is the same like the source, but first, the information about the organisation was deleted at the user page, then even the link to the website, which is the easiest way to contact and now, you blocked the username. How could it be shown, that uploader and source are the same, not using the same name? I wouldn't say, the name in the image information is big advertisement for the organization. It is just the information of the source and 100 % transparent. Better than thousands of US navy-images like this, where even the seal and flag of them are on the image. It is really frustrating to see, how complicated it is made to load up pictures from a part of the world, where it is difficult to get some and then have to discuss the subject in a language, which is not my mother tongue after a 12 hours flight. I hope, you can make me an advice what to do. Easiest would be an account, which is connected to Watch Indonesia! by username and/or by link and discription on its user page. Greetings, --Patrick (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Organizational user names raise several problems. Those that are important in this case are:
  • An organization cannot say that an image is "own work", so they can't do uploads except from a third party source such as Flickr. This is a problem with all of the Watch Indonesia images. Since they are taken by a variety of people, we actually require permission not from Watch Indonesia, but from all of the individual photographers.
  • Since we don't know if the organizational person actually working here has appropriate authorization to act for the organization, anything they do, and certainly any license they grant is suspect.
  • Accounts are inherently personal. Over time, active Admins get to know most active users -- the ones they can trust and the ones they cannot. Since an organizational account can be operated by Jane today and John tomorrow, that trust cannot be built. Lack of trust wastes Admin time -- something we have far too little of.
  • Active users are usually granted the autopatrol right after a few hundred correct edits. This means that their new edits are no longer actively examined by Admins or patrollers. This saves a lot of patrol time. If we allowed organizational accounts, since we would not know who was actually doing the work, we would have to examine every action the account made.
OTRS does not have to be particularly complicated. What I would suggest is a message from each photographer saying that he or she grants a CC-BY license on all images that he or she has taken that are uploaded by User:J. Patrick Fischer. Once that is in place, then you could put the appropriate tag on every new image, citing the correct OTRS ticket number. We have quite a number of this kind of licenses.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your fast answer, but I can not understand, why it is possible, that a bot can upload thousands of US-Military-images with nice advertising badge, without a single OTRS from a photographer and a small NGO can not. OTRS request by every single photographer special, although they gave their OK to WI! is too much work, I can't request from the organization. They are not dependent from me, I am from their images. German Wikipedians gave me another advice, I will follow, although it means double work for me. :-( I hope, this works. Thank you for your help. Please inform me,if the images, which are still load up under Watch Indonesia! are in danger of deletion, so I can react immediatly. --Patrick (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The major difference is that all US military images, including the one you linked above, are in the Public Domain -- all official US Government images are PD by law -- the one in question is tagged {{PD-USGov-Military-Marines}}. That is very different from the situation we are discussing.
I think that if an appropriate corporate officer of Watch Indonesia sent an e-mail to OTRS declaring that Watch Indonesia had a written, signed license or transfer of copyright from a specific list of photographers, that we would accept that. What I guess, though, is that the photographers have given copies of image files to WI, but that they have not actually assigned or licensed the copyrights. The world is very casual about copyright these days and I would be very surprised if WI actually has bothered to get copyright assignments or licenses from every photographer.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rainbow Gathering peace prayer.jpg

Forgive me for asking a silly question. You deleted the image, but I wanted to make sure I was thinking corretly. As I indicated on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rainbow Gathering peace prayer.jpg I was not 100% I was correct that taking a photo of this poem/sign was a copyright violation? -ARTEST4ECHO talk16:06, 13 January 2012

Your reasoning was exactly correct, which is why I did not add a closing comment to the DR. Poetry is given special protection in many countries, so this was clearly a problem. We tend to forget here on Commons that text and poetry were the first works that got copyright protection -- everything else came later.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for help me make my thinking clear- 14:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Collages

Jim. What do you think of this issue ? Takabeg (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

At first look, we should assume good faith. The trouble with that is that my experience is that people who create collages tend to be more likely to ignore copyright and think that "own work" means just creating the collage. I might put a note on the user's talk page asking if he actually took all the photos.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ancient AFV files deletion

I sympathize with your problem, but perhaps you should not have uploaded a large number of images from various sources, all of whose copyright status is uncertain.
  • File:Somua-Coder armoured bridgelayer 01.jpg and File:Somua-Coder armoured bridgelayer 03.jpg. I do not see anything at the cited discussion that is helpful. According to you, one of these machines was built and tested in 1938-40. Other sources make it clear that the manufacturer was a private French company. The subsequent fate of the machine is unknown. We do not when the photographs were first published. We do not know the name of the photographer, but our lack of knowledge does not mean that they were anonymous. It is unlikely that it was, as you say a "French state employee". It is unlikely that the photographer died before 1942, so it is propable that these photographs are still under copyright. Without any evidence of who took the images or where, we cannot keep them. The only possibility would be to find out where the actual photographic prints are and examine them for evidence -- most professional photographs have stamps or labels on the back giving the information we need. I recognize that none of these things are certain, but our policy is that it must be shown that an image is PD, not the other way around. The status of these is uncertain at best.
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Linn tractor 1916 left.jpg The fact that the company is out of business is irrelevant to the copyright status of the image -- that is, an image does not become PD just because the company that used it is out of business. The page from which the image was taken (see the source site) looks like editorial material in the local newspaper talking about a local company. The source site says it was an advertisement, but that seems unlikely, since a small volume manufacturer selling an expensive machine would have no reason to pay for large ads in a home town newspaper. If it was editorial material, then it falls under the newspaper's copyright and is very likely still under copyright. If it was an ad, then it is likely that it is {{PD-US-not renewed}} as you say. Again, the best evidence would be to actually look at the newspaper in question.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

deletion rejuest

Hi Jim, I saw you deletion of a couple of pics and you mentioned advert - would you please also have a look at the other three or four uploads in the same vein from the same uploader - one is a book cover, ownership of that for commons releace is unlikely. If you think I need to nominate them I will. If you see them as worthy of deletion without nomination I support that also. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done -- there were only two.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Singapore MRT.jpg

Hi, James. Yes, but the map doesn't seem exactly the same as the original. The uploader appears to have modified it somewhat. Not sure if it makes it sufficiently different from the original, though. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough -- it's been 13 years since I rode the mass transit in Singapore, so I don't remember the map.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, the official one on the SMRT website is [15], and there's a map that includes lines under construction at [16]. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

National Museum of the Union

Hi! I moved the page back to main space. You were right, it took me a million years to bring it to this form, and there is a lot more to work to make it nice. Let me know what you thin.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly one of our most comprehensive galleries -- many good images of the museum. As you work "to make it nice" (which it already is), be careful to be very selective. The images now are all very good -- don't let that quality level drop. Also remember that just right is better than too big.
I'm afraid that one of the images of the Horea, Cloşca and Crişan Memorial caught my eye and I hung a {{Delete}} on it since it is a DW of a recent sculpture.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Good points! I agree with all of them. The No FOP for Romania is very frustrating. I read that law several times and I don't find it that clear or strict when it comes to sculptures and buildings. Anyways, it is a shame that historical buildings or personalities can not have images for their articles/galleries. Not sure what can be done. Thanks for all the pointers.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Another opinion?

Can you take a look at this file and its "additional" licensing when you get the time. I'm doubtful about what looks like additional terms on the free licensing and equally the terms on the website - not easily readable - have one or two questionable statement in to me. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Seemed pretty clear to me (note that it is now a red-link above) -- although the prohibited uses were all unlikely, they were limitations on the general use of the image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Appreciated. --Herby talk thyme 16:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Addams family - ijed meg a repülő babát.gif

Please take care about rest of user uploads. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You delete my image Commons:Deletion requests/File:Frenchsargiesforwiki.jpg

Hey brah i saw you delete my image, i dont know why i made myself a time ago, i take the pics from wikipedia and other without copyright, and i saw a similar collage in wikipedia, so i made a one for that article i dont understend why you delete if was cool and improve the article, now looks boring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User60092678 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 17 January 2012‎ (UTC)

You claimed that it was "own work" -- that is, that you took all twelve images yourself. That is obviously not true. If it happens that all twelve are in the Public Domain, then all we will need is their sources. If any of them are under CC-BY licenses, then we will need attribution for those. And, of course, if you just grabbed them off the web, without regard for copyright, then there is no way we can keep it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Permission?

I have a question about permission of

According to User talk:Mu5ti, Released under the CC-BY licence with explicit permission of the photographer. But I couldn't find any explicit permissions. Could you control them ? Takabeg (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you should create a mass DR for them. The five that I looked at are all other peoples' work, some with explicit copyright notices on the source sites, and there does not appear to be an evidence of permission other than the uploader's assertion. We assume good faith when an uploader claims "own work", but not when he claims a license.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Two images not cropped

Jim, Moments ago I uploaded two images that I intended to crop and remove the text from them. How can I re-do those images properly? I was multi-tasking when I should have paid more attention to the uploads. William Maury Morris II (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Just click on the link "Upload a new version of this file" in the File History section. Be sure to use the same file name.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Rotation

Hi James. Do you know why this Picture that i uploaded is like that. Should it be rotated ? --Gary Dee (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone decided that we should orient all images according to the EXIF data, rather than by the way the user uploaded them. see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/12#Why_has_an_image_rotated_without_being_told_to_do_so.3F. I understand the rationale, but think it is confusing more situations than it is helping. I don't understand why the thumbnail is OK while the full image is not. Try using "request rotation" which is linked just below the image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. --Gary Dee (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the close at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/01/Category:Commons user rights request pages. -- Cirt (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the nom withdrew it, I think anyone could have closed it -- even someone like you who had taken a position in the discussion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Still, can't hurt to have an impartial person do it. ;) Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you take a look at a file for deletion?

Hello Jim, I'm hassling a bunch of administrators to help clear up a slightly complicated copyright situation regarding an image I uploaded to Commons a few years ago. I submitted the image for deletion on January 12 (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fort Lachine.jpg). When originally uploaded, I thought the image was published before 1923 and in the public domain in the US. However, with a little more research and help from other Commons editors, it was recently discovered that the image came from a book that was published in Belgium in 1927 (I don't believe it was originally copyrighted in the US). Since learning this, I've become concerned that the image isn't in the public domain in the US because its copyright was restored in 1996 by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). The copyright guru, Clindberg, provides an excellent analysis on the deletion request page that confirms my suspicion (mostly). Now that the US Supreme Court has ruled the URAA constitutional, I'm a little freaked out about having possibly uploaded a copyrighted image to Commons. If you could weigh in on the matter, I'd be grateful. Thanks, --AlphaEta (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting case -- thank you for bringing it to my attention. See my comment there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting on the image copyright status. I realize I'm being paranoid, but I'd really like to have the image deleted from Commons as I'm VERY uncomfortable with having uploaded something that is probably copyrighted in the US. I know there's a process that must be followed, and I respect that process, but now that the discussion has been ongoing for seven days and it seems clear the image is likely copyrighted, is there some way to hasten its deletion? Again, I know I'm being a bit ridiculous and I'm sorry for pestering you. Thank you for helping with this. --AlphaEta (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim, I apologize if my request was inappropriate. Thank you for all of your help. --AlphaEta (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

RFA

Hi Jim, Will it be a bad idea if I look for adminship in Commons? I have over 25,000 contributions in Commons and is an active contributor here. I am also the 2nd most active admin in Indian Wikipedias and the most active Malayalam Wiki admin currently. I did not see any guidelines to compare myself with to know whether I qualify. Thanks. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If you engage in maintenance duties I expect you qualify - we have a fairly low bar here. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
As of now, the only maintenance categories I stroll are Media needing categories, Files moved from en.wikipedia to Commons requiring review, Media requiring renaming, License review needed. I will extend my support to admin maintenance categories if I am given the opportunity. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, starting with your numbers, I see 80,000 global edits, of which 26,000 are on Commons. That is 50% more than my global total today and half of my Commons total -- I had around 3,000 edits on Commons when I became an Admin 20 months ago. Of the Commons edits, 560 are in the Commons: namespace and close to a thousand are in the Template and Category spaces, so you clearly understand the basics.
I see a good attitude on your talk pages -- plenty of willingness to cooperate and admit mistakes. I think that is essential for an Admin -- we all make mistakes and saying "I'm sorry", learning, and moving on is an essential part of the process.
User_talk:Sreejithk2000#Moving_non-free_pictures_from_English_Wikipedia. will undoubtedly come up in the RfA. Certainly your response was appropriate. For the RfA you might want to work up some statistics -- you have moved X number of images from WP and Y number have been challenged successfully. You've done a great deal of this kind of work and a few mistakes, as I said above, are inevitable.
User_talk:Sreejithk2000#Please_stop_the_bot! is in the same vein. It would be useful to know how many this was. (I see 7,000 edits on Commons from the account). I also think that you might change the name -- if I understand correctly, you are using a tool that is much like AWB -- it automates most of the process, but you still have to look at each one and click on SAVE. That's not a bot.
So, although your numbers and attitude are excellent, I don't think an RfA will be a shoo-in. Good answers to the questions above will help. You might also ask User:Magog the Ogre what he thinks -- a positive or neutral stand from him would be helpful. I don't know User:Sven Manguard, but I see only 1,300 edits on Commons and an unwillingness to talk on his Commons talk page , so I discount his opinion.
I think the real question is the extent to which you will devote significant time to the job. You're a very active Admin on two WPs -- do you think you will give that up to work here? Or just stop doing WP>>Commons transfers? We have more than 260 Admins, but in the last month, five of us did half of all Administrative actions and 31 did 90% of the total. It requires about 1,400 actions a day, most of them deletions, to stay even. Judging by the number of successful Undeletion Requests -- less than 1/10 of one percent of all deletions -- we do a pretty good job, but having more productive Admins would let us slow down a little and perhaps do an even better job.
To answer your unasked question -- with good answers to the questions above, I would vote for you. With very good answers, I might even nominate you, if you thought that was a good idea.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
OMG. Thats an awesome reply. That exceeded my expectations by {the number of paragraphs in your reply}. Thanks for your detailed analysis.
SreeBot is an alternate account that I use to upload images to Commons which are not mine. If I had transferred the 7,000 odd images from my login itself, it would have become impossible for me to lookup my own images; which by the way is the case already. SreeBot (which translates to me in fact) uses a tool which has an UI which almost matches by over 90% with File:FtCG-screenshot.png. Each an every upload this tool makes is checked and verified by me but still it makes a few mistakes because 1) the file is marked with incorrect tag in en wiki and 2) I fail to spot that the tag is wrong. User:Magog the Ogre has helped me a lot with his tips, suggestions and error notifications and that has helped fixing the errors the tool makes. Now, almost all the errors the tool makes are my mistakes and not programmatic. I try not to make the same mistake twice and I believe I am doing that quite well. User:Sven Manguard was unhappy with the fact that the tool was adding Transferred by SreeBot in the source field when the source image in en wiki does not have an {{Information}} template. But almost every other tool here like CommonsHelper also does the same thing. I respect his concerns, but its unfortunate that it cannot be addressed currently.
Transferring images to commons is only one thing I do here. I do not think this has anything to do with me being an admin or not, unless I misuse the admin tools or fail being co-operative. I am also an active Image reviewer and and OTRS volunteer. I am an active admin in Malayalam Wikipedia but that does not mean I won't devote time here. If you see my edits, I have been most active in Commons for the past ... don't know by how much, but for long. I have an added advantage that I can communicate to users from India in their language, India being a country from which we do not have an admin in Commons yet. I can help clear a lot of backlogs like in CommonsDelinker/commands‎, Copyright violations etc., and I do think I have enough time, willingness and interest to do those. Finally, I would rather wait for someone to nominate me for adminship than nominating myself because if I am going to go through RFA, I have to start with the confidence that someone is having the faith in me that I can perform well as an Admin. Thats exactly the same reason why I have not nominated myself in en wiki even with around 50,000 edits there. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
If I spend half an hour on DRs, I've reduced the backlog by half an hour. If I spend half an hour working on recruiting a good Admin, I'm potentially reducing the backlog by the half an hour or more per day that he or she might work. The math is easy -- I'd rather invest in the future then slog away at the present.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment from someone watching Jim's talkpage... From the above you sound like an excellent candidate to me, and we're always looking for admins with languages we don't currently have active admins for. You said on your talkpage "I am slowly learning ... from my mistakes." If you could give some examples of what you've learned, that would help a lot. Rd232 (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a big open ended question. I have learned a lot from Commons from our mistakes, we all have, haven't we? This one in particular was when User:Magog the Ogre was unhappy that I transferred a few images like File:Francis_de_Wolff.gif from en wiki which was tagged as public domain and which I thought was in public domain, but wasn't the case. I did not pay close attention to the fact that these images were from UK for which different templates apply. Lately from a few DRs raised on my transfers (ex:- File:@UKLogo.gif) I also understood that {{PD-text}} also has a different interpretation under UK laws. Another example would be File:Asianet Logo.svg. I believe it does not meet COM:TOO, but some users are disagreeing and hence I will have to wait and see the outcome of the DR to understand the law better. These are all part of my everyday learning and I believe I have been a good student so far. Even when I transfer 100+ images from en wiki everyday, I hardly get a DR these days; so that should prove my point I guess. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I have stopped experimenting with SreeBot after it was blocked (without a notice or even the bot owner being notified). My arguments at Commons:Bots/Requests/SreeBot was not accepted either. I feel that its not worth my time investing on the tool's development. Did not know that every Bot needs to be perfect on the first run itself. If those concerns raised after blocking the bot was raised even before the block, it would have been helpful. Anyways, discontinuing those efforts now. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
So is this a Yes, No or May be later? --Sreejith K (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for the delay in responding -- I am running for CU, and I wanted to avoid any possibility, however remote, that someone might think I was saying "yes" to you in order to get your vote there. Although counting one's chickens before they have hatched is very bad practice, that election is now at the point where I can safely say to you "Please do not vote there" and we will avoid that possibility.
Yes, I think you might well run for Admin. As I said above, there may be negative votes, but I think it's a good shot. My colleagues Mattbuck and Rd232, both respected Admins, have said above that you look like a good candidate. Of course I can't speak for them, but you might have three votes already. I am, however, keeping a low profile until the RfCU ends, so you'll have to wait until at least February 9 if you would like me to nominate you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I did not know that you were running for CU. Wasn't watching that page yet. Voted for you now because I believe you are a good candidate for the role. I hope you are not counting this as bribing :) --Sreejith K (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

why did you delete all the photos from the museum of medicine,

have you ever been there, you have better photos!!!! what the heck, why are the photos deleted and when are you putting them back............i have made many edits to that page, it is the page of my wifes dad, who is no longer alive, i finally got the photos .... and you even took,, EVERY ONE OF THEM DOWN AND DELETED ALL OF THEM!!! i spent a lot of time in the galapagos and took tons of photos ,, none of them were touched and all the photos from the museum are taken down!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.155.56.252 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 20 January 2012‎ (UTC)


i think that galleries are bad, and please remove my special `pages from tortuga bay and plesae take off all my photos from the galapagos, you are correct, why should there dare be large galleries, please delete this photo too File:Alvaro_Sevilla_Design_Isla_Santa_Cruz_Galapagos_foto_tomada_desde_el_avión.jpg no museum of medicine photos, no galapagos photos!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.155.56.252 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As noted in the edit comments and in a notice on the talk page of Alvarosevilladesign, all of the museum photos were so badly in violation of Commons policy which prohibits advertising that they could not be kept. The file names and file descriptions promoted both Internet Search Organization and Dr. Aguirre to the point that they amounted to an article about him. The Galapagos images did not have the same problems.
As for deleting the other contributions made by User:Alvarosevilladesign, first, he or she must request that himself. We rarely delete useful images and never on request from an anonymous IP user. If you are Alvarosevilladesign and have simply forgotten to log in, you must do so. But please remember that the contributions are licensed CC-BY-SA and that license cannot be revoked. Also please know that making changes to images or articles with the intention of making them less useful to Commons is vandalism and will result in immediate permanent blocking.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Back to the Hanini images

Jim, going back to our discussion last month on File:Man see school nakba.jpg. I'm not familiar with the different PDs from the middle east and the geographical changes etc. What should we do about this image and the rest of the lot from that site? (Also, I don't know the provenance/age of these images and/yor whether we can take the upload note to be correct). As this is not my area of knowledge would you be able to take this to DR/or other necessary process? On a different note, I was thinking of applying for the reviewer user right, however, I work almost exclusively on India images and don't really have a strong grasp of the copyright issues around images from elsewhere (but I don't intend to review in those areas anyway), would that be a problem? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's take the easy one first -- I assume you mean Image Reviewer, as described at Commons:License review. Fundamentally, that requires that Commons trust you -- both your honesty and your ability to avoid mistakes. At first blush, it does not require a lot of knowledge -- you look at an image from one of the several categories needing review, such as Category:Flickr review needed, compare the license on Flickr to the license on Commons and either change the template to reflect OK or put a {{Speedy}} on it. It is actually a little more complicated, because it is helpful if you are sensitive to whether the image is a Commons:License laundering -- just because the Flickr user puts CC-BY on it does not mean he necessarily has the right to do so. Still, not complicated -- just requiring care. If that is what you want, I'd be happy to do it.
As for the subject image -- as we agreed above, the OTRS permission is meaningless -- I don't think we have any reason to believe that Hanini owns the copyright. As you say, that does not make it necessarily bad -- some of the copyright terms for photos in the Middle East are very short. I suggest you hang a DR on it, pointing out that there is no reason to believe that the OTRS permission has any value.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I did mean the image reviewer right, I already do OTRS reviews for images (including declining them for "OTRS washing" as opposed to "Flickr washing"), the reason I ask, is currently, as I don't have the reviewer right, I do not nominate these "possible failures" for outright deletion and instead take them to DR (very often these images stay unreviewed for a while, so I look at DR as an expedited option), e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vyjanthimala Bali.jpg. And I do a lot of deletions related to {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} and other similar Indian film uploads, and in this area, being able to fail a review would be helpful. As far as my intended area of work goes (India image), I think I've got a good grasp, but in other areas -- like this set of middle-eastern images I couldn't be so sure and I normally avoid any activity in those areas. So, my main question is if Commons doesn't mind giving this user right to editors with a very narrow interest and expertise (then I'd apply for it, else the status quo is fine too).
On the particular image, I notice that according to {{PD-Syria}}, section A, (for some strange reason I was looking at this as an Israel image before!) this image should qualify as PD and should be acceptable on Commons, I've found usage for this image on the web (in similar resolution) dating prior to local upload, including by student orgs at Yale and Berkeley. Given this new finding, I think I'll just slap a PD-Syria tag on to it (let me know if you think my reasoning is wrong) but I'll take a look at the rest of the lot from that ticket and send to DR as necessary. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
You need to post a request at Commons:License review/requests -- let me know and I'll support it.
I think you're right -- taken in Syria in 1948 fits {{PD-Syria}} -- which, if I read it correctly, requires 25 years before 2004 -- or 1979.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Done both, the license change to PD-Syria and the license review request. I think some of the other Hanini images are from outside Syria, so I'll check those out soon too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper edit restrictions

As you were involved in the original discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_23#Pieter_Kuiper_.28yes_again.2C_what_a_surprise.29, I'm notifying you of the current discussion of the edit restriction Pieter Kuiper agreed to. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Clarify_edit_restriction. Rd232 (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smiling Sun - English.jpg

Hi, in this DR you mention OTRS correspondence, but the image has no OTRS tag; could you please add it? Looking at the description page and the two links given as source, it is not clear at all that the file is licensed under the GFDL. Thanks. Prof. Professorson (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The OTRS reference was on the two Danish language versions of the file. I added it to the English one. As I said in the closing comment, the e-mail appears to be from a person authorized to grant licenses and clearly grants GFDL to the three files.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW of RfD…

…that involved this collage, I realised an alternative one using photos already present on Commons (here). The question is, what licence should those collages have? I made a conservative choice and put several licence tags on it, but I wonder whether they are redundant. Could you give me advice please? -- Blackcat (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, a montage must have the most restrictive license of any of its parts. So in the case of the one that you created, it needs to be a CC-BY-SA, which it has, so that license is OK. I don't think the GFDL is OK, however, since it may not be consistent with a CC-BY-SA.
If I may be forgiven for being an English teacher for a moment -- "realized" does indeed have a sense in which it comes close to meaning "made" or "created", but it is almost always used in the sense of "suddenly understood". I misunderstood what you meant until I looked at the file history of the image and realized that you had created it. For the sense above, you might use "created", "made", or, because it is a montage, "assembled" or "put together".      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
:-) thanks for the English lesson -- actually in Italian too "realizzare" means both "to suddenly understand" and "to create", I simply wasn't aware that in English the term is not very much used for the latter sense. There's always something to be learnt :-) -- Blackcat (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The most common use of this sense I've heard is "To realize your dream" (where an imaginary thing becomes a reality). For that situation "realize" is used quite frequently. --99of9 (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, "achieve" might be a good equivalent. BTW, File:User 99of9 reflected in Australian Magpie eye.jpg is really good fun and a tough technical challenge to handhold and keep the feathers/hairs so sharp.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow Toby, great photo indeed. it requires great skill. This is the best I can do for now, nothing comparable. BTW of English Jim, so far I thought that only Latin languages had such nuances :-) -- Blackcat (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I like it too :-). --99of9 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
For your patience and support, also in English :-) Blackcat (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. One of the rewards of Commons is building relationships all over the world. I try to be patient and polite to all, but sometimes that gets stretched, so it is a special pleasure to be helpful to people who don't stretch either my patience or my politeness.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
LOL. That last sentence could be a pull quote on COM:ADMIN... :) Rd232 (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
My pleasure Jim. BTW, do you think I could be ready to help the community as admin? I did prefer to wait not only two months but one year or so to get used to discussions about deletions and such. -- Blackcat (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
You've already voted in my CU election, thank you very much, so I'm free to answer your question without any appearance of trying to buy a vote there. On the numbers, 100,000 global edits, 5,700 Commons, 471 in Commons namespace, you certainly qualify. We have three Admins who are native speakers of Italian -- none of them are very active -- they have 230 Admin actions among them in the last six months out of 200,000 total, so another Italian speaker would be good. Your talk page doesn't show any controversy and I know that you are not afraid to ask for help -- see above -- so you look like a good candidate. I'd be happy to nominate you. I am keeping a low profile until the CU vote ends on February 9, so, I'll nominate you on February 9th or you could nominate yourself at your convenience.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll be waiting for your promotion to CU then :-) -- Blackcat (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

personal attack by 190.155.56.252 (talk · contribs) removed. --Túrelio (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Morning

Your attention here please. When you've accepted and transcluded it I will leave a note on the VP and admin board in accordance with the policy agreed for higher level right back in 2209 iirc. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - transcluded --Herby talk thyme 11:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Palmiers_Domaine_Moulin_Mer.jpg

Hi, I have posted several messages on the undeletion page : Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Palmiers_Domaine_Moulin_Mer.jpg Did you have the time to have a look at it?

There are also 2 other photos:

Thanks (I am new to Wiki so not too familiar how it works) --Xanao (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have made a further comment at one of them. It is a question for the community, and should be discussed there, not here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Image size in galleries

In an edit comment you wrote: "Gallery are set by reader or default to allow use on screens ranging from small telephones to 2000+px desktops." The "set by reader" part is interesting to me, as I've been looking for that. Where can I change how big images I see in the galleries? boivie (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was the same parameter that controls thumbnail sizes under
  • My preferences > Appearance
but that doesn't appear to be correct. Perhaps it should.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Tehaapapa

Can you help me rename File:Tehaapapa II, late 19th century 4.jpg to File:Tehaapapa II, late 19th century.jpg and File:Tehaapapa III, late 19th century 5.jpg to File:Tehaapapa III, late 19th century.jpg? The person seems unable to understand or he can't rename over existing links. Thanks!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done The problem was that there were circular redirects on both.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michelangelo - Sistine Chapel ceiling - Lunette "Hezekiah - Manasseh - Amon".jpg

With all due respect, that close is a fucking joke. This is a photograph of a piece of a church stolen from another website. No two ways about it. Regardless of whether the subject of the picture is copyrighted, the photograph certainly is, and the source website makes very clear that they are interested in retaining that copyright ("© Web Gallery of Art, created by Emil Krén and Daniel Marx."). I'm not a lawyer, and, unless you are, I don't think you should be in the business of delcaring that no artistic craftmanship was involved in the production of an image. This is a long way from a scan of a piece of PD artwork, and it is Wikimedia policy that even scans of coins are not OK to be tagged under PD-art, so there's absolutely no way that this one should be. J Milburn (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

As you certainly know, Admins are paid big money to make close calls. I am not a lawyer, but I have been in charge of IP, including copyright, at a variety of high tech companies over the last thirty-five years, I am also a serious, sometimes professional, photographer who has worked for more than fifty years all over the world with all sorts of equipment on all sorts of subjects, including many churches. Given both my legal and photographic experience, I think I have the qualifications to make a judgement call on the this image. I acknowledge that it is not completely obvious, and if you had closed the DR, the result would have been different. So be it.
As I said in my closing comment, it is an absolutely perpendicular, flat light, reproduction of a flat surface. All the detail in the image, except the window at the bottom, is flat. That includes the arches and the engraved stone -- everything outside of the black semicircular frame around the window is painted. The window is itself flat and is also de minimis. The photograph required someone's skill in scaffolding, but it could have been taken by anyone with a point and shoot camera who managed to climb the scaffolding.
As for copyright, the source site does not own the copyright in the image and does not claim to own it -- see http://www.wga.hu/index1.html. They claim copyright only in their database. Furthermore, they do not acknowledge the copyright owner, and, in fact, many versions of the image or identical photographs appear on the Web. Note, however, that I am not arguing the fifth point at COM:PRP -- I think the image can stay based on its own creation, not because it is all over the Web and no one cares.
If you seriously believe that this was a bad call, I suggest you put a {{Delete}} on it again and see what happens. Although I would argue my point of view on such a DR, I would also say that I suggested the second DR.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
De minimis does not apply in this case- de minimis is about incidental inclusion of copyrighted elements, not about declaring a photograph public domain because it's mostly just a reproduction of a 2d artwork. I will consider renominating, but I find that deletion discussions here are hardly great for determining the status of images. J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
We tend to use the term to describe a special case. De minimis applies to any legal situation where an aspect of the situation is so small a part of the whole that it should not affect the decision. That is true of the window here -- if everything else in the image is covered by Bridgeman, then the incidental inclusion of the window can be de minimis to any decision based on Bridgeman.
I suggest that if you haven't read the complete text of Bridgeman, you do so. Commons policy is based on the Bridgeman decision, but does not follow it exactly -- among other things, there is no 2D versus 3D distinction in Bridgeman. I think that my decision in this case follows directly along Judge Kaplan's reasoning there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Lakhdar Belloumi

Thank you for your message and the information, I don't know that. I will act as what u explain on futur. However, please don't delete the article, Lakhdar Belloumi is important same Michel Platini, Luis Figo or other great football players. I try to perform the article. Greetings. --Faycal.09 (Talk) 18:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Qualified countires to African Cup of Nations 2012.png

Can you see please the file of Qualified african countires, Morocco's map is not right because Republic of Western Sahara contested yet. Greetings. --Faycal.09 (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you want here. It is Commons policy not to enter into disputes over the accuracy of maps. Those are often politically motivated and the two sides have different views of what is true. We therefore leave the questions to the users of our resources. Your repeated changes to the map amount to edit warring or vandalism, both of which are prohibited.
Editors on four wikis have chosen to use this map. You may upload your new map under a different name and try to convince the four wikis to use your version, but in any event the existing version will stay on Commons as it is now.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem was resolved, thank you for your message. --Faycal.09 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Craftsman

Got your message. I stand corrected. Amandajm (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Description of deleted picture

Could you please send me the source code of the description page for the picture File:Archbishop_Khachatour_Kesaratsi_(Isfahan)_001.jpg, that you deleted, in its last version? Thanks, --Petrus Adamus (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Montreal Biodome (animals)

It would i've been way more civil to contact me first before deleting the galery and having a good explanation of the out of scope interpretation than delete it yourself without talking to the creator first. This galery was done with the idea of puting a link in a section Collection animal du Biodome (french article). The way the actual page is constructed it encompass the buidling and the animals and cannot be used in the wikipedia articles in either way (buidling or animals in the zoo). The galery i've made was also way more complete on the animal subject than the actual one. As i see, they are deletion request waiting in the queue from november 2011 but it took less than 12 hours of presence on Commons to delete two hours of work without talking to the creator. For sure the link to the french article was not done yesterday night because i take the rest of my time to make some categorisation work on commons, but out of project scope for not being linked in less than 12 hours do you considere this a too long time of waiting. When deletion request for image are made at least we put a message on the creator page before. As a rather new contributor to commons that act cautiausly usually and know a little about copyright issue (but not everything) i find the lost of my time without explanation that could have been be done with my understanding of the «out of scope and duplicate» in this case very disturbing. All my excuses for my bad english. -- ChristianT (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for both the rapid action and the brevity of the comment, but I am afraid that it is necessary. Commons Administrators delete approximately 1,400 pages every day. About half of those are done by six of us, and the backlog is growing. About one hundred of the deleted pages are new galleries such as yours. There simply is not time to discuss each deletion on the creator's talk page, particularly since very few -- perhaps one in a thousand -- actually give rise to any discussion. For evidence of this, you need only look back at my talk page archives or Commons:Undeletion requests, where fewer than one tenth of one percent (1/1000) of all deletions are reversed by community consensus.
We pay particular attention to new galleries created by relatively new editors because experience has shown that if we do not, a few of them will create hundreds of out of scope pages before they are stopped and, of course, someone has to delete them all. During the day in Europe and North America, such pages are often deleted within minutes of creation.
As for this particular gallery, since we already have Biodome, with a section on animals, it seemed to me entirely unnecessary to commit our future colleagues to maintaining two pages that would have the same images. My decision might have been different if Biodome was a large gallery, but with only seven images in it, I saw no reason why we need a separate gallery that duplicates half of the existing one. If you think that the gallery is incomplete, you can certainly add to it.
For fr:Biodôme de Montréal you can easily link to the section Biodome#Animals living in the Biodome. There is no need to create a new gallery. Or, perhaps, create Category:Montreal Biodome animals, and link to that.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests of Chu

I have knocked heads with Chu a few times before - he doesn't really seem to comprehend that once he has given away the license to a picture, it is no longer his property. I restored the original files: he has uploaded other images over the original ones, so that they look the same, and then requests deletion based on the notion that they are duplicates. I don't know if we could have a Korean speaker explain the idea of donating media a bit closer? Here are the links to the various most recent deletion requests: 1, 2, and 3. I think Chu just wants them deleted because he likes another photo of his better, but I would argue that it is up to the various editors here to decide which photos we like better. Best, Mr.choppers (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to have a Korean speaker explain to him. You can try either Commons:List of administrators by language or The Korean Village Pump.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion req

Hi, James. Well, regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:View on Monastery Banjska.jpg. We have 17 other images. this one definitively can go... Why did you closed request, before talking to me? Anyway, what next? :) :) --WhiteWriter speaks 00:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have explained at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ulpiana,_overview.jpg that you are the uploader. Still you have given us no reason for the deletion, and many users of Commons like to have a wide variety of images to pick from. We very rarely delete perfectly good images unless there is a copyright or personal problem of some sort.
In the case of Ulpiana there are only five altogether. In the case of Banjska there are 19, but this is one of only two that show the mountains in the background. I see no reason to delete either.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Horizons trajectory (2011-07-14).jpg

I was not given a warning on this deletion. I am unsure if I uploaded it. A lot of works by NASA joint projects with universities carry the NASA Public Domain license and not the website they appear on. My belief is that the trajectory is generated using NASA utilities making it in the public domain. I can ask NASA if I am given the link to the file. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the source:

http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/mission/whereis_nh.php

Good luck with NASA. I note that the fact that NASA utilities might have been used to generate the image is not relevant to the question of its copyright. If the person who did the work was an employee of NASA at the time, then it is PD. If he or she was an employee of Johns Hopkins or another private institution, then it has a copyright.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:KAST kast 1992.jpg

Hi Jameslwoodward, I have uploaded a new picture of the interior object. Could you remove the three older files and clos the deletion discussion about this image. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done I closed that and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spider light 1994.jpg after hiding the previous versions of the images. Thank you for your cooperation in cleaning this up.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks you. Could you remove the older version of the File:Spider Ash 1993.jpg as well and close the discussion. -- Mdd (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Spider_Ash_1993.jpg could be closed as well, if you could delete the older version. Thanks. Whaledad (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, could you close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Galaxy (Barbara Nanning).jpg as well. -- Mdd (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank yo for your effort in getting permission from the artist to keep this file.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Sdornano

Hello James Woodward

When I introduced the picture of the paintings of my grandfather that you have erased on the 4th of february, there was very quickly a request of deletion set by Polarlys.

I explained the situation to Polarlys User_talk:Polarlys#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFiles_uploaded_by_Sdornano. He did not comment my message

Since then, a message from the owner of the paintings, my mother, has been sent to otrs : [Ticket#2012020110009427] Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sdornano

She gaves all the informations related to thoses paintings.

So I don't understand that why you have deteled those pictures as the CC is confirmed by the owner ?

Sincerly

SdO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdornano (talk • contribs) 16:07, 6 February 2012‎ (UTC)

The OTRS ticket which you cite does not contain any confirmation that the sender is the owner of the copyright, only that she is the owner of the paintings themselves. In most countries, including France, the copyright will belong to the artist, or the artist's heirs, independent of who owns the painting. In this case it may well be that your mother owns the copyright as well as the paintings, but she must tell us that. The OTRS volunteer has exchanged several messages with her in French with no result.
I also note that you claim that File:Anders osterlind portrait 1950 medium.jpeg is your own work. Since you also claim to be his grandson, it seems unlikely that you were alive in 1950 to take this photograph. Much more likely is that someone else owns the copyright. Since it has lacked permission for a week, I have deleted it. Note that it never permitted to upload an image in two sizes -- we want only the larger one and the smaller one will always be deleted, so I have also deleted File:Anders osterlind portrait 1950 vignette.jpeg. Wiki software allows easy display of an image at any size required.
One of our rules is that we "assume good faith" -- when an editor claims "own work", we assume that he is telling the truth. However, when an editor makes such a claim that is clearly incorrect, we look much more closely at everything he has done. It does not matter if he was actively lying, or simply made a mistake -- the fact that he gave us incorrect information changes our willingness to accept what he says without investigation.
As for Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Sdornano, it was an action without controversy -- Polarys correctly nominated the images for deletion, including notifying you on your talk page. A week later I saw no reason not to delete them. Please remember that Commons Administrators delete about 1,300 pages every day. Six of us do half of those, so we do not spend much time on non-controversial actions.
If you can sort out the ownership of the copyright in your grandfather's paintings, then we can restore the images easily. Please do not upload any of them again -- that would be a violation of our rules. I think that the photograph of your grandfather will be harder, unless you can locate the photographer or his heirs. As a 1950 image, it is still in copyright in France for at least another seven years -- 70 years after the death of the photographer.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:New_Horizons_trajectory_.282011-07-14.29.jpg

Well, the requested said pretty much we are better at deleting stuff and we should delete more NASA pictures now. Oh well. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of File:AkkkpTeam2.jpg and File:ABIPLA.JPG

Hi Jim. I notice that you deleted File:AkkkpTeam2.jpg and File:ABIPLA.JPG citing their respective deletion requests. As it was, the nominator supported deletion and I opposed it, and I gave reasons why those pictures are in scope, namely that they are high-resolution pictures of groups of people, however non-notable they may be. I feel like if you were going to close those requests, you ought to have closed as no-consensus. On the basis of numbers, positions were equal (if you yourself supported deletion it seems inappropriate that you closed it yourself), but my impression is the deletion requests are not merely votes but matters of policy, and on that point, the nominators did not respond to my reasons for keeping the files. Regards, Quintucket (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

An argument similar to yours can be made to keep almost any image. Most Admins, including me, reject such arguments because we have so many in-scope pictures of any such possibility that the argument is not valid reason for keeping such images. We have well over 1,000 photographs in Category:Group photographs and its subcats and that just scratches the surface.
Your argument also fails on the specifics. The first image is only 722x368px, which is hardly a high-resolution image. The second is 3070x2172px, but is not high quality. I am not certain whether the problem is that the plane of focus is behind all of the people or that the image suffers from motion blur, but none of the people is at all sharp. In addition, there is serious flare in several places where the bright background ends. If either of these had been of truly outstanding quality, I might have ignored my comments above and kept it, but both are average to below average amateur group shots.
As to procedure, Admins are not required to pay any attention to the preceding comments when closing a DR, but only to their own judgement, experience, and understanding of the applicable law or policy. Of course we would be foolish to ignore comments made by experienced users, particularly those who consistently are on the correct side of a discussion. GeorgeHH is an experienced Admin with over 100,000 edits. Japs 88 is much less experienced, but still a name I recognize.
If Admins actually were required to obey:
"if you yourself supported deletion it seems inappropriate that you closed it yourself".
we would never close any DRs. As a general rule, if experienced colleagues who I respect make serious arguments with which I disagree, I may comment, but I leave the closure to someone else.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
It sounds to me like your argument is: "Why should I respect or pay any attention to you; you haven't been here long enough to know what you're talking about." I know Commons isn't as egalitarian as WP, but I hope you understand how insulting that is. It also seems a bit cliquish. Neither you nor the nominator even bothered to respond to my arguments at the time, and it seems like you're saying that there's no purpose to even having deletion requests. If admins "are not required to pay any attention to the preceding comments when closing a DR," why not make every deletion a speedy deletion? It would clear up the backlog in no time.
As for your reasoning: your arguments about picture size would seem to imply that every picture which isn't of exceptional quality could be deleted. It would certainly seem to imply that amateur photographers, or at least people without really nice cameras shouldn't attempt to contribute potentially useful pictures to the Commons, unless there's an immediate use for them. Though I haven't uploaded them yet, I'm trying to replace the Turkish pictures we had to delete for copyvio), and to take similar pictures. Should I eve bother? I personally don't have a digital camera that can take pictures greater than 1200 * 1600, while my phone has about three megapixels, it can't handle zoom or depth of field. (I can take decent pictures with my film camera, but as I'm not a professional photographer, I'm not going to bring something that heavy and potentially confiscatable into an airport, and I'm certainly not going to take anything other than art shots with it.)
I admit, I should have been more specific: I agree that the Chinese restaurant picture isn't great, but it's high resolution, whereas the Pakistani football team isn't high resolution, but is at least in my opinion, well composed. My understanding was that pictures had to have some potentially educational value, and that there not be similar pictures of better quality. Before I commented on those DRs, I went through Category:Chinese_style_restaurants and many of its subcategories, and the same for Category:People of Pakistan. (I admit I didn't go through every one of the subcategories, but give me some credit.) Like I said, with the Chinese restaurant picture, we don't so far as I can tell have a representative picture of people eating on the inside of the restaurant. We also don't seem to have a color picture that so nicely represents a cross-section of Pakistani dress, with both men and women in both traditional and modern dress. —Quintucket (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
My apologies -- my comments were a little off base. Let me try and add some perspective.
Commons Admins delete approximately 1,300 pages every day. Six of us do half of those, and we have a growing backlog, so we work fairly fast. Those six admins have done about 350,000 deletions among them, so we have seen every possible argument for keeping an image. Some of those along the general lines of yours are:
  • "Could illustrate a blurry image".
  • "Could illustrate a typical American teen-ager."
  • "Shows a typical rock band."
So, if we actually applied your reasoning to every out of scope deletion, then we would keep them all. That is why our scope policy includes, among things:
  • "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose"
  • [Must not be] "files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." [emphasis added]
  • [Must not be] "private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on."
The key, I think, is "realistically useful". How likely is it that either of these images, of unknown people in unknown locations (Pakistan, in one case -- but that's a big country) is going to be used. Certainly no commercial user, magazine, or book publisher is going to use such images -- there is too much opportunity for embarrassment if they turn out to be problematic for one of many reasons.
We also are quite clear that Commons is not Flickr. Commons has some 12 million images. Flickr has more than six billion. Although we deliberately ignore cost of storage in making individual decisions, if we allowed every non-notable group to post images here, the storage cost could escalate rapidly. We tend to be fairly tough on the notability requirement.
As to process, again, we're working very fast. My colleagues and I don't generally leave closing comments when the closure seems obvious. That generally works fairly well -- every two or three days, someone comes here to ask a question about a closure, but it's far more efficient to answer occasional questions here than to write a hundred closing comments every day. And yes (forgive me for being very blunt), I'm far more likely to pay attention to an Admin with 100,000 edits than to a relative newbie whose argument is of a kind that we hear frequently and routinely discount. If you had included this
"Before I commented on those DRs, I went through Category:Chinese_style_restaurants and many of its subcategories, and the same for Category:People of Pakistan."
in the DRs it probably wouldn't have changed my closure, but it probably would have elicited a closing comment.
The reason that we have DRs for many issues is that a DR gives the community an opportunity to bring out facts and opinions about an image that Admins have nowhere near enough time to research. For example, someone might well point out that there is a Nobel prize winner in the middle of image A. We depend on the community to provide that research. Again, consider the numbers -- each month about 25,000 people make contributions to Commons -- against that we have a few dozen Admins who close almost all of the DRs.
I think you misread my comments about picture quality. My comment was that if the quality were truly extraordinary, I might keep an image even it were out of scope otherwise. It said nothing about required quality for an in-scope image. Certainly we would prefer to have high resolution images in every case, but we definitely keep images in the 300x500px range of in-scope subjects and have many down to the 150x250px range. Below 100px, it takes an extraordinary photograph to be kept. 1,200x1,600px probably won't become a featured picture, but it is certainly a very much appreciated size, good for almost all web use and some print uses as well.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I generally don't comment on DRs unless I have a strong opinion on the matter, and I've noticed most don't seem to get commented at all, or when they do, the objections often come from the uploader. Which is why I was somewhat offended when you deleted the pictures without another comment. I'm also a bit prickly about people who cite edit counts, mainly because of people who wrack up large numbers of edits with scripts. Not that I have anything against scripts, but I like to be thorough in my requests. When I review images, I try to make sure that I've also addressed FOP issues, and when I answer deletion requests, I try to put some thought into it. I will try to be more specific in the future. I see how "we don't currently seem to have any pictures of gorbenigek" is different from "this is a decent example of gorbenigek."
I'm still not happy with the deletion of the Pakistani soccer team for a number of reasons. As you mentioned, we have a surfeit of pictures of unidentified westerners doing typical western things; but we have fewer of people in poorer countries doing mundane things, owing to systematic bias. I was interested in clothing, I thought about adding it to en:Pakistani clothing, but I didn't want to seem like I was shoehorning it to prevent deletion. It's not a huge issue, as I likely wouldn't have noticed it if it hadn't been DRed. (I was more put off by the way you handled it, though I understand your reasoning.) And I agree that the Chinese restaurant picture wasn't very good. I suppose that one could probably find better pictures of people in Chinese restaurants on Picasa or Flickr if they were needed.
But I do want to say that I have noticed and do appreciate the work you do (you yourself and admins here in general). I've noticed some time ago that the admins at the Commons have far more work to do than the ones at EN:WP. I had no idea we had that many new pictures, and while I'm not going to nominate myself for adminship anytime soon for obvious reasons, I'll try to help out at least with the new picture patrol. —Quintucket (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Conscientious and careful comments, particularly from people who have a record of being helpful, are much appreciated. We really do pay attention, although it may not have seemed so in this case. So please keep it up, only in the future put a little more flesh on your comments. Don't rule out becoming an Admin -- if you spent some time on patrolling new images, or commenting on DRs, with your good attitude you could probably become one in a few months.
You can, of course, post an Undeletion Request for the soccer team.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but my goal was to persuade you. I believe the files remain in the system right? Articles on national costumes are one of the many things on my long to-do list, as is improving Wikipedia coverage of local South Asian issues (I see a lot of stuff that on EN:WP that could meet WP guidelines, but doesn't because the users who create those articles don't know formal policy). If I ever get around to doing serious work on the Pakistani clothing article, I'll do a formal request then. —Quintucket (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we keep everything forever -- every edit and every image -- deleted actually means "removed from general use". So it will be here when you need it. And, by the way, if a WP editor wants it for an article, it is automatically "in-scope" on Commons. Although sometimes that's an easy way around an out-of-scope DR here, usually the WP editors settle down in about the same place we do.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

CU

Well congratulations, it seems you made it :) -- Blackcat (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you beat me to it, even though I closed the vote! James, I've affirmed the request on meta, so your tools should be updated sometime soon. Thanks for helping, and use them wisely. --99of9 (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations or I might say condolences for even more work to do ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Congrats. I just gave you the rights and all other access. If you have further questions, feel free to ask of course. Trijnstel (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't mention it! ;-) I consider you a great user. Congratulations! Angelus(talk) 13:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure -- Blackcat (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the admin-related help that we offered. Thanks! --Katarighe (Talk) 22:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser

Hi Jameslwoodward. Stopping by for a late "congrats!" Had I not been away from the wiki, I would have been happy to show my support at your request for votes. Feel free to shoot me an email if you ever have an questions are need assistance. I look forward to working with you, Tiptoety talk 18:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -- Herby has been very patient with my questions -- if he runs out of that, I may take up your offer.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A bit late, but congrats on your CU and thanks for helping!  ■ MMXX  talk 00:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Shaista_Wahidi.jpg

I wonder if this DR must wait the full 7 days. There is clear evidence of sockpuppetry here and Charming Sabeel is the same person as the image uploader Yamaaan--as Yamaaan says here on his account history. Perhaps both accounts should be warned against future sockpuppetry or banned for 2-3 days. Just a suggestion, nothing more. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Martin beat me to it -- his clock is six hours earlier.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Category: Winter by year

Hello Jim, I performed a bit of maintenance in the category Winter by year and found out that, unlike I was expecting, there were a lot of categories such as Winter of 2006-2007, Winter of 2007/2008 and such, that are clearly senseless: apart from the fact that the main category is by year, not by season, a name such "Winter 2006-2007" doesn't take in count there's also a Southern hemisphere where winter is not split in two consecutive years (winter in Australia or Argentina goes from June to September...). In my opinion such categories (which I emptied anyway) should be deleted, what do you think? -- Blackcat (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not of earth shaking importance, but I'm not sure I agree. In the USA we almost invariably will speak of the "Summer of 1970", but the "Winter of 1970-71", to eliminate ambiguity. I note that the subcats of Winter 2012 are Winter 2011-2012 in Asia‎ and Winter 2011-2012 in Europe. This has its own problem, as it's not at all clear to me that current season is (in the Northern Hemisphere) the winter of 2012. Since it began in 2011, if I had to name it with a single year, I would call it the winter of 2011, the year in which the winter season technically began.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes but in this case you'll speak of "Winter of 1970-71 in the United States", not of a generic "Winter of 1970-71" (which can't be valid worldwide since Australia had winter from June to September respectively 1970 and 1971), don't you agree? -- Blackcat (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, but I think (others will differ) that Category:Winter 1970 should have subcats Category:Winter 1970-1971 in Europe, not, as now, Category:Winter 2012 with subcats Winter 2011-2012 in Europe‎. In American English, at least (I don't know about Britain), we are in the Winter of 2011 now.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes that can be done, that's why I asked for advice for the sub-categories. -- Blackcat (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Block user

Hello Jim

Is my action right? I block that user because his/her account's name violates username policy (famous people: Demi Lovato). Please consider this for me. Thanks. Kind regards--Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You're correct on policy. It's certainly very unlikely, but it is possible that our contributor is actually the singer / songwriter. I might have waited until she had made a few contributions, but I think it is OK.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Teiresziasz-szobor-CRW_0259-nr-1000.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:BudapestDSCN3969.JPG

Hello, the above is my picture and You deleted it. I do not know why. Please explain. --Misibacsi (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The sculpture pictured is recent and still has a copyright, so your image is a Derivative Work and violates the copyright. In many countries, including Hungary, there is a special rule, which we call FOP, which allows such pictures under certain circumstances. However in most countries, including Hungary, the sculpture must be outdoors, so we cannot apply the FOP rule here.
Therefore, in order to restore your image, we will need permission from the sculptor, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong, this is not the case. In Hungary, sculptures can be photographed wherever they are, there is not copyright which forbids this. I am not a lawyer, but I live in Hungary and I know the rules. --Misibacsi (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Hungarian Copyright law is one of the broadest and most comprehensive that I have read.
English translation of the Hungarian Copyright Law from the World Intellectual Property Organization:
"1(2) All creations of literature, science and art—whether or not specified by this Act—shall fall under the protection of this Act, in particular:
"1(2)h) drawings, paintings, sculpture, engravings, creations produced by lithography or in like manner, and designs thereof,"
"68(1) Of a fine art, architectural and applied art creation erected with a permanent character outdoors in a public place a view may be made and used without the authorization of the author and paying remuneration to him." [emphasis added]
Thus, all sculpture is covered by copyright and, as I said, the FOP exemption applies only to works that are permanent and outdoors in a public place. We need not debate whether this is a public place, since it is clearly not out of doors.
You say:
"In Hungary, sculptures can be photographed wherever they are, there is not copyright which forbids this."
It is true that one can make photographs of sculpture for your own private, non-commercial use. The Hungarian law says:
"35(1) A copy of the work may be made by anyone for private purpose if it is not designed for earning or increasing income even in an indirect way...."
Therefore your taking your photograph, or showing it to friends, is not against the law and does not infringe the copyright. This kind of provision is known generally as "Fair Use". Although it is legal to make the photograph, we cannot keep it on Commons, primarily because we require that all images be available for commercial use and this image is not, because such use would infringe the sculptor's copyright.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info, it seems I did not know that law exactly. --Misibacsi (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration

Re: "It seems to me that Piotrus is trying to transfer work to other Commons editors." It's called collaboration. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, as I said, it is up to the uploader to provide descriptions to the maximum extent he or she can. Certainly we collaborate when necessary, but please don't upload large batches of images with no descriptions again. There are plenty of things on which collaboration is essential without creating new work for an overworked community. I realize that it takes effort to provide descriptions -- while I spend almost all of my Commons time now on administrative issues, I have uploaded around 600 images myself.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Block

Please block this user. S/He is currently blocked on en.wiki for persistent uploading of stolen images with false/missing licensing information and later continues with the same behaviour. Kindly regards --Katarighe (Talk) 22:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The user has uploaded four copyvios, two images with {{Delete}} tags and two that may be OK -- I am suspicious but cannot prove anything. She had not been warned when I went to her talk page, so a block is not appropriate yet. I warned her not to continue with copyvios -- we will see what happens.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Review a picture

Hi, could you please take a second to review if File:Pamphlet by HSRA after Saunders murder.jpg that I uploaded meets copyright? Else, please delete it. Thanks. --Tinpisa (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In India, literary works, which this is, have copyright for sixty years after the author's death. Since this author died in 1931, it appears to be OK on copyright. However, we do not generally keep text on Commons, so it may be out of scope. I confess that I do not understand exactly where to draw the line on that.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
This is not just plain text, but a notice or a poster which has significant historical importance. I would not say that this can easily be replaced with plain text. --Sreejith K (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand that POV, which is one reason I did not put a {{Delete}} on it for the community to give its opinion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Papeete Tahiti Temple.jpg

Can you restore or email me this picture Trodelgmail.com so I can upload it to Wikipedia rather than commons - I think its usage there doesn't violate the FOP rules in France. Thanks --Trödel 17:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Its use anywhere on any WMF project will infringe the copyright. Tahiti is France, the building is modern, so the French copyright law applies, including the lack of FOP.
Since it was created by the uploader and not published elsewhere, the image cannot be used under the Fair use rules on WP:EN, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy_2, item 4. I do not know the Fair Use rules on WP:FR, but I doubt that they are any easier.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:User SUL-de

Hallo Jim, please keep my Template, but please do it, I'm waiting now from Janury 9. (see also User talk:Yann#Template:User SUL-de). Lovely --Abrape (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hallo Jim, I thank you very, very much. Lovely --Abrape (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

ROEHM Product Pictures

Hi Jim,

you deleted the Images of Roehm because of CC licence terms - unfortunately. I've got the rights by picture publisher Roehm to publish that Pictures by CC Licence for public use. How should we handle that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terror Dwarf (talk • contribs) 09:10, 20 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Have an appropriate corporate officer of Roehm send the following message from a Roehm e-mail address to permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org:
"To: permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org
I hereby affirm that RÖHM GmbH is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of
  • File:Bohrfutter.jpg
  • File:Drehfutter.jpg
  • File:Greiftechnik.jpg
  • File:Kraftspannfutter Zylinder.jpg
  • File:NC Kompakt Spanner.jpg
  • File:Segmentspanndorn.jpg
  • File:Sonderspanntechnik.jpg
  • File:Spitzen.jpg
  • File:Werkzeugpannsystem SuperLock.jpg
I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).]
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work 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 I always retain copyright of my work, and retain 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 me.
I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
[SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS (to allow future verification of authenticity)]
[SENDER'S AUTHORITY (Are you the copyright-holder, director, appointed representative of, etc.)]
[DATE]"
Let me know here when that message has been sent and I will read it, and if it is satisfactory, I will restore the images.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Botelho

Dear Jim, I've done it as well as I could. Please read the message for you on my page. Many thanks. Looking forward to hearing from you.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Overexposed Images user Politikaner

Wienzeile 20091008 021

Hello. I asked for deletion of this and other overexposed images from this user from this date. Some of them have been deleted, not all. User:Politikaner/gallery/Archiv2#Fri_Dec_11_19:59:42_CET_2009


The images from this tour are from major sights of vienna, there are better images of any of these buildings in the commons library. These images don't show anything, that would be hidden with balanced exposure. They are obviously the bad result of manual exposure and ISO 800. There is absolutely no point in keeping the fotos from this tour. These fotos are spam.

The subject in the version history is "kept". Why not delete it? --Thomas Ledl (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Less than perfect quality is not generally enough reason to delete images of important subjects.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually is hardly usable, Jim... :-) -- Blackcat (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
It is certainly on the lower border of usability as an image for print or a website, but there are other reasons to want a photo. Suppose, for example, you are making a model of the building, or an architectural drawing -- this is an historic building, so both are possible. For those purposes, what you want is a photo of every part of the building and these will be okay for that, much better than not having them. As you use your new tools -- and I am not happy that the RfA has not been closed, I put a notice at BNB -- keep your mind open to all of the possible uses of an image of less than perfect quality. I don't mean to say that I have not deleted images because of poor quality, but they were much worse than this.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually I thought it would be closed soon, it's almost 24 hour since the term has expired. As for the picture, I wouldn't have deleted it too, but as a Wikipedian I would hardly use it in a local chapter -- Blackcat (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I know the sight. The picture doesn't represent the sight. Is it a peace of art? There are still other fotos of this sight. what is the point in keeping something that is not useable? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Linke_Wienzeile_38http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Linke_Wienzeile_38--Thomas Ledl (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I answered that question above -- if one is making a model or an architectural drawing of this national monument building, one wants all the images possible, in order to get it all right. Please remember that Commons images are used in many ways besides illustrating Wikipedia -- Commons images of mine are in a calendar, on a newspaper web site, and on a refrigerator magnet, as well as many other uses.

Books and catalogues

Dear Jim. I've been working on some Portuguese pages on wikipedia (artists I am or was close to) but there are no available images and I can’t go into all the trouble of negotiating copyright licenses. I thought about a possible way to minimize this: by taking photos of some of their books and catalogues covers. Since I’m talking about publications’ covers would I be infringing copyright rules? If it’s alright - and since I took the photos myself -, should I upload these images as my own work? Before doing anything I need to know. Can you give advice?Manuelvbotelho (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry that will not work for paintings that are not themselves PD. Just as your images of your grandfather's paintings required a license because the images are derivative works, so the covers are DW of paintings on them. Most likely the publishers of the books and catalogs have only a limited license to use the paintings on their covers and do not have the right to sub-license them.
The only way around getting a license from the heirs of artists who died after 1942 is if they have works hanging in places that have freedom of panorama -- those places inthe third column of this table. In any of those countries, you can freely photograph paintings hanging permanently in museums.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I'll do nothing. But it is really sad. Maybe allowing small images to circulate freely in a legitimate manner might be very positive in every sense, without damaging our legitimate rights! In many cases the copyright rules are preventing us from knowing the work of many relevant artists! Often, all we come to know are minor works, uploaded to blogs all over the world with no understandable criteria whatsoever.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WHY ?

Bonjour, ma photo "Vitrail Saint Michel.jpg" a été supprimée le 20.11.2011. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi et n'ai pas trouver sur le site une explication claire de cette suppression. Sur l'article concernant Sainte Mère l'église, il y a pourtant une autre photo de vitrail : "http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Sainte_m%C3%A8re_l%27%C3%A9glise,_vitraux.JPG#file". Pouvez vous m'éclairer ? Merci blejuez

Traduction google : Hello, my picture "File"Vitrail Saint Michel.jpg" was abolished on 11/20/2011. I do not understand why and did not find the site a clear explanation of this suppression. On the article on Sainte Mère l'église, there is yet another photo of stained glass: "http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Sainte_m%C3%27%C3%A8re_l%A9glise,_vitraux.JPG#file". Can you enlighten me? thank you blejuez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.175.182 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 22 February 2012‎ (UTC)

This window was created in 1969. French law calls for copyright until 70 years after the death of the creator, so it will be copyrighted until at least 2039. Your image is a Derivative work of the glass, so in order to keep it, we must have permission of the creator of the window.
The window in the image File:Sainte mère l'église, vitraux.JPG is a different window. I do not know when it was created.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Le deuxième vitrail glorifie les parachutistes du jour J qui a eu lieu le 6 juin 1944. Il a donc été crée au plus tôt le 6.6.1944. Si on ajoute 70 ans cela nous donne le 6.6.2014 !! La photo ne respecte pas non plus la loi. Est ce que je me trompe ?

The second window glorify the paratroopers on D-Day which took place June 6, 1944. It was therefore created no earlier than 6.6.1944. If we add 70 years gives us the 06/06/2014! The photo does not meet either the law. Is that correct?

C'est vrai. Regardez Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sainte mère l'église, vitraux.JPG.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the important date is the death of the creator. So the copyright would end in on January 1, 2015 only if the windows were made during 1944 (unlikely, no?) and if the creator then died in 1944.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim

You are ever so kind to help. I know there is nothing you can do to change things, but I’d like you to understand my concern: I’m not worried about my own generation, and even less about the young. We are learning to cope with the Internet age; we all have sites, and blogs… But with a few exceptions, for older artists or artists who died less than 70 years ago things are a lot different, for there is hardly anyone to keep their memory alive; the copyright owners hardly ever understand this! Thanks again for your trouble!Manuelvbotelho (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There is not much we can do about copyright laws, and, of course, with good intentions they are enacted to protect artists and let them profit from posters and other reproductions of their works.
There are two things to think about. First, as I think you know, WP:EN permits fair use. If you write an article there on a notable Portuguese artist, you can certainly illustrate it with several images under that policy. See, for example, Pablo Picasso which has a mixture of copyrights -- some of which are PD-US but not PD Spain and others are not PD anywhere.
You could also upload images to places such as Flickr that do not worry much about copyright.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:

Yes, indeed very useful. BTW you may want to run for bureaucrat as there's shortage of them, I see... their page was unattended for 24+ hours :-) -- Blackcat (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-educational but in use

Hello Jim. Could you please take a look at File:The Iranian National Museum Of Medical Sciences History, Tehran; Iran (By Dr. Maziar Ashrafian Bonab) (4).JPG and File:The Iranian National Museum Of Medical Sciences History, Tehran; Iran (By Dr. Maziar Ashrafian Bonab) (14).jpg. I nominated them for deletion last month (here and here) but they were kept because they were in use on the Persian Wikipedia. Unfortunately I was blocked on fawp at that time (still blocked), so I couldn't remove the images from the Persian Wikipedia (though I removed them from the English Wikipedia). These images are obviously not encyclopedic and there are plenty of better images of that subject. Today, I noticed that you have nominated some files (example) for deletion due to the same reason despite the fact that they are in use on several Wikipedias. Could you please reconsider these two nominations (1 and 2). User:Captain-tucker said he wouldn't feel offended if I nominate them for deletion again. Thanks. Americophile 17:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I generally ignore images that are nominally in use that were placed there by their uploaders and don't belong. I agree that a group photo doesn't belong in an article of the sort where they appear, so I would support your DR. I tried deleting from WP:FA, but I always have trouble with right-to-left. I'll try again later when I get back to my desk.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted photos in wikipedia article on UP Diliman

Hi, may I request the undeletion of the photos I uploaded for the UP Diliman wikipedia article yesterday, specifically,

  • UP_Diliman_Oblation_Plaza_in_2011.JPG
  • UP_Carillon_Tower_and_Carillon_Plaza.jpg
  • UP_Diliman_Sunken_Garden_in_2012.jpg
  • National_Science_Complex.jpg and
  • Melchor_Hall.JPG?

It was indicated that I had to change the licenses on my uploaded Flickr photos to be compliant and have now adjusted them accordingly and have also appealed to admin Sreejithk2000 for the same. Thank you. The account boink_99 on Flickr is also mine, which is why I thought it was OK to upload them here in the Commons despite that it's under a different username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annab 99 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 24 February 2012‎ (UTC)

I have also added a request at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Five_flickr_files --Sreejith K (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done by ‎ZooFari --Sreejith K (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you -- it's always nice to have colleagues in different time zones.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Maahmaah

I realy give up i do not know with which language and how many times i should write i am the owner. many times i had wrote this is my own, pictured from my own book or from my own camera but still somebody have nominate my upload for deletion under pretext of copy right. you had deleted my picture . i had published it in my weblog and fliker and 4shared. but again sombody have asked delet . This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license.look: This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: http://www.4shared.com/account/dir/WFGQv_MZ/_online.html#dir=121321857

OK . ok how many times i shall write i myself am the owner of this page : http://www.4shared.com/account/dir/WFGQv_MZ/_online.html#dir=121321857 and also i am the owner of http://www.flickr.com/photos/54272266@N06/5981369985/in/photostream

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maahmaah (talk • contribs) 19:15, 25 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Many of the files you have uploaded have been deleted. I have not looked at all of them, but I do not think I deleted any of them. The recent ones that have been deleted were because you claimed that they were your own work when they obviously were not -- they appear to be old pictures and maps. On such works we need to know where they came from and when and where they were first published in order to determine whether their copyright status.

If you would like to ask about a specific file, please tell me which one.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC) None of the map that has been deleted have any copy right.because all have been published in iranian atlases without reserving any copy right. No copy right . those map has been published in many atlases among them.Atlas of The Arabian Peninsula in Old European Maps (253 maps) by Khaled Al Ankary, Institute du Monde Arabe,Paris and Tunisia University,2001

  • Atlas of Iranology(PERSIAN GULF IN OLD MAPS) by Dr Hassan Habibi 2007.tehran.tel:0098- 21- 88066146-8

also in my own book.document on the persian gulf.2008. No copy right mentioned. Maahmaah

  • map of IBn batuta travels have been drawn by dr Tazi and i photoed and aploaded it for use in his on page: professor tazi and page of ibn batuta [17]

maahmaah. Maahmaah

  • I do not have any protest you can delete below picture and all other pix that you think are Personal photo :

Personal photo -- Commons is not Flickr      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Single file galleries

Hi Jim,

I see you as a stakeholder in this discussion, I have opened a thread at Commons talk:Galleries. Best wishes, --Slaunger (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Check history for me?

I don't have admin bit here, so could you try to track down the history of the image in this "discussion"? Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done I just e-mailed you both the file history and the final description page. Since there was no source given, it was impossible to tell whether this was an official photo or one taken by GD. Since the unit was a prototype, the latter seems more likely, but the Precautionary Principle applies.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

CFD on cat:Pictures_and_images and similar

As someone who has recently edited Category:Pictures and images, please see the (non-) discussion (not) going on at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/02#Category:Pictures and images (and the 9 nominations following that one), if you haven't already, and comment there if you wish. Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Löschung Aschaffenburg, Schlossgarten

Danke für die Löschung, bitte auch Schlossgarten Aschaffenburg löschen. Danke --Ekpah (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Category

Dear Jim. I put 3 of my images in Category:Manuel Botelho, but maybe I should have done something prior to that...! Can you please give advice or correct if necessary?Manuelvbotelho (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Although the software gathers the images as though there was a category, you should actually create the category, by clicking on the link that allows that. I did it, by adding one category I was sure of. You may want to add others.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks!Manuelvbotelho (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Standish Backus

Hi, Jim. Do you remember the issue on Standish Backus ? What do you think of File:Backus, Garden at Hiroshima, Autumn.jpg ? And What do you think of these behavior ? Takabeg (talk) 15:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

See the DR and User_talk:Laitr_Keiows#Warning. I suspect, but cannot prove, that he went after File:Backus, Garden at Hiroshima, Autumn.jpg in retribution for the DRs on a couple of his images. Let me know if he causes more trouble.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Merci. I also felt that DR his/her retributional action. Takabeg (talk) 15:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Closed deletion requests on "Tower of the Sun"

Hi James, thank you for your kind waning against removing {{Delete}} tags. Surely I won't do this again, but here I remind you that any deletion requests on these images were closed resulting in a long-standing consensus that these images should be kept.

Now I kindly ask you as an administrator to either remove those {{Delete}} tags linked to a closed request, or reopen that request so that everyone interested could give his or her votes once again. Laitr Keiows (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Just as a User can file an Undeletion Request if he or she believes that an image has been deleted inappropriately, it is perfectly all right to file a second Deletion Request on an image when a User believes that it was incorrectly kept.
The discussion is open at the page linked to the nominations, namely Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tower of the Sun in Osaka.jpg. That is all that is required, as users seeing the {{Delete}} tags will follow the link there.
Note, too, that comments in a DR are not votes. It is up the closing editor to decide which way to go based on the facts, Commons policy, and the law. While the comments should inform his or her decision, they are not votes in any sense.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice! I edited my comment into a vote there. Also can I as a user edit {{Delete}} tags so they'll point to the original oldest deletion request? If not, would you be so kind to edit them correspondingly as an administrator? Laitr Keiows (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand. Any editor can clean up a malformed DR and edit mistakes. However, I don't see any here.
The current open DR is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tower of the Sun in Osaka.jpg. It lists all of these:
The {{Delete}} tag on each of them correctly links to the current DR. In addition, of course, each of them that was nominated previously will have a {{Kept}} tag on its Talk Page which will link to any previous DRs.
With that understood, I don't see what changes you want. This appears to be a perfectly straightforward mass DR, correctly created. (I say that without making any judgement on the issue presented, as I have not yet looked hard at it.)     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleting after a RfD

Hello Jim, in order not to waste all of this work (see RfD) I cropped it and uploaded in place of the older one that contained parts that didn't comply with FOP:United Arab Emirates. Then I deleted from history the older file. The question is, is it ok to the delete history or is there a way to keep history and delete thumbnail and older file only? -- Blackcat (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Look at a file that has two versions, such as File:Brandi_Carlile.jpg. If you click on "(show/hide)" on any version other than the most recent, you get a choice of what to hide. I prefer to check only the first box, "Hide file content", so that it remains clear to all users that a previous version exists, but only Admins can see it. I'll add this to my Admin notes.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks, thus might generally be a good thing to crop a file in order to save the suitable content for Commons and cut the copyrighted material away? -- Blackcat (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Оксана Красникова

I don't know what might have slipped in while closing this one, but please be a bit more careful in the future - nearly a half of the files was still there and those two to be kept still had a DR template. - A.Savin 01:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, DelReqHandler is often not completing tasks which it is ordered to do. I have noted that in several of my closing comments and have posted a note on the tool's talk page. Until it is fixed, I think that we should all cover for one another and finish anything that DelReqHandler leaves undone.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


COM:AN/U

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Laitr Keiows (talk • contribs) 10:52, 2 March 2012‎ (UTC)

protests images

Hello. Please I need your help in proving the copyrights of some pictures, because I have a permission from their authors, but I don't know how to prove the copyrights. Look; the pictures is for protests in Syria against the regime in the last few months, but, because there is no international media serves the rebels well, they depends mainly on news networks on Facebook as their media, and they publish all of their news, pictures and videos on these pages. I have contacted the owners of some of those networks, and asked them to give me protests pictures under creative commons license. They agreed, but because of the current status, all protests pictures are published and transported between all protests Facebook groups and becomes everywhere on the internet, and so were those pictures (Although, few of them were given to me directly, and weren't published anywhere before). So, how can I prove the copyrights now?? Note that all pictures are in their original resolution, and, as I said before, some of them weren't published anywhere else before --عباد ديرانية (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC).

Hmm. This is a hard problem. The photographs are taken by many different people, each of which must give a license to his or her work. All of them are living under difficult conditions and have many better things to do than to be giving licenses. Some of the copyrights may be valuable -- certainly their are news outlets that will pay very well for good images -- so we cannot assume that every photographer is willing to give a CC license. I am going to copy this to the Commons:Administrators' Noticeboard where it can be more broadly discussed.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you --عباد ديرانية (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC).

Query

How about this one. Same name as website but quite a contributor? Best --Herby talk thyme 14:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You might ask one of our German colleagues to comment. It looks to me like the web site is his personal page -- his user page reads:
Sometime in the late 90's I put my first pages in the Internet. Of course, under a pseudonym. Because at that time before Facebook and even WKW Nobody wanted to show his nose on the Internet. First, on free webspace I registered the domain name in May of '99: www.hihawai.de​​: I want to get out my travel site. As then, all I published with copyright protected and was pretty pissed if someone my pictures or text "stole". Could, after some time I realized that I did not write about all the issues about which, even create and publish pictures. It has long been a problem. As then the Wikipedia and Wikimedia sites are becoming more popular in Germany and I finally became aware that I started - I believe - for the first time about the idea of sharing thinking. And after a while I thought that was pretty good. So I started to publish my own pictures on www.hihawai.de ​​under the cc_Lizenz and thank the Wiki projects for this positive influence. On my travel page, I have, however, completed the separation of free and protected content ever since it myself - at least in terms www.hihawai.de ​​- seemed unnätürlich and publish not only free content but now also foreign, commercial texts and images - of course with all permission and attribution. But if I find time, I invite the possibility to ask you a picture on Wikimedia high - zozusagen as a small thank you. More pictures of me: www.hihawai.de ​​/ reisefotos.htm
translator: Google

"

If it is his personal page, then I don't see a problem. If I didn't use my real name here, I might well have used my own domain name as my username.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
My feeling too - thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Meh - another one - vanity...? - just deleted two that were "promotional". --Herby talk thyme 16:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You said it -- Meh (or, better, Merde). I just blew away his user page which was promotional. I'm tempted to nuke the whole lot as promo -- he does not appear to be notable and this looks like personal promotional/aggrandizement.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Again we agree :) Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I suppose you found his web page. I don't care about his motivation for uploading these images, but we might as well keep anything useful:

Did his userpage have any of these with captions? --Tony Wills (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, Tony. This got lost in the press of other things -- mostly the real world -- yesterday. No, his user page was just text about what a wonderful Psychologist to the Stars he is. I added cats and moved the image of the genet -- not as rare as he thinks, but a nice image. The boat is nondescript, both as a boat and as an image. It's not a bad image of Piers Morgan. So, yes, a mass delete with exceptions, I think.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't you just love mysteries...

Anyways - via following my nose I got to a couple of interesting images this one and this one. I trimmed the wikipedia article off each (!) and then looked at the licensing. Both have been attributed to the "Free Software Foundation, Inc." and the latter still has that on as copyrighted... The other one has an "own work" from an en wp user now - following that gets me this. I smell a rat - however files are in use - something is going on but I am not quite sure what (e-cigs are a fave spammer topic). Thanks as usual --Herby talk thyme 17:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

RfD

Hello Jim, a hot question for you. I would tendentially keep because is not a case of "licence laundering", RIA Novosti is a serious news agency and all in all is not up to us to question legitimate licences. The only question is whether RIAN don't know that there's no FOP (and that's even possible), but we must assume that a if a serious news agency releases a protected panorama in CC-By-Sa-3.0, it's entitled to do... Still, this is the typical case in which one thinks to do wrong no matter what he does... -- Blackcat (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Good question. If I recall correctly (do you know "IIRC"), in similar situations in the past we have assumed that the licensor was speaking only of the photograph and completely ignoring the question of whether the image was a DW. Also remember that news agency tend to concentrate on news uses of their images -- this would probably be fair use for most of those that might use it from them, but who knows what the architect will say if people start selling posters of it. So, if I had to close it, it would be delete, but it's a close call.
This is the sort of issue that will get a lot of debate and win no friends whichever way you go. Of course, one of the Admins, maybe you or me, will have to step up and make a decision, but pick such battles carefully.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Again: protests images

Hello. Sorry for annoying with questions, but I have another thing I want to ask you about. Before a few days, another administrator had marked one of my photos for speedy deletion here [18], when he did that, he said it was because of the link he added in the deletion template (You can check it in the link that I have just mentioned). What I want to know is how could he find the other copy of the photo on totally different website? If I can use the same tool he used, it may be easier to prove the copyrights of some photos. I hope that you can tell me about that --Abbad_Dira (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC).

Questions are never annoying. Part of the reason I am here is to teach and encourage more users. Time I spend helping you will come back in more time for the project from you.
Also, thank you for changing your sig. As I said in the discussion, "User:عباد ديرانية (Abbad Dira)" or "Abbad Dira (User:عباد ديرانية)" would also be good choices if you prefer, but it is entirely your decision. In a way, that is what I do -- my formal name is Jameslwoodward, but I prefer to be called "Jim" by friends and colleagues, so both appear in my sig.
There are several ways to find images on the web and you could certainly ask User:Katarighe which one he used. He is not an Admin,by the way.
The easiest is [www.tineye.com TinEye], which you can use by going to the site or by installing it as a tool in your browser. If I right click on an image, one of my choices is "Search image on TinEye", which then opens a new browser tab and tries to find the image in its database. If it succeeds,it will show you all of the places it found it. Its weakness is that its database does not have enough images, so that it often comes up zero. It did not find your image.
The other way I use is to type a few words describing the image into Google and then click on "images" in the left tool bar. This will bring up many images that match the description in some way. This is more likely than TinEye to find other versions, but it is much more work because you must look at hundred of different images. Google does find the Commons version of your image, but no others, so I do not know how User:Katarighe found it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Google Images shows me the version found by Katarighe. There are gadgets available on Commons, which could be enabled in the Preferences. Yann (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks -- what search words did you use for Google?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
No search words, I just used the gadget. Yann (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your detailed answer. I have tried with TinEye before, but it didn't find any of the photos I searched for, so it will not help so much. I have tried before to ask user Katarighe (Oh, I I remember that he was admin!), and more than one time, but he didn't answer, and he have template on his talk page says that he will be busy this month, and that is why I am asking you now. Also, Google way will not help, because what I need to do is to prove that the photos I have are taken from their original source, rather than just finding another copy of them, but thank you so much for your help.
As of this, I would be interested to know what is the gadget Yann has used to find that version of the image. I tried to search in the gadgets of my preferences, but I am not sure which one it was, is it GoogleImages tab? Thank you so much for your help both! --Abbad_Dira (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC).
I have just tried with GoogleImages tab, but found nothing other than images of commons --Abbad_Dira (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC).
Oh, I figured out that the image I tried with were not nominated for speedy deletion at that time, when I tried with another one he nominated, I found the other version --Abbad_Dira (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC).

Do not delete my pictures on surnames!

Please come and discuss in the talk page. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Surname_Pirtskhalaishvili.png --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have said all that I have to say there. We do not need images of things that can be typeset, any more than we need an image of GeorgianJorjadze.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Come to the talk page and respond on my question. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Garage de l'Est

Thanks for fixing that. And yes, an 18! How often do you see them? I see several Maybachs and Astons every day, but haven't seen an R18 in the wild since the nineties. Especially the pre-facelift versions, since they have all returned to mulch long ago. Thanks again.

Also - is there any way we could mark images in the category as reviewed? Maybe I should try to become a reviewer, but many of them are my own uploads in any case, and I think we would need some sort of template to mark them as reviewed. Kobac spends a lot of time placing deletion tags on these 90 photos, and I just want to make sure that they are protected for good when a dork like myself won't be around to spend thirty hours of my free time in doing so. Cheers, Mr.choppers (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the new template shows that any upload from Garage de L'est is CC-By-SA, I don't think individual images need OTRS tags except for the one in the template, so no individual review is needed for any image from the garage. The same is true of a variety of sites that have given us blanket permission.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
No, the problem is that several images have already been tagged for deletion as "missing source" - User:Kobac would have us delete any images that are no longer available on the Garage de l'Est website. I just need some sort of way to verify that the image came from the website in question, and not from somewhere else. Mr.choppers (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
CatScan doesn't find any for me that have {{No source since}} -- can you link to an example, please?
As for the more general question, we do have Admins and FileReviewers confirm Flickr licenses, but that is both because:
  • Flickr licenses are changed from time to time and we want to be able to say definitely that the license was OK on such and such a date and
  • many of our uploaders think everything on Flickr is free, so they are careless about NC and so forth.
I think this should be an AGF issue -- if the uploader says it came from Garage de l'Est, then we should assume that is true, even if the image is no longer there. We have many images that are no longer on their source sites or whose source sites no longer exist. We do not delete an image just because its source goes away.
If Kobac pushes the matter, we'll tag it with a {{Delete}} and let the DR discuss the issue.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Check on Quintinense

I requested this check as a crosswiki check, could you contact a steward in order to exchange the relevant data in order to have a full picture of the relations?

Also, there was a doubt in ptwiki about what the "Probably related to Quintinense, but not proven" comment. Is this similar to the "likely" result we usualy get from Meta, or is it an even closer relationship? Chicocvenancio (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for being blunt -- I do not know you and you have only four edits on Commons. I am a very new Checkuser and am still learning, but one thing I have been advised is not to reveal too much in public space -- in particular, not to say what information I have that makes me reach a particular conclusion. The fear is that revealing such things will just help the bad guys who can, of course, read this. Therefore I will not say more here.
I would say that "probable" is more or less equivalent to "likely".
As you probably know, Checkusers and Stewards have a private e-mail list for sharing such information. I have given the information to that list.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Jim, I really don't edit commons much, but my account is authed as a global account. You can see my edits in ptwiki or enwiki if you wish. Anyways, I completely understand (and applaud) not divulging information, my message is basically because this check (the crosscheck part actually) seems to be taking long probably due to a mistake in my part in the way I presented it (initially at meta almost a week ago).
Thanks for your time in helping with this request. Chico Venancio (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

Dear Jim, I want to apologize that I dragged you into such a futile and unpleasant discussion regarding those DRs. I should have used more AGF in that case and surely will use more of it in the future. Again, I am sorry for my actions and I hope that we can put this matter behind us. If you have any thoughts or concerns in this, please feel free to contact me anytime. Sincerely, Laitr Keiows (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that -- it is by no means the first time that a relatively new user has gotten very upset over his images being tagged with {{Delete}}, but it may well be the first time that I've gotten such a gracious apology.
You have uploaded some fun and interesting images, so we are lucky to have you:
Thank you for all your good work for Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

F1

Hi, Jim. When you have time, could you control Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schumacher Istanbul Park Turkish GP.jpg ? I think this DR is very clear case. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Note that there is a problem with DelReqHandler (a tool that makes closing DRs, particularly multi-file DRs much faster -- seconds instead of minutes) that is probably the reason for the growing backlog of DRs.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. A, B, C, D, E are cases related with wowturkey.com. F is relatively simple case (I think.) G, H, I, J, K are collages including copyrighted and/or deleted images. Takabeg (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done I know it is frustrating to have old DRs not closed, but until DelReqHandler is fixed, I think that the backlog will grow. Although I always try to be helpful, I'd frankly rather spend my time working through DR pages than doing special requests. Because of the DelReqHandler problem, I work pages on two screens, side by side, so I can be working on one screen while waiting for the other. I can't do that with requests.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Not own work

Jim. As long as I understand, most of (probably all of image without EXIF) images uploaded by User:Kaanturk19 are not his own work. Do I have to go to normal DR ? To tell the truth, I don't want waste time for such clear cases. Can I use {{No permission since}} etc. for those images ? Takabeg (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not immediately obvious to me that these are copyvios. I don't find them at Google images or Tineye. They could easily be taken by a fan in the stands. Lack of EXIF is not definitive -- my own images don't have EXIF because I edit with an older version of Corel Photo-paint which doesn't support EXIF.
I think you should remove the {{No permission since}} tags from them -- author = source = uploader, so they have permission from the named author. The tag is for cases where uploader Smith calls out author Jones, with no indication of permission from Jones. It may be that they are not own work, but that takes a {{Delete}}, not a {{No permission since}}.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I understand. Merci. Takabeg (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Unresolved question

Hello, Jim. There're still a question about the file which I've uploaded, where another user has changed description of my photo and make a claim against me. As I understand, the author of the image has a freedom of speech to make a description of his file, but another user who are not an author of the file wants to make alternative description to which I disagree, so I've not returned his changes as both of us are waiting for Your decision on this case. Thanks. --Ліонкінг (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done - Commented there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

DELETE picture

How I can capture photo from Islamic Azad University Central Tehran Branch and you do not delete that? Sasan Geranmehr (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Any photograph of a building (or any other creative work -- a painting, sculpture, etc.) is a derivative work of the copyright on the building and, therefore, requires permission of the architect while it is under copyright.
In Iran, the copyright remains for fifty years after the death of the architect. In the case of large buildings, there will almost certainly be more than one architect on the project and the date is calculated from the last death of all of them. Therefore, any building that is younger than fifty years is certainly still under copyright protection. It easily be much longer -- if an architect who is twenty years old helps design a building and dies seventy years later, at age ninety, then the building will have a copyright for 120 years after its design.
In many countries, but not Iran, there is an exception in copyright law which eliminates the need for a license. We call this exception freedom of panorama (FOP), after the term used in German copyright law, Panoramafreiheit. That is what the "FOP" meant in the Deletion Requests on your images.
There are only two ways we could have these images on Commons. You could get the Consultative Assembly to change the law to add FOP. That seems unlikely.
The other way would be to get the architect to give us permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note, please, that we will not accept messages from g-mail or other anonymous sources. Permission must come from an identifiable source -- probably the architectural firm's own domain.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Moby Dick by Melville jpg deletion

Hi Jim...

Recently you deleted my jpg of Melville and his novel, Moby-Dick. The matching image you showed was on the Corbis Images site. Moby-Dick Corbis Images had information suggesting the painting was from an unknown artist but was created around 1875. However, (taken from the current Wikipedia: Public Domain page)current standard copyright duration in U.S. law states: "Works originally published in the U.S. after 2002 (with or without copyright notice or registration) are protected until 70 years after the author's death (70 years p.m.a.); anonymous works, works made for hire, works of unknown authors or where the author's death date is unknown are copyrighted until the shorter of 95 years since the first publication or 120 years since their creation. See 17 USC 302."

I think by my calculations the image is well over 120 years old, (it works out to be actually 132 years) even with an unknown artist as well as an unknown publication date. I would like to thank you for providing me with the links to information because the idea of publication dates and common images are always changing and one needs to be constantly aware of the changes. Jim, could you please re-evaluate the jpg File:Mobydick.jpg and re-load my image on my TPACKing site for my class project Class Project

Thank you Jim for your time & consideration. 69.57.193.157 18:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)candyangel43

You are correct that the painting is probably PD-old. I say "probably" because we are assuming that it was first published in the United States, in which case it became PD around 1995. If it was first published in another country it may still be under copyright.
However, the copyright status of the painting is moot because the image is not just the painting, but a book cover, whose copyright is still certainly in force. Depending on what your project requires, I suggest that either you upload a new image that is just the painting, not the cover -- you could use the same name -- or ask Penguin to send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your ISP's SMTP mail is problematic

Gday JLW. I am not sure how to get mail to you as it all seems problematic that your ISP refuses to accept mail. FFS tighter than a fish's <beep>. I have tried through here, however, it seems that your getting mail is tougher than Fort Knox. I have tried to copy and paste from this mail functionality to see if that at least works.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I also have two e-mails from you and have replied that way, to keep my e-mail situation semi-private. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

BMBF-Buergerdialog_Foto_AJW-Goldschmidt-UniJournal-Trier_37_2011_S29.jpg-Integration acc. to Commons.Wikimedia by-nc-nd

Hi Jim, I just received the copyright holder's (Sven Ehlers) licence for publishing BMBF-Buergerdialog_Foto_AJW-Goldschmidt-UniJournal-Trier_37_2011_S29.jpg acc. to "Commons.Wikimedia by-nc-nd". To avoid a conflict by a second upload please help. Reasons: (1) To provide the security of personal data please contact me by email (aurum992007-sonstiges@yahoo.de) so I can send you the orginal messages with the license agreement. (2) Subsequently undoing your deletion of this picture's integration in https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Goldschmidt were fine. Thank you! JohanSonn (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that that license is unacceptable in three ways. We require that licenses be for all use, not just Commons, and both NC and ND are also not acceptable. Please read Commons:Licensing.
If Ehlers is willing to give us a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license, please have him send it to Commons, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Thanks for your effort to keep this image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The german version seems to be modified and allows the above mentioned combination? See: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons. Does that mean integration in the german WP is possible? Thanks again! JohanSonn (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the question. I can't read German, but the WP:DE article you link to seems to be an article about Creative Commons, not what licenses are permitted at WP:DE. As the WP:DE article shows, Creative Commons has a variety of licenses. We do not allow any that contain either NC (non-commercial) or ND (no derivatives). I do not know what WP:DE allows, but you could ask at Commons:Forum.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Pardon - Jim, a comparable explanation in English is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons ... but without the misleading part of the German version about different types of author's rights ("Rechtemodule"). So we asked the author now whether he is willing to give a CC-BY-SA license. We'll see ... Thank you for your patience JohanSonn (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thank you for your politeness and patience.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Jim, Sven Ehlers sent me two pictures with an CC-BY-SA license acc. to an informed consent with the person on it and wrote yesterday evening (summary): 'I send you two pictures of andreas goldschmidt so that you can updload them. I think that's the easiest way. The resolution should be sufficient. best regards ... sven ehlers ...'. Names of the pictures are:
BMBF-Buergerdialog_Foto_AJW-Goldschmidt-UniJournal-Trier_37_2011_S29.jpg, but in a better resolution 1530*1080 (1,2 MB) and
BMBF-Buergerdialog_Fotos_AJW-Goldschmidt_8Okt2011_by_Sven-Ehlers_se9336kl.jpg 1080*1920 (1,4 MB)
...<privat>
Please help for the last step ... and once more thank you for your patience. JohanSonn (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Johan:

I don't quite understand what you want. I don't see that you have uploaded either of:

Google translate does not show me a license in the message above and a search at OTRS on "Sven Ehlers" came up blank.

If you have the two images on your computer, get Sven Ehlers to send a message with an explicit license as detailed in Commons:OTRS, then upload the images and let me know.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Pardon - I've forgotten it in a hurry this morning - his CC-BY-SA 3.0 LICENSE with both pictures are posted here: http://www.uni-trier.de/index.php?id=33239. Don't hesitate to contact him personally if necessary. Yours JohanSonn (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
UPDLOADS: To avoid conflicts by a second upload of the first file I renamed both images: *File:Goldschmidt_Andreas_J_W_BMBF-Buergerdialog_8_Oct_2011_-_Foto_01_by_Sven-Ehlers_se9201kl.jpg (OLD name: BMBF-Buergerdialog_Foto_AJW-Goldschmidt-UniJournal-Trier_37_2011_S29.jpg) and *File:Goldschmidt_Andreas_J_W_BMBF-Buergerdialog_8_Oct_2011_-_Foto_02_by_Sven-Ehlers_se9336kl.jpg (OLD name: BMBF-Buergerdialog_Fotos_AJW-Goldschmidt_8Okt2011_by_Sven-Ehlers_se9336kl.jpg).
Please let me know wether my integration of *File:Goldschmidt_Andreas_J_W_BMBF-Buergerdialog_8_Oct_2011_-_Foto_01_by_Sven-Ehlers_se9201kl.jpg is now ok in https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Goldschmidt - instead of the deleted former BMBF-Buergerdialog Foto AJW-Goldschmidt-UniJournal-Trier 37 2011 S29.jpg. ... Thank you! JohanSonn (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, everything seems to work now. Thanks a lot! (JohanSonn (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Since the source may change, I have certified the licenses.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Daimler mystery.jpg

Hi James, (copy and paste from Undeletion requests)

"This file has been abruptly deleted leaving this record: 07:16, 13 March 2012 Sreejithk2000 (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Daimler mystery.jpg (Copyright violation: All rights reserved at source http://www.flickr.com/photos/mals_uk_buses/5918273436/in/photostream/) (global usage; delinker log) How can we make progress with OTRS now there is no file? Eddaido (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
This is not a problem. If a proper license arrives at OTRS referring to File:Daimler mystery.jpg, then it will be restored.
As for "abruptly deleted", Commons Admins delete about 1,300 files every day. Policy says that copyright violations, which this certainly was, must be deleted on sight. If you upload images from sources that say "All Rights Reserved", this is exactly what you should expect. If you do it more than once or twice, you should also expect to be warned and then blocked"
I'm just writing to say the owner of the image etc did send a message to OTRS as required and has received no response (as well as licensing the image on Wikimedia Commons which was deleted). We are discussing his changing the licence in Flickr and to show he's the same person he has now put this message on the same image in Flickr see Sallysparrow is Maljoe which will give you the real name under which he will have written to OTRS regarding the licence for Wikimedia Commons.
Has this been any help? regards, Eddaido (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I found the OTRS message -- the backlog is currently over a month, so your request here helped this one along. The message confirmed the three names of the photographer, but did not give any license for any specific images -- just that you have asked to upload 35 images. I have responded to him from OTRS, suggesting that, preferably, he change the Flickr license to CC-BY or, alternately, he give us a license through OTRS. Either will work.
The Daimler image is a good photo, so, if the photographer agrees, it will be good to have it restored.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Please do not post anything further on this subject here. It is a waste of my time and yours to have three discussions going about this image. Please use Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Daimler_mystery.jpg.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

File:MPI HSP-46.jpg

Jim:

Could you do me a huge favor and go ahead and delete this? It's an obvious copyvio - the uploader even named the non-free source - and I'd like to upload it as fair-use on enwiki since there won't be delivered units to photograph for another 10 months or so. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Did you deliberately pick another railfan? See my user page.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've now uploaded it to Wikipedia under the same name. I didn't actually realize you were a railfan; you were just a conveniently located admin having closed that Green Line A Branch deletion discussion. Cheers! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Upsilona

Just noticed that you have deleted all pictures I have uploaded. Can you please explain this, they were taken by me, I deliberately kept the resolution small and removed the EXIF information to stop other people stealing my photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.226.61 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 March 2012‎ (UTC)

I assume that you are User:Upsilona. Please be sure to log in when you make comments and sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).
File:Large2819.jpg is a screen shot of material that almost certainly has a copyright and is too small to be useful. The rest were deleted on suspicion simply because they were small and had no EXIF information.
I don't understand
"I deliberately kept the resolution small and removed the EXIF information to stop other people stealing my photos."
Uploading an image that is of deliberately low quality defeats the purpose of Commons. We are here solely to have other people, inside and outside of WMF projects, use Commons photos. Small photos will not be used, so what is the point in uploading them? -- it just wastes your time and ours. Since you licensed them as PD, there is no sense in which they can be "stolen" -- attribution is not required on PD images.
So, if you would like to have these images available to the world on Commons, please upload full resolution versions using the same filenames. EXIF is useful, but not required.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed that you deleted the image about the logo used by Disturbed... I cannot find any discussion or talk about the deletion so I'm wondering why you did it. Thanks --Viscontino (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Disturbed Believe logo.jpg
As I said in my edit comment,
"Copyright violation: clear copyvio -- PD-text claim is nonsense"
Copyright violations must be deleted on sight. The logo is not, as claimed, text, but is a complex collection of religious symbols that is well past the required threshold of originality in the USA and elsewhere.
You may, of course, ask for reconsideration at Commons:Undeletion requests, but I don't think you will succeed.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Moscow RfD

I decided in this sense. Of course, as you said, I expect no friends for that :-) -- Blackcat (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "no friends" -- it was the correct choice.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks ;-) -- Blackcat (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Dangerous precedent

A very complicated livery which clearly passes TOO.
A standard livery which is also advertising.
Another standard livery which is an advert.

I'm worried that Commons:Deletion requests/File:FGWL-train-with-London-2012-artwork-01.jpg will set a dangerous precedent. Certainly given the low threshold of originality in the UK, any picture of any train could be a copyvio on grounds of the livery, even on something fairly simple like File:158865 arrives at Ely.JPG or File:Willoughby Road Railway Crossing - geograph.org.uk - 423756.jpg could be copyrightable. And let's not get into the whole idea of racing cars. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A section heading like that is liable to attract interest :) Can't see anything wrong with that DR - it was a close-up picture of the "mural" on a train, and nothing like the other examples you give, which are images of trains in a context, so that COM:DM surely applies to whatever can barely be made out on the side of the train. Rd232 (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you (Mattbuck) miss an important distinction. Liveries, whether of trains, planes, or ships, essentially serve the utilitarian purpose. I can't remember seeing a DR on an airplane, even though some airline liveries are fairly complex. That is very different from cases like these, where, as I said, we have a mural which happens to be painted on the side of a train. The mural is not part of the livery, but an independent creation that happens to be on a train rather than on a wall or canvas.
This is much the same case as a decorated food platter. The platter is utilitarian, but the painting on it may well have a copyright, see Commons:Image_casebook#Utility_objects.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
So if the picture was a standard livery (however we define that, one which was applied to more than one unit?) then it's OK is what you're saying? That seems dodgy at best. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
No, a "standard" livery could have a copyright if it amounted to a mural, just as a "standard" dinner plate can have a copyright, but it has to be more than just a combination of colors as in your examples above. I agree that there's a line somewhere between the two, and that could prove difficult some of the time, but I think that these are clearly well over it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what "amounts to a mural" means. Commons:Image_casebook#Utility_objects uses the phrase too simple to be copyrighted; but that means we're in COM:TOO territory, which might be a problem for some countries like the UK. Rd232 (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
What about this one (right)? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it is probably over the line, but not everyone will agree. I see a significant difference between a livery -- decoration of a utilitarian object to identify the owner of the object -- a bus, truck, train, airplane, or ship -- and applying an independent work of art to a surface that happens to be one of those. These images are essentially advertisements and I think we need to treat hem as if they were on billboards, even though the billboard happens to be a train. That is different from a livery.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I really see no such difference, either all things you paint on a train are ineligible for copyright, or we need to delete all trains which aren't a single matte colour. The second image here is a standard livery, but it advertises about 1000 different places on it. The third image is a livery applied to all 30 or so trains of one operator, and it's a big advert for RBS. There is no distibguishable difference between a livery and an advert. Either it's all ok or none of it is. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:FGWL-train-with-London-2012-artwork-01.jpg_and_File:FGWL-train-with-London-2012-artwork-02.jpg. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sudden flood of support for a blocked copyright violator and intimidator

Hi Jim, User:Heyhello1234567 has been blocked for the second time on Commons for uploading copyrighted work and intimidating a fellow user. This is the time when suddenly people came heavily in his support and ensured one file is saved from deletion even though it is copyrighted work of the channel and serves no academic value and another deleted file of similar type is restored. These very people marked two of my uploaded files for speedy deletion File:Mike.JPG and File:Anna-T-Shirt3.JPG. While the first one was was falsely stated to be posted on http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/alaniamusic/smallmicrophone.jpg, for the second, the accusation of posting from a website does not arise because I took the photo of a T-Shirt when Anna's movement against corruption was raging in India. I removed the tags after specifying the reasons. But I wonder if these very people will suddenly rise in my support if I threaten somebody? Is Commons a safe haven for some people are threatening and settling some personal scores? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

The closure as kept of File:IconEliminate.gif and File:IconImmune.gif appear to be entirely correct as they are clearly PD-text, far below the required threshold anywhere.
I have started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mike.JPG. There is indeed an apparently identical larger image at the cited location. You would do well to avoid comments like "first one was was falsely stated" -- calling colleagues "liars" (implied by "falsely") is not good, particularly when they are not. It would have been far better to have said "incorrectly stated". I do not know what happened when you went to the cited location -- a web glitch perhaps -- but on the face of it, you have removed a valid tag without cause.
I have also started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anna-T-Shirt3.JPG. Your file is pixel for pixel identical with part of the file at http://www.tshirts.in/xtees/mens-tshirt_mt00589/i-am-anna-hazare-t-shirts.htm. I see that you have already commented there.
While I agree with you that the threats made by User:Heyhello1234567 are completely unacceptable, he has been blocked for them. I do not know exactly what you are trying to accomplish here -- whether you simply do not understand PD-text and have forgotten where you got your two images -- or whether you are just making trouble. In line with "Assume Good Faith", I am willing to assume the former, but I suggest you be more careful in the future.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Jim, if you see the exchange of communication between me and Heyhello1234567 on the DR page, you will see my tone and his attitude. I am not worried about the restoration of the images, but the speed with which things taken place. File:Vehicle Insurance Certificate in India.pdf had DR marked on Nov 29,2011 and it was closed only on 16 March 2012‎. Why was there so much delay? Presumably for the no. of DRs but when the uploader is an intimidator should we restore his work with so much haste? Regarding the two files, I must say that while some of my uploads may have been deleted for some criteria, never was it because of it being on some website. Today also I uploaded a person's photos taken by me. Yet if some anomaly, however inadvertent it might be, it should be used to wash way the good work I've done and many of my uploads which are referred on many Wikis (langs which don't know).Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC).
The two MTV DRs were very clearly PD-text -- if I had seen the DRs even before the seven day waiting period was done, I would have speedy-kept them. The insurance certificate raised several unusual issues so it took longer. At the moment, there is a significant problem with making deletions, so all DRs have slowed markedly. Some things happen more rapidly than others.
The two files of yours that I tagged with {{Delete}} above seem to be clear cases, is I'm not sure why you have taken the position you have. In both cases there is an apparently identical web image that is larger than the one you uploaded -- in one case more pixels, in the other case covering more area. They seem pretty clear cases of copyvio, but in deference to your protests, I have done DRs rather than simply blowing them away. Unless you can come up with a good explanation, I suggest you agree to their deletion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Flag problem

Hi. There is a file on Commons I would like to request deletion: File:Brazil Gay flag.svg. For, according to Brazilian law, a crime to misrepresent the national flag of Brazil.And users of Wikipedia Commons and must comply with national flags, this is a clear disregard. What can I do about this? Gaban (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You can nominate it for deletion on those grounds, but keep in mind that as a rule, Commons ignores non-copyright restrictions, and therefore will probably not delete it.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I can use Template:Db-f6, Template:Db-norat? Because the original picture used to do this flag, is the Brazilian flag, and Brazil (just like any another country) don't allow the use of its flag to do this. What i need to edit to propose to deletion?Gaban (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
First, it is not correct that most countries would not allow this use of their flag. Certainly the USA and other free speech countries would protect this as a proper exercise of free speech.
Second, the templates you mention do not exist on Commons. Use "Nominate for deletion", which is the last link under "Toolbox" in the left margin of most pages.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't noticed the toolbox. Gaban (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename request above language

Please help me to revert the File:Municipality_building_Knin.jpg to its old name, as both meanings are same as per a serbian user--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand and support the principle, but I don't think we should apply it here. The current name is accessible to all Commons users who have even a little English. The old name is accessible only to those who speak Serbian.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim. Can you explain why this file should be the exception to the official guideline? I understand your point and it's probably true that files named in English are more accessible than files named in Serbian, Croatian, German, French, etc. But, the guideline says: Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English and/or is not correctly capitalized (Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages). I think that we should treat all files and all languages ​​equally. If the author of the file decided that the name of the file should be in Serbian, if it was not contrary to the policies (including Commons:Language policy and Commons:File naming) and if the renaming was done contrary to the guideline, then why we should not return the file's original name? One file is not that important, but what if tomorrow somebody suggest 100 or 1000 files to be renamed guided by what you said (The current name is accessible to all Commons users who have even a little English. The old name is accessible only to those who speak Serbian)? I think we can follow the official guideline or not. If we agree that the principle in Commons:File renaming is good, then this file is somehow the exception? You probably know that I'm quite flexible and usually do not insist too much on formalities, but I think that in situations like this we should be very careful and follow policies and guidelines. User IvanOS has a history of removing Serbian language from files, removing and replacing descriptions in Serbian and changing licences. This issue with file renaming is just another way to continue with that. I know that I'm probably considered as involved, but I believe that I'm right and that we should send a clear message that those kind of contributions are not constructive, no matter what language it is. mickit 11:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm essentially a monoglot (eight years of French, but it was fifty years ago) so I am fairly careful not to offend in the matter of languages. I'm sorry that I may have done so here.
Note that I did not object to the suggested renaming or take an active position against it -- simply said that I would rather not do it. Also note that it is a guideline, not established policy. We are not completely clear on the difference between the two, but I take it to mean that policy is firm and should not be broken without community consensus. A guideline is just that -- a guide in the absence of a good reason to do something else.
I think we have a conflict in the guideline between
"Change from completely meaningless names into suitable names, according to what the image displays"
and
"Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English"
Users who edit WP:SR make up about 0.2% (2 in 1000) of all WMF project users. Users who edit WP:EN make up slightly over half. (Both numbers from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias -- they probably understate the number of English readers, but they're not a bad proxy). That means that the Serbian filename is useful to only a tiny fraction of our users -- to the rest it is a "completely meaningless name".
So, while I agree in principle that the guideline makes sense for major languages, perhaps those that represent more than 1% of our users and 90% in total*, I'm not sure it makes sense across the board. There has to be some limit -- we have, after all, 284 languages represented, some of which are read by only a few hundred users and are completely meaningless to everyone else.
I have no particular interest in trying to change the guideline, but just as I don't close DRs where I don't agree with the consensus reached by reasonable colleagues, I am not comfortable with making a move with which I disagree.
*English, Spanish, German, French, Chinese, Portuguese, Russian, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Arabic, Dutch, Turkish, and Indonesian. I might add Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish, because, if I understand correctly, someone who can read one can do pretty well in the others and together they are over 2%.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

So, basically, you think that we should not accept at all file names in Serbian, Croatian, Czech and similar languages? Did I undestand you well? If that is a case, then I would just say that I don't agree with you because I believe that's not how wiki projects work and that's not really what is multilinguality mean. Anyway, I'm aware that you don't object to the suggested renaming, but still I wanted to hear your opinion as an experienced user or as a user which oppinion I really appreciate :) I know that any conflict of opinion between Croatian and Serbian users can easily be understood wrongly, and someone could easily say that I am involved as a Serbian user, so I'll ask another admin to make a final decision. Thanks for chatting. mickit 13:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Milan: Yes, you have my thoughts correctly. I honor the fact that we are multilingual. I object when someone in a DR or elsewhere says "write in English" or similar words and I try very hard to get along with other languages, using Google translate, or asking for another editor's help when Google does not seem good. I have made edits on 21 different language WPs -- usually simply replacing an image.
With that understood, though, there are practical limits to our being multilingual. All of our Admins have at least a little English. Our categories are in English, including Category:Belgrade and Category:Serbia. I think that a user who did not have a little ability in at least one of the major languages would have trouble contributing here other than with simple uploads.
I am not a good person to say this, given that my only language is the largest one -- but as a photographer uploading images to Commons, I want my images to have the widest possible usage. An image is much more likely to be used off-WMF if it is named in one of the major languages.
As I said, I have no objection at all to moving this image back. I just don't think it is good for the project or for the image's potential use.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, about this: I might add Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish, because, if I understand correctly, someone who can read one can do pretty well in the others and together they are over 2%. I have to say that we have a similar situation with Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian that are even more similar than languages you mentioned, and probably over 90% of Slovenian and Macedonian users can also easily understand file names in S/C/B language. mickit 13:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, then -- the five together (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Slovenian and Macedonian) are just over 1% of the total.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
mickit 14:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Class 487 DMBSO at LT Museum Depot.jpg

Hi! The reason why the discussion at "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Class 487 DMBSO at LT Museum Depot.jpg" was somewhat extended was that the person objecting introduced a new factor: it was claimed that not only was there a contractual restriction on photographs being taken for commercial use (which we generally ignore as a non-copyright restriction), but that the agreement between the museum owner and the visitor had the effect of transferring the copyright in any photographs taken to the museum. Now, it appears that the legal formalities were not complied with, making the alleged transfer of copyright ineffective. However, if it had been properly done (the visitor was required to sign a contract), then the photograph would have to be deleted as the copyright owner of the photograph would not have been the visitor but the museum. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw that, but ignored it, as the objector tossed around several invalid legal theories, including that you can avoid being a bailee by posting notice and the comment that there is no such thing as an oral contract in the USA.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's clear the objector wasn't actually very clear about the law. However, it seems that it is possible for museums (at least in the UK) to get visitors to agree to transfers of copyright if they get the formalities right. Perhaps that won't happen in practice since it is quite impractical to insist that each visitor sign a contract to that effect. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
IIRC at least one of the UK cathedrals required me to get written permission to take photos, paying a small fee for it. It was a while ago, so I don't recall the copyright details, but clearly such a transfer could have been part of the request for permission. I've never run into a similar situation at any American site -- either you can take photos (usually without flash or tripod) or you can't. Since cameras are now ubiquitous, I think it would be very difficult to enforce a no-photos rule, except at a fine arts museum where there are guards everywhere.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

HI Jim, you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Public art - Diprotodon, Kings Park Perth sign.jpg and quoting http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s65.html but that specfically states The copyright in a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast. this is a perminent work, in a public place the same section of the act refers to artistic works which it defines in section 10 as "artistic work" means an artistic work in which copyright subsists. the work is perminently displayed in a public place, if its subject to copyright then it can be photographed, if not subject to copyright then it cant be a copyright violation, either way the photograph is fine. Gnangarra 08:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a complicated piece of inelegant legal drafting. It happens to be very close to the British law, so I think I read it correctly. Read along with me carefully:
"Section 65 (1) This section applies to sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of artistic work in section 10." [emphasis added]
Since it is not a sculpture, if it is to be covered by 65(2) (the FOP exception, which you quote), it must be a "[work] of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of artistic work in section 10"
"Section 10:
"artistic work" means:
"(a) a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not;
"(b) a building or a model of a building, whether the building or model is of artistic quality or not; or
"(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship whether or not mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b);....
Since "paintings, drawings, engravings and photographs are not listed in section (c) of the definition, they are not included in the FOP exception.
Also note that the text has a copyright which is not covered by the FOP exception -- only seven countries allow FOP for text.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Since "paintings, drawings, engravings and photographs are not listed in section (c) of the definition, they are not included in the FOP exception.

they are listed in section a) section is c) whether mentioned or not so they are covered by FOP Gnangarra 00:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the Rules of Construction do not allow you to read the law that way. Only "works of artistic craftsmanship" (in addition to sculpture) are included in FOP. If the legislators had intended to include paintings, drawings, engravings and photographs, they would have listed them along with sculpture. The Australian law mirrors the UK law and our reading of it should be the same.
Also, don't forget that the text also has a copyright and there can be no question that this image infringes that.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Much thanks

Thank you, Jim, for your help in dealing with User:Surf100. It was getting so frustrating to find copyrighted photos on Wikipedia's "TheBus (Honolulu)" article daily and see the same copyrighted photos over and over again. I appreciate your quick block of the user in question. Aloha, Aoi (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome -- helping keep order is one of the several reasons I'm here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Banknotes of France

Good morning! I have read the rules of the currency of France has a free license.([19]) My question is - can I upload images of banknotes from the same site? --Numizmat 675

Upload from what site? There are two copyrights to consider -- the banknote and the photograph. The banknote is apparently OK according to Commons:Currency#France.
Logic would say that {{PD-Art}} could be put on the images, but remember that Commons policy on this relies on Corel v Bridgeman which spoke only to old masters. The policy is
"... under Commons rules the {{PD-Art}} tag can be used for "faithful reproduction" photographs of 2D public domain works of art...."
According to Commons:Currency#France, the notes are still under copyright and they may not be "works of art".
Conclusion -- I wouldn't object to the uploading from any source, but don't be surprised if someone else does.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Can I have Illustrations and engravings of Cambridge, to 1923 back, please?

I now have two series of engravings cleaned up and ready to upload, with several more to follow. Plus this page had very useful sourcing links for authorities, which I now have to dig out all over again.

Next time you feel like deleting something, it's considered common courtesy to first drop the page creator a message on their talk page. Jheald (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons rules allow (and require) certain kinds of pages to be deleted on sight. More than 650 pages every day are deleted in accordance with those rules -- about half of all daily deletions. There is nowhere near enough Administrator time available to give personal attention to all of those -- our backlog is steadily growing.
In this case, because of the {{Under construction}} tag, I gave the page a full week before deleting it. I suggest that the next time you start a gallery, either populate it quickly, or create it at User:Jheald/Sandbox1 and then copy it to public space when it meets the rules.
Also please note that Commons is not an encyclopedia and Commons galleries are for collections of images. Articles belong in Wikipedia. Neither Authorities nor References are typical features of a Commons gallery.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Kaulbach-Villa (München)

Hi, this should have been a category, not a gallery, so thanks for deletion. But could you perhaps convert it to being a category? (Or, if this is less effort, put the text on my talkpage?) Sorry for the hazzle, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Category:Kaulbach-Villa (Munich). I changed the spelling because policy (and consistency) requires category names in English, see, for example Category:München.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. English is fine, although there seems to be a tendency towards German place names whenever the category covers a specific object and in itself is not part of a globally named category tree. And there are some funny effects of the naming policy, e.g. with Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Munich and Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Landkreis München. (The logic behind this being that a translation exists for "München" as a city but not for "Landkreis München" as the respective district. "Landkreis Munich" would sound strange and "Munich County" would not be recognized by any local person...). But anyway: No actual problem :-) --Rudolph Buch (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Sooner or later the gurus will figure out a way to have category names in multiple languages -- so that you will see them in German and I in English. Until then we do the best we can. I agree that "Munich County" is silly, even though "Landkreis" is not in my very limited German vocabulary. I could even agree on using "München" and "Roma", but "Москвa" and "東京" get a little more problematic.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of "LHA_as_Hospital_Ship.jpg"

Hello Jim, yes, please delete the file in question. I don't have rights to it. We've genereated a new image of the ship for the project using GE Sketchup and Kerkythea, looks pretty nice. Thanks for your work in keeping Wiki the best source of information in the world. G H Smith (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you read both Commons:Licensing and Commons:Project scope carefully, as I have deleted or tagged for deletion all but one of your uploads as either out of scope or copyvio. You cannot simply grab images off the web and upload them here, even if you have some relation to the web site they are taken from.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Jim, did you happen to notice I am the Interim Director, External & Social Media for Coalition of Hope? (http://www.coalitionofhope.org/about-us.html). How did you determine the images are out of scope, when they are uploaded as part of the Foundation's Wiki article? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Coalition_of_Hope)

I created the ship image. The logo and Mr. Keegan's image were supplied by Mr. Keegan, who asked me to create the article. No images need be deleted. V/r G H Smith (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I did not see the COH masthead, the fact that your username matches one on the masthead is not conclusive. While I think it is very likely that Commons User:G H Smith is Glenn Smith of COH, we frequently have people posing as others on Commons and rarely depend on a similarity of names for final decisions.
Assuming your are Glenn Smith, you need to figure out who owns the copyrights to the various images you have uploaded. If COH has its act together, then it is not using images on its web site to which it does not have the rights. This suggests that the fact that you created the ship image is irrelevant, since COH owns the copyright. It is very unlikely that Keegan owns the copyright to a professional image of him and COH probably owns the copyright to the logo. Claiming "own work" when the image is not, in fact, your own work significantly reduces your credibility here.
Since there appears to be a legitimate plan to obtain and convert Nassau -- something not mentioned anywhere in her pages on Commons and WP:EN -- you are correct that the speculative image of her conversion is not out of scope. That should probably be better covered at both File:LHA as CoH Hospital Ship.jpg and USS Nassau (LHA-4).
The solution to all of this is a message, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS from a corporate officer of COH -- not you -- giving us permission to use the ship image and the logo. We will need a separate license for the Keegan image coming either from the photographer or from Keegan, explaining why he owns the rights.
Finally I should add that while this is not WP:EN and I have no authority over there other than as an active user, an article created by its subject is always problematic, particularly when it appears that the WMF is being used to advertise and raise money. I would not be surprised if you get some pushback against your article there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Again, to continue discussion on copyrights, I informed Mr. Keegan of your comments, and he replied with this:

Glenn,
According to our (COH) organizational legal counsel, by using an image, photo (which we created) or design (which we created) in permanent form, our rights are protected. One does not have to formally copyright the work. A creative work is automatically copyrighted when it is "fixed" in a copy or other permanent form for the first time. The use of a copyright notice is not required under U.S. law, but it is a good idea to include the copyright symbol© , the year of first publication, and the copyright owner.
Copyright on Publication
A work is considered to be copyrighted when published. The term "publication" has a specific meaning, under the 1976 Copyright Act: “Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
Term of Copyright Protection
Copyright lasts from date of publication through the life of the creator plus 70 years (for works created on or after January 1, 1978).
With the above in mind, I do have a submission into the Copyright office for the COH logo which I created and began utilizing some months ago. My photo was taken at my request, for my use, paid for by me, personally and is expressly authorized for use by COH.
Best regards,
Tim -
Timothy J. Keegan

[redacted private information]

With the above in mind, where are we in terms of deletion/non-deletion of the images? Please advise, V/r G H Smith (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

All of the above is entirely unnecessary -- we have a pretty good handle on copyright law here. It is also entirely irrelevant as it does not meet the requirements I set forth above -- where I explained both what we needed and why. This is, after all, for the protection of COH -- if User:G H Smith is actually associated with the organization, he should realize that we have no way of confirming anything about the source of the message above.
With respect to the photograph of Keegan, it is very unusual for a professional photographer to transfer copyright. Since it is plainly not the work of GH Smith, as claimed, we will need permission from the photographer or a statement from him or her that the copyright has been transferred to Keegan, again using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Jim, thanks for the guidance. I've send in the OTRS for the logo and ship image via official CoH channels to the required address. As for the image of Mr. Keegan, we're collecting the data to determine copyright on that. I believe Mr. Keegan has it, but am researching. I appreciate your assistance! G H Smith (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And thank you for your patience and understanding -- many new users would be screaming by now.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Read your bio page ... a world travelling railfan! A group in England built an A1 Pacfic in 2008, a type of steam locomotive last on English rails in 1966. Check out http://www.a1steam.com/ . When I was last in DC for corporate training, I made trips up to the B&O Museum (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PRR4876.JPG), and the PRR Museum. While stationed in Augsburg Germany, I took other railfan friends on a pilgrimage to Goeppingen to see the Marklin Museum (http://www.maerklin.de/de/service/erlebnis/maerklin_erlebniswelt/vorstellung.html), yes, I'm a train nut .. Still working the copyright stuff. Glenn

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sirio survivors.jpg

Jim, I see that this image was deleted. The source was a 1906 publication, accessible here. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sirio wrecked.jpg as well: I have a great interest in having these images preserved. Incidentally, there is no reason to believe that these pictures weren't first published in Argentina. I don't know if that helps or not. If it does, and there is reason to restore the one you've already deleted, please reconsider. Also, please see this discussion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is more complicated than perhaps you understand. Although the ship was ultimately bound for Argentina, she was actually headed for Cadiz and the wreck happened in Spanish waters off Cartagena. There is no particular reason to be believe that the two images were first published in Argentina -- Spain, or Italy, the home country of many of the emigrants seems much more likely. The wreck happened on August 4 and the source newspaper is dated September 8 -- which is what I would expect because at that time the photographs would have to go by ship, not by wire. That leaves a month for the photographs to have been published in Spain and Italy.
Since it is very possible, even likely, that the images were first published in Spain or Italy, I think that it will be very hard to keep the images. The only way to do so would be to find the Spanish or Italian first publication and determine that either the photographer was anonymous or that he died before 1942. I am not willing to change my mind on this just because we happen to have an Argentine publication.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, my mind isn't so feeble that I can't grasp this argument (no need to patronize me), and I know the history of the ship--if I hadn't written the article, hardly anyone would know it now. I can follow this explanation perfectly, but none of this was ever explained at the deletion discussion. Missing is the difference between Spain/Italy and Argentina: I assume from what you're saying that they have different copyright laws. I'm saddened that absence of evidence (your hypothesis) is taken as evidence. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
My apologies if I seemed patronizing. I try very hard to be polite and to be seen as polite by all of our many-language colleagues. Therefore, I avoid saying things like "You're wrong" -- or worse. I probably went too far the other way here. As for the history of the ship, its partly there to help my thinking and partly to show you that I, too, know the history of the ship and that it is an important part of my reasoning.
As far as what was said -- or not said -- in the DR, please remember that Commons Admins delete about 1,300 pages every day. Half a dozen of us do half of those, so we work very fast and the backlog is still growing. There is not time to give this sort of detailed explanation on more than a very few of the 1,300, so we do so only when asked. If we had many more active Admins, that could change.
Aside from the fact that there is a question of what the law was in Argentina in 1906 -- there is some evidence for a perpetual copyright at that time -- the laws are very similar. So it is more the fact that this source is more than a month after the fact and 6,000 miles away that is the problem, not that it is Argentina versus Spain or Italy. The issue is that we do not know whether this is an anonymous image -- unlikely -- or of a known photographer, and only finding the first publication will solve that.
Finally, Commons is not like a criminal court. Every image is assumed to be covered by a copyright until it is proven that it is free. See Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. Still, it begs the question of "the first publication". The assumption here is that since it is a month after the fact that it is the first, but there's no proof of that. It seems more likely that we will never know if there was a publication that preceded this one, and so this will remain in copyright limbo. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately many things do end up in similar unsatisfying situations.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Interfase

Hi, Jim. Unfortunately, it's seems to me that the problem isn't solved. The user again started harassment against me, he blames me in vandalism and continues edit warring, however there were a desicion on the issue. I don't want to write him smth, because he can't adequately react. Please, take any action. --Ліонкінг Lion King 22:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have combined the two points of view and protected the file. Neither of you will be perfectly happy, but I think it is OK.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

control

Hi, Jim. When you have time, could you control A, B, C ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done DelReqHandler, which makes closing DRs ten to twenty times faster than doing it by hand, has had a serious problem which was, I think, finally fixed late last week. Because of this, we have a huge backlog to work through. It is better to let us just work through it, item by item, which is faster than taking requests.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Merci. (but File:Samsun2.png remains) Takabeg (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done Sreejith got it while I was asleep.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Reconsideration

Hi Jim, Can you please reconsider User_talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive5#Non-educational_but_in_use. I removed the images from the Persian Wikipedia. Thanks Americophile 19:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you would like me to do. I think they probably should be deleted, but you can start a DR as easily as I. They are not copyvios, so they are not {{Speedy}}, they would need a DR.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Paper bags

Great. This is also a way to censor user protests... It would have been kind, if the deleted paper bags would have been replaced through a free one... Chaddy (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

About 8,500 new pages, mostly images, are created on Commons every day. Commons Admins delete about 1,300 pages every day. Six of us do half of those and the backlog is increasing. Find us more active Administrators and we can pay more attention to individual images. Until we have more help, though, copyvios will be deleted, but replacing them is up to others.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I am just curious, who are these 6 admins? --Sreejith K (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
For the last thirty days:
Morning Sunshine - 10%
Fastily - 10%
Túrelio - 9%
Sreejithk2000 - 7%
Martin H. - 7%
Jameslwoodward - 7%
See http://toolserver.org/~vvv/adminstats.php?wiki=commonswiki_p&tlimit=2592000 -- the number on the end is the number of seconds back. 2,592,000 seconds is thirty days.
Obviously you and Morning Sunshine are new to the top six, but the other six of the top eight last month are all in the all time top ten. See the all time records.
I hope you and Morning Sunshine will keep up the pace -- because of the DelReqHandler problem, the backlog is huge.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Illustrations and engravings of Cambridge, to 1923

Thanks for the note on my talk page, sorry not to have got back to you sooner.

I do have to say that it seems to me that to take a position against thoroughness, proper annotation, sourcing, referencing of relevant authorities etc seems to me to be going against the tide of progress seen in projects right across Wikimedia.

I can see the point of strongly encouraging people to put their research references on Wikipedia itself where possible, because WP has far the higher visibility for them to be findable by people. So I can see that pushing people in that direction might make sense for eg links to sources listing the complete works of Turner, or the complete output of Ackermann & Co. But it seems to me that a subject like the various engravings of Cambridge [and/or insert arbitrary place here] is not really fodder for an encyclopedia article; instead as an attempt to lump together a collection of primarily visual material, albeit in as thorough and systematic way as possible, its natural domain (it seems to me) is here on Commons -- where the collection would sit and be presented, and so where people might most naturally find links to further information and/or authorities indicating what further items were still missing, to be sought out and uploaded.

The page, particularly as it fills up, will still overwhelmingly be a presentation of visual content. But it seems to me that a relatively small amount of external references at the end would not go out of place.

I appreciate that this may go against the letter of COM:GALL, but per WP:IAR and similar, the letter of policy can only be the first word, not the last word, if there are reasons which make good sense to bend the policy slightly, as I believe I have brought forward above. I hope therefore you find this convincing, but if not then perhaps you could suggest an appropriate venue for wider discussion that could allow the views of more editors to be gained and evaluated.

All best (and my appreciation to you for stepping up to do so much vital admin work, even when so often under-resourced and under-thanked),

Jheald (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You are very persuasive and my first inclination is to shrug, remembering that we are way behind on DR closures because of a problem with the tool we use. I have better things to do than to argue about one page which will undoubtedly be useful in its entirety.
I also agree that there is a hole in the middle here -- WP:EN won't allow you to host a gallery because they belong on Commons, so how do you put together a page that has directly or indirectly all of the images on a subject?
The problem, though, with your line of reasoning, is that it could be applied to almost anything. Why shouldn't London have a list of external links at the bottom to other sources of good images? The need is not unique to Cambridge.
However, my next choice of examples was Panthera tigris, which, as it turns out, has such a list. Similar links exist elsewhere in animal galleries. So, I'll go with my first inclination.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Statue in Copenhagen

Hello Jim, can this statue be considered free? Its author died in 1959... -- Blackcat (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at Category:Statue of the Little Mermaid (Copenhagen).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
:) maybe uploaders can't read English, thanks :-) -- Blackcat (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Or any of 14 other languages on the template?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Advice required

File:ഭാരത_വിലാസം_സഭ.jpg was not having a source, no first publication date and no author details, is it necessary to nominate the file for deletion even if there is no source for PD status, Please advice..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do a DR. The date of first publication is essential for both Indian and US copyright, and a DR might well find someone who could figure that out -- perhaps even the uploader. The PD-India tag would apply only if the image were actually anonymous and "unknown to us" does not necessarily mean that the image was anonymous. Also, it is a featured picture on WP:ML, so we owe it some consideration.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The exact publishing date is AD 1909 and it is clearly mentioned in the photograph. This was taken when Bharathivilasam Sabha, a literary organization was inaugurated in 1909. I do not see why we should doubt about the age of the picture. The persons in the picture are writers of highest dignity in Malayalam literature and it is quite obvious that this photo will not wait another 30 years to be published so that it is not in PD. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Sreejith, the English image description says only that the image was taken 1909, not that it was published then. I see no reason to doubt the age of the picture, but I still don't know whether or not it was published. That's what matters for both Indian and USA PD status.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Captainofhope is also stressing on that point, as far as I understand. To me, publishing is jut not printing it in a magazine or daily. If the literary organization called Bharathivilasam Sabha took a picture on its inauguration day somewhere in 1909, printed it and placed it in their office reception, I would still consider that as publishing. May be it was published in magazines, articles or even notices at that time, may be they gave away copies of it to whoever was interested; who knows! We cannot obviously furnish online links of something that's 100 years old. Being adamant for an online proof all the time does not help the overall purpose of this project. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
If such proof's are not available this picture can be accomodated in local wiki's for the article pages--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Captainofhope. We make the distinction between creating and publishing an image all the time because the law in several countries requires us to do so. "Publish" under the old US Copyright law, which applies here, required the sale of the image in some form -- either as a photographic print or in a book, periodical, poster, etc. Simply posting it or handing it out to a few friends would not suffice. We never require an on-line link, but we do need to know that it was published, within the meaning of the Indian and USA law. Without that, we have to assume that it is under copyright in the USA until 2029 and in India in 2073, assuming it was first published this year.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
They have preserved this photo in the same building and the publishing year is given below it. See File:Kerala Sahitya Akademi DSC 8800.JPG --Sreejith K (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Showing the picture that way is not publishing under the USA law and probably not under the Indian law. As you know, I can't read the caption -- does it actually say that the image was published in 1909 -- or just that it was created then?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The text and its translation is given in the image description itself. The text does not say whether it was published in 1909 but it says the photo was taken in 1909. I do not see a reason why I should doubt whether the image was published for 30 years to be outside of PD. This argument is tiring. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, frankly, it is tiring. As an Admin, even a new one, you are supposed to be able to read and understand the law. In India and the USA, the date of creation does not count, only the date of first publication. There is no evidence that this photograph was published before now. We regularly see images in DRs that were clearly taken in the USA before 1923, but if we cannot show that they were published, we delete them. This is exactly the same.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Kerala_Sahitya_Akademi is started (inagurated) on 1956, Also the publication is not when it started "hanging on the wall". Picture is showing description only but that doesn't mean that it's published in 1909 or 1956 or even taken on the same year.--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Kerala_Sahitya_Akademi is a government organization and they took over Bharathivilasam Sabha in order to preserve it. If there is a copyright for this image, Kerala_Sahitya_Akademi will have it.
Jim, Indian copyright rules can be found here (pdf) and it says 3. Meaning of publication.' For the purposes of this Act, "publication" means making a work available to the public by issue of copies or by communicating the work to the public. in page 5.--Sreejith K (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Aha, thank you for that. I suggest you add that to COM:L appropriately as it is very different from the meaning of the word in the USA and other places. Since this is a discussion of an image, not a DR, I don't think more action is needed.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Admin closed the DR discussion by mentioning "Publication Date" which was not yet proved, What action i should take now, As his Keep is one sided and trying to protect an copyrighted (controversial) image by not providing the required informations..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
To my mind, the image on display constituted publication for Indian law, as Sreejith explained above. It would not be so in the USA, but that is not the problem.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
If we calculate its initial publication date from 1956, Then also this image is not in PD and moreover its only precautionary principles that this image is available on the "wall" of an organisation established on 1956 and i don't think upon inauguration of the organisation they hanged the image on the wall and made it available to the public.If its as per indian law, Its 60 Years after the first publication, i.e 2029 (If we believe the initial date as 1956)25. Term of copyright in photographs.-In the case of a photograph, copyright shall subsist until 60(sixty) years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the photograph is published Page 16 Since the author is unknow the rule 37A (Page 17) also applies 31A.Compulsory licence in unpublished Indian works.-(1) Where, in the case of an Indian work referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of section 2, the author is dead or unknown or cannot be traced, or the owner of the copyright in such work cannot be found, any person may apply to the Copyright Board for a licence to publish such work or a translation thereof in any language--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

DR Raised, A similar DR request is running here with a question of first publication--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Table

Why did you delete my table [20]? I want make a table like [21]. First version last table [22] similar my table.Alex Rott (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Both tables are out of scope. Commons galleries are for collections of images or other media files. Lists such as this belong in the appropriate Wikipedia, see for example National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Boston, Massachusetts.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Tatyana Grice

Hello Jim. My name is Tatyana Grice. The uploaded photographs which you have reviewed (date 31 of March) have been recommended for the early deletion by yourself. My husband and I bought those paintings of this particular artist and others (from their studios directly), and would like to promote our collection (The Grice Collection). Could you be so kind as to explain to us how to claim the image rights as we are new to Wikimedia Commons and we are not experts on copyright law. If you could give us a clear path of instruction to enable us to proceed to the satisfaction of Wikimedia standards we would be eternally grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatyana Grice (talk • contribs) 06:57, 3 April 2012‎ (UTC)

First, Please sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion 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). Thank you..
Second, "promote our collection" suggests that you may violate our policy against promotional material. Simply showing your collection to the world is very welcome, but attempting to sell part or all of it by advertising it on Commons or Wikipedia is prohibited.
Most important, though is the fact that with few exceptions, none of which apply here, in order to show images that are still under copyright, we need permission from the copyright holder, which, in your case, will be the artists. Please have the artists follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note also,that we have OTRS volunteers who read Russian and Ukrainian -- this does not have to be done in English. For each artist, the permissions should specify the Commons File name or names to which they apply.
If you have more questions or need an alternate way to do this, don't hesitate to come back here with your questions.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jim, Thank you very much for your expedient reply and the important information you have furnished us with. I would like to assure you that the idea never came into our minds to advertise or sell any of the artworks in our collection through Wikimedia Commons or any other source for that matter. What we would like to do is to showcase the work of "The Grice Collection" to the public worldwide. Having read carefully the information given by yourself, we would like to ask you to kindly help us with the following matter: My husband and I would like to upload the images to Wikimedia Commons for the general public to be able to use them for personal usage, but without altering them in any way. Would you be so kind to specify the type of license the artists(copyright holders) should invoke in their letter of "given authority" so as we may get them to sign as proof of copyright, that should in turn allow us to upload the images in a way suitable to Wikimedia Commons. Thank you for your help. Tatyana Grice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatyana Grice (talk • contribs) 15:01, 4 April 2012‎ (UTC)

Again, Please sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion 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). Thank you.
We would be very happy to have images of the works you own. Thank you for offering them. However, in order for Commons to accept images, their license must allow commercial use and derivative works -- alterations. We do not accept either a limitation to personal use or "without altering them in any way". There is a full explanation of our requirements at Commons:Licensing.
If you are adamant about either or both of those restrictions, I suggest you use Flickr -- it will take anything and will not trouble you for a license from the artists.
If, on the other hand, you and the artists are willing to give Commons (and the world) a free license, including both commercial use and alterations, then please have the artists follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS which specifies both the permitted licenses and the mechanics of doing it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for checkuser

Hello. Could you have a look at it. Thank you so much--Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama in Slovenia

Hi, there is no general restriction of freedom of panorama in Slovenia, so some of the images you have deleted should be restored, unless they contain copyrighted work(s) of author(s) who died in 1945 or later (see commons:FOP#Slovenia). The images that should be restored are the following:

Thanks a lot. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I agree with your decisions. The plaque by Kersnik was erected in 1940 by a student group (the actual creator is not listed), and was renovated in 1952.[24] The Litija monument is work by Drago Košir (1921-2010),[25][26] therefore copyrighted. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests vanished from sight, while not handled

Hi Jim, I noticed that files like File:Typographic Architectures.jpg are still open. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Typographic Architectures.jpg has no conclusion, but Commons:Deletion requests/2012/01 doesn't list it any more (or an anything that was submitted on January 31), while Commons:Deletion requests/2012/01/31 clearly does exist and has a lot of unhandled request. It looks like there is some sort of systematic failure by which all of the unhandled requests from the second half of January are hidden from the overview of January and have become invisible backlog. Not sure who and how I should alert to this. Whaledad (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a well known problem -- there is a limit on the number of transclusions that can appear on a page, so that when a monthly log calls for more than the limit, those daily logs over the limit are not displayed. From the middle of February through the end of March, there was a problem we had with DelReqHandler (the script that Admins use to close DRs) which slowed closures by a factor of ten, so the backlog grew very large and the transclusion problem surfaced again (we last saw it around nine months ago).
As DRs in January are closed and archived by the bot, those later in the month will appear and be handled. Although we've have discussed several ways of eliminating the problem, we've concluded that since it will work itself out, there is not need to do anything.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I just wanted to make sure that those items hadn't completely vanished. That's quite a backlog. Is this due to the number of Mods/Admins? Anything regular users like myself can do to help? Whaledad (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem basically was with DelReqHandler. See User:Jameslwoodward/Commons_notes_for_administrators#DelReqHandler for a description. When it is working (fixed last week), you don't have to wait for any page loads to close a DR -- just click on the appropriate link and write a reason, if needed. This is very fast, particularly on multi-item DRs. Without it, it takes ten to twenty times longer to close a DR (literally -- I'm not exaggerating). So instead of being able to go through a full day's closures in an hour or two, it might take ten to fifteen hours. Now that DelReqHandler is fixed, we should be able to work it out.
As for the number of Admins, yes and no. We have plenty of Admins. The problem is that half a dozen of us do about half of all Admin actions and the other 260 do the rest. We do have a couple of new Admins who seem to have joined the active group.
Known users like yourself can always help by going through DRs and making intelligent comments. I can't speak for my colleagues, but I certainly will spend less time on a DR when one or more editors who I know have commented on it. Thanks for your concern.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, Jim, sincerilly.--Milartino (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize -- it's a common mistake that I have made myself more than once.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Opinion?

Looking at these and ones like this the "provided by" info (& most of that template) looks a bit much? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree -- although he is not, apparently, a professional photographer, so they don't quite violate COM:ADVERT, they are over the line for self promotion. I'm not sure whether I would put a note on his talk page or simply hang {{Delete}} tags on the templates, but you found them, so that's your call.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete : projet d'euro (Joaquin Jimenez)

Hello Jim. "Joaquin Jimenez" "8 mars 2012 à 18:03‎ CommonsDelinker (discuter | contributions)‎ m . . (5 218 octets) (-61)‎ . . (Retrait du lien Revers_euro.png, supprimé sur Commons par Jameslwoodward ; motif : Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (France))". On 8th March, you deleted a photo 'projet pour l'euro'. My friend Joaquin Jimenez himself had given this photo of his project to me for wikipedia. We liked a photo of the project better than a photo of the definitive euro because : 1.the project is more interesting for coin collectors ; 2.the definitive euro is everywhere on the internet. Please, to install/put this photo once more : 1.do you need the authorization of/from Joaquin? 2.How can we send it to you? Sincerely yours, Thoutha PS:Please, excuse my poor quality English-speaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoutha (talk • contribs) 12:20, 9 April 2012‎ (UTC)

Have you changed your name? I do not see any deleted contributions by you. I do see deletions of File:Projet pour l'euro.jpg and File:Revers euro.png, uploaded by User:Thouta, which are probably the files you ask about.
As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (France), the problem is that French Euro coins are copyrighted and the images infringe on the copyright, so we cannot keep them on Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:NailedMen.jpg

Thank you very much for your concern about the right to license. Artist Tsvaygenbaum allowed me to use photos of his paintings for my article about his art. His does not have any problem with it. Boxes12 (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case he will need to send a message with a license, following the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Unless he does so, the images will be deleted. If you have any question, I will be happy to help.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Artist Tsvaygenbaum sent an email to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) as you requested it. Thank you for your help. Boxes12 (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I found his message. Unfortunately he says:
"I agree the use these above photos of my paintings for any articles about my art on

Wikipedia or related sides. For any other uses of the photos of my paintings, permission must be obtained via email."

A license which applies only to Wikipedia or related sites is not sufficient. As set out at Commons:Licensing and Commons:OTRS, we require a CC-BY or similar license, which allows use anywhere, for commercial use or otherwise, and allows modifications. Please ask Artist Tsvaygenbaum if he will grant such a license. If so, please ask him to send a new message and refer to ticket #2012041210013997. If not, we must delete the images of his paintings.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Tsvaygenbaum sent an email to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) with the subject: ticket #2012041210013997 Boxes12 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
After listing all the images of his work that Boxes12 has uploaded, Tsvaygenbaum says:
"I agree that the image "DrIlizarovFragm.jpg" from my painting can be used for any articles

about my artwork on Wikipedia or related sites and for any other commercial purposes."

This is still not an acceptable license, as it does address modifications (derivative works) and it at least suggests that the image cannot be used for any non-commercial purpose except Wikipedia. Please tell Tsvaygenbaum that rather than try to write his own words, he must use those set forth in the box in the middle of Commons:OTRS.
Also note that he gives permission only for File:DrIlizarovFragm.jpg and explicitly withholds permission for all the others.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Tsvaygenbaum is concerned for his work, which it is understandable for me. At this point in time he allowed only the “DrIlizarovFragm.jpg” image to be used under the free license policy. I would like to ask you if you know how to protect the copyright of Mr. Tsvaygenbaum’s pictures and at the same time to be able to use the images from his painting for my article about him? Thank you. Best wishes. Boxes12 (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Note that at least so far he has not allowed any of his paintings to be hosted on Commons, so even File:DrIlizarovFragm.jpg will be deleted soon. As far as using the others, there is no way that they can be on Commons without his permission. Some of the Wikipedias allow fair use -- Commons does not -- so I suggest you read WP:FAIRUSE and go from there. I am not sure that these paintings will qualify, but I am not up to date on the rules there.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Tsvaygenbaum sent an email to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) with the subject: a new ticket #2012041210013997

Please delete all images, except for the following images that Mr. Tsvaygenbaum allowed to keep in his contract. Here they are: (DrIlizarovFragm.jpg, NailedMenThumb.jpg, BlindMenThumb.jpg, ThePenanceDanceThumb.jpg, BrideThumb.jpg, AliyahThumb.jpg, ShohetWithRoosterThumb.jpg and PeopleOfDerbentThumb.jpg) Thank you. Boxes12 (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The latest OTRS message gives an appropriate license for keeping all of the images. However, it comes from a domain owned by Warner Brothers. Isreal Tsvaygenbaum has his own domain, IsraelArtGod.com, and lists his e-mail address there as israel@IsraelArtGod.com. I have sent a message to that address asking for confirmation.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Tsvaygenbaum sent you the reply to your email. I would like to remind you to delete all images except those that Mr.Tsvaygenbaum listed in his contract. Thank you. Boxes12 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Jurgen Bey

Looking at the recent deletion of pictures of works by Jurgen Bey, how about this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ngv_design,_jurgen_bey,_st._petersburg_chair,_2003.JPG? Whaledad (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure -- the line between utilitarian and artistic is a difficult one and this chair is somewhere in the middle. I wouldn't oppose deletion, but I wouldn't support it, either.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

site:Bergwitzsee

Could you please give me _one_ minute?!? Thansk for your cooperation... --Markscheider (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. You were just one in a long line. I think it's OK now.
Generally when you create a new Gallery, it's best to create on a User subpage -- User:Markscheider/sandbox1, for example -- and then copy it to mainspace when it's ready. We delete more than 100 new galleries every day, and we aim to do it fast, to discourage vandalism, so out-of-scope galleries are usually deleted very rapidly.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Amadeo Image

Dear Jim. I uploaded an image (Amadeo de Souza-Cardoso, Cozinha de Manhufe), to replace an older, low quality one, but I don't know how to do ir properly, and the old image seems to prevail over the new one; I need the image for the new expanded portuguese page on Amadeo I am preparing... Can you help? Many thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Do not worry, your new image is in place, exactly as you expect. The problem is very common.
Images and other Internet data are cached on your computer. That is, they are stored locally to avoid downloading them twice, improving response time and saving bandwidth. This works fine almost all of the time, but when you upload a new image over the old one, the software that controls the cache on your computer does not know that there is a new version and it may take a a while before you can see it. See Wikipedia:Bypass your cache for more details and how to deal with the problem.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A couple of DRs

Jim, you'd closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:2011 census of India sticker retouched.jpg, but I'd also nominated the derivative images. Can you take care of those too? Also, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amala-paul13.jpg has been hanging out there for a really long time (I've also linked a discussion we had on the OTRS board reg that). Can you take a look at that too? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Totally Confuzzled

I see your Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paysonville CA Plaque.jpg request to delete a photo I took of an historical plaque on Samoa Peninsula, Humboldt County. I left the source of my confusion on your deletion request page. Please enlighten me? I've taken dozens of photos of plaques up here as have my friends and at no time have any of them been marked for deletion. I am utterly confused, especially as the original request to find this plaque came from a member of a Wiki historical committee years ago! We finally found the thing, covered in plant detritus, cleaned it all off and photo'd it, only to be told "delete"! Eeek! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comments at the DR.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


COM:AN

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators noticeboard#Misuse of Checkuser Tools. an issue with which you have been involved.

See also a previous discussion in German before, where I mentioned this case already: Commons:Forum#wikipediocracy.com in Blacklist? Greetings --Geitost diskusjon 22:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

New images of the artist Israel Tsvaygenbaum

Mr. Tsvaygenbaum sent an email to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) with the subject: New additions to the ticket #2012041210013997. He sent a new contract for additional images that I loaded for my article about him. Here they are: (Bride1Thumb.jpg, BoyLeadingTheAngelThumb.jpg, DuetThumb.jpg, AbrahamAndIsaacThumb.jpg, GoldenJarThumb.jpg and RosesThumb.jpg) Thank you. Boxes12 (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Policy frowns on having two pages on the same subject. Please put a redirect on one of Исраил Цвайгенбаум or Israel Tsvaygenbaum, see Commons:Galleries#Redirects. That saves you and other editors the nuisance of having to maintain two identical pages.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests

I don't want to be a pest, but I've made two nominations of images for deletion, and neither has seen any action. In the past, the process here seems to move relatively quickly. This one is almost two weeks old, and this one is 4 days old. I'm not as familiar with the dynamics here as I am at the English Wikipedia - maybe too many requests and not enough people? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Questions are always welcome -- the only way you can be a pest is to waste time by not asking for help when you need it.
There are several factors. First, and most important, is that DelReqHandler, a script which makes closing DRs ten to twenty times faster than doing it by hand, has had a serious problem which was fixed late last month after being down for about six weeks. Because of this, we have a huge backlog to work through. Normally February would be completely clear by now, but it still is less than a third done and January is less than half done.
The other major factor is that, as you suggest, we need more active Admins. Six of us do about half of the 1,300 deletions every day, while the other 260 Admins do the other half.
I have closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abhay.jpg. On the other hand, while you are probably right about the Parsons image, the DR has only been open four days and our rules do not allow closure before the seventh day unless it qualifies as a {{Speedy}}.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks much for the detailed explanation, and I'm truly sorry for all your extra work. Good luck with the backlog, and don't forget your non-Wiki life. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

COM:AN discussion

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closing_discussion_about_CU_misuse – Can you please review the comments and concerns in this discussion? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is closed. It has never been open at a time when I was on Commons, so I have not commented there.
I think that under the circumstances it would have been better if I had simply ignored Niabot's request. My intentions were good, but sometimes good intentions are not enough.
With that said, I did not break the rules in any way. CUs are certainly permitted to make checks whenever they see activity that looks suspicious. It is silly to suggest that you, Michaeldsuarez, can request a CU based on your suspicions, but that I, as a CU, cannot initiate a CU based on my own good reasons. As you have seen in the closed discussion, Herby strongly agrees with me. It is also obvious that most of the Checkuser activity discussed on the CU mailing list is unknown to the community outside of the CUs and Stewards.
I did not reveal any non-public information about Saibo or Niabot. The fact that I myself have seen some IP addresses is not of any importance. The community, including Saibo, who voted for me, apparently trusts me to keep such information private. I can't imagine breaking that trust.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI, Saibo seems to be unhappy: de:Special:PermanentLink/102279391. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
See my note in the history there. You had good intentions, of course. :-) --Saibo (Δ∇) 01:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi Jim, sadly I am not here to discuss the merge of the admin handbook(s) but your CU action related to my account. I assume that you did query my and Niabot's IPs and browser details in the following (to prevent any misunderstanding - please correct if wrong). While I honor your good intentions this CU action simply went totally wrong (I am not mentioning all bits – like self-request and useless result – here again). The bad thing is: apparently (based on your answer above) you are not acknowledging/understanding that several basic principles/policy bits were not respected with your query. You violated my privacy without being permitted to do so in any way. I had send you two emails - I got no answer (did you receive my mails at all?). I am also very disappointed that you did not comment at the COM:AN section although you were notified two times here and you were active (were you not?). All that does not mean that I do not trust you to keep that private infos confidential - I do.

All (or most) those issues Geitost brings up (which surely involved quite a lot time writing that up) are valid. Most importantly for me:

  1. Why was it justified to query my personal data?
  2. Did you query the IP addresses which were used by my account?
  3. Did you query which other accounts used the IP addresses (which were used by my account)?
  4. Is any personal data from me (IP addresses and browser versions, more is not available in the CU interface) stored on your computer?
  5. Is the queried data (the list of IPs) saved permanently on the servers (for future reference) or is the CU query just displaying the data while you viewed it?
  6. If I am informed correctly the IP addresses are deleted after three months. Will my IP addresses also be deleted after three months or will that period be prolonged due to the CU query?
  7. I hope you learned that using CU to prove the opposite is not useful.
  8. I am confused that you see 50 % chance. Based on what?! That is a very high number although it is clear for nearly everybody that both accounts are unrelated. I really hope that did you did not guess that based on browser versions.
  9. Do you regard the issued Geitost brought up (similar to mine here) as unimportant?

Please do not publish any private information of me here (also do not send it via email); if you cannot answer without - please do not answer.

Please read the sentence above again. :-)

Cheers --Saibo (Δ∇) 01:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, I will say that I regret having done this, but I don't think it was a violation of our rules.

I did respond to both of your messages. I will not say here what I address I sent them to, but they were sent at 1415UTC 4/16/2012 and 1626UTC 4/17/2012. If you like, I can send my responses, and your e-mail address, to another CU -- Herby -- and have him try to send them to you.

To answer your questions:

  1. Because, even before Niabot raised the issue, I thought it possible that you and Niabot were the same person. CUs are allowed, even encouraged, to act on their own suspicions, and I and other CUs do it frequently.
  2. Yes
  3. Yes
  4. Not anymore (except, of course, insofar as nothing is ever completely deleted from a computer without taking extraordinary measures -- I have no doubt that a forensic technician could find it).
  5. I don't know
  6. I don't know
  7. CU rarely gives a completely clear answer. It is in fact easier to prove a negative that a positive (if the two IP addresses are farther apart physically than the user could have traveled in the time between two posts and no proxies are involved, then you have proved the negative. On the other hand, even identical IP addresses proves only that the two users connect to the Internet at the same point -- they might be at the same school or business, but not the same person.) I have learned to take more care in cases that are inconclusive.
  8. I can't respond to this
  9. Important, certainly, but perhaps a little off target. I do not believe that a CU check on any user harms him or her in any way. It does not even invade his or her privacy, except to the very limited extent that I will know where they connect to the Internet. Certainly I see IP addresses, but an IP address tells nothing except location, ISP, and type of connection. My IP address will tell you that I am a customer of Comcast, which has millions of customers and names a location that is not where I live, but is in the city where Comcast actually connects to the Internet. Of course, for some people, it will be thousands, not millions, but it will still be a large number. They only way you could actually get a name from an IP address would be to get a court order and take it to the ISP.

So I simply do not understand why you think that the check itself violated your privacy. I recognize that the difference in our thinking may well be cultural. In the USA we are less concerned about certain aspects of privacy than in Europe. In the USA Google shows Streetview images of everything their camera passes. Commons will publish images of people taken in public places in the USA without their permission. And so forth. However, even understanding that difference, I cannot see that my seeing your IP addresses has invaded your privacy.

With that said, I have already said that I agree that giving an inconclusive result, as I did, was not a good idea.

I should add that, as I said above, and in my e-mails to you, I was not on Commons at any time when Geitost's complaint was open. Several of my colleagues had rather forcefully closed it and I certainly had no interest in reopening it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jim, thank you for you answers and comments. I have again searched through the spam folder but found nothing. Apparently there occurred some rare mail loss then. Could you please just send them again via Special:EmailUser/Saibo?
1: I think it would have been easy to determine from our edits and from the fact that both accounts are very old and active SUL accounts (started at dewp) that both are not belonging to one person - no one would do such an effort. Therefore, even if you would have found out that both accounts edits would constitute misuse in case both were belonging to one person there would have not been a need to check the IP addresses. Please see en:Proportionality_(law)#European_Union_law ("the measure must be necessary to achieve the aim, that there cannot be any less onerous way of doing it").
6. 7.: Please get the information to enable you to answer question 6 and 7. You are using that tool, you should know what consequences it has. Please do not continue to use CU until you know the answer.
9. Sad that I need to tell you (a CU) the consequences of CU. A CU check harms the privacy insofar that that you potentially know where I live, where I work, where and when I've been traveling, ..., which ISPs I use, which browsers and OSes I use, which other legitimate accounts I may use, which non-logged-in edits are from me, although all that info is not public and you would not have known that otherwise.
Regarding Geitost's discussion: You state that the discussions have been closed "rather forcefully" but refrain from doing anything in this important (you agreed) discussion? Well, well...
Cheers --Saibo (Δ∇) 16:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

E-mail sent.

9) -- I don't at all know where you live, work, or travel, except for the place(s) where your ISP(s) connect(s) to the Internet. In my own case, that narrows me down to about a fifth of the USA. Your Babel profile strongly suggests where you are from and calls out a smaller area and number of people than my IP address does. As I said, the only way I can know more than that is to get a court order, and, of course, no court would issue one under these circumstances. Besides that, if it had not been for the fuss over this, I would have forgotten all of the data by now -- I certainly can't remember IP addresses at all and I don't remember other details of CU checks for more than a day or two. You give my memory far more credit than it is due.

And, again, so what? I don't remember the details now and none of the possible choices tell me anything more about you -- it is not as if your choices could tell me that you were a bad person of some sort. It seems to me a little like complaining that I temporarily knew that your house is painted blue. (I hope it is not actually blue, because I don't want anyone thinking that I somehow found that out from your CU data.)

1)"there cannot be any less onerous way of doing it" -- even if I agree that this rule is applicable here, it proves my case. Actually going through and matching edits and times for the two of you would have taken days. The fact that both accounts are of long standing proves nothing.

And, to your final comment, I had responded to your e-mails. A number of our respected colleagues, at least one a CU, had said that the Geitost discussion was closed and that the CU check was within our rules, albeit ill-advised.

Where is this going? It is clear that you are angry -- I'm sorry for that. It's also clear that most of our colleagues think that the check was a mistake -- and I agree -- but that the check was not a violation of our rules. I think that perhaps it is time to end the discussion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Jim, it may not apply to my IPs but usually Germany's IP addresses allow much more narrow localization than just the country. You say that you only knew temporarily - yes, that may be - but that was not necessary and also not covered by policy. You did not cite a policy which allowed you action until now. You disagree "know where [I] live, work, or travel" - well, learn about the power if of continuous IP streams of one account. You could know all that if you would like to - the data was (or is if you saved it) available to you.
1. Both accounts are old proves nothing? Well, do you imagine how much effort that would need to maintain two accounts that long?
Thanks, I got your forwarded email now.
Well, everything is up to you. I hoped to get more understanding from you, you did not fulfil. You did not ask for excuse for violating my privacy, so be it. Yes, that may be the end of the discussion (but not of the problems...). Please ensure that all data from me is deleted in the same timely manner as it would be without your CU query and ensure that you do not save private data from me on your PC. Thanks and fare well. I hope the community improves - but without me. Bye --Saibo (Δ∇) 02:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for undelete: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cygnus X-1.jpg

Hi Jim, you deleted this picture File:Cygnus X-1.jpg. The licensing details are wrong at this time, but we need only changing to CC-by/3.0. Reasons: As on the source [27] you can read credit the site spacetelescope.org (the source site), clicking on footer left-side you can see at http://www.spacetelescope.org/copyright/ that all pictures belong to ESA/Hubble are under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. So we need only to relicense the file and it can stay here. So I request undeleting. Greets from Germany! --Quedel (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Reading the terms that you cite, there are two things that concern me:
"Q: Do I need to send you a physical copy of any products I have made using your imagery or footage?
A: No, an electronic copy (e.g. a photograph or a PDF) is fine."
This requires that they receive a copy. We do not allow that.
"Our basic intention is to encourage the use of our material and we take a common-sense approach to crediting: our only concern is that you credit clearly, visibly and unambiguously and that the credit is not separated from the image/footage/text." [emphasis added]
This precludes use on WP, where the credits are always separated from the image.
Others may disagree with my reading of this, so I suggest you post a Commons:Undeletion requests.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
As we handle it like other sites: the given license is the hard fact and all others are "friendly doing" (I find no better words for that), because they were particulary contrary to the license. I go to the mentioned proceeding site of undeletion request. Thanks for your opinion and answer! Here we can close. --Quedel (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Hi Jim, hope you're well. If you have time, and if it's not too much trouble, I was wondering if I could get your opinion on something. Do you think that you could have a look at this RfA and tell me whether it has been canvassed? The subject of the RfA just posted this, but it doesn't appear to be representative of clear cut canvassing (user spams other users with requests to !vote). Thanks in advance, FASTILY (TALK) 20:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether it would fall outside the WP:EN rule as canvassing or not. I plan to raise -- and would happy to join you in raising -- the issue after this RfA is closed. I think that any off-Commons announcement should be forbidden. This one may well be great, but I'm not interested in hearing what WP:DE users who have never been on Commons think about him/her -- I'm only interested in what Commons users think. So I think we should have a rule against this sort of thing.
I don't think it's fair to raise it now, because it is not now against our rules. Sreejithk2000's RfA had much the same thing -- a note posted (not by him) on his home Wiki. He got a lot of Malayalam votes -- people who had little knowledge of Commons. That turned out fine, because he had a lot more experience here than AleXXw. And, of course, he's become our fifth most active Admin without many problems at all, so the canvassing didn't hurt in that case (speaking of which I see 7443 actions for the last month for our most active Admin).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for looking into it! Best, FASTILY (TALK) 08:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

How to use a OTRS ticket

If this is the wrong way to do this I apologize but it said to no longer make edits to the deletion request page Commons:Deletion_requests/File:My .357 Mag S & W model 66-2 (5).jpg. In the future how do I use the OTRS ticket you provided to me. I am trying to not make anymore mistakes in the future. Thank you for any help - Mesinge2


This is exactly the right way to ask for help from a specific user.

You can put the following template on any image page that fits within the permission you gave in your e-mail to OTRS:

{{OTRS permission|2012042010008013}}

That will produce a message box identical to the one at File:My .357 Mag S & W model 66-2 (5).jpg.

Please give us more images of similar overall quality, but if possible, with more pixels. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Does it work?

Hello James!

This image depicts a scale model of an existing military vehicle. This model was shown among others on the international MAKS airshow in Russia. This photo is licenced under a free CC-by licence. Is it possible to upload here on Commons? I mean because it is a scale model. Do we now have certain guidelines for scale models in Commons? Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Models fall into the same category as sculpture and have the same copyright issues. In making any model, the creator must make choices of what detail to include and what to omit and exactly how to do it. Note that this is not because the prototype vehicle has a copyright -- it is utilitarian and does not have one -- it is because the model has a copyright, just as a model of a lion or a human would. So, in order to keep this on Commons, we would need the permission of the modelmaker.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, yes, I know the facts about models. I wanted to know if we have any policy or guideline here on Commons that explains this thing to everyone. I was asked via Email about the image of above and where he can find some info on Commons about it. --High Contrast (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry -- I thought it was a very simple question for one with your experience. Let's try again:

  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tango B-396 Model.JPG has some nonsense in it, but summarizes a variety of solid opinion including Carl Lindberg, who I look to as a very knowledgeable editor on the technical issues of copyright.
  • COM:TOYS Although this is probably not intended as a toy, it falls under the same rule as a model that is a toy, and they clearly have copyrights.
  • Although no specifics come to mind, I remember a variety of DRs on models -- mostly cars and trains -- all of which were delete.

Perhaps we should rewrite the models section of the casebook?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This may also help -- the Copyright Office's Copyright Basics page 3, which says:

"Copyright protects “original works of authorship” that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:
[1-4 omitted]
5 pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
[6-8 omitted]
These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most “compilations” may be registered as “literary works”; maps and architectural plans may be registered as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.”

If a computer program is literary, then a fine model is certainly sculpture. I'm sure there is case law. You might ask Carl Lindberg.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

We should create something official so that anybody can inform themselves. Besides, we havy many many images of models on Commons that violate law stuff cited by you. --High Contrast (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 Comment Even admins do not follow this juristical rational: Here is an example how many users see this. --High Contrast (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, no. Jcb had a very retentionist attitude and often disagreed with most of the community.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the Jcb-issue is well known. But the many keep-voters are showing this typical widely spread opinion about scale models. And I had already some discussions about this problem and most of them do not understand where the problem is. Therefore some "COM:Scale-models" could help. --High Contrast (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I've got a big time drain in the real world right now, so I'm doing only very routine stuff here this week. I'll write something in a sandbox, maybe early next week -- or if you want to start on it, feel free to use User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox1 which is empty.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please

read carefully and remove those silly deletion request. The depicted person died in 1959, the painter died in 1918. --FA2010 (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Not quite "silly", but certainly wrong -- when I see paintings in a category of a painter, I assume they are by her, not of her. In fact, one out of the five was a problem, as well as a good many others from the museum. Thanks for picking up my error.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Missed one

I have just noticed you missed an image in a recent DR at File:P1.jpg. CT Cooper · talk 18:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. For some reason it wasn't on the list -- possibly related to the DelReqHandler problem.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

File:Massoud and Qadir 2.PNG was widely used on the English language wikipedia. Given that both men are dead some or all of those usages would qualify for use there under the English language wikipedia's rules for "fair use". I've read that there are tools for administrators to use to facilitate the porting of images that are being deleted here to the image namespace of wikis that allow fair use.

Do these tools exist?

If the tools do exist what is required to get them activated?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the tool. The image is a screenshot from this movie. If you can't pick it off from there, send me an e-mail by clicking on the link in the left column above, and I'll e-mail it to you.
You might think about an RfA. Then you could do this sort of thing yourself -- not, I hasten to say, that I mind doing things for colleagues. I'd be happy to nominate you, as you certainly have the experience for it and the required collegial and mellow attitude.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Waterbackpack (Wasserrucksack)

Dear Jim: Firstly, please excuse any errors: I am a total novice in Wikipedia/Wikimedia and quite confused of all the terms, functions, abbrevs etc. With regard to my very first article on the WaterBackpack (article in German only so far), you mentioned that the three pics I added were a joke. However, this device, whose weight (empty!) is about 20 kg, can be carried empty to the spot where people have water of poor quality (see Pakistan 2010: there was really enough water around!). Once in place where people need water, the water contaminated by bacteria etc is filterd. In fact, no one would carry the waterbackpack when it is full, as it then might weigh about 130 kg. You can see that it is not a joke as some 700 units are already in use worldwide (see http://hrz-vm162.hrz.uni-kassel.de/web/SiwawiDokumente/pdf/forschung/wasserrucksack/Paul_Flyer_V14_en_2012-03-20.pdf), the first deployed by NGOs in Pakistan in Sept 2010, and still in use (just today I received another report of the NGO that brought the first units to Pakistan, and people are still happy with them). Please also realize that finally even the German Government sent 40 units to Bangkok due to the floodings there in 2011, please check out http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/sid_053FD3BE66C470F16ADDA7A55F3F1B4E/DE/Aussenpolitik/HumanitaereHilfe/AktuelleArtikel/111027-Flut-Suedostasien-node.html for this. So, it is not a joke. I was confused by the message that the deletion discussion is closed but the last message was "Kept: OTRS permission received Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)" - are the files deleted finally, or are they not ? I still can see them on the net - can you explain this to me? Just in case, my mail is frechen(at)uni-kassel.de Thank you very much for consideration and explanation concerning the question on the deletion, and best regards! Franz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.51.70.226 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 25 April 2012‎ (UTC)

Franz: I'm sorry that your introduction to Commons was a little rough and for my part in that. Please understand that we get about 8,000 new files every day and don't have a lot of time to study each one. Since there was no explanation of the device I made a bad assumption. One of the good things about Commons (and all the other WMF projects) is that it is easy to fix mistakes.
I raised two concerns in the DRs -- the "joke" and the permission, the first of which you answered and the second of which was answered by the license sent to OTRS. As the person who started the DRs, I am allowed to close them early, so it was logical to close them as "keep" so that our colleagues would not spend any more time on them. You will note that the {{Delete}} tag has been removed from the files, that a {{Kept}} tag has been added to their talk pages, and, most important, they are still visible. If the DR had been closed as "deleted", then the links would red and you would not be able to see them.
It would be a good thing if you took most of the explanation above and added it,in English and German, to each of the three files. If you have more questions, please feel free to ask them here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim, many thanks for your explanation and the hints you gave - even more affirms my appreciation of wiki !!

Commons:Deletion requests/File:LRC Inside.jpg

I was surprised by your failure to follow the reasoning of CT Cooper and myself, which was hardly complicated. You wrote "User:Grvsngh claimed "own work" on both of these. That does not necessarily make him a liar, as Moonraker suggests would be necessary." I suggested nothing of the kind, as you can see from reading through the page. I saw no solid reasoning to cast any doubt on the images and the copyright in them being Grvsngh's, and still see none. The case CT Cooper put forward was very thin, as was your own. Your comment "obviously a photograph of a book, and therefore infringes on the book's copyright" shows much the same wild speculation as CT Cooper, making the guesses (a) that the book's cover design is copyrighted and (b) that Grvsngh did not own the copyright, on both of which matters we have no information. You go on "also because this image came from http://wobs.in/welham_old_boys_society_article_30.asp. Its date there predates its upload here." That is just as thin, as there is nothing to prevent Grvsngh (or anyone else) from donating an image to the wobs.in site before donating it here. You need to learn to think more clearly. Moonraker (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No. I think you need to understand copyright law and our rules better, and perhaps use better judgement. I said "obviously a photograph of a book" about an image that showed the book as a whole, diagonally across the image, with the wire binding and facing page partially visible. There can be no question that it is a photograph of a book and, therefore, derivative of the book's copyright and also of the photograph shown in the book. The book, a creation of the school, was almost certainly not Grvsngh's own work, as claimed. In either case, I do not need to guess that the book and its cover design is copyrighted, I can be sure of it, because every creative work everywhere is copyrighted for a period longer than the age of this book.
In a case where an image has appeared on a copyrighted site outside of Commons, our policy requires formal permission from the owner of the image, so even if your speculation that Grvsngh created the book and its cover is correct, we would still require OTRS permission.
As for my comment, "That does not necessarily make him a liar, as Moonraker suggests would be necessary, you said, "If Grvsngh is claimed not to be the copyright holder then ipso facto he or she is plainly accused of lying." So, if, in fact, he is not the copyright holder then, according to you, he must have been lying.
Also, please understand that it is up to the uploader to prove to the community that the uploads are as claimed -- it is not up to the community to prove anything. In this case two of the images were clearly not "own work" as claimed. That throws appropriate suspicion on the remainder of his uploads, which also had small size and a lack of EXIF data, the combination of which are, by our rules, prima facie evidence of their not being "own work".
So, this is not a case where only one thing is wrong. This is a case where we can show actual use of images claimed as "own work" on a copyrighted web site, together with small size, no EXIF, and an editor who made no contributions except for these images. Except for your spirited defense of them, this would have been an utterly routine deletion, much like several hundred similar cases every day.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback

I am concerned that Rauenstein (talk · contribs) is using rollback solely to revert good faith contributions, rather than to provide proper edit summaries, which is clealry outside permissible use of rollback per the rollback guidelines. I have reminded him of these guidelines previously, but he dismissed it, and subsequent edits suggest he is still ignoring such guidelines such as [28], [29], [30], and [31]. While I have seen much worse use of rollback, I think it is enough to request admin review. CT Cooper · talk 15:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I put File:Aurach, Kirche St. Peter und Paul.jpg back into its own category and will see what he does with it. The rest, I don't know the geography well enough to see whether they are an edit war or actually reversion of sillyness -- I suspect you're probably right, but let's see. I agree that a rollback without a comment is right on the border unless it's clear vandalism. "Undo" is much better most of the time. Is it possible there is a language problem? It's not "rollback" and "undo" on his menu.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I have thought that there might be a language issue, although in my communication with him I have got the impression that understands English fine, and he just choosing to ignore what I say. For instance, he removed a DR tag on a category despite clear instructions in German not to do so. It would certainly be helpful if he could place babel information on his user page. I switched my language preferences to German to see what it looks like and, yes rollback appears as "Zurücksetzen" (roughly translated as reset), so any further warnings should perhaps clarify this. I will keep an eye on him, and see how he uses rollback in the future. CT Cooper · talk 14:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Botelho image

Dear Jim. I would like to upload the last image of one of my grandfather's paintings included in the list I sent to Commons in February (Commons already has the licence for this image): Carlos Botelho, Lisbon - Lisboa, 1936, oil on board, 105 x 100 cm. Can I do it now? Many thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket covers the following works
Carlos Botelho, Com Carnavais como este, Ecos da Semana, 17 Fevereiro 1938, tinta-da-china sobre papel, 45,3 x 34 cm
Carlos Botelho, Ecos da Semana - Em Paris, Maio 1929, tinta-da-china sobre papel, 44,5 x 30,5 cm
Carlos Botelho, Lisboa - Lisbon, 1962, oil on canvas, 54 x 76,5 cm,
Carlos Botelho, Lisbon - Lisboa, 1936, oil on board, 105 x 100 cm
Carlos Botelho, Lisbon - S Cristóvão, 1937, oil on canvas, 62 x 78 cm
Carlos Botelho, Lisbon Bouquet - Ramalhete de Lisboa, 1935, oil on board, 72 x 100 cm
Carlos Botelho, My Father, 1937, oil on board, 73 x 60 cm
Carlos Botelho, Nocturnal - New York, 1940, oil on board, 78 x 61 cm
Carlos Botelho, Velho Casario, 1958, têmpera sobre tela, 46 x 55 cm
so they are OK, but anything else will require a new OTRS message. If it is one of these, please be sure to put the following tag on it:
{{PermissionOTRS|id=2012022010004824}}.
On a related subject, I note that you have uploaded works by Dominguez Alvarez, including File:Alvarez, Dominguez, Adega do galo, 1930, óleo sobre tela, 105 x 79 cm.jpg. He died 12 April 1942. Although we say that copyright ends 70 years after the death of the artist, in most European countries it actually ends on January 1st of the next year, so these works may not be free for another eight months. Since we don't have an entry at Commons:Licensing for Portugal, I'm not sure that is the case there, so I will leave them alone for now. If you wanted to find the Portuguese law and summarize it in English at Commons:Licensing, that would be very helpful to Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright - Portugal

CÓDIGO DO DIREITO DE AUTOR E DOS DIREITOS CONEXOS | Capítulo IV – Da duração | Artigo 31º - Regra geral | O direito de autor caduca, na falta de disposição especial, 70 anos após a morte do criador intelectual, mesmo que a obra só tenha sido publicada ou divulgada postumamente.

Chapter IV – Duration | Article 31 – General Rule | The copyright ends, if there are no special stipulations, 70 years after the death of the intellectual creator, even if the work was published or made public posthumously.

Dear Jim: here is what you asked for. I uploaded Carlos Botelho's last image. For the past 3 months I have been obsessively writing articles on Portuguese artists for the Portuguese Wikipedia. Thrilling and exhausting! But it is very frustrating no to be able to upload images, for the Portuguese language Wikipedia is very strict (hopefully I'll be able to upload images once I've made 500 contributions! Can you imagine!) Many thanks for your precious help.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Licensing

Portugal Works are protected 70 years after the death of the author or last surviving author, or 70 years after publication if the author is unknown/anonymous.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Old maps of Amsterdam

Hi there,

Just out of curiosity, per what policy is it necessary to use the gallery format for these pages? Because on pages like Atlas of Germany, this is not used. The reason why I created Old maps of Amsterdam is to show maps of Amsterdam consisting of several sheets (9 in the case of Balthasar Florisz. van Berckenrode, 4 in the case of Pieter Bast) as one image... You basically made this impossible by converting it into a gallery. Best, Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

See Commons:Galleries, almost at the beginning,
"When creating a new gallery, a few things should always be included:
  1. The gallery tag to hold media (<gallery></gallery>), see m:Help:Images and other uploaded files#Gallery." [emphasis added]
The intention, as it also says there, is to created a structured collection. In particular, keep in mind that our users may be working with anything from a small screen mobile device to a screen or multiple screens thousands of pixels wide. By using the gallery format, the images are presented in the most legible way on the available screen space.
Remember, too, that we have almost 13 million pages on Commons. I would guess that at least 1% of them -- 130,000 -- violate our rules in some way. Atlas of Germany may fall in that category, but we have cut some slack in the rules for the Atlas pages. Although your new gallery consists of maps, it is not part of the Atlas project.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your reply. It was not my intention to create a gallery, I just tried to find a way to present maps that consist of multiple images. Apparently, that's not possible on Commons. I nominated the page for deletion here. Best, Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. I went back and looked at how you set it up, and I understand your reasoning -- it looks very good in a window of the correct size. Unfortunately, what you tried will not work in general -- if the window is smaller or bigger, they no longer line up, so it is not policy that prevents what you want, it is simply that it works only in some cases.
Nonetheless, I'd like you to withdraw the DR. A gallery is much better way of presenting this sort of collection than its category because you can still put the images together with their mates, rather than having them simply alphabetical by name.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough! I replied in full on the deletion request. Best, Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Oath.jpg

Is this image reportedly from a 1955 US film in the public domain? Either it is or its a flickrwash in which case it should be deleted. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea whether it is one of the publicity stills that is PD or is, in fact, under copyright. If I were you, I would hang a {{Delete}} on it -- someone will know.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous map, in scope?

Hi Jim; I noticed that maybe I made an error in opening Commons:Deletion requests/File:US President George H. W. Bush Presidential Trips.PNG in March, as I now stumbled upon another DR where you said that we keep maps even if they may contain errors. So, maybe you could have a look at my DR and state your opinion regarding this case? Maybe it's not comparable; after all, there is no one who would claim the existence of virtual "countries" as shown by this map... Thanks! Gestumblindi (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Paintings

Hi, Jim. I don't understand why paintings of Koryun Nahapetyan, who died in 1999, can be uploaded here ? Does ru:Участник:Нагапет have a special permission ? Takabeg (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Your instinct seems to be correct -- I don't see any obvious reason why they should be OK, but as you know, I do not read Cyrillic, so there may be something on the source site. I hung a {{NoUploads}} tag on the category, and you may want to DR them.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Page deletion thanks

Thank you for the speedy deletion of the page accidentally created, you are a gentleman and a scholar. Newsburst (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem -- we delete about 100 new pages every day -- around ten of which are mistakes of this sort. A {{Delete}} is overkill -- a {{Speedy}} will do it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for helping me editing the article of the church of coyoacan. I have more archives that are my own work. Thanks! --JorgeE10 (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome -- we try very hard to be helpful to new editors.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Own work, photos and paintings

Good day. From Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abstract painting.JPG I think we seem to be talking from somewhat different perspectives that seem broader that this particular file, so I thought I'd bring it up here. My understanding has been that when I create an image through my own work -- whether I create it with a film camera, digital camera, pen and paper, paint and canvas, computer visual editing program, whatever -- I could upload it to Commons an license it as my own work. (Yes, I know, Commons has a continuing problem with people who don't or won't understand about derivative work, but for this example I'm assuming this isn't an issue.) Are you saying that this is incorrect? Your comments on the deletion request looks to me to suggest that "own work" on Commons can only apply to photograph, and other media inherently require OTRS from one self when one uploads one's own work? -- or if not could you clarify what the issue is? Also, is there some Commons policy (which I might have missed) relevant to this you could point me to? Thanks for your attention and all your good work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning is fairly straightforward. It is one thing to assume good faith when a colleague uploads a photo of a landscape which he or she says is own work. Without AGF, Commons would not be anything like what it is. Your File:WestEndLighthouseStandingSorta.jpg and my File:Squirrel Point Maine Lighthouse detail.jpg both require AGF -- neither of us can prove we took our image. I don't mean to minimize the value of either of our images, but from a copyright point of view it is relatively low. Mine could be retaken. Yours cannot be retaken, but there certainly are similar images out there. So if it turned out that we did steal them from somebody else, the damage would be minimal.
It's very different, though, when the image is a DW of an artistic work that has its own copyright. Then the copyright can be worth significant amounts. The license fees on posters of copyrighted art can run into thousands of dollars, even tens of thousands for some. Given that, we are more careful. If User:Smith uploads an image of a painting by artist Jones, we require OTRS from artist Jones. When artist Jones logs on as User:Jones, Our username policy says,
"Editors registering under the names of famous people may be blocked unless they can show they are that person or it is their real name, via e-mail."
We have that policy because we have been burned too often by people who claim they are a well known person and it later turns out that they are not. While Alexander Stovbur is not a widely known name, he is a notable artist and therefore falls under that restriction.
So, here we have three images uploaded by somebody who claims to be a well known artist. Policy allows any Admin to block him until he confirms via OTRS that he is, in fact, the artist. It seems to me a logical extension of that policy to DR his three uploads. I like it better than blocking him because he can respond to the DRs rather than being limited to his talk page. It accomplishes what we want -- confirmation that our new editor is in fact the artist. And, if he does not confirm for some reason, then the three images will end up deleted, as they should be.
I should add that I think the odds are in favor of our User actually being the artist. If he is not, then he is a fraud, because User:Alexander Stovbur is very clear in claiming that he is.
You have vastly more editing experience here than I do -- I don't think I've seen a higher edit count than yours, so I take your concerns seriously. Perhaps we should both wait until someone else comments -- or even, perhaps, solicit the views of our colleagues with a note on ANB?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that the issue is quite the same of previous publication: if a work of art is created primarily for illustrating some Wikimedia article or project, Commons is most probably the first publication, so no need for any OTRS permission. If the work of art is created independently, they may be a previous publication outside of Wikimedia (art catalog, exhibition description, etc.), and therefore requires an OTRS premission. My 2 Rs. Yann (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wave 3.jpg

This picture was taken in Israel in Netanya Promenade {{32.310641}} The FOP that applies is {{FoP-Israel}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djampa (talk • contribs) 11:59, 11 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Sridhar socks

Perhaps we can add *sridhar* as a banned string in usernames? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. If he's going to open a new sock, I'd far rather have it be Sridhar12344 than Boombah10 -- if he's going to make it easy to spot socks, fine.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Failed uploads

Problem solved. Sorry to trouble you.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

About these DRs

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prohibitionboard.jpg

About this DR, I do not think you should've closed it as Kept. There is no evidence that the entire sign is in the public domain, because there is no evidence it is a federal government sign. Please reopen the discussion or at least explain why you kept it. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 22:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my closing comment, there is nothing there that could have a copyright except the various DOT hazmat symbols. They are all PD because they were designed by the Department of Transportation, a Federal agency. The very minimal text is too short to have a copyright. Also, of course, the form of the sign must follow federal standards. The whole sign was almost certainly designed by an employee of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission or one of its contractors, but that doesn't matter, because there is nothing there that can have a copyright.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minecraftlogo.png. This should not have been kept either. The fact that it is ineligible for copyright in the United States, doesn't mean it isn't eligible in Sweden. I think you should reopen this discussion unless you have proof that this is too simple for Sweden's TOO. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 22:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Our rule with {{PD-textlogo}} is that we ignore the country of origin. As the full discussion in WP:EN sets forth, fonts do not have a copyright in most countries (the notable exception being the UK, in a limited way). I don not know if Sweden has a specific rule that differs from most of the world.
Note that the rule interprets "font" very broadly -- fundamentally anything that is alphabetic letters -- not necessarily in the Latin alphabet -- is part of a font, even if it is very elaborate and even if it was especially designed for a single purpose and does not exist as a complete alphabet. This means that a one or two word logo that is nothing but letters cannot have a copyright and should be tagged with {{PD-textlogo}} on Commons.
This does not mean that it can be freely used -- such a logo will almost always have trademark status, so that it can be used only in ways that do not devalue or contradict its trademark status. Such logos will have limited use -- probably only on various language WPs, some of which, by policy, have no local images and rely on Commons for all their images.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, no, policy states otherwise. Commons only accepts files in the country of origin and in the United States. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 13:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
You may be correct on this issue -- I've opened a discussion with Carl Lindberg, our resident expert on copyright nitty-gritty.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I have reopened this DR.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

deletion

why did you delete my photos? I own all rights! Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmsunited (talk • contribs) 11:25, 15 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Because, as it says at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Filmsunited, they are all very small and have no EXIF information. Also, you did not comment at the DR, although you were invited to.
Since we ask all users to upload images at the highest possible resolution, the fact that these are very small suggests strongly that you are not the photographer. If, in fact, you are the photographer, then please upload full resolution versions with EXIF -- or explain why you cannot.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. what is EXIF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.39.108 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 15 June 2012‎ (UTC)

It is data about the image which almost all digital cameras include automatically with the jpg. See Exchangeable image file format.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

But I didnt take the photos. I own the rights but the photographers gave them to me ages ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.39.108 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 15 June 2012‎ (UTC)

The fact that the photographers gave you copies of their photos does not mean that you own the copyrights and have the right to license them here. Did you execute a formal, written, assignment of copyright with each of the photographers? If so, please send a formal statement of that using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. If not, then we cannot keep them without explicit permission from each photographer involved.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Deadminship request

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jameslwoodward (de-adminship). This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 13:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent deletions - I think you missed one

When you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Artwork for Wrights Biscuits.jpg, you didn't delete File:Artwork for Wrights Biscuits.jpg. Did you just miss it or was there a reason for leaving it there? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just missed it, thank you. Deletions sometimes take minutes, so Admins usually have moved on to the next DR before one is done, so it is an easy mistake to make. That's why we have many eyes watching.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi there, Could you take a look at my comment here? I believe such images should only be used with permission from the owner.--Rafy (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have two thoughts -- first, the description suggests to me that this is a "model" -- a fake which only an example of a real card. If that is true, no problem. The second is that if it is not a fake, then the subject may have given permission.
In a way, I (or anyone on this side of the Atlantic) am a poor person to ask, because we are much less concerned with personal privacy than many Europeans.
The easiest way to get a good opinion on it is to do a Deletion Request.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Never mind that. I was suspicious because the provided link was showing me a blank page on my Linux browser, it works fine on Windows.--Rafy (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:CioccolaTò

hello :) can you say me because this image: File:' 12 ITALY - TURIN - cioccolaTò 26.jpg was deleted? as part of the contents was a copyright violation?? thank --Pava (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The milk bottle and the pictures on it are copyrighted, so we cannot have the image on Commons without the permission of the designer of the bottle.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup

Why don't you delete all the FIFA World Cup pictures from Commons? --Badefa (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you delete all this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:FIFA_World_Cup_trophy ? --Badefa (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Or this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Copa_Mundial_de_la_FIFA.png ? --Badefa (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of them should be deleted, although in some, the cup is de minimis. I suggest that you tag those that should be deleted with {{Delete}} so that they can be discussed. We do not keep images of copyrighted sculpture (which includes trophies) without permission of the sculptor.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If they should be deleted, DELETE THEM as you have deleted my picture. --Badefa (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you don't like having your work removed, but it clearly infringed on the rights of the sculptor. We have over 13 million files on Commons. My best guess is that at any one moment 1% of those -- 130,000 files -- should be deleted. We get over 8,000 new files every day and delete about 1,200. Because those numbers are so large, most active Admins spend their time closing DRs and doing other deletions, not nominating new files for deletion. They leave new DRs to people like you. After all, we have only about 50 active Administrators, but around 25,000 other editors like you.
So, as I suggested, tag the other offending files with {{Delete}} and I, or another Admin, will delete them after a week.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary reprimand

Jim, you've been around long enough that you might need to read up on good faith again to refresh your memory a bit. I'm very unhappy about your masterful reprimand here. OK, the file shouldn't have been uploaded, and I'm sincerely sorry it was, but why rub it in like that and clearly show such bad faith? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have commented at Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Swain-I-Coin.jpg.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Your behavior there is unacceptable. Let me go on record, cordially, as saying so. Need some time off? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, we agree on one thing -- there's unacceptable behavior here. I had no problem with your making a mistake with an upload -- we all make mistakes from time to time. Lord knows, I've made more than my share, which I freely admit and apologize for as needed.
I see no point in reiterating the rest of my reasoning.
By the way, I like the lion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanx! So do I. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

re:New Pages such as A6e77

Sorry. I was wrong template. Thanks and greetings --Ignacio (discusión) 17:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. There is much for new editors to learn and we all had to start somewhere.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Medium ocean tanker "Irkut" in 1985.JPEG

Hello! By deleting this image you've created a precedent - there are a lot of files from DoD that doesn't have author. Should we delete them either? And also - DoD doesn't keep good track on their records. I can tell you for sure - there are a lot of DoD photos that have wrong dates or mistakes in descriptions. That apply mostly to older works - from 80s and earlier. I think this mistakes happen because they have a lot of photos without proper notes so they upload them with approximate info. James R. Nockson (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The firm rule on Commons is "When in doubt, delete." Since we know that the site often hosts images from non DoD sources, we are stuck with the fact that when they show "unknown", then there is a reasonable doubt whether the image is actually DoD or not.
Or, put another way, in order to keep something as PD-USGov, the source must say that it is USGov, not "Unknown".      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, I see. Images with unknown author gonna be deleted. Then here's deletion request on that subject. I looked at just one category of PD-USGov images (DoD images with known IDs) - and there are 22 images that should be deleted. 9 of them are my uploads. I will check other PD-US categories soon. James R. Nockson (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm certainly not the last word on such decisions, but it seems pretty clearly correct to me.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

self-image of child

Re Ingrid Jaimes.jpg... are you suggesting that any self-image of a child (under 18?) is not allowed on Commons? And can you point to the discussion you mention? – JBarta (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of law, a child cannot enter into a irrevocable contract (there are exceptions to this for certain things, like food, but they don't apply here). Therefore a child cannot give an irrevocable license because they can repudiate it at any time until shortly after their majority (in most jurisdictions, remembering that all generalizations are false). That's not usually a problem, because there is no liability in most jurisdictions if the user of the image does not have actual knowledge that the person is a child. But, when the image description tells us that the uploader is a child, as it does here, I can't ignore it.
Although I hung my hat on the issue above, I also have concerns about a 14 year old girl posting her image worldwide without any parental oversight.
The discussion is at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_28#Underage_uploaders, where, as you will see, the consensus, which included WMF's General Counsel, was to ignore the problem for the most part, relying on our ability to take the image down if needed.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like one of those issues where there is no simple solution. The silver lining is that no solution is usually better than a bad one. I will add this comment however... I think we (meaning just about everyone in a modern civilized society) are a little too paranoid when it comes to anything relating to children. In other words, too much medicine can sometimes be nearly as bad as any illness we're trying to cure. That said, thank-you for your explanation. – JBarta (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

Please, remove this File:FIFA_World_Cup.png and this File:Copa Mundial de la FIFA 2.jpg. Copyright EA Sports. Thank you.--83.61.124.239 21:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the second because it was a duplicate of the first. However, the first has a {{Delete}} on it and it must wait for seven days of discussion before deletion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


deletion

Please delete [32] for moves--Sokac121 (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand. Our policy is to keep a redirect when a file has been moved and it had been here under the old name for more than a few days. That appears to be the case with this redirect.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong deletion discussion linked from image page

This discussion was from 2010 (although I see you've also closed this one too). Apparently the person who tagged File:Apple Computer Logo rainbow.png did so improperly, so the discussion link was wrong and probably shouldn't have been closed as delete.

We actually should have a png version of the logo available at File:Apple Computer Logo rainbow.png anyway. This graphic is widely used (with attribution links back to Wikimedia Commons) from many other websites. Deleting the png version breaks those attribution links, and I suspect the person who claimed it to be a duplicate had no idea it is so widely used. While we support svg natively in Mediawiki (with on the fly scaling and bitmap rendering), most software does not support svg graphic files. Ultimately, someone should have probably just regenerated an updated png version from the svg version of the logo. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There were apparently two different DRs on the same file at the same time. One of them was correctly shown below a 2010 discussion which I did not change. I closed them both.
Policy is that if we have a PNG file and an SVG is created after the PNG, then we keep both in order to retain history. However, the reverse is not true. If the SVG was created first, as appears to be the case here, then we do not keep later PNG files of the same subject. In this case, the sequence is clear, as Pieter Kuiper points out in the DR, because there is a ten pixel error at the bottom right end of the green stripe -- it extends incorrectly into the orange stripe for a short distance.
That's policy because fundamentally there is no need for us to keep PNGs when we have an equivalent SVG. The SVG is usually smaller and can be rendered in any required size. For users outside of WMF who need to use the file and cannot use SVG, they can get it rendered into PNG in several sizes.
Therefore, I think this file was correctly deleted for two reasons -- it contains an error, albeit a very small error, 10 pixels out of 277,500 -- and, it is a PNG created from an SVG.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

iran Commons:Deletion requests/File:Margiri.JPG

Margiri.JPG i know iranian copy right law better than you please do not delete what you do not have knowledge about . Margiri.JPG is my foto and have no copy right the curtain belong to my family viligares in iran kashmar . painter is unknown and the work is for sure more than 70 years old. please rebuilt it or i should complain to the managers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maahmaah (talk • contribs) 04:37, 28 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Iranian Copyright law makes no provision for cases where the author is unknown -- so it is unclear when the period starts for such works. Even though the work might be, as you say, more than 70 years old, the author might well still be alive today. Therefore I see no way to keep it here without further information.
With that said, it is possible that I do not understand the law as well as you or some of my colleagues here. You may file a request for undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a user in Persian wiki. what i am loading have no copy right . also the owner of this [33] maps and cultural picture have send an email to wiki common announcing that use of all maps and picture from this fliker or www.parssea.persianblog.ir is free . any how i don't have enough time to follow up my work i request you to rebuilt it . you can contact the author of the atlas regarding the maps. all those maps have been published by M. ajam and p mojtahed zadeh and Dr vosoughi. and they have no copy right they had been published just for public educational aimes and not benefit - contact author = ajam20@gmail.com in iran every bloger or website copies free picture and put their names on it .it does not means that it have a copy right. for example the picture of Ash joush pare is a foto taken by my brother he had send it to the bloger free . all the picture and maps that i had uploaded are free to be used and nobody will sue wikipedi be 100% sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) 15:27, 28 June 2012‎ Maahmaah (UTC)

Our rules are very clear -- it is up to you to prove that the images you upload are correctly licensed. It is not up to me or any other editor to do that work for you.
Note that "just for public educational aimes and not benefit" is not enough on Commons -- we require that all images be available for any use -- educational or commercial -- so that the information you give above is just one more reason not to keep them.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Works of unknown authorship

Hi Jim, I've just come across some uploads of scans from a 1908 Italian book, with no authorship given for the images or book (well authorship claimed by the uploader at the same time as applying PD-Old-100, which I've fixed in some cases). With no author given we don't know if {{PD-Old-100}} applies, and I'm not sure in what circumstances {{Anonymous-EU}} can be used. Any advice? See Special:ListFiles/Domenico_Forastiere. Uploader hasn't been active since Feb so contact not overly likely to succeed. Rd232 (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm generally reluctant to use any of the "anonymous" tags unless it is clear that the work was actually anonymous. The fact that we do not know who the author was does not make it an anonymous work. Worst case, it might mean that the uploader has deliberately not told us the author's name in order to use {{Anonymous-EU}} or a similar tag when he knows that the author died after the 70 year cutoff. In this case, I would demand that we be told who is named as the author of the book and then go from there.
Without that, I think 1908 is too recent to assume the author was dead before the cutoff -- I don't have an exact line for that, but someplace around 1875-1880 feels comfortable -- and even that does not stretch the possibilities -- an author born in 1860 could easily have created a work in 1880 and lived to be 83 in 1943.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's pretty much what I thought. I can't find any more author data beyond "Deschiens", unfortunately. I can't find any contact details for the uploader, so I'll just do a DR. cheers, Rd232 (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for renaming my user page to correct namespace. Idk how I created it with Ukrainian namespace prefix... --BaseSat (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nuvola copyrighted?!?

I don’t get Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nuvola filesystems www.png at all. First of all, the request is a complete gibberish to me. Then, your explanation “Source site has explicit (c). There is no reason to believe that we have permission for this.” is quite surprising. Maybe we should delete everything from Category:Nuvola icons, then? IIANM, the Nuvola package by David Vignoni is an open-source package released under a free license (LGPL). See http://www.icon-king.com/projects/nuvola/. What reasons did you have for this hasty removal of such a massively used file? --Mormegil (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

First, please calm down a little. Commons Users upload about 8,000 files every day, Admins delete about 1,200 files per day and our backlog is growing, perhaps even out of control. Therefore we work fairly fast and don't spend a lot of time on research. Our rules call for a DR to be open for seven days, which this was, so there was nothing "hasty" about the removal.
The file lists its source as http://www.icon-king.com/. That page has nothing on it about license except an explicit (c). There is no link to a page with licensing information of any kind. When the source site has an explicit copyright notice and no license information, it looks like a copyvio.
It is unreasonable of you to expect busy Admins to read your mind or search a website for licensing information beyond what is shown on the file and the DR.
Now, as you have pointed out, the file is licensed under the GNU LGPL. While that license is, apparently, permitted for use on Commons, it is not, in my view, actually usable. In particular, since it is designed for use with software, not images, it requires that a copy of the LGPL license be provided with every use of the licensed material (section 4b). It also requires that where you use the licensed material with other works, that you provide a copy of the licensed material separately (5b). I can't imagine anyone printing a 1,200 word license next to the use of an image.
Therefore, I am not going to undelete this myself. I suggest that you file a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. I will oppose undeletion on the grounds that the LGPL is, as a practical matter, unusable for images and therefore does not conform to our requirements. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
You made a mistake, which is understandable given the amount of the work you do, no problem. I undeleted the file and amended the template so that, hopefully, such error would not happen in the future. Your concerns about LGPL might be understandable, but since LGPL has always been an acceptable license on Commons, and is explicitly listed at COM:L#Well-known licenses, you’d need to raise the issue at Commons talk:Licensing or other proper venue, should you want to make a change to our policy (note that I would be against it, LGPL is a perfectly valid free culture license). --Mormegil (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough -- we could quibble all day over whether I made a mistake or not.
As for this file -- I am tempted to simply put a new DR on it on the grounds that it violates its license because there is not a complete copy of the LGPL license agreement on the page with the file (as required by section 1). As you say, though, this is not the place to discuss this.
I suggest you read the license in its entirety. It is intended for software libraries and only software libraries. Derivative works are permitted only if they are software libraries (section 2a). It really surprises me that we permit it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Photo of Reynold Philipsek performing at Hell's Kitchen in Minneapolis, MN.jpg

Hi, Jim. My apologies for not being aware of the discussion around Reynold's photo until now. I am with you that the wording of the photographers release is ambiguous, though he did mean a full release for all. I am working to get an updated statement from the photographer that will remove any ambiguity, and I will repost the photo and link to the new CC BY release from photographer. Thank you! Rene Reneeri6 and Reneeri6Media — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reneeri6media (talk • contribs) 17:50, 2 July 2012‎ (UTC)

That's fine, thank you for your efforts. I suggest you ask him to use the form and instructions at Commons:OTRS as that is the easiest way to describe our needs. If you give me a note here when he has sent the message, I will check OTRS and restore the image. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

<-- DISREGARD THIS NOTE---Hi, Jim. You should see an email from Thomas Tremel to permissions [at] commonswikimedia [dot] org. He went through the OTRS. Thanks for the help, and all the work you put in for Wiki. Fantastic resource! If you need anything else to make the existing photo live, let me know, or I can reload. Thanks much. Rene - DISREGARD --!>

Thomas is having trouble getting the note to permission [at] to go through -- keeps getting kicked back. I'll let you know when it goes through. Thanks, Jim

OK -- we got it cleared up. You should see an email from Thomas Tremel to permissions-commons [at} wikimedia [dot] org. He went through the OTRS. Thanks for the help. If you need anything else to make the existing photo live, let me know, or I can reload. Thanks much. Rene --Reneeri6media (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks again for your effort in getting this licensed. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Have a great week. --Reneeri6media (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Jim. How are you ? I have a question on this DR. User:Yerevanci claims that he should be the same person as User:Hovik95. If so (if he/she tells the truth), he/she have to be blocked with an expiry time of indefinite and images that were uploaded by User:Yerevanci have to be deleted because of User:Hovik95 had been blocked with with an expiry time of indefinite (22:28, 17 July 2011 Martin H. (talk | contribs) blocked Hovik95 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Copyright violations only.)). On the other hand, he/she is not User:Hovik95, File:Armenians in historical Armenian homeland HY .png have to be deleted because of copyright violation. What do you think of this interesting case ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't look at the IP addresses of Hovik95 because his/her edits are more than three months ago. However, I note that Yerevanci's first edits were about a month after Hovik95 was blocked, so there is a certain logic -- not proof, of course -- but a possibility that they are the same person.
Even if we knew for certain that they are the same person, I don't think we have to block Yerevanci and delete uploads. People can change, so each image should be considered on its own merits -- of course, if a lot of them are copyvios, it casts suspicion on all of them.
As for this image, the real question is where the base map came from. The data can't be copyrighted, so if the base map is OK, then I'd be inclined to keep it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

check File:Caleb.jpg

Should this image have been deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caleb.jpg? Chesdovi (talk)

✓ Done Thank you for pointing it out. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the picture of my father in law

Hi James/Jim,

I became a wikipedia-member to make a page about my father in law. I didn't check it for a while and now I found out that you deleted the picture of him from the newspaper (Algemeen Dagblad) from the 2th of april 1993.

I don't know why and I would appreciate if you would let me know what I have to do to get it back on this page: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Hoogendoorn

Would you be so kind to let me know on my emailaddress: r.g.c.segers@me.com ?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgcsegers (talk • contribs) 17:12, 23 July 2012‎ (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Piet Hoogendoorn - AD - 020493.jpg which points out, as you also do above, that this is an image from a newspaper, and therefore has a copyright. We will need a license from the newspaper using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. This is true even if you were the photographer, as you claimed when uploading it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

CU

Hi Jim. It's already archived, but perhaps you could take a look at this and the associated DRs? Thanks! Kind regards, Trijnsteltalk 12:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Both Orionandhsu and Orionwebmuseum are blocked -- their last edits on Commons were in September 2010, so there is nothing for a CU to compare to. All of the images in the DRs have been deleted and the DRs are closed. For what it's worth, I agree with the closures. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Mislabeled poison ivy

Dear Jameslwoodward: Regarding your closure of the deletion request of the misidentified poison ivy image: File:Young Poison Ivy,.jpg. If “a bad name is not a reason to delete a very nice image” then the file name needs to be renamed from “Young Poison Ivy,.jpg” to “unidentified plant.jpg”. Otherwise, the battle will be fought again and again on the use of the picture on Wikipedia, where technical accuracy matters. Will you do that? [[34]] Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not an Admin's job to change names in cases like this. Plainly you know far more about plants than I do, why don't you do it - I know you are new here and, therefore, cannot do a rename yourself, but you can use {{Rename}}? And please suggest a better name than the one above. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:France FOP cases/deleted

When you close a France FoP-related DR, please include it in Category:France FOP cases/deleted.

Thank you to help to better tag FoP DRs. --Dereckson (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry. While you are certainly free to add the category, it is not part of an Admin's job to do so. We have an increasing backlog and not enough active Admins -- we simply cannot afford to add extra work. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
thanks, you description help'd work out where my page went, the other guy should not be allow'd to admin till he explains to english people in english TheWraith517 (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Give him a break -- we see more than 100 new pages every day that are out of scope or otherwise not acceptable for Commons -- sometimes it is hard to guess what the editor was trying to do. On Commons, when someone does something you don't like or don't understand, it is always best to go to his talk page and ask for help. Simply doing the same thing over or reverting his edits is a violation of policy. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Recipients of the Order of St. Andrew the Apostle the First-Called (ongoing stamp series)

Dear Jim,

I want to contest your decision to delete the page Recipients of the Order of St. Andrew the Apostle the First-Called (ongoing stamp series)

The page was not an article, it was a gallery of images with explanatory text.

Commons:Project scope says:

“Allowable content includes:

  • Educationally useful (this was - D.I.), classified (this was) collections of images (these were images) or other files, along with small (small? how many characters? bytes?) amounts of explanatory text (there was the explanatory text).”

I suppose (I can be mistaken, though, you delete the page because “it had too many letters”, because the explanatory text was not small. But, again, whan “small” means? Is there a norm? Yes, the explanatory was rather extensive. But it was not too extensive, just enough to understand who depicted on a stamp and to make a decision to use an image in a Wikimedia-project or somewhere else.

I created this page because I hate file description providing no information: have you ever seen views of a city with a “description”: “Street”. I have. It can be useful photo, but since it has not a description you can found it only by accident, especially if it was badly categorised (and as a rule, it is badly categorised).

And I create the page because I hate galleries like this:

  • stamp of Russia No 1508Zykina
    stamp of Russia No 1508Zykina
  • Stamp Russia # 1509 likhachov
    Stamp Russia # 1509 likhachov

What do you think, would this gallery be useful for a user writing an article in a Wikipedia? I am sure, it will not.

But such ugly galleries, giving no information, fragmentary, made “slam bang - and it's done”, forgotten by their creators, they exist, this shame of Commons exists! And at the same time you have deleted a potentially useful gallery that in prospect can help a user. I am sorry, but this looks like doctrinalism: wow, a whole paragraph of text - must be deleted. And here? “Qwerty”. What it means?.. Hm... But the text is small, so, let it live.

Commons is not an encyclopedia, but it is the auxiliary tool of the encyclopedia and it have to provide some encyclopedic information, it have to help to create new articles in national wikipedias, and I think my page did not contradict these aims of Commons.

If we had not galleries with detailed information about images before why we cannot try to create such galleries now? What a dogma puts obstacles in our way? May be it would be a new good tradition of Commons, why not?

“If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.” I suppose, these can be applied not only to Wikipedia, but also to Commons.

I ask you to undelete the page Recipients of the Order of St. Andrew the Apostle the First-Called (ongoing stamp series) or do not impede its re-creation.

Have a nice day, dear Jim.

Yours respectful, Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

First, let me say that your images of the stamps are beautiful. Thank you for bringing them to Commons.
Most Commons galleries have a sentence or two of text. A few have captions on each image. The border between a Commons gallery and a WP article is certainly a gray area, but your proposed gallery was, in my opinion, a long way over it. I see that you have almost 2,000 edits on Commons -- surely you must know that your proposed gallery had much more text than any other gallery. If you want to change established policy, you must do it by discussion before the fact, not after.
I suggest that you create the article within WP:EN -- it would be perfectly fine there and that is where it belongs. I would create it there myself, but you deserve the credit for the new article. You (or I) might even nominate it for the main page feature Did You Know? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). One of the images would be eye-catching there.
If you chose not to create it on WP:EN, you may of course, post a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. I will probably oppose such a request. Do not simply recreate the page -- that would be a serious violation of policy.
If you don't have a copy of it, I would be happy to put a copy on a user subpage for you..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Jim,
Of course, I know the gallery was untypical for Commons and, and, yes... may be I had to discuss the gallery before the publication.
As of the publication of the gallery in English WP... In the terms of WP the gallery like mine is a list, and the lists have right to life in Wikipedia. But I think the list of an ongoing series of contemporary stamps does not satisfy the requirements of WP: neither the ongoing stamp series Recipients of the Order of St. Andrew nor the separate stamps have enough notability; only sources you can find for these modern stamps are the catalogues and short news publications, like “Russian Post issued ... etc.” and these sources hardly can be considered as reliable. So, I doubt the gallery Recipients... is for Wikipedia. May be I am mistaken, I am not well aware about rules and traditions of English WP, but, again, most probably, the list (gallery) of stamps is not for Wikipedia.
Will I dispute the deletion of my page or propose a new format of galleries? M-m-m, may be yes, may be, not, probably – not.
But I want to create the deleted page again - as a traditional gallery. At the top will be a brief: “Recipients... is an ongoing series issued by …” etc., 2-3, max. 4 sentences and then reproductions of stamps with short comments under pictures, something like this:
  • Dmitry Likhachov, (1906–1999), a Soviet and Russian philologist, art historian, literary man and public figure. Marka No 1509, Michel No 1741.
    Dmitry Likhachov, (1906–1999), a Soviet and Russian philologist, art historian, literary man and public figure. Marka No 1509, Michel No 1741.
I hope, the recreation of the page in the traditional format will not be considered as the violation of the policy.
Yours respectful, Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Thank you for the warm words about my contribution to Commons.
Recreation is not only OK, I started it for you -- you might want to add a brief caption to each image. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Jim. I, in my turn, added the captions to the images. Best wishes, Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Explanation needed

Why did you delete File:Samsung Galaxy S III unveiling, No.1 .jpg even as the person who called for its deletion later agreed that the photo was not taken by Samsung Electronics? Sp33dyphil 04:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my closing comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Samsung Galaxy S III unveiling, No.1 .jpg, the problem is not the image itself, but the fact that it infringes on the copyright of the three images on the screen. When you take a photograph of any creative work (a building, painting, sculpture, photograph, text, etc.) that was created by another person, your photograph is a derivative work and in order to license it freely, you must first have a license from the creator of the original work.
There are several exceptions to the very general rule I stated above (de minimis, FOP), but they do not apply in this case. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The "discussions" here are bogus. You're going to delete what you want to, regardless of any other input. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
You've certainly been around long enough to know that this image infringed on several copyrights -- there was not much room for discussion, as it was a very plain derivative work. It was perfectly clear that Sp33dyphil did not understand the issue -- not that the subject image was itself a problem, but that the three images on the screen have a copyright and the subject image infringed on those copyrights.
As for my being able to do anything I please -- Commons has around 25,000 active users who watch over everything, because everything here is public. I have made well over 100,000 edits and Admin actions and my actions have been reversed very few times -- less than 100 -- so while I certainly make mistakes, I don't make very many of them. If you really think I was wrong on this decision, you, or Sp33dyphil can certainly file an Undeletion request. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you've not convinced me that a plain block letter sign is an "art work" or anything else copyrightable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you are talking about a different image? I agree that a "plain block letter sign" could easily be ineligible for copyright, but that's not this image. File:Samsung Galaxy S III unveiling, No.1 .jpg shows a large hall or arena, mostly dark, with a huge video screen at the front of a large audience. The video screen has an image of a woman on either side and an oblique image of the product filling the whole center of the screen. The screen fills around half the height of the image and is the only thing really discernible -- the audience is just dark blobs -- so that de minimis not a possible argument. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm talking about the Urquhart Castle sign that you clobbered a few days ago for no valid reason. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Aha. It would have saved some time if you had mentioned that earlier -- this section started as a discussion of a very different issue. I assume you mean Commons:Deletion requests/File:Urquhart Castle Entrance Passage sign.jpg. As I said in my closing comment,

"We tend to forget that text was the first subject of copyright when the concept was introduced hundreds of years ago. This text is certainly long enough and original enough to have its own copyright."

Your question,

"How can a plain sign consisting solely of plain text words possibly qualify as an "art work"?"

misses the point. It doesn't qualify as an "art work", but it clearly has enough text to qualify for copyright as a "literary work". Please remember that "literary work" is very broadly construed in copyright law -- computer programs are copyrighted as literary works. Although Wknight94 would put a {{PD-text}} tag on it, he's the uploader and has a natural bias in its favor. I don't know of any jurisdiction in which a 72 word descriptive text would not qualify for copyright -- we usually think of the boundary at 10-15 words. I'd be interested to hear of any case law to the contrary.

As you know, ff you think my decision was wrong, you can always post a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Violet Alva.jpg

Jim, I had also nominated File:Joachim Alva.jpg as part of the same DR. Can you take care of that too? Also, there are a couple more DRs from the same series here and here. These were all done before a mass DR that resulted in deletion of all other such images. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for missing File:Joachim Alva.jpg.
I had looked at both Commons:Deletion requests/File:George Fernandes.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ananta Pai.jpg and passed them by -- I was not sure (and am not sure) that they are DWs of the images shown. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks. The uploader's response was at AN here and at the mass DR here. The mass DR included images that I hadn't been able to find sources for though. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
And unrelated to the above, but do images such as those under Category:Bikini car wash at Twin Peaks, Round Rock fall within our scope? I can't seem to find the value of such images in an encyclopaedia, but in addition to this category there's far more from the same editor. And I'm also concerned about personality rights with some of the photos, especially since when friends upload drunk images of friends on Flickr, Flickr automatically puts them under CC-BY licenses unless the uploader sets a different default. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I agree -- one or two car wash images might be good to have -- they do illustrate a common way of raising money for various school projects, sports teams, and the like -- but we don't need 92 of them.
There are two parts to personality rights -- privacy and commercial use. These would require permission from the subject even to be here if they were German, but that's not a problem in the USA as they are clearly taken in a public place. They cannot be used for advertising without permission of the subject, but that is true of any image of an identifiable person anywhere. Even that might be OK in some countries if the identifiable persons were in a large crowd at a public place.
Drunk images of friends falls in a special case -- even in the USA, even in public, you probably need permission from the subject if he or she looks ridiculous. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
File:A girl in party.jpg is one that I've nominated for deletion already, and File:A girl taking a sip (2).jpg I haven't nominated yet, but I will do so. However, what about images like File:A girl walking in Times Square 7th Ave.jpg. Clearly, a person walking in NYC has the right to not have her butt image plastered all over the internet? At least not in encyclopaedias? And File:A girl lying in bed with mobile (1).jpg appears to be a photoshare with friends by a private person, so even if we aren't asked, shouldn't we respect their privacy? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The first, second, and fourth are taken in private places, so we need evidence that the subject has consented to their inclusion here. I don't think there are any privacy issues with the third one -- the subject and a few people very close to her might recognize the clothes and shoes, but she is not identifiable. I would vote for deletion on the grounds that it is out of scope, though. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll nominate the more straight-forward ones soon and handle the "only out of scope" issues later. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Billboards at Leeds Bradford International Airport (24th July 2010) 001.jpg

Hi, you recently deleted File:Billboards at Leeds Bradford International Airport (24th July 2010) 001.jpg. I believed this to be very much a case of de minimus and cannot see any justification for your deletion. Such deletions are frankly a slap in the face for contributors who give up time and resources to help build this database. I am going to re-upload the file in question and would appreciate it if any further reviews were conducted only by other parties. Regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You are a very experienced Commons editor -- you surely know that if you upload the file again, you will be flatly in violation of our rules and will be subject to sanction. The proper procedure is to file a request at Commons:Undeletion requests and see if you can convince the community that Mattbuck and I were wrong.
As for the de minimis claim, an image that has nothing in it of interest but four copyrighted billboards and that is titled accordingly cannot be kept on the grounds that the billboards are de minimis -- they are the only reason the image is of interest. Your argument that they take only a small amount of the image space is irrelevant -- they are the only subjects of the image. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I cannot request its unblocking without first uploading the said image, else it cannot be judged. I find such deletions an act of malice on the part of the administrators who seem to think they have a monopoly on judging falls within the rules and their unconstructive efforts undermine a lot of diligent hard work. Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
To the contrary, it is perfectly possible (and required) that you request undeletion while the image remains as it is.
As far as your rant against Admins goes, I need only point out that we have approximately 25,000 editors who do more than five edits per month. We have only about 250 Admins -- 1% of the number of editors -- of whom only about a quarter are active and of whom 5 make half of all Admin actions. If any Admin did not follow Commons policy and consensus he or she would be promptly voted out of office -- something that happens several times each year.
I also point out that fewer than 1/10 of 1% of our approximately 1,200 daily deletions draw an Undeletion Request. The whole community, 25,000 strong, has the opportunity to comment on them, but fewer than half or the Requests succeed. Thus Admins are judged to have acted incorrectly on the order of half a dozen times out of each thousand and most of those are simple errors, not controversies.
Finally, I have no reason to have any malice toward you and cannot imagine why you would accuse me of it -- as far as I can remember we have never interacted before. I am somewhat frustrated by spending so much time on an image that has nothing in it except four copyrighted billboards and which is titled accordingly, but malice? No way. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Spider-Man panel. Commons:Deletion requests/File:AmazingSpider-Manpanel.jpg

You completely ignored consensus to support you're opinion. With you're logic there should have never been IFD. Just because you are a deleting administrator doesn't mean you have the freedom do that. I can even think of another administrator that said it was ok to bring the pointed source on Commons that didn't weigh in. You can put in all the guidelines you want to but still know that consensus is a important part of it. That wasn't fair at all. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement on Commons that the closing Admin follow the consensus when he or she believes it to be wrong. DR discussions are not votes -- they are discussions to raise relevant issues so that the closing Admin can do his or her job correctly and ensure that all points of view are heard.
"The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' precautionary principle." [emphasis added]
In this case, TriiipleThreat raised the relevant issue
"The question then becomes if that closed-circuit feed is copy-protected"
and then came to the wrong conclusion -- "(I doubt it)". In fact, as I said in my closing comment, closed circuit feeds are protected if and only of they recorded ("fixed" is the technical copyright term). Since we don't know that in this case, the precautionary principle requires deletion because the images infringed on the probable copyright of the screen images.
If you still think my decision was incorrect, you may file a request for reconsideration at Commons:Undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
No harm done really. I will get over it. But I feel that this logic is more from a deletionist more than from a inclusionist which I am neither. If what you say is true though you might need to inspect TriiipleThreat's images as well. Jhenderson777 (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
In this case, as I said, the issue hinges on whether the feed was recorded. If we knew that it was, then it would be an obvious copyvio, much the same as photographing any television image. Since we don't know for sure, the Precautionary Principle requires deletion. I suppose you could argue that the Precautionary Principle is, itself, deletionist, but since Commons consensus is that we want to be a safe source of free images, we do require proof that the image is free, rather than the other way around.
As for me, I try very hard to be neutral -- generally, unless I feel quite sure of a DR, I will comment on it but not close it. The community seems to think I am usually right -- I have deleted over 44,000 pages and have been reversed on appeal fewer than 100 times.
Anyway, welcome to Commons. I see that you have been a very active contributor on WP:EN. You'll find that Commons is a much smaller and much more cosmopolitan community -- we have active contributors all over the world.
You might want to read the page on Derivative Works very carefully. I think that File:Spider-manhardrock.jpg is a very close call -- I wouldn't be surprised if someone hangs a {{Delete}} on it. On the other hand, I really like File:Wavesoversunset.jpg and since God puts all His work into the Public Domain, it is a DW, but it doesn't infringe. You got the shutter speed just right to show the waves a little frothy. How did you happen to be on the shores of the Malacca Strait? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
(drive-by comment) That is a really nice picture. Smile --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Some images like this flower are of my own but as you can see the waves one is got the Flickr license. Or at least it had it. I am going to get in touch with the author because it looks like the licensing has changed. So I am not the picture taker. Besides the wave ones and the ones you deleted of course a lot of them I asked permission from the author to make it in here into a free license so it would fit in Commons Quite a few enjoyed the idea. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that image doesn't have the creative commons when it was obvious (because of the bot) that it originally did. I want time to see if the author will reply back on Flickr. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

? There's no problem there -- the FlickreviewR Bot confirmed that it was licensed CC-BY when uploaded, so the fact that it is now All Rights Reserved is not a problem -- CC-BY licenses may not be revoked retroactively. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh good. I didn't know that. That's a relief. :) Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

OTRS : Jean Linard

Thank you for your work, but now, can you recreate the gallery Jean Linard you have deleted? Thanks. Thomas Linard (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

BTW thank you for the welcome. I want to like Commons but that it has so many rules that make it hard to ever contribute to bringing a new image. I wish I had the ability to take my own pictures with my cameras more often. But I haven't had any of those moments yet. Even then without doing that it's hard to put any other good images on here. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Even still it's great to be a nice, civil and welcomed community. :) Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It can be hard to begin -- we deal with the copyright rules of many countries -- perhaps thirty that are really significant and all the rest occasionally. The rules vary widely from place to place, in length of copyright (10 years to 120), in point of commencement (publication or creation), in how original something must be to have a copyright (from almost everything has a copyright to higher requirements), and in when you can photograph a copyrighted work and have it be OK (from never in 43 countries to anything permanently in a public place, with a very broad definition of "public place" in 3). Pre 1989 USA works have there own special set of rules.
My best advice is to either ask first -- I'm always happy to help and others will also -- or to upload just one image and see what happens. You can even hang a {{Delete}} on your own upload to get a solid community opinion. You can also ask at Commons:Village pump.
If you want to make yourself a local hero with your camera, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Alabama#Coffee_County. One of the blanks is in your home town. NRHP sites are almost always safe from a copyright point of view because they're all relatively old and most are architecture, which is OK in the USA. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Kapara relief Gilgamesh winged sun.jpg

You recently deleted this image -- that's alright, I suppose, as proper procedure was followed, even if I disagree with the outcome. But could you do me the favour of restoring the text from the deleted image page to my user space? I spent some time researching this artefact, and I would hate to have to do this again if I discover a free image of the artefact. Just the "description" portion from the deleted page, please. Thank you. --Dbachmann (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done see User:Dbachmann/text .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 08:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Radisson Blu

File:Taxi at Radisson Blu 25 July 2012.JPG Hi Jim, where is here copyright, You said? --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The architecture of the building is copyrighted and therefore any image of the building infringes the copyright which is owned by the architect. Although some countries, including the USA, would allow such images, Estonia does not. Therefore, unless you can get permission from the architect using the procedure at Commons:OTRS, the images of the hotel cannot be kept on Commons.
For more information see Commons:FOP. If, after reading that, you still think my action was incorrect, you may post a request at Commons:Undeletion requests.

Where you see the architecture of the building, I don't see the building here, I see only cars at the door or glass windows and steel as construction material, I request Undeletion and quickly, dali, dali, junger Mann, поторопись, --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC) --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly like arguing that you can photograph part of a copyrighted painting or sculpture but not the whole thing. The fact is that under the law, all parts of a building fall under "architecture" and are covered by copyright. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


Yes. It was identical in all essential respects to File:Taxi at Radisson Blu 25 July 2012.JPG which was deleted following its DR. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Template

{{Help me}} Please don't remove this template, junger Mann, the image was not identical, the first image was from the year 2011, and this photo is from July 2012. Auf dem ersten Bild war nur ein Taxi (one car), hier sehen wir schon zwei (two cars), aber ich würde gerne hören, wo hast du da the Building (where did have You seen the architecturial building, junger Mann) gefunden? The Building ist hier: File:Radisson BLU in Tallinn 6 June 2012.JPG. Wie würdest du es mir erklären, Junge? This image must be deleted if you speak about architecture in Estonia. What are You waiting for ... Christmas? I have written it was a non-commercial use, for all people worldwide, this is the last image of this hotel, fass, remove det, --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC) --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have twice removed the {{Helpme}} because it is used to say that I need help. You may put it on your own talk page, but not mine.
Please understand that Commons requires that all images be free for commercial use, so the Estonian FOP provisions do not help us, as they allow only non-commercial use. It is too bad that people and countries that specify "non-commercial only" do not understand that that forbids use on almost all webs sites and almost printed materials -- "commercial use" includes any book or magazine that is sold (including textbooks) and any website run by a for profit company, any website that has advertising on it, and any website run by a not for profit organization if it solicits money or sells things to raise money. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I have understood You (the problem of capitalist system is money). I think You must delete these images, too, that the people in Estonia can make money using my images.

--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

To be deleted

Please delete: File:Hotell Olümpia.JPG File:Sunrise in Summer behind Swissôtel Tallinn.jpg File:Tornimäe Buildings in Tallinn 10 August 2011.jpg File:Letter from ship with Logo.jpg File:City Plaza Tallinn 22 Juny 2010.jpg File:Tornima'e Maja Tallinn 06 07 2007.jpg , thanks PjotrMahh1 (signature don't work) --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC) --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

About a deletion request

I started a thread here about a deletion request which you closed. You might wish to comment. I decided to take the matter to COM:VPC instead of trying to settle it here because the situation seems to be a bit complicated. It is better to try to get an opinion from different people too. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said there, you may well be correct. Certainly this is not the place for the discussion, but I wish we had a better place than COM:VPC which is, after all, the meeting place of only one of our many languages, albeit the largest. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Not your fault, of course; your closure was just based on the current wording of the {{PD-1996}} template. The first thing we need to do is to make sure that the wording of that template matches United States copyright law, but that's for COM:VPC. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:AcampadaEnSol-16-5-11-IMG 1105.jpg

Hi. Can you please restore that photo? It is about 15-M demonstrations in Spain. Very notable. emijrp (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

All I see is a hand with an e-mail address -- but I know nothing about the demonstrations other than what I read in The Economist. I suggest you post a request at Commons:Undeletion requests -- I will not oppose it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read this

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/File:Avineri71.jpg --79.179.223.186 10:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Commented there. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

About deletion of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Painting_under_V%C3%A9lodrome_Stadium.JPG

The french law says (art Article L122-5 du Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle) : "Lorsque l'oeuvre a été divulguée, l'auteur ne peut interdire : 3° Sous réserve que soient indiqués clairement le nom de l'auteur et la source : a) Les analyses et courtes citations justifiées par le caractère critique, polémique, pédagogique, scientifique ou d'information de l'oeuvre à laquelle elles sont incorporées" We're not talking about doing business with this photograph. It's only here with a purpose of information. The only thing to do was maybe to put a legend "painting made by the South Winners under the Velodrom Stadium". Nothing more. You can aswer to me in my page. Rgds Matieu Castel (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say we are talking about doing business with this photograph -- Commons requires that all its images are free for commercial use.
It is too bad that people and countries that specify "non-commercial only" do not understand that that forbids use on almost all webs sites and almost printed materials -- "commercial use" includes any book or magazine that is sold (including textbooks) and any website run by a for profit company, any website that has advertising on it, and any website run by a not for profit organization if it solicits money or sells things to raise money. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. I don't know if you read french but http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006069414&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006278917

This is the entire law. I'm pretty sure that the use of this photograph is totally legal and fit perfectly with the terms of the law ( for example : La diffusion, même intégrale, par la voie de presse ou de télédiffusion, à titre d'information d'actualité, des discours destinés au public prononcés dans les assemblées politiques, administratives, judiciaires ou académiques, ainsi que dans les réunions publiques d'ordre politique et les cérémonies officielles ). Matieu Castel (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I can struggle through French -- and what you cite does not help. Commons requires that works be free for all uses, commercial and non-commercial. Pédagogique, scientifique ou d'information is not broad enough to meet our requirements.
If you will forgive me for saying it so bluntly -- you have 24 edits on Commons, while I have over 100,000 edits and Administrative actions. If this painting were in Madagascar, I might not be sure, but we deal with French law every day and I can say with complete assurance that we cannot keep it here without permission from the artist(s). .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
OK I quit. I don't want to argue on this point. I'm working in French administration in the legacy control but you may be right, althought I'm quite sure of the contrary. Wonderful demonstration of submission to the market rules anyway. WK is indeed a briliant "product" of the Anglosphere, the culture where everything is copyrighted, even a street painting on a distroyed wall in southern France that nobody will come to claims his rigth of property. Too bad that the paleolithic painters of Lascaux didn't knew that wonderful culture. They'll be the richest men on earth if they had Matieu Castel (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure why you blame the Anglosphere for this -- it is the French law and its lack of FOP that precludes our keeping this copyrighted painting on Commons. If the painting were in Germany, Spain, or Portugal, it would not be a problem. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Particle viitable.jpg

Hello! I beg completely close this nomination. Thanks! --Art-top (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done, sorry. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aziz_Aliyev.jpg

Unfair. The 50-year copyright applies only to post-Soviet Azerbaijan where the copyright law was first passed in 1996 (see the corresponding law). It does not apply to works created in Azerbaijan SSR, where a work became copyright-free 10 years after its publication. Parishan (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The current Azerbaijan law does not speak directly to the question of whether it applies to works made before passage of the act. The USA rules on construction would have it apply to all works from all times. See also Commons:Licensing#Azerbaijan which does not make the distinction that you raise.
However, that is not the most important thing here. Since we do not know when the image was first published, we do not know when the ten year period began. So, even if your interpretation of the law is correct, we cannot keep the image. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Almada

Dear Jim: I uploaded 4 images of old magazines (1915 and 1917) and a book cover, but once again I don't know how to deal with the copyright issue (and I don't know how to categorize the book cover). I need these images for the portuguese Almada Negreiros page on pt wikipedia. Can you help? Thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Manuel -- I'm happy to see that you are finding Commons a good place to contribute.
I put {{PD-Text}} on three files:
I think that will be OK.

has both an image and enough text to have a literary copyright, so it is more of a problem. You will need to prove either that the author died before 1942 or that the original work (both text and image) was anonymous -- and please note carefully that "anonymous" is not the same thing as "unknown to Commons" -- it has to have been intentionally anonymous, not merely lost information. You mentioned four magazines and a book -- I found only the four images, so I missed one. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. File:1 Conferência Futurista, Portugal Futurista, 1917.jpg will have to be deleted because the author died in 1970. A million thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done It's a pleasure to be helpful to colleagues who understand the rules and easily accept that one of their uploads must be deleted. It is not always so easy (see several discussions above). .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MaHue

Hi Jameslwoodward, I guess that you deleted these files because there are at times surviving leftovers of closed DRs. This was, however, not the case. We had meanwhile an OTRS permission for the whole set and the photographs were all restored by Neozoon and correctly tagged with reference to the OTRS ticket. I've now restored the set and added a notice to the DR. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the extra work. It was as you said. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Missed one

[35] It appears that the deletion request was for two images and only the one in the title was deleted. FYI. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Thanks, that's an old one. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Photographer's Barnstar
why did you delete my Alexandra Underwood page i worked really hard on it just tell me what i did wrong and how to fix it Toxic Envy (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
As my edit comment said, Commons galleries are for collections of images, see the official guideline at Commons:Galleries. Your page was a biography, which does not belong at all on Commons. It might belong on the English Wikipedia. The two images which you uploaded were obviously taken from the web and were copyright violations. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Radisson BLU in Tallinn 6 June 2012.JPG

Hello! This file was tagged as {{Move to et.wiki}}. Why wasn't it tagged for a bot move using {{Fair use delete}} before deleting? 88.196.241.249 07:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Admins delete approximately 1,200 files a day -- half a dozen of us do half of those and the backlog is growing. It is not part of our job to move files or retag them -- that should have been done before the seven days were up on the DR. In this case, the uploader, User:PjotrMahh1, asked for rapid deletion. He is active on Commons and can certainly upload the file to WP:ET if it is permitted there. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, apparently Dcoetzee has set up his bot in a way that it functions only if an admin uses {{Fair use delete}} tag. (Others can only propose fair use uploads for admins to review.) I'm not saying that you have to be the reviewer, but some admin could to this, especially if the fair use upload was requested. Indeed PjotrMahh1 is an active user, but generally this isn't the case, isn't it? (Pjotr counted on bot here.) Your work on reducing the backlogs in much appreciated. And yet, you could you please just undelete, retag and then let Dcoetzee's bot to tag this file as a speedy? 88.196.241.249 11:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done -- This one time. Note that in many, perhaps most, cases, the closing Admin will not do even see the template. Files should be moved once it becomes obvious that the DR will be closed as delete. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. But how comes than an admin doesn't see the template? I'm fairly sure that admin should even check the history to see if any important tags haven't gone missing, accidentally or not so accidentally (at least that's what serveral problem tags suggest). This fair use upload schema is set up by another admin and several other users and as far as it is not rejected as such and seems like a legit schema, people do rely on (and let the bot do the move properly despite doing it themselves) and don't expect that another admin just ignores it. 88.196.241.249 16:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
When the deletion is routine -- such as an image of modern architecture in a non-FOP country -- the closing admin will typically not even look at the image -- it takes too long. That is particularly true when a well known editor, Stefan4 in this case, has called for deletion.
It would certainly be better if we could spend more time on each file, doing as you suggest. The fact is that the volume of work is overwhelming. In the last month we deleted almost 71,000 files -- 2360 per day. Ten admins did 88% of that total. Our backlog is growing rapidly -- last time I counted, there were more than 5,000 open DRs, most of which call for the deletion of multiple files. There simply is not time for the active admins to do more than make a quick decision of how to close each DR, usually based only on the information on the DR page. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests for fotos of Bert Hubbard

Dear Jameslwoodward, You nominated four fotos of Bert Hubbard for deletion. I wrote some additional information on the nomination pages and hope that the pictures will be accepted now. Could you please tell me your opinion?

Regards,--Culturawiki (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have consolidated the four DRs into one at
I took the liberty of changing your comment accordingly since the circumstances of the four are not quite the same. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your informations. Do I understand you correctly that Bert Hubbard should write an email to permissions-commons at wikimedia.org with the detailed informations and license? --Culturawiki (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. If you'll let me know here when he has sent it, I'll take a fast look at it. The usual backlog for OTRS is around a month. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I will try to reach Bert Hubbard as soon as possible and let him know what we need. Regards,--Culturawiki (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim, Bert Hubbard has sent a message to permissions-commons at wikimedia.org with informations about the photos. Please have a look at his email. --Culturawiki (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


Sorry for the delay with this -- I had to discuss it with User:King of Hearts, who was the OTRS volunteer. I appreciate very much that Mr. Hubbard has been very straightforward in his description of events. Unfortunately, it appears that he does not have the rights to any of the images, so that he cannot license them here. This hinges on the fact that there was no written transfer of copyright.

In the other three cases, the photographer is known, and there was no written transfer of copyright, so the copyrights belong to the three photographers. The images will be PD on the later of 70 years after the death of the photographers or 1/1/2048. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim, Thank you nevertheless...--Culturawiki (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Phare de Berck

Hi Jim,

Sorry to tell you, but your decision is completely wrong. All other members have expressed their support for keeping the files, and AFAIK all decisions about this kind of buildings have been that they do not get a copyright. Could you please reconsider your decision and restore the files? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is perfectly clear to me that a lighthouse is a building, therefore "architecture", and therefore covered by copyright in France. While lighthouses are utilitarian, all buildings are utilitarian, which is why copyright laws specifically call out architecture for protection. "L112-2 7 Les oeuvres de dessin, de peinture, d'architecture, de sculpture, de gravure, de lithographie."
Note, also, that Category:Lighthouses is in Category:Maritime buildings and Category:Lighthouses in France is in Category:Buildings in France. Obviously I am not alone in thinking that lighthouses are buildings.
And, by the way, "All other members have expressed their support" is incorrect -- three of the six -- cmadler, Paris 16, and I -- agree with the deletion. Archaeodontosaurus did not give a reason and Wuyouyuan's reason is largely incorrect -- lighthouse colors have nothing whatever to do with any "international seamark system".
Since you have considerable experience here -- about the same as mine -- I certainly respect your point of view, but ultimately I must call them as I see them. I suggest we continue this at Commons:Undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It is a building, but obviously, not all buildings get a copyright. Commons decisions have been, AFAIK, that industrial buildings do not get a copyright. Your links contradict your decision. We have 1000s of pictures of industrial and modern buildings in France which are kept because these buildings do not have a copyright. Do you have a previous DR and/or a court case to support your PoV? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I know that there have been some decisions that some buildings do not have a copyright, they are wrong. The law says simply "d'architecture", without any modifier that suggests that some architecture does not get a copyright. I have not seen any French statute or case law that says that there is no copyright for certain buildings. I also know that it is completely clear that all architecture in the USA has a copyright, even the simplest of buildings. While the USA is not directly relevant to France, it illustrates my point. Also, of course, COM:PRP puts the burden of proof on you to show that this lighthouse does not have a copyright, not the other way around.

I should add that I don't like the law any more than you. I have spent a lot of time on lighthouses -- see

so I don't much like leaving an article on an important light without a picture, but that is the law as I see it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. See Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright on industrial buildings. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

undeletion request of: File:Pcmcia_smart_4mb_linear_flash.jpg

Hey. I have placed a undeletion req. on one of your deleted files. see here. Also I have removed copyrighted parts of images of this closed deletion request and have thus undeleted them and I am planing to do more. Just for info. Cheers, Amada44  talk to me 08:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I've just undeleted Talk:Main Page/Archive 1, which you deleted in May because someone overwrote most of it... Oops! Just letting you know. Rd232 (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Denniss deleted it in July -- I don't know what happened here. I agree that it seems weird that it has been deleted twice by the two of us -- a rollback would have made sense, but not a delete??? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Denniss deleted it again, because it was recreated as spam. Neither of you noticed what was going on (I noticed from seeing the redlink in the Archives box on the Talk page). Not a big deal, these things happen, I just wanted to mention it. Rd232 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks -- we're always learning, and fortunately (or, actually, by good design), all of our mistakes can be fixed.
BTW, why "Rd232" -- all it brings to my mind is the Read Data line on an RS-232 port. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

batch change to category name

Hi Jim - here's my first question:

I'll need to change Category:Collections of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum to Category:Collections of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library/Museum as I begin to categorize "our" photographs already in Commons.

Can someone do a batch change for me, or will I need to update all the already uploaded images one by one?

my second question is about licensing - the one I'm using (the Federal one) does not accurately reflect that we own the materials but that we DID NOT create the materials .. any movement on refining the federal licensing language? Bdcousineau (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would encourage the longer name. I note that while I think the formal name is "Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library & Museum", WP:EN calls it "Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library" which is, I think, the way that most people will think of it -- I see that you referred to "the 12 other Presidential Libraries" in your recent e-mail.
Ultimately, though, it's your call. It is easy to move images from one cat to another with a tool called Cat-A-Lot. You must enable it at (My Preferences > Gadgets > Tools for categories). It's described in detail at MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js. It can be a little tricky, and I'd be happy to do it for you if you have trouble. You do need to create the new cat first, and then put {{Speedydelete}} on the old one after the transfer is done.
On the licensing issue, there are subtleties which you must be careful with. Any work that was created by a Federal employee in the course of his duties is PD and you can use {{PD-USGov}} or one of its more specific variations. Be careful, though -- the creator have been an actual employee on the Federal payroll, not a consultant, contractor, or vendor. This assumes that the image is not a picture of a work that itself has a copyright -- that is reason that President Ford's official White House portrait by E.R. Kinstler does not appear on Commons, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerald R. Ford - portrait.jpg.
For images which a library employee did not create, you must ensure that they are PD or freely licensed. Often {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}} will be applicable. If that's not the case, then it's your responsibility to get a CC-BY or other acceptable license from the photographer or other copyright holder, see Commons:Licensing. Although I can't speak for Commons, I think it is safe to say that if the Ford Library says that a particular image is PD, or CC-BY, we will accept that -- we do so with a number of other major institutions. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! please keep an eye on me - I want/need to do this corectly. Bdcousineau (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no good mechanism for watching all the work of a particular contributor (one can go to your contributions page, but that's a little unwieldy) and no particular need to if the contributor is working in good faith, so that won't happen. Feel completely free to ask me or any other active editor any question -- there are no dumb questions, only unasked ones. If you ever start to do a lot of a new thing, post one or two and then ask -- saves rework if you misstep. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Raoli

Instead of deleting these files could you drink something at a pub? raul (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that this cancellation has made ​​with little head and very slightly. Have you verified that the files were not used in some page? No, I think not. Have you considered which damage have you caused? These simple files are a part of a project for it.wikiquote. Nothing changes if they are in my personal page or in another namespace. It was in a vote among the users of Wikiquote. Restore images, thank you. raul (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It is well established policy that we do not keep personal artwork. These were in use only on a user page, which does not make them in scope. I also note that these files were uploaded four months ago, so it is hard to understand any need for them in any project space.
If you want to take this further, please post a request at Commons:Undeletion requests, which I will oppose. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not true that there were only in my personal page. It is not true. them You concerns. Many of them were also present in the project pages, or rather all are present in the project pages. After you have reviewed them then, I'll do the reporting. Thank you, in the meanwhile, of valuable time that you make me lose. raul (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MFZBCN

I think you removed the DR notice from the file descriptions, but failed to actually close the discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion request for File:Queen's Park stn additional signage.JPG

Noticed you deleted one of my files today. I am not sure why this file File:Queen's Park stn additional signage.JPG is not OK, but all these files are good:

File:Queen's_Park_stn_roundel_2012.JPG

And all these listed here (Commons internal link): [36]

best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that at any given moment around 1% of all Commons files should be deleted for copyvio or other reasons. That's over 135,000 files that are probably not OK. It follows that for any given file, one can usually find similar examples that ought to be deleted, but the fact that a particular file is not the only example of its kind is not a reason to close a DR as kept.
The three posters shown in the subject file certainly have copyrights. There is no FOP in the UK for posters, so it was an easy decision. On the other hand, File:Queen's_Park_stn_roundel_2012.JPG shows nothing but the London Underground symbol and the station name. I don't know the copyright status of the symbol -- it might be past Crown Copyright and it might also not meet the relatively low UK threshold of originality -- but, in any case, it was not the DR I was working on. so its status was not relevant to my decision. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim! I see, it was the posters - OK, I can see the problem now! And not to worry about the "Roundel" file. The latter was actually not subject to DR - which was my quibble!
OK, so if I were to crop the "Signage" picture (which you DR'ed) to just show "Queen's Park" would that be acceptable? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Well... It would no longer be a copyvio. I'd be OK with it, but some of our colleagues might think it then served no educational purpose -- was out of scope. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The posters were the reason I DRed it in the first place, if they were made de minimis the photo would be fine, but as is they're not incidental to the photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I have cropped and uploaded a new version:
File:Queen's_Park_stn_additional_signage2.JPG
Hopefully COM:DM is applicable to this version? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Phare_de_Berck

Hi Jim, hope you're well. A deletion of yours was recently brought up at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Phare_de_Berck. Just thought you'd like to know. Best, FASTILY (TALK) 09:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Paintings

Hi, Jim. When you have a time, could you control images in this category ? I'll prepare for DR. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want from me -- it looks like they need a mass DR because the copyright belongs to the painter's heirs, but you can do that. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Like this :) Takabeg (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I still don't understand -- you are free to add {{Nouploads}} yourself where it is appropriate. It doesn't take an Admin. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Freudentalunterführung.JPG

Hello!

Can you please provide a rationale which can make your decission to keep the image more transparent. Thank you and greetings, High Contrast (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry -- I tend to work very fast when I'm closing ancient DRs. I'm curious -- you spent some time protecting this DR from Afalok, but didn't comment?
Aside from Pill's comments, I saw a number of sheets that would certainly be there for their entire life, hence permanent within the meaning of German FOP rules. They're all small, at an angle, and partially obscured by blue paint, therefore probably de minimis as well..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a deletion rationale. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Patung Sura dan Buaya.JPG

Hello, This is not about FOP in Indonesia. This is about Local Government Properties. You delete the files without reading my explanation until the end. The situation in Indonesia is different from the one in the USA. In Indonesia, the sculptor need not to be a government employee. Once the works is finished, the works and the copyright becomes government property.

The statue in question belongs to the local government (City of Surabaya). There shall be no infringement of Copyright for publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government.

Regulation of the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 Year 2007 Regarding Technical Guidelines on Local Government Properties[6] Appendix 5 Local government properties categorization a. Local government properties are categorized into 6 (six) groups, as follows: 1) Land [...] 2) Equipments and Machineries [...] 3) Buildings and structures a) [...] b) monument structures Candi, Nature-made Monuments, Historical Monuments, Commemoration Statues, others and that sort of thing. [...]

Per your rationale, this files File:Merdeka_Square_Monas_02.jpg, File:Monas view from Gambir Bus Terminal.JPG and others have to be deleted from Commons. This structure was completed in 1975. Per your rationale, the sculptor stills owns the copyright. I believe you are the one who is misinterpret the Indonesian copyright law. Can you read bahasa Indonesia? Please answer in my talk page. Midori (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I cannot read Bahasa Indonesia, but I can read the translation referenced at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Indonesia. I see nothing there about the government owning the copyright in works that it owns unless the creator was an employee or some special arrangement was made. Perhaps you would be kind enough to cite the section of the law that you believe supports your point of view?
Above you quote Part Five, Article 14 (b)
"There shall be no infringement of Copyright for publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government...."
That does not apply herebe cause publication on Commons, within WMF, or by third parties is not by or on behalf of any Government.
Also, you omitted the rest of the sentence:
"except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published..."
Plainly since the sculptor still owns the copyright, it is "protected by law" within the meaning of the exception.
Note also, please, that your point of view differ from Commons well established reading of the law, so that this discussion will have to be taken elsewhere before it is concluded. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for replying. I believe you have skipped the most important statement in Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Indonesia
"In Indonesia, monuments and landmarks in public spaces are owned by the government."
As read in Indonesian Copyright Law, Part Five, Article 14 (b) There shall be no infringement of Copyright for:
b. publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government, except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published; or
The statue in question has no statement on the work itself about it is being copyrighted. In Indonesian cities, there are many statues in public spaces, big and small. They are all owned by the local government according to Appendix 5 item b) Regulation of the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 Year 2007 Regarding Technical Guidelines on Local Government Properties.
Regulation of the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 Year 2007 Regarding Technical Guidelines on Local Government Properties[37]
Appendix 5 Local government properties categorization
a. Local government properties are categorized into 6 (six) groups, as follows:
1) Land
[...]
2) Equipments and Machineries
[...]
3) Buildings and structures
a) [...]
b) monument structures
Candi, Nature-made Monuments, Historical Monuments, Commemoration Statues, others and that sort of thing.
The monuments and landmarks are all owned by the government because they are "published by or on behalf of the Government," so that there shall be no infringement of Copyright for "publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government".
As for the exception: "except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published; or"
I remember some time ago the official presidential portrait of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was deleted from Commons because there was a copyright statement on the source page.
However, The statue in question belongs to the local government (City of Surabaya). There is no sculptor's name or copyright information engraved on a plaque on or near the statue in question.
Your statement/question: "I see nothing there about the government owning the copyright in works that it owns unless the creator was an employee or some special arrangement was made. Perhaps you would be kind enough to cite the section of the law that you believe supports your point of view?"
As read in Part Five, Article 14 (b).
There shall be no infringement of Copyright for publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government, except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published; or"
The following are your own words: "unless the creator was an employee or some special arrangement was made".
Your statement only applies to works created by U.S. Government employees. The situation in Indonesia is different. The sculptors and the architects are hired by government-appointed contractors, and their works was released as government-owned properties. Therefore, monuments and landmarks in public spaces in Indonesia are in public domain since the Indonesian government owns them.
You wrote: "That does not apply herebe (sic) cause publication on Commons, within WMF, or by third parties is not by or on behalf of any Government."
It is obvious that either you have misinterpret the law or the translation from bahasa Indonesia was not clear enough.
According to the original text in bahasa Indonesia: "Perbanyakan segala sesuatu yang diumumkan dan/atau diperbanyak oleh atau atas nama Pemerintah"
The law is not about reproduction by the government but,
The law is about reproduction (by anyone) of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government.
Therefore, works released by anyone (third parties) in Commons is covered by the following statement "reproduction (by anyone) of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government".
Pardon me for adding the word "by anyone" for the sake of clarity.
That is why my first question was whether you can read bahasa Indonesia.
You also did not answer my question. Why didn't you make deletion request for the following files: File:Merdeka_Square_Monas_02.jpg, File:Monas view from Gambir Bus Terminal.JPG? The structure (en:National Monument (Indonesia)) was completed in 1975. Frederich Silaban (died in 1984) was the architect. Per your rationale, there should be no pictures of this monument whatsoever in Commons. What about the other structures from the same architect File:COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_De_Istiqlal_moskee_en_de_kathedraal_TMnr_20018358.jpg? The structure was completed in 1978. Per your rationale, those pictures and others have to be deleted from Commons. Midori (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
To your last paragraph first: We have about 13,000,000 images on Commons. My best guess, based on numbers I have run, is that at least one percent of those -- more than 130,000 -- have copyright or other problems. Therefore, when looking at a DR, one can always cite other images on Commons that are similar cases. As one of the ten Admins who handle 90% of the 2,500+ images we deal with every day, I have little interest in starting new DRs -- I am too busy closing old ones.
I may not read bahasa Indonesia, but my quote from the law was from a translation done by a Jakarta law firm that specializes in copyright. Unless you yourself are a copyright lawyer, I would tend to trust their translation rather than yours.
You assert in several places that the government owns the copyright. You have not given any evidence to support that assertion. Remember that in most countries, not just the USA, copyright remains with the creator when the work is transferred, even if the government is the transferee.
In any event, keeping this image would represent a significant change in Commons understanding of the law in Indonesia. Feel free to file a request at Commons:Undeletion requests for a public discussion of the issues. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
You said: I have little interest in starting new DRs -- I am too busy closing old ones.
Your statement can be interpreted by others as "I have made a hasty decision and deleted the wrong files."
Unless you yourself are a copyright lawyer, I would tend to trust their translation rather than yours.
Are you saying that you do not trust the following template?
The following template is also based on the Article 14 (b) of the Indonesian Copyright Law:

{{PD-IDGov}}

Translated in any languages: "There shall be no infringement of Copyright for publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government" will have the same meaning. It is not about "reproduction by or on behalf of the Government" but "reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government".
You said "You assert in several places that the government owns the copyright. You have not given any evidence to support that assertion."
I have cited Appendix 5 item b) Regulation of the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 Year 2007 Regarding Technical Guidelines on Local Government Properties, and you totally ignored that part. By ignoring that part, you also have ignored the fact that the statue in question is also the landmark of the city of Surabaya. It is owned by the people of Surabaya (the local government) not by the sculptor.
You said, "Remember that in most countries, not just the USA, copyright remains with the creator when the work is transferred, even if the government is the transferee."
The law cited above is the evidence that Indonesia is one of the exception. You ignored Appendix 5 item b) Regulation of the Minister of the Interior since it does not have the exact wording as the way you wanted to.
In any event, keeping this image would represent a significant change in Commons understanding of the law in Indonesia. Feel free to file a request at Commons:Undeletion requests for a public discussion of the issues
Is that your way of saying that you are not interested in continuing this conversation? If that is the case, I don't think that you have any interest in helping changing Commons understanding of the law. I believe that significant change in Commons understanding of the law in Indonesia will not be achieved by just keeping those two images, but by keeping other images of similar status. Midori (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
No. I am saying two things:
First, continuing this conversation between the two of us is not profitable because both of us believe that the other is very wrong and neither is going to change his opinion. Each of us is repeating the same points over and over. In order to get anywhere we require outside input. This discussion on my talk page, while open for all to read, is essentially a private discussion between the two of us.
Second, I cannot, by myself, change Commons policy. It requires a public discussion among members of the community. Such a discussion can take place at Commons:Undeletion requests. It cannot take place here. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Archita78 sock

User:Romeparis seems to be related to User:Archita78 (who was blocked in March for POV pushing and use of multiple accounts). The image File:Ben Bulben from n16 by Paride.jpg has been pushed in all the Wikipedia articles about Ben Bulben, see for instance the history of the French Wikipedia article: The image was added by User:Romeparis. When it was removed various IPs was used to reinsert it, and when the article was semi protected User:Archita78 came along and reinserted the image. --89.8.148.209 06:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

He has now started exchanging the images in other wikipedia articles too, not only the Ben Bulben articles. [38] --89.8.24.175 08:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the question of which image of Ben Bulben to use is up to the various WPs, not Commons -- they are both good images -- the old one is more striking photographically, while the new one shows the mountain's shape better. I don't see that Romeparis has committed any offense here -- arguably he has been a good contributor. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

File talk:Logo black veil brides.jpg

Regarding your close of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo black veil brides.jpg‎: I have to disagree. This is not merely a flipping of letters. The lettering has been stylized to the point of not being mere simple text or font, then flipped, then arranged specifically to form a new construction that is more than mere lettering. I have been involved in several discussions of logos very similar in nature to this one that were determined not to be pd-text and deleted. I strongly believe that this passes the "threshold of originality" to not be assumed to be public domain. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The USA rule on fonts is very broad -- fundamentally, anything that looks like a letter is part of a font, even if it is far more

"artistic" than this case. Even calligraphy (both Latin and non-Latin alphabets -- Chinese, Thai, etc.) is not covered by copyright. Actually, I suspect that this is a commercial font -- it is not exactly Viking, but it's not far from it. I'd guess that a font expert could name it at once.

Remember, also, that the USA Threshold of Originality is very high. I can't think of anything consisting solely of two or three letters, even with one of them flipped, that has gotten a copyright in the USA -- other countries, particularly the UK, are very different cases.
You are, under our rules, welcome to put another DR on it, but given that the one I just closed was open for five months, it's likely to be Christmas before a second gets action. I will not close a second DR disputing one of my closures, but I certainly will comment in favor of keeping the image. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Architecture copyright

Your closing comment to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dreilini abandoned.jpg "Architecture is architecture -- it does not have to be great architecture to have a copyright." puzzles me. I see nothing mentioned about architecture in Commons:Licensing#Latvia. Usually copyright requires a creative element, which I think may be absent in a "generic apartment box building", as it was called in one of the comments. There is not even always an architect involved in those. --LPfi (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

WIPO translation of the Latvian Copyright Law (as last amended on December 6, 2007), Chapter I, Section 4
"The objects of copyright, regardless of the manner or form of expression, shall comprise the following works of authors:
(1-9 omitted)
(10) sketches, drafts and plans for buildings, structures and architectural works, models of buildings and structures, other architectural designs, city construction works and garden and park plans and models, as well as fully or partly constructed buildings and implemented city construction or landscape objects;..."
That is a much more comprehensive and inclusive description than most countries. Both the USA and France simply say "architecture" with no modifying words at all. It includes "city construction works" -- civil engineering works that are not architecture and not covered in the USA and "gardens", also not covered in the USA.
We tend to think of "creative element" in terms of the fine arts (painting, sculpture, etc.), but copyright does not require art, simply creativity. Remember, for example, that software is copyrighted everywhere as a literary work. There is no fine art in any software, but there is certainly creativity. The same is true of the architecture you describe.
Different countries have different thresholds of originality -- for example, the USA is notably high, rejecting copyright on simple designs, and the UK notably low. However architecture almost always crosses that threshold. In the USA, a high threshold country, companies sell books of plans for very simple houses of the sort that are built by the tens of thousands all over. Those companies enforce their copyrights in those very simple houses because the Copyright Office and the judiciary recognize that even a very simple building requires hundreds of creative decisions about layout, structure, and specifications.
You may be sure that even a "generic apartment box building" was designed by someone who trained as an architect or in a closely related field. Every site is different and, as I said, requires many creative decisions. The broad inclusiveness of the Latvian statute suggests that it is at least as inclusive as that in the USA, which, as I have noted, includes almost everything except, perhaps, doghouses. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. I won't argue, as your expertise is bigger than mine, and you have thought about the issue more thoroughly than your comment revealed. Of course blocks of flats are also planned, but I've understood the planning is sometimes mostly by engineers instead of architects. There is a lot of creativity involved, but in technical solutions, not necessarily in what can be seen in a photo, and if the creative parts are excluded from a derived work, then it should not be dependent on the original copyright. --LPfi (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
"Architecture" is defined by the result. Whether done by architects, engineers, or people with no training at all, all buildings are "architecture". As I said, in the USA, a country with a high TOO, all architecture has a copyright. The number of creative decisions that affect the exterior of even a simple apartment block is in the hundreds. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim,
I think that's one of the reason of our disagreement. Certainly not all buildings are "architecture", but it may depend of the definition of "building", i.e. see Category:Huts. Yann (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
OED:Architecture:"The art or science of constructing edifices for human use."
Note "edifices", a broader term than "buildings". It would include huts.
American Heritage Dictionary:Architecture:"The art and science of erecting buildings."
That pretty well covers English usage on both sides of the Atlantic. It is clear to me, as it has been all along, that architecture includes all buildings. Dog houses might be excluded because they're not for human use.
My reading of the law is simple, perhaps too simple. While, as a general rule, almost all paintings or sculpture are copyrighted, it is possible to have a painting so simple that it could not have a copyright. (Michelangelo is said to have been able to draw a perfect circle freehand. Would one of his circles had a copyright during his life?) A building, however, has many creative decisions -- how deep to set the windows, choice of window frames, window size versus wall size, window color, drapery color*, surface finish, door placement, size, and framing, and many others. Thus it is automatically over the TOO.
.*Drapery color is not usually specified by the architect, but I mention it because Mies specified it at 860–880 Lake Shore Drive, Chicago.
.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Then you think that all huts have a copyright? And that we are not allowed to upload a picture of a hut when there is no FOP? I don't know how to explain that in a strict legal wording, but I hope you see that somewhere something is wrong in your reasoning. A 26-floors tower is not a good example of simple building, especially if it was created with a new design. For me, it is quite obvious that there is a limit on what a copyright can be claimed. Although I don't have a case to back up this, I think that a very simple hut can't get a copyright. Well, IANAL, otherwise it would be easy... Yann (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. It is clear to me that in the USA, all buildings -- even beach huts -- have a copyright. There are a wide variety of companies that sell books of plans with a license to build one -- and only one -- building from them. They actively enforce their copyright. These books include buildings that are nothing more than four walls, a shed roof, a door, and perhaps one window. Fortunately, the USA has FOP for buildings, so we don't have to argue about them here.

As far as other countries go, I can't claim to be expert on the case law. I certainly wouldn't push the issue to include beach huts or other four walls and a roof structures. I also wouldn't assume a copyright on very simple industrial buildings with limited fenestration and painted steel walls. But, in the absence of case law, our rules require us to assume the worst -- I see no reason why a building as complex as a lighthouse or any apartment structure would not have a copyright in most countries.

You're a native French speaker -- my French is six years of classes 50 years ago. I'd be interested in your reading of the French definition of architecture -- Larousse, perhaps? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary has a complete and detailed definition: fr:wikt:architecture, as well as Wikipedia. Larousse says: Art de construire les bâtiments. and Caractère, ordonnance, style d'une construction. Of these definitions, I deduce that the result is a work of art. I certainly agree that any important building where the architect applies his creativity is a work of art. I would not say that a hut is a work of art. Would you delete these: File:Euronat chalet.jpg, File:Cayeux-sur-Mer cabines de plage 1.jpg, File:Leisse03.jpg, File:Refuge des Aiguilles d'Arves, Savoie.jpg? Yann (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
If they were in the USA and there were no FOP here, I would tag all of them with {{Delete}}, since they all clearly have a copyright here. As they are all in France, I would take more care. I think I am all right with the second. The first and the third are more of a problem -- but, probably OK. The last, except for the fact that it is your image, I would probably tag. It is, for me, an unusual building, built to serve a specific purpose, and certainly required creativity in its design.
I think the difference in our viewpoint is that you believe that copyright requires art. I believe it requires only creativity -- if good art is the result, fine, but even bad art or no art gets a copyright if it is creative. Remember that computer software -- creative, but certainly not art -- gets a copyright. So do maps and other things that require creativity, but not necessarily beauty. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
A quick remark: computer programs are defined as literary works by the law, by a political decision - not by a court or by mere human reasoning. They are thus a bad example when discussing how copyright should be understood in other cases. --LPfi (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes and no. Computer programs are an example of the fact that often copyright law uses words in ways that are subtly different from ordinary language..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
In the last case, there are certainly many mountain huts built in this style. This one may be original as a house, but not as a mountain hut.
I found a detailed explanation which justify my point [39]. Are protected edifices when they have an original character. And are not protected works without a particular or original character, which are a trivial reproduction of edifice types largely found accross the country. (Ne sont pas protégées par la loi les œuvres architecturales sans caractère particulier ou original, qui sont la reproduction banale des types d'édifices largement répandus à travers le territoire.)
This page [40] says that works are protected if the creation is original, but not if the realization is purely technical. This clearly validates my point about the Berck lighthouse: this building is purely technical. It is a straight tower without any decoration whatsoever. The red-and-white painting is for that it could be seen from far away.
Last, in File:Le phare de berck.JPG, the building is accessory to the whole picture, and it is therefore allowed.
Now, could you please restore these pictures? Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Jastrow, who is the most knowledgeable person on French law here, says that the Beck lighthouse isn't protected under French law [41]. Yann (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I concede. It is a simple cylinder -- albeit one of a very few prestressed concrete lighthouses in the world. I hope you will agree that this is not a precedent for any except similar, very simple, structures. I don't think it will be much of a precedent anyway, because very few new lighthouses have been built in the last 100 years. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Any such case should be decided individually, as every picture has its own particularity. Yann (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Pollution at Ganga banks.jpg

I kindly request that you to restore this file. --Ne0Freedom (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The file had a license which prevented its use in certain applications. Commons does not permit any limitation on the use of its files. Therefore it was deleted. I see no reason, and you give no reason, for that to change. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Re Commons:Deletion requests/File:USS Nevada modernization1929.jpg

Hi. I wasn't aware of this deletion request until the image was delinked from an article on my en.wp watchlist, but I wasn't aware Commons required 'proof' beyond the source's assertion. If Navsource, which is a well-respected site in the military history world, asserts that it is a U.S. Navy image, that should be enough to prove it is PD, imho. Can I ask that the image be undeleted? Thanks, Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 00:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is a close call. The credit line says to me that NavSource got a copy of the image, either on paper or digitally, from Ric Hedman, whose name means nothing to me. If it was a paper copy, then it is possible that it had a Navy stamp on the back -- case proven. If it was digital, presumably scanned by Hedman, then I think NavSource simply assumed that it was a Navy photograph. Since our rules require us to be skeptical, I thought it was a delete.
I suggest you ask NavSource to provide a little more information by sending a message to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org -- why do they think that this image provided by Ric Hedman is a Navy image? Make sure that the message refers to File:USS Nevada modernization1929.jpg. Once the message has been sent, drop me a note here and I'll bypass the OTRS queue, which can run up to thirty days. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The description at Navsource unequivocally identifies it as a US Navy photo: "US Navy Photograph courtesy of Ric Hedman. Partial text courtesy of DANFS." What I suspect happened is Ric Hedman scanned the image on a visit to the Navy archives, or something similar. Such attribution has been used in other Commons uploads... if we have to go through this process every time an image is not taken from an official source, you'd be deleting a lot of images. ;-) Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 05:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Not if NavSource is willing to confirm what you are guessing. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Might want to see [42]. I have no plans for further involvement in that, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't reply to him on my talk page. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sven, for the heads up. I think that Herby's and my actions are completely justified -- we've seen at least two socks and numerous problems. As an example, there's this license, on File:Pollution at Ganga banks.jpg for which he requests undeletion above:
"License: Knowledge (Vidya) http://collectiveconciousness.info/Knowledge_License.html
Not to be used for purposes of Lust(eg. Sadistic pleasure), Wrath(eg. Terrorism), Pride(eg. Bragging), etc."
He has frequently uploaded files with author and source unclear, including the ones I tagged two days ago. We've had problems with him before, so that when he posted on my talk page two days ago, I went looking for new problems and, as you saw, found them. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
He came back to my page and said that my comments there justified him editing around the block. I told him that's not what I said, but considering your above post, I suppose you ought to be ready for more socks. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
...Interesting, but let's leave the IP block circumvention issue for later. The more Important Issue at hand is if "Ownership of Intellectual property by God" is valid in the Commons. I would like to call for a Request for comment to see what the community thinks about "giving credit for a work to unexplained Forces" or "working in the employment of unexplained Forces", for example, God, Spirit/Ghost, ET Aliens, etc. And, the License for the file File:Pollution at Ganga banks.jpg can be changed to Kopimi if needed. ps. if you wanted to know more about me, just ask me or visit my Wikipedia user page. --W:User:Ne0Freedom 17:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind, maybe we can come to an agreement without having to ask the community... by using a template (Inspired by the OTRS template). Could you please unban User Ne0Freedom, and undelete the file File:Pollution at Ganga banks.jpg? it's "Permission" can be changed to the new template. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
"Ownership of Intellectual property by God" is not valid for any WMF project because God cannot give us the necessary license.
For Commons, permission must basically be either public domain or CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA. Other licenses are permitted, but they must be free in all respects. I see little reason for a new license template, but if you would put the text here, I will consider it.
The account named Ne0Freedom is banned because, as noted on its talk page, the account is a sock. Socks are a serious violation of our rules. The account will not be reinstated. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok then, Could you please restore User:Eternal-Entropy(preferably the 2nd version) ? --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated the template for deletion, see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Gods Work. Within the limits described at Commons:Project scope, you may write anything you want on your user page. I will not restore what you wrote before because it is out of scope as COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
So what exactly was it advertising ? --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Two aspects -- the quote is, essentially, proselytizing -- in effect, advertising for God. The link is to a domain that is for sale. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Bert Hubbard: new photos

Dear Jim, Bert Hubbard sent an email to permissions-commons at wikimedia.org with two other photos which were taken by his mother. Bert inherited the copyright and gave the permission to use these photos on Wikimedia. Could you please have a look at his email and tell me if his declaration is ok and where I can find the files? Or shall I upload them? Regards,--Culturawiki (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC).

I found the OTRS e-mail. The two images he lists are:
In the permission text, he describes them as follows:
"1) Hubbard Bert - left - Joan Hinderstein middle - Richard Proctor right - in Othello 1960.jpg
This photo was made by Marie M. Hubbard in 1960 and shows Bert Hubbard (left), Joan Hinderstein (middle) and Richard Proctor (right) in the Bert Hubbard’s choreography “Othello” for a synchronized swimming trio after Giuseppe Verdi’s opera."
"2) Hubbard Bert - Viking's Prayer before battle - US junior national solo synchro championship 1954.jpg
This photo shows Bert Hubbard and was by his mother Marie M. Hubbard in 1954 during the US Junior National Synchro Championships in the swim dress for his solo program “Viking's prayer before battle”."
I couldn't find them under any of the names given. Given that they were taken by his mother, and he therefore owns the copyright, we could keep them, if we had them. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim, I guess that Bert made a mistake, he doesn't know well how to work with computers. I will upload the photos and let you know. Many thanks for your help, --Culturawiki (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim, I uploaded the fotos under following names:

  • File:Hubbard Bert - left - Joan Hinderstein middle - Richard Proctor right - in Othello 1960.jpeg
  • File:Hubbard Bert - Viking's Prayer Before Battle - US Junior National Solo Synchro Championship 1954.jpeg

I hope, that the files are ok and that we can keep them. Please let me know. Best regards,--Culturawiki (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Great! Many thanks and best regards also from Bert Hubbard, --Culturawiki (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

uploading pdfs from the web

Hi Jim - is it possible to upload pdfs from the web? We have many materials already on our Museum and Library website that I'd like to upload into Commons. So far I've had to download, convert to jpg, and then upload. I'm hoping there is an easier way that I have just not found, because this will take me until I retire!! thanks Bdcousineau (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, PDF is a permitted file type for use only in appropriate cases. As a general rule we reserve it for text documents. A PDF image is much harder to reuse than a jpg, so we discourage it for images. See Commons:Scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats. In any event, you will have to download the file to your computer. If the PDF is an image, I would strongly encourage you to find the original image from which the PDF was made, and use that, rather than either uploading the PDF or converting the PDF to a JPG. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
yes, these are all text documents. I'll see what format the orig files are in, I'm afraid they might be pdf. appreciate your time! Bdcousineau (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
If they're texts, then PDF is fine. Our scope does not extend to most text documents, but presidential documents should be within scope. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_LittleFrog

Several of those that were deleted are also PD due to their age. the SS France (1912) pics are all PD cause that ship was scrapped in 1936, which is 76 years old, over the 75 year limit. The only ones that are unclear are the RMS Berengaria, they're likely PD but the scrapping date is in the 40s so it's not 100% certain. Fry1989 eh? 20:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As Carl pointed out, we have no proof that the images were anonymous and some evidence that they were not. The fact that we may not know the photographer does not mean that they were anonymous when published. Therefore the rule is 70 years after the death of the photographer. A 1912 image could easily have been taken by a person thirty years old, born in 1882. If he lived to be only sixty, they would still be in copyright.
I think you will find that Carl is nearly always right -- I can't remember a case where I disagreed with him and I often learn from him. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Not carl always right..Evidence is taking precedence over visual of old photographs--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Expert Advice

Commons:Village_pump#Image_Copyrighted is running based on the images

  1. File:Marthoma_I.jpg
  2. File:Erzdiakon_Thomas.jpg

-Your opinion is really required--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Sorry, but I think you're wasting time on this one. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Not waste of time, Its has opened a new channel..Yes the image may/can stay upon a belief of AGF only, As always..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Nothing like AGF -- it was that a group of experienced editors looked at the situation and decided that the image was almost certainly old. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Teatralnaya (Moscow Metro)

Why you deleted the porcelain sculptures? Тhe sculptor Natalia Danko died at 18 march 1942, it is more then 70 years. 19:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's actually January 1 of the next year following seventy years. See section 1281 (1) of the Russian law 230-FL of 2006: Part IV of the Civil Code at http://www.consultant.ru/popular/gkrf4/79_2.html#p576. The sculptures will be undeleted on January 1, 2013..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Then it is {{PD-Russia-2008}}. --Andreykor (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the date January 1, 1943 in {{PD-Russia}} -- the law (as cited above) clearly calls for the usual PMA 70 -- that is, January 1 after seventy years after the creator's death. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not quite that -- see en:Copyright law of the Russian Federation#2008 - Present: Part IV of the Civil Code. The 2008 Russian law wasn't quite fully retroactive -- for works by individuals, it restored works only if the old 50 pma term was still active on January 1, 1993. For works which were PD per that old term on that date, the 2008 law did not restore them and they remained PD. This was, I think, due to there being a 1993 law change; the 2008 law basically restored all works by individuals that were ever protected by that 1993 law but no more. Basically, about 10 years of works were restored -- those which expired Jan 1 1994 through Jan 1 2003. That is (partly) why there is a PD-Russia tag separate from PD-old-70. I think in January the distinction will be gone though, at least for that clause. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Carl -- I've restored the affected images. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
And now you should get rid of th DR templates within the description files :-) thx --JuTa 09:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Any editor can do that... ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I should have done that -- but it is a major holiday weekend and I was off to catch a plane yesterday -- I just did what an Admin had to do.... .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

?

Can you provide your reason for keeping this image Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ursa Minor Dwarf.jpg? Bulwersator (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I commented on it in March -- since I haven't changed my position, I thought that would be clear enough. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

I created thread about your recent edit - Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Conflict of interest Bulwersator (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

new IAAA photos

Dear Jim, On August 28 Bert Hubbard wrote an email to permissions-commons at wikimedia.org with the declaration for following photos by Walter Wengel which I uploaded today. Please tell me if the declaration is fine and if we can keep the photos.

--Culturawiki (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay -- I must have missed this.
On August 28, Bert Hubbard sent three identical messages to OTRS, with a credible license from Wengel (ticket #2012082810012095).
The images licensed by Wengel are:
1) Bert Hubbard in Glitz 1987 during the International Academy of Aquatic ArtFestival.
2) Diane Tulley – left Bert Hubbard – right in His and Her Limelights 1997 during the International Academy of Aquatic Art Festival.
3) Bert Hubbard in Juxtaposed 1996 during the International Academy of Aquatic Art Festival.
4) Bert Hubbard in fossilus aquaticus 1994 during the International Academy of Aquatic Art Festival.
5) Bert Hubbard in Concerto for the Right Hand 1992 during the International Academy of Aquatic Art Festival.
6) Bert Hubbard in Delusions of Grandeur 2008 during the International Academy of Aquatic Art Festival.
I have added {{OTRS permission|2012082810012095}} to the four images above. If you upload the other two, you may add the tag to them. Note, please, that this tag can be applied only to the six images listed above -- no others -- as Wengel's license is specific, not general. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim, Many thanks for everything! --Culturawiki (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Anchorage Whaling Wall deletion

Unfortunately, a little too late. I had pretty much forgotten all about this because the discussion took place six months ago. I was in Anchorage last week. A badly bruised ankle meant getting around rather slowly, and I had more photos needing taken than time to take them to begin with before I injured myself. I would have been more than happy to take a replacement photo without the mural. Maybe next time.RadioKAOS (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Vidya Daan

Why did you delete Category:Vidya Daan ? --User:Ne0Freedom

As I said in my edit comment, our rules require that category names be in English. Also, the category is far too broad. Millions of images could be put in it. Such a category has no utility at all. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
if you deleted it for bieng non english, neither is Category:Yoga. As for utility, all licenses have their own category, and there are thousands of images in them. --User:Ne0Freedom
The English language has adopted many words -- "Yoga" is one of them. It even appears in the 1928 OED. That is, however, beside the point -- I am sure there are many incorrect categories in Commons -- that does not mean that we tolerate new ones.
There are certainly categories that have tens of thousands of images, but "Sharing of Knowledge" is not useful because it does not categorize -- it is not a grouping that would be helpful to anyone searching for an image, because it could include almost anything..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mali_Village_Dance.ogv

Hi Jim,

I just noticed your deletion of this file. Could you please consider re-instating this at least until we get a more informed opinion from someone who speaks French and has a legal background? (There is a fairly extensive discussion on the request page.) Unfortunately, with the coup in Mali, it has been impossible for me to contact anyone there. But, regardless, I really would appreciate it if you would re-instate the file until we get a more informed opinion. My reading of the legislation suggests that there is no problem with copyright for this clip under Malian law. --MichiHenning (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure it is Malian law that counts. As I said in my closing comment,
"Ironically, that copyright would not exist except for this recording -- works that are not fixed (written down or recorded) do not have a copyright."
I think it very likely that the drummers have a copyright in their work, but because that work was first published in a fixed form (in the technical, copyright sense of "published") here on Commons in the form of your OGV, then their copyright is a US copyright, not a Malian one. I'll see if I can get Carl Lindberg to comment. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I appreciate it! What is the situation under US copyright? Seems weird that the US could claim copyright on something that involves people from Mali and was created by someone from Australia. (I'm not trying to argue, just surprised by that.) --MichiHenning (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind (but read Carl's comments carefully) that the country of copyright is where it is first published. If you had made tapes of the video and sold them in Oz, then the country of copyright would be Oz. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I can't see that video... is it of a known composition, or is it just a traditional Malian performance? Performer's rights could be a contentious issue, but if you had permission to record, that goes away. I don't think I'd delete a video under that published-in-the-US copyright theory, unless it's a known musical composition where we can identify an author. In reading the registration requirements, it seems to be either a written composition or a phonorecord -- and a video is technically not a phonorecord per the Copyright Act. Though I guess you could make one. Things like 17 USC § 115 also come into play, which really muddy the waters. You could argue the same thing with a video or recording of somebody just talking -- do they get a copyright on impromptu speech just because that video records it? I'm not at all convinced that would be true, and the musical composition may need to have been written down beforehand (or explicitly recorded as such) before really being considered a valid copyright. It's a hard situation. But, something like a FoP photograph of an artwork, which does not give you rights to make a derivative of the sculpture itself, the photo itself can still be "free" -- so the video may be good enough, even if may be no permission to create derivative musical works. While the theory is not impossible... it's probably setting the bar too high for uploads here, because you could argue copyrightable composition or arrangement on virtually any performance if you don't know the background of the music (how much does it differ from traditional compositions, etc.). It's too easy to create doubt, and deletion based on such theories basically prevents us from ever documenting traditional performances, which is very harmful to the educational mission here. I don't think I'd delete stuff unless we can identify a particular musical composition which we know is copyrighted, or perhaps if the copyright owner of the potential musical composition actually makes a complaint. I don't think there is a court precedent to base such deletions off of, and I usually prefer to be able to point to such a case to show there is a real issue. When we start going into untested copyright areas, there could be legal aspects at play that we haven't considered which would apply in a real-life case -- judges will typically try to balance the copyright interests of the videographer and the composition author, and I'm not at all convinced that distribution of such a video would be considered infringement (particularly when made with permission). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
OK. Sounds like you (Carl) are leaning toward restore. My guess is that it is a more or less traditional dance form, but the drummers are playing their own version of it -- the base work would probably not have a copyright, but their variation might. With that in mind, unless Carl objects, I'll restore it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Carl, thanks heaps for the extensive comments! Man, I'm glad I'm a software engineer, not a copyright lawyer! Software engineering is easy by comparison! :) As I said earlier, the music in the video is traditional and has been played for hundreds of years at least. (We are not sure exactly for how many centuries. The rhythm could potentially date back as far as 13th century.) There is no original composer—the music is folklore. Malinke traditional rhythms are never written down (except by westerners). They are passed down orally from generation to generation. The event I recorded wasn't a performance. Rather, it captured they daily lives of the villagers. (Gatherings such as this are frequent and nothing special. It's basically a bunch of people getting together and having a party.) I definitely was invited (and encouraged) to take recordings. It wasn't like sneaking a camera into a performance.
James, if you could restore the video, I would be much obliged. I honestly believe that it adds value to the Djembe article and it would be a shame to lose it. --MichiHenning (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
James, would it be OK to restore the file again? If not, is there anything I can do to help this along? --MichiHenning (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks heaps for your help Jim! --MichiHenning (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Heilbronn, Gotisches Steinhaus, Kaiserstraße 18 a, Hinterhaus (UKP Nr. 357 a) Steingiebelfront nach Osten (Archäolog. Stadtkataster BW, Bd 8, HN. Landesdenkmalamt BW, Stuttgart 2001, S. 104-105, Nr. 49) Ausschnitt.JPG

Kannst du es kurz wiederherstellen, dass ich es auf deutscher Wikipedia hochladen kann ? Oder kannst du es selbst auf deutscher Wikipedia verschieben oder hochladen ? Danke --Messina (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ich hatte jetzt soviel um die Ohren, dass ich gar nicht mehr dazu kam bei Dir nachzuschauen!!! Magst Du es nochmal hochladen und mir auf meiner Deutschsprachigen Disk auf De:Wikipedia kurz bescheid geben, dass Du hochlädst... und diesmal etwas länger. Das Bild ist mir schon sehr wichtig, weil ich es mühsam zugeschnitte etc habe, außerdem zählt es zu den ältesten Steinhäusern inmitten einer reinen Fachwerkstadt. Wer diese gebaut hat ist nicht ganz sicher aber der Ursprung ist auf jedenfall staufisch. Und zur Zeit der Staufer gab es in Heilbronn die sog. "palatio regio" ein sog. Kaiserpfalz... bitte schön :-) mfG --Messina (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)>
Sorry, I don't read German myself and the Google translation does not make sense. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Fabric

You deleted the gallery Fabric, which i had asked for some months ago, but with no action taken, decided to expand it with the items from the Fabrics section of Textile. I dont think you knew i had done this when you deleted it. I have restored the fabric section in the textile gallery (using the article history of course), and im not bothered, but i thought you should know, as i am sure you didnt intend to do so. I still think its better to have one large gallery for all textile images, rather than a separate fabric gallery, so thanks to you for noticing and finally doing it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in closing the DR. Commons had a serious technical problem with deletions in the first part of the year and our backlog of open DRs increased to over 10,000. We have been whittling those down over the last few months, but we still have a ways to go before DRs are closed promptly -- within a month or two at the most.
While "textile" is a slightly broader term than "fabric", I think that most people use them as synonyms. Having two virtually parallel galleries is asking for maintenance headaches, hence my deletion of the one. If it is helpful, I can restore the deleted page as a User subpage for your reference -- User:Mercurywoodrose/Fabric. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kappa Kappa Psi Coat of Arms.svg

Why was File:Kappa Kappa Psi Coat of Arms.svg deleted? You admitted yourself that you found no copyright registration or notice for the coat of arms after a search. It seems like that would be a reason to keep a file rather than delete it. Sycamore (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Right you are, sorry. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

OneTax_Flyer.jpg

Jim, please reinstate this photograph. As a co-organizer I authored the text *and* took the photograph (I looked for the doc file as supporting documentation but can't find it -- could still be on another computer if you need it). In any case I placed it in the public domain.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:OneTax_Flyer.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.249.20 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 11 September 2012‎ (UTC)

The image was uploaded by User:JerryVandelay, whose upload comment and file description was "Photograph of a flyer explaining the OneTax, handed to me at Occupy Oakland."
Whether or not you, User:24.177.249.20, are User:JerryVandelay, that description is inconsistent with your claim above, as Vandelay states explicitly that he was not the writer but was the photographer. You claim to be both. Commons relies heavily on assuming good faith in our editors. Inconsistent stories make that difficult.
I am also not sure whether it is in scope for Commons. If you wish to pursue this, I suggest you take your claim to Commons:Undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright of text layouts

Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fcw.png.

According to the above decision, can we upload images like this one to Commons? At present we are using them as Fair use. Regards --Vssun (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

For copyright, I see nothing wrong from a US point of view. There are countries, including the UK, where text layout can have a copyright, but even there I think this would be OK. There is not enough text for it to have a literary copyright.
I might, however, think about deleting it for being out of scope. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Vssun (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bucur_Gheorghe_-_Director_al_scolii_din_Racovita,_Sibiu.jpg

James, you are mistaken here. Ticket 2007100310004441 exists and is in the info-ro queue. If you don't have access to that queue then please contact an OTRS admin, then recover those pages. Thanks.--Strainu (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. When I go to OTRS and search for ticket number 2007100310004441, the search comes up empty. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
That happens when you don't have access to the respective queue. I assure the ticket exists, I checked right before sending that message. If you want to confirm, just contact an administrator and I'm sure he will help.--Strainu (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
As you can confirm at User:Jameslwoodward, I am both an OTRS Volunteer and a Commons Administrator. This is the first time in roughly two years and over 100,000 actions on Commons that I have not been able to look at an OTRS message. Perhaps you could explain a little more fully what is happening here. Thank you. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
As a non-admin user on OTRS, you only have access to some designated queues (the ones you see at [43]). AFAIK, you cannot see the messages from other queues. Here are some other OTRS ticket numbers from the same queue: 2012090610006248, 2012090610005991. Can you see any of those? Again, you don't have to believe me, just ask an admin to help you.--Strainu (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I still don't understand why there are any OTRS tickets that I can't see, but I'll restore the file based on your assurance. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you!--Strainu (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ford Museum

Hey Jim, I'm looking for an administrator to help me do batch-uploading and map out a plan for the FordLib+Museum presence in Commons. I've put in a request to Commons:Batch uploading, written an email to the people at Commons:Partnerships and gotten ... bupkis! do you know of any admins who might be interested in working with me? I was told I could post to Commons:Help desk but that seems like an admin-to-admin page and I didn't want to interrupt. I'm about to strike off on my own, and duplicate the page I like -- Commons:Walters Art Museum -- but am curious if that's ethical or not... love to hear your thoughts. thanks a bunch Bdcousineau (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. At the moment the active Commons Admins are still cleaning up a backlog left after a technical problem with deletions early this year -- we're deleting upwards of 4,500 images per day. So, let's see what we can accomplish together. I've never done a partnership, but it seems fairly straightforward, see Commons:Guide_to_content_partnerships. How many images are we talking about here?
As suggested there, why don't you create a partnership page at User:Bdcousineau/Partnership page and a partnership template at User:Bdcousineau/Partnership template and subpages of that. When you think they're ready we can move them to the appropriate pages -- I'd be happy to help with both, if you like. As suggested, it's always easiest to copy an existing document and change it as needed rather than starting from scratch.
Then there's the prep work.
First, and most important, is getting images into useful categories. If you're going to upload thousands of images, you need to figure out a series of appropriate categories, all subcats of Category:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum. I see you have a few of those already, but for ease of search, I'd suggest not more than a few hundred images in any one subcat -- in fact, if you get over 200 -- one pageful -- those over the 200 will be viewed much less than the first pageful. So the first step is to map out a category tree for the whole collection with Category:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum at its root. Then, think a little about secondary cats. For example, I've just put File:First Lady Betty Ford and her son Steve.jpg into Category:Betty Ford and Category:Steven Ford. Most images will require two or three cats. Again, I'd be happy to help with this.
Then the uploading. You'll want to use Commons:Tools/Commonist. Although I've never used it, I have downloaded it and tried it without actually uploading. It allows you to upload all the files in one of your directories and apply both constant descriptions and categories to all files and individual cats and descriptions as required to each file. This suggests that you ought to organize files on your machine according to the primary subcat you want on them -- then you could upload a whole folder into the same subcat.
Start small -- perhaps five files, just to see that you have it right. After a little learning, I'm sure you'll be able to upload them as fast as you can click.
.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

oh thanks! So excited to work with you! of course whatever we come up with will become the model for other Presidential Libraries to follow ... so I'll take lots of notes. I think whatever NARA is doing is great, but seemingly random. Plus I can't get NARA wikipedian to communicate with me.

Batch upload - I've been reading about Commonist and I'm a lot scared: our file names are non-specific (for example, A2090-19.jpg or 19740912me.pdf) so I'd have to type in a new descriptive file name by hand - am I wrong in thinking this defeats the purpose of the batch-upload? I'll do a small batch and report back.

how many images? We have more documents digitized than artifacts at this point. I'm not interested in uploading 10's of thousands of docs at once, I'm more interested in doing more manageable + systematic groups by category, using the broad topics on our website as a starting point. I'll let you know a more exact figure soon. also see my fears vis-a-vis file names above!

I've created Commons:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum and my [[Category: Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum]] shows up underneath, could you tell me how to link the two more elegantly - so I guess get rid of the category and have just Commons:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum with the subcats right there.

can you clarify what you mean by creating User:Bdcousineau/Partnership page and the template one? not sure what goes in there.

so excited to move this forward somewhat faster... Bdcousineau (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


"can you clarify what you mean by creating User:Bdcousineau/Partnership page and the template one? not sure what goes in there." Generally, when you create complex new pages, you do it in your own space (e.g. User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox2) and then transfer them to the appropriate place when done. You got ahead of this with Commons:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum, which is fine. Now, you need to flesh that out with some information on the museum -- take a look at others on the list at Commons:Partnerships -- the Commons:Brooklyn Museum is a simple page for a large collection -- you might start with something like that.

We need to create a template for the Ford that will go on each page. I can start this for you -- it's fairly complex, because it has to be a multi-lingual template, but I need to know what name you want to use. "Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum" is fairly long for a template name -- what name do you use for the Library in second reference?

I sense a little confusion over the various pages this project needs or might have:

  1. Commons:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum
  2. Category:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum and subcats
  3. Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum
  4. Template:Ford Library and Museum
  5. Institution:Ford Library and Museum
  1. The Partnership Page -- a descriptive page about the museum and its Commons partnership. This is one of the few places where Commons actually has articles similar to those in Wikipedia. see Commons:Brooklyn Museum. It should be categorized in Category:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum, as well as Category:Commons partnerships.
  2. The root category for all of the subcats which are needed. There will probably be no images in this category, only the subcats, the Partnership Page, and any galleries.
  3. A gallery of the finest / most striking / most interesting images from the Library. There could be several of these.
  4. As described above, a template to go on every page uploaded by you. I note that your website is fordlibrarymuseum.gov -- shorter is better here.
  5. An Institution tag can be useful for images taken by visitors to the museum, see Institution:Brooklyn Museum, which is used that way. (as above).

As for file names, yes, we very much prefer descriptive names. A concerted effort to change file names to useful ones -- or add a useful name onto the number as atFile:Downtown Cleveland, Ohio, in winter, from the air, 12-1937 - NARA - 512842.tif would be a good thing. You could make a copy of a batch of files, use one of the mass file renamers available, and then upload them as a batch. Of course, we'd rather have the file with an unhelpful name than not have it at all.

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC) 

--------------

ok, I think I did some of what you asked kinda by accident. Can you look at Commons:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum? I copied the coding from the NARA/tab header + spacer pages and modified it, also copied the coding from the Walters Art Museum main area and modified it too - the only thing that stymied me was the left justification. Couldn't find a template for that! I put you in the protag list - hope that's ok, please remove if not! I will refer to the pages you mentioned for more things to copy/modify.

At this point, under "Related categories" I've got: Category:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum and then the subs: Category:Collections of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Category:Collections of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum - this makes sense to me because in the COLLECTIONS area we would only have things from the Fed gov, whereas the other page could have images donated by the public (as is happening naturally now).

Perhaps in the long run, the cats should be "Artifacts" "Photographs" "Documents" "A/V" etc. The "photographs" is going to get REALLY confusing, since there are photos prior to presidency, presidency, post-presidency, family, donated by the public, and funeral. It would be great to have them all under our umbrella, but they are not all federal. I think this might take time to figure out.

I will work on the Partnership Page - thanks for clarifying.

The Root Category: would that be Category:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum? - where do all the other media that have migrated there go?

The template name: Yes, I'm totally confused about templates. Are you asking me for a nick-name? no one but users will see the template name, is that right? how about FordLibMuseum

ah! an institution tag - very cool. I will read about this. Thanks.

I found where a bunch of NARA uploaded images of Ford were hiding out, so I linked to them and will start to divide and subdivide those next week into subcats. I can put off the batch uploading issues for a time. I finally connected with user:Dominic the-NARA-wikipedian and he and I will work on batch uploads when he/I have the time. He has a bot written.

WHEW!! Bdcousineau (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

In no particular order.

Templates are just chunks of text and formatting that get copied EXACTLY onto a page. They can be simple shortcuts to save a lot of typing, or, with parameters, can provide fairly complex formatting of structured data. Simple templates, in one language, are easy to do, see {{Drfop}}. Others, are harder, including those that are available in multiple languages, so that if {{Walters Art Museum license}} appears in a file, you and I will see it in English, but User:Túrelio will see it in German and User:Trijnstel will see it in Dutch. The most basic one for the Ford will be a license template, similar to the Walters one above. And yes, what I am looking for is a short name, so that people using the template don't have to type {{Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum License}}. I'd be inclined to go a little longer than "FordLibMuseum" as then we all have to remember that it's not FordLibMus and other things you can imagine -- I like Template:Ford Library and Museum License unless you object.

Don't overcategorize. I just removed Category:Collections of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum from File:Piece of Lynette "Sqeaky" Fromme's apartment.jpg because it also had the more specific cat Category:Miscellaneous objects in the collection of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum. In general, don't put something in both Cat:A and Cat:B if Cat:B reports to Cat:A.

"The Root Category: would that be Category:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum? - where do all the other media that have migrated there go?" See the new cats I added for photos of the two buildings. As you say, figuring out the tree for images is going to be hard. Let me come back to you with thoughts.

And, yes, of course, having me listed as a protagonist is great. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on Cats

Although I do understand that there is one institution, but two buildings, in Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids, I'm not sure that having two separate cat trees that come together only at the top is a good idea. Cats are meant to help people find things and most people won't know whether to look for a particular image under the museum or the library.

Perhaps the thing to do -- I'm feeling my way here -- you're the archivist, after all -- is to use relatively large cats in the tree that begins at Category:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum and then expect that most images will also have a cat out of the regular tree that begins at Category:Gerald Ford. This will allow for the fact that there will be images of Ford and his family as well as of artifacts that could be any of

  • Housed at and imaged by the Ford Library and Museum (FLM) (These will also have the FLM PD license template)
  • Housed at the FLM, but imaged by visitors (These will have the FLM Institution tag, but license from photographer)
  • Neither

That suggests a tree something like this:

Thus all images of Susan Ford will have Category:Susan Ford. Those that are in the FLM will have Category:Ford Library and Museum - Images of the Ford Family as well.

An image of President Ford in the Oval Office from your files might have:

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Templates: I showed my boss what I've done so far and showed him Template:NARA-cooperation - he would like ours like that except with our logo and replace all references to NARA with Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum, and of course as you say, translatable. I like your template name - please go with it. Is that something you could do? although we may want to include that FLM is an agency of NARA just to make'em happy

I will rely on you for the FLM PD license template - a better logo has been uploaded for your use. Now the BIG question - will we be able to replace the NARA PD license template with the new FLM PD lic template in the Ford image files that NARA has already uploaded? there's fewer than 300 that I've found so far.

Overcat-ing: thanks for cleaning up things like that - I'm actually the exhibits/web designer, not an archivist so some of the cat-ing nuances I will learn. let me know what else I can adjust.

Thoughts on Cats: you are right about not pushing the distinction between the Library and the Museum - I'm thinking like a web designer.

I like your tree. In general, the word "images" could be replaced with "artifacts" or "documents" or "whatever" as we go. How specific can we get? - could the "during presidency" area get specific enough to include photos around a certain event - say Ford's involvement with the last days of the Vietnamese evacs? Those event specific groupings is what I'd like to see, but is that useful for wikimedia?

what about:

so: "An image of President Ford in the Oval Office from your files might have:

might also have:

as a third cat - won't that help wikimedia editors use the media in articles?

let me read about Institution tags as I said and also the Brooklyn Museum Partnershp page. and next week I'll start making those cats you've suggested and moving materials into them. My time over the next 2 weeks is spotty, so progress may be slow.

Thanks Bdcousineau (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirect speedy deletion

Just curious — do you consider File:Girls Generation 2012.jpg worthy of speedy deletion, or should I just wait for the DR to run its course? The passage that I quote in the DR is the reason I'm thinking speedy, since it's a perfect example of what is explicitly prohibited by the quote. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not on the list of reasons for speedy -- generally those are only things that require immediate attention -- copyvios and other immediate problems. Policy violations require discussion. On this one, I'm inclined to sympathize with WP:EN -- it's not a useful file name for most of our users. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Still protected

Hi Jim, the file Flag of France.svg is protected against re-upload ("This filename is currently protected from (re)uploading and can be used solely by administrators."). I cannot replace the invalid version against a valid one. When you unprotect it, give me a note, and I let you know when it is done. sarang♥사랑 18:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a good SVG guy. Why don't you ask ZScout370 -- he's an Admin, SVG person, and the last contributor to the subject flag. I see that his last edit was this morning. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do so. Thank you. sarang♥사랑 20:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

Commons:Village_pump#Deletion --151.75.10.39 20:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Detalle palacio de NL.jpg

Can you give a reason why you delete this file from Monterrey, Mexico? The IP said, it was a copyright violation, but not of what. Here it was marked as kept. Best regards, -- JCIV (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's what happened here. On June 13, I hit the deleted button for closing the DR, and the keep button on the file. That was a mistake. Then Fastily apparently noticed that the file was still here and deleted it yesterday.
In any event, I have restored the file. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! :) Best regards, -- JCIV (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

OTRS 2011121610016821

I didnt added false ticket numbers, i made mistake, since on Wikipedia in Serbian there is a page with numbers for all sites that allowed use of their pictures, but looks like i put wrong numbers. Theres permission for all pics i uploaded. Can you give me one of this pics where i put wrong number to correct it.--Marko235 (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I used stronger words than I should have -- it looked to me like you were trying to do something wrong, but I see now that you simply used the wrong number. I see that Trijnstel has corrected the OTRS number on all of these:

You might want to see if there are others that need correction. Again, my apologies for my too strong words. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, i'm glad this is resolved, i see now where i made mistakes with numbers. Thanks!--Marko235 (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

DR closure

Hello Jim!

Can you provide a rational for the "keep"-decision in this DR, please? I find the keep-arguments which were brought quite strange. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I added, "Looks to me like a German government publication. "By German law documents are in the public domain ... if they have been released ... for public information."". I don't feel strongly about this -- I'm just slogging through all the ancient DRs and trying to get some of them closed. If you have a better idea of this, please tell me. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a rationale. But there is a difference between US governmental works which are in the public domain (at least most of them) and works of some German official administration are generally not in the public domain. Documents are so called Amtliche Werke (official work could be comparable) and such things are mainly laws and court decisions. Sorry for bothering again. --High Contrast (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Germany needs an update. I thought that the German rules were not as broad as the USA, but:
"By German law, documents are in the public domain (gemeinfrei) if they have been published as part of a law or official decree or edict, or if they have been released as an official announcement or for public information. [emphasis added]
is quite broad. In English, "Documents" can be almost any original thing on paper, or, by extension, in digital form that might be printed on paper. Reading our interpretation, I could say that anything the German Government publishes is PD.
BTW, at User:High Contrast, you show en-2 and de-2 -- I don't mean to pry, but that doesn't make sense to me. Your English is clearly better than that. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Open request for CU

Hello, could you have a look into this CU request?. It looks like some CUs are not really active. Thanks and regards, Poco a poco (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed it -- I usually clear all CU requests every day. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sir Christopher Bullock's Memorial Service Address.pdf

I dont understand why you deleted his service sheet when it is a public document? Huguº (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no evidence given at the DR that it was, in fact, a public document. While the family apparently distributed copies of the speech to others, there is no evidence that Lloyd or his heirs transferred the copyright or gave the Bullock family or anyone else the right to license it as freely as Commons requires. Simply publishing a document or giving away copies does not transfer copyright -- if that were the case there could be no copyright on anything. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Ernesto Barba Image

Dear Jim, on 4th June of this year I inserted a photo of the late Ernesto Barba (1935-1994) a very famous italian hotel promoter and general manager (see en-Wp for more detailed info). This image was taken out from me using the software Gimp image editor from a bigger photo of the year 1992 (with other people inside). The photo was personally sent from Barba as a postcard photo to his friend and collegue Giovanni Bravin (Conegliano, Italy) email: gianbra335@tiscali.it (with a personal dedication and signature). Yesterday Bravin sended to me via e-mail an attached image-file of the back-card with dedication, greetings postal-stamp, date (1992) and Eugenio Barba's signature. THis photo was deleted from Wikimedia (and from en-Wp) on the same month of June. This photo is an old one made in Lhasa (Tibet) in 1992 without copyright because was personally donaed from a person that now is dead to a friend. Bravin asked to me if can rensert the photo because: 1)There is not any copyright violation and the photo anyway it's about 20 years old 2)I didn't publish the original because I was thinking was not correct towards the other people appearing in the photo with Barba but I can produce the original with the back with postal-stamp, date and Barba's signature. How can I do to reinsert it 'couse I'm sure that there are no copyright violation? Thank you for the help--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: of course I can send you the copy of the original photo wit the back--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry to say that the facts you have given do not make it possible to keep the image on Commons. Virtually every created work has a copyright, including this photograph. Owning a copy of the photograph does not mean that you (or Bravin) have the right to license it any more than owning a copy of a book gives you the right to make more copies or license the book. The copyright belongs to the photographer's heirs and will for many years to come. We would need their permission to keep it here.
I should add that while 1992 may seem like a long time ago, copyrights generally run for 70 years after the death of the creator. If the photograph were from 1882, we might accept it on the grounds that the photographer must have been dead for 70 years, but even 1900 is too recent to make that assumption. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. Anyway Bravin said to me that he's sure that Barba was the owner of the rights 'couse he was the director of the hotel in Lahsa: he have called and paid a local photographer to thake the group photo (from which I extrapolated his face). Do you really think that there isn't any possibility to insert this photo anyway?--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. You might have Bravin send a license using the form and procedure at Commons:OTRS. Make certain that he refers specifically to File:Ernesto Barba 01.jpg. I can't say for sure what the OTRS volunteer handling it will do, but I suspect it will be restored. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the help Jim. I will send a mail to Bravin explaining the procedure.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Tupac graffiti New York.jpg o.k. or not?

Hi Jim, while this photo is compatibly licensed by the photographer, I wonder whether it doesn't violate the copyright of the "painter". FOP cannot be claimed due to the location (US, non-building). --Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I also wonder whether the images of this 1995-erected monument Category:New England Holocaust Memorial in the U.S. were ever evaluated for violating or not the copyright of the artist or whether such a monument is actually copyrighted in the U.S.. --Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As you certainly know, Commons:Image_casebook#Graffiti says that because Graffiti is illegal, we allow it to stay on Commons. The argument made there has always seemed to me be in direct violation of COM:PRP points 1 and 4, so I am uneasy with it. I generally avoid closing DRs on the issue. So, I would neither hang a {{Delete}} tag on this nor close the DR if someone else opened one.
As for the Holocaust Memorial, I think that most of the images infringe on the creator's copyright and should be tagged {{Delete}}. It seems clear to me that the towers fall under the USA definition:
"“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article. [emphasis added]
There don't appear to be any talk pages with blue links -- no {{Kept}} on any of them, so these images have not had a DR. I don't find any prior DR on any earlier images, but our search engine is not very good at finding such things.
You surely know it will be a heated DR. People will argue that they are buildings, or that they are not sculpture, or that the images are really of the trees and the towers are de minimis, and so forth.

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

O.k., thanks. I'll then open a DR for the monument. I am not totally sure about the "Graffiti is illegal" mantra. While generally I would agree, in my city I see more and more high-quality murals/graffiti which are actually signed and likely painted with the consent of the wall/door/whatever owner, such as File:StarWarsGraffitiViktoriaalleeAachen 8254.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, exactly why I'm uneasy about our rule. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Photography in Saudi Arabia

Hi, I admit taking photos in Saudi Arabia can get quite exciting and over the years I have come to know a lot of nice police men trying to do their duty in an area with somewhat unclear regulations. Yet by 2009/10 I got arrested a lot less and have even had police men showing me the best photo points to take pictures of special buildings. Of course coming back some hours later on the same day to take photos from a different angle and changed sun light still got me arrested because I hadn't noticed a raised flag in the background indicating the region was now of limits because some royal had arrived in a nearby palace. I have found at last the documents that got me out of most of the trouble and put them on the web. Sadly I have not documented where I got them in 2008 or can't relocate the site. The Saudi Tourism Authority has changed its web page several times and seems to discourage deeplinking to the archives. So please have a look at these documents and copy them to a place where Wikipedia can use them. I am not sure how official they are but they are cited by several newspaper articles and at an Aramco site. As I understand the regulations they clearly allow taking pictures from public places to promote the image of the country. If there is no sign it is principally allowed to take photos, providing you do not violate security or privacy issues.

I don't know who translated the document so it may be good to have somebody fluent in arabic check the text and maybe find better sources. Maybe someone from here could help [44] If yoo know someone else that is better suited for this issue please direct the information there as I am only very infrequently on the Wikipedia site. --T.woelk (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. I'm putting a copy of your note on Commons:Village pump where it will get wider attention. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Europe by satellite 2010-07-14 B&W lite.gif

"It is Commons policy that satellite images do have a copyright." : Please, where is that policy documented ? Biem (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "Policy" was too strong a word. However this discussion brings together a consensus from a number of very experienced editors: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ursa Minor Dwarf.jpg. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can read it, the discussion on File:Ursa Minor Dwarf.jpg has not discussed the main issue, that (a) according to international conventions, an author's right is intended to protect an author's intervention (obviously lacking with a satellite image), and (b) a "copyright" in US law is intended to protect an author's right, not a private ownership of something (or whatever).
It seems to me that (a) The US law has evolved to adhere to the Berne convention, according to which the protection is given to an author's production (not to a machine's one). (b) Under Berne's convention, a photograph taken automatically by a satellite conveys no "authorship", hence no "author's right", hence no copyright.
Biem (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you read the discussion again, particularly the "thought experiment" of the time lapse photography of a flower. This would be an entirely automatic process, but we would all agree that the photographer would deserve a copyright. Similarly, the consensus at Ursa Minor Dwarf was that simply adding the coordinates of the Dwarf to the list of images to be taken by the automated telescope was enough to gain a copyright. Also note that there are jurisdictions, including the UK, where images taken by fixed surveillance cameras have a copyright, see Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices. As far as I know, no one has challenged Google's copyright claim on its satellite images.
You may, of course, post a request for reconsideration at Commons:Undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that - thanks for the advice. Entered at Commons:Undeletion requests#File:Europe by satellite 2010-07-14 B&W lite.gif - see you there ? Biem (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

more Ford Museum

Hiya - I've noted that other museums are categorizing like this "blah blah at the XYZ Museum" or "blah blah in the XYZ Museum" - (location is last) so I'm gonna rename some of the new cats I made - so

will become

so this will create some empty cats ... will a bot clean them out? Bdcousineau (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Either give me a list and I'll knock them off, or tag them with {{speedy|renamed category}} and someone else will do it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

ok, will do most likely tomorrow Friday THANKS Bdcousineau (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

got the cats tagged {{speedy|renamed category}} thanks for the info. user:Smallman12q has made some templates ... see my talk page for our conversation. Bdcousineau (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Admin status hiatus

Hello again, Jim. I am very busy with my study now and I won't be active until mid 2013. I will only come here to upload images when I have time. So I think Im will have y adminship removed during that time. Can I get it back after that. Thank you--Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's written down, but generally if the removal is voluntary, it can be restored without another vote. Why bother, though? You've already got enough actions this month to pass the February 2013 activity test and the next test after that is August 2013, so you even if you did nothing until next July you would remain an Admin. If you have a clear intention to return, I see no reason to resign as an Admin.
Of course, you'll be missed. Good luck with your schoolwork. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I have reason for this. I share my computer with my family members so leaving my account inactive may not be safe. Moreover, staying away of adminship will enable me to concentrate on my study. I 'm usually distracted :-). Anyway, hope to see you again--Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Image deletion

On the deletion decision linked in the headline you wrote:

Unfortunately, you can enforce US law on an image kept on servers in the United States, so Commons rules require that we respect the copyright status in the country of origin and the USA. .

I would be much obliged if you could refer me to the policy decision determining that images that do not comply with USA copyright laws, while complying with copyright statues in their country of origin, must be deleted from Commons.
On the same note, are all commons images kept only on servers situated on USA territory? Aren't there any images kept on Dutch or South Korean territory? In that case must every image comply with at least three legal systems? Thank you for your time. Oyoyoy (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

From the lead section of the official policy at Commons:Licensing:
"Wikimedia Commons accepts only media
  • that are explicitly freely licensed, or
  • that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."
This is more fully set forth at Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_non-US_copyright_law
As far as I know, all Commons servers are in the state of Florida, USA. There may be mirrors in other places, but they are not owned by Commons. However, in some cases, as noted at the above cited reference, three countries' law may apply.
.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. It's about time to move Wiki servers to a territory that fully recognizes the Bern Convention. Oyoyoy (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I have thought about that from time to time. The USA has several advantages -- Bridgeman versus Corel, a very high Threshold of Originality, a lot of case law on copyright, and the cheapest server farms in the world -- and a disadvantage -- the URAA. On balance, I can't think of a better place for Commons servers. What we lose in having the URAA, we gain in having all the old masters without worrying about the photographers' copyright. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Janko Kersnik plaque

The object depicted in File:Janko_Kersnik_plaque.jpg, which you have deleted, was put on place in 1940 by the Bistrica Student Society.[45] As a collective work, even if it was still copyrighted in 1995, when the new act on copyright was passed in Slovenia, it became public domain in 2010, i.e. 70 years after it was publicly displayed for the first time. I think it should be undeleted. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In most countries, collective works are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the last author or creator, not 70 years after creation. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Slovenia confuses me:
"The copyright runs:
  • for the life of the author and for 70 years after his death, unless otherwise provided by the aforementioned Act
  • in the case of coauthors, for 70 years from the death of the last coauthor;
  • (omitted)
  • in the case of collective works, for 70 years after the lawful disclosure;"
I don't understand the difference between "in the case of coauthors" and "in the case of collective works" -- perhaps there is a subtlety in the original language that did not translate well. If you can explain it, I'd be happy to change the closure. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The translation is ok. This probably has to do with Article 100 of the Slovenian copyright and related rights act.[46] If I understand correctly, this plaque would be a collective work only in the case that its creators have signed a contract; therefore, undeletion based on Article 62 is actually possible only if I demonstrate there was such a contract. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading from your cite:
"(1) If the work, created in collaboration of two or more persons, constitutes an inseparable whole, all co-authors of such work shall have a joint copyright in it.
(2) Deciding on the use of such work belongs jointly to all co-authors, however, an individual co-author may not oppose to it unreasonably or in bad faith.
(3) Co-authors' shares shall be determined in proportion to the extent of their respective contributions to the creation of the work, unless they are set otherwise by their agreement."
If the translation is good, then I would say that the Encyclopedia Britannica, with its individual signed articles is a "collective work", but that most jointly authored books, papers, and so forth fall under the co-author provision. Since the question is whether each contribution is separable, I would say that this plaque is a co-authored work, no matter what contract there was. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The third item states "razen če niso razmerja s pogodbo drugače določena". I'm not sure why the translator used two terms (contract and agreement) for "pogodba", meaning, as far as I understand, a signed understanding of two parties about the management of copyright. In this case it seems that if there was such a contract, authors could determine their share otherwise, to constitute a collective work, as allowed by Article 100. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I might say that that describes only the authors' ability to agree to a split of the royalties other than 50/50 (or pro rata, if more than two). I don't think it necessarily affects the work's status as collective or co-authored. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

SmilingEffect - File deletion

Hello James, I just notice that you have deleted all the files I uploaded for SmilingEffect.

The reason of deletion is: "source site has explicit copyright notice and there is no evidence of permission."

I am Marco Tsitselis, the founder of SmilingEffect, this brand is registred under my name. The images objects of this discussion have been created from us (me and my team) so there is no copyright abuse here. If you need a verification, I will be happy to send you a copy of the brand registration, in order for you to verify my talking.

Please let me know how we should proceed, in order to re-upload my images.

Thank you in advance, MT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao-Kao (talk • contribs) 12:46, 20 September 2012‎ (UTC)


I suggest you read Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tao-Kao. Although brief, it gives all of the reasons that the files were deleted. While the speedy delete was based on the fact that there was no permission, they are also out of scope as personal art and violate COM:ADVERT. The fact that your only contribution to Commons are images whose descriptions all advertise your web site is also a negative factor.
You are free to request restoration at Commons:Undeletion requests. I will oppose such a request on the grounds noted above.
Please do not under any circumstance upload the files again. That would be a serious violation of our rules. If an Undeletion request is successful the files will be restored to public view by an Administrator. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Catbanshee.jpg and File:Bonaventure16.jpg

Hello Jameslwoodward,

since you decided to keep the two images mentioned above, could you please adjust their description/licensing? The CC-license is still wrong: the Flickr-user does obviously not hold the copyright. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I do change descriptions from time to time, as a general rule that is not the closing Admin's job -- it can be done by any editor. Please remember that we deal with more than 2,000 deletions every day and are struggling to keep ahead. 11:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
So, it's customary to close deletion requests even though the issue (here: plainly wrong CC-license) is still not resolved? I know that you have a huge amount of DRs to check, but honestly this doesn't seem to be a good idea to me: What if noone else cares to correct the errors?
However, I tried to fix it myself – could you please at least have a look at that? I usually do make changes like that on my own, when I'm sure that I know what I'm doing, but this case seemed a bit more tricky to me and I didn't want to mess it up even more, so I thought it would be best to ask you to do it. To be honest, I'm still not fully convinced that we can keep those files: I thought PD-files had to be in the PD in the source country and the US? Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Apologies -- I had a bad moment above. It is true, though, that most Admins leave that sort of cleanup to others -- there is just too much for us to do. In this case, since I did a fair amount of research, I probably should have changed the licenses -- your fix is just right, thanks.
I agree that it is not a sure thing. Note that I passed on closing the third of these images, because we could not prove that it was a CF image. In these two cases, though, we have good evidence that it was a CF image and a high likelihood it was published before 1962, the year the Banshee went out of service. Fifty years covers the Canadian copyright. As for any possible US copyright, for that to be in force would require that it was published with notice and that the copyright was renewed. I did a quick search of the USCO database (which is on-line for entries after 1977) and found nothing -- it is hard to imagine that Canada would have paid to renew an American copyright on a 28 year old image. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, in most cases leaving the cleanup to "orinary" editors probably really isn't very much a problem – for example, adding a {{PD-textlogo}} to a file after an admin decided that it's really simple enough → no big deal.
Just a thought: If your statement at the closure of the DR had contained something like "kept, but please clean up the license" it might have been easier for me to be bold and do it ;-)
Anyways: Thanks for double-checking my edits and the database search. I guess we'll have to live with that kind of remaining uncertainty. Have a nice weekend, --El Grafo (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Always "be bold" -- it is usually the right thing and if it isn't, someone will fix it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

I just wanted to let you know that I responded to your message to Erico on his talkpage. INeverCry 19:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns in regard to those out of scope DRs, so I'll let them go the full 7 days from now on. Speaking of DRs, I've been archiving the older closed ones along with Denniss. So far January thru July are all archived, leaving only a few open DRs for each of these months. Perhaps you could take a look at these, if you have time? These are usually the most complicated ones, so I felt they could use the attention of a more experienced admin than myself. INeverCry 21:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I have taken several passes through the six months' DRs and most of the remaining ones require either national expertise or someone who reads another language (Google is not clear). I will be going through them again and will do any that I feel qualified for. It would certainly be helpful if you commented on any that you had thoughts about -- I often do that when there are serious issues but I'm not sure which way to go. As you will learn, it's really helpful when another known colleague has commented -- it helps sort through all the people who don't know what they're talking about.
And thanks for the archiving -- it really helps. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama in India

Hello.

I'd like to request you to contribute to w:Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Freedom_of_Panorama_in_India (a thread which I just started). I saw that you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Painting of Arjuna's chariot at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi.jpeg with the rationale that 2d works aren't covered by FOP in India. I personally find this interpretation (as currently stated at Commons:FOP#India) to be incorrect. However, to get a better perspective on this, I've started this thread. Feel free to contribute to this, and/or start a similar thread on commons if you wish. Regards--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Although I object to discussions of Commons matters on WP:EN, I have commented there. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi, thanks! I understand and I'll do what you said. Thanks for warning.Érico Wouters msg 21:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Socks

Hello James, you may want to see this thread on my Wiki talk page and the SPI case that is linked within as there are checkuser-confirmed results concerning socks which are also active here. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Although they have very little activity here, they are very likely socks. I have blocked all four for abuse of multiple accounts and copyvios. Thanks. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi Jim. I came upon this strange file: File:Louis Rego.jpg; it looks like the uploader was confused about renaming, and so they uploaded over it. The image was re-uploaded with the right name File:Luis Rego .jpg, but the copyright details don't seem sufficient to me. Should these files be CSDed? INeverCry 00:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If we assume good faith, it looks to me like they're OK -- he claims "own work", which feels OK to me. Maybe a DR, but not a {{Speedy}}.
I very rarely use {{Speedy}} or {{Copyvio}}. If I'm sure that it qualifies for one of them, I just blow it away, as the rules allow. If I'm not sure, then I'd like a discussion, not just one other Admin making a decision, so I put a {{Delete}} on it. You may grow into a different way of working, but that's mine. Remember that while we do sometimes get into multi-thousand word debates over individual files, this is mostly a numbers game -- deleting several thousand files every day to stay ahead of the backlog.
I left a message on his talk page User_talk:P.Durel#Renaming_and_deleting_files.
There are four file names here:
1) File:Louis Rego.jpg -- I deleted this, because it's a duplicate of (2) and (3)
2) File:Luis Rego .jpg -- I moved this to (3) because the trailing space is confusing
3) File:Luis Rego 2.jpg -- new name for (2)
4) File:Luis Rego.jpg -- also uploaded by P.Durel, different image of same man.
.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
OOPs. I just noticed "This photo of Mr Rego belongs to the personal archives of Mr Luis Rego himself, and has been given to me in order to be posted on his Wikipedia Page." You are completely correct. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luis Rego 2.jpg .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this. That first pic gave me a good 15 minutes of confusion, as you can see in your talkpage history, and I see it didn't leave you completely unscathed either, which is perhaps a bit comforting. INeverCry 19:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samuraiantiqueworld

Hello Jameslwoodward, just to clarify, User:174.251.243.11 is/was me, I was not being a sock puppet, I just did not log in, that happens from time to time with no attempt made to fool anyone, as for User:74.223.167.126, this is not me, probably someone with an interest in the subject. User:Takabeg has been trying to control all Turkish/Ottoman armour/weapons categories and has been making unfounded personal attacks on me, this is just another attempt to keep me from editing these categories.samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I was actually surprised when I saw a respectable member of the community acting like a sockpuppet by editing the same three files both as User:174.251.243.11 and as User:Samuraiantiqueworld. I take no position on your dispute with Takabeg, but while we all make mistakes from time to time, under the circumstances you should be especially careful not to make edits when not logged in and particularly not to make edits on the same file. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

COM:BIBLE

Hi, Jim, can you clarify about Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Bible Illustrations (Sweet Publishing)-license (bottom of the page)? Thanks. Bennylin (yes?) 17:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I' sorry to say that I don't understand the problem. We have OTRS ticket 2012051610007039, which I referred to in my closing comment, which is a straightforward statement that some 3,000 Sweet Publishing images are CC-BY-SA. What needs clarification? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Macedonian Museums-102-FolkAndHistory Drosopigi-453.jpg

I am not sure why you restored this file. I do not see a free license at source ([47]) like what you said in the restoration comment. --Sreejith K (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The image is at: http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Museums/Folklore/FolkAndHistory_Drosopigi.html
with a CC-BY-SA license here: http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Museums/credits.html -- which is linked to the "Credits" tab on the first page.
I think that's OK -- or am I missing something?
I note that the Credits page says that the photographs were taken by Prof. Vlasis Vlasidis and that our uploader is User:Vlas2000, which suggests that our uploader is Professor Vlasidis, but proving that through OTRS is not necessary because of the CC-BY-SA license. I need to add that to the image description. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

COM:GFPLM

Hi Jim - can you tell me a simple and quick way to insert {{Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum-cooperation}} into all the images I've already uploaded? I can't quite figure out how HotCat or Cat-a-lot would do this. If I need to do it by hand, that's fine. Thanks Bdcousineau (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be possible using COM:AWB. You'd have to be a little careful, though, because while it can make a list of your Contributions and filter them by namespace, it'll grab any File: page that you've edited, not just the ones you uploaded. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Philosopher is correct. Take a look at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser. It's a very powerful tool that you will surely find helpful from time to time. Its power, however, can be dangerous, so you must be authorized to use it -- which I would be happy to do if you are interested.
On the other hand, if you'd rather not take on a new learning curve right now, I'd be happy to do it for you. Just put a list of the images someplace convenient -- say User:Bdcousineau/Sandbox1. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. Jim, I will put the list into User:Bdcousineau/Sandbox1 in the next day or so - it's all the .jpgs in Category:Artifacts at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum. I'd like to learn that other tool but not today! Bdcousineau (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

List is now complete on User:Bdcousineau/Sandbox1 also included are the institution and templates for your use. Thanks so much! Bdcousineau (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks! I have a question for you later.. let me play in a sandbox first. Bdcousineau (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Uyghur_Adam_Tomak.png

Hi, what should have done with image File:Uyghur Adam Tomak.png not to be deleted? I should have been more clear about the thing that there was OTRS permit pending and add the missing {{subst:OP}} or {{OTRS pending}} to image description page? It somehow sux that i try to advise people (b.kurbanjan@yahoo.com) how to give permission to use pictures in commons and it fails because there is nobody who would do advise or fix the broken OTRS requests. --Zache (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem here. I deleted an image that had been previously deleted and was uploaded again by a user who has uploaded multiple copyvios, claiming "own work" and has created multiple socks. It is plain that he cannot be trusted. I have just blocked five new socks of this user.
The image was a clear copyright violation -- it should not have even had a DR, but under our rules should have been tagged as {{Speedy}}.
There is an OTRS e-mail relating to this image, but it came from an anonymous e-mail account which is different from both the one called out on the source page and the one you cite above. I therefore suspect that it actually came from Aparhan/Baratk. Unfortunately, sometimes when a thoroughly bad actor gets involved with an image, it may become impossible to rescue. Much of what we do depends on trust and truth telling, and when a frequent liar is involved, the ability to trust disappears. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Teamwork!

Thanks for helping with deleting the out of scope/test/vandalism pages. :) Trijnsteltalk 11:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

DR of 700+ images

Hi Jim. Can you take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aeou? I have no experience with something this massive. The uploader had CSDed a few of the images that are involved, and objected to my removing the speedy tags, which I did because the images were already part of a DR. I figured I'd ask you before I get more confused with the whole thing. ;) INeverCry 19:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Massive is not a problem -- just a reason to get it right, because an UnDR would be a real pain. It's an interesting question, thanks for calling it to my attention. I've opined there, and asked Carl Lindberg for comment. He's the clearest thinker we have on complex issues. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. INeverCry 00:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Works used at sisters

Gday Jim. At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alice in Wonderland (1903).ogv you made a decision about a work hosted at one of the sisters without notifying the sister sites, and without use {{Fair use delete}}. Can I ask that you check the global use before you delete. As Commons is a global repository, Commons admins need to have the awareness of these other sites when undertaking the deletions, not just thinking about local wiki. I will be organising the undeletion of the work, its moving to enWS and subsequent deletion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That is not my understanding of the way things work. It is up to the uploader and other interested parties to migrate files, as needed, before the DR is closed. The fact that a file is used elsewhere is not relevant to Commons decisions or actions when the reason for deletion is copyright violation.
Commons Administrators delete around 2,000 files a day and are struggling to keep ahead of the backlog. Extra steps in our process will not help that. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, and I am one of the administrators that does that.

Commons administrators should not be shirking their responsibility to notify appropriate sister wikis just because it is busy here. Such an approach seemingly puts Commons on a plane above these other wikis. Commons is not an isolated island of images, it is clearly identified as the repository for the WMF foundation, and the attitude of all care but no responsibility will have the wikis housing their files locally, which is the antithesis of the global approach.

The argument about interested parties to watch to be able to migrate the file is optimistic and somewhat flawed. How would any party know that the file had even been listed for discussion, let alone a decision to delete the file, and within a specific timeframe? A file deleted for a WP article is probably an annoyance, but for the Wikisources where such a file is an intrinsic part of the transcription process, it is totally problematic. For a file uploaded in 2009 for use at a site like enWS your expectation of it being followed and captured at a random time is beyond wildly optimistic, and that you so casually suggest that as being functional is fanciful. I know that I have personally uploaded hundreds of files, and easily double that using Magnus' bot either direct uploads, or migrations from other sites. I am not doing blame, I am looking for solutions, and for an agreed means to go forward. If the administrators here cannot accept that their responsibility is broader than the deletion of a file, and the preservation of the wider concept, then it will cause fractures, as ultimately for the WS the only means to preserve the integrity of the files is to review how and where the file hosting occurs. Can I also reflect against your proposed administrator business and the whacking that some stewards got this paste week for deletion. I support the retention and training of administrators for deletion as it needs that local knowledge, but if local admins cannot do the right things, then why do we restrain the right?  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is a problem. I'm not sure it is a big problem -- I've deleted almost 50,000 files and I think this is the first time the problem has been raised with me. While that doesn't mean that there have been no similar problems in my past, there probably haven't been many.
As I said above, I think we have a much larger problem. I am seriously concerned that Commons will soon be overwhelmed by the volume of work. Fastily deleted over 250,000 files (some of them incorrectly), zeroed out a huge backlog, and then burned out. I don't see any replacement for that capacity, so I will continue to resist any suggestion that Admins do any cleanup while closing a DR. I wish it were otherwise.
I have two thoughts on the problem with stewards -- yes, we can certainly use more active help here, but stewards are highly trusted users -- both Admin and CU powers on all sites. It concerns me when a person who is highly trusted to use special powers breaks the rules while using them. It suggests to me that they should not have been trusted in the first place. Note I say "suggests", not "proves", but the problem is there. I would oppose a change in the rules allowing Stewards to do routine deletions here, just as I opposed Rock drums's RfA -- no one with no knowledge or experience of copyright issues should be an Admin here, however well intentioned, careful, and smart he or she may be. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirección

Hola, yo puse la redirección para que todos los mensajes de traducción me lleguen a mi página de discusión de Wikipedia en español. Lo que pasa es que nunca entro a otros proyectos que no sean Wikipedia por falta de tiempo. ¿Existe alguna manera de que los mensajes que me lleguen a este y otros proyectos sean trasladados a mi página de discusión de Wikipedia en español?.--Ansemolu (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I put the redirect so that all messages reach me my translation discussion page for Wikipedia in Spanish. What happens is that never went to other projects other than Wikipedia because of time. Is there any way that messages reach me this and other projects are transferred to my Wikipedia talk page in Spanish?
translator: Google


No. It is essential that your Commons messages are on your Commons talk page so that other Commons users can see them if necessary. You can use Google translate as necessary -- it is not perfect, but it is OK for most things.
No. Es esencial que los mensajes Commons son en su página de discusión Commons de modo que otros usuarios puedan ver Commons si es necesario. Usted puede utilizar Google traducirá si es necesario - no es perfecta, pero está bien para la mayoría de las cosas.
translator: Google

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

more COM:GFPLM

Hi Jim -

I found a page User:Dominic did that included some context to the docs he uploaded. The I found this: Commons:Deletion requests/Record Group 233/Petitions and Memorials, compiled 1813 - 1968 (Judiciary). I totally agree with you that the images in a "gallery" were not a great idea.

What about if the images where at the file level? See: User:Bdcousineau/Sandbox2 for my handling of his idea. (For whatever reason, the cat title is not in big letters). I think we do need to include some optional context for document collections.... and uploading documents as primary source material is really a gray area in Commons as far as I can tell. It makes sense to me to include this context at the head of the category as opposed to in each file. But I'm curious about your thoughts. I keep wanting to group with all the information from the top, while I see that in Commons the file level carries the bulk of the information. I keep having to remind myself that Commons is not a website and material is organized differently than a basic website. How do you think it will work in terms of SEO? At the end, I want our stuff found and used.

Please disregard the disorganized file summary information in the photo files - User:Smallman12q and I are hashing out what should be there. And using the NARA formats as a place to start from.

The cats for this group will be: Presidential papers, Gerald Ford, US Vice-Presidents, Foreign Leaders, Documents at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.

Thanks Bdcousineau (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand -- perhaps I am having a dumb moment. You say, "I totally agree with you that the images in a "gallery" were not a great idea", but it appears that your Sandbox2 is a gallery.
As you read at Commons:Deletion requests/Record Group 233/Petitions and Memorials, compiled 1813 - 1968 (Judiciary), I think that the major, perhaps only, reason for galleries is to organize selected images so that a user can browse through them. A good example is Lighthouses_in_Maine, which takes the best image of each lighthouse from the ten or fifteen categories in which they appear. I don't see a similar rationale for a gallery of documents -- one doesn't browse them visually -- one will get to them through the category tree and the related ones will be in the same category or categories.
What am I missing here? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No it's me. I didn't make myself clear. Is it possible and/or advisable to put collapsible content-blocks on a category page, above a table with links to the files? see again User:Bdcousineau/Sandbox2. What do you think? User:Smallman12q suggested a Description column, but that will be the same across all the files in this category, hence the collapsible-content blocks. Bdcousineau (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Aha -- your sandbox is a prototype category.
It is certainly possible. I would be inclined to not use the collapsible boxes, but simply write it out -- these isn't that much. However, I hasten to say that I have no experience of this sort of complex category. The material is definitely in Commons scope, but I'm not sure how much similar material we have to draw experience from. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim! User:Smallman12q also recommended writing everything out (see my talk page). It IS a grey area, all these documents on Commons; nice to know COM:GFPLM may be setting a standard. In our project, we will write the text out. Bdcousineau (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Return of Deletion

File:Pride of Performance.jpeg has been deleted by. I have talked about it to User:VernoWhitney. A friend of mine won this medal some years back and for wikipedia it was sent to a jewler for polish and luster as u can see . This has been deleted, I dont know excactly its fault as there are pictures of many medals on WikiCommons. It is requested to restore it.--Khalid Mahmood (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As it says at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pride of Performance.jpeg, most medals have a copyright, which in Pakistan lasts for fifty years after the death of the creator. Therefore, unless the creator of this medal died before 1962, it is still covered by copyright. Since the medal was first awarded in 1958, that seems unlikely, but not impossible.
A photograph of a copyrighted work is a derivative work and must have the permission of the copyright holder in order to keep it on Commons.
Therefore there are two ways this might be restored to Commons -- you must either prove that the creator of the medal died before 1962 or get a license from the copyright holder, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. I would guess that the copyright holder is the Pakistani government, but it might be the creator of the medal or his heirs. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Jim. Can you take a look at this: User talk:INeverCry#Another rename request? I wonder if these images are even in scope, seeing that the subject was found to be not-notable on en.wiki? If you could weigh in, I would really appreciate it. INeverCry 16:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. INeverCry 22:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

DR question

Hi Jim. I noticed this mass DR, in which the uploader supports deletion, and where the reasoning seems to be inaccuracy. I just wanted to see what you thought of those deletion votes? INeverCry 23:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I had reached the wrong conclusion earlier. Sometimes it takes several tries to get ideas into my thick skull ;-) .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:PCMCIA Dimesiones.jpg

Hi Jim, hope you're well. Just thought I'd let you know that a few files you deleted were listed up at COM:UD, if you're interested. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 08:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw them. I think it's a close call, so I am content to let the UD discussion rule. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Frozen Synapse video still

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Frozen Synapse.png

Since commons obviously lacks the spirit of free discourse that Wikipedia does and closes down discussions based on single assertions, I suppose I'll have to bring this here:

At no point did I suggest the software was free, so your justification is a total straw man. The video from which the still is taken is licensed. If you care to make an informed judgement acquire a copy of the game and see what license the game automatically applies to the videos it creates and uploads for you. Or, y'know, just be wrong. I just won't use commons again, since due diligence or consensus don't appear to be a 'thing' here. -Rushyo (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deletion Requests always stay open for at least a week -- this one was open for almost four months. It was closed based on two opinions, the nominator's and mine, not, as you say, a single assertion. It would have been nice to have more discussion, but no one else was interested. As you can see at the DR logs, some images get thousands of words of discussion. I do not see how you can say that the issue did not receive a fair airing. In addition, in cases where the uploader feels that the decision was incorrect, you can ask the uploader to reconsider, as you have done here. If that fails, you can ask for reconsideration at Commons:Undeletion requests.
I have looked again at the Frozen Synapse web site and again find nothing to suggest that any aspect of it is freely licensed. The fact that a video from it appears on YouTube does not mean that it is freely licensed -- YouTube does not police its uploads well and it is possible that the license allows such uploads. That would not necessarily mean that it is freely licensed as required here.
You suggest that Commons acquire a copy of the game to read the license. That is not how we work. You, the uploader, are required to prove that the file is freely licensed. You could easily do that by providing a link to the license that you want us to read. Without being able to read a copy of that license, there is no way to keep the image.
As I noted above, you are free to post a request for reconsideration at Commons:Undeletion requests. Although I can't speak for my colleagues, I think that will be a waste of time unless the people commenting there can read a copy of the license..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion of File:Virtualbox logo.png

Hello, James

I am writing in reference to the undeletion request of File:Virtualbox logo.png in Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. If possible, I would like to ask you to review the recent discussion and reconsider your oppose. I genuinely believe that the image is free and previous classification as non-free (and subsequent deletion) was a result of a misunderstanding. Wikipedia was quick to acknowledge the misunderstanding but somehow my message seems not to go through on Commons. In fact, I feel nobody is reading it.

Before you mention it, I am aware of the differences and similarities between Commons and Wikipedia. What concerns us most here is the fact that when it comes to deciding the license of an image published in U.S., there is significant compatibility between Commons and Wikipedia practices.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

In that discussion, I asked that you post either the complete text of the license on which you are relying, or a link to a complete text of the license. As far as I can see, you have not done so. Without that, I'm not going to change my mind. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, James. I had done so earlier. Here is the link again: [48]. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, again. Don't bother. The discussion is closed. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The cited license speaks only of code, not icons. Even if you argue that the icons are produced by code and therefore are themselves essentially code, there is this:
"You may copy and distribute such a combination provided that you adhere to the terms and conditions of all of the GPL and the licenses of the third-party code; in particular, you must include the source code of the entire combination insofar as the GPL requires distribution of source code."
As I read that, if you are going to distribute the image of the icon, you must distribute the source code with it -- that's silly for an icon, of course, but is the consequence of trying to stretch a code license to include non-code things. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, James.
The license reads: "This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License." The section that you cited, however, comes from preliminary notes section and pertains third-party codes included with VirtualBox; yes, you are right that icon is not third-party code, but that means you read the wrong section!
Here is an example of files with the same type of license uploaded to Commons: Avidemux-logo.png, Avidemux.png, Audacity.png, Audacity.svg, Adblockplus icon.png, Celestia.png, Flock icon.jpg, GIMP icon.png, ΜTorrent 2.2 icon.PNG, SMPlayer icon.png, VLC icon.png, Wsicon.svg, Wireshark Icon.png. If these are allowed, how come VirtualBox logo is not allowed?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ljubljana Central Market

I think there was perhaps a misunderstanding regarding the image File:Ljubljana Central Market 2010 bird eye.jpg. What was created by Plečnik was only the white building (visible as the elongated series of arcades just above the centre of the image), not the entire market which was not arranged by him. Can you confirm please whether the deletion is still warranted? --Eleassar (t/p) 14:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I just tried to look again at the image and could not, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Errors_in_files. When I can look at it again, I'll make sure, but I think my decision was correct. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Please also consider this image. The low elongated building with arcades is work of Plečnik, but it seemed to me like 'de minimis'. What do you think? Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that one is probably OK -- other editors may disagree. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I've posted a request for undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

For this. I had a very frustration chat with an otrs member yesterday who always insisted that the case was open and he was not going to comment on it, blablabla.... So, I think I'll apply for otrs. I often get people to write orts and then I get frustrated with the reaction from there :-/ So thanks for beeing uncomplicated! Amada44  talk to me 07:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for my delayed reply -- I seem to have missed your note.
That's why I applied. Also, it's helpful when you tell someone to use OTRS, because you can then follow up and do whatever is called for, rather than having to rely on the OTRS volunteers, who sometimes have a backlog. Let me know when you do and I'll support it, for whatever that is worth. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
np. Okay I will. Just a little busy right now I'll do it when I have time. Thanks and cheers, Amada44  talk to me 12:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright and Work for Hire

You are correct that it is possible to own a creative work, but not own its copyright. However, that wasn't the issue with the Owen Roberts portrait. If I am an artist, and you commission a work from me, I essentially become your employee, and the copyright of the work belongs entirely to YOU, the employer. The law is very clear in that regard. See here. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No. From your cite:
"A work created by an independent contractor can be a work made for hire only if (a) it falls within one of the nine categories of works listed in part 2 above and (b) there is a written agreement between parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire." [emphasis added]
In US law, "employee" has a special meaning, and a portrait commission does not create an employee relationship. An employee is regularly employed by the employer, has taxes withheld from his paycheck, and receives a W2 at the end of the year. A contractor is hired for a job, does not have taxes withheld, and receives a 1099 at the end of the year. Unless actually on the Federal payroll -- as were various artists during the Depression, working for the WPA -- a portrait painter is an independent contractor and, therefore, there must be an explicit written agreement that the work is made for hire.
In my closing comment, I cited the best recent Commons case on the issue, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerald R. Ford - portrait.jpg which, in turn, cites two others.
Note also {{Money-US}} -- the obverse of the Sacagawea dollar is under copyright held by the artist despite the fact that the work was, of course, commissioned by the Federal Government.
.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Огнев Николай Васильевич.png

Hello. I uploaded this file and now I was change lisense on PD-RusEmpire. --Тотемский (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The Administrator that closes Commons:Deletion requests/File:Огнев Николай Васильевич.png will take that into account. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios of printed materials

Are you willing to consider deleting images as copyvios of printed materials upon a single user's claim? Bwsmith84 has uploaded several images as own works that are actually scans from County Courthouses of Ohio; we have after-the-fact OTRS permissions for File:Coshocton County Courthouse.jpg and File:Jefferson courthouse ohio.jpg, but after borrowing the book from the library and looking at every image in Category:County courthouses in Ohio, I've identified several other images that are plainly taken from it. I'd like to tag them as copyvios, since they're plainly identical (e.g. the clouds are perfectly the same, as are leaves on trees and piles of snow), but I'm not 100% sure that such an idea would be accepted because admins obviously can't check the book with just a few clicks of the mouse. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if I linked the images —
Like the Coshocton and Jefferson County Courthouses, you can see that they're all plainly scans uploaded by Bwsmith and quite different from his apparent own-work photos, like File:Monroe Courthouse OH.jpg. I asked him about them when he was uploading them several years ago, since I was surprised that he could get so many images (these counties are located all over the state) in just a few days, but he claimed that they were old images from his own family trips. I saw no reason to disbelieve that idea until finding what he'd done with the Coshocton and Jefferson images. FYI, there aren't any Smiths credited as photographers on the title page of the book in question; it's not a case of him publishing his own photos both in the book and online. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done I'm certainly happy to accept your word for this problem -- we've known each other here and on WP:EN for more than three years and you're an upstanding citizen. In addition, at high magnification they're obviously scans of pages that came off an offset press, which is not the story he told you and highly unlikely for legitimate "own work". .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I just got a note from HJ Mitchell regarding the OTRS (2011092910022206) for these images and for the Adams County photo that I forgot to link, and he says that there's something of an interest in giving similar permission for the other images. Could you check the ticket and restore any images for which there's a solid permission? Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
My reading of ticket #2011092910022206 is that it is very informal, does not mention any of our standard licenses, and gives permission only for use on WP:EN, provided that attribution is given to Thomas Patterson, the photographer. There is not mention of any use outside of Wikipedia, of commercial use, or of derivative works. Therefore I think that our use of File:Adams County Ohio Courthouse.jpg is inappropriate. There seems to be a problem loading images right now, and it's dinner time, so I'll take a look at it in the morning. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmm; interesting. Do they all need to be deleted, then? Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I have started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adams County Ohio Courthouse.jpg. I don't understand "all" -- the OTRS mentions only the one. Are there more? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
"All" referred to the Cochocton and Jefferson County Courthouses that I mentioned at the top of this section. Nyttend (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Aha. I've added them to the DR. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion_requests/File:Roma_Kenga.png

Hello, Jim. I works as Roma Kenga's manager for Universal Music company. We added this photo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Roma_Kenga.png. Last year we hired photographer to make this photo, He signed contract with Universal Music Company (Russia). Now we have exclusive rights to this photo around the world. Svetlana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sset (talk • contribs) 12:37, 29 October 2012‎ (UTC)

  • As I said in our e-mail exchange:
In any case, you must respond at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Roma_Kenga.png.
Since an ordinary license to use is different from a free license for commercial use anywhere, it is likely that you will need to have the photographer provide a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't view deleted files

Hi Jim. I think I saw you and maybe Denniss talking about this "file has errors" problem that's been preventing us from viewing alot of deleted files. Is there any word on this or when it will be resolved? I haven't been able to deal with quite a few undel reqs because of this. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 19:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no update -- I think it has been reported to the technical gurus -- it is apparently related to a major change in the software supporting the whole project.
If you need to look at a file, you can always restore it temporarily and then delete it again -- I was an Admin for at least six months before I realized that there was an easier way. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I was thinking of doing. I hope the issue gets fixed soon. INeverCry 21:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Hi again. I hope you don't mind another question. Can you look at File:Michal Horacek2.jpg? The uploader has shown me this: http://www.michalhoracek.cz/wiki, which releases the image under {{cc-by-sa-3.0-cz}}. Upon first upload the file was sourced to facebook and said to be own work. The above website names the photographer as Martin Malý. Should this be restored, and how should it be tagged if restored? Thanks again for your time. INeverCry 20:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Add a note that you have looked at the source on (date) and that it was licensed as shown -- like Flickrreview.

By the way, it's faster to show a template in either of these ways rather than using nowiki:

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help. INeverCry 21:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please review

Hi Jim: I'm not 100% sure why, but this image [49] seems problemattic. Would you take a moment and a look? Thanks ! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume you came across this because of your interest in Humboldt County. I'm not sure why you say it seems problematic, so I'll just give you the whole nine yards.
It's a radio station logo. The "K-LOVE" name apparently was begun in 1988. That's important because 1989 is a magic date in US copyright. Until March 1, 1989, a copyright notice was required or the work became PD upon publication (after 1978 registration could be substituted for notice). After 3/1/89 everything has a copyright upon publication. This logo has no notice, so if it predates 3/1/89, it is PD, unless it was always used in a larger context that had a notice.
Some of our colleagues will argue that it is too simple to have a copyright, see COM:TOO. If I had to decide, I probably would agree, but it's a close call.
It needs a description and a source. And that's all that comes to mind here.
BTW, I once again suggest you look at HotCat. It makes the kind of category removal you did at the subject a one-click action with a very fast page reload afterwards. Saves a lot of time and it would be very hard to get in trouble with it -- one at a time actions, just much faster. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Bug problem in file restore

Hi Jim. I restored this file: File:Ljubljana Central Market 2010 bird eye.jpg per the undel req, but there's a problem. The initial upload revision isn't showing along with the image info, permission, etc. Do you know how this would be fixed? INeverCry 21:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea, sorry. I suggest you ask at ANB or Village Pump. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
That's ok. Turelio has posted this at ANB and the Village Pump. INeverCry 00:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zeno Colò.jpg

Hello Jim,

I guess you somehow overlooked to close this DR after your decision. It'd be best if you were the one to close it (rather than me). Regards --Rosenzweig τ 19:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes DelReqHandler doesn't follow through. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Your decision Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karte Traisen (Fluss).svg

Hi Jim! I still think that merging free information (ie the outlines of districts are free information, facts are not copyrightable) from several sources canot be a problem. I drew all maps by myself, I didn't just copy them form anywhere.

Anyway, May you delete all my maps, all of them suddenly became to have the same "problem"... These are (at least, maybe there are more):

List
* my files in Category:Highway maps of Austria
  • May you additionally have a look through my Uploads, perhaps you'll find some more problems.

With your decision you gave me back a huge amount of spare time (just started to draw maps for 400+ federal roads in Austria), so thank you ;) Best --AleXXw 07:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You certainly may put {{Delete}} tags on your work if you think it appropriate.
For your future work, there are plenty of base maps which are either out of copyright or freely licensed (including Open Street Map) which can be used for such maps.
As for as you belief that maps do not have copyrights, aside from the clear fact that they do, think about history books. All of the facts in a history book are not copyrightable, but the expression, the words, are. Or a photograph of a landscape. The landscape itself has no copyright, but the photograph -- the particular expression -- does. A map has many creative choices -- what symbols and colors to use, how wide to draw roads and other linear features at a particular scale, where to put names of features for best legibility and minimal interference, how many names to use and, on linear features, how frequently. If you look at half a dozen different maps of the same area, they will look very different through their creative choices. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The points wich are copyrighted are exactly the points with are my own work. I just got the information in wich relation the outlines are to each other and with the pointfeatures. I decided wich point and linear elements I use and in what frequency I repeat them, what color, with, saturation the lines and areas have, I decided wich symbols I use and created them, I selected positon and usage of sub maps and where to put labels... May you take any dozend of maps of the area you deleted and compare it to my map? You'll see huge differences in all of these points. I could get the facts from OSM, because they must have the same facts. Because: a town is on every map at the same position, the course of an river goes the same way on each map,...
Do you really think I take my time to add deletion tags to all of my work or to create new one? I'm pretty sure this discussion will be the last thing I do on commons for a long time ;) Best --AleXXw 17:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
We are sorry to lose you, but if you insist on making derivative works of copyrighted maps, you are not a help to Commons. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you missunderstood me: I do not derivate copyrighted maps, I use facts to create own maps. What do you think OSM get their information of district outlines from? Best --AleXXw 18:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC) PS: Could you specify what exactly was copyrighted at the file you deleted?

Perhaps we do have a misunderstanding. At Eleassar's talk page, you said:

"I don't know the source anymore, most of the time I use different maps, showing all the same facts."

Is that a correct summary? That sentence describes making a derivative work from a map. If the source map is not freely licensed, then we cannot keep your work here. Since you cannot remember the source, Commons rules require that we delete your work. I should add that I very much appreciate your honesty in this. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That is true. But, as I wrote before, _every_ map shows the same outlines for the districts and for the course of the river and both facts are not copyrightable. So, no matter what map I used 2008, it would be the same, am I right? If I uploaded exactly the same map with source Niederösterreich Atlas (or every other map in the whole world showing austrian district borders) it would be OK? It would be really nice if you could tell me what exactly was the problem... Best --AleXXw 22:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said above, a history book is all facts, but the words used make it copyrightable. A coat of arms is drawn from a blazon that does not have a copyright, but each graphic representation of the blazon does. A map is all facts, but its representation has a copyright. So, if you trace over a map, on paper or digitally, you have copied that map and infringed on its copyright -- it does not matter if you would get the same result by copying a different map -- it is the act of copying that is the infringement. And, of course, they would not be identical because almost all commercial maps have deliberate mistakes in order to catch exactly this.
I think I am running out of words. Why don't you take File:Karte Traisen (Fluss).svg to Commons:Undeletion requests. One of our colleagues might do a better job of explaining it, or possibly, they might agree with you. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
My problem is not that single map. My problem is that I uploaded hundreds of maps over the last 6 years of contribtion, no one ever saw any problem. Now I am pretty unsure if all of my beliefs are wrong and if I should rethink my work at OTRS, Mentorenprogramm and in organizing WLM, perhaps I told everybody wrong things for years. Before I think about to go to UR I want to hear your opinion: It would be very nice if you could specify what part of the map is the copyright violation:
  • The outline of the districts? So every map in Maps of Lower Austria has to be deleted, as well as the district polygons at OSM.
  • The name of the citys or their place? I placed them out of my head, because I live here.
  • The course of the Traisen or the Danube?
Best --AleXXw 11:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not any one thing -- it is the fact that you used a copyrighted map as your base map. There is no fair use on Commons, so using someone else's map as a base is a copyvio. Really, I've run out of ways to say it -- please try UnDR. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
That is the thing: I didn't use a copyrighted map as base map. It is like, to stay at your example, I wrote an article under usage of an historical book. I just used the information within the map, wich contains exactly the same informations you find ie at OSM, and created my own map. The facts I used are not copyightable! Would it be OK if I'd say I used OSM, it would cause exactly the same map... Best --AleXXw 17:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand "I just used the information within the map". If you took off the lat/lon or grid points of every important point on the map you were working with and then made a new map from those numbers, that's OK. But if you took a map and traced over it -- either with tracing paper and pencil or digitally, then that's not OK. The problem I'm having is that the first is so much work that I can't imagine actually doing it. I have actually constructed a map from raw data -- see File:Eritrean Railway Map of March, 1998.svg -- it took days of work. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The outline of the districts are defined by law - austrian laws are PD - so it dosn't matter where the outline come from, it is still PD. The only thing copyrightable on maps based on free data (what facts are) is the representation and selection of the viewed data - in this case this is my own work. Btw: same is written as 'official guideline' at Commons:Derivative_works#Maps... Best --AleXXw 21:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
No, again. How you got there is the crux of the matter. You have not spoken directly to the question I posed above. And, by the way, your cite points out that in Germany, at least, and possibly the rest of the EU, a map is protected as a database, so that even my first method above would be a copyvio in Germany. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Good to live not in Germany ;) But if I got the exactly same date from OSM it would be OK? So I just redraw the map using OSM & add it as source ;) Best --AleXXw 21:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, OSM is certainly OK provided you give them credit as a source. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Great to have a solution, even if the map will be exactly the same... What about the several thousand other maps of austrian districts and municipialitys in Maps of Austria (and many other regions)? Do you want to delete them all? 90% got the same problem... Best --AleXXw 21:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem is not what I would do, but what our colleagues might do a week, a month, a year from now. This is why I suggested that you get a broader audience for this discussion at UnDR. With a broad consensus, that would not be a problem. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I think its a good idea to get a 'policy decision', I just started a UnDR. Could you explain your point of view? Best --AleXXw 22:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately my UnDR got closed while I was at work, so now I'm back here. @Your last question: Normaly I do copy the outlines point by point into a GIS-program, export it to svg and start editing at Inkscape. May you help me: what is the difference between the map you deleted and files like this, this, this or that, that, that, that or that? Do I need to be afraid they all will be deleted over the time? Best --AleXXw 21:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What a lot of work! Given your method, I would be comfortable with saying that you do not infringe the base map copyright under USA law. It appears, though, that you are probably infringing under German law and, even, perhaps, elsewhere in the EU, including Austria.

I do not see that your UnDR is closed -- or was closed and reopened. I think you are mistaken. I added a note asking that it be left open for a thorough review. Please add to it what you told me above. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, misinterpreted the header of next section, if I edit the section there stands 'This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.' at bottom ;) Best --AleXXw 22:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
It's a bug -- the {{Udelh}} is included with the wrong edit. Be sure to add your comment above it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Just got it ;) Sorry to annoy you so in this case, but I think it is very important, not just for me. Best --AleXXw 22:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
You're not an annoyance at all -- I have seen many of them and you do not even come close. I'm happy to try to work toward an understanding and resolution of this that allows us to keep your work while still obeying our rules and the law. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeanette from the estate

I find the block here a bit unhelpful - the user is now unable to ask for help where she was getting help before. We could have given her some time to ask for an account rename. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I find that it is always better to do something now rather than delaying, because in the course of events, things that are delayed are often forgotten. The user can easily open a new account, or make comments on her talk page. You will note, I hope, that I was careful to encourage her with a positive (and truthful) comment about her images and to tell her to feel free to open an account in a different name. However, if you want to unblock her, go ahead. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Vijayanagara flag deletion rationale

I'm just curious about the rationale for deleting File:Vijayanagara flag.png. (I've never seen the file but it was linked from a Wikipedia article I edited.) The discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vijayanagara flag.png is quite cryptic with only three words of total argument on either side. Reply at en:User talk:AjaxSmack if you could. Thanks. AjaxSmack (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I looks like it was an error. Since it is in use in several places, the reason given for deletion, "unencyclopedic", was not valid. I have restored it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It is, at a minimum, unsourced. I wouldn't oppose a future deletion attempt although I think the {{fictional}} tag is enough pending sourcing. AjaxSmack (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Spam or not

As a reply to this and this, you probably missed my wink () and I do find your page useful otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it! Trijnsteltalk 11:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should be more careful of inter-cultural attempts at humor. You gave me a little jab and I gave you a little jab back. All meant in good fun -- or at least intended that way. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Ciudad Quesada - Mercado 3.jpg

Hello, Jameslwoodward. About File:Ciudad Quesada - Mercado 3.jpg, the explicit copyright note states its free license. Could you please restore the picture? Thank you. --Ralgistalk 17:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Right you are, sorry. However, that applies only to the image, but there is still a copyright in the art, for which we need permission from the artist. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're right. Anyway, thank you --Ralgistalk 01:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Jackie Robinson plaque memorial Montreal.jpg

Hi Jim, Unfortunately, I missed the debate on the proposed deletion on my photo [50] of the Montreal plaque commemorating Jackie Robinson, and I can't retrieve the discussion. Can you provide a link to it, or tell me why the picture had been deleted? There might be a copyright policy I'm not aware of. I just want to make sure the photo had not been deleted because somebody thought I did not have the right to upload it. Was it deleted because photos of plaque, memorials or sculptures are not allowed, or because somebody thought I did not take it myself? Might help me to avoid this situation in the future. Thanks in advance. Gates of Ale (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason for deletion has nothing to do with you. The text on the plaque has a copyright which, in Canada, lasts for fifty years after the death of the author, or, if it is a Crown Copyright, fifty years after publication. I don't know which it is in the case of this plaque placed by the city, but it is a moot question for many years from now. Any copy of copyrighted text is a derivative work and requires permission from the copyright holder.
This means that any photograph of a recent plaque in Canada will almost certainly infringe a copyright unless it is very simple -- "John Doe Lived Here 1833 - 1856" would probably be OK, but anything more complicated than simple facts is a problem. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

deletion of my last 6 uploads

Haytap Logo.jpg) Federasyon dayanisma 2011.jpg Haytap dont abondon me.jpg Haytap - Do Not Buy Pets.jpg Haytap No Fur.jpg Haytap Logo.jpg


Hi Jim,

Google translate rough as you said but in fact the most impotant word in Turkish page which is ("gerek" yoktur) means no need approval for use of pictures was written there as ("gereky·yoktur") which google cannot know the word "gereky" because there is not such a word in Turkish and correct typing is "gerek". In this basis please check the key sentence in the web link as below, word "gereky" corrected as "gerek" only.

"Kampanya Görsellerinin gerek internet ortamında, gerek basılı afiş, poster vb. çalışmalarda kullanımları için ayrıca Haytap Federasyonundan izin alınmasına gerek·yoktur"

awaiting.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VikiPicture (talk • contribs) 01:07, 8 November 2012‎ (UTC)

It doesn't change the Google translation in any meaningful way -- there is still no permission for commercial use or derivative works. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  Hi Jim again, thank you for your fast response. Could you please check this issue with one of your Turkish colleague if possible, because in the web page it is clearly mentioned that "pictures can be used on the internet means without any permission from them", it seems google translate is not clear.awaiting yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VikiPicture (talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 November 2012‎ (UTC)
First Please sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion 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). Thank you.
Second, you really need to discuss this at the UnDR, not on my talk page.
Third, "permission for the internet" is very limited. Commons images must be free for commercial use, including print, as well as for derivative works. I see no sign of any of that in the Google translation.
Finally, I asked Takabeg to look at it, several hours ago -- but it may be a day or two before he is here. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Boston Naval Hospital Chelsea MA 01

File:Boston Naval Hospital Chelsea MA 01.jpg is misnamed/categorized. The Commanding Officer's quarters can be seen here, the lowest image alternating with the brick Marine hospital. The quarters have a wrap-around porch/veranda; the image in question, although red like the quarters, is lacking the porch. Viewing the Google satellite map 42°23′19″N 71°02′45″W / 42.388611°N 71.045833°W / 42.388611; -71.045833 shows another red house/building abutting Adamski Memorial Highway to the southeast of the Marine hospital on Captain's Row. The historic quarters, currently occupied by Architectural Team, are southwest of the Marine hospital on Commandant's Way. (AT link has another image of the quarters under "1985".) While the imaged building may have been part of Naval Hospital Chelsea, it is not one of the five buildings listed in the Naval Hospital Boston Historic District, which are listed at the bottom of the NPS article. Thundersnow (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in your identification of the building -- my photograph is of the building that is just between the 90 degree bend in Captain's Row and the Tobin Bridge, aka Mystic River Bridge (I've lived here for 45 years, commuted over the bridge for 10 of them, and never seen the term "Adamski Highway"). It is barely visible under the trees in the Google image linked above.
I have changed the cats and removed {{NRHP}}. I think the name of the file remains accurate -- the building is on the grounds of the former naval hospital and the filename does not mention the NRHP. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Grobisce muzej talcev.JPG

Hi, what's up with this image: File:Grobisce muzej talcev.JPG? It was not deleted in this request, but it also has not been marked as kept at its talk page. Can you please rectify this? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting -- looks like a bug that I haven't seen before-- DelReqHandler removed the {{Delete}} from the file page, but, as you say, failed to put the {{Kept}} on the talk page.
Anyway, ✓ Done now. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by GosGroc

MOst PDFs of text, including these, are out of scope. This is absolutely not true. What about Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats? A PDF or DjVu file of a published and peer-reviewed work would be in scope on Wikisource and is therefore also in scope on Commons. And Remember that Wikisource may use PDF or DjVu files in order to proofread or create source texts: Therefore, scans of suitable editions of notable public domain works are almost always within scope for this reason. I ask for the undeletion of those files, please. -Aleator (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I said, "Most PDFs of text..." [emphasis added]. That is certainly true. Almost all PDFs of text that exist in the world are from non-notable authors, are on non-notable subjects, or both. I would venture a guess that 99.99% of everything that exists in PDF format is out of scope for any WMF project.
"scans of suitable editions of notable public domain works". These are not notable works in any sense.
"A PDF or DjVu file of a published and peer-reviewed work would be in scope on Wikisource and is therefore also in scope on Commons." That tells me that any Masters or PhD thesis by any person is in scope, which is plainly not the case.
In order to get restoration of these you will need to show both that we have a suitable license -- which is not at all clear -- and that they are actually in scope for Wikisource. I think these fail on both counts. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I've opened Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Files_uploaded_by_GosGroc without reading the answers here (I didn't realized the undeletion system is not a direct petition to who deleted the file). I suggest to continue there, please. -Aleator (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Military Exercise.png

Hello. I am pleased that the DR for this file ended in deletion overlooking other precedences quoted there as I've seen precedences rarely matter in decision making - but was surprised that YOU TOOK THIS STEP. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC).

I must admit that I do not have a clue what you intend to tell me -- do you agree with the deletion, or not?
Bad precedents do not make good law. We have many precedents which exist because no one has gotten around to deleting them. My best guess is that more than 1% of our images -- more than 100,000 -- are probably copyvios or otherwise a problem. Certainly more than 1% of all our images should be deleted for poor quality.
We do keep poor quality images of notable subjects -- works of art, buildings, and so forth, but keeping a very poor quality image of a soldier exercising is not good stewardship -- I cannot imagine anyone actually using it for anything. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

GosGroc's files

You deleted the files I posted of my regional gouvernement, and as I wrote on the file comments, there is no copyright problems about these files. They are free because are public on the web and the law in my country says the gouvernamental laws are free of copy and distribution. Where is the problem? Why my contributions have been deleted? --GosGroc (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Files_uploaded_by_GosGroc. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Pigeon Breeds (EE)

Hallo Jameslwoodward,

now I am also questioning you as suggestet by INeverCry. I take it as a given that the page was badly named. It should have been List of EE-pigeon-breeds.
I am here because I just can't get it: why was the list out of scope? I mean no harm. I just want to get it right. I don't want to repeat the reasons why I believe said list was in scope. They are listed in detail at the linked talkpage owned by INeverCry.
Nether Túrelio nor INeverCry could tell me why it was out of scope by their likes.
I just want to know: What have I done wrong? What can I do better? How can I get said list right for WMC?

Thanks, 79.197.114.16 20:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised that neither Túrelio nor INeverCry quoted Commons:Galleries to you:
"Galleries without media are not galleries at all. They are considered out of the project scope and meet the criteria for speedy deletion."
Commons Galleries are used only to show off collections of images or other media. List of dog breeds, or my own Lighthouses in Maine are examples of lists that are in scope because they are primarily galleries of images, albeit the lighthouses more so than the dogs. Your gallery had no images, but was, as I understand it, to be used for maintenance. That would be fine in your own user space -- I have several such myself -- but in order to do that you will need to create an account. There is no place in our system, however, for personal pages that are not in your own user space.
If you presented us with a real need that had no solution, I suspect that we could develop a consensus to bend the rules over this. However this is a case where your problem has a simple solution -- create an account and I can restore the page as a user subpage. Accounts are free, much more private than using your IP address, and easy to set up. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The claim above that I didn't tell this user why the deleted gallery is out of scope is untrue, unless they posted here before finishing the discussion on my talk. I actually did tell this person on my talk that the gallery was out of scope because it didn't incorporate images, as can be seen at the linked discussion above. INeverCry 00:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
@INeverCry: I posted before the discussion started/finished. It took me a while to write, cause I had to insert spaces with c+p. So maybe you answered me before I even saved this above. --79.197.114.65 10:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said before I did not intend to create a Gallery, I was more thinking with the lines of General Pages (whatever that is). As a guide through the Categories that are hosting files of pigeon breeds, standardized in Europe (within the EE).
I did not want to hide it in the userspace, cause there it would be useless as a guide.
The reason I did not want to build a gallery and went for linking Categories was: there are about 500 breeds on that list (at the moment, 2013 may be more). A general List of pigeon breeds may grow to 800 breeds and more. So is this still manageable in a gallery? There were massive problems on Wikipedia with lists getting unwieldy. I thought of smaller lists, of seperate group-lists, too. But there are differences within the international associations, too. So someone not familiar with the European System may not find the breed he or she is looking for. Plus the Tumbler-and-Highflier-list would still be massive with more than 200 breeds (and it would still be small, cause the Americans and British know two types of them, the Show-type and the Flying on, who are both known there as seperate breeds). Plus there is the problem with two utility-breed-groups (in German Huhntauben and Formentauben) and out there is a third definition of Utility Pigeons that defines them as breeds originally developed as meat (squab) producers. That may cause a lot of confusion and I'd like to avoid that beforehand.
To provide an overview linked Categories should be ok, I solemly hope so. As I said before I am thinking in the lines of (general) pages not galleries that may also be allowed in the projectscope. I know it may be bending the rules, but I do not know of a better way.
The Pigeon Task Force is suspended and so I asked for advise in WikiProject Birds, too. Till today there is no answer. People I know seam to be no more active or only sporadicly. With the German WP it is the same.
So do I have to merge the list into a Gallery that may not work good enough or may we stretch the rules a little bit?
Sorry for the troubles I may cause, --79.197.114.65 10:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Again, Galleries are for images, not maintenance. There is no such thing on Commons as a "general page" -- pages without prefixes are Galleries and must contain images. Since, as I have said several times before, a user subpage is the solution to your problem, I offer nothing else. Subpages are not hidden in user space -- at least one of my subpages is used by most Admins. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. For mentioned pages or general pages see Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories#General pages, galleries and categories. That's where I got with the pure reference of COM:SCOPE. Thank you for reading this. --79.197.126.187 17:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I was not looking for it, but I found one by default Verwaltungsgliederung Deutschlands. --84.181.57.191 18:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Should I assume that 79.197.126.187 and 84.181.57.191 are not the same person because you come from different parts of Germany. Is that correct?
"General pages", other than Galleries, are Categories, User pages, Institutions, Creators, Templates,

and Commons administrative pages. I see no provision for using Gallery space for maintenance tools.

Verwaltungsgliederung Deutschlands appears also to be out of scope -- I have tagged it with {{Delete}} and we will see if the community agrees. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kong_Harald_og_Dronning_Sonja_-_Kino_2012.JPG

I have admitted that the image is a copyright violation, is not that good enough reason to delete the photo? --84.209.19.176 13:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Since User:84.209.19.176 cannot be the uploader -- IP users are not allowed to upload images -- your "admission" is of no value.
If, indeed, the image were not taken by the uploader as claimed in the image file, then it might be deleted. However, I do not believe that. Aanoskaan is a sophisticated user with many uploads, only two of which have been problems. This image is 3,270 x 2,331px, which is large enough so that it is very unlikely to have come from the web or other illegitimate source. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Gibpedia images

Hi James, I was surprised by your 1880 cut off date, but if that is the accepted date then I guess thats the way it is. However you deleted a set beginning with "File:1842 - Calpe Hunt and HRH.JPG," I think which are clearly outside this rule. Can you advise Victuallers (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably a mistake -- I don't see now why I deleted it, so I have restored it.
Why does the 1880 date surprise you? As I said, it covers the very possible case of a creator born in 1860, working at age 20, and dying at age 82. If we wanted to be absolutely sure, we might use a date as early as 1845 -- a person born in 1830 who creates the work at age 15 and dies at age 112 -- not the world record, but close. Commons is required by policy to be cautious, so the 1880 date seems to me a reasonable compromise. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"political differences of opinion"

Hello! Re this and your closing statement: how about deliberate, POV-driven falsification and invention of data? Is that OK? Because I can acknowledge "differences of opinion" and don't give a damn about the nationalist sensibilities of many of my countrymen, but this guy's data are drawn out of the blue or completely and obviously misinterpreted. To quote from the deletion policy, this is not "Pre-existing designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence.", but newly created material specifically meant to promote a particular POV, and, what is probably more important, completely inaccurate. I would not and could not oppose a serious study on the ethnological composition of the region or even a mere listing of numbers from the relevant censuses, but this goes way beyond that to propaganda. This is an indication of ethnological data done right, i.e. sourced to a reliable publication and without editorializing by the uploader. Compare please with DraganKitanovski's files and you'll see the difference. Constantine ✍ 07:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This subject comes up several times a month. Consider a hypothetical case -- we have two groups of users, one of which tells us that a map of the English presence in Antarctica in 1810 is a good representation of facts, and the other group which tells us that the map is nonsense, just British propaganda. How do I choose between them? I am not expert on early 19th century Antarctica. We have an Admin who is expert on the subject, but she is English and therefore the anti-map group claims she is prejudiced for the map. There is lengthy, heated, discussion, but nothing can be proven either way.
Since it is impossible for Commons Admins to be knowledgeable on most such subjects and those who might be knowledgeable are likely to be accused of bias one way or the other, our policy is that we simply keep all such maps. The editors of the various WPs and those out in the wider world can then decide which maps they will use and which they will leave unused. We have the {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} tag (which I see on several of these) so that your side of the dispute can warn potential users that they think there is a problem.
Obviously there is a limit to this. A map showing the United States with 51 states in 2012 will be deleted, as will a map with a new border between Germany and France. But, except for such obvious cases, the policy is firm and has served us well. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I see your point, and am aware that Commons does not in general play the arbitrator in such cases. However here we have a user who has a clear history of polemical contributions, including now-deleted maps with suggested "new" borders for the Balkans based on 1910 ethnographics, who takes ethnographic data from a 1913 census and applies it to 2001 (ignoring post-WWI population exchanges, World War II, the Greek Civil War and forced relocation of rural populations, post-war migrations, you name it), and who simply colours provinces and villages in various shades giving data without explaining where he got his numbers from. This is not a matter where there are possible POV-driven interpretations of ambiguous data, but, respectfully, a clear case of a nationalist hack job. If you distrust my opinion because I am Greek and therefore bound not to be objective about this, fine, that's your right. All I am saying is, take a look at his files, as the other editor in the deletion discussion did. If you would trust these files for researching the issue of 20th-century ethnographic distributions in Greek Macedonia (i.e. as encyclopedic material, which is what this site is meant to host after all), then by all means keep them. Constantine ✍ 21:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It is not that I mistrust you in this. In fact, I will admit that if I was absolutely required to make a decision, I would probably agree with you. But, since our rules do not require it, I am very reluctant to take sides in this argument because there have been, and doubtless will be, many similar cases. I have no desire to create a precedent here. The potential damage from such a precedent in time wasted far exceeds any damage that these files might cause, particularly since they are marked as disputed.
One of the reasons that we don't get into the middle of these dogfights is that there is a large risk of getting bitten. With that in mind, I very much appreciate your balanced and polite argument here. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Very well, I see your point. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 14:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Georgian Problem

Hello Jim,

It is not Georgian, probably Mingrelian- xmf.wiki (Mingrelian wiki). It written in georgian leters. I can read it but can't understand. Geagea (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. That explains why Google also made a mess of it. In the interim, Martin figured out that one of the templates was imported from WP Fair Use, so we made a little progress. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Macedonia ethnological files by DraganKitanoski

Hello! The background map of File:Map of national composition of Eastern Macedonia(Greece) after the colonisation 1920-28 - Po kolonizacijata 1920-28.jpg is a copyrighted map published in 1966. This file cannot be kept. Regards, NNW (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a map from Vojnogeografski Institut - Beograd , 1966, which, on its English language web site says:
"Military Geographical Institute (MGI) is an institution of the Serbian Armed Forces, which ...."
Serbian Copyright Law at Article 6, Section 2, says:
"2. The following shall not be deemed works of authorship:
1) Laws, decrees and other regulations;
2) Official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions;
I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that a map published by the armed forces falls under #2 -- the armed forces are certainly a "state body" and what is more official to an army than a map?
Of course, the map was produced while the Institute was part of the Yugoslav government, but I would be surprised if that affects its current copyright status..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
You're right. I missed the line about Geospatial material, which covers territory of states formed after disintegration of SFRY which is free, too. NNW (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

COM:Deletion requests/Gibraltarpedia images

Hi Jim, I think you did a great job evaluating that DR and I think you made a genuine effort not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, I do have one quick query, which relates to my sixth bullet point on the DR—Ditto File:1842 - Calpe Hunt and HRH.JPG, File:1830 General George Don.jpg, File:1834 - Commercial Square - Mackintosh Square.jpg, File:1800 Line Wall King's Bastion with Connaught House.jpg. You stated that the cut-off date for assuming the author died before 1942 was 1880, and you seem to have retained the first of those four as they pre-date that cut-off point. But you deleted the other three, which date from 1830, 1834, and 1800 (50, 46, and 80 years respectively before the 1880 cut off). Could you double check those, and let me know what I've missed if they can't be restored? Cheers, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Two different responses on the same DR (see above)and no one is yelling at me. Both of you are to be commended for your unusual politeness.
File:1834 - Commercial Square - Mackintosh Square.jpg is a duplicate of File:Commercial Square, Dibdin.png. I've restored the other two. Thanks for catching the mistake. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Well it seemed a sensible close to me—I discussed the DR with Roger (Victuallers) over a pint and explained to him that I thought many of the images were questionable, but tried to salvage those that could be kept. Thanks for restoring those. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
If there are any others that you think might deserve a little more attention -- just let me know. Commons Admins delete around 2,000 images every day, so we tend to work fast and occasionally a second look is useful. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I had a quick look earlier and nothing else jumped out at me as needing to be restored. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jim, I might have missed it, but publishing this 1880 rule of thumb might cut down that 2,000 by a bit. Victuallers (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed close

Hi Jim. Can you take a look at this when you get a chance: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by FishyPhotos? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 19:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I glanced at it, but a good look will have to wait, probably until the morning. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It's really much more simple than it looks. Alot of what's there are keep votes from new users who look to be connected with the uploader, etc. INeverCry 00:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done BTW, I don't think you should put a {{DR proposed close}} tag on your own nom -- it's up to a different Admin to close it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't quite sure how to use that, as this was the first time I had need of it. It's good to see that one finally put out of its misery, so thanks again. INeverCry 16:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen it used on a DR before -- I've never used it there. I've seen it on long UnDRs and long discussions at ANB.
Generally, if the DR is seven days old, I agree with the consensus, and I'm not the nom, I'll close the DR. Otherwise, I'll use  Keep or  Delete with a comment, and leave it for someone else. If I am the nom and have made my point, I'll just leave it..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I haven't had any call to use it besides this one time so far. The use of it in limited cases was recommended to me by RD232 when I first became an admin. If I remember rightly, he was concerned about a few DRs I may have closed too quickly, or something along those lines. I guess it would be better to vote as you say, and maybe contact another admin or two if the DR sits around a long time. INeverCry 22:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
As I think you know by now, I don't pretend to have the revealed truth about how to do things -- "different ships, different long splices". I've sort of evolved a way of working -- others of our colleagues do things differently. Since many of the ways we use are more custom than written down, that's fine, within broad limits. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Converted CSD/DR question

Hi Jim. Hope you don't mind another quick question. When I convert a Speedy to DR, and I don't vote in the DR, can I close it based on the votes of other users? I'm thinking of something like this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Логотип МММ-2012.jpeg. Some of these seem to sit around a bit. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 22:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

My reading of the rules is that in most cases a DR may be closed after at least two people look at it -- the original nom and the closing Admin. If there was a speedy, then the person who placed the speedy is, for all intents and purposes, the nom. It might be better in the case you cite if you had identified the original tagger when you did the conversion, so I closed it for you. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. If I remember right, I think I accidentally closed the window in the middle of coverting to DR, and then forgot to include the username of the CSDer. I just can't win today with these examples and questions I'm giving you. ;) INeverCry 00:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Given the volume of work you're doing -- well and away the most productive Admin for the last month -- there will be a few mistakes. I'm happy with a few mistakes from a colleague that does 10,000 deletes a month. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Travel maps from Wikivoyage WTS to check

Hi there. That page was my mistake, and should have been created in the category-space. Could you please post the contents I had, just so I can move them to Category:Travel maps from Wikivoyage WTS to check? Thanks. JamesA (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done See User:JamesA/Sandbox 1 .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Cheers. JamesA (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Jože Plečnik

Hi! I think the files in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jože Plečnik (1943), Zbirka upodobitev znanih Slovencev NUK.jpg should be undeleted, for the same reason that Files in Category:Franc Pribošek has been kept. Otherwise these have to be deleted too. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't read Slovenian, so can't do the necessary research. I suggest you do an UnDR to reconcile these two conflicting DRs. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for your help. Best regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 12:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Category scheme astronomy

Hello James, you forgot to close the above RfD once deleted the file. I want an extra pay for extra-work :) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I will order the WMF Payroll Department to give you a 10% increase for your good works. Thanks for cleaning up. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Suraj yadav2005

Hi Jim,

I suppose you mean Kept? Yann (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Architecture in Slovenia: threshold of originality

James, hi again! If you don't know whether there is any threshold of originality regarding architectural works in Slovenia, you should ask first before you delete despite the consensus not to delete (like you would want to ask first before you undelete in the case two sections above). From this court case (citing summary): "Architectural author's works are buildings and similar constructions, if they contain individual creative elements [emphasis mine] regarding form, shape or ornaments. In accordance with Article 6 of ZASP [the copyright act] also the composing parts of architectural works are protected if they meet the conditions of an individual intelectual creation (e.g. interior equipment)." It is apparent that all images in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Črni Kal viaduct do not show elements that would qualify as an individual intellectual creation. I've posted a request for undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests#Files in Category:Črni Kal viaduct. Best regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 13:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Your cite only confirms what I already knew from reading the statute (in English, to be sure -- there may be subtleties that the translation missed). The whole work is covered, as are individual details, provided, of course, they are not copies. The TOO is low. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The reason for deletion was: "there does not appear to be a TOO elsewhere". The case proves there is such a TOO at least in Slovenia. These two photos that we agreed should not be deleted were made in Slovenia, they're therefore free and should be undeleted. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
See my comment at the UnDR. You're splitting hairs -- of course a minimum of creativity is required -- that is taken as a given everywhere. A blank canvas or blank sheet of paper do not have a copyright. That does not mean that there is any meaningful TOO. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I've read your comment at the deletion request and agree. It's just unclear what is this essential creativity that makes an architectural work copyrightable. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Designing a work of architecture requires many creative decisions. Things that look simple, like placing the windows, have serious esthetic implications -- if they are the wrong size, too big or too small, too many or too few, the building will not look as good as if they are just right. If the building is more than two or three stories high, what spacing to use between the floors is important to the look. Thus a building that appears very simple, may actually have required considerable thought.
We accept that any photograph taken by a human has a copyright even though it may have taken no thought at all to point and shoot. Why do we argue about architectural works when even the simplest of them requires far more thought than almost all photographs? By the way, the US Copyright Office agrees with my point of view -- any architectural work in the USA has an enforceable copyright and companies that publish books of plans of very simple houses enforce their right all the time..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. In regard to this, do you think Category:Rogaška Slatina train station should be renominated for deletion per "no evidence for a TOO in Slovenia" or should be kept as "much too simple to be copyrighted."[51]? --Eleassar (t/p) 10:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that the train station is way past any TOO in any country, even France. The uncertainty about the architect is problematic, but 1903 is too late to assume that he died before 1942.
However, with that said, Yann and I have disagreed over many DRs on FOP. I'm not sure I want to get into a battle with him over this 1903 train station with an architect about whom we know little. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'll renominate these files due to this reason. I think my re-proposal will be completely valid, because it will be done in good faith (to maintain a free collection of images related to Slovenia) and with an argument about which at least two users agree. I have no problem keeping them as soon as any information indicating that he died before 1945 is provided. It would be unprincipled to do otherwise. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

File:1937 Wieża spadochronowa Poznań.jpg

Please don't delete it. Source, date and licence was OK (PD-Polish). There was no proof that file is copyvio. Jakubtr (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Our rules require that you prove that it is not a copyvio, not the other way around. Since Poland is now 70 years pma, for it to be free the photographer would have had to die within five years after the photo was made. We cannot assume that actually happened. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
See licence: {{PD-Polish}}: "fotografie polskich autorów (lub fotografie, które ukazały się po raz pierwszy w Polsce lub równocześnie w Polsce i za granicą) opublikowane bez wyraźnego zastrzeżenia praw autorskich przed uchwaleniem ustawy z dnia 23 maja 1994". There is not mentioned about 70 years - it is different licence (PD-old). My file 1) was publicated before 1994 (in 1937) and 2) there was not noticed in newspaper that is (C). This 2 points are proof thet file is legal PD-Polish. Jakubtr (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Newspapers almost always have a copyright notice on their masthead, whether that is required by their national law or not. I find it difficult to understand that for some reason, this one did not. Do you have the whole newspaper -- or just this image? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
This newspaper have not (C) notice. Whole newspaper: [52] in GreatPoland Digital Library (need djvu plugin). I always check it. Jakubtr (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your taking such care and your persistence in convincing me here. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Jakubtr (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ibiblio Vietnam

Hi, thanks for closing Commons:Deletion requests/Ibiblio Vietnam, but there are more files affected than those individually listed in the DR: [53]. I'd only listed those I thought might be exceptions. cheers, Rd232 (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Shall I just delete those others pointing to your DR closure? Rd232 (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Feel free, thanks -- I just haven't gotten around to it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, done. I'm hoping to empty Category:PD tag needs updating by the end of the year, and the low-hanging fruit is disappearing... :) Rd232 (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
While we're on the subject of old stuff, our oldest DR requires the attention of a German speaker, see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-GermanGov-currency. Closing it will reduce our DR backlog from 18 weeks to 12. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I know I should go back to it, but every time I do it does my head in... but I can't close it anyway since I launched it. Rd232 (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disneyland June 2008-1.jpg

Hi Jim,

I am surprised that this was kept twice. Comparing with the current DRs, this seems wrong. What's your opinion? Yann (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I confess that I don't completely understand the TOO in France, but it is a unique building and seems to me original, so I would vote for deletion.
I'm surprised at your asking, because Eleassar and I have just discussed your closure of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Rogaška Slatina train station (see the section two above this). I think that is a far more complex and original building than Sequoia Lodge.
As I said above:
"Designing a work of architecture requires many creative decisions. Things that look simple, like placing the windows, have serious esthetic implications -- if they are the wrong size, too big or too small, too many or too few, the building will not look as good as if they are just right. If the building is more than two or three stories high, what spacing to use between the floors is important to the look. Thus a building that appears very simple, may actually have required considerable thought.
We accept that any photograph taken by a human has a copyright even though it may have taken no thought at all to point and shoot. Why do we argue about architectural works when even the simplest of them requires far more creativity than almost all photographs? By the way, the US Copyright Office agrees with my point of view -- any architectural work in the USA has an enforceable copyright and companies that publish books of plans of very simple houses enforce their right all the time."

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer.
Is the Rogaška Slatina train station more complex than the Sequoia Hotel, at Eurodisney? Certainly not. The first is a small building on 2 levels with a traditional architecture. The second is a very big 6-floor building with a square design. The second has 10 times more floor space than the first. Are you looking at the right images?
If a building requires a plan, I can accept that it gets a copyright, but many buildings are built without plans. It is quite dubious that these get a copyright, even in USA. I just came accross such an image a few days back. Yann (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
A plan is not the requirement for copyright, because the author's work is created "in spirit" (or in mind, if you wish); the plan is only its reproduction. This may be read e.g. in this scholarly article (unfortunately in Slovene, but you may Google translate if you wish). --Eleassar (t/p) 16:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


Agreed. A plan is not required for architecture to have copyright any more than a drawing is required for a sculpture or a painting, although some sculptors and many painters sketch a work before executing it.
Of course the Sequoia Lodge is much larger, but it is a relatively simple design, although still requiring all the careful decisions I mentioned above. The railroad station is in some respects a more complex design -- it has a great variety of fenestration and the roof line is also fairly complex. Why is that in your view the building does not qualify for copyright, but the four simple point and shoot photographs of it do? That seems backwards to me. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I really can't follow you in this comparison. I studied a bit of architecture, and I know what's needed to build something. For an example of simple design, see e.g. File:Car garage -House Detached- July 4th 2008.JPG. If you have a documentation that a simple garage like this gets a copyright, I am interested. Yann (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I asked more input on Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

See, for example:

This is a long and detailed piece on architectural copyright in the USA. Particularly notable is the following, at page 1863

"First and foremost, the AWCPA extends copyright protection to physical buildings. These include both habitable structures, such as homes and office buildings, as well as non-inhabited structures, such as “churches, pergolas, gazebos, and garden pavilions.”

Certainly pergolas, gazebos, and garden pavilions are very simple structures.

Also see, the following

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks a lot for all this. But the situation is very different in France, where courts have said that buildings need to have some complexity to get a copyright. Since there is no FOP, the complexity requirement is needed. Otherwise no images, or TV or movie shooting could ever be published. Yann (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, in Slovenia they haven't. No court case demonstrating a TOO has been found. Why therefore such a TOO for the railway station? --Eleassar (t/p) 18:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I wonder how anything can be published in Slovenia without a minimum of tolerance. Yann (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this station a creative work or not? If it is, then it qualifies as an individual intellectual creation (a copyrightable work). The media have a special permission in the copyright act to depict these works freely. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said at the top of this, I don't really understand the French case law -- it seems to be inconsistent. However, both de minimis and fair use play a part in the ability of movie makers and others to take general views in cities in most countries. Certainly the specifics of FOP laws and TOO seem to have little to do with it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Files from cpgeosystems

See Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Files from cpgeosystems.com for latest development of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pretesm. Apparently Dr Blakey is willing to let his files be uploaded. Can you please check ? Michelet-密是力 (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well done -- finally we have unambiguous permission for some of his maps. Since we do not have permission for all of them, or for high resolution versions, I think that we need to be careful to ensure that the Commons file names are directly traceable to the source site http://cpgeosystems.com/mollglobe.html. I suggest names
  • File:Blakey 600moll.jpg
  • File:Balkey 560moll.jpg
etc.
We also need to ensure that we have only the 27 files which appear on that site and no others of his work. I trust that since you spearheaded this project that you will care of that.
Thanks again for your effort here. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been trying to work with OTRS to maintain these files, such as File:Paleogene-EoceneGlobal.jpg, since I have just secured a release for the images a few days ago. No one notified me of the deletion requests, so they had already been closed and I was unable to comment. I emailed Dr. Blakey and explained the nature of the licenses (which no one had done previously), and that convinced him to release these lower-resolution images under CC-BY-SA and GFDL. The release has been submitted to OTRS, and unfortunately this deletion affects a FAC on enWiki. Anyway, please reply to the discussion here. – Maky « talk » 22:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
To reply to your question in the closing comments, I'm waiting for OTRS to add the email I sent them to the ticket. The reason is that Dr. Blakey told me that no one had explained the licenses to him prior to our email conversation, which could mean that the previous releases are invalid. The email I sent documents quite clearly that I followed proper process and obtained very clear permission for use of the files. Sorry... I'm just trying to cover all bases to make sure this doesn't happen again. – Maky « talk » 17:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket I cited has a clear statement of license from Dr. Blakey. Since he is an adult and presumably legally competent, there is no need for anything more. As a general rule, third party e-mails add little to the process because their origin can be suspect. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
In that case, you are welcome to replace the OTRS pending templates with PermissionOTRS templates. I'm not an OTRS volunteer, so I can't see the tickets or previous emails. I'm just following the procedure I'm used to following since I regularly secure rights for images and work through OTRS. Best, – Maky « talk » 18:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:SR Montenegro coa.png

I want to question the following: "Since it was apparently made for WMF projects, it seems to me we can keep it." What about people reusing this coat of arms? Will they be liable? Where's the proof that the author wanted to publish it under the CC or GFDL license that the file currently cites? What if he wanted it non-commercial? --Eleassar (t/p) 14:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, all of the WMF projects require that a contribution have a CC-BY or similar license, without NC or ND. Therefore, I assume that someone who explicitly creates a work for contribution to any WMF project knows the implications of that contribution. Note that this is different from a creator of something created for another purpose who says "it's OK if you use it on Wikipedia" -- that says that he is restricting its use to Wikipedia. A subtle distinction, to be sure, but a real one. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I see, but think that many people don't know much about Wikipedia; e.g. they don't know the licensing conditions that it uses. If we demand that OTRS received permissions explicitly cite the license, why therefore less stringent standard here? Additionally, the uploader originally used the GFDL license. Why does the file therefore have the CC licence? --Eleassar (t/p) 14:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you are splitting hairs. Remember that our standard is significant doubt, not absolute certainty. As I said above, I think there is a clear distinction between a work created elsewhere for which we are seeking permission and a work explicitly created for us. On the former, we need a clear license for precisely the reason you suggest. On the latter, without clear instructions from the creator, we can use any of the standard licenses, as WMF policy appears above every "save" button within the project (that's a very positive statement from me -- I'm sure you recognize that I have not actually looked at all 500+ projects, nor could I read most of them). I therefore think it is fair to assume that the creator knew our rules. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Phallus indusiatus 96871 ed2.jpg

Hi James. Could you please take another look at this file? It is featured on en.wiki which makes it hard to believe that it was originally released under a non-commercial licence, as someone would have noticed. You said you deleted it as a derivative of another file, but I can't see which other file that was - can you please link to it? If you are certain this should have been deleted, you will also want to take a look at File:Phallus_indusiatus_96871_ed3.jpg. Thanks Smartse (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It was a retouched version of File:Phallus indusiatus 96871 ed.jpg which was deleted for the same reason. The source of that file was, as noted in the DR, http://mushroomobserver.org/image/show_image/96871 which has a clear NC license. I think it is entirely possible that the license was originally CC-BY (without the NC) which was changed after our upload. Unfortunately no one did the equivalent of a FlickrReview on it so we can't prove that and must delete it..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

More Antarctic deletions

Hi, just letting you know that I've deleted another four of the photos listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:US Antarctic Program photo library images. They were all taken by Nathan Hoople, who turns out to be a Raytheon employee. --Avenue (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of my files

Hi, As discussed in the page, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wasifwasif the 2 images which i took have also been deleted. I dont see any reason for file File:Sheikha Hatoon Fassi.jpg being deleted without any explanation. Pls let me know, if a free image is copied from WP and published in some other website without claiming any copyright, then is it mandatory for WP to delete that image?. I am not so well aware of WP Policy regarding this. Pls explain. Wasifwasif (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Martin's comment at the DR answers the question -- it is an image that has a watermark that shows that it belongs to someone else. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"personal image rights"

with respect, i think your rationale as stated in the close, was faulty:

"Deleted: Aside from the fact that we don't generally keep personal images, personal rights issues raise their ugly head here. The subject is a minor and the image is from a private setting, which give us problems in most jurisdictions. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)"

THE SUBJECT UPLOADED A SELF-PORTRAIT OF THEMSELVES; busing an open-source license.

q.e.d.

that inherently resolves any privacy/personality rights "issues" in this case, specifically BECAUSE it was a self-portrait, being uploaded by the person whose self-portrait it was. that the subject was (presumably) a minor, would only be relevant if the image was age-prohibited on other grounds (such as being pornographic).

continuing the arguement, if we are going to establish a "rule" that contributions from minors cannot be accepted (because a minor cannot authorize open-source licensing of their creations?), then we are going to have a very SERIOUS problem with the quantity of material @ wikimedia that will need to be removed...

(having been contributed by minors and/or persons of unknown age)

& if you cross out both of those points, then with all due respect, there is nothing left of your rationale for deletion.

which is the long way of saying "you are setting a bad precedent, based on an invalid premise"

i note that you offered no opinion on the question of "scope"; where i demonstrated at least 3 categories in which the image "fit" on commons?

or the desirability of not discouraging new contributors unnecessarily?

Lx 121 (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't shout at me. I do my best; sometimes I'm not as clear as I might be; sometimes I make mistakes. I'm always willing to discuss a closure, but shouting doesn't help.
The subject was a child. The first thing to remember is that we do not know who uploaded the image. You assume it was the subject, but we don't actually know that. The uploader could easily have been a sibling or friend. Even given that your assumption is true, the subject is a minor and therefore does not have the legal capacity to do any of the things you are shouting about. He cannot give a license to the image. He cannot give permission for the use of his own image, particularly in commercial contexts.
You correctly point out that it would be troubling to have to refuse images from minors. I started a discussion on the subject a while ago. The discussion ended with WMF counsel acknowledging the problem, but the decision was that we would go ahead as in the past. We did not, however, discuss minors uploading images of themselves with their name attached for commercial use without permission from their parents. I think that's problematic, and I'm an American, one of those who take personal rights much less seriously than many of our European colleagues.
I discounted your three possibilities entirely -- there is always a reason to keep any image -- even if it is Category:Terrible images -- but I don't think we should encourage personal images. We are not Facebook or Flickr.
You may, as you well know, ask for reconsideration at Commons:Undeletion requests.
.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Stozice3.jpg

Hi, regarding Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stožice Arena, you've evidently forgot to delete File:Stozice3.jpg. Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 17:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes DelReqHandler -- the script that Admins use to close DRs -- acts up and forgets one. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

File:F.W. Zeylmans van Emmichoven.jpg ask te be my advocate User:Deklamat

Hello Jim is it possible that I ask you to be the advocate that the Photo of F.W. Z.v.E. becames a positive decision and can still stay on commons? --Deklamat (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. It look like a studio portrait. Although the name of the photographer has been lost over the years, the photographer was not anonymous, so there is a copyright that will last until 70 years after the photographer's death. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chongra and Karakoram DOeAV Journal.jpg

Hi James. You left the DR template in the file description page. I think it is better if you remove it since I participated in the DR discussion. --Leyo 08:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I remember that DelReqHandler was acting up on that one. I should have double checked. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim, thank you for making this one clear. I was the original uploader. But (at least the german version of) the PD-Old-template asks for precise information for the USA. I didnt't know how to handle that, so I asked for deletion after uploading the file to the German Wikipedia (where PD-Old 70 is Ok). Could you please fix that template? Or is it OK the way it is?
Same applies to File:Nanga Parbat Route 1934 crop.jpg
best regards --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Jože Plečnik UDR

Hi Jim. Can you give your opinion on Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Jože Plečnik? I didn't want to restore these files without asking you since you closed the original DR. INeverCry 17:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant, because we're relying on a museum's work, which is often not accurate (museams in general -- I have no opinion about this one), but I think it's all right. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I've restored them and closed the UDR. INeverCry 17:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

File:UEFA Cup the Trophy.jpg

Can you re-look at this, because according to the link to the relevant UK law given here, the FOP only applies if the sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship are permanently situated in a public place or in premises how is this the case surely it can only have been on show temporarily before being handed to the next winner ? Mtking (edits) 20:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Your understanding of the law is correct. My assumption was that the cup is kept at a secure location and is removed only temporarily when it is awarded and engraved with the current winner's name, then returned to the same place. If the cup actually is handed over to the winner for a year, and, therefore, kept at a new place every year, FOP does not apply. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
According to UEFA (page 8) The original trophy, which is used for the official presentation ceremony at the final, remains in UEFA's keeping at all times and since UEFA are (according to there website) based in Nyon, Switzerland, it is not possible to conclude the trophy is permanently situated in a public place or in premises in London so therefore I don't see how FOP can apply. Mtking (edits) 22:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not what you said at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:UEFA_Cup the Trophy.jpg which is where all of this discussion should take place. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome)

I've forgotten this file because it was uncategorised. Please delete it for the same reasons File:Santa cecilia 2800.jpg. Thanks :) Raoli ✉ (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks --Raoli ✉ (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of East Kalimantan.svg

This appears to be a recreation of File:Coat of Arms of Kaltim.svg, which you deleted. Regards, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Oblaznytsia

Hello! Why do you want to delete all this photos? They all belongs to my or my parents (they allow me) so I post them (there's my relatives on them). I use them in article about my village. How can I left them?--Шиманський Василь (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to delete anything, but I am required by our rules to ask questions about these. Owning a print of a photo does not make you the owner of the copyright. That almost always belongs to the photographer or his heirs. The general rule is that copyright last for 70 years after the death of the photographer, so that for these to be available for Commons either you would have to get permission from the photographer or he would have to have died before 1942.
However, as AnonMoos reminds me at one of the Deletion Requests, there was a special rule in Poland which may make it possible to keep these. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate if this photos will remain, under {{PD-Poland}} license. All photos were done before the war and I really don't know the author.--Шиманський Василь (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a question of the law, no more, no less. It needs to be discussed at the Deletion Requests, not here. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"blocked for vandalism"

I don't check the commons that often but really? My good faith attempts to deal with an unused file and it has a bad title will get me blocked because it seems that no one ever does anything to get rid of files on the commons unless they're a blatant copyright infringement. Something should be done with it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

When you have nominated a file twice for deletion and it has been kept both times for reasons which were explained at length, nominating it a third time without giving a new reason for deletion just wastes the time of all involved. A fourth time without new reasons would be vandalism.
The {{Rename}} which you put on it was the correct move, thank you.
A good look at a daily DR log will show you that
"no one ever does anything to get rid of files..."
is not correct. Perhaps half of all DRs have nothing to do with copyvio. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
To me it seems that if the there's the vaguest reason for some sort of educational use, despite there being no prior need for an image of its type and particularly if there are other similar and better constructed files out there, the commons won't delete it. I found this to be true when I discovered the slew of "vegetables in someone's anus" photos previously.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
To some extent you are preaching to the converted -- I agree that we tend to keep files that have no real practical use. But perhaps it is not quite as bad as you think. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

please can you help me? this user is committing vandalism.

please can you help me? an user is committing vandalism and limit my work on commons. haunts haunts me :(, lo fa qui [54] (is one of only two images of commons showing the headlights to the reverse and he clears, ditto for the shield of the Netherlands) but this is just one of the things he does, several times I set aside this change [55], or this [56] and uses two completely different behavior depending on whether the car is German or another nationality. Please can you help me? ( I also noticed that the user is autopatroller but given his past actions, it seems to me that his real interest in the commons has failed, and he more interested in personal things that the community ) --Pava (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously Pava has some funny thoughts about what vandalism is. This file showas a car with a license plate from the Netherlands, but unforntunately the letters and numbers are erased, hence the "Category:Automobiles with license plates of the Netherlands" makes no sense, same goes for the reverse lights which are an irrelevan minor part of the image. So basically, in his opinion vandalism means that you stop him from idiotic categorisation. And just for the record: This user was blocked in the past for his edit-warring and the amount of nationalistic PV-influenced vandalism, including racist quotes about the french people he made by using a sockpuppet etc. Best regards.--FAEP (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
excuse the invasion, I will not answer further provocations on your page Denigrate me to take advantage is not a good behavior, you must comply with the operations of all users if they are correct, of commons does not do what "you think" is right, but it does what "is right for commons" stop to attack me always --Pava (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I am always sorry to get involved in these small arguments. We have more than 13 million images on Commons. Most of them need better categories, so the two of you could spend your whole lives on Commons, eight hours a day, and never edit the same image. I say to both of you -- these subtle changes aren't important -- if it becomes clear to you that the other editor really cares about something, then just move on to something else.
With that said, I have looked at each of the images cited above and I think FAEP has the better of it. The rear quarter shot may show backup lights, but they are not on and are only a minor part of the image. The number plate is blank. The image that shows the whole rear of the concept car should not be in any category that includes lights and certainly we don't know if rear lights, brake lights, neither, or both are on. And so forth. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Closing COM:UNDEL requests

You might find User:King of Hearts/closeudel.js useful. Cheers, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that I will find it useful, but I have to confess that I don't know how to add a script like this one to my browser. Help? Thanks, .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you want me to do it for you? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
That's tempting, but I'd rather learn to do it myself. I have a long record as a programmer, starting on a Burroughs 220 -- vacuum tubes -- in the early 60s and have done a wide variety of things since, including some fairly complex templates on WP:EN, but I don't even know where a script goes. So, if it's not too much trouble, point me at instructions or write them, please.
Reading the script, I know that my first request will be to allow entering "N" or "D" instead of "not done" or "done". Also, while I understand that you're not releasing it generally, doesn't it need error handling for the user entering "Nit done" and other similar things? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Go to User:Jameslwoodward/monobook.js, User:Jameslwoodward/vector.js, or whatever skin you use and paste in importScript('User:King of Hearts/closeudel.js'); Also, you're right about the feature request, this was something I hacked together in 5 minutes, so I'll try to put it in. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've modified it so that if the first letter is d/D/y/Y, then it becomes "done," and if the first letter is n/N, then it becomes "not done." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, thanks. I've added it to User:Jameslwoodward/vector.js. I went to one of the UnDRs as required by 

if (document.title.indexOf("Editing Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests (section)") != -1)

and don't see anything different -- of course all are closed right now -- is that the reason I'm not seeing anything? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You must refresh your browser's cache. Your vector.js should contain instructions for each browser. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Duh. It does say that in bold letters on the js page. It's early here and I haven't had my coffee. Found it -- under "Delete" "Move" "Change Protection". Thanks. And also thanks for your blocks at Pava and FAEP. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Used it successfully on Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Station_Nouveau_Bassin_Tramway_Mulhouse.jpg. It certainly speeds up the process, thanks.
Now, the other tool on my wish list is an easier way to close a DR when there is a previous DR on the same file. DelReqHandler still handles the image keep or delete, but cannot close the DR, so you have to do it by hand. (I'm certainly spoiled -- DelReqHandler came in after I became an Admin -- so I've closed a lot of DRs the old way.) My wish is for a tool that will insert {{Delh}} and {{Delf}} in the right place, along with the required four dashes for a separator, a comment, and sig. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:LASCO20011001.gif

Hi Jim. Given your closing argument on this DR, I think you mistakenly deleted File:Solar storm 2003-10-26 (SOHO-EIT, Ultraviolet 195 Å).png (which is part of a series BTW, so it doesn't make much sense deleting this one alone). As I stated in the DR, this image doesn't come from the SOHO website but from the SVS, which has a clear copyright statement: "Some SVS images produced in collaboration with other labs have distinct copyrights. For those instances, the copyright notices are noted on the page with the image. For all other images obtained from this site, please give credit to: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio." [57] This and all the others images from this series do not have an extra copyright notice, so they are free according to the above quote. –Tryphon☂ 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Right you are. ✓ Done .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! –Tryphon☂ 13:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Help: no-FoP Italy

Hi James. When you have a moment, could you do me a favor. I decided to occupy my time to list the no-FoP files in Italy. It has been a long and difficult work that needs to be reviewed by administrators. Could you check if everything is correct on User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy? Thanks! Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. What a lot of work. I glanced through them and I would probably delete all of them, except that I think there was a bridge included. I do not know if bridges are "architecture" in Italy -- they are not in the USA -- so I do not know if they have an Italian copyright. I am sure that some of our colleagues will disagree with us -- some of the images might be de minimis for the buildings while others have only minimal architecture visible, particularly in the interior.
If I were you, I would start new mass DRs slowly -- perhaps two or three categories each day. Be sure to notify the uploaders and to tag each image -- I use AWB fro such things. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
To avoid any problem I wanted to know the views of most administrators. I'm contacting a little of them. In Italy the bridges like any other construction are considered works of art only if they are made from an author. Idem for installations, sculptures and art objects. I would use "VisualFileChange." However, I intend to complete the list before starting to delete. I sent a request to the Wikimedia Italy and would like to open a discussion about it.wikipedia or another to explain why and to illustrate what the images violate and the possible problems for WMF. Within a week I will contact a lawyer in order to better understand. We also created a logos to replace the images on it.wikipedia if there is consensus. In cases of "De minimis" I have worked for example in this manner. Thank you for support. Raoli ✉ (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I've added the whole discussion in the Administrators' noticeboard. Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Slovene FOP cases

Just as a general remark to your reasnoning when closing FOP deletion requests. From "This would clearly be copyrighted in the USA" and "Slovene copyright law is very broad (broader than the US one)" it doesn't follow that the object is copyrighted in Slovenia. The definition can be broader but this doesn't mean that the two sets of copyrightable items completely interset. --Miha (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of formal logic, what you say is, of course, true. However, since we have no case law from Slovenia and the statute -- albeit in translation -- is broader than the US statute, it is fair to assume that the Slovene breadth of copyright is a perfect superset of that in the US. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It is not that simple. Although it's a different topic, take the exmple of software patents (i.e. in the USA very basic ideas can be copyrighted, whereas that is not the case in Slovenia). Or "kozolec" (en:hayrack); no doubt its structure as such could easily be coyrighted (and I am pretty sure it would be in the USA), but from historical reasons it can be. Hayrack building is centuries long tradition, where every participant made some contribution to it - so normal copyright fails here. Even if there was just one builder (it is known that there were always more poeple involved in the building process; it was kind of social gathering), we couldnt call him author. He might made some modifications to traditional "template", but even then the final work can't be copyrighted, as it fals to meet the threshold of originality. What I am trying to say is that law unfortunately is not just a matter of pure formal logic, but also some common sense. And common sense needs cultural background. Just as courts don't just copy verdicts, it is unjustified to refer to US copyright when closing Slovene FOP cases. It is not your problem, but chances are that many similar images were deleted, but I cannot open undeletion request, as I can not judge what exactly was in the picture before deletion... There are just too many new DR to follow them. And precisely because there is no precedent case, a special amount of care should be put when closing Slovene FOP cases - we are (so to say) creating one. Best regards, --Miha (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it is that simple. Without any case law, there is nothing to say that your hayracks* would not be copyrighted. Any very simple house in the USA has a copyright, even though its general design may be several hundred years old. The idea is that an architectural work is complex enough so that even something that appears to be a copy has original work in it. This is similar to the fact that a painted copy of an old master has its own copyright. Even in painting a very good copy, the copyist makes enough creative decisions so that the work merits a copyright. In the UK (but not the USA
Without any Slovene case law to tell us otherwise, we must assume that all architectural works are copyrighted, even very simple ones and ones that are indistinguishable from others much older.
*Note that a hayrack would not have a copyright in the USA because it is not "architecture", as that word is applied by the USCO. The Slovene statute is broader, so that it might in Slovenia. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Again you make the same mistake in formal reasoning. Houses are not copyrighted in Slovenia as their design is too common. Apple lawsuit against Samsung because of similarity in shapes would also fail in Slovenia. Anyhow, I directly addressed this question to governmental office entitled for copyright and we shall see. --Miha (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

What evidence do you have the houses are not copyrighted in Slovenia? There is no information on that at Commons:Copyright_rules by territory - full#Slovenia. If you can show that houses are not copyrighted, then we need to add that to our information base..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disneyland June 2008-1.jpg

I see that you closed this as a delete; is there any reason it wasn't deleted?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks -- sometimes DelReqHandler -- the script we use to close DRs -- hiccups and things don't get done. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Keil do Amaral / José Rafael Botelho

Dear Jim. Here I am again! This time on behalf of Francisco Pires Keil do Amaral (known as Pitum Keil do Amaral, born in 1935). He is an architect and close friend. In fact my family and his family have been friends since 1936! He is the only son (and sole heir) of the Portuguese architect Fancisco Keil do Amaral (1910-1975) and the artist Maria Keil. He is willing to upload to Commons some drawings and photographs of buildings by his father but he knows nothing about the Internet. Can I do it for him? All I believe he is able to do is to send you an e-mail with the permission (but I’m not sure he has a personal e-mail; the only e-mails he ever sent me were from his wife Lira Keil’s e-mail address). Is this feasible? Many thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That's easy. Have him send an e-mail with a license -- it should read
"all drawings and photographs of work of Fancisco Keil do Amaral uploaded by Manuelvbotelho as to both the rights of the photographer and the rights of the architect".
This assumes that either his father was the photographer or that his father owned the copyrights on the photos. If neither of these is true, then we cannot use the photographs without permission from the photographer.

If Portuguese is easier for him, that's fine.

The license should use the form at COM:OTRS. The e-mail can come from his wife's account. Let me know when it has been sent. I will find it, approve it (if appropriate), and give you the template to put on the images after you upload them. Regards, .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll be in touch. Best wishes.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim. I'm still waiting to hear from Pitum Keil do Amaral. Meanwhile I spoke with my father, José Rafael Botelho (as I already told you, although in good health, he is 89 years old and knows nothing about the internet); he agreed to upload some of his old photographs, some taken with his very first camera (I'm trying my best to improve them). For this purpose I sent an e-mail in his name to Wikimedia Commons. Please let me know when I can start uploading the images (can I do it as my own work, to make things easier?). Many thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to claim "own work", and it's against the rules because they aren't. Go ahead and upload them with your father as author and source, CC-BY-SA for license and then drop me a note here with a list of the file names as links and I'll add the permission. The OTRS ticket is #2012121410013601. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the list:

A million thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done

I need to alert you to a possible problem with

Am I correct in my guess that the pavilion is in Paris? If so, then freedom of panorama does not apply and the images are derivative works of the architect's copyright. I assume this is the man you mention above, so the license from his son will make it OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The pavilion was in Paris, in 1937; it was demolished that very same year right after the International Exhibition ended. If there was no freedom of panorama in France then please delete the files. I´m still waiting to hear from Pitum Keil do Amaral; he may have given up the whole idea, in which case it seems wiser to me to do what is right at this precise moment. Thanks once more.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleting them can certainly wait if you think he will come through with a license. I'd rather wait until you are sure one way or the other. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim. Please check the permissions-commons e-mails because Pitum Keil do Amaral says he has sent one with the license (I don't know the exact date, but it was in the past couple of weeks). Please let me know if everything is alright and I´ll upload Keil do Amaral's photos. Thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

He sent it December 3. The ticket number is 2012120310009566. It covers all works uploaded by you that were made by Francisco Keil do Amaral both as to the photograph and as to the rights of the architect. The license is CC-BY-SA. Go ahead and upload them and I'll tag them when you're done.
I have added the new OTRS ticket to both of the images of Paris pavilion discussed above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. Here is the list:

Thanks! Thanks! Thanks!Manuelvbotelho (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Beulah Gundling and IAAA photos

Dear Jim, Today Cathy Goodwin sent a permission declaratin to permissions-commons @ wikimedia.org for six photos which I uploaded recently. Could you please tell me if the permission declaration is fine? Can I use the photos in the articles about Beulah Gundling and the International Academy of Aquatic Art?

You find the files here:

Best regards, --Culturawiki (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Boart Sepp - La Paloma - (1965).ogg

Hi Jim, you deleted the page with comment: "Out of project scope -- Commons galleries are for collections of images, not text: content was: ...". The linked Commons:PS states in the very first sentence "(images, sound and video clips)". So, what was the problem with this sound file (if it was one anyway)? --Gerold Broser (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a sound file. It was a gallery page that contained only one sound file, with the same name, see File:Boart Sepp - La Paloma - (1965).ogg. We don't have many galleries of sound files, and they follow the same rules as galleries of images -- there must be at least two media files in the gallery.
I'm sorry that the message wasn't clearer -- we delete around 100 gallery pages every day and one tends to get in a rut working through them..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Now I understand. Thank you. --Gerold Broser (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a 17 seconds cut from a tape. It was recorded by my father in the year 1965. I have the original mastertape. The song "La Paloma" is an old song from about 1860. Look at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Paloma (german).--Bacht

Deletion

Hi there, I'm new to posting on Wiki, and last night I accidentally posted an article about "The Borderline Saints" on Wikimedia commons, whilst it was meant for the Wikipedia page. I noticed this morning that it had been deleted without a trace or notice. I worked for many hours on this (newbie..) and was finished very late - forgot to save a backup :( I would really appreciate if you would be able to send me a copy of the content/code so I can publish it on the correct page. [deleted private e-mail address] Thanks in advance! Denniz81 (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC) |}

✓ DoneI have copied it to User:Denniz81/Sandbox which is where you should have created it in the first place. Commons galleries are not for Wikipedia articles and a beginner should not be creating an article from scratch in either Commons or WP:EN mainspace anyway -- that's what we have user subpage sandboxes for.
The WP:EN spam filter forced me to remove the reference to the web site containing the word "reverbnation" because links to it are banned as spam.
I am sorry for the rather abrupt deletion -- we delete around 100 new gallery pages every day, almost all of which are vandalism or out of scope, and we tend to work through them very fast. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Jim!

I understand the deletion, although you gave me quite a scare there. I did actually use the sandbox, but copied it over to another window. As I said, I'm still learning this stuff, but I'm glad you were able to copy the stuff. Btw Reverbnation is a huge band/fans site and a great community for us music lovers, so it's a pity it's been marked as spam... Thanks again, brgds Denniz81 (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Mavsar chapel

It seems that you've forgotten to delete File:St-Rupert-martyrs Mavsar 03.jpg in this deletion request. Thanks. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Where

where in wikipedia comons says we must use orginal logos with copy rigth--EEIM (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

First, I am happy to answer civil questions that are placed correctly and not repeated twelve times. If you repeat your long series of comments made at the top of my page, one of my colleagues will block you for vandalism. Don't do it again.
As for your question. It is fairly simple.
If you upload a genuine copyrighted logo, then we cannot keep it because it violates the copyright.
If you make a small change to the genuine logo and upload it, then we still cannot keep it because it is a Derivative Work of the original logo and still violates the copyright. It is also not the correct logo and therefore is actually misleading -- it not only has no educational purpose, but it teaches the wrong thing.
If you make a large enough change so that it no longer violates the copyright on the genuine logo, then the result has no educational purpose because it will look nothing like the original.
So no matter what you do, Commons cannot keep a copyrighted logo or anything that looks like a copyrighted logo. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There is any problem with the present image of Beatrice of Portugal?

From your point of view? Jorge alo (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Esfinge da Rainha Beatriz de Portugal que se encontra no Mosteiro de Sancti Spiritus , em Toro, Espanha.jpg .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Files in Category:Bridges over the Drava in Slovenia

Hi, Jim! Probably it would be good if you explained to User:Josef Moser why we can't keep the images deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bridges over the Drava in Slovenia (he has left some comments there after the discussion had been closed). --Eleassar (t/p) 21:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Order of the Sacred Treasure photos

Hello. I see that you recently deleted these files and others that are similar, but I'm not sure why. Only one person nominated them for deletion, no one else supported the nomination, and he did not provide evidence for his assertions that these files violate the license granted for the originals. In fact, many of them were the originals and their use here falls within the license granted by the Japanese government. CanadianJudoka (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We have around 200 Deletion Requests every day. As a general rule, those that get discussion are those that pose significant issues -- that are controversial. I suspect that our colleagues did not bother to comment on this one because it seemed very straightforward and obvious. So, the fact that there was little discussion is not an indication that the nomination was incorrect, but rather that it was obvious. Many DRs, perhaps 75%, are closed with no discussion other than the nomination.
You say:
"... their use here falls within the license granted by the Japanese government."
Unfortunately, that is not important to the decision. Our images are used in many places for many purposes. Commons requires that all images be free for modification. At Commons:L#Acceptable_licenses, our official guideline says:
"All copyrighted material on Commons must be licensed under a free license that specifically and irrevocably allows anyone to use the material for any purpose; simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient. 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.
  • etc." [emphasis added]
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Many of the photos deleted are straight from the original website and are not modified in any way. It seems to me that you just took the nominator's word for it. CanadianJudoka (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand, so please forgive me if I this does not address your concern.
I think you miss the point. The images as they were on Commons may well have been completely unmodified. That is not the issue. The problem is that Commons requires that all images must be free for any modification. That might be something as simple as a crop or a color correction, or something more complex, such as merging two or three side by side, or even their use in a completely unrelated context.
The license on the source site prohibited any modification, so that even cropping the images -- some of which have a lot of blank background -- would have violated the terms of the license. That is why we cannot keep them here.
As for taking the nom's word for it, I frequently do that, if I am familiar with the nom's work. In this case, however, I did check the license information at http://www.cao.go.jp/en/notice-e.html. Since that clearly made it impossible for us to keep the images, I did not check anything else. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Could you please take a look to COM:ANV#Pianochanging? Regards --Ezarateesteban 11:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Gallery Space

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your answer!

Please help me with the next step.

I have created a gallery with images in my sandbox User:Kontoreg/Sandbox 1 but how can I copy it into the gallery space?

Best Regards,

Kontoreg

  • ✓ Done -- I have fix it now - private -- Thanks anyway!      Best regards, Kontoreg

EE-Pigeon-Breeds-List

Hallo Jim, the DR of the Verwaltungsgliederung Deutschlands is some weeks closed now and the page is still around with the status quo. How does this effect the EE-Pigeon-Breed-List (when not a gallery)? Something like a category scheme would be ok with me, too.
INeverCry refered me back to you. Should I inform Túrelio, too?
History:

--PigeonIP (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the consensus was at Verwaltungsgliederung Deutschlands, but I've copied your list to User:PigeonIP/EE-Pigeon-Breeds-List. That's not ideal, but I have a couple of subpages that are similar, mostly personal, but also used by others. We don't really have a better place for such things. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not what I wanted. I'd like to have this list integrated in the categories like a gallery or a category scheme. I'd like to link to this list from breed categories rather to the pdf I used as reference that may get outdated, and so on. I did not want this list in a user space back then and I don't want it there now. I do want a (new, not English-speaking) user uploading images of a special breed to be able to find the right category. Personal subpages are off-limits for most users (with good reasons), especially for new ones. --PigeonIP (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 Info a better version with possible gallery names and it's categories is at: Category talk:Unknown pigeon breeds. Before starting on the Tumblers, creating categories and correcting mixed up wp-article-names, I'd like to get this page somewhere useful to prevent double work. --PigeonIP (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, the consensus was clear that this kind of list cannot be in Gallery space. I don't understand:
"Personal subpages are off-limits for most users (with good reasons), especially for new ones."
There is nothing in our rules or practice that precludes anyone using, or, with your permission, editing the list in your user sub space.
You might try it as Commons:EE-Pigeon-Breeds-List. I wouldn't oppose that, although others might.
Part of the problem here is that there are many parts of Commons that deal with many constituent subgroups -- ships, historic sites, lighthouses, to pick just three that I am familiar with. Why do pigeons need something that none of the others require? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if I do understand constituent in the right way. But the multilingual problem is well known on commons. Multilingual tags are well introduced and have no other purpose (or its lists like Template:Technique/list).
I try to tell you why I am working on this:
  • When I (native German) started my work here (or on German WP) I was looking for pics of a special breed, that I could not find. Specially German breeds that have a very different English name. I felt so lost!
  • People creating categories with pigeons are not longer active and I am at a loss on what grounding they introduced Category:Fancy pigeon breeds, Category:Homer and Racer Pigeons and Category:Utility pigeon breeds. It is all mixed up. So I try to create a system that others may be able to understand and work with.
To give you a specific example: There is a pic of the Gimpeltaube, the Cesky volác sivy or the Balgarska schtschnitna tschajka --> try to find the English named category or create one. To complicate: imagine you are not an experienced user. Or try to find the English name of a Colour pigeon when Australian, American and Europeen Breeding Associations use different names for the same breed. And normally as a non-englisch-speeking-person you do not know these names.
(q) The en:Bohemian Fairy Swallow: is it the Böhmische Flügelschecke, the Bohemian Tiger Swallow?
Let met tell you, this list helped me a lot so far. Specially with the lack of co-workers.
  • "Personal subpages are off-limits for most users (with good reasons), especially for new ones": Most users have a native inhibition threshold to edit in other user spaces. First you have to be on a friendly basis, you have to know each other. Editing in other user spaces is like writing in a foreign diary ore notebook. You feel more secure with an invitation, but where to get it, when the "owner" is inactive?
I will try something like Commons:EE-Pigeon-Breeds-List and let you know, if you want. I got an other idea with the Template:Technique/list, but something like Category talk:Pigeon breeds by EE Breed Groups/ELRT may get more opposition than Commons:EE-Pigeon-Breeds-List. Best regards --PigeonIP (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Good explanation, thank you. You might look and see what system is used for dogs or cats, as I suspect they have similar problems.
As for using it as a subpage, yes there is a certain inhibition. But you might find that is an advantage. As a subpage, you own the list and can say what changes are OK and what are not -- there are no edit wars, because it is yours. If the page is in general space, then you no longer own it and can no longer control it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Dogs do have active portals/projects and the Category:FCI, a world wide association. Pigeons don't have one. The EE is still integrating national breeds. Onorio wrote 2008 I believe I heard something about some discussion of the NPA adopting the European groupings but I don't know if that ever got anywhere. As with any large organization, there's a lot of organizational inertia.. So I am let to believe that the EE established a practical grouping that also works for its 29 national associations (more than the EU) and may do so for others. Only disadvantage: there are two groupings named utility pigeons (Formentauben und Huhntauben) who are not to be mixed up with the American NPA grouping of Utility pigeons.
for subpages: I can't see it as an advantage, as I am interested in co-work, but at a loosing end:
Anyway, I don't fear a vulnerability to edit wars with the EE-list because of the reference to the (official) ELRT, for naming galleries in the language of origin: Commons:Galleries#Naming conventions. --PigeonIP (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 Info Commons:List of Entente Européenne Pigeon Breeds Best regards, PigeonIP (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Mercè 2012 - Nebula - B.JPG

Hi Jameslwoodward!

Thank you for closing the deletion request for file Mercè 2012 - Nebula - B.JPG.

I've requested permission to the original autor of figure, she granted permission and finally I've forwarded this permission to OTRS. But still waiting for answer.

It's the first time I try to register permission on OTRS, please, could you tell me if everything is ok? Your template says 'This image is missing verification of permission'. What I have to do now?

Thank you. Vcarceler (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Sorry, I thought I had added {{OTRS permission}} to the file when I closed the DR. It's done now. Thanks for your effort to keep this -- it is a fun image, I'm glad we have it. Images of more of her work would be good -- see http://www.dolorssans.com. If you can get her permission to take images off her web site, be careful -- you will need both her permission and the permission of the photographer, unless she owns the copyright.

Naive English speaker's question -- is she properly referred to as "Dolors Sans" (as in the name of her web site and her signature on the OTRS e-mail) or "Dolors Sans Osete" (as shown on the contact page of her web site)? If it is the latter, please fix the author name in the file description. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Красимира.jpg

I don't what this is but it has no source or description. Just a typed in license. This hints at a derivative work. It ought to be deleted for this reason. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Why don't you start the process by clicking on "Nominate for deletion". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Billao.jpg

Hello, can you tell me the reasons for your decission? Do you really think the uploader has the permission of the copyrighthholder?--Avron (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I kept it based on Commons:Grandfathered old files.I don't think there can be a significant doubt that he does not have permission, which is the standard we apply to such old things..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Like i've writen: This file has been uploaded in 2010 so Grandfathered old files musn't apply. --Avron (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no assertion of permission. Why did anyone mention Commons:Grandfathered old files? It's completely irrelevant. Also it's the uploader's only upload, so there's no other info. Looks a million other cases of "X took a file off the web". Rd232 (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I was mistaken -- the 2005-12-02 date was the upload to vikingsword.com. which is a (c) site. Is that correct? If so, I'll delete it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
To my knowledge 2005-12-02 is the date of upload to vikingsword.com.--Avron (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I revised my close to a delete. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:Animations of professional wrestling moves

I was waiting for (an impossible) move of the page Animations of professional wrestling moves to Category:Animations of professional wrestling moves. I have posted a section at Commons:Help_desk#Renaming_to_category_namespace, could you please check whether you are able to do such a move?Vanischenu mTalk 16:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You cannot move a gallery page to a Category. Since the Gallery page was empty, there would be little point in it even if you could. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so muchVanischenu mTalk 17:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Fangusu

James, if you see my user page, I have been blocked indefinitely on the English Wikipedia. Can you please go there and unblock me? Be sure to ignore my block log, okay? Fangusu (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You have made the same request of several users here on Commons. Even if I could -- I am not an Admin on WP:EN -- I see no reason to go act for you based on a simple request. If you continue to make such requests here on Commons for matters which belong on WP:EN, you will find yourself blocked here as well. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:A_blacksmith_at_work.jpg

I have received permission from the paper to release this image under a CC BY SA license. Can send it to you. Image is here [58] James Heilman, MD (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Right you are, now that I think about it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

CU help/advice

Hi Jim. Can you take a look at User talk:INeverCry#Long-term egregious vandalism? It looks like this user is a long time sockmaster with a CU in 2008 who is still active now: see User:Hiyahkick. Another question I have regarding the earlier CU case is that the acct all the sock tags link to, User:Jvolkblum, seems to have been the original acct on en.wiki, but not used here. It seems confusing at best to link all these socks to a non-existent Commons acct. Could we atleast redirect the User:Jvolkblum page to the 2008 CU case page? Or perhaps soft redirects to the 2008 CU and the CU on en.wiki? I need the advice of someone more experienced in this area. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 20:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I just looked thru the contribs of this known sock (this acct is blocked on en.wiki as a sock of Jvolkblum) and the user gives sources as "Historical image collection" and other questionable sources. I noticed one that says "unsure". These all look pretty flimsy. This is just one related acct. I think we've got a big time problem with ongoing copyvio socking here. INeverCry 21:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be helpful to have a link to the archive of sockpuppetry and CU cases from EN: [59] --Orlady (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Current status of the names listed on INC's talk page, and one new name:

  • User:Grabbybagg -- last edit 9/12/12
  • User:Tuscanice -- last edit 6/9/12
  • User:Frankiesay22 -- last edit 6/9/12
  • User:NataFallon1 -- last edit 7/25/2012
  • User:MotortodaParty -- last edit 8/17/2012
  • User:DuckieMoMo -- last edit 8/3/2012
  • User:ChanceTears -- last edit 6/1/2012
  • User:28Shimms -- last edit 6/2/2012
  • User:Octogoggles -- last edit 7/25/2012
  • User:Kepclm -- last edit 6/9/2012
  • User:ElykSenoj -- last edit 6/7/2012
  • User:Hiyahkick -- now blocked -- mass DR on uploads
  • User:Midnitesweeps -- now blocked -- added the rest of his uploads to Orlady's existing DR on one of them
  • User:TruthWhole1 -- now blocked -- no edits on Commons, but clearly a sock of Jvolkblum -- blocked on WP:EN.

I have also created User:Jvolkblum for information -- I wasn't sure I could create a user page for a non-existent account, but it worked. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with this. INeverCry 00:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Help, please?

Might you be able to delete the category Category:Wikipedia meetup Seattle, which is a duplicate (and inconsistently-named) category of Category:Wikimedia meetups in Seattle? Also, could you move the category Category:Wikipedia meetups in Texas to Category:Wikimedia meetups in Texas for the sake of consistency with all other U.S. state categories? Are these the type of changes I could make if I had admin tools? I have lots of categorization to do... --Another Believer (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at Category:Wikipedia meetups in Texas and follow my lead in Seattle. As for moving the files, once you have created the new category, Cat-a-lot will do it for you in seconds. If you do any cat work at all, you should get to know Hotcat and Cat-a-lot, both of which can be turned on at Preferences > Gadgets > Tools for categories -- there is documentation there. Any questions -- come back here, but I'm done until tomorrow morning. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Personality rights

Dear Admin Woodward,

If you are comfortable with this, please feel free to submit these 3 images to a {{Flickrreview}} or just flickrmark them. Personally, I am not comfortable marking images of small children as 1. my sister has a small toddler and 2. there may be personality rights involved. Perhaps these images have to be tagged with the personality rights tag? Here are the 3 images:

I Never understand why people license images of their own children freely on flickr. That is personal...and family. Best Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
With thanks for your role in getting control over the "New Rochelle sockpuppet" content. Orlady (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Maintient d'une demande de supression.

Bonjour,
je maintiens la demande de suppression [du fichier Dalayrac dessin de Quenedey].
Pour compléter la discussion :

  • Le portrait se trouve avec un profil droit dans l’ouvrage de Félix Clément édité pour la première fois en 1868 (p. 210-211).

Une simple inversion ne suffit pas car :

  • Félix Clément indique : "...l’autre a été fait par Quenedey au moyen du physionotrace. On s’est servi de ce dernier à cause de son exactitude (p.219)".
  • Le portrait réalisé en 1809 par Quenedey lui-même se trouve ici.
  • "Servi" indique qu’un nouveau portrait a été dessiné pour le livre. De fait il est précisé en titre : "Ouvrage illustré de 44 portraits gravés à l’eau-forte par Masson, Deblois et Massard et de 3 reproductions héliographiques d’anciennes gravures [60]" (dont ne fait pas partie celle de Dalayrac).

En résumé,

  • le fichier figurant sur Wikimédia Commons est la résultante d’une « inversion » de l’illustration figurant sur l’ouvrage cité,
  • porte une erreur de titre qui devrait être "d'après" Quenedey,
  • porte une erreur d'auteur qui devrait être "Masson, Deblois et Massard".

Cordialement. --Fguinard 00:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This should be discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dalayrac dessin de Quenedey.jpg, not here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour, veuillez m'excuser ; je ne suis pas habitué aux demandes de suppression. Joyeux Noel à tous. --Fguinard 17:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blonde 5.jpg

Jim, would you mind deleting the rest of the images identified in the deletion request as part of the same series? Thanks. Also, how does one go about getting a Flickr account added to the blacklist? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

LSE NC claim

Re Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Gays Against Fascism" - First Gay Pride March (7486040932).jpg: To obtain high quality digital copies, or to find out more about copyright terms for the reproduction of specific works in our collection, please contact the Library's Archives and Rare Books Division. Please note that it is our policy to charge licensing fees for commercial use. - read it again. The licensing fees for commercial use apply to the "high quality digital copies". Rd232 (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Please read the whole paragraph again:
"The images on our photostream are meant to be used for personal, educational or research purposes. To obtain high quality digital copies, or to find out more about copyright terms for the reproduction of specific works in our collection, please contact the Library's Archives and Rare Books Division. Please note that it is our policy to charge licensing fees for commercial use."[emphasis added]
I read the first sentence to say that the images are available only for personal, educational or research, and, by implication, not commercial use. By the rules of construction, the third sentence is not restricted to high quality digital images because it makes no reference to them, but the question is moot, because nowhere is there any expression of intention that the images may be used commercially. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
nowhere is there any expression of intention that the images may be used commercially Sure there is. Go to the Flickr source [61] and look at the License. It says "no known copyright restrictions". The only way to resolve the contradiction with the quoted paragraph is the same way as the 1849 Annie Darwin photo - LSE reckons the original photo is copyright-free and doesn't claim copyright on the digital Flickr version. But LSE digitised the photo and can claim copyright on digitisation in the UK, and will charge commercial fees for higher-quality versions it does not make public (but may supply high-quality versions for free for other purposes). Rd232 (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the rules of construction would allow a court to resolve the ambiguity between "no known copyright restrictions" and the final paragraph in favor of our keeping the image, but I am reluctant to do that because it violates at least the spirit of COM:PRP. Besides, in all of this, there is no discussion of why there are no copyright restrictions on a 1972 image. I think this could well be another case like the one Russavia cited, where an archive said that something was PD without any real knowledge of its status or the law.
Annie Dawson is not really on point. I closed that as a keep because I couldn't imagine a court putting a copyright on an 1849 image. As I said, this is a different kettle of fish, being from 1972.
Perhaps someone should point out to the LSE that their statement is ambiguous and ask what they really intend, but absent that, I am reluctant to keep this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't imagine a court putting a copyright on an 1849 image - well maybe you should read up on en:publication right. I concluded "weak keep" after Fae pointed out prior public exhibition (before 1988) would prevent claiming that as well as prior publication, and although neither is documented I think it likely it was published or exhibited long ago. As to the LSE issue - I still think you're wrong but Fae is pursuing the matter so I'll leave it with him. Rd232 (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware of publication rights. Fortunately they would be a violation of the US Constitution, but I know they exist in other places, including the UK. I don't think there is any case law yet on really early images, so it will be interesting to see what actually comes of them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Fortunately they would be a violation of the US Constitution - not that it matters (since we're not talking about US law), but given the URAA being ruled constitutional, I find that unlikely. And there may or may not be case law in the UK (there is in Germany, which has had it much longer), but the principle is clear enough. Rd232 (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." [emphasis added]

If that has any meaning at all, it does not allow 163 year old images to have copyrights. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the URAA was ruled constitutional, I'm not sure what point there is quoting the Constitution - it seems far more problematic than any publication right for never-published works. But in any case, "limited times" is a (presumably deliberately) flexible term which merely rules out indefinite copyright. Rd232 (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think there is a constitutional problem with URAA -- common sense problem maybe, but why the Constitution? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Golan v. Holder -> COM:URAA. Rd232 (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Ford Museum artifacts

Hi Jim - There's a discussion about the licensing of the Ford Museum artifacts I've uploaded.

I've always chosen the PD-US because I have been told that the gifts to the Presidents/First Families are in the public domain, once they pass into the custody of NARA. Several Wikipeidans have protested - see COM:VPC#Category:United States Bicentennial materials in the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum and here

I'm in touch with the US National Archives (NARA) lawyers to see what they think. I've looked at the Presidential "Deed of Gift" and read the United States Code Title 44 Chapters 21 and 22 and the Copyright Law and its variants til I'm cross-eyed. It's clear to me that we have pretty deep rights to these items. This question actually has implications BEYOND Wikimedia and Wikipedia, as we put our materials into more open source web spaces.

I would still like to see our atifacts - and the artifacts of all 13 Presidential Libraries (300k artifacts? Maybe even 1/2 a mil) - on Commons in the most useful way possible.

I even have the audacity to wonder if we can create a particular license structure for these items - I noticed that even though there are many govert PD's licenses, NARA does not have a specific one.

I've contacted Morgankevinj - he was listed as an OTRS direct contact - haven't heard anything. So far no one has speedy deleted any uploads I've done. And I understand it may happen, I'm just trying to get as many informed opinions as I can and buy some time til the lawyers do their thing.. any thoughts? Thanks and Merry Chrtismas!! Bdcousineau (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Photographs of copyrighted objects are problematic. As mentioned in your cite, most utilitarian objects are fine, as are those that are too simple for copyright, but art objects (very broadly defined -- toys are sculpture), plaques with complex texts, and utilitarian objects with decorations complex enough to attract copyrights are going to be problems.
During Ford's time in office, the copyright rules required that there had to be notice -- usually words like "(c) 1975 James L. Woodward" or "Copyright 1975 James L. Woodward" -- on the work. Many sculptures and paintings do not have notice and therefore are PD. We use the tag {{PD-US-no notice}} on those. That rule changed in 1978 to allow registration or notice and then again in 1989 to require neither. See File:PD-US table.svg for a summary.
As a general rule sale or gift of a copyrighted object does not transfer the copyright. You certainly understand that when you buy a book or CD, you do not buy the right to reproduce it, except as may be allowed by Fair use. The same applies to works of art and all other copyrighted works.
The fact that an object is owned by the government, or even was commissioned by the government, does not change this, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerald R. Ford - portrait.jpg. Unless the donor is the creator, or the copyright holder for other reasons, and the deed of gift explicitly transfers the copyright, then the museum cannot publish images of the object, except as permitted by fair use, without infringing on the object's copyright.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
That is the most helpful response yet. I will check with the Collections Registrar about the items already uploaded, and adjust the tag. I will use {{PD-US-no notice}} when possible. Everything else I'll take down for now. I will also let all the participants in that long long confusing discussion know where we ended up.
I am far enough into this project to have gotten my own WiR at the Ford Library. He starts in Jan. I may send him your way if we have questions.
I just now ran across old discussions about {{PD-USGov-NARA}}; I will get that discussion restarted and see where it goes. I will most likely check in with you at some point to make sure I am staying on track.
Have a wonderful holiday! Bdcousineau (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Since you're not an Admin, you cannot delete files yourself. You could, of course, ask me or another Admin to do it for you, but if I were you, I would simply hang a DR on each of them (use "Nominate for deletion" in your left tool bar) with a reason such as
"It has been suggested that this image may infringe on a copyright."
and let the community decide for you.
As a taxpayer, I should be glad that our public servants are working on Christmas Eve, but I hope that you get off early -- have a great holiday. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

2013!

* * * 2013 !!! * * *
Hi Jim! Merry Christmas! Happy New Year!

Yours faithfully, George -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

More Presidential Libraries questions

I've read a slew of discussions from '06 about copyright and Presidential Portraits - and began to wonder if I was in a position to help figure it out, once and for all. While copyright laws haven't changed, things at NARA have - we have a pro-Wikipedia AOTUS. This means that as an agency, we are allowed to be more receptive to Wiki-issues...since I'm already in touch with the NARA lawyers about copyright on our gifts - I'll ask them about this, too, unless you think it's just beating a poor dead horse. I know several of the living artists have weighed in on this.

Secondly, I came across Template:PD-USGov-NARA, no longer in use. Since Dominic is no longer WiR at NARA, I'd like to develop a "PD-USGov-PresLib" (or maybe "sometimesPD-USGov-PresLib"!) How stupid is this endeavor? This will help my project on NUMEROUS levels internally - and my wiki-team really wants to continue our work BEYOND the Ford materials. How would/should I even get started?

And yes, thanks, I'm in here beyond the 9-5 - my team is doing the heavy-lifting (uploads, categorizing, conceptualizing) so I spread wiki-love to them, irritate the heck out of my NARA co-workers, and provide comic relief, I think. Thanks for your thoughts. Bdcousineau (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Do you know about {{NARA-image}}? Whether {{PD-USGov-PresLib}} is a good idea would depend on its purpose - if the purpose is to simply mark the images as part of the library, it's probably best to have a tag that's separate from the copyright tag. If all images covered by the tag are PD-USGov, however, it could be quite useful. According to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-NARA, the reason that tag was deprecated was that it only covered some – but not all – of the NARA images. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, my goal would be to have {{PD-USGov-PresLib}} work as a copyright tag. However, I'm beginning to think (after hearing from the NARA lawyers, who echo Jim's thoughts about looking for a (c) notation) that finding the correct language might be a little impossible. But that was a conversation about the artifacts - perhaps a {{PD-USGov-PresLib}} might still be appropriate for the documents and photographs.
yes, too, we have a new/NARA approved version of {{NARA-image}} for this level of the project; also we have a Commons partnership tag.
At the Pres Libs, we sometimes make assumptions about what public domain includes - you are teaching us that copyright is a separate animal. Painful, but who says that transformation is always pleasant? Bdcousineau (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Portraits -- yes, we would certainly welcome help. I think the situation is:
  • Everett Kinstler claims copyright in Ford and Reagan, so we did not keep them.
  • All of the others pre-Reagan are {{PD-US-no notice}} and therefore not a problem.
  • Bush, Clinton, and Bush are a problem -- and I have just hung a {{Delete}} on them, because there is no evidence that the artists have licensed them.
  • AFAIK the Obama portrait does not yet exist, but will be a problem once it does.
I agree with Philosopher. We have several tags like {{PD-USCG}}, which are unambiguous in telling us that the image is PD because the photographer is active duty Coast Guard personnel. The question of whether the subject has a copyright is not addressed.
We also have tags such as {{Brooklyn Museum location}} which tell us that an object is in the Brooklyn Museum and where, but say nothing about either the image's copyright or the subject's.
Since we already have categories that are more specific than PD-USGov-PresLib, I think that the best use of {{PD-USGov-PresLib}} would be to tag images of artifacts where the image was made by a Library employee and therefore the image was PD. The easiest thing would be to write it so that, like the Coast Guard tag, the copyright status of the subject was not addressed. You could take it one step further and add an optional parameter to the tag that would address the copyright status of the subject. In this version, the tag would not be used for images that were not made by library staff. Thus, an image made by the White House photographer would use {{PD-USGov-POTUS}}, not {{PD-USGov-PresLib}}, even though it was in the collection of one of the Libraries. That's consistent with our general use of {{PD-USGov-XXX}}, which is that the image is PD because it was created by an employee of the XXX branch of the government.
Although I am by no means a template expert, I have enough experience so I could create either of the versions I describe above, if you need help. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
My first goal is get/keep as many artifact images from throughout the Pres. Lib. holdings as possible onto Commons in a way that respects Commons rules and copyright holders' rights. My second goal is to use the creation of these tags/licenses as an excuse to involve all the players - the Wikimedia Admin. geniuses, the NARA lawyers and the Pres. Lib. digitization bosses - this way, we are all legitimizing this project six ways to Sunday. Hehe.
I would like a tag that A.) designates Pres. Lib. "involvement" (Pres Lib/federal employee taking the photo is great, making it PD), and B.) designates copyright status in the photo's underlying object, if known. I love your idea of the optional parameter to the tag that would address the copyright status of the subject.
Would something like this keep the speedy deleters happy? I realize there will always be a complainer, but if I get buy-in from most the participants, AND we are respecting copyright issues to the best of our collective abilities, I feel like that's a win. Do you agree?
Yes, please, Jim, do you want to start the tag? When my NARA lawyer contact is back next week (and if we're not all furloughed) I'll take it to her and invite her to weight in. I'll also ask about the portraits in question.
BTW, the NARA lawyer said the exact same thing as you about looking for a (c) or TM symbol on the pieces. I can include her email if you'd like it. Bdcousineau (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll take a shot at a new tag. I think it should keep the speedys away.
BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by "about looking for a (c) or TM symbol on the pieces." As I said above, until 1978, a (c) or "copyright" together with the year and name was essential to giving the required notice. "TM", designating a claim of trademark status, does not give the required notice to establish a copyright. As a general rule something can be a trademark, have a copyright, or both. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

ESSE and rock-opera

Hello! I apologize for the mistakes in the categorization. I ask you to help with the categorization of my files. I think you need to create a Category Road_without_return_(fantasy-musikal) and put it in the category - Rock-opera_from_Russia. This will enable a more logical categorization and avoid cluttering the main category Rock-opera_from_Russia. More please, category - ESSE (group) of two-move as a subcategory of the main category - Rock music groups from Russia. Thank you in advance. Evgeny Pronin. --Doktor Pronin (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It is also not enough categories symphonic rock in the category Rock_music_genres- and already in it - subcategory ESSE (group). Thank you! --Doktor Pronin (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it would be good for me to help you with this. First, I do not read any of the Cyrillic languages, so it would take me much longer than one of our Russian speakers to do anything with them. Second, I am not at all sure that any of your images belong on Commons -- I question both their copyright status and whether they are out of scope. However, I do not intend to act on those questions, so please don't bother to try to convince me here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ford Museum

Here's my first attempt at {{PD-USGov-PresLib}}

This photograph/scan/photocopy is a work of an employee or sub-contractor of the Presidential Libraries, a branch of NARA (National Archives andRecords Administration, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain (17 U.S.C. § 101 and § 105).

The subject of the photograph (artifact, document or other media) has no known copyright restrictions, and NARA and Wikipedia are not liable for any rights infringements (44 U.S.C. Chapter 21 § 2117)*

  • (44 U.S.C. Chapter 21) § 2117. Limitation on liability

When letters and other intellectual productions (exclusive of patented material, published works under copyright protection, and unpublished works for which copyright registration has been made) come into the custody or possession of the Archivist, the United States or its agents are not liable for infringement of copyright or analogous rights arising out of use of the materials for display, inspection, research, reproduction, or other purposes.

I'll run this by the NARA Lawyers when we get far enough. Thoughts? Bdcousineau (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


I've started on the actual template at User:Jameslwoodward/PD-USGoc-PresLib, though I haven't gotten very far.
I'm not certain about everything following your "The subject of the photograph (artifact, document or other media) has no known copyright restrictions..." 44 USC 21 §2117 looks to me like a sort of a "fair use" clause, which we don't allow on Commons. It does not say that the artifact is PD, but simply that the Archivist and his agents cannot be prosecuted for using images of it. Although that might reach to WMF as an agent of the USA, it does not reach to third party users of the image or to commercial use, so it is not helpful here.
I would change your first sentence to read "contractor", and add something. Contractors are tricky. In order for an image made by a Federal contractor to be acceptable here, the contract must have specifically called for the copyright to be held by the government and the government must have decided to make the image PD.
As I said a couple of days ago, and as implied by my first try at words like yours, I think that we first want the template to say that the image is PD. Then we might go on with words such as
"Whether or not the subject of this image was eligible for copyright, it was created before 1978 and does not have a copyright notice on it, so it is in the public domain in the United States."
That will cover most of the items that Commons will be able to host. It answers the big question we have with a lot of pre-1978 works -- was there notice?
There are two other cases:
First, the artifact is eligible for copyright and has a copyright notice -- you will need to get a license from the copyright holder for the image to be kept on Commons.
Second, the artifact is not eligible for copyright, but has a notice. Since I don't think you want to be judging eligibility very often -- it can be a very fine line -- I hope these are few. If there turn out to be enough to be a problem, then we make a new tag, or add an option to this one, that says:
"Although this artifact has a copyright notice, it was not eligible for copyright because it is below the threshold of originality, is utilitarian, or otherwise."
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
OK, thank you. This gives me a direction. I will continue onwards this week, time permitting. I'll work on it at User:Jameslwoodward/PD-USGoc-PresLib to take it off this page and prevent clutter! Happy New Year! Bdcousineau (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
With thanks for your support and the pleasant co-operation in the past year, I wish you all the best in the new year! --Túrelio (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed images

Hello Jim...

Could you explain me why FOP can't be applied for these photos: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nawagłówna+Gnaszyn+kościół.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tabernakulum Gnaszyn.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ołtarzglowny+Gnaszyn.JPG? (I'm just asking, I don't know what was on these photos.) Paweł 'pbm' Szubert (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

FOP varies widely from country to country. I use a quick summary at User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox2 which you may find helpful. Polish law, like that of many countries, gives FOP to:
"...works that are permanently exhibited on publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens...".
Only a few countries, notably Britain and its former colonies, give FOP to indoor works. The three you cite are all church interiors. It's too bad, they're all nice images and one is beautiful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I thought that it would be a problem. What do you think if it would be photo of whole church interior like in this photo: [62] and painting and the other things would be visible only as small parts of photo not as the main topic of it? Paweł 'pbm' Szubert (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that it is right at the edge. I would probably keep it, but I respect those who would delete it. I'd be happier if the two posters on either side of the doors were cropped out. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for explaining me this. Paweł 'pbm' Szubert (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive5&oldid=188260635"