User talk:Toby Bartels

If you leave me a message here, then I will respond here and will let you know on your talk page using the {{Talkback}} template.

Hi. Can you add copyright tags to your images? Thanks -- Chris 73 05:15, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

AFAICT, none of them are appropriate for any of my images.

The Glagolitic letters are derived from an image on the Polish Wikipedia, but no copyright information was given there. My own work in deriving them (which was only cropping and is probably not copyrightable), as well as the other images that I've uploaded (drawn by me) is available under the free noncopyleft licence "I reserve no legal rights.", which is not quite the same thing as public domain.

I could put {{GFDL}} for the Glagolica on the grounds that the original must have been submitted to the Polish Wikipedia under that licence, but you may want to save that tag for images whose status is clear. And I could put {{PD}} for my own work, even though this is not strictly correct, since the permissions status is equivalent. In your opinion, would these be appropriate?

-- Toby Bartels 05:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The commons can only accept images with proper copyright status. About the polish images: Since some of the images you uploaded come from an unverfied source they may be copyrighted. Using {{GFDL}} would be not appropriate. I am afraid we may have to delete the images if they do not have a free license (e.g. one of copyright tags). About your own images: Can you select one of the licenses for images you created (not cropped) yourself? {{PD}} is OK for your work, I think. My apologies for putting a damper on your efforts. See Commons:Licensing and Commons:Criteria for inclusion. -- Chris 73 06:03, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is the Commons using stricter standards for inclusion than the other Wikimedia projects? Why is it doing that? As for my own work, I can put it under any licence at all, but why should I pick a licence that's more restrictive than the perfectly free one that I already use? Again, why is the Commons insisting on a smaller set of possibilities than the Wikimedia projects that it's intended to serve?

Let me be more explicit: The original Polish image was submitted by somebody who checked a box releasing it under the GNU FDL. I developed cropped images that are under the GNU FDL, to the best of my knowledge. Because of a conversion bug in 2002, we have no record of who uploaded the original, so we can't ask them for confirmation. But the English Wikipedia has been taking this person at their word. Why will Wikimedia Commons not do this, or how was this decision made?

And: My own work is released under the freest licence of all, but it is not public domain. The Wikimedia projects don't ask me to release anything to the public domain, in order to accept my free gift. If the {{PD}} tag is for work licensed as if it were in the public domain, regardless of its technical status, then it makes sense. If you think that it would be a good idea, I can even create a new {{PD}}variant for this.

-- Toby Bartels 06:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the commons uses a stricter standard than the wikis, so not all images can be moved here. I.e. we do not allow "noncommercial", "fairuse", and "unverfied" images. (the policy is still under discussion, but that seems to be the current consensus). This makes the polish images a problem. While the unknown contributor clicked the check box, we have no idea if it is really free, or just intended as "fairuse" or so. About your images: How about {{cc-by}}? -- Chris 73 07:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The discussion that you pointed me to doesn't seem to have a consensus to me (except for noncommerical licences, of course). Since I'll probably not get involved in the policy debate (although you can probably guess what I'd say if I did!), I will write an explanation on the main Glagalotic page, then see what happens.

As for my own work: Well, to begin with, it is released under a freer licence (i.e. with fewer restrictions) than CC-by. If you don't think that it's a good idea to create a new tag, then I'll just write my own note on all of those pages (basically just copying what's now on my user page). If anybody creates a tag for that later, I can add that in then.

-- Toby Bartels 08:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Separation axioms.png PD?

w:en:User:Quadell claimed (here) that Image:Separation axioms.png was pure information and therefore ineligible for copyright. So you should have removed the {{PD}} tag only because you disagreed with that judgement. (IOW, not for the same reason that you removed the tag from other images that I authored, as mentioned in #Licences.) Note that I'm not disagreeing with you (nor agreeing either) about whether the image is eligible for copyright; I just wanted to clarify your intent. -- Toby Bartels 21:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether the image is copyrightable or not. If not, then it is in the public domain regardless of what tag it has. But if it is copyrightable, then we both prefer to release it as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. That's why I removed the tag.

To put it another way, the tag should specify the author's intent, and not depend on reasoning about copyright law. It isn't our responsibility to make that kind of legal analysis. For example, check out Image:Complete graph K1.png, which I multi-licensed. ;) Dbenbenn 22:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Link to (English) Wikipedia

As requested on your user page, I made you a link to your user page on Wikipedia; I assume that you meant the English one. —Toby Bartels 15:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks gov'nor! Merry Christmas! And God bless us, every one. :) --Seans Potato Business 15:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)