User talk:Huntster/Archive 7

Deleting file due to possible copyright problems

Dear Huntster,

You have deleted my file File:IGEM-challenge coin-2016.jpg. If we are only allowed to upload fotos of an object from which we also own the rights on the design, you will need to delete every single picture of any industrial product, any car, any plan, any building, and so on. This makes absolutely no sense and harms wikipedia a lot in my eyes. Sorry, but I do not appreciate your work in this special case. Best regards 141.39.148.25 15:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

141.39.148.25, copyright covers different types of objects in different ways. Many industrial objects, vehicles, and the like are considered utilitarian in nature (aka, they are intended to perform a function over anything artistic). In many countries, building exteriors are free to photograph because they are not only utilitarian but are permanently available in publicly accessible spaces. In this case, this coin has no monetary value and is purely artistic in nature as a sculpted work of art, like a statue but usually mass produced. An organization or person owns the copyright to that object, and we cannot keep images on Commons that cannot be freely licensed. I'd encourage you to read Commons:Licensing and Commons:Copyright rules by territory. Please ask questions if you want more information on this topic. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Map of Rhaetian Railway

Hello. I requested a deletion of this map (right). My reasons were that it was a duplicate of another map which is not on Commons. This was not the completely right reason. But there were four versions of this map in slightly different models and with an actuality of 9 years ago. So I decided to make a new map (File:MapRhaetischeBahn.svg) to bring the three of the four versions together that are in english. All links coming from Wikipedia are already adapted to the new page. The only thing to do is to delete the old maps: File:Mappa_ferrovie_retiche.svg, File:Rhätischen Bahn network.png and File:Maprhb.svg on wikipedia. The fourth is File:RhBnetworkHE.png, but it is not that compatible as the other three. I hope for response, NJ Giggie (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

NJ Giggie, I understand your reasoning, but we don't necessarily delete old maps because they have historic value. Instead, use the template {{Superseded}} at the top of the description page to show that the new map is preferred over the old map. The format would be {{superseded|MapRhaetischeBahn.svg|New image is modern and combines elements of other outdated maps.}}, but word the reason however you feel best. Also, on File:MapRhaetischeBahn.svg, use the template {{Supersedes}} to show which maps it is replacing. Remember, we want to make as much information available to the end users as possible, and deleting potentially useful (even if outdated) maps doesn't do this. Let me know if there are any other questions! — Huntster (t @ c) 12:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. This templates were exactly what I was looking for. Do you think, at least File:Rhätischen Bahn network.png could be deleted? Thanks, NJ Giggie (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

NJ Giggie, simply being old is not a reason to delete as they may still be valuable to someone; a valid reason would be if there are serious errors in the work that would actively mis-lead an end user. Instead, I would recommend creating a category within Category:Rhätische Bahn titled Category:Obsolete network plans of Rhätische Bahn, and place those old maps within. I can help sort out categorization and such, if desired. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. You supported me at understanding how to deal with such problems. I created the category you mentioned and hopefully the remaining files find their destiny. --NJ Giggie (talk)

NJ Giggie, excellent! I went ahead and closed that deletion request. Let me know if you ever need assistance. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! --NJ Giggie (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Categorization with of Category:Titan IV 4B-33 and Category:Cassini-Huygens

Huntster, please see my response on Category talk:Titan IV 4B-33. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that a user uploaded a copyrighted version of this file on July 23, 2018. I had no idea how to nominate a previous version of a file for deletion, thus I decided to ask an administrator for help. Keivan.f^Talk 04:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Keivan.f, deleted. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

BFR (rocket) images

The mess has started. Someone quickly posted this image. [1]

Not sure it'll pass muster; or maybe it will. But I'm pretty sure that a bunch of the description is incorrect cause it used text I wrote a few months after all the image adds and image deletions to that article after Musk's Sep 2017 talk, when I finally added a fair use image, and added comments about all the fights over the images. That is, clearly, not the case now. So I know that the description is bogus. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

N2e, if you can rationalize why it's invalid or otherwise pass muster, please do nominate it. I don't quite remember the rest of it. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

That one got sorted, as that fair use image on Wikipedia got deleted today, as some images have shown up on commons. N2e (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

But the several BFR images on commons now could use a bit of your help; and the claim is that (I guess) they have the proper license.

I didn't check; so figure that'll sort itself in a few days or weeks.  Categorization for sure (they are all in just the SpaceX meta cat), and I think you sorted a lot of categorization of those in the past.

But the more important part is this, and I think it's a nuanced question that you will probably know about. FACT: BFR2018 is quite different, especially in the 2nd stage/spaceship external appearance, than BFR2017 (but also different lengths of both of the two stages of the LV). Even though ALL BFR2017 images WERE NOT released with CC licenses by SpaceX, it appears (per the claim of the new uploader) that the BFR2018 images are all CC and license copacetic. This is cool! Glad SpaceX is doing that again.

QUESTION: Since the BFR2018 is quite diff from BFR2017, and even though none of the 2017 BFR images can be on Wikimedia, they are all over the internet in new articles and what not. Do you think it would be acceptable to MOVE the images to include in the file name ... (2018)..., just to "make the implicit, explicit"? I do; but then I'm really quite an image noob and don't know what passes for normal on Wikimedia, and assume I know very little about acceptable policy here.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

N2e, I think we should easily be able to have a different category for ITS images and BFR images, since they are unique infrastructures. Speaking personally, I really do not like renaming files for the sake of renaming them, as this falls into a grey area of Commons:File renaming (renaming just for the sake of clarifying a point). I think clarifying the dates and details in the description pages is enough. That said, if you want to, I won't object. It's just not something I feel comfortable doing myself given the current wording of our guidelines. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the loop on that, Huntster. I have changed just the two (now, most unclear) names of the images that were of the older 2017 design, and would have been quite confusing to viewers/users of our Wikimedia images otherwise. As always, feel free to review, fix, etc. N2e (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

N2e, let me ask you though about File:BFR (2017).png. Something doesn't feel right about it. It looks like it's a crop/cutout of another image, but I don't know what that other image might be. I strongly suspect the uploader has no rights to it. For that matter, look at the other uploads by Ceggindeggar and tell me something isn't amiss... — Huntster (t @ c) 19:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Huntster, sorry for the delay; just saw this now. That image looks plausibly like something somebody drew up in CAD. It has a number of differences from the few images SpaceX released at the time of the Sept 2017 unveiling of the smaller 9-meter diameter BFR (smaller than the 12-m diameter ITS launch vehicle of the year before.) I can't prove that; but it does look diff than the SpaceX-released renders, so it could very well be the sort of thing allowed by the Wikimedia rulz which seem to allow own work submissions. That's my 2 cents. N2e (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

N2e, yeah, perhaps. It's the colouration I think that's weird, like a low-quality photograph in poor lighting. *shrug* — Huntster (t @ c) 01:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Hidden figures poster.jpg

File:Hidden figures poster.jpg is derogatory and racist. It also appears to be copyright infringement. It was uploaded and added to en:Hidden Figures (film) by a new account. I restored the original image and requested deletion. I think it would be expident to delete it before the normal waiting period. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Jim1138, I'm okay with letting the normal deletion request run its course, unless it turns into a complete snowball (which, let's be honest, is more than likely to be the case). But, I'm keeping an eye on it in case my mind is changed by others. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The uploader has been quiet since their upload, posting, and talk page blanking. I was a bit concerned that the file's existence here might be made public. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Jim1138, I honestly wouldn't be worried about publicity issues. It was uploaded by that person who holds responsibility, it's now been placed under deletion review according to our policies. If there are publicity issues, that will be handled by the Foundation. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

And all that's irrelevant now that it's been deleted, lol. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, at least I learned a bit from you! Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Ships by name

The debate Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/10/Category:Ships by name (flat list) has entered a new phase. I would appreciate to hear your current views there. You will realize that all the changes being proposed there are by people with no previous experience in "Ships" as such, and their voices are drowning me out. Best regards. - Broichmore (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Admin Request Vote

Since I cannot edit on Commons:Administrators/Requests/Elisfkc anymore, I wanted to reach out and thank you for your vote on my admin request. Even though it didn't end the way I wanted, I appreciate your input and your constructive criticism. --Elisfkc (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverts

Why are you reverting? There's no reason to keep 800 pixel image over 3000 pixel.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

BevinKacon, please read the text of {{Duplicate}} more carefully. It is only to be used on exact duplicates or scaled down images, even if both images are of the same composition. The images you tagged were not duplicates because they had different dimension ratios, borders, crops, etc. In these cases, please nominate the images for deletion through Commons:Deletion requests. I've gone ahead and done this for you for these files. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Soviet Space Images

I am starting to work on Soviet articles. Do you know much about their image copyright? For example, this image taken by Zond 5, or this image of the tortoises on Zond 5? I started looking around, and it seems very convoluted; if you can point me in the right direction or explain how it works I would be very appreciative. Kees08 (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Side note, I have a couple images of the Guppy that I took once; I saw something on your userpage about it. I can upload them if it would be useful. Kees08 (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Kees08, unfortunately, unless Roscosmos or the Russian government decide to specifically release those images under a free license, they should not be uploaded to Commons. I've been fighting this battle for a *very* long time, but some folks continue to believe that NASA has the right to release images from copyright simply by uploading them to their website. No, Soviet/Russian-produced spaceflight images are specifically "All Rights Reserved" copyrighted. I'm fairly versed in space-related copyright issues, so please feel free to ask about any specific images you have in mind.

As for the Guppy images, I'd love if you could upload them. See Category:Aero Spacelines aircraft for the images we already have...not a whole lot for some of them. Which aircraft are they of? — Huntster (t @ c) 00:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe the Super Guppy. I will have to check. Thanks for the information on the Soviet space photos, that seemed to be the right answer but I wanted to make sure. I do not think they fall under fair use on enwiki either, so I will use some sort of external link possibly. Kees08 (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

One you may be able to help with is File:Roger Chaffee Navy Portrait.jpg. I contacted the National Archives and they are conducting a physical search which will take 2-3 weeks. Is there anything else I can do to verify it is his Navy portrait? I have this problem with pretty much all the astronauts. Kees08 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Kees08, honestly, the only sources that are worse about documentation than spaceflight images in recent years...are military images. Older material especially is either offline or lost in a morass of broken links, sitting in the depths of a server, forgotten. Unfortunately, Going the route you did is probably the best solution. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It is good to know I am headed in the right direction. Thanks, I will contact you in the future if I have more questions. I will try to set aside some time in the near future to mass-upload the many aerospace related photos I have. Kees08 (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be great. I can help with the categorization if you'd like. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I started reading into this more, and correct me where I am wrong, but would the Soviet space photos be copyrighted until 50 years after author's death, and if the author is unknown, then 50 years from the date of the photo? If this is true, the Zond 5 photos would be out of copyright, since I do not think any individual takes credit for the photo from the satellite, and it is just over 50 years since the photo was taken. Am I missing something? Kees08 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Kees08, I'm sorry I didn't respond to this, I never was notified of this edit. Mediawiki hates me. Um, in this situation, the institute would hold copyright, not the individual author. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia, which per Commons discussion says that pre-1973 works are not free from copyright. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Felicette

Another one I struggled with before. File:Felicette-chat-18-10-1963-france-veroniqueAGI.jpg is uploaded here as CC 4.0, own work. It clearly is not. Enwiki claims fair use en:File:Felicette, spacecat.jpg. I tried to figure out French space copyright, but never finished the job. I just now noticed the Commons work; so if it is indeed copyrighted, that one should be deleted. Are you familiar at all with French copyright? I found external sources as well, but I am guessing none of those are out of copyright. Kees08 (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Kees08: CNES does not release images under a free license. I've nominated the Commons images for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Félicette. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Very good, thank you. It is tough to keep up with the the complex laws of all the spacefaring countries. Appreciate the help. Kees08 (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

North American Aviation vs NASA Image

This image is tagged as a NASA image, but the image itself says it was taken by NAA. Instinct is to nominate it for deletion since NASA did not take the photo, NAA did and there is no evidence those rights transferred to NASA. The source does not really clarify it at all. Thoughts? Kees08 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Kees08, I agree, it should probably be nominated. It is clearly of NAA origin, though others will argue that either "well, it was published on a NASA site, so they must have acquired the rights", which is nonsense...NASA publishes private and foreign images all the time, or "this was likely a for-hire or under-contract work", of which there is zero evidence this is the case. I'm sure you've noticed, folks around here really don't want to give up images, even under our precautionary principle (which is policy). — Huntster (t @ c) 04:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I started the deletion request on it. What do you think of replacing it (on enwiki) with this image? It has the Space Facts watermark on it, but the NASA page credits the image to NASA. Kees08 (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Kees08, the image to be deleted shows Borman, Stafford and Collins for the cancelled Apollo 2 backup crew, but your suggested image shows Anders, Collins and Borman for the cancelled Apollo 3 prime crew. What is the image intended for, exactly? Regardless, I would think the image should be fine, but the problem is I cannot find a NASA source and so cannot prove it; a higher resolution version is at http://www.spacefacts.de/cancelled/photo_hi/apollo-503.jpg. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

For en:Michael_Collins_(astronaut)#Apollo_program. I think either image would work, and that the Space Facts image might even be better. AmericaSpace has a logical credit for it, I might use that credit (with the high res image). That should be fine, yeah? Kees08 (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Kees08: So long as you can enunciate how you came about the credit line if asked, then sure, that seems good to me. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)