User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive 2014

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

Coherence

(Sorry for bad traduction) OK, you search for the copyvio on Commons (example : my snowman) but you imported photographs of tools or boats which have also copyrights (example: File: JackPlane3.jpg). Where is coherence? PRA (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Certainly the file File:JackPlane3.jpg has a copyright, but the copyright belongs to me, as I was the photographer. I have licensed it under CC-BY-SA, so it may be kept on Commons and freely used. The tool itself does not have a copyright -- as a general rule, useful objects such as tools, cars, boats, and most furniture, cannot have copyrights.
Your snowman, on the other hand, was deleted for several reasons. First, it is your personal art, which we do not keep on Commons. Second, it appears to be a derivative work of the inflatable snowman in File:Happy new year 2007.png. The inflatable snowman, because it is not useful, certainly does have a copyright, and the image infringes on it.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. OK for my snowman.

But I am not so sure about tools and boats. What you say about the copyrigt of 'Couteau de Poche Philippe STARCK 9cm' [1], or beer bottle opener 'Kronenbourg 1664' [2] and 'Motor yacht A of 120 m, design Philippe Starck, © Roy' [3] and others like boats by Jeff Koons, Marc Newson, Xavier Veilhan [4] ?

It is true that in many, but not all, countries, utilitarian objects such as tools and boats can have a copyright if their design is very unusual -- beyond the requirements of simply being a tool or a boat. I do not think any of the four you have cited would have a copyright in the USA, although the beer bottle opener might be a close call. Note that in the case of the boats, this speaks to the boats themselves -- the naval architect has a copyright in all of the drawings and specifications necessary to construct them. So you could not legally copy the drawings and build a second boat, but you could copy the boat itself. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Too much subtle for me for me !

« While copyright does not extend protection to useful articles, it can protect the purely artistic elements of a useful article that can be identified and exist independently of the Copyright: Utilitarian Aspects vs. Artistic Elements Protecting Design Rights – copyrights be identified and exist independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article. ► Thus, copyright may protect the design elements of a useful article, e.g., a chair or lamp, that are “physically or conceptually separable” from the utilitarian aspects. » !!! [5], page 6.PRA (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but go on to look at page 8. It is, as you say, very subtle. And while the Tiffany lamp on page 6 might have had a copyright (now expired), but that does not mean you could not legally create a similar leaded glass lamp with a different pattern or colors. You could even create very similar one if you did not, in fact, copy the Tiffany lamp. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Panther: request for a third opinion

Hi, Jim. Can you please give your opinion here? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

File:The Beatles ( music ) - 2013-11-07 11-38.jpg

It looks to me like a blatant copyvio, or for the Beatles do we have special policies I don't know? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me like you have it right -- I deleted it while I was there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks and happy 2014! -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toilet Trained Cat 13 Aug 2005.jpg

I think it is not good the same admin closing a DR more than once. Further, if "the tag shows the cat's name and a registration number"; people can easily find the information about its owner; so how it is not a private information? Jee 13:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Since 75% of DRs are done by only ten people, it is inevitable that the same Admin may do it more than once. I probably would not close a highly controversial one, or one that required a significant subjective judgment a second time, but this is black letter law on Commons -- we rarely delete at the request of the uploader and never if the file is in use. I get a little impatient with uploaders who try a third time to have a good image deleted with no reason.

I don't see how registration number is a problem. I doubt very much that such records are public -- since cats go outdoors, such numbers would frequently be visible in public. Also, we are much less sensitive about such things in the US -- where an image of a car in Europe will usually have the license plate blurred, that is rare in US images, and US auto registrations are public information in many states. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

May be the author don't like to be identified. Just my opinion; happy new year, anyway. Cheers. Jee 13:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, how will he be identified -- the cat's registration is surely not public? And, by the way, the cat would now be 18 years old, likely dead. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems Fae removed the "private info". Could you mind deleting the old version in file history? Jee 04:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Be sure to clear your cache if you still see the first image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Jee 12:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Rehash of Commons:Deletion requests/PAHMC

You may wish to participate in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pennsylvania state historical markers, as it re-hashes material from Commons:Deletion requests/PAHMC, which you closed.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Spruce in Estonia
Spruce in Estonia

Happy new year!

Thank you for co-operation and a happy new year!

This spruce grows in Estonia. I have seen it from train window with my own eyes. Taivo (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

File:GURPS Bio-Tech Second Edition.jpg

Thanks for checking out this request - it looks like the file was deleted again? I am not sure how to move a file from Commons to en-wiki. BOZ (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have restored it again. You download it to you computer at full resolution and then upload it in the usual way to WP:EN. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I've closed the relevant UD request and am temporarily hosting the file and description page here: [6], [7]. -FASTILY 09:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've never before had this problem when doing a temporary restoration -- so it was surprise to have both you and Eugene deleting it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks guys, I think I did it right - please take a look. BOZ (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

While I'm here, could you also get File:GURPS Bio-Tech First Edition.jpg? Pretty sure those were the only two - didn't realize there was more than one, initially. BOZ (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure: [8], [9] -FASTILY 03:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks again! :) BOZ (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

ID card Saba

HE James, you deleted the identity card of Saba; as a result of the request from user:Yann] at Commons:Deletion requests/File:IdentiteitskaartSaba.png, which had as rationale "No license, no permission". Could you have a check if this was truly the case. If I remember correctly I was the uploader, and general leave licence information; I thought I copied this from the staatscourant; the official journal of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and added a rationale to that effect; but after 2.5 years I can't be sure anymore... (I would have done this earlier if I had known about the request, but I wasn't notified on my talk page in htis case and apparently did not have it watchlisted...) Thanks in advance, L.tak (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you are correct, but it doesn't matter. It was tagged as PD-NL Gov, but the Netherlands law covering government works reads:

"Article 11. No copyright subsists in laws, decrees or ordinances issued by public authorities, or in judicial or administrative decisions."

Since an identity card is none of those things, it has a copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought is was, as the image was part of the relevant decree (see here. We had this kind of situations before, where the ID-cards were part of the decree, but then the copyright of the card was explicitly mentioned. Here it wasn't... L.tak (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Right you are. I have restored it, thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of photo

Hi Jim, all the best for 2014. I saw your response to a deletion request for this photo. The background of this request was that some people attending the conference didn't want their photo taken. To communicatie this they wore a red lanyard. In two photos there were still people with a red lanyard visible in the background and we want to respect their choice. That's why my colleague at WMNL requested deletion. What would be best? To request deletion again? Best, Ter-burg (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

On this side of the pond we really don't understand such things -- if you go to a public event, even a quasi public event such as this that does not admit the general public, you can expect that your photograph may be taken for publicity and other uses. Most people enjoy it. However, this is a multi-cultural project and I honor reasonable requests from other cultural norms. I've deleted it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The case of deletion of file

The deleted File: File:Глобус Мартина Бехайма.jpg is made by myself really . But that file is deleted without any cosultation with me. Thus that action is violation of copyright of mine. So I categorically insist upon restoration of Status Quo.--Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 22:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Although you correctly noted in the file description that the globe was PD-old, you did not put any license on your photograph. Therefore it was a violation of your copyright to keep it on Commons and it was deleted. You were notified on your talk page on December 29 that file had been nominated for deletion and the DR stayed open for seven days for you to respond, which you did not do.
I would be happy to restore the image if you tell me here what license you want to put on it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For excellent clarification and assistance! Sja974 (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

US governmental image?

Hi!

If we delete images with such author information, then we must delete this one. What do you think? Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, clearly, see my comment there. It is just another example of the government being vague about copyright, perhaps deliberately, perhaps because the people actually responsible for such images don't know any better. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Near Field Communication simple-explantion EN.webm

Hi Jim, I recently uploaded this video clip which was deleted because of license reasons. I just wanted to inform you that the license on the simpleshow youtube channel is "Creative Commons" now (video), the cc-by-sa-3.0 is also shown within the uploaded .webm video file. Obviously simpleshow forgot to put the license on the youtube channel from "youtube standard license" to "creative commons" in the first place. I informed them and as they changed it now, there is no legal issue anymore. Unfortunately I am not able to upload it again, so I am asking kindly for your support. I am new in the community, so sorry for bothering you with this. - Noah Colon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah Colon (talk • contribs) 09:34, 8 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your quick fix, Jim! May I ask you to do this for the following video, too? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carbon Footprint simple-explanation EN.webm. It belongs to the same case, here is the proof that it is really licensed under Creative Commons: (youtube video) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah Colon (talk • contribs) 15:50, 10 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Files without images

James, Something went wrong with the edits that created the following files. --Jarekt (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

List
*File:Talk Aberlour single malt 10 years old.jpg
Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Images of Commonwealth War Graves Commission memorials

Hi there. Would you be able to help with a couple of questions?

  • (1) Regarding: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Neuve-Chapelle Indian Memorial. You said in your deletion rationale that "the memorial may be the property of the UK government". This is incorrect. It was erected by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission which was an organisation established by Imperial Charter in 1917 (I explicitly said this in the deletion discussion, so I'm not quite sure how you got that wrong). It was not a UK organisation, but an Imperial and later Commonwealth organisation. If it helps, I could write to them and get them to clarify various points so we all have a firm basis to carry out the discussions, rather than speculating. I'm away this weekend, but would it be possible to put the mass deletion nominations by Labattblueboy on hold until we hear back from the CWGC?
  • (2) In one of the deletion discussions, I think it was the Pennsylvania memorial discussion, there was a suggestion that copyright expires in 2016. Whose responsibility is it to add deletion discussions to categories like Category:Undelete in 2016? Is there a correct way to add those deleted images to that category?
  • (3) I would also like to write to several people who (as I said in one of the discussions) have some knowledge of the French law in this area. Unfortunately, the person I wrote to didn't reply in time. Rather than open up an undeletion discussion prematurely, I would like to try and get these issues sorted and see if a template for these specific situations is possible (you may instinctively say it won't be possible, but there are several users I want to discuss this with in some detail to ensure that there isn't something being missed here).

Thanks for any answers or help you can provide on this. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I would welcome anything that might make it possible to keep these images of historically important places, I don't think there is too much hope. From a legal point of view, these are simply sculptures in France, and whoever owns them is irrelevant. We simply do not keep images of sculptures in France unless they are clearly out of copyright or we have a license from the creator. I see nothing about these that changes that. I mentioned the possibility of UK government ownership because the subject of extra-territoriality has come up in the past with respect to war graves and I wanted to put that to rest. Since, as you say, they are not owned by the government, that possibility is even farther away.
(2) Any interested party can add the appropriate tag. It is not the closing Admin's responsibility. See User:Jameslwoodward/noinclude for instructions.
(3) WMF deleted files are kept forever, so an undeletion can take place whenever new information makes it appropriate.
The best hope for restoring these images -- a small one, to be sure -- is that you can find the heirs of the creators and get an appropriate license from them. A much smaller hope, although still conceivable, is that the War Graves Commission actually owns the copyrights and would be willing to release them into the public domain worldwide. I say that that is a much smaller hope because it is so unusual for the creator to give up copyright that most Commons Admins would be very skeptical if that were claimed. I would certainly ask to see written evidence of the transfer of copyright. And then the War Graves Commission would have to decide to give up the copyright. My guess would be that that would a difficult decision.
If I can help in this process, or you have more questions, please don't hesitate to ask. While I have taken a firm line with these, it is not because I want to, but simply because that appears to me to be what the law and Commons policy requires. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this. Personally, I think Commons overdoes the 'what the law requires' and errs too far on the side of caution and not enough towards 'this is very unlikely to ever be challenged' (what I think is the situation here). Living artists, I can understand, but where the original creator is long dead, the onus should be on the owners, the estate and the heirs to enforce the copyright, rather than having Commons running scared of its own shadow because of hypotheticals... Anyway, the CWGC do have their own database of photographs of war graves, I am not sure if that extends to the memorials as well, but it probably does. I can't remember what license they publish those photographs under (I think the photograph project is mentioned at en:Commonwealth War Graves Commission). One point I think is missed in this (and why I was hoping for a more comprehensive discussion) is the employment status of the architects and sculptors. The sculptors I am not sure about, but the architects (certainly the Principal Architects and the Assistant Architects) were directly employed by the Commission and would work for them on a salary (that was the only way they were able to produce hundreds of memorials and cemeteries over a period of about ten years). This means that the copyright situation might not be as clearly weighted towards the creator (as opposed to the employer) as you think. The irony here, especially in the centenary year of the war, is that some of the junior architects had fought in the war and were relatively young, hence the copyright terms extending for a number of years yet. The Principal Architects were older, but the 70-year terms mostly still have a few years to go. Which is annoying as a lot of attention will be paid to this subject and you will get people uploading pictures and finding it hard to understand what the problem is, but then you must get that a lot. I have one more question: if I want copies of deleted photos to re-upload on a local project, is it possible to ask for that here? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Although I sympathize with the point of view that there are images that are "safe" -- both those that are orphans, with no known copyright holder, and those like these where the copyright is in the hands of heirs who may not even know that the own them nd certainly don't expect to profit from them. Nonetheless, I think the Commons PRP is correct -- if you start making decisions about who is likely to sue and who is not, where do you stop and what do you base it on?
Although you may be able to show that some of the creators were actually employed by the Commission, you would have to show that they executed agreements assigning their copyrights. While that is routine in today's IP world, I am not at all sure that it was then.
If you would like a temporary restoration, that is easy -- or, if you prefer, send me an e-mail address by e-mailing me and I will send them to you as attachments. I need your address because even if you have e-mail enabled on Commons, it does not provide for attachments. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 04:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hi Jim,

I am changing some Wikimedia Commons files, including art works by Josep Bover i Mas, Antoni Solà, Damià Campeny and many others. You have requested de deletion of them all. My question is: what am I doing wrong? I'm not sure what do you mean by saying "it's tagged as PD Art".

All of these art works are located in the Acadèmia de Belles Arts de Sant Jordi (where I work), and all of the artists were dead more than 100 years ago, so if there's any problema with the licenses, please tell to me and I will try to fix it.

Many thanks, Mavi16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavi16 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 10 January 2014‎ (UTC)

You tagged them all with PD-Art, which is reserved for 2D subjects. It is WMF policy that a photograph of a painting or other 2D work of art does not create a copyright for the photographer. This follows Bridgeman v Corel.
However, all of the works which I have tagged are 3D works -- busts, bas-reliefs, sculptures -- and the PD-Art tag cannot be used. In each case we need the permission of the copyright holder of the photograph -- the photographer or his employer if it is a work for hire. If the museum is willing to license its photographs as CC, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA, then please have an officer of the museum send a license using the form at Commons:OTRS. It would,of course, be best if the museum were to release all of its photographs, but if they are willing to do only the 22 you have uploaded, that is OK for now. In that case, please make sure they list the images with their Commons file names.
As a secondary issue, please be sure never to transclude a category as in "{{Category:Josep Bover}}". Doing that creates a variety of problems. You must transclude a Creator page, but never a cat. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


In that case, would it be easier to untag the PD-art part from all of them? instead of deleting them all? How I'm I supposed to do that? What tag I'm I supposed to use?

Your patience is appreciated, forgive me, I'm new at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavi16 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 10 January 2014‎ (UTC)

  • I'm happy to help -- I don't like to have useful images deleted if it can be prevented. For starters, please sign your posts. It is a Commons guideline to 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 time stamp 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).
  • Unless we have a license from the photographers or other copyright holder(s) of the images as I described above, there is no tag you can use -- they must be deleted. If we do get a license, then they must be double tagged -- with whatever license we get from the photographer and a note that the underlying work is of such and such date. They must also show two authors, the photographer and the sculptor.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2013 Murphy sacks Brett Hundley.jpg

Happy New Year Jim, Thanks for your keen eyeballs when you noticed the lack of permission from YOCK for the Murphy sacks Brett Hundley photo posted by FactChkGal13. Indeed, Cynthia Yock uses an account named FactChkGal13. They are both me and this photo was uploaded very early in my learning curve with WikiCommons. I think I managed to get all the permissions correct in subsequent photos and I will try to figure out how to fix this one. If I fail, there is no harm done by deleting it. The learning curve for wiki posting, editing and uploading was a bit daunting and figuring out how to reply to your message has been a project also - so sincere apologies for any delay. Thanks for your interest in the Common good. CY FactChkGal13 (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Hello, Cynthia. I'm afraid you're caught in a minor nuisance here. Because we can't actually know that User:FactChkGal13 is photographer Cynthia Yock, when we see an author that is not the uploader, we require that the author send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. It's not hard, there is a form letter in a box that you just paste into an e-mail, fill in several blanks, and send off. OTRS has a backlog that can sometimes run several weeks, so once you've done that, if you drop a note here, I'll close out the DR. And thank you for donating your images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hello! I just saw a deletion nomination of a photo that is PD-Old (backed with sources in the article for the author) and I voted but may be it was too late? I don't know how it works really but I feel tempted to advise the nominator at least to check for the year of the death of the author. Can someebody restore the photo or it is impossible?--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It is easy to restore the image, but at the DR you said it is written in WP:BG. I can't find any reference to him in WP:BG -- https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=George+Soteriadis&sourceid=Mozilla-search -- perhaps the problem is that I am using the wrong alphabet? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the fast answer. :-) Here is the article in bg Wiki and the last sentence with ref number 7 says "Georgios Sotiriadis dies in 1942 in Athens.".--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

File:FIFA World Cup Trophy 22.jpg

Can you check, but I think that you deleted this following Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fifa world cup trophy.jpg. LGA talkedits 22:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of a credited file

I returned to my Wikimedia commons page to check on my periodic table that was nominated for deletion today (2014-01-12) (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Periodic table with symbols.jpg) and noticed that it had been deleted. I then read the motivation you made: "As in the previous case, this fails as personal art, and does not have correct attributions for any of the images that require them." I made sure that all images allowed me to edit them (even if slightly), redistribute them and release them with an appropriate license. Alchemist-hp had a slightly different attribution that allowed me to copy and redistribute the file, but only in a non-commercial way, after which I mentioned that the imagea had to be treated the same way. Furthermore, I gave credit to the creators by mentioning them and attaching a link to the source page. I now realise that I haven't, in fact, given appropriate credit to the authors. I believed that the name, link, and differences to the preceding image was enough to make it possible for anyone to check wether or not my claims were true. This may have been your concern, so please tell me (In other words, would you have demanded extended credits?). What I know for sure is that I have wasted more than 12 hours of my life photographing, researcing, photoshopping and license searching just to please fellow chemisty lovers for nothing. I have also wasted your time by letting you read this rather lenghty coplaint on a deletion that you can't undo.User talk:Pixelmaniac pictures(signature added by Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC))

I failed to find my "talk" link anywhere, so use this instead if you'd like to react to my explanation: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pixelmaniac_pictures

Here's your link: User talk:Pixelmaniac pictures. 4 tildes (~) adds it. I wont speak for Jameslwoodward, but there is an undeletion procedure. your complaint is not for nothing, though this particular case may be irreversible (i havent checked into it yet). good luck.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I deleted two similar files, both of which you created. The comment you quote is from the second of the two.

There were several reasons for the deletions, which I set forth in the closing summaries:

  • We do not keep personal art and personal creations which are unlikely to see any use. This is in accordance with Commons formal policy that files "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". These are both too large for practical general use on Commons or elsewhere on the web. The only use I might see is a large printed wall poster, but the random selection of subjects -- some photos of the elements, some of persons associated with them -- makes even that unlikely.
  • The first of the files has a CC-NC-ND symbol in the lower right corner. NC and ND are unacceptable throughout WMF projects.
  • Neither of the files properly attributes the constituent images. For all of them that had a license requiring attribution, the authors' names must appear on your description page.
  • Several of the sources cited were redlinks. Not listing sources properly is a strong reason for deletion.
  • Combining files that do not have the same license in a montage can be tricky. I did not check this, because the two could not be kept for the other reasons above, but I would not be at all surprised if there are problems with this.
  • Similarly, it can be tricky to combine files that come from different jurisdictions, which you did.

I am sorry that you wasted so much time creating these files. One of the frequent serious mistakes that new Commons editors make is spending a lot of time on something without asking whether is is appropriate. While this is usually uploading a lot of a particular class of images that can't be kept, creating complex personal art falls in the same category.

In order for Commons to restore these, at a bare minimum you would have to spend a lot of time cleaning up the sources and attributions, putting them in a tabular form so that they could be immediately cross-checked from the images and listing the license status for each. File:Montage Columbus 1.jpg is a good example, albeit of a much simpler montage. Even if you were to do this, there is no guarantee that the files would be restored, as they remain very personal works.

Our rules permit you to file an Undeletion request. It is possible that the community will see these differently, but I don't think so. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Georgia Guidestones5.jpg

Is this image from Georgia, USA, OK to pass without FOP issues? Someone created a category for them in 2011. I assume its a building and not art. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a building -- in the USA monuments are sculpture, not architecture. Both text and sculpture have a copyright. Since the artist is anonymous, we can't even get OTRS permission. I will start a Mass Delete later today if someone doesn't beat me to it..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This image is in Russia. The monument is small. If its OK, please feel free to pass it as I have to sign off very soon. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I tagged it with a {{Delete}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

الواجهة الأمامية لـ5 فرنكات جزائرية عام 1933.jpg

hi Jameslwoodward ,you remove my pictures (File:الواجهة الأمامية لـ5 فرنكات جزائرية عام 1933.jpg and File:الواجهة الخلفية لـ5 فرنكات جزائرية عام 1933.jpg,and please Retrieve the pictures because I scanning the original Billet, and you can see this picture File:Amgot french algeria 2fr.jpg, Thanks --A.Latreche (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As it says at Commons:Deletion requests/File:الواجهة الخلفية لـ5 فرنكات جزائرية عام 1933.jpg, the copyright status of pre-1958 Algerian bank notes is unknown, see Commons:Currency/Public_domain#Algeria. Since the bank was a private institution, they are probably copyrighted for 70 years after the death of the designer. Unless you can prove otherwise, they cannot be kept on Commons for many years.
File:Amgot french algeria 2fr.jpg has the same problem and I have put a {{Delete}} tag on it. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


Copyright authorization from ministry of finance kuwait

Hello Jim,

Here is a memo from the ministry authorizing my work.

Memo: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzQOKGZJeipxQm1HT19aWVBORTA/edit?usp=sharing

Work ID confirming my affiliation with the ministry: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzQOKGZJeipxVE5ycDdXemgzX3M/edit?usp=sharing

if your issue is with the ownership of the images, what type of licensee is accepted ?

best of regards, Omar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofkw (talk • contribs) 11:25, 15 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Although I see that I and others have deleted most of your uploads because they have appeared elsewhere on the web, I do not know specifically what images you are referring to. I cannot open the Google files above -- Google tells me that I do not have permission.
Since the problem is an apparent copyright violation, policy requires that we receive a free license directly from the copyright holder using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Unfortunately, we cannot accept other methods of communication because there is no way to show that the memo above was not written by you without any authority at all -- it is fairly common for uploaders to claim that they are someone else, and while I'm pretty sure that is not the case here, our rules protect against it.
I also note that your user name violates our policy on inappropriate user names. I won't block it while this discussion is open, but you must pick a new name because it will be blocked shortly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

File:James-Pilkington-DD.png

Hello Jim, this shouldn't be categorised into a "biographic" category, don't you agree? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not an area I know anything about on Commons, but a quick look suggests maybe Category:Family trees or Category:Family trees of England? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice! -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial

James, was wondering if I could get you to undo the deletes from the associated delete request for a 24 hour period so that I can move them to Wikipedia en. It's far easier to copy and paste the full record rather than having to reproduce from scratch.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You can't move all of them to WP:EN under fair use -- maybe one or two -- which ones do you want? If you e-mail me your e-mail address, I'll send them to you..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
certainly no plan to do all of them. The following were previously in the article. I'd be good with those:

COM:UPLOADWAR

Dear James, as i know that you follow common guidelines, i am asking for help. Can you please restore original file version, and protect the file per photo date, and COM:UPLOADWAR guideline. POV pushing map replacement is on the way, in violation of COM:OVERWRITE. Also, original version of file should be also restored in this, already protected file. After that, talk page discussion may continue. Thanks! --112.175.245.251 22:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, I am not going to wade into the middle of this dogfight -- people who do that get bitten. I see that several Admins have already been involved, so take it to COM:ANB and have one of them deal with it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to do that, but that same involved admin censored it, as it revealed his violation of basic common guidelines, and several reverts of new versions of old files, despite COM:UPLOADWAR. You cannot be bitten if you follow guidelines and speak up, James. Say what you can. Restore my question on admin board. Help to follow guidelines. and respond. Should we follow COM:UPLOADWAR, or not? --217.33.193.179 00:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Please don't hide behind open proxies (Brazil, Iraq, now UK). If you have something to tell us please use your real username. --Denniss (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Paul Zimmermann (Blacksmith)

Hello Jim,

the son Heiner Zimmermann of the German blacksmith Paul Zimmermann has added the following three picture for the media commons - it would be great to have it categorized under the name of Paul Zimmermann (Blacksmith) could you help? Or could you do it for me - Thanks Martin.--Schelmentraum (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

We have the same problem with these images that we had in December -- we need a license from Paul Zimmermann. While you say that User:Volcanos is Zimmermann's son, we don't know that as a formal matter, and, according to the WP:EN article, Paul Zimmermann is still living so any license must come from him. So, please have Paul Zimmermann and the photographer both send licenses using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
I am going to put {{Delete}} tags on these -- that can be cancelled after the OTRS arrives, or, if it takes more than seven days, the images can be restored. I will also put them in Category:Paul Zimmermann and Category:Iron sculptures. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jim, i am Heiner Zimmermann (vulcanos) i have been following your recommendation and requested licenses using the procedure emailing OTRS for the files.

Hope it will come through soon. I am sorry casing these problems and thankful for your guidence through the procedere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vulcanos (talk • contribs) 15:53, 17 January 2014‎ (UTC)

No trouble -- you father does interesting work and it is good to have the images. Please note that the license must come from him, not you. While I don't think that we actually need a license for File:Paul Zimmermann Sculpture.jpg because it is permanently in a public place in Germany, it won't hurt to have it. We definitely need the other two. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jim,

ok i did send the request to OTRS but with also a proof of being the son of Paul Zimmermann. The main problem is with my dad sending this request that he is becomming 75 this year and he does not have any knowledge of working with PC or anything realted to it. So he depends on me on all aspects of internet. All i can offer to call him personally so he can confirm this in person. Have you any ideas how i can proceed with this?

Hi Jim, maybe you are interested in the ticket ticket:2014011710009941. I was already prosessing it but you might be beter capable of dealing with this ticket. Natuur12 (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, yes -- I've closed it out. I saw you comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paul Zimmermann Key Element.jpeg and, strictly speaking, you're correct that there is no permission for the sculptures, but given that the father doesn't do PCs and the son seems OK, I think we can assume that this had the father's blessing, even though he didn't send the e-mail and the copyright for the sculptures isn't mentioned. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Okey. Thank you. Natuur12 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted image for fair-use

The deleted image (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Allemagne 6pf Saar 26081934.jpg) was being used in a stamp article on the enwiki. I can justify its use there with a non-free rationale if you can undelete it here temporarily and/or move it to the enwiki for me. Drop me a talkback in either place. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If you e-mail me your e-mail address, I'll send it to you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Image with wrong title

Hi Jim! Sorry to have been out of the loop for so long, work has been crazy and so I've only been slothfully picking at things for wiki instead of focusing on deletes. I will go back and nominate more soon; it has been nagging at me! Meanwhile, I've discovered a conundrum I can't fix and so I thought of you. I found this image "One log house in Humboldt County, California, with a Volkswagen Beetle in front, 1970.jpg"[10] with an "ok to move to Commons" tag on it. The problem is, the One Log House is in Mendocino County! I don't know how to transfer this file and fix the information. Please help! The photo had actually been attached to the Humboldt County wiki page until this morning when I said, "Wait a minute, I was there last week, that's in Mendo!" Thanks for all you do! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had mixed experience moving files from WP:EN to Commons. There are several tools to help and I've found them difficult -- but the last time I did it was maybe a year or more ago. You could try moving the file to Commons under its existing name and then having it renamed here. "Renaming" is the same thing as "Moving" -- just depends on how you look at it. See Commons:File renaming. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I've never successfully moved a file from Wiki to Commons and this one was no exception. For some reason the moving scripts don't seem to work on my computer. Do you know anyone who is really good at moving who could help? Also one other dumb question... How do you deal with the 100s of deletion requests in your watch list? Do you just leave them there and lag up the system or try to remember which ones are older and delete them? Or perhaps you do not "watch" them at all? Sorry for so many questions, but unless I ask, I'll never learn! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
For moving help, try the Village Pump. As for my Watchlist, it has 55,000 entries. Most of them don't recur, so it's not really a problem. When a talk page shows up that I posted to more than a week ago, I will remove it, but otherwise I just look through them. The only time it becomes a problem is when one of our colleagues does something to a lot of images without hitting the minor edit button and even then it is manageable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Airship SSZ17 LandingPembroke1917.jpg

Can I have you view on this I am assuming it is an English picture and as such could still be in copyright if the person who took the image did not die before the end of 1943 - if you concur I will start a DR on it . LGA talkedits 00:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. The source site has no useful information. I am inclined to think that all the Google hits came from Commons. I think we can assume that it is, in fact, a photograph of a British WWI airship taken no earlier than 1916. The only question will be whether it had a Crown Copyright -- almost everyone in the picture is in uniform, it was a military base in wartime, so I think it is at least 50/50 that the photo was taken by an RN photographer. If so, it would have been copyrighted for fifty years from publication, long expired.
The UK law on images by unknown photographers before 1957 isn't clear to me -- our summaries use "unknown" and "anonymous" as synonyms. The current law says that it must be reasonable to assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years, but that wasn't the law before 1957.
You might also look at File:Airship SSZ 37.JPG -- the image came from the collection of the pilot of the airship pictured, so the photographer is also unknown. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I had not considered the uniform issue, and that probably does indicate a crown copyright in File:Airship SSZ17 LandingPembroke1917.jpg; File:Airship SSZ 37.JPG is different, having read en:Copyright law of the United Kingdom (and understanding that WP is not a RS) the question of publication also could be an issue (see here) I do think that this might not be licensed correctly. LGA talkedits 19:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Great guitarist montage.jpg

Hi, I've replaced the images.Blofeld Dr. (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Douaumont ossuary

Am I off base base on this one?--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Right on target. You might want to add {{Vd}} to your comment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again

Hi Jameslwoodward.

This person will never stop.--Inefable001 (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Some socks never do. I have deleted all of them..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks man, i'll keep you informed anything.--Inefable001 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Minor changes

Ok Jim. I didn't do on purpose, not knowing whether such changes had to be "hidden" to patrollers or less. Anyway since you just said I should, I'm going to mark them as "minor". -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Goddess of Democracy DC defy censorship.JPG

Jim,

User:Russavia is hassling me on my talk page (likely related to a dispute we have on Wikipedia) and he claims that there is something wrong with the license at File:Goddess of Democracy DC defy censorship.JPG. If there is, I'm sure it's minor. Could you look at it fix it if necessary? Any help would be appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hope ✓ Done. Jee 06:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Russavia was half right -- I commented at User talk:Smallbones. My thanks to Jee. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Complaint

My name is Ali, I am one of the Arab Writers in wikipedia, has published a topic concerning an Iraqi artist and is the first artist Iraq ... It is a good reputation .... Qusay Tariq wrote 19 books, a book is considered, from the best-selling books in Iraq. Has a book in the English language (postmodern art )proved by my words http://www.scribd.com/doc/192497909/Postmodernism-Arts-by-qusay-Tariq-Art

Publications and on the Internet., But most of the articles written about in magazines very famous Arabic writing ... and this is something that made you deny sources ..

But I have to prove another .. It is located on the wikipedia Arabic. https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%82%D8%B5%D9%8A_%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%82

I have a video of a festival draws twelve Baghdad neighborhood in front of the cameras taking with him the Golden Shield Award for Art and Culture. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwnshrB27Mo&feature=youtu.be

Qusay is considered one of the most important artists we have in Iraq ... but is now a warrior by political parties because of his book about the rights of women and art exhibitions that support women and children http://ahewar.org/rate/bindex.asp?yid=6023

One of his essays task http://www.ahewar.org/debat/show.art.asp?aid=347838

These forms with the U.S. ambassador in our most important magazine and arts Hey Gulf http://www.artsgulf.com/news-action-show-id-12797.htm

This is another one to prove that the video published by SOLITART GALLERY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ6lU0Uq3aY

AL and is not an Iraqi Today the artist Qusai Tariq patient and the campaigns against chronic diseases .. he likes people a humanitarian character And famous ... Stay the first digital art gallery in Iraq .. set up the first art gallery art book ... I hope that you realized from it .. stillness delighted

Thank you for listening to me .. I hope the amendment--Ali ali 2 (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I have read, but I do not understand. Before now, I have done nothing to either of your two contributions to Commons. The first was deleted by Fastily because it appeared on TinEye and did not appear to be your work. The second, I have just tagged for deletion, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:ثريا -قصي.jpg, because if it is your own work, as you claim, then it is out of scope as personal art and if it is not your own work, then there is no permission from the painter.
I am very willing to hear complaints and to try to fix problems, but please explain to me why you came here to complain. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Just for your information

On Commons:Administrators/Requests/Hym411#Questions_on_Uploads, you signed twice. —레비Revi 13:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but

I know that the project lets us have a userpic or two, but what do you think of this? Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. Six {{Speedy}}, two {{Delete}}, user warned. Commons is not Facebook and we have little patience with people who come here to do nothing but create a User Page..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

TekkSavvy deletion pictures from Wikimedia problem

Hello there, I've been receiving emails from TekkSavvy requesting that some images of his to be deleted from WikiMedia. I've looked at the deletion discussion pages for the files, and told him that since other users feel that they are useful, having them renominated by a different user wouldn't make a difference. He also would like if I could find someone who can delete or repost those images under his account. I have just discovered that he is banned from WikiMedia, and therefore I'm alerting you. If you would like the emails between me and TekkSavvy, I'll forward them to you. You can find me at Wikipedia under the same username. Thanks for reading. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

If I understood what he was trying to accomplish, I might help better. Tekksavvy is a pseudonym, so why does changing the name on the images accomplish anything?
We are going to keep his images -- that has been decided. We can change his username -- the details are at Commons:Changing_username#What happens when an account is renamed? As I said, since TekkSavvy is itself a pseudonym, I don't see why a new name would be any improvement, but that's it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. From reading his emails, I see that he just wants someone to delete those images from his account, or have them reposted by a different user. If renaming his account will solve it, then I guess that'll work. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand what he's trying to accomplish. If we rename his account to User:XYZ, then he goes from being anonymous user TekkSavvy to being anonymous user XYZ -- what does that prove? In any case, the name User:Tekksavvy will still appear in many places -- his sigs will not be changed, so "Tekksavvy" will still appear on all of the DRs he has filed.
Since his images are all licensed CC-BY-SA, if the images are reposted by a different user, they would still carry "Tekksavvy" as the author and source. That's not going to happen in any case, because we all have better things to do than deal with the whims of a former contributor.
I understand and appreciate that you are trying to be helpful here, but unless I can understand what he is actually trying to accomplish, there's little I can do. If he's just angy at WMF for some reason, then so be it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That's alright. I've sent a email exactly of the emails he sent me. Perhaps it'll make it clearer MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Watertown FBI raid - agent close up.jpg

Hi, Jim --

Can you tell me a bit about your rationale for deleting this image? There was no discussion in favor of deleting it, no explanation of which Wikimedia guideline it violates, and no response to my "keep" rationale, so I'm more than a little surprised to see it closed as anything more than "inconclusive." Thanks -- Tim Pierce (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lake Jasna images

Hi, in regard to [11], the old non-free versions still need to be deleted. Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2012-12 Final Grand Prix 1d 007.JPG

Hi Jim, could you please be so kind and send me this file per eMail - I would like to upload it locally to the german wikipedia. Please cluld you also add the licensing details of the original upload for correct reference. Thanks & BR Georg --Xgeorg (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. However, you have to send me an e-mail first, as I need your actual e-mail address, because I can't attach a file to an e-mail sent from your talk page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done. Already done (without that I knew) by another admin. Thanks anyway.--Xgeorg (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Deacon, priest, seminarist

Hi, Jim. We closed differently

I think, that they should all be closed same way. I'd like to delete the seminarist, but if you want, then I can restore deacon and preast. Taivo (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right -- they're out of scope personal art. I deleted the one that I had closed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Culturaaborigen.jpg

You closed as "deleted" but the file is still there. Could you check? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes the script we use for closing DRs, DelReqHandler, hiccups and I don't notice it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 03:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


Carla Pimentel

Why did you deleted my content ? Escudero.vinicius (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As it says at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Escudero.vinicius, they appear on copyrighted Web sites and are therefore copyright violations. If you are the actual photographer of these and own the copyrights, you must provide a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Maalavika manoj.jpg

Hi, can you check if the OTRS mail was sent by an authorized source? —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. The e-mail is from Maalavika Manoj R_______, which is the subject's full name, I think (I don't show the last name in full because it is private information). She claims to be the copyright holder, although she is also the subject. The e-mail is from an account at gmail, so I would be inclined to not believe it, except that she gives her full mailing address, which is unusual for a fan just trying to sneak one by us.
User:Dharmadhyaksha, who put the {{OTRS received}} tag on the file, is an OTRS member. Since he did not use {{PermissionOTRS}}, I assume he is also skeptical and would answer your question as a "no". I'll defer to him on this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You may consult Sreejithk2000 too as she is basically from Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Jee 13:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why he hasn't processed the email yet. I don't see any replies in OTRS. I left a note on the talk page of User:Dharmadhyaksha --Sreejith K (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry fellows! I haven't got much time at hand to reply to the OTRS email. I saw uploader's comment on one of the discussion pages and hence simply searched for the ticket number and marked it there. I haven't locked the ticket either. So any other member can also respond to it.
And as said previously to User:Kailash29792 i will ask them again to be patient. Even if the image is deleted by some admin, it can very well be restored after the OTRS email gets confirmed. The article has stayed for long without her image and frankly and bluntly speaking there is nothing superbly great about her that our readers will miss out without her image. So please also stop dragging this throughout Commons. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Dharma, u r wrong in one sense. There is one thing "superbly great about her that our readers will miss out without her image": she looks "sexy" (no sarcasm intended), and the article looks pretty good with the image. Anyway, wat else should I do to prove that she herself emailed OTRS? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
If she herself sent the OTRS, then I must raise the question of whether she actually owns the copyright and has the right to freely license the image? That requires a written transfer between the photographer and her. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Given that the picture appeared nowhere else other than her personal FB page (as her display pic), I easily deduced that it is her own image. The photographer's job was to just take the photo and not even keep it to himself, why perceive him as the owner of the image? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I have approved this OTRS ticket. I don't see why we should put this in hold. Dharma, Wikipedia only cares about notability of the subjects and not the aesthetics. Please avoid comments like these. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@User:Kailash29792. For your future reference, under US law (which Commons must follow) and the law of most other countries, the photographer is the owner of the copyright unless there is an explicit written agreement transferring it. In places like FB, images often appear although the owner of the FB page does not own the copyright and has no strict legal right to use it. Facebook doesn't care about this, but Commons does. In this particular case, I bow to Sreejith's experience and better knowledge of the culture. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kailash & Sreejith; my point was such that even if she is the most beautiful or whatever on earth, there is no need to drag the issue everywhere. OTRS members will look at it when they want to look at it. We need not prioritize her. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Andrej Hoteev.tif

Dear Jim,

RE: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andrej_Hoteev.tif?uselang=de-formal

The license from the photographer is soon sent.(to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org)

Thank you. Best regards Alexander User:Alexander25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander25 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 February 2014‎ (UTC)

I don't read German, so I am not handling the OTRS ticket, but as best as I can see with the help of Google translate, we have a message from the photographer telling us that Andrej Hoteev owns all rights to the image. However, I think we have no license from Hoteev or anyone else, so there is still a problem. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

they want the license from Hoteev? Thank you. Alexander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander25 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 February 2014‎ (UTC)

  • As I said, because I do not read German, I may be missing something, but as it stands now there is no license. I think the photographer did not give us a license -- he simply said that it was all right if Hoteev gave a license. So, we still need a license from one or the other. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it was a misunderstanding. I inform Mr. Hoteev. I think, you will soon get a licence. Sorry for amateurism. Best regards- Alexander

Mr. Hoteev has today sent the license to Wikimedia commons. 

Did you get it?

Alexander

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peachoid water tower (Gaffney, South Carolina) 001.jpg

Hi, I found this interesting DR and I an kinda curius what you think of this DR. Could you please give your opinion on this one? Your exertise is much apriciated. Kind regards. Natuur12 (talk)

No expertise needed. The Gaffney S.C. Board of Public Works registered their copyright, so it's an easy one. See VAu000051231 / 1982-12-06. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Natuur12 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:USS Hanson (DDR-832) off Korea c1951.JPG

Hi, you deleted the above photos, the same applies to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cobatfor. I still don't understand the reason for the deletion: "COM:URAA problem. Was not public domain in Australia in 1996. Without a publication history, it is copyrighted in the U.S. until January 1, 2073 (120 years after creation). (...) Works on Commons must be free in both the source country and the U.S." According to the user then, ANY photo on Commons would have to be deleted, if it was not free in the US. This would, for example, refer to any MoD photo of the UK which were uploaded recently. ANY template for ANY country would then have to have the addition, "not matter what, it has to be free in the US". Right? I would be glad if you could help me understand. I also wonder, why all other AWM photos uploaded from the same time frame on Commons are still there. Nobody saw any problem with the dublic domain status. Thank you. Cobatfor (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your summary is correct. Because WMF is a US corporation and Commons servers are located in the USA, all images must be free in the USA. Our policy is that they also must be free in the country of origin. You will find this stated plainly at Commons:Licensing.
The URAA issue is complicated, particularly for government images, because some governments have declared that their images are PD worldwide after expiration of the government copyright -- in effect, licensing such works CC-0.
There may well be more deletions necessary -- Commons has over 20,000,000 images. My best guess is that at least one percent of those -- 200,000 images -- have problems of one sort or another. While we delete about 1,500 images every day, more than 10,000 are added and, inevitably, some problems are missed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, although it is difficult to understand that, as in the above photos, the Australian Government still has the copyright in the US while they released it into the public domain in their own country. Who should claim it? That's why I am a historian and no lawyer! :-) Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, the Australian government (or any other copyright holder) is free to solve the problem by declaring any or all such works PD worldwide. The US is not the only country which has a copyright term longer than the fifty years applicable to Australian government works in Australia -- in most countries such works would have 70 year terms and in a few up to 100. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of South African Coins

Hi James,

Last year you deleted the files File:1952 Georg VI. 1 Pfund Südafrika.JPG and File:South Africa-Penny-1951.jpg on grounds that they breached US copyright. I have recently visited the page on the Afrikaans Language version of Wikipedia which holds files that are public domain in South Africa, but no tin the United States. Since those images are out of copyright in respect of South African law, I am happy to do the relevant work at the South African end.

I will ensure that no English text appears in the files - any English text will be replaced by Afrikaans text. I will of course keep any German text that might appear - the first file appears to have been posted by a German contributor.

Do you have any views on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 15:16, 6 February 2014‎ (UTC)

From the point of view of Commons, I have no problem -- in fact, I would be happy to temporarily restore them and copy them to the page you cite.

However, I think there is a broader problem. I think that it is possible that the whole page that you cite is not valid -- the WMF servers are in the USA and therefore, I don't think that WMF hosts any material that is not either free in the USA or has an appropriate Fair Use rationale. We cannot solve a US copyright problem with a file simply by moving it from one place on the WMF servers to another. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim,
May I go back to the original removal of the files from Commons. You expressed a concern that a copyright restriction might exist within the United States. I do not see how anybody in the US could have a "copyright" on the design of the coins and not fall foul of the US laws on counterfeit coins or banknotes. On these grounds I think that the requestor was being over-zealous. It might therefore be best to restore the pages, but to add the flag PD-SAGov. If you cannot see the way to do this, I shall discuss the matter within the Afrikaans Wikipeidia community an sort out a EDP, the principal ground being that Afrikaans is not widely used in the US, but is an official language in South Africa. Martinvl (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by this, "You expressed a concern that a copyright restriction might exist within the United States."
My concern is that these coins and anything else created in South Africa after 1/1/1946 has a copyright in the United States under URAA because it was under copyright in South Africa on 1/1/1996. The US copyright is owned by the same person or entity that owned the copyright in South Africa in 1996. In the case of the coins, that is the government of South Africa. While it is possible for the copyright holder (the government) to declare that such works are PD worldwide after the fifty year period, to my knowledge the South African government has not done so.
I should point out that since most major countries have a seventy year term rather than South Africa's fifty year term, they are also still under copyright in many other countries.
Since the coins, and many other things on the page we are discussing, have a US copyright, images of them cannot be hosted on any WMF project unless we get a license from the copyright holder or a "fair use" rationale applies. Such a rationale cannot be applied at Commons or on the page we are discussing because repositories are not fair uses.
I also do not understand your last sentence -- the use of Afrikaans is not relevant to the copyright status of the coins or the ability to host images of them on a WMF site. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim

Please read the page Commons:Currency. Although South Africa is not mentioned on that page, there is sufficient information in respect of other countries to infer that Wikimedia Commons applies the country's own copyright law only. My assumption is that nobody in the US can claim copyright without exposing themselves to US counterfeiting law. In light of this, please restore the images as requested. Martinvl (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. The first rule of Commons licensing, as I said above, is that all images must be free for use, either because they are PD or because they are properly licensed in both the source country and the USA. Commons:Currency ignores the second half of the requirement because it is understood to apply to all images. I don't understand your repeated assertion that claiming copyright in the US would expose the claimant to counterfeiting laws -- the copyright holder is the South African government which obviously cannot counterfeit its own currency.
The URAA and laws in many countries that provide for longer terms than South Africa's fifty years mean that anything created in South Africa after 1/1/1946 still has an enforceable copyright in many countries even though it is PD in South Africa. That may be hard to understand, but it is the law, and unless the South African government chooses to declare that its works are PD worldwide after fifty years, we must obey the law.
Since I am obviously not able to make you understand this situation, I suggest you post an Undeletion Request so that others will weigh in on the situation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim,
In the last few minutes, I read Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. If you follow the links back, you will see that under US law the copyright of the 2-D image is separate from the copyright of the 3-D object, the rationale being that "there is likely to be sufficient creativity in the lighting arrangements for the photographer to obtain a new copyright on the image". The author of the photograph can therefore relinquish his copyright when placing the image in Wikimedia Commons regardless of the copyright status (in the US) of the object. Copies of stamps are of course different since stamps are 2-D objects. Martinvl (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The photographer can only relinquish his copyright to the photograph but not to the coin as he does not hold the copyright to the coin. See COM:DW. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, thank you, Stefan. The problem here is not the copyright for the images, it is the copyright for the coins themselves. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong contents

I fix that contents.

Hi, tell me which one is right?

Category as wrong as I entered the correct content. same as,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Huseyin.ozkilic (talk • contribs) 18:44, 6 February 2014‎ (UTC)

It is possible to have both a Category and a Gallery on a subject, as you show with Demet Evgar. The category should always come first, so that others can find the images.

It is not permitted to have a gallery with only one image. Galleries with two images are permitted, but there is not much point in a gallery until the number of the images in the category is large enough to make the selection and sorting in a gallery a good thing.

This is the reason that I deleted

You will note that in both cases the edit my summary is "Empty or single image gallery; please see Commons:Galleries" which explains this in more detail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please undone your image deletion

You just deleted this image which was uploaded by me, based on your conclusion that "there is no FOP for 2D works in Macedonia": https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Welcome_to_bulevar01.jpg However, I did not took that image in Macedonia, but in Serbia, and according to this page it is legal action in Serbia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Serbia So, please undelete that image. Thank you. PANONIAN (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw the nom's comments on the Macedonian language and made a bad assumption. It would be very helpful if you added some cats to the image -- it's not very useful without any. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, there are categories "EXIT 2010" and "Liberation Boulevard", which are subcategories of "EXIT (festival)" and "Streets in Novi Sad", both of which are pointing to city Novi Sad in Serbia. Anyway, I will add word "Serbia" to image description, so these kinds of issues might be avoided in the future. PANONIAN (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Nana_Ntumba

You simply cannot be serious. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course I'm serious. We do not keep collections of images which are intended to promote non-notable people, however well photographed. If we start allowing that, then we might as well just leave it all to Facebook -- One of the main values of Commons to the outside world is that we are selective. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes we do: Donated media items, regardless of intention, are kept if they can serve our goals: I explained in the original DR how many of these photos, argeably all of them, are in scope, even though I obviously don’t support the intention of their uploader — to promote the biography of a well-travelled and talented, but nonetheless non-notable, television camera operator. Your unflexible position against self promotion as you detail above, compounded with your prejudice against my keep-votes you so candidly expressed recently, meant that you hastily overlooked as worth of Facebook and have deleted the most recent photo we have/had of a world-wide renowned film actor and the single one have/had of an Oscar-nominated film director, not to mention other items of lesser notability and interest. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
We will continue to disagree on this, I'm sure. However, I appear to be in line with almost all of my colleagues on Commons in thinking that images like these do not belong here. Your position, as I have said before, including the comment you cite above, is a long way from the Commons norm.
Because of the non-standard formatting of your extended comments, I did not see them until I had closed the DR -- I thought they belonged to the next DR. I will reconsider a few of the deletions based on them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
What was non standard and extended about my comments? -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Extended comments are good -- no complaint there -- it's very helpful to have a comment on each image. Usually, though, that is done on the original list, and certainly without section heads -- as I said, that made me see your comments as the beginning of the next DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I have gone through the DR and made comments. Other than the three images of notable people (which were not named in the DR and which I chose to keep), I see no reason to change my mind on any of the others. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you delete pictures?

svetit 9:51, 7 Febrary 2014 (UTC+3)

My reasons are given in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Svetit. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Cathie de Bella.jpg

Pourquoi est-ce que tu as supprimé ce fichier ? L'entreprise n'existe plus depuis les années 80. Elle a déposé le bilan et les fondateurs de la société sont morts depuis longtemps ! --Guil2027 (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if that is all correct, the copyright still exists and the deleted image clearly infringes on it. It is very likely that when the company went bankrupt, the Intellectual Property, including copyrights, was sold at the auction that wound up the company's affairs. While the buyer may be impossible to locate, the doll will be under copyright until at least 2037 and, perhaps, much longer, if the designer lived beyond 1967. We do not keep images of copyrighted works on Commons, even Orphan Works. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Quelle suffisance ! tu ne connais ni cette poupée, ni l'entreprise mais tu es certain que quelqu'un a racheté le brevet ! Mais qu'en sais-tu ? Comment expliques-tu qu'il n'y ait plus eu une seule poupée Bella depuis la destruction de l'usine en 1988 ? Même les moules sont régulièrement vendus en enchères sur ebay. C'est sûr qu'avec ce genre de raisonnements, la catégorie "dolls" va continuer à être le musée des horreurs pendant très longtemps. --Guil2027 (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The doll was created in 1967. It therefore must have a copyright which must exist until 70 years after the death of the creator. That cannot under any circumstances be before 2037 and may be much later if the creator died later or is still be alive. It does not matter who owns the copyright or if it is an orphan -- the copyright still exists. That is all we need to know. Although it is unfortunate that there are orphan copyrights, the rules of Commons are very strict -- if there is a copyright, we must have a license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
J'adore le type qui m'apprend que cette poupée a été commercialisée en 1967 alors qu'hier encore il ignorait son existence. Je pense surtout que tu n'y connais rien mais que tu as décidé d'imposer tes propres règles sur commons. Va te faire voir. --Guil2027 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Self Promotionalist?

In searching images and reading the pages images are used on, I found this one [12]. What does one do in cases like this where the only contributions are outside of Scope? Thanks for your help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You can tag the User Pages on WP:EN for deletion -- I generally don't bother. The images, however, we do have some control over -- I agreed with your {{Delete}} on the second and tagged the first one as not having permission. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:J%C3%A4germeister_50cl.jpg

So, uh, you waited an entire week to hear my input on the matter? Now that I finally got the Commons alert for a new message, I fail to see how my image is any different to the one currently featured on en:Jägermeister, only that it's much better. The label is just as visible, and nobody will mistake it for anything else. Should I therefore nominate it for deletion as well?

I am able to create studio-grade photographs and willing to occasionally lend my work to everyone but stuff like this is only making me want to stop. Antti29 (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You certainly create very good images, but, unfortunately, you cannot infringe on the copyright of others. We have more than 20,000,000 images on Commons. My best guess is that 1% of them -- 200,000 images -- have problems of one sort or another, so you can almost always find an example of a similar image that ought to be deleted. When you find images that ought to be deleted, please do nominate them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Could you explain how a photo of a bottle any adult can buy is a copyright infringement? And if it really is, isn't this list full of them? Antti29 (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
A newspaper, a book, a poster showing a modern painting -- these are all things that anyone can buy, but you cannot simply photographer them and post the photo on Commons because you don't own the copyright. The bottle's label has a copyright, so your image infringes.
As I said above, you can usually find examples of similar problem images on Commons that should also be deleted. Category:Jägermeister is not an exception. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, you better get crackin' then. For me, all this is too much bother and I'll just stop contributing. Antti29 (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
If all you have to offer Commons are copyright violations, then, by all means, stop contributing. If it is too much bother to read and obey the copyright laws, then, again, stop contributing. Only if you upload good images that do not infringe on the rights of others are you welcome here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi. Thank you for deleting the page I created by mistake, because I forgot to type in "Category" first. It's actually this Category:Westwood Park (Los Angeles, California). I wanted to add a speedy deletion tag for the other one without the category: that you deleted, but I wasn't sure what the tag would be (I asked someone, but by the time they got back to me, you had deleted it already). Anyway, all good now.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a common mistake, so no problem. New Page Patrol is fairly aggressive because we see a lot of vandalism and try to delete it rapidly to discourage the vandals. That mean that mistakes like yours get the same rapid service. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Horigome Yuto, J. Youth Cup 2012.JPG

Could you please clarify what was the reason of the deletion? The original poster's comment wasn't that specific, and you gave no comment on the closure. Am I correctly understanding that it was deleted because of violation of the copyright of the depicted trophy as a sculpture? whym (talk)

A sorry, sometimes we are too cryptic for the good of the project. Chalk it up to 1,500+ deletions a day.
You have it exactly right. The trophy has a copyright as sculpture and these is nothing in Japanese law that would allow the broad use of the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I added a note there, hoping other people (especially the uploader) find it informative. whym (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, although I do note that the nom linked COM:FOP#Japan which provides a complete explanation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ooops

I looked at this pile of photos yesterday and only got around to nominating them today. Since I looked yesterday, someone else nominated some/many of them again! Major oops, what do you suggest I do to fix it? I've never done one like this [14] before. Thank you so much for your patience! I do feel as if I'm getting more comfortable with the process. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I took the two lists into Excel, sort and compared them. Yours was a perfect subset with two fewer files, so I simply deleted your whole entry. You can now add your comment to the existing entry.
I don't create many mass DRs, so it's never happened to me. It isn't a bad idea to check a couple of the images just before creating the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I had put it on my todo list on one day, and didn't recheck it the second day. I've been trying to lump the DRs of some fairly blatent copyright violators to save us time deleting them one by one. There seems to be a pattern, they upload one photo or two and if those don't get deleted right away, in comes a whole gallery of junk. So as I go through the pages of new images uploaded, I take a second to look at the whole gallery of the uploader, whether I found *that* image dubious or not. Several of the mass deletions I've done have been prompted by only one or two images and then 1/2 hour of searching out the rest of their images and nominating them. Eventually I get tired and log off; I have no idea how you do hundreds or thousands of these a week, I'd go crosseyed at 250. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the issue?

You seem perpetually miffed with me. I have no idea what the problem is. Rather than leaving condescending notes in deletion discussions, please let me know what the issue is. You can email me if you prefer. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think there's an ongoing issue between us -- I'm certainly not aware of any. I think of you as a reasonably active colleague that agrees with me as often as most.
I could have been a little more diplomatic at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vimy2 tango7174.jpg -- for that, I'm sorry -- but, frankly, asking the community to go searching for a series of DRs before considering this one seems a little too much -- you obviously knew where they all were, so that it would have taken you much less time to list them out than for one or more of us to go searching. You might even have consolidated them yourself -- a pain in the ass to do, but certainly something that I and others have done from time to time -- the easiest way is to simply redirect all of the DRs but the one.
As for my comment about non-French law, I have not looked at the other DRs and I don't know what arguments were applied. There's no other argument that an experienced editor could use. The subject image is a fully developed sculpture of three people that occupies the whole frame, so neither de minimis nor TOO can possibly apply to it. The designer died in 1955, so under French law, it's still under copyright, but under the Canadian 50 year rule, it would be PD. I can't see any other potential argument here, so why did my mentioning that offend you? As you know, the same argument has been made, unsuccessfully, for a variety of other monuments in Europe.
I also take exception to this:
"For the reasons explained in the more than a dozen other discussions on this same memorial, which we need not repeat here for the umpteenth time."
Actually, you do need to repeat them. We delete about 1500 images every day, in around 200 DRs and a variety of other actions. Although I am a fairly active Admin, I do not see DRs every day -- perhaps every third or fourth day at best. Even Jcb, Fastily, and INC don't do DRs every day. It's almost certain that most of the people reading through the subject DR log will not have seen the "dozens of other discussions". Certainly I have seen no discussions of European memorials such as this one that ended in keep closures.
Perhaps it would be good if you consider that half of all deletions are done by four people (Jcb, Fastily, INC, and Dschwen) who average between them over 750 deletions per day. They are the ones who keep the 10,000 new images a day from overwhelming us. They need all the help they can get -- both in spelling out reasons, and in listing out other things to consider. The rest of the most active Admins, including me, appreciate such things, but for the top four, it's vital.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for this reply. Very nice of you to take the time to set this out. I've started a full reply about 5 times over the course of the day, but keep getting pulled away. My response might not happen until tomorrow morning. Sorry about the delay. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry again for the delay. I have drafted a response, but it is a mess because I have been adding to it whenever I have had a spare moment today, and it is at the moment a string of unorganized thoughts. I will try to give it a read through and post it tonight. I didn't want you to think, after I raised this fuss, that I was ignoring you.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Again, I'm sorry my hasty remarks made you angry -- I'm not sure there is whole lot more to say. I'd like to see you think a little more about how we can all best aid our high-volume Admins in their work and you'd like me to be more careful in my choice of words. I'll do my best on the latter. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
It took me even longer than anticipated to reply due to real life. I’ll just post what I started.

Thank you for your apology yesterday. I apologize for over-reacting. We all make comments that are perhaps not as diplomatic as we had intended, and I am a bigger offender on that front than you ever are. I am glad to hear that you do not believe there is an ongoing issue. I think I've misinterpreted some of your past comments as curt, was then taken aback by your comment yesterday, and frankly was fed up. I have spent hours on the deletion discussions involving this memorial, researching French copyright law and in some cases crafting comments in French (I am depressed at how rusty my written French has gotten). I am not particularly trying to "save" these images (I didn't take or upload any of these photos), but as a lawyer I think there is a clear principle of law. It's a principle I first discussed on the category talk page in 2009 when I grew frustrated with the common and incorrect assertion that "Canadian FOP applies in France". I'm troubled by some more recent assertions, namely the knee-jerk "No FOP in France, so no photos of any memorials where the artist has been dead < 70 yrs", which I think is as shallow and incorrect an assertion (to the extent it is applied to everything without much thought) as "Canadian FOP applies in France".

After having put all this time into this (and given my real life schedule, it has largely precluded me from doing anything else I wanted to do on Commons these past few weeks), it was frustrating to get a message suggesting I hadn't done enough or done it correctly. (I know that wasn't your intent) As best as I can tell, no one has suggested to the nominator who created this mess that he might want to assist our admins. I can't control others, and there are a number of editors who commented in a number of different discussions (interestingly, I believe that none of the editors who advocated "keep" did so on the basis of Canadian FOP - the only people who keep mentioning that in a unintentional (but nonetheless frustrating) straw man-kind of way are the people advocating deletion). I wasn't comfortable redirecting anything, given that some people had already commented before I had even found some of the discussions.

Personally, I would never close a nomination if there were other ongoing, relevant discussions involving the same subject. I didn't see myself as making a request, although I worded it that way to be polite - frankly, I felt like I was alerting people and stating the obvious. I wasn't asking anybody to search for anything. I actually found working through the category a simple, straightforward and quick way to get a handle on all of the discussions (in which I found more than half a dozen that I'd missed). I actually referred to that approach in my comments to save people the trouble of looking. It's fine if you prefer a list, and if someone had said "this is a mess, I personally prefer a list - can you help?" I would have been pretty happy to extend that courtesy (although it might have taken me a day or two).

Having got all that off my chest, I will provide a list. You're right. It might take me a couple of days. At the end of the day, it isn't my mess to clean up, but it also isn't the mess of Jcb, Fastily, INC, Dschwen, etc. Regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank very much for your considered comments. I certainly can be curt with experienced colleagues from time to time -- while I try very hard to explain things at length in words of one syllable to newbies, I figure that people with your depth of experience don't need more than a few words to get my point. Perhaps I should recalibrate that a little.
Starting fresh, I don't understand:
"I'm troubled by some more recent assertions, namely the knee-jerk "No FOP in France, so no photos of any memorials where the artist has been dead < 70 yrs", which I think is as shallow and incorrect an assertion (to the extent it is applied to everything without much thought) as "Canadian FOP applies in France"."
While I won't admit that it's a knee jerk, I will say that my automatic reaction to the subject image is as I put it above -- it can't be DM or TOO, so the French 70 year copyright applies and there is no FOP. Why is that "shallow and incorrect"? What am I missing that you think should be considered? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough - I would never admit to knee-jerk either. (I wasn't talking about you) Some of the photos (not the one you commented on) are arguably DM or TOO. Otherwise, the main issue is collective work which is an exception under French law. We discussed the concept with respect to the Newfoundland memorial (in December?), and while I won't admit that one wasn't collective work, the statutory exception never fit that memorial (which was essentially a statue of a moose) the way it does this one (with a completely different set of facts). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I've just read your comment at Category talk:Canadian National Vimy Memorial and I have several comments. First, the monument is not "architecture" as that term is used in US law -- "architecture" includes only structures intended for human use or habitation. That is different from the use of the word in other countries, including France, where "architecture" includes structures such as bridges. It is "sculpture" under US law and so will have a US copyright. I used to have a good cite on the issue from a major university Law Review, but it disappeared.
I don't agree that it is a collective work. Sculpture, particularly monumental sculpture, always involves a number of contributors besides the designer, such as structural engineers, mold makers, and founders, just as architecture, particularly of large buildings, involves not only the architect, but also structural engineers, steel fabricators, and the workers who actually build the building. Nonetheless, the designer of a sculpture and the architect of a building is the copyright holder. In a way this is analogous to a book -- the writer gets the copyright even though the creation of the actual printed book involves editors, typesetters, printers, binders, and so forth (this ignores post 1970 technology, but the principle remains the same).
BTW if the extra-territoriality issue ever comes up again, there is good evidence that there is no such thing. Even in the case of an embassy or of the UN Headquarters in New York, local law applies -- a murder in the American embassy in Paris will be tried under French law in a French court. The only complication is that if, for some reason, the American government wishes, they can prevent the French government from arresting the murderer as long as he remains in the embassy. We have precedents in both images of the Japanese embassy in Iceland (FOP for architecture is OK in Japan, not in Iceland,so we did not keep the images) and in the case of sculptures at the UN Headquarters -- not kept. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. I came back to work after the long weekend and saw that my response from Friday was still on my screen. And frozen, so I have had to retype it. My own stupid mistake. First, U.S. law is a red herring that I mistakenly addressed back in that 2009 discussion (although given that the structure in this case includes staircases and platforms for human use, not to mention foundations containing 11,000 tonnes of concrete, I am not sure that I agree with your application of the U.S. case law in these circumstances, although at the end of the day I don't think the U.S. case law applies). The real issue is collective works, and if this is a collective work (which it is :) ) then I'm not sure we have ever applied U.S. law to photos of structures in other countries (and in this case, Canadian crown copyright would have applied, an expiration which we have now determined applies worldwide). Second, this is not the typical case involving a monument or building. Here we have a government that exerted final creative control (overruling Allward on one major component of the monument) over what was the country's major monument in Europe, a project whose scope was much different than most of the sculptures and grave markers than have been the subject of most of our other war memorial FOP discussions, involving a new type of construction which was beyond the sole expertise of Allward - circumstances well beyond the examples you gave above (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vimy memorial .jpg for more discussion on this point). In any event, we could argue these points in circles for years the reality is that this memorial meets the letter of the statute in terms of collective works, we have case law which demonstrates that the concept of collective work has been applied to architectural works, and we have a memorial involving facts and circumstances quite different the vast majority of other discussions on Commons involving war memorials. We have more than met the COM:PCP threshold. Finally, thanks for your examples. I think I might have participated in one of those embassy discussions (or another one - IIRC, the discussion in which I participated involved plaques on a U.S. embassy or consulate in France). I think the best example is the case of the couple caught having sex on the Vimy memorial - convicted under French law, not Canadian law. Regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree strongly that this is a collective work -- as I said above, that would make every architectural project or monumental sculpture a collective work and no one on Commons has never argued that before. With that said, while I often enjoy debate for its own sake, we have over twenty million images on Commons and this one has so many unusual circumstances that it is not going to be used as a precedent. I'll bow out and let one of our colleagues close the DRs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
If it is a collective work, then this would extend the copyright term a lot. Under EU law, the copyright to a collective work expires 70 years after the death of the last co-author. I'm not sure how French law defines an author, but under Swedish law, an author is anyone who makes a contribution which is above the threshold of originality. If you just follow the architect's or sculptor's instructions, then you do not yourself do anything creative - the only one who does something creative is the architect or sculptor. Canadian law is completely irrelevant as Canada isn't the source country. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
It wouldn't extend the term. This would be an "oeuvre collective" under the French statute, not an "oeuvre de collaboration". As such, copyright would have expired. I am not aware of anyone suggesting Canadian law applies. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Most architecture has creative input that is not the architect's responsibility, ranging from interior design in buildings of all sizes to structural engineering in large buildings. Similarly, most monumental sculpture requires creative design of the armature and, often, the pedestal.
You argue at Category_talk:Canadian_National_Vimy_Memorial that it is a collective work and that the Canadian Government is the principal. I think that's a big stretch -- the client often exercises considerable control over a project and always has a veto over everything, but I have not heard of a case anywhere that that kind of control gave the client the copyright. I think that it's seventy years from Allward's death.
I dismiss the case of the couple having sex -- it's so minor that it doesn't create much of a precedent. If it were a murder, then maybe it would have value, but not fornication. Fortunately we don't have to rely on it -- it's clear that even embassy's don;t have extra-territoriality in the sense that many people think they do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Good morning. I am beginning to enjoy starting off each day debating copyright law with you.  :)

I disagree that this would make every architectural project or monumental sculpture a collective work. As you say, these are unusual circumstances. In this case, we have a national project, with evidence that the principal (government) exerted final creative control over a team, where Allward required the expertise of others well beyond the inputs (notably Faber) an architect normally requires. The typical building is not subject to parliamentary debate and oversight, does not give rise to a separate commission to guide its completion and is not unveiled by the head of state (all indicia that this was a project initiated, guided and controlled by the principal, not Allward, as required by the statute and well beyond the typical architect-client relationship). It's a pretty small subset of works that would have these, or similar, characteristics. In any event, we can't ignore the statute. As explained at the links I provided above, this meets the letter of the law and there is supportive case law. Where a statute is satisfied on its face, we easily meet the COM:PCP threshold. The issue is not "no one on Commons has never argued that before" - the issue is whether we have satisfied the statute. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, we disagree. I think that most monumental projects -- most of those on the Mall in Washington DC, for example -- have the same sort of intense client oversight and involvement. But, as I said several exchanges above, while I too enjoy this, it's a very special case and we both have other things to do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but I am not aware of a similar statutory exception under U.S. law that would apply to those on the Mall in Washington DC. Thanks for your input. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to delete my images and leave Wikimedia

Hi Jim, a few days ago Im trying to delete my photograph (I did shoot the pictures) because Im not longer agreed with Wikimedia policy, and now even more when I get insult from user Tuválkin by a ortography mistake. I want to leave Wikimedia, but first I want to delet this images, because there are mine. Please, can you help me? Im sorry for my inglish, it is not my natal lenguage. Pablorosario2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablorosario2013 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 February 2014‎ (UTC)

  • There is no need to apologize for your English -- it is very much better than my Spanish -- or even my French, which I studied for eight years many years ago.
Tuválkin was unhappy with the fact that you had nominated the same image for deletion three times for the same reason, and the reason was not valid to start with. I also was unhappy with that.
I am sorry that you want to stop contributing here -- your images are good and one of them is in use in a major article on WP:ES -- it would be good if you gave us more images.
As far as deleting those you have already contributed, that will not happen. When you uploaded them you granted a license that cannot be taken back, so that they are here forever. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the process for...

Greetings Jim: A local social-service agency, headquartered in one of our National Register homes, would like me to come take photographs of their fully restored interior to add to the page about the house on Wikipedia. Is there any special forms they need to fill out to permit the pictures to be uploaded without issue? Parts of the building are open to the public at all times, but they want pictures of the non-public spaces as well. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at Commons:Image_casebook#Museum_and_interior_photography. As long as you don't upload pictures of copyrighted works, Commons doesn't care whether you have permission or not. I know that you are aware of the rules about information plaques -- that's how we first met -- but if there are any other copyrighted things in the restored interior, try to avoid them or at least make them de minimis. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Trailer photos

I notice you just deleted the McCracken photo and I understand your rationale. However, an interesting issue was just raised on Wikipedia in a parallel situation. Based on the discussion here in Commons, I just tagged two photos as "nonfree" on Wikipedia. [15] See the two "Band Wagon" trailer photos. I went ahead and used those photos, but then looked at the trailer and noticed a copyright notice ten seconds into the trailer. A user commented in the discussion that the tag was for nonrenewal not no-notice, and that the trailers may be free if the trailer itself was not renewed. If that argument holds water, then I don't see why I couldn't re-upload the Good News screenshot and use the non-renewal tag. I think the nonrenewal issue would be the same for all vintage film trailers, and could be a reason to allow pretty much all of them. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, here or on Wikipedia. Thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Housekeeping point -- when you raise a subject with a colleague, it is very helpful to add a direct link, in this case Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joan McCracken in Good News trailer.jpg -- I've deleted over 500 files in the last two days and shouldn't have to search through them to find "McCracken".
You make a very good point -- I should have picked it up in closing the DR as the movie's date (MCMXLVII) was in the DR. Unfortunately, it shows up in the Catalog of copyright entries. Ser.3 pt.12-13 v.28-30 1974-1976 Motion Pictures. p163, as renewal #R592965, so the no renewal argument fails, as it probably will for most major motion pictures.
I should add that search for pre-1978 entries is not as hard as it once was -- the catalog has been indexed, so, assuming that the index (which was scanned and created from an OCR document) doesn't misspell the title, you have only to look through four or five indexes -- they are semi-annual and the renewal of a 1947 movie could take place in 1974 or 1975 or possibly 1976. The starting place is http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/.
Finally, it is a violation of policy and a waste of resources (albeit very small) to upload an image a second time. Commons keeps everything, so when an image is "deleted" it is actually just marked as not available for public viewing. If the community decides that the image should be restored -- either through a discussion such as this one or by an Undeletion Request -- then it will be restored to public view. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much. All your points are well taken, and I'll bring that to the attention of the Wikipedia discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Second thought -- I'm not sure. Although the trailer had notice, it was neither registered nor renewed (at least it didn't show up in my search. It seems to me that any frame that appeared only in the trailer is PD from lack of renewal, and any frame that appeared only in the movie is still under copyright, but I'm not so sure about frames that appeared in both. I'll ask User:Clindberg to take a look at this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd appreciate your looking into this. I realize that there is no such thing as "precedent" in such matters, but it would be useful to find out what the general rule is concerning movie scenes appearing in trailers and movies alike. Coretheapple (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
If the trailer was published before the film, then the trailer needs its own notice and renewal, or else the entire trailer is in the public domain.
If the film was published before the trailer, then the trailer is covered by the film's copyright renewal, at least for all frames and parts of the dialogue which can be claimed to be derivative works of the film. There have been some odd court rulings about derivative works and copyright notices, so I'm not sure if a missing notice would be enough to put the entire trailer in the public domain.
I assume that most trailers were used as advertisements for upcoming films (meaning that the trailers were published first). Based on the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joan McCracken in Good News trailer.jpg, that file had a valid copyright notice, so the question is whether the trailer was renewed. For a claim of "no renewal", you would have to search the copyright renewal records here. The renewal should be approximately 28 years after publication, but it seems that some renewals were made after 27 years and that some appeared in the catalogue from the 29th year, so it may be necessary to search through a couple of extra years. For renewals made in 1978 or later, you must instead search at the Copyright Office's website. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Stefan, it would have been helpful if you had read the discussion above -- I assume you did not because your tutorial on searching for the renewal covers the same ground that I did above when I found the renewal for the full movie and described the process. The question in front of us is, as I said above, assuming the movie is under copyright (having been registered and renewed) and the trailer is PD (having had notice, but no renewal), what is the status of frames that appear in both?
I do not think that we can assume beyond a significant doubt that a trailer was published before the full movie. Often movies are released on a very limited basis (still sufficient to count as "published") long before their public release. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
As I wrote, the copyright status of the frames which appear in both appears to depend on the date of first publication: if the film was published first, then it depends on the film's renewal, and if the trailer was published first, then it depends on the trailer's renewal. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
OK -- would you agree that while it is more likely than not that the trailer was published first, "more likely than not" does not pass our "significant doubt" test? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that any decision like that should be taken at COM:VPC. Currently, there are several people who upload images from trailers under the assumption that the trailer was published first, although this often isn't proven. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Good idea -- maybe we can get a consensus. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, please do. I know nothing about copyright law and won't be participating, but I will be following the discussion with interest. Coretheapple (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Edith Cowan University

Hello again. I was wondering if you thought that this page should be deleted and the pictures moved to [16], or not. And if not, why not? If so, can you please do it? (I know how to add them to the category page, but not how to delete the other page. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly legitimate to have both a Category and a Gallery on the same subject. In this case, the gallery takes images from three different categories:

and puts them on one page. Since one purpose of a Gallery is to combine images that are correctly categorized in different places, this is a good example of one. I think it might be better named "Edith Cowan" than "Edith Cowan University" since of the three images, only one is from the university. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

OK...I fail to see the point of a gallery. Wouldn't Category:Edith Cowan University be a sub-category of Category:Edith Cowan anyway?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as you will see, it is, in fact, a subcat. A gallery is more helpful for complex subjects, but even here, images relating to Edith Cowan are scattered throughout three categories.
Consider Category:Boston. It has images in 29 subcats and more than 200 sub-subcats. Some of those are great images, others not so great. The gallery Boston makes an attempt at organizing the best of the images into an overall picture of the city.
Or, for a simpler subject, look at Lighthouses in Maine. Here we have one best image of every lighthouse taken from about fifty different cats. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

License?

Here's a new one to me... [17] User gallery is entirely graffiti, no obvious locations. Keep or not-keep? I see tons of other images of Graffiti, including category, but does it fall under "needs artist permission" or "FOP" of whatever country it is supposed to be in? Or none of the above as it's just spray paint on walls... annoying but not art? Please advise! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

First I should say that I don't agree with Commons graffiti policy -- it may be illegal, but it is still a created work and has a copyright. It seems to me that Commons rationalization that the artist can't sue because the work is illegal is a violation of COM:PRP #1. However, the policy is broadly supported, so I stay away from illegal graffiti.
I would delete all of these -- not all graffiti is art and in any case we don't keep art from non-notable artists. The images are strange -- they look to be both contrast and color manipulated. Without a location, they aren't very useful. Since we don't know where they are from, we must assume they are in a non-FOP country. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are plenty of cases where it would be a good idea for the copyright holder to sue:
    1. If the copyright holder already has been fined for vandalism, then you can't receive more fines for vandalism, so suing for copyvio is safe.
    2. If prescription has cancelled the possibility to sue for vandalism, then suing for copyvio is safe.
    3. If a copyvio claim gives you $1000 but you only risk having to pay $500 to the propwrty owner, then suing for copyvio still gives you some money (but everyone will know that you're a vandal).
    4. If the property owner won't find out that there's a copyvio case, then he can't sue for vandalism.
    5. Only the vandal can be sued for vandalism. If the vandal is dead, then the vandal's heirs can easily sue for copyvio without risking legal problems.
I think that one idea is that it is often impossible to identify the author of unsigned graffitti. However, in some countries such as Sweden you can be fined or end up in jail as long as it can be shown that you have violated someone's copyright, even if the copyright holder is unknown and uninvolved in the case. However, the copyright holder can of course not get any compensation if the court can't figure out who he is. --Stefan4 (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I nominated all of them under COM:SCOPE. I think graffiti is art too, see "Banksy", but I am not getting into any deletions arguments if I cannot help it. Remember the Battle of the Brass Plaque! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
@User:Stefan4 It sounds like you and I agree that Commons policy is not good -- but that still only makes two of us. "...it is often impossible to identify the author of unsigned graffiti" is a violation of COM:PRP #4 -- so we have two violations of PRP in our graffiti policy. I'm not sure I agree with your #5 -- in the US, at least, you can sue someone's estate for damages caused by the decedent. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The idea with not being able to identify the author is that if the author doesn't have any evidence that he is the author, then a court wouldn't accept any claims that he is the author. I agree that COM:PRP §4 is a problem here: there will always be some cases where the author can prove that he is the author.
At least in Sweden, the idea is that anyone can go to the nearest police and report a copyright violator if one is found. The author has the right to "fair compensation", but apart from that, the violator can be fined and put in jail for up to two years if the violation is "intentional" or due to "gross neglect". See for example this case where a school found out that a 15-year-old student had used a computer for file sharing. For some reason, he wasn't fined in the first instance, but I think that this was appealed to a higher instance where I don't know what the outcome was. Here is another case where the German state of Bavaria sued a man for publishing Hitler's Mein Kampf. The court decided that Bavaria doesn't hold the copyright to the book in Sweden (although the state holds the copyright to the book in Germany), and the court then discussed the options to punish the publisher anyway, although in the end he wasn't punished for some reason. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Sridharbsbu

Please have a look at this user, it may be a new sock of Sridhar1000. --Denniss (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Right you are. I blocked it indefinitely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Julia Ann CES2000 11.jpg‎

That was a good catch Jim, thanks. Nicoli Maege (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Pensacola.svg

Thank you much for deleting this file. However, I wonder what more reason or rationale you could want to delete all versions of it. I do know that the image under one form or another is used on a number of wikiarticles. But the very idea of this flag is untrue - it does not exist in reality, and may well be a hoax. That's why I included the link to the Afd discussion. The original uploader has had tons of images deleted, which is highly suspicious - did you look at his talk page? I don't know what else to say or do here to put an end to this fantasy flag which has no valid reason for being on any wikipage, but I've done all I know to do about it now. Textorus (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

  • ??? I did not delete File:Flag of Pensacola.svg or any related file. As I said at the DR, the file has been in use on the WP:EN article for almost two years. Commons firm policy is that we do not make decisions on the authenticity of flags, maps, and other controversial issues -- we leave the choice of images to the individual WPs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Odeon West End - Leicester Square, London (4039996300).jpg

  • "The two billboards are the center of interest of the image" - no, the building is the centre of interest. If it was the billboards, why include the lower and upper floors too, plus the roof, and indeed all that sky? And why frame it so that a lampost is in front of one of the posters? The building was obviously the centre of interest, anyone who claims otherwise has nothing to base that on at all
  • "arguably the photo would not have been taken except to show them." - seriously? does the title and description on the Flickr page support that total speculation? It would appear not - Odeon West End - Leicester Square, London and The area of London where UK film premieres take place. With loads of cinemas. This is the Odeon West End, the second Odeon cinema in Leicester Square." makes it pretty obvious that the photographer intended to photograph the building
  • "Both billboard's categories are included in the image's cats" - so what? They were not included on the original photographers image, so again, per COM:DM, that is yet more evidence that the posters were not the intended subject.

Even though the debate was closed after less than 24 hours, I think your statements were so wrong they needed rebuttal here. Ultra7 (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The original Nom was User:Rodhullandemu. User:Fastily closed the DR. I commented at the UnDr and User:Natuur12 closed it. Only User:Mattbuck agrees with you. It's been discussed on Fastily's talk page, Natuur12's talk page, the DR, the UnDR and now here. Obviously it's a subjective decision, but when four experienced users think it should be deleted and two think it should be kept, it's going to be deleted and remain so. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Gaffney Peach.jpg

Jim, would this file be in the same situation as this discussion? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Eduardomanuel

I think you deleted all the images which were probably OK, and left the images which probably aren't :-) PD-AR-Photo means that most Argentine photos from before 1971 are OK, regardless if the uploader erroneously claimed "own work". I didn't check all of them but most looked old (some from the 1800s). I think that section was nominating pre-1971 photos which were just marked "own work" and had a bad license; the other sections were modern photos likely lifted from Panoramio and post-1971 photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that I got it backwards? There are moments when I sincerely wish we had a tool for mass undeletions and, if I understand you correctly, this is one of them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think you got it backwards. Some of the part 1 images are a problem if they were taken 1971 or later but most are probably OK. The Part 2 and 3 images are almost certainly problems. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:La Barraca 75 aniversario 00.jpg ...(perhaps a confusion)

A greeting. Excuse me, perhaps there was a misunderstanding. Just delete the corrected Edition of a file hermno other for which I requested deletion by an error in the dates of composition. The previous deletion, which I asked, as the creator of the image, is correct. But I do not understand the deletion of the new version, with correct dates 1932-2007. It will be kind enough to give me an explanation. Thank you.--Tolijote (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

When I nominated the file for deletion, I said "If this is actually "own work", as claimed, then it is out of scope personal art. If not, it is a copyvio. Either way it cannot be kept on Commons." I think that is as good an explanation as I can make--
Either:
  • The poster is someone else's work and you do not have the creator's permission to license it freely; or
  • The poster is your own work, in which case it is out of scope since Commons does not keep art created by artists who are not notable.
In either case it was correctly deleted.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear!

Please help with this? User file list [18] compared to Wikipedia article [19], with file history [20] looks like a fan page, promotion or self-promotion. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe -- certainly looks like it might be. There's a fine line, though, between self-promotion and a legitimate article on a performer. On Commons we are interested only in images, not articles on WP, so it's up to WP:EN to decide if an AFD is warranted. It's been there almost two years, so that seems unlikely.
Of course, you could put on your WP:EN hat and do just that, but for me, I've got enough to do here without worrying about WP:EN also. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, here's another one... Even more puzzling... This Wikipedia User page Is actually an article about "Sculpture in the Parklands" , mostly written by Disgracedminister, see [21] here... who also moved over photos from Wikipedia [22], [23], and [24] with a pile of other pictures in category [25] all seem to be photos of works of living artists. The conversion of a user page (with redirect) to an apparent article (without warning box) is a new one to me. I have marked for deletion four more pictures of this sculpture park which were added in early January since the artist Michael Bulfin (featured in those four uploads) is still living. I'll work with a Wikipedia admin on their side of the problem, wanted you to see the photos. Thank you for the help above! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I also left a message for that uploader apologizing in case I made a mistake on those nominations based on COM:FOP/Ireland. Again Thanks!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

File:French horn mouthpiece.jpg

Thanks for the comment regarding the UK. I didn't realize that the applied art copyright is different there, but I did look it up after you mentioned it and saw just how hard it would be to copyright. At least in the U.S., the design of the mouthpiece is considered applied/functional art (such as the design of a chair would be), and therefore is under copyright. However, parts of the mouthpiece (namely the shank) wouldn't fall under copyright. Of course, patent is the ultimate protection for these. When I submitted the deletion request I forgot Denis Wick was in the UK. The Haz talk 23:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Vocalists by language

Hello Jim, I need an opinion by a native speaker of English. I was transferring the child categories of the said one to the correct nomenclature (some were "Turkish-language singers", other "Tamil vocalists" and so on); the doubt is, should I write either "Italian-language vocalists" (with the dash) or "Italian language vocalists" (without the dash as I am doing currently)? -- Thanks for your time. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I checked the New York Times Style Book, which is my usual usage guide, and clarified my instinct. Generally, the hyphen is used to avoid confusion with two adjectives preceding a noun when the first adjective relates to the second, and not directly to the noun. You do not use the hyphen when both adjectives modify the noun -- a "small red car" is both a small car and a red car, but an "Italian-language vocalist", is not necessarily an Italian vocalist -- she could be German. "Italian vocalist" or "Tamil vocalist" describe a person who is Italian or Tamil and is also a vocalist, but not a German singing in either language. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes but in that case we have an adjective and two nouns ("Language" and "Vocalists") :-) In Latin-derived languages it would be easier, I would write Cantanti in italiano (or Cantanti in lingua italiana) or Chanteur en français. Of course, as you correctly supposed, I am not necessarily referring to Italian (or any other nationality) vocalists, but to all those that sing regularily in Italian (ie someone coming from the Italian-speaking regions of Switzerland or from San Marino, which has Italian as official language) or have occasionally done (I made the frightening discover that even David Bowie sang an - horrible - Italian cover of Space Oddity =:-(( ). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please explain

I see the word "flickrwashing" used from time to time. I suspect that means someone gathers unfree images, uploads to flickr, then uploads to here, claiming free licence from flickr? If that's the right concept, I suggest this user [26] has been up to at least some of that. Is there a reasonable way to figure this out? The entire gallery is celebrities. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This Michael J. Scofield reminds me of Chace Watson/MyCanon with the celeb crops and uploads. A 2 month old acct that works like a pro. Last time I wondered about a Chace Watson sock I was right... INeverCry 23:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Funny, but the last one is just a day or so out of CU range: User:WikiCelebs. INeverCry 23:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Ellin, Flickrwashing, or, more generally, License Laundering is exactly as you describe it.
Your best bet for figuring it out is start with a Google image search (it can be installed to come up with the context menu when you right click on an image) or Tineye (ditto) to see where else the image has appeared. You can also look for EXIF and the usual small-size signs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! (Waves at Talk Page Stalkers!) Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Please tell me more about that supposed flickr washer. You suppose that he/she is uploading files with an account then cropping them with a sock? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Please tell me what is a "CU range?" I am sorry but some of the terminology is still all new to me! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Basically, @Ellin Beltz: , a CU range is the timespan during which a check-user can be effectively done. I don't know what's this time range for Commons (on it.wiki is 2 months or 60 days, don't remember exactly). If two accounts connect from the same computer within a range of 60 days a check-user is able to detect that. If i.e. you log on Commons more than 60 days after your last access with another user, the check-user cannot tell whether both accounts connected from the same computer and IP range. To make it even simpler, if you perform a check-user on two or more users suspected of coming from the same source, you cannot explore data older than two months. Thus a sockpuppetter who knows that may dodge the control simply operating, for example, two accounts from two separate sources; or operate the latter user more than 60 days after the last use of the former user. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 19:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It is longer than sixty days here on Commons. For the reason mention by Sergio, I won't say in public how long. Also, Sergio simplifies a little. A CU can tell if two edits came from the same IP address, which may or may not be the same computer. Some ISPs keep IP addresses constant for long periods while others change them frequently -- I had one sock that had over fifty IP addressed in less than a month. Also, in some organizations, more than one, even many, computers can share an IP address. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as is my case should I edit from my office -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I recall the use of "CU" during a prior deletion discussion, and as a savvy computer user I pretty much know what kinds of data can be gathered especially when logins are required. Is there some page of [[COM:ADMIN ABBREVS]]<? Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Peachoid redux

Here’s a discussion on Wikipedia on an image of the Peachoid. What do you think? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. See my comments there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag-map of Kingdom of Libya.png

Are you aware that two other identical raster flags maps were also just deleted under the same reasoning? This is one of three. Fry1989 eh? 01:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't care enough to post an UnDR, but it is too bad when our colleagues do not follow policy. I see no reason to delete a PNG when an SVG is created -- it saves nothing and takes time -- and several good reasons to keep it -- aside from the chain of creation history and attribution, most potential users of Commons don't know what an SVG is, aren't aware that they can download and use it just like a PNG, and will go away without finding the image they are looking for even though it might be available as an SVG. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

uraa

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sabiha_gökçen.jpg If you can check this one out for me. I hope I did everything right. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine after the discussion. As I said there, it's not a URAA problem yet , the image is not PD in Turkey. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Maidman

Hello. I note that you have deleted File:Microbiota 1.jpg, File:IndustrialObject2.jpg, and File:Hands 1.jpg because they appear to be copyright violations. However, the artist does appear to have released these images specifically under CC BY SA 3.0 on his website. Is this not sufficient for use on Commons? Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

As you will see, I found the release on his web site after having deleted them. This could have been avoided if you and User:Daniel Maidman (who I assume is actually the artist) had marked them appropriately rather than in your case just slapping a CC-BY-SA on it without any evidence of permission and in his case not simply claiming "Own Work", but actually pointing at the release on his web site. We delete more than 1,500 images every day -- images that appear to be copyvios will be deleted on sight and the half dozen Admins that do most of that work do not have time to search web sites beyond the bottom line which, in this case, read "all images © Daniel Maidman 2013 all rights reserved". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Please accept my humble apologies, it was an oversight on my part. You did the right thing by deleting them in the first place, but thank you for restoring them so quickly. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Let me apologize as well; having stumbled once, I'll be more aware in the future of the issues involved - I hope that proves sufficient reward for the time you had to waste dealing with the problem. I really am sorry to have gotten it wrong. Sincerely, Daniel Maidman 11:49, 2 March 2014
I think I was a little snarky above, my apologies as well. Daniel, thank you for contributing your four images to Commons. I hope to see more. I think you realize that all of this is in an effort to protect artists' works from being posted here without permission.
Although I am satisfied that User:Daniel Maidman is actually the artist of the same name, if you are going to be active on Commons, I think that you should follow Commons username policy and confirm your identity by sending an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from an address at http://www.danielmaidman.com. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Jim, absolutely no apology is needed, but I appreciate it. I'm glad to contribute the images, and I very much do understand the concern about posting of images without permission. I just emailed permissions-commons@wikimedia.org per your suggestion (and the policy, which I should probably have read beforehand), and I'll try to keep up with that kind of thing in the future. I do hope to be active here over time, and I'm grateful for the welcome the community has offered me. Have a wonderful evening, or morning - Daniel 18:48 5 March 2014

File:Cristina García.jpg

Hello Jim, before I use the delete feature I need some supplemental info. Is there any particular reason why this photograph is being kept here, in spite of the fact it's been licenced as NC? Or I can safely delete it because it doesn't fullfill the criteria for being on Commons? Which of the two licences apply? Either the less or the more restrictive one? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The uploader is exploiting a loophole in Commons licensing policy that I strongly object to, but that others of our colleagues think is OK. Basically, because it has a GFDL license, it is OK for Commons. That ignores the fact that a GFDL license requires that any use include hyperlink to or, for print use, a full copy of the license. That's fine for a software documentation distribution, for which it was intended, but more difficult for web sites and impossible for any print use. So, what the licensing does is make NC use easy under the CC license, but any commercial use hard and any print commercial use impossible. I think that violates the spirit of Commons, but, as I said, others disagree. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thus, if I understood well what you wrote:
  • You can't use commercially the photograph under CC terms;
  • You can formally use it commercially under GDFL but not de facto because a photo with the full licence printed next to it is unusable (like i.e.: you can't get for free in this private club through the main gate, but you can get in through the window, provided that you enter it with your car).
Did I resume well? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Your summary is perfect, including the thought of driving a car through a window ;-) -- can you imagine an image in a book surrounded by a fine print license? As for your question, although it's clear what you mean, it's not a correct usage. I would say "summarize", rather than "resume". The verb "resume" means "start over" or "come back to doing something". The noun "résumé" means a summary, mostly used in the sense of a summary of one's experience, a curriculum vitae. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I meant "summarize" but I wrote "resume" because (alas!) I'm still bound to my reminiscence of French which was in fact the first foreign language I studied :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sabiha Gökçen picture

What is your opinion on that one ([27])KazekageTR (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

New alert

This user.--Inefable001 (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Taken care of. Jcb (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Geography of Southwestern United States

I'm not very expert of geography of the United States, but are we sure that both Hawaii and Texas are "southwestern United States"? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Hawaii is the southwestern-most state, but no one I know would say that it is in the southwestern United States. I removed it from the cat. Most people would agree that the American Southwest is Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, plus, perhaps, California, Nevada, Utah, Oklahoma, and Colorado. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Anyway I also created Geography of the United States by state which is - at least - unquestionable :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Johnadams.jpg

Why did you keep then delete? All votes were to keep. Evrik (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure what happened here. I meant to keep it. Thanks for finding the problem..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Universities

Hmmm.... before I move any step ahead, the correct syntax is either Faculty (or Alumni) of University of... or Faculty of the University of ...? If we assume that i.e. University of California is its proper name (University as name and not noun) should be Alumni of University..., but I'm not completely sure. Can you help please? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You want consistency? Here? LOL!
Either
  • Faculty of the University of California, Berkeley or
  • University of California, Berkeley faculty

is correct English. I think I would tend to use the first, because we say "People of", or "Artists of" rather than the other way around. There's also a small ambiguity in the second -- you might read it as "the Berkeley faculty of the University of California", rather than as intended, with "Berkeley" modifying "University of California".

Generally there should be a "the" in there for names where "University" or "College" comes first, but not the other way around, thus:
  • Faculty of the University of California, Berkeley, but
  • Faculty of Harvard University
While you're fixing cat names, you might look at Category:Panoramics. In English, "panoramic" is an adjective, while the noun is "panorama", so using it as a cat name is like saying "photographics of Germany" rather than "photographs of Germany". You could say "panoramic photography of Germany", but why not just use the noun? Also, I don't see why it is "Panoramics in Germany" -- in English we would say "Panoramas of Germany". (I note as I write this that the spell checker is red-lining every use of "panoramics" -- while there are times to ignore the spell-checker, people should at least think about what it is saying). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose that Harvard doesn't want the "the" before because "Harvard" is precisely the name of the institute (same as writing "Players of Liverpool FC" or "Players of Arsenal FC"). BTW... What's the plural of "Stadium"? Either "Stadiums" or "Stadia" (ah, those Greek-derived names....)? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
My initial thought was "stadiums" and the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, which I use for such questions, agrees with me. As a rule, we use English style plurals for words that have become English, even if they are spelled the same as their Latin or Greek ancestors. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok Thanks :) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:None (add license tag in the box below)

I have replaced all usage using AWB. Can this be deleted? — Revicomplaint? 11:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedied -FASTILY 07:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Twins

Hello Jim, apologise for bothering you again :) The category Twins has become a bit of mess because, while its parent categories are Multiple births and Sibling couples (which suggests it's about nothing but biology and people) it's becoming the dump of every Two-of-a-kind category of anything (twin buildings, twin tunnels, two matching outfits, and so on). In an attempt to rationalize things and make them consistent (ha!) I wanted to subcategorize at least human twins, but I'm stuck in the sex categorization (males only, females only and siblings): ie for females should I write either Female human twins or Human female twins (same for males and siblings)? Thanks again! -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
PS Ah one more: either Deejays or Disc jockeys ?

Hmm. How about "Twin sisters", "Twin brothers", and "Twin siblings". Probably should be "Twin sisters (human)", etc., although for me "sisters" implies humans. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
For me too, thus "Twin sisters", "Twin brothers", and "Twin siblings" is clearly referred to humans. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Back to the Times Style Manual for Deejays -- the Times prefers either "D.J." or "disc jockey"; not "deejay". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok for disc jockeys, then. As for human twins, now it seems kind of sorted out... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Firstdukeofalbadetormes.jpg

Hola, pues entonces cambia el nombre del archivo. Sino lleva a la confusión. Gracias --Parair (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, The problem is the name. It's a false name. It say that grandfather of the duke. It isn't grandfather. He was the grandson, ok? --Parair (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don;t understand. The file name is "Firstdukeofalbadetormes". That says nothing about grandfather or grandson. Is the image not the first Duke of Albadetormes? If not, give me his correct title and I will change it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Scope

I found typos in the COM:SCOPE page today while cut/copy/pasting sections to explain the problem with a user on my talk page. Also the list of what fails Scope is missing things we use all the time. Maybe it would be a good idea to get a committee together to work on this so that this page actually provides full support to our deletion nominators? Just a thought. I'm too new to fix anything on the scope page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You can fix typos as you find them -- that does not require any consensus. Word changes for clarity with the same meaning are also probably OK. The best way to work on other changes is to post a note with specifics on Commons talk:Project scope and see what happens. While that won't always generate a discussion on a minor subject, a page like Scope has enough watchers so that one should happen. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

DR

hi :), Mabye deleting Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mona Lisa-gutenberg121 1.jpg too? I am not 100% sure becous it is a scan. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought that one at a time was better -- they are all controversial DRs -- perhaps better to let the two (mine and yours) settle before another. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Could you see also here. This is a related DR. Thanks. :-) --Angelus(talk) 13:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Please read what I said above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I have read, but I did not understand. Could you explain better? Thanks. --Angelus(talk) 14:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Superseded images is a difficult subject for some people -- they would like to keep everything and ignore the clutter that that causes. I prefer to keep only one really good image. However, rather than close several controversial DRs on the same subject at the same time, I prefer to close only one, plus the one that Steinsplitter closed, and then wait a while before closing the rest. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for explanation. :-) Best regards. --Angelus(talk) 15:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please

Hello. Sorry for disturbed you. Please add my this edits in template language list. This language list page is security. Respect--Dağlı95 (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don;t really understand how to do this -- adding a new language to an autotranslated template is not simple and I do not understand the instructions. Please put a request on COM:ANB and someone who knows what to do will handle it. And thank you for your effort to make Commons more accessible to everyone. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I realized now ))). Thanks for your attention. Best regards--Dağlı95 (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

A billboard even an admin can love.

Hi Jim: I took this picture with you in mind... I don't think we need worry about the copyright of the image on this billboard, it's rather de minimus. And I was stupid and named the file incorrectly, can you help me learn how to fix that? It should be "Billboard Down" not "Bilboard Down". Thanks!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL -- No worries about the copyright here. As an Admin it's easy. In the same pull-down menu as "delete", to the right of "View Edit + History *" you will find "Move and Replace". There are three parts to the process:
  • Choose a new name for the file (Move)
  • Replace all of its uses throughout all the WPs with the new name (Replace) -- not needed here
  • Leave behind a redirect - also not needed here.
Generally we leave a redirect if the file has been around more than a short while to guard against the possibility that a non-WMF user has linked to it. And, of course, we always replace all of its uses, but there aren't any here.
Although it is not Commons policy, I think it is a good idea to follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), hence "File:Arcata CA billboard down.jpg".
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Edgar Andrews

About the removed picture of Edgar Andrews. I have the rights to the removed picture, which is also present on the backflap of the Dutch edition of his latest book. I own the rights to that picture since I am the publisher of the Dutch edition containing that picture. If that is not enough, please advise how to proceed in order to get the picture back up. Watch-Wiki (talk)

I see the following in the file description, "The author Edgar Andrews himself has the rights to this picture and has given me permission by e-mail to use it for wikipedia." Permission for Wikipedia is insufficient -- both Commons and WP:EN require a license for any use, including commercial use. It is unusual for a publisher to have more than a limited license to the image, but, in any case, in these circumstances Commons policy requires that the actual copyright holder (usually the photographer) send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:NGruev

This is a note to let you know that I've reopened a deletion discussion that you previously participated: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:NGruev. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Benutzer:Plasmarelais/Vorlage:Querleiste

Hi Jameslwoodward, you've deleted the page Benutzer:Plasmarelais/Vorlage:Querleiste, which was mine. I've put a wrong title outside the user namespace, I'm sorry for that. It was a mistake, I intended to create it like a subpage of my userpage. May I ask you to reestablish the page and move it to the page User:Plasmarelais/Vorlage:Querleiste? Thanks a lot for your help! Best regards --Plasmarelais (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done I understood the problem -- it is not unusual for users who work on non-English WPs to use their home user name -- "Benutzer", "Kulanci". In order to clear the New Page Patrol log I had to either move it or delete it. Since I didn't know what you wanted, I deleted it.
Anyway, no harm -- I have created User:Plasmarelais/Vorlage:Querleiste. Comments on the links under the buttons:
  • Subpages -- I've never seen this special before, thank you for adding to my skills here. I have added it to my user page.
  • Pictures -- I see that you have a few user categories and are following the naming rules for them, see Commons:User categories. The link under the pictures button is wrong, though, it links to Commons:Category:Plasmarelais, not Category:Plasmarelais which is what you want.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help, I'm happy to see that there was something I could help you, too ;) Sorry for all the work I've caused. Best regards, --Plasmarelais (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Plasmarelais -- Commons can be a very difficult place, so we have to try extra hard to be good to newcomers. Feel free to come back with more questions as needed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

wrongful allegation of copyright violation

Hi, you deleted File:Gnome-icon-theme-gnome-terminal.svg File:Gnome-icon-theme-gnome-software.svg File:Gnome-icon-theme-gnome-maps.svg File:Gnome-icon-theme-gnome-music.svg]] because of "copyright violation", but the files are ALL released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GNU FDL and I also linked to the files themselves. Could you please undelete them again?

You "source" Source site, https://git.gnome.org/browse/, has explicit copyright notice refers to "the site", NOT to its content in git. You do not really think, the entire git is not under some free license, do you? How can you make such mistakes? ScotXW (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The source you provided in the descriptions in each case is the URL of the image itself, not the URL of the page containing the file. Not providing the actual source page is a violation of Commons policy, see [[28]]. When I see an image that is directly linked, I simply go to the site's base page for copyright information. It is not the job of Administrators to search websites for licenses -- it is up to the uploader to properly link to the applicable license.
Please remember that a dozen Admins delete more than 1,400 images daily. We do this to stay ahead of the 10,000+ images that are uploaded every day. We do not have time to do more than the basics of our job. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
And as an SVG the file itself CONTAINS that demanded copyright information... can you restore your deletion again? ScotXW (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and you also deleted and page with the authors... please restore that again as well. ScotXW (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
GNOME-icon-theme/authors was a copy of this page: GNOME_High_contrast_icons/authors maybe you should delete that page as well ScotXW (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
As you suggested, I have deleted GNOME_High_contrast_icons/authors. Please read COM:Galleries which describes the purpose of Commons galleries. As for the others, as I pointed out above, it is the job of the uploader to provide links to the source pages that have appropriate licenses. So far you have not done that. If you do not provide the source pages, then there is no point in restoring the subject files because one of my colleagues will just delete them again for the same reason. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Nice "work". Here is the directory: https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-icon-theme/tree/ and another one: https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-software/tree/ But as I already stated, this is the GNOME git. I think it is safe to assume, that pretty much any project hosted there is free and open-source software. Thank you for your cooperation, you're contribution is appreciated. ScotXW (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I suspect you;re getting as frustrated by this as I, but let's take another shot. An example:
The image File:Microbiota 1.jpg is a painting and is on Commons by permission of the artist. The source shown in the file description section is not the URL of the file (http://www.danielmaidman.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/21Microbiota-1.jpg), but the URL of the page on which the file appears (http://www.danielmaidman.com/wp/paintings-2011-2/). Also on that page is an explicit CC license for the painting.
What we need in the case of the Gnome icons is the URL of the page(s) which contain the icons and which either have, or lead directly to a free license.
Your assumption that the icons are free is misplaced -- often icons have a special status in the free licensing of copyrighted works. Note, for example, that WMF icons are not licensed freely, although everything else here is. The same is true of Mozilla and many others.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
We are talking about GNOME here, and also, I provided the proof. It is IN the files itself. Instead of wasting my time, simply open the files, and look INSIDE. Thank you. ScotXW (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I won't do that -- as I have said several times, unless the file descriptions link to URLs that show the license status, they don't conform to policy and will simply be deleted again by another Admin. There's no point in getting mad at me -- if you don't want to follow policy, then don't try to upload to Commons because the files will simply be deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I did that as well here: https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-software/tree and here: https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-icon-theme/tree/ upon which you implied, that the license file there would somtimes not be valid for the SVG files... Thank you again, for your good work. Keep it up, sport. ScotXW (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Please look again at my example above -- policy calls for a link to the actual page which contains the image, not a directory of pages. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

As i use the template:Information daily which says the source URL has to be URL where the file was found on the web. The documentation says nothing about where the license status has to be found. Isn't that still the present valid status? --Maxxl2 - talk 12:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's calm down a little here.
@ScotXW: this was certainly not the good way to assert this situation. You fail to provide proof of license for said images, and attaquing James for that is in no way a good thing. Everyone can make mistakes, James did, by deleting those images, but you also did, by attaquing him for that.
@James: Regarding the license of those icons, Gnome being a open source project, one can assume that they are under a free license. And they indeed are distributed under the terms of either GNU LGPL v.3 or Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license. Now that this point is made clear, can you undelete those icons, and ScotXW will add the source I provide as a license proof ?
Thank you in advance, both of you.
Pleclown (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but that doesn't work. First, we cannot assume anything about the copyright status of the icons. As I pointed out above, most free license projects, including WMF and Mozilla, maintain control over their icons and do not license them freely, so any assumption would have to be that they are copyrighted, not free.
Second, the statement at https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-icon-theme/tree/COPYING does not give us a list of any sort of what is free and what is not. And we still don't have a source page for each of the icons. This is really not very hard, folks and it is clear, well established, policy.
My patience has run out with this one -- after repeated explanations of what we must have in order to restore these, we still don't have it. I suggest posting an UnDR and letting the community do what it will with them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


@Maxxl2: See Commons:Essential_information#Source: "For images that come from a website, you should ideally name three links: a direct link to the image, a link to the page the image is displayed on, and a link to the term of usage of the site. Links to (a page showing) the image and the terms of usage are required." Jee 13:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the enlightenment. As i read this for the first time today, its not a part of a policy or strict requirement, its just a recommendation. Commons:Project scope#Evidence says additionally: "Note that in the case of files found on the Web, this should not be the URL of the file, but the URL of the page containing the file, so that Commons editors can find background information when required." The triple sourcing is not part of the main upload form Special:Upload and not a part of the upload wizard. How should a simple user like me know that? In all instances only the link to the image is asked for. Therefore a missing link to license information cant be the reason for deletion. --Maxxl2 - talk 15:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
One link (to the page where the file and license available) is enough in most cases. But if the license information is not available there, the uploader should provide a link whwew the license is mentioned. The third link (direct link to the file) is not required in most cases. But I know some sites where images are displayed as slides; so a reviewer may fail to find the file in first look. In such cases that link is also useful. This page is linked to the beginners guide; so available for all new comers. Note that reviewers are not responsible to find the license link if not provided. Jee 15:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. While the documentation and tools may not make it easy, it is not up to the rest of the community to fix problems with an image's license. The uploader is responsible for providing evidence that the file is properly licensed. If he or she does not do so, then the file will be deleted. And please understand that, as the footnote you cited makes clear, it is not "the link to the image" that required, it is a link to the page containing the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
File:Ubuntu Software Center icon v3.svg you need to definitely delete that file as well... ScotXW (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
We have more than 20 million files on Commons. My best guess is that more than 1% of those -- 200,000+ files -- need to be deleted. The fact that other stuff exists is not a reason to keep or delete anything. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, in that case I just helped you in doing an even better job... you should thank me and go along with doing a great service to our community... ScotXW (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ayuda con categorizaciones

Hola Jameslwoodward. He notado que ha borrado esta página, Quizás usted podría ayudarme con las categorizaciones de estas Imágenes por favor. De antemano muchas gracias. Saludos sinceros. --Deucaleon (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hola Jameslwoodward. Muchas gracias por su atenta respuesta. ¿Puede usted por favor, revisar los cambios en la página?. Espero estos cambios sean los correcto. Un saludo.--Deucaleon (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
User pages and subpages are yours to do what you like within very broad limits, see Commons:User pages. I see nothing wrong with the page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Fictional flag issue

Being one of the users involved in my DsR on fictional flags, please have a look at User:Antemister/Fictional flag issue for a general discussion on that topic.--Antemister (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)



Undeletion request

Copy from here:

In answer to the question, "Why Germany"", I have to say that my understanding is that this is a German version of the card -- somewhere above there is mention of contacting ATI Germany. However, if it is not a German version, then US law applies, since ATI is a subisidiary of AMD, a US company. US law, like German law, is not interested in the main subject of the image, but in the whole thing, and de minimis applies only if the problematic work can be removed without it being noticed by most users. Please remember that the "main subject" concept applies in only a few countries, and generally only in connection with FOP, not general issues of DWs.
I agree that Fastily's closure is correct -- not just because he closed it on my side, but because in order to restore an image there must be a clear consensus for it. COM:PRP is very clear -- it must be proven beyond a significant doubt that the image is OK. This was 3 to 2 in favor of not restoring -- even 3 to 2 the other way would not have passed that test..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Some corrections: There is no german version of this card - in fact I haven't noticed any country specific version of any graphics card (BTW: Why should it matter if it's a german version. A german version could be also be photographed in poland or on the high seas). I contacted Sapphire Germany (neither AMD nor ATI, since all you see on this image (cooler, artwork, fan) is made by Sapphire. Sapphire Tech. Germany is a coincidence, it just led me there from the contact page. "de minimis applies only if the problematic work can be removed without it being noticed by most users" I can only find that information ("[...]could easily be removed without even the slightest impact on the appearance of the actual object to the average viewer[...]") in this section: Commons:De_minimis#Germany - again german law, which does not apply here.
2 vs. 3 (or the other way around, it doesn't matter) is not sufficent but 3 vs. 30 would be?
Thanks for talking the time to replying to me --D-Kuru (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

OK -- as I said, I did not understand why Germany was involved. Sapphire is a Hong Kong company. We don't have a general rule for choice of law in cases where the issue is application of DM to internationally available products. I think that if the issue came to trial, it would be in the USA and the US court would apply US law, since there is no reason to apply any other. As for 3-2 or 2-3, it is not really voting, it is whether there is a significant doubt. I don't know exactly where "significant" stops, but when several experienced users see a doubt, that is significant. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess germany was involed because I contacted Sapphire Germany and have a de-M lable on my userpage - maybe hints for germany. I do think the same way that if it would be send to court US law would apply. We may do not have a general rule for such a special case (and I think there is no real need for that since it would be pretty specialised), but the already existing de minimis page is a pretty good start.
I do have to asked this again: If there is no part of the image which is prohibited by law, why not apply Common's comunity guidelines which do already exist (like Commons:De minimis)? And I just can't see any reasons (following these guidelines) to keep the file deleted. --D-Kuru (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to look again at Commons:De minimis. The copyrighted works in all of the examples there are so small that you can't see what they are at the size on the page. On the other hand, the woman on the Sapphire card is easily the most eye-catching thing in the image -- some would argue it is second to the fan, but I disagree and even if it is second, it is certainly important to the look of the card and the image. The best way to think about is -- if the image were changed to a man, would anyone notice? In the case of the examples at COM:DM, if the Dark Knight poster were changed for a different movie, or if the seat back screens were changed for a different screen, no one would notice unless it was called to their attention.

So I read de minimis yet again to see if I missed something the last time. If you scale down my original upload to the size of GT2 - Flickr - CarSpotter.jpg on the de minimis page (which is about 220px width) you can see the woman as good as you see the dark knight poster. If you look the image with a width of 200px you see that the fan is the most dominant part in the image. Even with 400px the woman is such a small part that the fan is still dominating the image. Looking at the images in a small resolution does not change anything since the full resolution is the one which is uploaded. When you open my image, display it full screen and take a step back so that you can see the whole image, the woman is not the most eye catching part of the image.
Would anyone notice if the woman was changed to a man? Good question! Let's put it to the test: I use the figure of the Sapphire Readeon Tri-X R9 290X since it's again an image by Sapphire and a man. The result can be visited here. Would anyone notice the exchange? Well, at least I know and I count as somebody, right? Let's get some more exaples: Would anybody notice if the large image on the museum front would be replaced in 17723 EscherMuseum.jpg. Since the author died in 1972 the image is not PD-old. Let's look at GT2 - Flickr - CarSpotter.jpg again. The Question must be again if anybody would notice the exchange of the Dark Knight poster, right? Do you notice any difference if you look at this image or this image? Yes? OMG, I see an incoming DR for that image since the poster can't be replaced by any image without anyone noticing it. But wait! It can't be that easy, can it? The question which should be asked is: Would somebody, who has not seen the original image, think that any of the images couldn't be that way? When you just look at the rebuild image why shouldn't all of them be that way.
Now the interesting part which seems to be some kind of bear trap that just do not want to get off this discussion: For de minimis it does NOT matter if anyone would notice if the image would be changed. That's german law. I'm going to list all the questions I can find on the de minimis page (add one if I forgot any):

  1. Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless.
  2. Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful.
  3. Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the subject, and is essential to the subject (eg blacking it out would make the file useless) but the work is shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity, so de minimis may apply.
  4. Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the image subject, but is not essential to the subject (blacking it out would not make the file useless)
  5. Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable.
  6. Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is an unwanted intrusion to the image subject which unfortunately cannot easily be removed.
  7. Copyrighted work X is visible, but not identifiable
  8. the file is in use to illustrate X
  9. the file is categorised in relation to X
  10. X is referenced in the filename
  11. X is referenced in the description
  12. X cannot be removed from the file without making the file useless
  13. from other contextual clues (eg by comparison with a series of uploads by the same uploader) X is the reason for the creation of the file.
  14. A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out.
  15. If the existence of the poster makes the image more attractive, more usable, or liable to cause more than insignificant economic damage to the copyright owner, then a de minimis defence to a copyright-infringement action will probably fail.
  16. "[...]if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement[...]"

I have answered the questions in the undelteion request and the original DR so I skip them. The only two questions which could be considered against the image are 2) and 16). Some may consider the woman as main part of the image, some not - both points are about the topic, that the copyrighted part is somewhat essential to the image. If it really is an essential part of the image than the card with a man as cover would be completely useless and would have no educational value. The woman is replacable and the image could still be used to be an image on any Wikipage about the Radeon HD 5000 series video cards. I guess the reason why some people see the woman as main part (or center) of the image is because her head is right in the top left spot of the two-thirds rule (until today I didn't know that the image is cut that way). So if some people see the woman in the center they get fooled by the two-thirds proportion.
Let's look at this from a different view. If my image is not OK why are ANA B747-400D(JA8956) (3581611620).jpg, ANA B747-400D(JA8956) (4394180017).jpg and all similar images OK (I guess they will get a DR soon). Why is Palais du Louvre 47 2012-06-29.jpg OK, if half of the image a covered by the copyrighted pyramid of the Louvre. Why is Paris Disneyland 10 2012-06-26.jpg OK when it's showing 3D artwork in Disneyland (France does not have any FOP).
For concerns that anybody would not notice the copyrighted part, the image can be tagged with {{De minimis}} to prevent further crops.
Again a long post and I would like to hear from you about it! --D-Kuru (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no question that de minimis is largely subjective, but, again, the principal test in most countries, is whether the copyrighted work can be removed without the average user noticing the difference. Not whether it is the main subject, or occupies a particular fraction of the area, but whether its absence will be missed. Since that's clearly not the case here, the woman cannot be called de minimis. As for all of the other images you cite, please remember that we have more than 20 million images on Commons. My best guess is that at least 1% of them -- 200,000 images -- should be deleted, so feel free to hang a {{Delete}} tag on the Disney mushroom, et al. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If the text is about the image's "essential part" then it is subjective, because different users see different things as essential to the image. Maybe not largely subjective but important parts are. "the principal test in most countries, is whether the copyrighted work can be removed without the average user noticing the difference" I can't find that anywhere! Where do you find that? --D-Kuru (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's what de minimis means -- a minimal thing, a trifle. See de minimis..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I read this page a few times and I know that. My question still is where on this all mighty de minimis page it says that "the principal test in most countries, is whether the copyrighted work can be removed without the average user noticing the difference" --D-Kuru (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, that's what de minimis means -- the thing is unimportant enough so it can be removed without the removal being noticed. My statement that you quote is a brief summary of the law in more than 100 countries, but that is not to say that those particular words appear anywhere -- certainly they do not appear in the laws, although the German law, quoted somewhere in this long discussion, is very close. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting different view on what de minimis means. en wikipedia says "De minimis is a Latin expression meaning about minimal things". Neither on the de minimis page on Commons nor in Wikipedia is there anywhere a place to find which says de minimis means that "the thing is unimportant enough so it can be removed without the removal being noticed". There is "de minimis non curat praetor ("The praetor does not concern himself with trifles")" and "de minimis non curat lex ("The law does not concern itself with trifles")" Trifle: In other words bagatelle, mere nothing or peanuts. That has nothing to do that it can be removed or that somebody has to notice anything.
"in more than 100 countries" where have you taken that from again? "is not to say that those particular words appear anywhere" if it's something like it I'm happy as well, but these words (or somthing close) arent't anywhere to find in the law or they would have been written down otherwise somewhere on Commons. --D-Kuru (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, those words don't appear anywhere -- that's a summary of my knowledge of the law in many countries and of my experience with the issue on Commons. I have probably deleted several thousand similar images with de minimis questions. Since my reversal rate is well under 1%, I guess that the community thinks that I have a good understanding of what is and what is not de minimis. That includes this one, which got a good discussion at UnDR, including several very experienced Admins who chose not to restore it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Please read Commons:Deletion requests/Pokemon Jet and tell me your thoughts about that. --D-Kuru (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. We routinely delete images of cars, trucks, buses, trains, and airplanes that are similarly painted. The closing comment is silly -- few airplanes have anything on them that is copyrighted except, in some cases, a tail logo that is truly de minimis. There is nothing de minimis about these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hola!

Quisiera incluir imágenes de las monedas de euro en las páginas correspondientes para ello pero no se si no lo ha hecho algien antes porque esas imágenes estén protegidas por copyright... He buscado y no consigo saberlo... Podrias ayudarme jim? Gracias!--62.151.120.235 21:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Images of Euro coins cannot be kept on Commons because, as you say, they are copyrighted. You may be able to post them on some of the Wikipedias as "fair use" -- the rules are different from one language to the next. I am not even sure of how the "fair use" rules would apply on WP:EN and certainly don;t know anything about WP:ES, so I really cannot help. Sorry. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude on your talkpage, Jim, but I may be able to help. English Wikipedia has a category for such images → w:Category:Euro images, although the gallery is disabled so you have to click on each link to see the image. Spanish Wikipedia does not allow fair use images at all. They rely almost entirely on images from Commons. Hope that helps. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
"Intrusions" that are helpful are always welcome here -- don't apologize -- thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Schorborn Forsthaus.jpg

You decided to keep this file. Of course you are right: it is not the same file as the newer one. On the other hand, in the old file nothing can be seen, that could not be seen on the newer file. So probably no one will ever use the old scan with the lower quality, dust on the scan etc. I just don't want to be the user with dozens of low quality images that are never used. In future, i have to think twice before uploading any photo of non-perfect quality, even if it is needed at the moment, if there is no possibility of replacing it, when better photos of the same object are uploaded. And I have to think twice about uploading another photo with better quality. --Dehio (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

We often keep more than one image of the same thing. In this case, I kept the older image because it showed the trees and shrubs, while the new image was apparently taken in winter. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@Dehio: - From an artist point of view the older version shows more atmosphere (ambiente). If the the other should be part of an architectural documentation it is sufficient only if it is levelled upright. Better to keep both for different purposes. --Maxxl2 - talk 14:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe if I'd had to make a decision, even I would have kept it. But I doubt whether it will ever be used anymore in Wikimedia projects, that's why I requested to delete it. @Maxxl2: I took the photo in 2004 because it showed more atmosphere than other Photos of this building in the internet and in books. Only Wikipedia doesn't need much atmosphere, but documentation. Everyone can improve and level upright the newer photo. If you want to do it, consider that the only upright things in this building are the windows. --Dehio (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Please remember that "But I doubt whether it will ever be used anymore in Wikimedia projects" is a far too narrow view -- Commons is a repository for the whole world, not just WP. Commons images of mine are in use as a refrigerator magnet, on a calendar, and on the web site of the Boston Globe as well as various other places on the Web. It is difficult to predict what images will be used and where. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please suggest how to replace Filaret_Kolessa_phonograph_cylinder_collection

Hi! Can you suggest how I should correctly implement what I was trying to do at Filaret_Kolessa_phonograph_cylinder_collection? The idea of the page was to display all the Kolessa phonograph recordings as a wikitable instead of <gallery>, in order to group them appropriately (sometimes one piece is represented in a sequence files) and to display some additional information and files like images of the cylinders etc. I.e. my plan was to create a page similar to Well-Tempered Clavier.

It was empty because I was just uploading the files and simply didn't yet manage to add them to the page. I also would be glad if the text of the page could be rescued somehow, because I haven't saved it anywhere else. --YurB (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the file as User:Юрій Булка/sandbox1. It is always better to create new pages in a sandbox so that all of the initial edits take place in space that you control, and then copy it to a mainspace page when you are ready. We get around 100 new galleries every day. Almost all of them -- perhaps 90% -- are either mistakes or vandalism, so we are fairly aggressive about deleting those that do not follow the rules.
Galleries should be in Gallery format, not Wikitables. You can do a lot with that -- see, for example, Lighthouses in Maine. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --YurB (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Need some clarification

Hello Jim, thank you for closing File:Lord Shiva.jpg deletion discussion and I'm sorry for being rude there. But I was wondering if you can clarify this words I suggest that you do not do any more work on Commons. which you have commented there. Thank you. Jim Cartar (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What I actually said was, "Unless you can lose the attitude, and learn a little more about copyrights, I suggest that you do not do any more work on Commons," which, I think, pretty much explains itself. Your aggressive attitude, threatening Eleassar in the DR and on his talk page wasted a lot of our time as did having to explain to you that sculptures of gods do, in fact, have copyrights and that the burden of proof is on you, as the uploader, not on the DR nom.
We all recognize that copyright is a complex subject and we try hard to be helpful to newbies, but I, and most of my colleagues, have little patience with newbies who make threats and waste our time. Your polite apology above goes a long way toward addressing my comment above -- if you keep that in mind, you'll do fine here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/01/Category:Female writers from the United States

How do we deal with this? I suppose that the main objection is Why the norm must be "male" and the exception "female"?. Nonetheless I suppose that creating the correspondant category "Male" (I'm not only talking about American writers) would help the main category not to get overcrowded; in this case we can see them as "technical" categories, though I acknowledge that in such matter gender is not topic. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a very hard one. You're wrong either way. If you have a separate category for women (leaving aside athletes and the other areas where it is actually relevant), you are putting them in a ghetto, as one of the cited comments said. But you are also making it harder to find them and categories are supposed to be structured to help find things that outsiders are searching for. It might be a case where breaking the overcat rule would be good -- put them in both Cat:Writers and its subcat Cat:Female writers. The same is true of black writers and others.
Probably the best thing would be to split all such cats into male and female, but it's such a gray area that I have no interest in spending any effort on it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm loosely translated you are telling me that one can't either win or draw and neither quit the game.. :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying that I pick my controversial topics carefully and this isn't one I choose to spend time on. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


Juan Ramón Plana Gallery

Hello Jim: I have created this gallery and suddenly it was deleted. I´m not very handful with images and wikipedia at all. You said this is just for images and no text. I agree with you, but please let me do it, now I don´t know how to begin the process, leaving just images. Thank you for your help --Madmentwo (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim, as I´m untrained, do you think that I can create again the page Juan Ramón Plana but taking off the text? thank you, --Madmentwo (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem was that because you did not use the gallery format correctly, the images did not show at all and I deleted it because it appeared to be a gallery without any images. I have fixed it. As you will see there, the gallery format looks like this:
<gallery>
File:FirstFile.jpg|caption1
File:SecondFile.jpg|caption2
File:ThirdFile.jpg|caption3
</gallery>
You do not use [[brackets around the filename]] or "thumb".
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Fastily#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hauinger Buurefasnacht 2014

Hi Jim, hope you're well. A user has contested my closure of this DR on my talk page. This user won't take no for an answer (at least not from me), so if it's not too much trouble, would you be willing to evaluate and provide a third opinion? Thanks, FASTILY 08:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! -FASTILY 08:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Re:

It is a software error. Use the VCF and kicks well. I rarely command to remove manually. Occupy semi-automatic programs, as mentioned before. I do not know how it happened?. Best regards. ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 02:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Stats

Based on your comments earlier today, I ran some numbers fome here

(UNDEL/ DEL ) * 100 = Percentage reverted
( 3360 / 424103) 100 = 0.79% Fastily (biggest dog)
( 610 / 75575 ) 100 = 0.80% Jim Woodward (big dog)
( 12 / 1836 ) 100 = 0.65% Ellin Beltz (small kitten)

I feel a lot better, our ratios are all similar even if I'm no where near the number of edits as you all!! I aim a beautiful rainbow ray of sunshine to you for all you do here. If there is something more I can do to clear the backlog than the poke poke poke I've been doing for the last month, please let me know! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Hi,
The number of UNDEL is the number of files an admin have undeleted, all included, not the number of his/her deletions which were undeleted. Just to be clear. ;) Regards, Yann (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Then where does the other UNDEL number come from? Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Where is the "other UNDEL number"? Yann (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Ellin, as Yann says, the Undel number on the database report is the number of Undeletions done by the Admin -- the number of times that an Admin has restored a file, any file -- and is unrelated to his or her deletions. What you'd like, I think, is the number of my deletions that were subsequently undeleted, but I don't think there's a report for that.
Several months ago, when Fastily was under nonsense pressure, I counted manually a lot of UnDRs -- getting both the number of UnDRs filed against Admins and the number of times that the Admin's deletion was reversed. That's where I get the fact that while Fastily actually has more UnDRs filed than the rest of us, the percentage of times he is reversed is less than average. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yann

Hi, could you please have a look and perhaps comment at [29]? I consider myself a good working editor here but feel concerned about Yann's actions. Thanks a lot. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a close call, particularly since a significant part of it is a coat of arms that is probably PD. I might have gone the other way on the closure, but it isn't worth fighting over..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Uploads more copyvios after nominations

Hi Jim: Could you look at this nomination and user uploads please? Seems as if the user continues to upload more of same after the deletion nomination, but doesn't reply to the nomination. There's nothing on his talk page but the deletion nomination notices either. I hope your day is going well. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You can post a note on his talk page or use the "notify this user" link which has "End copyvio - Give user a final warning because of previous copyright violations". Sometimes it takes a short block to get a newbie's attention. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I did it manually, because I couldn't find the "notify this user" link... Any clues? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Notify this user is in the tools menu in the left hand bar, about 12 down from the top. It's optional -- you have to enable it by checking the box at Preferences>Gadgets>User Messages. If you haven't done so, you might want to spend a while on that page figuring out what is useful for your mode of working. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

People of/People from

So all the instances I've seen of "from" being uses are wrong? Or are they holdovers from before the "of" guideline was enacted? Nightscream (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong? I'd hesitate to say that with any force. It's too subtle. If I'm traveling and someone asks, "Where are you from?", my response would be "I'm from Boston", but if I'm home (in Boston), I'd answer, "I was born and brought up in Chicago". If I were to categorize myself on Commons, I would use both "People of Chicago" and "People of Boston", but only "People from Chicago", not "People from Boston", even though I've lived in the Boston area for almost fifty years. I'm sure that other native speakers would disagree. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Historical marker – Florida Heritage Site

Hello, Jim. Ellin Beltz suggested that a question I posted at the village pump might be up your alley. If you get a chance, please could you take a look over there and offer your opinion? Much appreciated. – Wdchk (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for answering, I knew you had that one on the tip of your tongue. FYI, for California State Historical Markers, the bear is DW from the bear on the California state flag. I have since learned who the artist and the sewing creator of the California state flag were and they're both dead quite long enough for that bear to be PD.  :) Just sayin' for when you get to the Golden State. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Your help on a few things

Hi Jim! I have a couple things which need help. This first gallery of a user, has stuff that looks old, but it all has "self" licenses see here and the second thing is that I couldn't find where to close "Files in Category:2010 Comic-Con International" this deletion request. It didn't print right on the main page for that day and is one of the few items holding that page open. Third item is this file where an uploader totally unclear on the concept overwrote a large good quality image with a small crummy one. He really doesn't seem to know how to use editing software, he finds big good images and turns them tiny. Thank you for all your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

1) I suggest you do a mass DR of the cat Category:Lo mas sublime (film 1927) -- VisualFileChange will make that easy. Then see what else you have. It is, of course, possible that all the relevant people died before 1944, so perhaps the film is PD, but I wouldn't bet on it. Also, Spanish works by authors who died before 1987 are covered by the 1879 law. The definition of covered works is very broad, so I'll guess that movies are covered, but since they were invented post 1879, I might be wrong. See http://www.derecho-internet.org/node/365 Article 1.

2) DelReqHandler does not work when the DR is the second (or more) time around, so you have to close it by hand. Add {{Delh}} at the top of the new one DR, type four hyphens at the bottom (which sets as a rule (typographer jargon for "line"), type your comment and four tildes, and then add {{Delf}} at the bottom. DelReqHandler is new since I became an Admin -- we used to have to do them all this way.

3) Please try to educate him on the use of "thumb" and other resizing-on-the-fly tools. To get the original image back, go down to File History and click on "revert" in the second box in the bottom row.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


From yesterday's queries... (1) has been mass DR'd, (2) I closed the discussion exactly as you said, and it worked, (3) aha! that's how it's done! Again thank you for all your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again! One more [30]'s user page is 100% about himself. What happens to those? His picture was missing permissions. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I have little patience with User Pages of people who have done nothing here except create a user page, so I would probably delete it on sight as a violation of COM:ADVERT. If you're not feeling quite so bold, you could just hang a DR on it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
DR'd with COM:ADVERT, thank you for the advice. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Problem or not?

Hi Jim,

Had planned on uploading this Sharon Tate photo but I see Corbis has it claiming copyright to John Springer Collection. Springer was a collector of various celebrity photos and not AFAIK, a photographer. The actual owner of the photo is 20th Century Fox and you can see there are no marks front or back. Conversely, we have File:Sharon tate still.jpg and its derivative File:Sharon tate still-2.jpg at Getty with the implication there's a copyright-" Getty Images provides access rights only and does not license the copyright in the image." The site it was taken from says, "We've spent a lot of time preparing these scans, so please don't use them for personal gain. You're free to download them, but that's it. Please send us an email if you would like to use any photos or other content on our site for commercial purposes." Thanks for help, We hope (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Publicity stills are a complicated and difficult area that I have not done much with. I'm inclined to ignore DoctorMacro's claim, because preparing scans does not give them a copyright -- in fact, their claim probably qualifies as copyfraud. However the question of whether the underlying image is PD or not is one I'm not qualified to tackle. Sorry I can;t help more. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Jim, We hope (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this the same as the image deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohenjo-daro.jpg?

. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No. It's almost exactly the same angle, but the deleted image was taken from a point closer to the pit, over the fence rather than through it, and the people in the background are different.
The uploader has uploaded quite a few images, all taken with an Olympus XZ-1 and all good sized, so I see no reason to doubt that they are, in fact, his own work..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Great, I'm glad to hear that as it's a nice image. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

New curiosity

Hi Jim: I found [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_with_PD-Denmark50_but_no_explanation_why_the_photograph_is_public_domain_in_the_United_States_-_exempt this category]. Reviewing several of the images, someone has done a really good job on adding all those PD-US-1996 tags but the images still show in that category with the warning attached. I looked at the files in edit and I can't see where the hidden category is that keeps an image in that category even after the US tags were added. Any advice? As always, thanking you for all your hard volunteering. (Esp. riding herd on me, now that INC is gone!) Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked at two or three and they are in Category:Media with PD-Denmark50 but no explanation why the photograph is public domain in the United States - exempt. I don't think there is anything magic about it -- the person who added the US tag just didn't remove the other. With the URAA changes I'm not sure what should happen to these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Then I shall just leave them! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cocoa Processing Company Building (Cocoa Silo).jpg‎

Hi Jim,

I don't understand your comment there. Either there is a copyright on this industrial building, or there is none. You seem to say that there is a copyright, but then you closed the DR as kept. This doesn't seem logical to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. All buildings, industrial or not, have copyrights, but this is a silo, which is not a building for copyright purposes. It's in the same category as a water tank or a fuel tank -- actually, it's a tank for cocoa, so the comparison is good. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clarification. BTW, do you know any court case where an ordinary industrial building has a copyright? Never seen a DR about that here, although we have numerous recent images of them, even when there is no FOP, nor a citation. Yann (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
No, but I rely on the simple meaning of the words. In almost all countries, "architecture" has a copyright. It is explicitly called out in the various laws because architecture is utilitarian and therefore would not have a copyright without its explicit mention -- it did not have a copyright in the USA until 1991. "Architecture" covers all buildings. Just as there is no requirement for quality in a painting -- any painting created by a human has a copyright -- there is no requirement for quality in architecture. A building is sufficiently complex so that originality is always present, unless, of course, it is an exact copy. The US law is quite explicit -- all architecture has a copyright, but not details such as stock windows and doors. In the US, architectural plan books of very simple houses have a copyright, which has been enforced. I don't see any basis for your argument that industrial buildings, or simple buildings, don't have a copyright and, except for one case, of very simple modular houses in the EU, no one has been able to cite any case law to support you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
If you don't have any court case to cite, my interpretation is as valid as yours. Your interpretation is based on US law, but it is certainly not valid everywhere, and I am not even sure it is a correct interpretation of US law. In most countries, originality is the first requirement to get a copyright. This is also true in US law. I am not sure how this applies to architecture in US law, but I don't see why architecture would be exempted from this requirement. At least in France, and I am quite sure in some other countries, the threshold of originality applies to architecture. Of course, this threshold is different according to the local interpretation of originality, and in US law, the threshold is much higher than say in UK. So in most cases, a purely utilitarian building does not get a copyright, because the same utility requirement would produce the same building. I think it applies to factories (like File:Pierre Bénite PUK1.JPG) and shopping malls like (File:Romilly-sur-Seine - Centre commercial Le Marais.jpg). This is quite different than buildings created for lodging (or other purposes), whre architectural creativity takes a much bigger part. I am ready to be proved wrong, if you have some counter-examples. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You have come to the principal reason that I don't push back against those of your closings with which I disagree. I think I'm right, because any building design requires much work, however much a non-architect may think it is similar to another building. I think that by definition any building that isn't a direct copy from the same drawings is original. It is not correct that the same utility requirements will produce the same building -- no two sites are the same, they differ in ground conditions, sun exposure, noise exposure, wind exposure, and budgetary limitations. However, I realize that the whole subject of copyright brings out strange court decisions and laws. Since the only copyright laws I am really truly experienced with are the USA, where FOP covers buildings, I don't fight what I see as mistakes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, since you mentioned paintings in your previous message, threshold of originality also applies to paintings. Carl L. said that most works by Gene Davis would probably not get a copyright because of lack of originality. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I respect Carl and that surprises me -- would you please give me a link to his comment? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Here it is: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/12#Works of art by William H. Johnson and Gene Davis. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


"All buildings, industrial or not, have copyrights"
A relevant US statute -- 17 U.S.C. § 120(a) -- seems worth pointing out here. The law says: "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." That copyright exclusion came into effect on December 1, 1990 with the enactment of the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act. I thought I would share this as Jim seems to be referring to the AWCPA, but the act specifically excludes photographs of buildings from copyrightability. Emw (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As I noted above ("the USA, where FOP covers building"), the USA is not included in this discussion precisely because of the statute you quote. However, "the act specifically excludes photographs of buildings from copyrightability" is not correct in any sense. Any such photographs certainly have copyrights and the buildings themselves also have copyrights. The owner of the copyright of a building may certainly enforce it against anyone who constructed a copy of the building and, I think, could also enforce it against anyone who made a model of the building, since a model is not a picture, painting, photograph, or other pictorial representation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point, I should have said "excludes photographs of buildings from copyrightability of the architectural work". Regarding architectural works themselves, it seems per Section 706 of the AWCPA that most buildings in the United States, having been created before December 1, 1990, would not be eligible for copyright. Emw (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

DR archiving

Hi Jim, I've filed a formal bot request for DR archiving here. Your input would be appreciated! Best, FASTILY 04:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

More promo

Hi Jim: Found a category and an article you might like to take a look at. Article first here, it's easy - no references. It has an image, so I went looking and I find a pile of images with creator "Humboldt State University" and uploader name implies connection (maybe) to HSU, but it could just be a student as well. What do you think should happen to some of these? There are some images which are fine because they came from flickr, but I'm concerned about the other ones, credited to the school and uploaded by 'someone'. That someone's only contributions as far as I can tell was to upload this series of images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC) PS en:Humboldt State University reads like an advertisement, full of only primary links back to the school, etc.

I agree that the WP:EN entries probably need attention, but that's not my concern. I'm not at my own machine, so I don't have "Google this image" installed here -- my guess is that the images uploaded by Marcomhsu should be nuked because they are all off the HSU website. Have you learned about Special:Nuke/Anyuser? It's safe -- you can try it out on Special:Nuke/Marcomhsu without any risk if you don't finally click on the delete button. It only works on files uploaded in the last thirty days..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
All the promo photos are from the HSU website; and everywhere else on the web. It seems that at least one of these users is someone affiliated with the school. There are two competing editors working on the article on en:wiki, one keeps putting the photos back. The files are unfortunately all from 2012, so I will just take them out with the visual editor for copyvio per your advice. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal photo Edgar Andrews

I myself also have the rights to the removed picture - it comes out of my own files, it is a picture I received form the English publisher of his latest book, and I have their permission to use it. The picture is on my Dutch edition. Watch-Wiki (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

First, the permission that you say you have, to use it in Wikipedia, is, as I said in closing the DR, not broad enough. Images on Commons must have permission for use anywhere by anybody, including commercial use.
Second, neither the subject of the picture nor someone like you that has a copy of the picture is the copyright holder. In order to restore this to Commons, we will need a license from the actual photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Curious gallery

This user has one of the odder galleries I've seen in a long time. He has a pile of ecclesiastical uploads, and a pile of deletion nominations. One of them is what drew my eye to his account, look at the image history on this one [31] assuming no one's deleted it before you get there. Cheers Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Although he apparently does some good work, there are a lot of problems on his talk page. Go to it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

How to remove...

Hi Jim: How do you remove empty pages that don't have the handy "delete" box at the top? Examples abound here where pages are empty, marked speedy and I can't find the red button. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless you're speaking metaphorically, I'm not sure what "red button" you mean -- I delete by pulling down a menu between the watch list star and the search box -- the Delete link is the top item on the list. DO you do something else? A tool I don;t have?
I just went through the page you cited above, and they all had the link. Are you sure you were logged in? For me, that's the usual reason the delete button is missing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been having the worst internet day ever, logged in/ logged out... That's probably what did it, thank you for checking. And thanks for the info that the pulldown delete button works and is appropriate for use on those kinds of situations. I'm always so terrified of breaking things. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that, as far as I know, anything you do can be undone. That's one of the magic things about Commons -- any mistake can be fixed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Героям бою під Крутами.jpg

Hi! Hi! Could you please restore File:Героям бою під Крутами.jpg and File:Братська могила 20 січових стрільців (м. Вінниця).JPG, I need use them in my local wiki. I didn`t see while they was nominated. After I`ll use it you could delete it. Or you could place them in my talkpage in uk wiki - uk:User talk:A1 --A1 (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Why ?

Hi ! Why did you erase my picture https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:France_-_Carte_nationale_d%27identit%C3%A9_s%C3%A9curis%C3%A9e.jpg ?--Calahan59 (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Because it was a copyright violation -- see Commons:Deletion requests/File:France - Carte nationale d'identité sécurisée.jpg .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
A copyright violation ? Actually it's my ID, it's my card, i scaned it myself, so I still dont understand why you erased it ? --Calahan59 (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It may be your ID, but you do not own the copyright to the design of the card -- the French government does. Therefore your image is a derivative work and infringes on the copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I ve never heard about copyright on official documents. Anyway, in this case what about this or this or that ? --Calahan59 (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
In some countries, notably the United States, all government works are free of copyright. In others, some governments works are free. In still others, only a few -- notably laws -- are free. France has no exception at all for any government works -- everything is copyrighted, see Copyright_law_of_France#Exceptions. As for the others, Commons has over 20 million files. My best estimate is that 1% of those -- over 200,000 -- have a copyright problem. When you see other works that appear to be copyvios, please help Commons by tagging them for deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Gageiro

Dear Jim. Please delete the image File:Praça do Comércio Lisboa 2014 Fotografia de Eduardo Gageiro.jpg. I uploaded it by mistake. It shows one of Gageiro's photos, protected by copyright; at the moment it is outdoors (in Praça do Comércio, Lisbon) but, I realize now, as part of a temporary exhibition. Sorry! Many thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Beer bottles, wine bottles & product labels

Hi Jim: I've found a couple users who seem to specialize in beer/wine labels and before I get out my extra big broom, I wanted to check with you your opinion on DW's of beer/wine labels being copyvios. View these galleries [32] & [33] to see what I mean. Personally I think the template at the top of Category:Beer bottles is pretty clear and deletions can happen on speedy not deletion nomination/discussion, right? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Bottle labels are a very difficult area which I tend to avoid. While it seems obvious to me that a bottle label with artwork has a copyright, the judge in Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. found that a photograph of a bottle was not a derivative work because the vodka bottle as a whole was not copyrightable. It's a complicated case and only directly applicable in the Ninth Circuit (roughly the West Coast and Northwest), but if you go at bottle labels, it's sure that it will be cited. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps I shall stay away from them until greater clarity is achieved. These galleries certainly feel like advertising to me. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

As you surely know, I'm not afraid to jump into controversy, but if the law is vague, sometimes it's better to move on to other things. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I surely do. I also see what some beer places are doing over on Wikipedia and some of these are blatent self-promo. I have three up as test cases atm, already someone has asked if I plan to take on the entire category. And there are some I will because they are not deminimus, they're showing label ART not just words and I'm tired of the beer companies and breweries flooding Wikipedia projects with their stuff like we're their personal advertising board. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

In other news ...

I'd appreciate your opinion on the bottom item on my talk page; if it's not explanatory, please send me an email as I will be afk today for church and etc. Lilac makes a lot of maps for us; I don't feel qualified to sort it all out solo. The deletion nomination had descended into who struck who and I think we can probably resolve this with a redirect and a merge of descriptions, etc. But I don't know how to do the merge, if indeed that would be the right thing to do. Cheers, Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears that (a) I got the upload dates backwards from reading the deletion discussion notes and (b) L credited T in the "legend" of the map, but I don't read the language and didn't see it. I have left another message to her, and would appreciate you taking another look at it, I'm so sorry to spin wheels like this, but I have the feeling that while some of this discussion could have been more diplomatic, there's truth at the bottom of it somewhere. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Commented there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion on these?

Hi Jim: This gallery has all drawings of cellphones. Are those allowed? Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Except for the two with colored screens, I see nothing about the phones that has a copyright -- that assumes that we have an appropriate license for the drawings themselves. Some of our colleagues might say that the two colored screens have a copyright and if it could be shown that they were by a notable artist -- Piet Mondrian perhaps -- I might agree, but as they are, I think not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi again: One interesting note at the bottom of my talk page: here regarding what we were saying about promotion and self-promotion. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Backlogs

Hi Jim, hope you're well! I recently put together a two self-updating pages which count the number of days we're behind on daily deletion chores, and I thought I'd share :]

Best, FASTILY 21:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like we're at least keeping up with the flood? Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Interesting. Given the loss of INC and Fastily's reduced load, I had expected it to be much worse. We've done 1,619 deletions per day in the last 15 days, which is very much normal. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The one place it looks where we need "stronger" or "more experienced" help is in the older deletion nominations. Admins go through and close what they can, but there's always a few that linger around. INC used to run through those every few days, clear them out and blank or remove the daily deletion page. That is the one place I really notice his absence. I've tried to step up to grab the low hanging fruit on speedys, license and permissions. I do have a question about a category that I found "missing source" where about half of the images were transferred from Wikipedia. I'd like to suggest we make a second category there: (a) Missing sources old and (b) Missing sources after interWiki transfer, but I don't know where even to propose doing that. So far I've cleared about 200 of 67,000 images from that category (mostly typo'd templates and "really missing source" > zap ) and I'd say probably half of the 67,000 are interWiki transfer errors (IWTE). If there were some way to lump all those IWTEs in to a single category as I pass them, no one else would duplicate at least that part of the sorting. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
If you think it is useful to have a new cat for InterWiki Transfer Errors, by all means create it and move the applicable images there. Your logic is good and although someone will probably object (someone always does), I think most of the active Admins will support you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I closed out about a week's worth of old DR logs yesterday. I probably won't have time to do this again for awhile so, I hope it doesn't get too bad in the meantime. -FASTILY 22:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Then I'll start doing that so we don't double our effort going past the same images over & over. Today's conundrum is I cannot get this page to refresh despite doing the null edits suggested at top of page. Every few days I try to clear through some of the "missing licenses" and some of these pictures in disambiguation categories; but I can't seem to get the latter to refresh to remove the newly (empty) categories. I assumed the system would do it automatically, but several days later - it hasn't. Thanks for all your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a caching problem. Two things you can try whenever something doesn't refresh after changes. First, purge the page on the server -- the last button on the list on the upper right that begins with "delete". You may need to enable purge -- Preferences > Gadgets > Maintenance tools > Page Purge (second one down). That clears the cache on the WMF server. Then clear your own computer's cache -- see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. The only negative effect to this is that your browser will have to download everything that was in the cache again the next time you go to the page. Unless you're on a dial-up line, you won't notice the difference. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, by default, the software does not recursively update/rebuild link tables (e.g. subcategories, transclusions) instantly because this can cause a massive server load if there are hundreds or thousands of subcategories. So Jim is correct, this is a caching issue, but performing the purge to fix it is only available via API. -FASTILY 22:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I wish I understood that better. It does some of that instantly -- I know that when I remove images from Category:People by name using HotCat, as I do a couple of times a month (they are often problems in other ways), I can reload the category page and they are gone, so some relinking has happened on the fly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to respond earlier but I forgot. A lot of people are doing a great job closing the DR's. The older ones are indeed difficult. I try to avoid those myself not because I don't understand but because the sometimes aggressive posts Fastily and INC had to endure after closing controversial requests. Some messages are quite aggressive if you ask me. Maybe the key to reduce the backlog considering those difficult DR is creating a safer environment for administrators. That cat which Ellin is talking about sounds like a great idea. Just my 2 cents. Natuur12 (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
"creating a safer environment for administrators" -- interesting way to put it -- I agree, but I think all we can realistically expect is for the core group of very active Admins to defend and encourage one another and help each other grow rhinoceros hides so that all the nonsense will just bounce off. I do get tired of being told that we need to be nicer to contributors who threaten us and don't obey the rules and that if we can't be nicer, we should stop being Admins.
I haven't closed a lot of DRs recently, but I've mostly been working on the oldest of the open pages where, presumably, difficult ones are all that remain open..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Just FYI, I think our admins are doing a much better job of being polite to users than some of the Wikipedia admins. I have had two occasions recently where Wiki admins have practically bitten my head off and been insulting besides. I've not see that sort of gratuitous rudeness here and so it really stuck out at Wikipedia. I like it better over here, the support from you all is fantastic and I am thickening my rhino skin jacket every day with this special "Paste du Woodward." With all that said, thank you Fastily for all you do and I still miss INC very much. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
From a Wikipedian point of view, I've generally found Commons admins to be friendlier than Wikipedia ones. One of the biggest problems on en-wiki is that being the best known project it attracts a lot of opinionated jerks with their own agendas and this has gradually caused many decent admins to become embittered and snarky. Of course it doesn't help that there have been a few opinionated admins that have been just as bad. My favourite was one that seemed to get angry at small things, blocked a couple of users and then went on a wikibreak when a case is filed against them at ArbCom. :) Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2, 2014

One more for the collection of "self-aggrandizing uploaders," see here. Last edited in 2013. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And again, but this one has piles of uploads. All modern art it looks like, possibly hers? Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't get excited about that sort of thing on WP:EN -- there's enough to do here. As for the second, looks like a candidate for a large DR. Either it's a lot of DWs without permission of the artist, or it's out of scope as personal art..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup, yup. We need a friendly en:Wiki admin to send stuff to. Do you know one? Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

May 7, 2014

Hi Jim: Your help with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eldorado A.jpeg would be graciously appreciated. The Wiki sysop contacted me on my talkpage and as requested I replied on their it:wiki page. I do not know enough about Italian copyright to do anything but ask for help. Thank you for your time. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

May 8, 2014

Why do you what delete my photograph? My photograph is my and my creation and compilation and This is my own compilation which I give rights to CC-by-sa Please no delete my photograph

Thanks you

--Historiador1923 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Please respond at the individual Deletion Requests. Your photographs are simply copies and have no copyrights. You do not have the right to license them because there is nothing you have done that can be licensed. The underlying photographs must conform with Chilean law, which requires knowing the source and author. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim I don't understantud Becouse a put the normal licency , and the photograh is my, Please, I am waiting you answer . I put in Coffe my questions.

--Historiador1923 (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I put a long explanation on your talk page this morning, but again -- owning a photograph does not mean that you own the copyright. The copyright belongs to the photographer or his heirs. You cannot upload images of photographs, drawings, paintings, posters or any other created works without permission of the artist or photographer unless the work is in the Public Domain. Your copying of the photograph and other works does not have a copyright, so you must not put a license on your copies. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim Where is Copy Right in Chile?; When I can to speak about copy right in Chile? I´m the owner this original works.

I Waiting you answer Thanks --Historiador1923 (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, owning a painting or other work does not mean that you own the copyright. That is true, as far as I know, in every country. The copyright is owned by the creator or his heirs. I suggest you read Commons:Copyright#Scope_of_licensing which explicitly states this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim

Eugenio Cruz Vargas is pooet and painter , I can to see his exposition. The exposition is the public and not private , for that is this photograph .


Please, can you reconsider ate

--Historiador1923 (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, no. Commons hosts only works which either are in the public domain or have an appropriate license from their creator. The fact that something is shown in public does not change that, except for permanently installed works in some countries, see Commons:FOP. Those exceptions do not apply here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gäubodenvolksfest 2011 (6058252701).jpg

Hello Jim!

Can you please give a rationale why you have delete this image? Did you really follow the argument of "User:Green Giant" who thinks that the flickr user is wrong with the place he took the image? Cheers, High Contrast (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear I never said I thought the user was wrong. What I asked for was some reasoning or some evidence that the photo was indeed taken at the festival. Perhaps you could answer my question with a reasoned argument? Green Giant (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Fundamentally, I deleted it because its just a group of people -- a Facebook shot, but with little educational value. Whether or not it was taken at a particular festival is irrelevant. I would also delete an image of a group of friends out to celebrate St. Patrick's Day. I do agree with Green Giant, that while we assume good faith for our own users unless they give us some reason not to, that does not extend to Flickr. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I still do not understand Green Giant's argument - my English seems to be to bad for these thoughts. Nevertheless, I would not reduce this image to a facebook friends photograph - there are reasons for keeping it here but you seem to have found out a rational which is above everything. Please update your deletion decission on the DR. --High Contrast (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, sorry if you didn't understand because of language barriers. I would support keeping the photo if it showed an aspect of the festival, like you said "young people being at this beer festival". The "young people" bit is obvious, but there is nothing that shows they are definitely at that festival. To me it looks like some friends having a drink, which is not very educational. Like Jim says, it is a photo to put on Facebook or similar social websites. Green Giant (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy-deletion request

here: File:Polonium.jpg and here File:Radon.jpg. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done by Sven. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

About Greek Orthodox Pyrography candidate deletions

Hi Jim and sorry if I'm not writing in the appropriate space, just that I'm in a BIG hurry... PLEASE do not delete the pictures. I can ascertain you that Father Vasileios fully agrees to releasing the copyright. Both Tekmenidis and Pavlatos are my students an an evening secondary school and this is part of a project we started 2 years ago (see "pyrography" article on Greek Wikipedia). As I'm leaving on a trip abroad tonight I don't have the time to deal with the issue right now but I will definitely get to it next week when I return. Thanks for understanding, best from Kefalonia, Greece :) --Saintfevrier (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Copied the post above to Commons:Deletion requests/Files on Greek Orthodox Pyrography. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jim, thanks for the extension until the end of May for the licenses. I'm back from my trip and am ready to go through with the license process. Unfortunately, another user has bypassed your suggestion and deleted the files. As I am in no mood to start a wiki-war with the impatient user, please attend to the issue. I stopped editing on Greek Wikipedia after several episodes of "unfriendly" behavior (to put it mildly). It makes me sad to see the same thing happening here. Cheers, Mina --Saintfevrier (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries -- User:Natuur12 is a good colleague and I have no doubt we can fix this quickly. Commons is a multi-lingual project and misunderstandings do happen -- also, Commons admins work fast and delete more than 1,500 images every day, so mistakes do happen occasionally.
As noted at the DR, what we need is a license from each of the artists using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Once they have sent the e-mail, please post a note here and I will consult with Natuur12 and attend to the restoration. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I missed the second DR and missed Jim's statement at that DR. I would have let it open if I would have seen the stetements in the second DR. I would be happy te restore the files after you have send the email. Natuur12 (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks, I'll get Father Vasilios to send the e-mail as quickly as possible. BTW he's working on new icons which will also be uploaded to the gallery when completed :) --Saintfevrier (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

After reading that the two images left in the gallery are also candidate for deletion, and given the fact that neither George nor Father Vasileios is fluent in English, I sent the OTRS e-mail myself as their representative. If any further verification is required we would be happy to provide. Thanks, Mina --Saintfevrier (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
That might work -- while I would not accept a third party "representative" e-mail, some of my OTRS colleagues might. Please note that OTRS has volunteers who read most major languages -- certainly including Greek. Please forgive my caution -- while you seem to be honest and sincere, we are regularly misled by experts in deception and therefore are very careful..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Kirchle

Lass mich bitte einfach mal Arbeiten und lösche dann, wenn Du sicher bist, dass etwas nicht in Ordnung ist. Danke. --Asurnipal (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me just work times and then delete, if you are certain that something is not right. Thank you.
translator: Google
Aha. Now I understand. I deleted the empty gallery Kirchle. We get about 100 new galleries every day, most of which are problems -- empty, mistakes, or out of scope. Empty galleries are often created instead of new categories. All new galleries that do not follow the rules at Commons:Galleries are deleted on sight.
If you want to create a gallery you can do one of three things:
  • Create it in your own space, for example User:Asurnipal/Sandbox and then copy it to mainspace when ready.
  • Create it in mainspace, but include at least two images before saving.
  • Create it in mainspace, and put a message at the top that it is under construction.
If you have questions, feel free to ask. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Bartolomeu Costa Cabral

Dear Jim. I uploaded 3 new images of Bartolomeu Costa Cabral's building... but I uploaded them all at once by mistake. What a mess I made... and I have no idea how to correct it. Can you help? Is it possible to just leave the first image?

  • File:Bartolomeu Costa Cabral Moradia no Alentejo 2 img 8960 1.jpg
  • File:Bartolomeu Costa Cabral Moradia no Alentejo 2 img 9026.jpg
  • File:Bartolomeu Costa Cabral Moradia no Alentejo 2 img 8960 1.jpg

Sorry!!!!!)Manuelvbotelho (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe I solved the problem: I uploaded a new version of the missing image.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

An odd gallery

Hi Jim: Your opinion of this gallery, most of the pictures are historic, but he has airphotos of various places that I find dubious. Too many cameras, no regular photos, etc. Would love to hear your view! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you suspicions are well placed, but the cases may not be worth the trouble. The rule in Austria is 50 years PMA for simple photographs, so many of the old photos are going to be PD. I see three aerial photos of Munich -- all taken with an Olympus. I don't find them elsewhere on the Web. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Uploading New Images During (Un)DRs

Jim,

A user has twice uploaded new images (16 and 17 May) while the file is part of an ongoing DR (started 14 May), which I think is somewhat disruptive (although I would believe done in complete good-faith). I was wondering if, as an admin outside of the discussion, if you'd be able to provide a friendly reminder that this type of behaviour may be counterproductive during an ongoing DR (if you feel that any such reminder would even be warranted). Thank you for all your time and work towards the project. Respectfully, trackratte (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it could be disruptive in some circumstances, but here the issue is whether the design is copyrighted or not, so a new, larger version, does not affect the DR. Also, FRY is well aware of what he is doing and any warning is likely to be useless or even counter-productive. He can be a royal pain, but he is a productive contributor. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep, no worries. It just shifted the entire point of the discussion half way through from one of copyright to one of derivative works due to these new images being uploaded. Not a significant issue though, as you say. Thanks for all your time! trackratte (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Тризуб.png

Hello Jim, unfortunately, your reasoning does not correspond to the facts, could you please reconsider your decision again. I personally hate it also a bit, if there is so much trash on Commons that nobody in the hole wold never in any time used anymore. Thanks and regards -- Perhelion 22:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. File:Тризуб.svg shows a creation date of 19:02, 4 May 2014, three weeks ago. The subject png was created in 2009, five years ago. As I said, we do not generally delete raster files that were created before the vector file. Am I missing something? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, behind this scheme surely a sense? The quality and the reference, yes? The source is File:Lesser_Coat_of_Arms_of_Ukraine.svg shows a creation date of 26. Mär. 2007..... (Also the author is for sure not the uploader/ pixel editor). So do apply this rule here is invalid. -- Perhelion 10:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
While I understand your point, the rule is what it is. I think this is a very small point and it costs us nothing to keep the file in accordance with the rule. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anatoliy Solovianenko - Soviet Life, October 1984.jpg

Hi Jim,

What do you think about this issue? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A difficult one. It is clearly OK in the US, as Soviet Life has no copyright notice. The question is whether the image was published earlier in another country. I think that if we start asking that question about non-US images that appear to have been first published in the USA, we open a very difficult can of worms. Also, Novosti was/is a government agency and clearly knew that the image would be PD in the USA.
On the other hand, it seems very likely that the image was one that Novosti pulled from their files on request. I doubt if they sent a photographer out to get a photo to illustrate the article. Even so, it may not have been published previously -- while film was not free, photographers did not take just one image when on a portrait shoot -- and Novosti would certainly have all of the images in its files.
On balance, while I usually enforce COM:PRP vigorously, I think that it is unlikely that the image was published previously and extremely unlikely that Novosti would attempt to enforce its copyright, if there is one, so I probably would keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks a lot. I asked undeletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:PD-UN

Give the issues raised here in relation to the UN Administrative Instruction namely :

  • It can be viewed as only covering the text of documents as the Administrative Instruction uses phrases such as "written material" and "material offset from typescript and issued under a masthead" and makes no references what so ever to either images, logos or symbols being covered by the instruction.
  • The Administrative Instruction can be revoked and overridden at will and is not binding.

should we indeed review if {{PD-UN}} meets the requirements of COM:L ? LGA talkedits 22:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There is also this page which states "United Nations photographs are the property of the United Nations, which holds all rights in connection with their usage" further indicating the Administrative Instruction is not intended to cover images, yet the AI is used to licence File:Opening of 67th General Debate of General Assembly.jpg. LGA talkedits 23:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It appears that {{PD-UN}} sets forth a policy that cannot be depended on for our purposes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I have opened a DR here on the template and all the files licensed with it. LGA talkedits 04:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


Opinion?

Hi Jim: What do you think of the text in File:Stefan Lofven 1c379 6362.face.jpg this image's description? In light of the discussions of self-promotion and also "are all sizes of image covered by single license", this user's images and galleries may need review. He has several cameras and many of the images are tagged like this one - to buy a higher quality image see his website. Also please see bottom of my talk page for his comments when three of his images were tagged for no source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Agreed. See Commons:Deletion requests/User:Janwikifoto/template pic-politik. I also think that he needs to be told that description and source information are his responsibility -- we are not here to clean up after careless users. If he cannot bother to properly identify and license his images, they will be deleted. And no, we will not communicate by e-mail -- we communicate on talk pages and if he wants an e-mail he can set it up in his preferences to notify him when his talk page changes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much what I thought and mostly what I told him via the only email he'll ever get from me, copy attached to my talk page. Thanks for validating. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The user has left a pair of comments on the deletion request, but atm I'm not up to any arguments, so I request some help with that also. He seems a bit cranky. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The two templates were nominated [Commons:Deletion requests/User:Janwikifoto/template pic-bloggers]] and Commons:Deletion requests/User:Janwikifoto/template picinfo on 6 June. Today Jan left another message on my talk page, apparently he wants all his images deleted if he can't have his templates (?) I am asking for help because I am really foggy today. I gave him the standard "Please talk on the nomination pages," and seek guidance. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC) PS, please highlight my name or ping me for the next couple days to be sure I don't miss your reply, thank you!

Information on file deletion

Hello Jim.
I have seen that you wrote me about the deletion of a file (a photo) that I have uploaded on Commons due to lack of copyright Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Vito_Latora.jpg. Unfortunately I have been offline in these days and I did not have time to answer you back in order to "fix" the issue. Anyway, I want to upload the file again but this time I will provide the copyright statement of the author (that I know personally). So, my question is: do I have to re-upload it again, as if it is a new upload, or there are any chances to "recover" it just adding the copyright statement? I also have another question: where do I can find an example of copyright statement to use as a model (I am not keen at all with copyright statements)?
Thanks in advance for your help
Spariggio82 (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Files are never actually deleted, simply hidden from general view, so it is never necessary to upload a file a second time -- in fact, it is a violation of Commons rules to do a second upload.
Have Claudia Sinatra send a license as described at Commons:OTRS, referencing File:Vito Latora.jpg, and it will be restored. Note that OTRS has a backlog, so that the restoration may not be immediate..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Jim for the help!
Spariggio82 (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Edgar-andrews.tif

Hi James,

Concerning the removal of the photograph of Edgar Andrews, EP Books, which owns the exclusive rights to this photo, has given me permission to upload the file for use on Wikipedia. This is the message I got: 'Hi Ed, I have checked with our Managing Director Graham Hind and he has given permission to use the photograph. Kind Regards, Denise McCormick. Watch-Wiki (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

First, as I said in the closing comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edgar-andrews.tif, "permission to upload the file for use on Wikipedia" is not sufficient permission for use either on Commons or on WP. WMF projects require that files be free for all uses, including commercial use and derivative works. For more information on licensing, see COM:Licensing.
If the copyright holder is willing to grant an appropriate license, then an officer of the corporation must send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. When that has been received, it will be restored. Please be aware that OTRS has a considerable backlog, so restoration will not be immediate..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Several thousand image "no source"

Hi Jim: I found over 2,000 pages uploaded by same user User:Red_Rooster who hasn't been active since 2008. You can see some of them here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Images_without_source&pagefrom=M&subcatfrom=M&filefrom=Meyers+b12+s0615.jpg%0AMeyers+b12+s0615.jpg#mw-category-media) and paging back and forth from there. The only place these thousands of images link to are user galleries of the uploader, although the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyers_Konversations-Lexikon links back to the first image of each book, I think. The uploader didn't source any of the images although its obvious they all came from the same book. I fixed a few and then went looking to see the extent of the problem and see about 2,000. Is there a fast way to emplace the source on all those images? Otherwise, it will be several weeks just to fix this guy's uploads one at a time! I do not know how to write "bots" but it would seem this would be a good one to bottify. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It's probably time for you to take a look at AWB, which is a quick way to page through many files and make changes. It's not a bot -- you actually have to look at each page and accept the changes -- but you can, for example, have it automatically search the page for "Source" and have it replace it with "Source:XYZ". You then hit accept and the next page loads. Bottom line, each page takes one click and a few seconds. For image pages, the image doesn't download -- only the text.
There's also Visual File Change, which I have used a few times, but am not really familiar with. I think it will also allow you to insert text on all the uploads of a user.
obviously either can create a large mess if not used carefully -- when doing a long list with AWB I always stop after one or two and look at the results before proceeding. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Unf. AWB only works on Windows machines which leaves me out. Perhaps if I dump them all in a category, some kind user with Windows could finish them off? Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It's going to be three or four hours of dull work for "some kind user". Better polish up your Huck Finn act. Or, take a closer look at Visual File Change. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Ellin, it is a choice between a rock and a hard place. I think the best bet is probably to Cat-a-lot the files into a new category and then use VFC's custom replace function. AWB will do the job but involves at least a click per file. On WP I've used AWB for categories with up to about three hundred members but I'm not sure if it could cope with thousands without freezing for a while. It does have the advantage that if you were to load up all the files in Category:Images_without_sources, you can filter the list to only include files that have the word Meyers in them. Anyway I will go ahead and make a start on this because I've got a couple of hours free. Jim, I might be wrong but I believe VFC has an advanced configuration where you can ask for confirmation after X number of edits so you might be able to limit any possible devastation. Green Giant (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I hoped that someone with more VFC experience would join this question -- thanks, Green Giant. Although the AWB filtering will work, it would slow things down because AWB does have to load the description data from every file it examines -- better to make a selected list, which does not have to be a category. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Bah! 2000 files was a massive underestimate - I estimate that I've gone through more than 9000, just under a thousand for each of 10 books. Not sure how long its taken because I've spaced it out over the day but it wasn't as dull as I thought it might be. The only thing I couldn't work out was how to add the page number to the description. I'm certain there is a way using variables in VFC but it escapes me at the moment. Do feel free to manually add the page numbers if either of you is feeling enthusiastic! :P Green Giant (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Wow, awesome Green Giant! That's really great way to cut the "images needing source" from 68,000 to less than 60K! Again, thank you so much! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. It is always a nice feeling to see a backlog reduced, and especially by so much. Also thank you for the barnstar, much appreciated. Green Giant (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

About remove deletion

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Charitarth Unagar Myself Charitarth Unagar small level object photographer from Surat, This all photos captured by me. This are not a copied photographs from other websites, if you find somewhere this photographs you sure can go for deletion it. And phototag is also mine CHariTarTH PHoToGRaPHY designed by me and all photos caputed by me.This all are not copied so request to remove this deletion request from those.

-User:Charitarth Unagar
Talk here me 31st May 2014 / 4.51 PM India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charitarth Unagar (talk • contribs) 11:25, 31 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Please read the DR again -- I do not say that they are not your work. I say that they are out of scope for Commons because we do not keep personal art on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much i will make speedy deletion request on all photographts. User:Charitarth Unagar
It means that i can upload photographs like this but which doens't have phototag? User:Charitarth Unagar
Watermarks are discouraged but not forbidden. The problem with all of your uploads is that they were personal art -- they are not useful for educational purposes. You can upload personal art to Flickr or Facebook, but not Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Forces Flag DR

Jim, please don't construe this as forum shopping, but I've placed a question on the closing admin's talk page and have not had a response after 5 days. As the case is the same as this DR with essentially the same sources and reasoning, I'm not exactly sure how the closing admin's remarks relate at all to the DR since no evidence of PD was introduced and I'm not aware of the concept of "re-copyright" or how that could logically apply here. I've done this once before with this particular admin, and all that was done was a ping for Fry and essentially the same thing which has just happened again here. Thanks for all of your time. trackratte (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have deliberately stayed out of this dogfight. I think my deletion of the one was correct for the reasons given -- we do not have a free license for the realization uploaded to Commons, but I am not sure of the status of the older one. I think your reading of the applicable law is probably wrong -- Crown Copyright expires in fifty years. The CF statement which you point to says no more than that their flags are copyrighted. The implication that they may be copyrighted forever (as is the KJV bible in the UK) is simply sloppy drafting and ignorance, similar to some White House images which say they cannot be used commercially, despite the law which clearly puts them PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Prerogative wasn't a discussion point for the CF flag, as ita is less than 50 years old.trackratte (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A man who

…loves Boston and its waterfront, and lighthouses, etc., cannot be at all bad, and so I can only guess you were drawn into the Lx discussion by long-standing relationship. Cheers, and hope we cross paths under more collegial circumstances in the future, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Peachoid

Should this be speedily deleted based on previous discussion? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule, the fact that other images of the object have been deleted does not mean that the new one is a speedy. As for the second one, it's in Alabama, so a second DR is necessary. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. Makes sense. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Cosplayersx.JPG

Is it OK per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Costumes_and_cosplay? If then, does it need {{Costume}}? I doubt whether a authentication of author is needed. See my comments at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Geiko Kimiha.jpg too. Jee 13:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  • For the first, no, Cosplay does not extend to costumes which are sculptures. You can dress up as Harry Potter if you like, because there is nothing copyrightable about his clothing, but this shows a costume which qualifies for copyright as a sculpture.
Thanks, for you opinions/prompt actions. Jee 15:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

About The Other Colors Category

09:50, 9 June 2014 Jameslwoodward (talk | contribs) deleted page The Other Colors / I inderstand : a single image... Yes but it's a work in progress and you delete the page / Category after ten minutes... our creation. Are you sure? :) --360ET1 (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

First, it was not a category, it was a gallery. If you intend to create a category, you must start it with "Category:". :Second, we get around a hundred new galleries every day from new users. Almost all of them are out of scope for one reason or another, and since it is a primary source of vandalism, we delete them rapidly. If you are actually trying to create a gallery that meets the requirements of Commons:Galleries, then do one of three things:
  • Create it in a user subpage such as User:360ET1/Sandbox and copy it to gallery space when it is complete. You can take as much time as you need for this.
  • Create it in gallery space, as you did, but put a note at the top that it is under construction. This will only be good for a day or two.
  • Create it in gallery space, but do not click on SAVE until it meets the minimum requirements for a gallery.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanations. I inderstand and I'll create a gallery. :) --360ET1 (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Bull in porcelain shop

I discovered a user [34] making huge changes to categories for no reason. I became aware of her due to her changing pictures of two towns into the general county category(!) but when I looked at her changes log, I became very concerned. I do not know what to do and I'm a bit befuzzled today due to preop, so while I hate to put on my Tom Sawyer pleading look with a paintbrush, I fear I must ask you to take a look and render an opinion please, because I am unlikely to remember it even exists by tomorrow. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Apparently she's really hung up on "populated place" categories only containing other categories, (eg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Populated_places_in_Yolo_County,_California) which might work out in the populated east, but out here we'd have 150 subcategories, each with one photo and it doesn't seem very practical. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

One of those days

Mr. James, thank you so much for your help. Sorry for the inconvencience. But now, you change the correct name. You puted Category:Joselo Schaup, instead of SCHUAP (the correct last name). Thank you for your patience. --Regions (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I see that it is all OK now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

The strawberry fruit (which is not actually a berry) is widely appreciated for its characteristic aroma, bright red color, juicy texture, and sweetness.

Some strawberry's for you :) -- Steinsplitter (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll have them for breakfast in a few minutes..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Some time ago you participated in deletion discussions at Commons:Deletion requests/File:TLC LA.png. This file has now been deleted from commons and uploaded to en.Wikipedia where it is currently being discussed. If you have time, could you please review the discussion and make any comments that you may think are appropriate. The discussion is here. Thankyou. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

While I know that some would disagree with me, it seems perfectly clear that this is simply three letters in a particular type face. Type faces have no copyright in the US and this is a US image. Even if you discard that argument, with just three letters and a drop shadow, it is clearly way below the ToO, which is relatively high in the US, see Commons:TOO#United_States. I see no reason why it cannot remain on Commons.

It was speedy deleted out of process here by User:Hedwig in Washington after two DRs that were both closed by me as keeps. Policy is clear:

"Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." from Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion

Therefore, I have restored the file on Commons. I invite Hedwig to start a new DR, since she apparently disagrees with keeping it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, IMHO the shading isn't something I could easily reproduce. Therefore I considered the image not PD. I probably should lower my expectations on TOO quite a bit. I seem to have missed the former DRs, how I can't tell. I agree, totally out of process FU-tagged. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick action on this. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
NP, I don't mind if I get reminded about mistakes I made. That's the way to learn. Left a comment on the enwiki discussion as well. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:500 lb Blakely MLR.jpg

Hi Jim! Thank you for closing above DR but additionally I nominated 2 more files (1x with similar problems + 1x thumb size image). Could you review the request? Thx! Gunnex (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Sorry. Either I was working too fast (as usual), or DelReqHandler hiccuped, which it has been doing less recently than in the past. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello My Frined.. I am A Photogarphy man.

Please Mr James, Don't Choose "DELETE"... I was Got A Camera About Samsung ES70.. The Picture it for the Users on WIKIMEDIA.

I Swear Allah.. The Photography it mine..

I am Stell A Live. I am Born 1983.--على المزارقه (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • First, it is a serious violation of Commons rules to remove a {{Delete}} tag. You must let the discussion reach its conclusion, usually in seven days. You removed two such tags. If you do it again, you will blocked from editing on Commons.
  • Second, the problem is not your taking the pictures. The problem is that the design of the stadium is copyrighted and your pictures infringe on the architect's copyright. We cannot keep pictures of copyrighted works without written permission from their creator. In this case, that would be the stadium's architect. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Problem files:

Mr James.. Just Lesson to me, Please.

I GOT THE PICTURES... I AM A CAMREA MAN ..

THE PICTURES IT MY OWN.. I SWEAR..

--على المزارقه (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Again, read the message above -- the problem is not you -- it is that we cannot keep any pictures of the stadium, no matter who took them, unless we have permission from the architect.

I AM A CAMRERA MAN .. I AM HERE IN RIYADH , I AM NOT THERE IN EUROPE.. THAT IT NO FAIR... DAMN THE STUPID PEACE.. YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTAND ME..

WHO'S architect?

AND WHAT ABOUT THE MANUALS OF WIKIMEDIA?

IT'S NOT FAIR. --على المزارقه (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


I am Understood

Thank you for Information About the Wikimedia and The Commons:Derivative works... But .. What about WIKIPEDIA ARABIA and Upload Pictures?

I was A Fury,, becouse Commons:Derivative works Unfair.--على المزارقه (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • You may not think it is fair, but it has nothing to do with Europe -- it is Saudi Arabian law that is the problem. The architect of the stadium owns the copyright and according to Saudi law we cannot host images of it because they infringe on his copyright.

I do not understand

"AND WHAT ABOUT THE MANUALS OF WIKIMEDIA?"

In each of the DRs, I have linked to the Wikimedia rules which apply, at COM:FOP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

MMRDA source

Hi! The Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mumbai Monorail Line 1 map.jpg that your closed as delete also involved a big chunk of images with same issue. After querying here and there, I was told that all 150+ images need not be tagged or added individually in the DR. So are you planning to delete those all images or what should be done about them? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:37, 16 June 2014‎

I am not sure who told you that, but it is generally the rule that the images should be tagged, and in particular, all the uploaders must have notice. Completely aside from that, images listed in a DR can be deleted rapidly, without any page loads, using the Admin tool DelReqHandler. Images that are not listed in a DR must be deleted one at a time and each one takes three page loads. You might want to use COM:VFC to create a mass DR for the relevant images, referencing the subject DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The referred discussion happened at Commons:Help_desk#Mass_deletion. So its a cumbersome job for deletion as well. That was the main reason for me to go and ask on help desk. I wanted to find an easy way to tag 150+ images. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I was not clear -- Visual File Change, which I also linked above, will allow you to check off images in any category or uploaded by any user and nominate them for deletion, including tagging them and notifying the uploader(s). Although it can be installed, it can also be run without installing, go to Step 0 on the linked page. There is only one page load for the whole list. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Aa..... okay thanks. User:Green Giant has done some at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BigJolly9. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Guilty as charged, although I'm not sure if I identified all the affected files. If you have the time and energy, feel free to add more files. Green Giant (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Another odd template

What do you think of the license on this image, this line please contact me to negotiate licensing terms.? Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That's OK -- he is very clear that nothing is required if you want to use the file within the CC-BY-SA license, but that if you want to eliminate either BY or SA, he is willing to talk. I can imagine that -- use on a billboard, where an attribution would be difficult, or use in a for-sale work where SA would not be possible..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Such fine lines! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as a fine line -- a Commons Licensor can
  • demand attribution, but cannot specify where it is placed
  • specify the words for the attribution, as long as it is a name or other reasonable identifier and not more
  • request, but not require, notification when an image is used
  • offer to negotiate a different license -- to eliminate the BY or SA or both.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I learn something new every day, thanks for the help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

About trophies

Hi, Since the recent DR about the Oscar statuette certain questions came to my mind about some specific works that may be under copyright or not. Well, I'm not updated that a rendition (p.e.: a SVG drawing) of a sculpture is not allowed here too. My question is: are trophies considered sculptures too? I'm specifically talking about FIFA trophy and examples like this drawing. This trophy was designed (1971) by Italian artist Silvio Gazzaniga who is still alive so the throphy would be still under copyright as far as I know.

I have checked that Italy has not FoP so the sculpture is not exempt of copyright. On the other hand, the copyright holder of the trophy is the FIFA (headquartered in Switzerland, where there is FoP for all works).

Considering all detailed above, could you clear me about this point? so it sounds a bit confusing to me...

Thanks in advance, - Fma12 (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, trophies are sculptures for all copyright purposes. FOP is not an issue here because the FIFA trophy is not on permanent display anywhere. The 1971 trophy is clearly still under copyright, so any derivative work, which would include both photographs and drawings, infringe on the copyright and cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Fma12, this might be helpful too. Эlcobbola talk 14:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for the information, both Jim and Эlcobbola. I've just nominated the files for deletion. - Fma12 (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You have deleted "Hochrhein below confluence of Aare"

Hallo, I just got the message that you have deleted "Hochrhein below confluence of Aare".

I'm preparing a longer article about a canoe trip on the Hochrhein between Schaffhausen and Basel and I'm adding some image to commons. From my point of view, there should be separate subcategories for different segments of Hochrhein. (Otherwise we will end up with quite a mess with images from the whole length of the river). You have deleted the new category (which should have been a subcategory of Hochrhein) between uploading and adding image information of my images. I didn't manage to make it appear in the subdirectories of "Hochrhein", mybe you can do that. So I use the "Hochrhein" Category now for my images. You might move the images to another category if you like to.

Sorrym the help in Commons with all the Category (create new, create subcategories) is slightly difficult for me and there seems not to be a good german language help file about this. So I try to do my best with english... Regards from Switzerland Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mboesch (talk • contribs) 19:37, 24 June 2014‎ (UTC)

That's fine, but you did not create a new category -- you forgot the required prefix "Category:" -- so what you created was a gallery. It is a very common mistake -- I have done it myself many times. To create a new category, simply type the name, "Category:Hochrhein below confluence of Aare" into the search box, and then click on "Create the page "Category:Hochrhein below confluence of Aare" on this Wiki!".
Be sure to add [[Category:Hochrhein]] and any other categories that seem appropriate to the new page before saving it. In English, I might prefer "Hochrhein below the confluence of the Aare", but that is your choice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help, I remeber I managed to do it last time somehow, but did not remember how... and I even managed to remove the images to the sub-category, now it looks fine. Thanks again, kind regards Martin - Mboesch (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh FoP

Thanks for your correction. My earlier change was based on the quote at Commons:Freedom of panorama#Bangladesh, which says that it's permitted to reproduce "a sculpture or other artistic work falling under section 36(c), if such work is permanently situated in public place or any premises to which the public has access". I don't know why but I must have overlooked the "falling under section 36(c)" bit. Does section 36(c) talk about architecture only? (The official English translation of the Copyright Act seems to be down; where did you get your quote from? If you have access to a different translation, perhaps you could look up the exemption for idols someone mentioned at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pratyya Ghosh‎.) —Psychonaut (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The quote is from the article about the Copyright Act linked in the preceding sentence -- it may not be authoritative, but since it is the only cite in the Bangladesh section, it may be all we have. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there is another, more authoritative citation. At Commons:Freedom of panorama#Bangladesh there's a translation of an excerpt of the actual text of the Copyright Act 2000. This is apparently from the official translation which was once hosted on the Government of Bangladesh Copyright Office's web page. The article you cite, on the other hand, is from a private law firm. The two texts differ in a couple of significant ways:
  1. The private summary doesn't explicitly mention that the artwork must be permanently installed in public, whereas the translation of the Act does. (The respective wordings are "kept in a public place" versus "permanently situated in public place or any premises to which the public has access".)
  2. The private summary says that the exemption applies to "an architectural work of art, or a sculpture", whereas the translation of the Act says it applies to ""a sculpture or other artistic work falling under section 36(c)". Unfortunately, the translation of 36(c) is not provided, so it's hard to know whether "architectural work of art" is synonymous with "artistic work falling under section 36(c)".
Given the differences I think we should generally give preference to the translation of the law itself. This would resolve the issue of whether or not the work must be permanently installed, but not the question of what types of artistic works other than sculptures are covered by freedom of panorama. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Now we've an admin from Bangladesh; so probaby NahidSultan can help. Jee 10:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the best thing would be to get a translation of 36(c), but, until that happens, I think we should remain with the more restrictive definition in the document I cited. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Huh? The definition you cited is less restrictive, not more restrictive, than the one from the Act, since yours doesn't require permanent installation. (Whether it's more or less restrictive regarding the types of artwork covered is unknown, since we don't yet know what §36(c) says.) In any case, hopefully NahidSultan will get the ping and stop by to enlighten us all. :) —Psychonaut (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I assume "permanent", as that is a feature of FOP almost everywhere, so its lack in the lawyer's summary is, I think, an oversight. For me, the only important difference is that the lawyer's summary clearly limits FOP to sculpture and architecture. Thus I said "more restrictive". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! According to Copyright act 2000 "Architectural Antiques, sculpture or other artistic work" falling under section 36(c) only if they are permanently located in a public place or any places to which the public has open access". You can find the translation of 36(c) on page 13 (linked above). According to translation (page 13), Subsection (b) covers "Architectural Antiques" & Subsection (c) covers "sculpture or other artistic work". Now in page 52 (linked above), section 36(c) also covers "carving". There is no such description about "idols" but i can assure you the same rules also apply for idols. "Architectural work of art" is synonymous with "artistic work" and they all falling under section 36(c). Hope this helps. Cheers! ~ Nahid Talk 12:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, now I'm really confused. The following are the usual categories for FOP

  • Architecture -- that is, the buildings themselves
  • Architectural models
  • Architectural drawings
  • Sculpture and other three dimensional works
  • Paintings and other two dimensional works
  • Text

In some laws there are subtle differences -- weaving, carving, bas-reliefs -- but those are the major groupings we usually consider. We know that architecture is covered by the FOP, but I'm not clear about anything else. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a bit confused as well, NahidSultan. You said that that we can find the translation of §36(c) on page 13 of some document that was "linked above", but I don't see links to anything in English. Could you post the link to the translation?
Also, regarding idols, this is actually a separate issue, but maybe you can help with that as well. Another Bangladeshi user informs us that according to the Copyright Act 2000, depictions of gods and goddesses are altogether uncopyrightable [35], regardless of where and how they're exhibited. Can you confirm at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pratyya Ghosh whether this is information is correct? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
FOP of Bangladesh is exactly the same as stated here. I've done some research about copyright act 2000 but didn't find more about three dimensional works. As far as i can see the Bengali text there isn't clear details about those types of works. Psychonaut, unfortunately i didn't find an english version but the good news is one of my friend promised me to provide one. As soon as i get the english documentation, i will let you know. I'm also told that gods and goddesses are under exception though didn't find such evidence on "2000 copyright act". But in general they are made only for the festival and eventually destroyed after the event. ~ Nahid Talk 19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The question remains, what works does section 36(c) describe? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Music / musical

Hello, I have a doubt. What's better in your opinion? Either Music duos or Musical duos? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 20:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I need a little more context. I assume you're naming a category. Is it for music that is in duet form -- written for two voices or two instruments? Or for people who are notable for singing duets? I would probably use "Musical" for the first and "Music" for the second, but I don't much like either. I might use "Musical pairs" for people and simply "Duets" for pieces of music sung or played by two people. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I would like to create separate categories by country and activity for celebrity duos like comedians, actors (like ie Laurel and Hardy), musicians (like ie Simon & Garfunkel); while for Simon & Garfunkel the problem could be solved considering them as "musical group" (incidentally composed by two)... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The idea is good, but I can't think of a title I really like. "Musical pairs" or "Musical duos" would probably be best. "Pairs" certainly goes better with other vocations, like comedian or acting (although only Lunt and Fontanne really come to mind there).

Jaguar Photos Nominated for Deletion

Hi Jim, last night I was searching for photos of Yasmin Le Bon. She is a fashion model but her profile pic is from last year's Mille Miglia challenge race. Per instructions from her social media assistant, I requested Ms. Le Bon provide photos for which she owns the copyright. I expect to receive those in a few days.

Meanwhile, I stumbled across several photos of Ms. Le Bon that had been posted via the Jaguar Flickr account. I spent about an hour sorting out the categories, removing some, adding some, correcting the others. This afternoon, I noticed that these had all been marked for deletion:
|https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F-TYPE_Unleashed_(8837326140).jpg
|https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jaguar_-_Mille_Miglia_2013_(8836772239).jpg
|https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jaguar_-_Mille_Miglia_2013_(8836775013).jpg
|https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jaguar_-_Mille_Miglia_2013_(8837409136).jpg

I would like to ask that you postpone deleting these images for a few days. The photos marked for deletion were taken by Jaguar (for Jaguar) during the 2013 Mille Miglia. Perhaps they didn't obtain the proper authorization when they were uploaded--is that the problem? If so, I will message Jaguar's media team. Once they follow the proper procedure, the photos could have the proper wikimedia authorization very quickly.

However, I won't waste my time if there is some other problem with the photos that makes them unacceptable per wiki guidelines.

Last, I created a media page for Yasmin Le Bon. I looked at other pages as my example and tried to follow wikipedia's instructions. I would appreciate your taking a look to see that I set it up correctly: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Yasmin_Le_Bon

Thanks for your guidance regarding these questions.PatsySchmatsy (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

All of this should be discussed at the DRs, not here. The reason we DRs is so that the whole community can participate in discussions. Talking about them on my talk page is much less public.
The issue here is whether Jaguar has freely licensed the images. If the Flickr site is actually owned by Jaguar, then there is no problem. If it is a fan site, then it is what we call Flickrwashing, and the images cannot be kept without a license from Jaguar using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
Do I understand correctly that you work for Ms. Le Bon, directly or indirectly?
"Per instructions from her social media assistant..."
If that is the case, you have a conflict of interest, and should not be creating pages for her on Commons. You may upload properly licensed images, but, except for correcting errors, you may not create other content anywhere across WMF without clear disclosure and should not create new pages at all.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I started this conversation in the wrong place. This is my first encounter with a "DR" situation.
First, as far as the Jaguar flickr account, in spite of non-matching url's, it is the same flickr that is linked from the Jaguar website (top right): http://jaguarmena.com/
here: https://www.flickr.com/people/56721991@N06 and
here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jaguarcarsmena
Regarding my reference to Ms. Le Bon's assistant, I have NO relationship, direct or indirect, with either Ms. Le Bon or her assistant. I visited Ms. Le Bon's official Facebook page and her website in search of contact information. Her social media assistant responded to my inquiry. She stated she thought Ms. Le Bon would be able to provide me with a small number of her own modelling photos. Toward that goal, she gave me instructions on how to submit a photo request to Ms. Le Bon--which I have done. Have I violated the policy by attempting to contact Ms. Le Bon personally? I assure you I am an unpaid wiki volunteer just doing a little leg work to improve this particular article. If my work is going to be rejected by my ignorance of the rules, I will stop now--and not waste my or anyone else's time. Please clarify this for me. Thanks, PatsySchmatsy (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It sounds like you have done and are doing exactly the right thing -- independent of the notable person, put together a WP and Commons presence. Sorry for the misunderstanding -- keep up the good work.
I have withdrawn the four DRs -- in the future, keep in mind that reasons for keeping or deleting images need to go in the DRs, not on the talk page of the nominator. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on both of these matters, Jim. I hope I don't encounter any or DR's but if I do, I will remember your advice. I appreciate that there are volunteers like you helping wiki-newbies like me. Best, PatsySchmatsy (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Move page

Can you please move the page Commins:निर्वाचित चित्र उम्मीदवार on Commons:निर्वाचित चित्र उम्मीदवार. You are right that I wrote the wrong spelling while creating this page.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

It's gluten free and sugar free--the perfect THANK YOU for your patience in working with volunteers (like me) stumbling our way through the wiki process. PatsySchmatsy (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

File check?

Hi Jim! I received a note (on talk page) from a confused user who uploaded File:168 RCAF Squadron Crest manufactured by Crest Craft of Saskatoon, circa 1944..jpg in good faith only to run up against having his own tag removed and the image ended up "no source". So he contacted me and asked for help. I have worked on that file template a bit today. I retained all the other material within a <!-- comment section -->. Of course the file history retains all, but this made it easier to read. Please let me know if I have the correct information; the uploader says he has a large collection of this material that he wishes to contribute to the project and I do not want to tell him, "do it like this", until I am certain that I got it correctly! Thanking you again for all your assistance!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

My reading of it is that there are three copyrights here:
  • the photograph -- no problem, our uploader has given a license
  • the crest itself as an abstract creation -- no problem, the Crown Copyright has expired
  • the manufactured crest
The latter is a problem. Our rule is that individual realizations of Coats of Arms have a copyright. I would suggest that you take this to a DR and see what the community thinks. I would delete it myself, assuming we cannot get a license from the manufacturer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Manufacturer was held privately by Gustav Werle until 1967. I cannot find a death date for Mr. Werle, nor any other information on him besides the following from this site: "I was in Saskatoon last Spring and decided to drop in at the library to see what information they had on Crest Craft. Here's what I found. Gustav Werle, the founder of the company, moved to Saskatoon from Langenburg, SK as a boy so he could attend high school. One of the things he had done to pass the time on long winter nights on the farm was learn how to use his mother's sewing machine. In Saskatoon he parlayed this skill into spending money by making crests for his school mates. Crest Craft was begun in 1931 and "Gus" was also a member of the RCAF Reserve. When WWII came about, he was too old to join, but he had military contacts across Canada, which is why his crests turn up from coast to coast. One story is that Gus's friend in Gander, Newfoundland was making such good money on his sales commissions that he was the only man ever to refuse a transfer back to Canada. Werle kept the business until 1967, but Crest Craft didn't survive the 1980's." I found dozens of his creations on their Library database. But again no information on Mr. Werle, his heirs or what became of the company. The other consideration of "Take this to DR" is the roasting I just got for another of this type, trying to get a solution to the problem - not merely delete the image. Another consideration is that we have a few dozen (not zillions) of other WWII Canadian Patches in various categories; their licenses are also a mess. I will contact the user with your comments and see if he has any more information on the company or Mr. Werle or his heirs (assuming he has deceased, which seems a fair assumption if he was too old to serve in WWII). I will then wait and see if he can provide more info before going to DN with it and about 55 others of the same ilk. Are we totally sure the Crown Copyright doesn't cover the crest itself as well as the design?? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is fair to assume that Werle is dead -- he founded CrestCraft in 1931 -- even at age 18, he would have been born in 1913, hence 101 now -- possibly alive, but not likely. More to the point is tht we know that he died after 1967, so the copyright will last a long time from now.
No, I'm not totally sure of what I said above. There's no Canadian case law that I know of that's on point, so who knows what a Canadian court would do with it? Our policy, though, is clear to me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Via email from uploader; Mr. Werle's daughter is alive. A suggestion to OTRS the Crest Craft products was sent to the uploader who will send it to the crest collector who is in contact with Mr. Werle's daughter and see if she will OTRS all, some or none of her father's designs. If approved, then the entire Crest Craft line of Canadian military patches, as well as his other embroideries (or not depending on how she fills out the form) would be available for upload to the project. It is of course holidays all over this week, Canada Day and Fourth of July, so this may move more slowly, but it is moving. I assured the uploader that this is only a process and one which I hope turns out OTRS'd and solved. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Nevit/Not-PD

Dear Jim. What are we going to do with the images that still transclude this template and do no longer have a licence box now? --Krd 12:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I assume that Nevit will do something -- either put an acceptable license on the images, or file an UnDR on the template. I wouldn't do anything until a little time passes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I just wonder how this will be tracked. The files either have technically "no license", or the template should be replaced with the licence that was in the template. If nothing is done now, how will this pop up later? --Krd 13:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I think (but I'm not certain) that a bot will pick up the no license. Times like this, I wish WMF had a good mechanism for keeping track of things that need followup. Every now and then, I think about starting a follow up list, but there is always too much to do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I personally don't like that tag much (just see in a file page that is not purged so far); but disagree with deleting license tag without a wider community discussion. See m:User_talk:LuisV_(WMF)#Attribution. Even LuisV_(WMF) stated "interpreting the license obligations for the public is also tricky for us". I don't know how you neglect "Note: To clarify, if any of the above explanations seem to contradict the official CC license, official license is valid for legal disputes." Jee 13:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
There is a certain irony in saying to you, Jee, that many (most?) of our users are not native English speakers. The CC license is available in many languages. User tags that have extra language in English simply make it less likely that the image will be used off-WMF. The tags do a disservice to our goal of being a source of freely licensed images. Whether the lack of clarity is inadvertent or deliberate, it has the same effect and I see no reason why we should allow them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Please participate in the VPC discussion for the new license tag. The current tag is horrible and only encourage piracy. See my comment on improving Commons at AN. Even the WMF staff are careless in providing attribution, and we need to fix them. (This is a quick; comment; I will explain later.) Jee 14:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Jim, you stated that "I see no reason why we should allow them." But I think you know we've a lot of such tags. Even WMF staff use them. I think most GLAM uploaders are using custom tags to identify/highlight such firms. The only difference I see is they are much brief compared to individual user tags. And it seems German users are preferring more user tags. See the one used here. It seems very professional, and I see anything wrong. It well explains the requirements than our generic tags. So I repeat: either we must improve the generic tags, or we should be more generous to those who create them themselves. Jee 15:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your example is actually an excellent example for me -- it requires that the attribution be in the caption.

" as long as the author is mentioned in the following form in the caption or for printed products in the image credits:"

Therefore, if you follow his rules, you cannot use any of his images on WP. It also requires a link to the Commons source page.

"When used in online media in addition to the aforementioned copyright and license specifying a reference (link) is also to be set to the original image - so this page with descriptions and license conditions."

Ignoring the "so" which I think should be "to", we have another requirement that is not in the CC license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It is CC BY-SA 4.0; so "link to source" and "Modifications have to be declared as such" are part of that license. I don't know what he meant by "caption". They are not native English speakers and I can found 100+ such tags in Commons. So you are going to delete them, one by one? Could you check and comment on my tag first? I'm happy to make any change if needed. :) Jee 16:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the link to source, question. Thank you for adding to my on-going education.
The "caption" is the image description which goes under a thumbnail on almost all WP images. It is against WP:EN policy (and probably most others as well) to put attributions in image captions unless there are special circumstances. Requiring attribution in the caption therefore makes it impossible to put the image on WP:EN. Your version follows the license -- "reasonable to the medium" -- while he demands a specific location, a demand that the license does not allow. Yours looks fine.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my tag. I personally prefer no additional restrictions; but sympathize with users who try to defend themselves from copyright abuses. Many of them are high quality contributors I frequently meet at COM:FPC. So my opinion is to educate them first instead of handling through DRs. Do you have any idea to make a discussion on it? (Pinging XRay for bringing his attention for his license tag.) Jee 05:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is my attention. ;-) Sorry, I didn't follow the discussion. What's wrong with my meta information and the licence? I'm using my own templates for permission and attribution within the information template. So it is much easier to update the information for hundreds of images. (May be necessary if something is wrong.) The permission field is especially necessary for the Media Viewer, otherwise no detailed licence information is shown. Both should be compliant with the Creative Commons licences and doesn't add any additional conditions, but it should emphasize the use of the licence too.
In the beginnig it was hard to put all the informations to the image. There are too many ways to do it. There was no good explanation how to do it or is wasn't easy to find this explanations. So I had a look to other users and chose a similar way. --XRay talk 06:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@XRay: Jim suggested that "as long as the author is mentioned in the following form in the caption" is a restriction against CC's stand "You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." Everything else seems OK. Jee 06:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your information. I'll update my text.--XRay talk 06:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't for a minute propose going on a crusade against license templates. It's funny. at User_talk:Ellin_Beltz#Couldn.27t_we_just_ask_for_description_to_be_added we are having a discussion about a different name for "Deletion Request", to emphasize that what is needed is a discussion, which, to be sure, might end up in a deletion, but also might end up with a change. THat would certainly apply in cases like this.

I had intended, when this discussion ended, to post a polite note on XRay's talk page suggesting a change to the template. Anyone who gives us wonderful images such as that of the cathedral deserves at least that much consideration from the community. Jee's explanation is good -- I hope that you (XRay) understand that the WP method of providing attribution by linking thumbnails to the image page is both permitted by the CC license and not permitted by your template. Therefore your template actually prohibits use on WP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes; DRs need to be much friendly. Today morning I noticed Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)'s angry comment on Fastily's talk page. I've no wonder as I can see 27 warnings on his talk page stating Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. :)
I think some parallel discussions are going on German and other language VPs about Media Viewer and its effects. See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57259 Such bugs are very frustrating and many people are showing very disappointment. Another thing as XRay stated above is Media Viewer only show license tag if it is inside {{Information}}. It do not care tags outside it. There are many such things we need to update to satisfy our contributors. :) Jee 12:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Stefan4: Do you read this? It is not very simple, especially in case of third party uploads. Jee 17:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Does the document User:Jkadavoor linked to state that someone violated the attribution requirement for File:1986 Ulf Fink 800.jpg because he linked to the file information page on Wikipedia (de:File:1986 Ulf Fink 800.jpg) instead of a file information page on the defendant's server? Looks like an interesting case. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Waved Albatross in flight by Roar Johansen.jpg was closed incorrectly. The requirement:
"All usage must display the phrase "Photo: Roar Johansen" in the immediate vicinity of the image."
is, as I said above, contrary to both WP:EN policy and to the CC-BY license. That requirement may be why the otherwise excellent image hasn't received wider use. I note that he violates his own requirement on User:Roarjo..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The copyright holder can of course use his copyrighted photograph in any way he wants (for example on his user page), with or without attribution. On the other hand, this makes it impossible for reusers to use the user page without first modifying it. Maybe the user page should be nominated for deletion as unfree (in its current condition) for this reason. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. We could have fun debating this one. I take the position that while Roarjo added it to the page, every edit becomes the responsibility of the whole community, and, therefore, the community is violating Roarjo's license by allowing it to stay as it is. However, as I said above, I don't think we should approach these with DRs, but with polite notes on talk pages. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I would say that by submitting that revision of his user page, he consented to that revision of the user page, so the current revision doesn't seem to be a problem as long as it remains on Commons. It may not be possible for other users to modify the user page without at the same time changing the attribution, without explicit permission from the owner of the user page. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Nothing prevent us from deleting a user's files if the community think his requirements are too demanding. We need not bothered about whether or not his terms are against the license. But we need consensus; we didn't have it it that previous DR. So I think INC's closing is correct. The result may different if we try again now. Jee 02:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Only CC 4.0 licenses explicitly allow to provide attribution in a linked page ("it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information."). In all other versions, CC only said "You may satisfy the conditions in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material". I had discussed this with the CC Communication Manager earlier. He said CC intended to allow the way Wikimedia operates. But they can't change the wordings in previous versions of license; only court can decide whether it is acceptable or not. May be this is the reason why CC updated this point in 4.0.
In the above judgement, the judge clearly states that whether a user allow his work to be used without proper attribution in one place is not a permission to others. Everybody who doesn't have an explicit permission from that user must follow the license terms.
This may not be a problem if the contributor is a Wikimedian as out ToU 7d allow us some additional permissions: "and also comply with the requirements of the specific Project edition or feature to which you are contributing." But we have a lot of third party uploads and I don't think we win in court if a Flickr user or a similar external user has a complaint.
Anyway I forward it to LuisV (WMF) and waiting for his response. Jee 02:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
This is the best legal advice I found in the web. It advises "attribution" under photo "preferred"; "at the end of the post" "good". Not even mention as "attribute through link" as an option. Jee 03:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes but -- if you look at the print analogy, there is a long history of allowing attributions to be collected at the beginning or end of the book and not put under each illustration. And, the fact that WP -- one of the largest users of CC licenses of all versions -- uses attributions through a link would tend to influence a court to conclude that it was OK. That's even more true for longer attributions such as your own -- I would not want to have to put that under every image in a gallery along with a descriptive caption (I know you don;t require it, but I use it as an example of a long credit.)
What you are suggesting is that every pre CC-4.0 image must either be relicensed or credited on every WP page. That's not going to happen.
Back to Johansen -- his requirement makes use in galleries much more difficult - I have just removed his images from Commons galleries where no credit was given. What about categories? Strictly speaking, including the bird image in any category violates the license because on the category page it appears without the required words "Photo: Roar Johansen", although his name is in the image name for all four of his Commons images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
(First, I would like to say I don't want credits near the image. My only interest in these discussions is to find and stay inline with the legal point of view.)
I think Johansen's works can be deleted as they too restrictive to even our own use, even if they may satisfy the license terms. So there is no need to argue further. But what we will do if people setup separate conditions for off wiki uses? See User:Martin_Kraft/Licence. Here he needs "Legible name of the author close to the image" for "usage outside of Wikipedia". Jee 09:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we cannot allow that. Most of my life was spent without the Internet and a part of my business background is in the printing industry, so I am, perhaps, more conscious of its needs than most Web dwellers. There is, as I said above, a long history of collecting credits on one page. Some of this is convenience -- it was easier to do pre computer. Part of it is esthetic -- credits are not necessary to the flow of the work. A page with a double page full bleed image has no place for a credit and even the customary caption location on the preceding or following page is not "close to the image", so that restriction makes it impossible to use such images in some print uses. Any different requirement for off-WMF would make use impossible on WP repackagers, of which there are many. Since they tend to get our word out to a wider audience, I'm in favor of them and would be reluctant to allow restrictions on their work, much of which is automatic. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
This seems a bit more neutral. Further only "prefer"; not "must". Anyway I think a wider community education is needed for this matter. :)
Why attribution is "preferred" under the photo? Because it guarantee the viewer see the credits. Why attribution at the bottom of page is "good"? Because still chances that the viewer see the credits. Why a link is not advised? Because we have no guarantee that the viewer click on an image (as court commented in their judgement).
One suggestion: Currently our Wikipedia articles have a brief note on the page footer: "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply." What about improving it to "Images are available under a variety of licenses. Click on each image to see attribution and license requirements for reuse." Now nowhere it is mentioned that attribution/credits are available on click. Jee 10:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You and I see attribution differently. I think, that for almost all readers, the attribution is simply clutter that they don't want or need to see. The only time I look at a credit is if I really like an image and would like to see more from the same photographer. And note that I say that as someone who from time to time has made his living as a photographer and who has contributed about 500 images to Commons. I don't care if the average reader knows that Jameslwoodward took the picture -- I only care that someone who wants more of my work knows where to find it.
Given my attitude, I think that providing complete attribution under a link, as WMF and many other web sites do, is just fine. Note, too, that it is consistent with the long standing print practice of not putting credits in the caption. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In many countries, copyright law includes moral rights which require attribution in many situations. I suspect that a court sometimes might look at the moral right attribution requirement, which may use a wording similar to that in the CC licence. For example, article 3 of the Swedish copyright act tells that "the author should be attributed to the extent and in the manner which good manners require" ([...] skall upphovsmannen angivas i den omfattning och på det sätt god sed kräver). A court might decide that CC-BY-SA 3.0 requires in the same way as article 3 of the copyright law, except (presumably) cases where article 3 doesn't require attribution. For example, article 3 typically doesn't require attribution in advertisements, but CC-BY-SA 3.0 always requires attribution, including when an image is used in an advertisement. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not all suggesting that we can do without attributions -- just pointing out that a there is a long history of not having them in a caption immediately adjacent to the illustration. Although we have certainly seen some strange court decisions, it is hard to imagine a court ignoring that history and requiring that images have watermarks (in the case of full bleed double page printing) or long attribution lines in the caption. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jim for sharing your view. I too have a similar view, and you can see my images widely used outside WMF projects with or without proper attribution that I don't care. But our view points are irrelevant if the courts see it in a different way. Hope WMF legal will look into this matter seriously. Jee 15:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In point 7 (d) of the terms of use, Wikimedia contributors agree that a link is sufficient attribution for text. Unfortunately, this point only mentions text, not images. It also doesn't apply to text imported from elsewhere (although there probably isn't too much of such text), and probably not to text contributed to Wikimedia projects before the point was added to the terms of use.
User:Martin Kraft/Licence: Is there a limitation so that images with this tag only can be used in online and print media, or do the attribution restrictions only apply to online and print media, whereas for example television broadcasts only need to satisfy the attribution requirements given in the licence specified?
I started a similar discussion about attribution some time ago at w:Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#Proposed change to Copying from other Wikimedia Projects section, and User:Moonriddengirl (in her WMF position) talked about contacting the legal team, but I don't know if this ever happened. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for info - I have restored the page with the standard license supported by uploader. His last change before deletion mentioned to use the standard license in case of legal questions/problems. --Denniss (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please contact Martin Kraft and ask for toning down the requirement to place the attribution next to the image, if he doesn't change it we have to delete all his images that were uploaded with this incompatible license add-on. See User:Heinz-Josef Lücking/Creative Commons by-sa-3.0 de as bad example where the user refused to do so and many images had to be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Pinging Martin Kraft for attention. Jee 15:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Without reading the full discussion yet: @Stefan4, Jkadavoor, and Denniss: All I am doing with my user template (which will be fully moved to User:Martin Kraft/permission soon) is to clarify the rules of CC BY-SA for the users. Many of them are simply unable to cope with the abstract information provided on the regular licence-pages. And I think it's better to provide a clear do this and that instead of letting them run into trouble or provoking CopyVios?! I'm not trying to overrule any of the licences terms and conditions, but to provide a kind of best practice applying them. So, what's wrong with that? P.S.: I know my template is far from perfect, but I just haven't had the time for a revision yet. --Martin Kraft (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Martin Kraft: "Legible name of the author close to the image" has a "must to be" tone. Changing it to "Legible name of the author, preferably close to the image" may be enough. Jee 09:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: I just edited the page. I hope it's ok now?! --Martin Kraft (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Martin Kraft: In print media also (English), remove "close to the image" Jee 11:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What a thread! I would like to give you some information from a user perspective, even though I actually do not follow this discussion. But it may be helpful for your discussion. I'm starting uploading images 2 years ago. It was hard to find the way how to upload images. The uploading wizard is useful but it's not satisfying my requirements. (I am looking until today for a good upload tool with a template for the description page and working with more than 20 images and the ability the upload to pause and resume.) So I added additional informations to my images. That was a good way for only a few images. Every time I found another useful page on Commons I had to modify all my pages. That's not the way for a lot of images. So I chose the way with my own templates like others do it. So it was possible to modify informations only by modifying the template. IMO it is not a really good way to do this with user templates but it's the only way I found. Today I'm using the user templates and a bot for checking and modifying the description page of my images.
From a user perspective it is very difficult to find a very good way for the description page. IMO it is necessary to add hints for contacting the author via mail or to give a hint for a voucher copy. And it is good to have a structured easy to read description page. Some description pages are not structured and it is not easy to see the license information or the way how to use it. I found some pages on Commons with useful information how to use the attribution. So a link to this page is a good way for all users. And some aspects are confusing. What to do with the license details? There is the permission field of the (preferred) information template and there is a license section on the page. IMO the best way was a short information in the permission field with a link to the license section containig all licence informations and FoP and so on. (The short information should, no, must be compliant with the license. If it isn't, I can modify it.) It is necessary to give all the users this information on the description page. They are searching for images with an external search engine and the first page they see is the page with the image. The important information has to be seen at the top of the description page - at best without scrolling. The whole license term is too long for the permission field.
Today it's a little bit easier to use Commons but there are a lot of written and unwritten rules. It is not easy to find a way through the jungle. I got a many hints from other users, do this or don't do this - the unwritten or hidden rules. For example: Where I can find a hint what is allowed in templates? And once a day there is a Media Viewer. The Media Viewer supports copying an image without complying with the licence rules. Important informations like FoP or trademarks are missing. And the permission field of the information template becomes very important. These are all problems of a user.
(And sorry for my bumpy englisch.) Hopefully my explanations are helpful. You are experts using Commons and using the licenses. For a new user it is very difficult if he would like to respect all the rules. And: I really like Commons. A good place for publishing images with a good licence. And I hope my description pages are exemplary for other users. (And thanks to all the friendly and helpful people.) :-) --XRay talk 15:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks XRay for your valuable feedback. Yes; this is a fascinating project. But it is our responsibility to work together to make it more beautiful. I started a discussion here. Please read and make your suggestions there. Jee 15:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you from me also. I have uploaded about 500 images and although the tools have gotten better, I still find it a nuisance to get the categories I want.
I think the key to all the written and unwritten rules is to ask questions. While a few of our experienced editors tend to blow off questions, most of us (and I include myself in this) try hard to be helpful to people who honestly want to improve Commons and their work on it. We've also tried hard to write understandable explanations of things like FOP, but copyright is a complicated subject in any one country and we're dealing with 100+.
I confess that I don't really understand the need for custom license templates. My assumption is that when I put an image up on Commons, most off-WMF users will respect the license and that a few will not. Several of my images are in use on non-WMF web sites without attribution. If a simple e-mail asking them to follow the terms of the license doesn't fix the problem, I shrug. It's not worth the trouble to straighten them out. I could write a license with a lot of warnings, such as Jee's or Xray's, but people who are going to disobey the license won't be changed by that. And, as I said above, I say that as someone who has, in the past, made his living as a photographer.
And, by the way, there's no reason at all to apologize for your "bumpy englisch", which isn't bumpy at all, although it is misspelled ;-)
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


I started a discussion at Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Marking_your_works to notify our photographers. Jee 03:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Kocsis Sándor.jpg

Hello James. Thanks for processing the deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MÁV 470 010-4 Aranycsapat.jpg. I just wanted to let you know that you might have forgotten to delete File:Kocsis Sándor.jpg, which was co-nominated. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It appears that this filename is in use again. Is this the same image you deleted a few days ago? Green Giant (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
No, but. The one deleted was one face from the side of the tram. This image is a photograph, but the source site is NC. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Guidance please

What to do with an image like this? The OTRS ticket box hasn't a number, the source page on flickr looks like a collection not user's own work and etc. I went bugeyed trying to figure this out. 2), what about [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&user=Frozeficent&ilshowall=1 this gallery}? 3) and what about this one where it seems that there's a living artist painting a picture, works by other artists labeled "own work" by user, etc. My head swirls. It's probably still after effect from the surgery and I'm going to log off now. Back in the morning. Thanks for your help! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Oliver Trevena headshot1.jpg: It seems a vandalism by Kittymccaffery. I doubt such OTRS is permitted (which was for the first image). Both images available at [36] and [37] though. Jee 03:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It needs some attention. Jee 02:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Eronda

Hi. I am dedox, "owner" of the account talcobiz. My full name is Marco De Donà, live in Milano, Italy. Eronda is the art name of my father Mario dead in 2009. On behalf of the family I have created a page on Wiky Italy (and a short bio on Wiki.org). Since he was a graphic-designer I thought obvious to insert pics of his wiork in Commons. I am the legal heir, but could not find any flag to declare that. I stress that I did not violate any copyright and accept any suggestion to make proper declaration in uploading further pics of my father work. I'll be happy to answer any other question. Thanks, Marco De Donà, deodx.

Seen your last message: it is quite complicated to me. Let me time to try to understand and learn what to to. dedox

You need to send a formal license for all the images and basically set forth what you say above. The procedure is at Commons:OTRS. Be sure to list all the images which you wish to license.
Note that I put a DR on File:Eronda ExLibrisAbis.JPG, which is your father's work, but which you did not upload. If you want to license that as well, you must include it in the OTRS e-mail.
There is a backlog at OTRS, but if you put a note here after you have sent the e-mail, I will deal with it. If you have any questions, please ask -- I know it is a nuisance, put our policy is to protect copyrights. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks: I will comply with it, and agree that inspite of beeing a nuisance, "our policy is to protect copyrights!

Dear James: I am driving crazy, procedure are too much for my strenth!!! I have wrote,but no answer, how can I continue my contribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talcobiz (talk • contribs) 11:43, 11 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Have you sent the e-mail to OTRS? As I told you above, they have a backlog, but I can deal with it if you tell me after you send the e-mail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi James. Update: I eventually got a tutor in italian and keep learning. I just uploaded a picture I shot myself. I followed the procedure hopefully correctly. In case of mistake pls correct me before deleting. Thanks. PS: my tutor is Syrio. dedox--Talcobiz (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of File:Thums up.jpg

Hi Jim,

You recently deleted File:Thums up.jpg. However, I do not believe the logo meets the threshold of originality as it is a simple "thumbs up," a common and general gesture meaning "good," and indeed is similar to this case: [[38]]. --Holdek (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand ToO. A painting of a hand will have a copyright. There is no reason why a drawing of a thumb does not also have a copyright -- it may be a common gesture, but it is still a drawing of a part of the human body.

Aside from that, as I said in the DR, it is also to small to be much use anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ek Hi Raasta (Original).jpg

Why should "1956 photographs [be] out of copyright"?    FDMS  4   

Because that is the law in India for images created before 1958, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory_-_full#India. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Backside of Beachgoer possible Socks

Greetings Jim: I hope you had a good holiday. I was pinged by a Wikipedia editor to read this on his talk page [39]. I see the possibility of some socking as well as the "game" of "can I get my buem into Wiki"... See [40] etc. It looks like Binkster is on it, but I thought you might like to see it because there might be more to take out/find/etc. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want to do -- these are all old, so Checkuser won't work. It has a ninety day limit. He may have done more, but unless they show up as unused personal images, I'm not sure what we can do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Just keep your eyes out, with his modus operendi he will be back. Or maybe his back will be back... Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim: The sock is definately back with multiple new accounts. I made a sortable chart User:Ellin Beltz/Sock Drawer to show the real extent of the problem. Formerly lists were kept on Com and en:W but no cross checking. Perhaps the June 2014 users are new enough to search out? Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

After I made two corrections to your list (changed Undoingpropertee Commons date to 2012 and marked Followingfollowing as blocked - by Denniss 7/12/14) I see no user on the list with a 2014 edit who is not blocked. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, there was a complaint about the list in my userspace - despite not being linked to any other page but my own "review these", so I removed it. I am not up to speed on how the check user works, but I know you said they had to be more recent, so I pointed it out. Thank you for going through it, that was great. I was going crosseyed from all those names, dates and events. Now, back to the images without a source, "Men of Canada" series that the bots dumped in 2,000 more images "no source" even though the source is now clearly stated in the description instead of in the source. 2,000 edits all from same book, same en:w bot transfer just making more work for everyone and complaints about pages in user space. Sometimes I think INC has the right idea. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to learn to use AWB or perhaps VFC will do it. I know that AWB would do it, but it takes about ten seconds per image -- something over five hours of dull work for 2,000 images. I don't know VFC well at all, but I think it might do it automatically. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ægypten kort.jpg

Hi!

I see that "Uploader is different from copyright holder". Can you tell me who the copyright holder is, so I can assist User:Ziff in getting the necessary permissions? TIA, --Palnatoke (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


The file description says:
source=Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, København
author=Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, København
so presumably the copyright holder is the author. Since Ziff wrote the description, he already knows that.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
She certainly does. She works there. --Palnatoke (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
That may be, but it doesn't tell us anything about whether she has the authority to freely license this map. In order to restore it, we will need a free license from the copyright holder using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Kwets.jpg

Dear James, you removed a picture of me of a Belgian Beer. I see no reason why, but you have to be consequent. If you remove this one, you have to remove my other ca. 800 pictures of Belgian beers for the same reason. I will nominate them all for deletion, I do not wish to contribute anymore for Commons because there is no logical explication for your action. Kindest Regards --DirkVE (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You should read the section on product packaging which was linked in the DR. Your image clearly infringes on the copyrighted work on the bottle label. It is probably true that there are many more similar images that should be deleted.

However, if you simply nominate all of your images for deletion without considering them on a case by case basis, I, or one of my colleagues, will almost certainly close the DR as a keep. 800 image DRs are not manageable. If you make such a nomination simply out of anger, you may also be blocked from editing on Commons..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so, I'll just nominate the ones who have the same contents as the one deleted. Kindest regards --DirkVE (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
THat would be good, thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BeatR7

Hi Jim, thanks for closing Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BeatR7. You kept quite a few of the images, however you probably forgot to change the file description pages to correctly reflect the copyright status. Right now they are all tagged as own work and CC-by-sa by the uploader which is very unlikely true. Would you mind adjusting the information? Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the amount of work that Admins have to do every day, I don't view post closing cleanup as part of the job of the closing Admin. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim, then whose work is it? The files clearly have insufficient information to determine the copyright status but you decided to keep them. IMHO either the copyright status needs to be made clear or the files need to be deleted. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Good question. We have many colleagues who enjoy that kind of detailed work. Actually most of them, maybe all of them, do have sufficient information. For example, the front page of the NY Times from 1912 is clearly PD-1923. However, since you chose to bring it up, I'll do this one, but for the future I will simple avoid closing DRs that require a lot of cleanup. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim, thanks a lot for taking care of that. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Chrisi, I'm not happy about having used "unknown" for most of the sources -- all but the newspaper front pages -- but I can't think of anything better. Any ideas? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim, thanks for your work. To be honest, the lack of sources is part of the reason why I requested deletion for these images. Many of them do not have a date so there is no way we can be sure whether they were really published or created before 1923 and what their country of origin is. I don't really know how we are supposed to find that out which is why I think they should have been deleted. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I sympathize with your point of view -- the lack of source makes me a little uneasy. However, various photos taken in New York after the sinking -- crowds at the White Star offices -- seem to me to be safe. We have an image of a famous tennis player taken the next year -- we don't have a publication date, but it was almost certainly 1913 -- certain beyond a significant doubt for me. We have Arthur Rostron's letter. We don't know the source, but he died in 1940, so it is surely PD. And so forth. If any of them make you particularly uneasy, by all means bring them up here or start another DR -- Except for the newspaper front pages and Rostron's letter, which are solidly PD, I agree that the rest are a little uncertain. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
From looking at a few samples it seems that all (or at least most) of these images have been imported from the LoC, albeit very poorly. The resolution on some images is way too low to use them for anything, among them the Carpathia captain letter (higher resolution to be found at LoC). I fixed up File:Survivors from TITANIC aboard rescue ship, unidentified group on deck.jpg to give an example of what these uploads should look like. As these images are still available via the LoC and the uploads are lacking all information that would make them useful (for most not even a reasonably sized image has been provided, let alone meta data or copyright information) I think we are better off deleting them and reimporting the files from the LoC when we want to use them. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Or simply uploading better versions from LOC now. I wouldn't object, though, if you want to DR all of them that aren't in use except the newspapers. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Another user permission template

Hi Jim: See Commons:Deletion requests/File:İzmir - 01.jpg for a very interesting user template. "Illegally" ?? (me is confuzzled) Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

English does not appear to be the user's first language; presumably the user means "unlawfully." Indeed, failure to follow the provisions of a "free" license is an infringement of copyright (i.e., unlawful). The "immediate vicinity" verbiage may be another (problematic) matter. Эlcobbola talk 20:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The line between "illegal" and "unlawful" is very fine. The OED lists them as synonyms. This reference says that the former refers to things that are expressly forbidden while the latter refers to things that are not authorized by law. Since there are criminal penalties for willful infringement of the Copyright Act in the USA, that would make "illegal" perfectly correct.
As for "immediate vicinity", I've already put a  Delete at the DR for that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:72MM 14 DominicJames 2550 (a).jpg

Hi Jim, not sure why this photo I took has been deleted. I filled in a permission form ages ago. Can you let me know what why it was deleted and what needs to be done please. Thank you. Dominic]] using HotCat Template:Usigned2

  • As I said in the closing comment, the source site has an explicit copyright notice -- there is no evidence that you have permission to freely license the image.
If
"I filled in a permission form ages ago."
means that the copyright holder sent a license to Commons:OTRS, then please be aware that, like Commons, OTRS is all volunteers and runs a significant backlog. If the copyright holder has not yet done that, then it will required for the image to be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim, this photo [42] was speedy deleted because I had failed to provide its location to the wikimedia team after it was originally approved/uploaded. My mistake. Once the permission was provided, the photo was undeleted: [43] However, it still has the DR notice on it and cannot be used. I asked the wikimedia approvers, "What's the next step?" but have received no response. Can you please tell me how to get the DR notice removed? Thanks LauraLeeT (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
One of my colleagues has taken care of it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Gallery of logos

Hi Jim: I took one look at this gallery and I'm running for help [44]. I see piles of CC-by-SA and what looks to me like a user who doesn't get the idea of permissions and copyrights at all. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, yes, mostly. I just knocked off half a dozen of them as speedy because they came from web sites with clear and explicit copyright notices. There are probably five or ten more like that. On the other hand, a great many of them are PD-text-logo, so aside from the false claims of "own work", there's not much you can do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

not

So you deleted a page about "periodic table colors". I do not understand the reasoning provided (if there was one), I do not get the intention, and I abhor the non-common abuse I am confronted with. For the rest, I guess you must be helping something someone. -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually I want to say: fuck you see below. Now block me wikiworldwide for a week. -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Commons galleries have a specific purpose -- showing collections of Commons images -- see Commons:Galleries and Commons:Scope. Your table of periodic table colors does not belong on Commons, and with the attitude shown above, perhaps you also do not belong here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
What "galleries" are you talking about? -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Nicely done, you got me!
Now back to the topic: you deleted. Why this way? -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

We see around 100 new galleries a day while doing New Page Patrol. (A gallery is any page that does not have a prefix such as "File:", "Commons:", "User", etc.) Almost all of them do not meet the Commons definition of a gallery, which, as you have been told many times by me and others, is at Commons:Galleries. We simply do not have time to have an individual discussion of them. About once a week, someone who has created a gallery that was subsequently deleted will come here to ask about it -- that's about 1 in 300 for my deletions, which, it seems to me, justifies not discussing each one. In this case, if you had asked, I would have moved it to your User space, as has been done, or sent the Wiki markup to you via e-mail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for being such a dick. All just about a deleted page, what I could have handled more useful. I also see you have acted in a more kingly way, for which I compliment you and thank you. -DePiep (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Apology accepted, thank you very much. If I can be helpful in the future, please don't hesitate to ask. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

carregar uma imagem que já foi eliminada

eu não restaurei nenhuma imagem, apenas fiz 2 uploads de novas photos a partir de antigo ID Costapppr - o atual é CostaPPPR. Não entendi também porque Costapppr está ativo ? Ação de Hackers?

I have not restored any image just did 2 uploads new photos from old ID Costapppr - the current is CostaPPPR Nor did because Costapppr active? Hackers action?

--Costa P.P.P.R. 02:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Entendi agora - a página ID Costapppr = ...commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Costapppr é que deveria ter sido deletada - Grato pelo aviso

I understand now - the page ID Costapppr [ - Its a ghost ] is what should have been deleted - Thanks for the warning

Sometime ago I requested the name (ID) change The correct is ...commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:CostaPPPR

Thanks

--Costa P.P.P.R. 02:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CostaPPPR (talk • contribs) 02:36, 15 July 2014‎ (UTC)

I don't understand -- I deleted the new gallery page Costapppr twice because it was out of scope and warned you not to recreate it. Is there anything you need me to do or explain now? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Note from Dave re picture

Jim - not sure if I'm using this correctly. I'm sorry if I'm not. I have permission from WWSG to use the picture as if it is ours...so not sure why I can't keep it there. Will you please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.131.231 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 15 July 2014‎ (UTC)

My apologies for the late response -- I thought I had answered this yesterday, but I must have distracted. I'd be happy to help, but I need your username or the name of the file in question -- your IP address doesn't tell me anything because it has made only one edit. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Communauté silhouette.png

Hello Jim, I don't agree with your closing reason. What is for you widely used.? A single template with an inclusion of seven [45] is for me definitely not widely used. But this as I said before, can you please more explain your decision (maybe simply because you can't delete it)? → User: Perhelion 05:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

For me, "widely" is more than four, but the point is moot. Any use at all on any project means that an image cannot be deleted except for copyvio..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Open proxys are evil

Hello, fyi: Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Open_proxy_detection It seems not difficult to use proxy here. I know that on nlwiki is a script, but it is not open source :/. Rergards--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Montreal Montage July 7 2014.jpg

Hi Jim. I would like to obtain some clarification about the nomination reason that you provided. Also, I disagree with the fact that my file "does not properly credit all of the underlying images". In fact, in the "source" section of the file, all references have been clearly provided: I have indicated the names of the original authors and/or their Flickr or WikiCommons usernames, whichever was available. Is there anything that I left out while citing? Moreover, this new montage that I created is greatly appreciated by the users on Wikipedia (see Montreal talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Montreal#Montage). Anyway, if you insist on deleting this file, could you please tell me which image(s) of the montage are not properly credited or have been copyviolated so that I can create another montage with other images that will fit your criteria. Thanks Jolenine (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I stand corrected on the question of attribution and I have corrected the DR to reflect that. My apologies for the mistake.
However, the fundamental issue here is that some of the images are licensed CC-BY-SA, while others are licensed CC-BY.

You can't mix the two -- a CC-BY-SA derivative work must be licensed as CC-BY-SA, while a CC-BY work may not be. This is clear at the formal CC-BY license, paragraph 4:

"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder."
Since a CC-BY-SA license imposes additional restrictions on the use of the work, using it on the montage violates the CC-BY license on those elements of the montage that are licensed CC-BY.
Since you apparently want to use this only on WP, I suggest that you simply set the individual images using Wiki markup. This is non-trivial, but can result in something that appears the same on the page while not mixing the licenses in a montage. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it is possible to mix these 2 licenses under CC-BY-SA. Proper attribution has to be done for every image through. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Yann, obviously we disagree. How do you get around the plain language in the CC-BY license that forbids "any terms ... that alter or restrict the terms of this License"? The CC-BY-SA license clearly has additional restrictions which my reading of the CC-BY license forbid. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I am not sure. It seems to me that it is possible to relicense CC-BY into CC-BY-SA, and therefore mix works from these licenses. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
People who put CC-BY licenses on their works want them to have the freest distribution possible, saving only for the attribution. They chose not to require SA on their works and the CC-BY license reflects that by forbidding the additional requirements imposed by the SA license. They could certainly be relicensed as CC-BY-SA if the photographers agreed, but unless that happens, I think we are stuck. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes; CC BY is the freest license in that group. It means we can use such works in adaptions with any other type of licenses (NC, ND, or even ARR). The adapted work can also be NC, ND, or even ARR. The only requirement is that attribution is provided (BY). See my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Montreal Montage July 7 2014.jpg. Jee 11:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC) See [46] and the topic above. Jee 11:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Jee, you have not answered the question I asked Yann above -- the CC-BY license specifically forbids adding additional restrictions to works licensed with it. That means that, contrary to your assertion, we cannot use a CC-BY image with any license that is more restrictive. CC-BY-SA has additional restrictions, so we can't mix the two except, as I suggested above, by using Wiki markup which solves the problem neatly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Jim, you are mixing two things; license of a work and license of adaptation. Here we're talking only about adaptations. Original author has no control over what license is chosen for adaptation (unless it is SA). The adapter can mix with any; but he should choose the most restricted one for the adaptation. CC well explained it in that FAQ.
See our Commons:Multi-licensing. It is not talking about BY licenses because only SA licenses have such limitations. If you still have doubts, hope people like Jarekt can help you. Jee 12:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow! It is already available in Commons too. Jee 13:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Jim. I understand your concern with respect to the mixing of CC-BY-SA and CC-BY in my derivative work. In this case, we might as well also nominate for deletion the following montages (just to name a few) since these montages also mixes both licenses...

We have more than 20,000,000 images on Commons. My best guess is that more than 1% of them -- 200,000 images -- are problematic in one way or another. Therefore it is very easy to find counterexamples to almost any DR. I suggest you nominate the three above for deletion and read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Jim, if you really think that these licenses can be mixed, you need to be consistent and also put these montages for deletion.
@Jolenine: Meanwhile, if owners of CC-BY images allow to relicense their work under CC-BY-SA, that's a way around this potential issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you mean "cannot be mixed" above. I have no interest in searching out all of the examples of mixed licenses which occur on Commons -- it's certainly hundreds, probably thousands. That doesn't mean, though, that we should let this one go just because Other Stuff Exists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. However, look at the link Jee provided. I think I was right. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I sure don't understand, because the license is clear that no additional restrictions are allowed, but I can;t argue with a chart created by Creative Commons itself. Apologies to all for wasting time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Since you said "I sure don't understand", I'm sharing one more link. These examples explain many possible combinations. Example 2 and 5 are very interesting as they allow adapter to chose licenses like GFDL too. Jee 03:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Jee, I appreciate very much your effort to enlighten me. I do understand that my position is not acceptable, but, as I said several times above, the CC-BY license has language that, it seems to me, clearly prohibits putting additional restrictions on a CC-BY file, including the requirement that the derivatives be SA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
One more attempt: CC0 and CC BY are not Copyleft licenses whereas CC BY-SA, GFDL and FAL are. (You can see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode 3b is not in http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode) Jee 11:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Denis Payre.jpg

Hi Jim, Denis Payre is the founder of a new political party is France, called "Nous Citoyens". I've contacted the community manager of this party. She says that Nous Citoyens have bought this picture I had uploaded. Please tell me how can I do to use it on Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Best regards, --Didier VICENTE (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

While Nous Citoyens may have purchased the picture, buying the picture and buying the right to freely license the picture are two very different things. As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Denis Payre.jpg, in the case of unclear copyright, Commons policy requires that the photographer, Christophe Lebedinsky, send a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dictionary of Southern African Place Names by Peter E. Raper (1987).djvu couldn't wait?

Not sure why this one had to be decided there and then. I said that I wrote, and it would have been the polite thing to have waited for a response. You are not the only administrator, it isn't solely your decision, and it is a little presumptuous to act precipitously, up to an extra month, when the work had been there since September is hardly an issue. :-/  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It had been ten days. There was no evidence whatsoever that the author or publisher had allowed this upload. I think it qualifies as a {{Speedy}} -- a copyrighted work uploaded without any evidence of permission. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I know what you thought, however, I had put it on hold (as an administrator) and said that I had written. You could have left it for me, or you could have contacted me to discuss the matter. It was not urgent, it was listed with a process in place to manage it, and a week or two longer was not problematic. You just decided that you could take action because you could. :-/  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I took action because I saw an upload that qualified as a {{Speedy}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

MapWordl ETS.png

Screen It was my screen from game! Thepiterwayne (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • That may be, but it was created using copyrighted game software and the base map and the image behind the map both have copyrights. Unless you can show beyond a significant doubt that everything shown there is either your work, or freely licensed, it cannot be restored.
And, by the way, it was uploaded by User:ConchitaWurst69. If you are the same person, please be aware that using multiple accounts in this way is a serious violation of Commons rules. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The second account User:ConchitaWurst69 has been locked. The case was solved. My second question. Why did you deleted photos Warsaw Spire? I had the consent of users with SkyscraperCity. They sent emails with permission. Ask User User:JarektThepiterwayne (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Restore these images !!! Thepiterwayne (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This consent was requested Commons: OTRS / enThepiterwayne (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the spire images because the OTRS team had marked the permissions as unacceptable. If Jarekt thinks otherwise, he is free to undelete them -- he is both an OTRS volunteer and an Admin.
As for User:ConchitaWurst69, I see no indication that that account is locked. Are you the same person? If so, which account do you want to use? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Jim, I think they are referring to Wikipedysta:ConchitaWurst69 which has been blocked on Polish Wikipedia for (Google translation): "Username incompatible with the principles of Wikipedia". Green Giant (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


Undeletion request

Hi Jim, I am an inexperienced user, and had some errors with my uploads. I think the mistakes can be fixed. For Commons:Deletion_requests/File:SB_logo_big_gradient.png, I can now get the template permission completed by the graphic artist who created the image. The instructions page said to post on your talk page first. But is it better for me to just re-upload the image and email OTRS. Or is there a way of getting the right information to you so the image can be reinstated? Thank you for your help. Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

First, never upload an image second time. It is a serious violation of policy and wastes time and computer resources. Commons never actually deletes anything. "Deleted" images are simply marked so they can not be viewed by anyone other than a Admins and a very few others.
Since this is a logo, it is not obvious who owns the copyright. Generally, a company that engages a graphic artist to create a logo will make sure that the result is a work for hire so that the company owns the copyright, but that is not always the case. So, first you must determine who actually owns the copyright, then get the person, or an authorized officer of the company, to send a free license to the logo using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
OTRS, like the rest of WMF, is all volunteers, is understaffed, and is running a backlog that is sometimes several weeks. Once they get to the license e-mail and process it, the image will be restored without further action on your part.
If you have more questions, feel free to ask -- Commons can be a difficult place to start cold, but most of us try hard to be helpful to new users. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Clear advice. Yes, bit of a learning curve. But very appreciative of your explanations. Thank you. Danh108 (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

ArcSoft, ArcSoft and ArcSoft

Hello Jim. Please see my new selfie taken using the ArcSoft Webcam Companion software. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't be so sure. Have you read the EULA carefully? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
If you don't know, why don't research? I already readed the EULA carefully and also I sended a message to ArcSoft Inc. So, please see my second thread in the Village Pump.
Is really easy to clarify your doubts. Why you expected than other user do the research in order to clarify your doubts? Yes, users must add the right description and licensing in their uploads, but in this kind of special cases that needs deeper researching before nominating or deleting files, is your responsibility as Administrator to do that research. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
No, sorry, you have it exactly backwards. It is up to those who want to keep an image to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is properly licensed or PD.
"In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined:
  • the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and
  • that any required consent has been obtained." [from the policy statement at Commons:Project scope/Evidence].
As far as I am concerned, ArcSoft is a dead issue. If it happens that another image with Arcsoft's incorrect claim in the EXIF is uploaded, it can be dealt with routinely. All of the current round of images with that notice have been deleted because of doubts over the source of the images and the validity of the "own work" claim. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
But anyway, ArcSoft Inc. (or any other hardware or software provider) as copyright holder indicated in the EXIF is not longer a valid reason for deletion (but the already deleted files must still remain deleted). Still with doubts? Please see my thread in the Village Pump, the ArcSoft Webcam Companion EULA and the answer from ArcSoft Inc. for my question sended to they. There is the evidence. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Your comment is true with respect to ArcSoft, as their EULA makes clear. Your generalization is not true. As I have said several times, it is entirely possible for the EULA to transfer copyright to the vendor. While that is rare now, it was very common twenty years ago. Any generalization about contractual matters is dangerous. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleting files before solution from OTRS

Hello Jim. The files that you deleted Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mlarisa were uploaded by me according to permissions from their authors, and I asked the right owners to write a formal letter to OTRS with confirmation of an agreement, which they have done on 21st and 22nd of July. Could you please restore them and wait for a solution after the letters have been received by OTRS, or what would you suggest me to do now: upload again? Thank you. Mlarisa (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

First, never upload an image second time. It is a serious violation of policy and wastes time and computer resources. Commons never actually deletes anything. "Deleted" images are simply marked so they can not be viewed by anyone other than a Admins and a very few others.
Second, please read my closing comment at the DR
"These will be restored if free licenses are sent to OTRS. Note that OTRS has a significant backlog, so it may be several weeks before action is taken."
I think that is clear, but if you have further questions, feel free to ask them here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, thank you for explanation. Mlarisa (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Could you please explain if there is a way to know whether the OTRS has received a letter from a right owner about a deleted file, and whether they have decided to restore the file? The file was deleted on 25-th of July, the letter to OTRS sent on 29th or 30th of July, and I still have no idea if the file is supposed to be restored. Thank you. Mlarisa (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, OTRS, like all of the projects here, doesn't have enough volunteers working on it, so that a backlog of several weeks, sometimes over a month, is usual. I just ran a quick search on "Мемориальный знак" since that was in several of your file names and came up with nothing. If you give me the names of the files and of the people sending the license, I can look again. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Selline kevade algus 2010.jpg

Hi! Here you made no comment about this photo in specific. The building is question quite obviously isn't the main subject on that photo. Pikne 07:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The building is the only important thing in the image, hence I think it is the main subject. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion Request

Jim, Please review and let me know where besides Permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I need to send any additional information to un-delete photo and put it back up on Wikipedia page. I have all appropriate licenses and permissions to use media, where do you want me to send it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osrius (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 July 2014‎ (UTC)

The whole process is laid out in your choice of languages at OTRS. Note that OTRS has a backlog of at least two weeks at the moment, maybe more, so please be patient. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Pyramidlakenv.jpg

You forgot something after your close.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

And perhaps you could help me convince this self-appointed proxy to ferret out the rest?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you're fighting a losing battle there. He's not going to do it because he thinks they're OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
So that adds the commons as another website where he's getting in the way of people trying to clean up after this artist.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Badge of the Canadian Army

Sorry Jim, what leads you to believe that this badge was ever "printed on official documents, purchase orders, uniform specifications and rules, and so forth"? For that matter, what leads you to believe that "many tens of thousands of copies of the sewn badge it were made"?

Secondly, producing sewn badges, documents, uniform specification, or rules, does not constitute publication under Canadian law. If these items were sold or given away to the public, then that would count as publication. If these items were for internal use only, then they are unpublished.

So, I don't understand the logical leap from 'this badge is based on a prior badge formerly used by the Army', to 'this badge was officially published over 50 years ago'. trackratte (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, put I find your logic very difficult. I cannot imagine that a court would find that the badge was unpublished -- while I understand that "published" has a very special meaning in copyright law, and that the meaning varies from country to country, the predecessor badge had been used for at least 22 years by the Canadian Army -- so it appeared on every uniform and all sorts of other places, including signs at the gates of military installation and offices, most of them very public. In order to procure the badges for use on uniforms, the Army would have had to issue RFQs and then purchase orders with detailed illustrations of the badge -- can you actually say that a purchase order is not an official publication? As I said, it was probably used on letterhead -- if so, every letter the Army sent would have had one. And so forth.
Also, although we have no evidence of it, I think it is fair to assume that the original badge was published when it was adopted, just as the current version has been published.
You and Fry went back and forth over this for almost 10,000 words, all of which I read. I often disagree with Fry, so I can honestly say that any bias I might have had was on your side. Stefan made a brief comment, and made it clear that he would keep it if it could be shown that it was PD because of age, as it is. So it looks like it's 3 to 1 for keeping it. Commons rules preclude your re-opening the DR without new reasons, so please don't..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Where are you getting "it appeared on every uniform and all sorts of other places, including signs at the gates of military installation and offices" from? trackratte (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The various sources say that it was the badge of the Canadian Army from sometime in WWII to 1968. That's what such a badge is used for -- appearing everywhere from uniforms to installation signage. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The sources say the current badge is based on a former one.
You are making the assumption that the exact same badge was used throughout the Army, where after hours of looking, I find no evidence of this.
The Army used the "unifolie" maple leaf throughout the Second World War and afterwards. As you can see on all Second World War Army flags. And on this recruiting booth. The flags used do not show the current badge.
Canadian Army Newsreel show the unifolie design. And again here it shows a Canadian Army badge which used the unifolie surmounted by a Crown.
In the 1950s, Canadian Army soldiers wore this badge. Which you can see used here, and here.
Further, as you can see from this board depicting all badges of units involved in Korea, the Canadian Airforce badge is there, the Canadian Navy badge is there, and all Canadian Army badges worn within the theatre. The current 2013 badge is absent.
The Army Cadet badge which is based on the Canadian Army, uses the traditional single leaf badge design. As does the Royal Canadian Legion.
Canadian Army soldiers wear unit or trade badges on their uniforms, not Army ones. Those who were high ranking enough not to have unit affiliations, wore general staff badges, so no, the current 2013 badge was never worn on Army uniforms, and still isn't today.
Army letterhead just had text, there were no badges (they were typewritten).
So, we're making a few assumptions here: 1. That this badge was in widespread use throughout the Army on uniforms, letters, signage, etc, of which I can find no evidence of. 2. That this badge was not merely displayed to the public, but that copies of the badge were physically provided to the public (legally published), of which I find no evidence.
Based off the single sentence that the new badge was based off a previous one, we're assuming that copyright on the new badge has expired simply because this exact badge must have been in use, and therefore must have been legally published, without any evidence. trackratte (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)A
I believe that Trackratte's requirements for evidence are exact, that rounded off ages are not acceptable even when it's well past the age of expiration. I'm sure they have the best intent, but 20 years is a very long time, and as I argued in the DR it is difficult to imagine it was never published in all that time. Fry1989 eh? 01:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read the entire deletion discussion, but I have some comments about the points made on this talk page:

  • James suggests that the symbol may have appeared on signs at gates and that this would contribute to the symbol being published. This is an area where you carefully should consider differences in the definition of publication in different countries. See for example Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US which discusses how United States law was changed in 1978 with regard to this. I don't know how Canadian law treats this situation.
  • The purpose of a symbol like this is to show it to people. I therefore find it unlikely that a symbol like this wasn't published immediately after it was adopted as a symbol for the organisation. Previous variants of the symbol would obviously also be published immediately after being adopted. This is a situation where we should assume that a work has been published unless proven otherwise. I do not know anything about when the Canadian military forces has adopted new symbols. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


@Stefan.
In Canadian copyright law, having a symbol appear on a sign, or in other words "exhibition in public of an artistic work" does not constitute publication, and neither does "performance in public, or the communication to the public by telecommunication" (Section 2.2 of the Copyright Act). So whether or not it was ever displayed to the public or not is an entirely moot point.
@Stefan & Jim
The reason why publication date is important is that Section 12 (Crown Copyright) calculates the 50-year term from that date, not from the date of creation or 'putting into use'.
Secondly and more importantly, according to law "a work or other subject-matter is not deemed to be published or performed in public or communicated to the public by telecommunication if that act is done without the consent of the owner of the copyright" (Section 2.2 of the Copyright Act), and where "An unpublished government/Crown work retains copyright in perpetuity"[47][48]. So, proof from a third-party that a design exists, or proof that a work was "in use", "communicated", or "displayed", has absolutely no bearing or impact on its copyright status according to Canadian law. However, "making copies of a work available to the public" (Section 2.2) does. So, 1963 promotional army badge stickers, for example, would be proof of publication, but not necessarily of copyright expiration since "Crown copyright under the Crown prerogative is wider in scope and duration than what section 12 provides" (Copyright Board of Canada), and "is not limited to the term specified in the Act" (Canadian Intellectual Property Law and Strategy, p.247). trackratte (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jim.
If the 2013 symbol was in fact the corporate logo used by the Army to represent it in the public sphere and was so widely used as to force us to simply assume it was published, then why is it that not a single piece of direct evidence has been introduced? I have yet to see anything, such as a sign, a recruiting pamphlet, a flag, etc that depicts the badge before 2013. I have no problem with the end result here, but the process.
As you can see above, everything from the First World War until 1948 uses the single leaf design on signage, publications, and uniforms (even more examples here, here, here, and here). And you say Army base signs would show the Army badge, but this is simply not true (CFB Borden, CFB Gagetown, CFB Petawawa, Edmonton Garrison, and CFB Valcartier).
We also know for a fact that as of the mid 1960s, the Canadian Army ceased to exist, and was replaced by Mobile Command, which had their own Mobile Command badge. So, the only time the 2013 badge could have been used is sometime between 1948 and 1965.
Although, as from what I can see, the single leaf design was still used during the Korean War, and all Canadian soliders wore the single leaf Army patch on the left shoulder of all of their uniforms under the word "Canada".
The only reliable source introduced was a news release, which as a rule are not actually all that reliable, and in any event, only says that "The new Canadian Army secondary badge is based on the historical Canadian Army badge used during and after the Second World War"[49] (the badge used "during the Second World War" was the design depicted on the Army Flag in the 1940s).
Once again, my only issue is with the process and evidence used in coming to your conclusion, not your conclusion itself.
Against the above (misinterpreted) source, we have a whole host of sources explicitly stating copyright (included in the DR), and all publications, notices, registrations, and trademark files, across 7 different government/official agencies all have 2013 as the originating date (Public Works and Government Services Canada, Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Directorate of History and Heritage, Canadian Army, Canadian Armed Forces / National Defence, Canadian Heraldic Authority). Where is the smoking gun here? Where are all of the widespread images of this badge being used throughout the Army from the 1950s and 1960s? Where are the photographs showing that this "badge had been used for at least 22 years by the Canadian Army -- so it appeared on every uniform and ... signs at the gates of military installation[s]"? trackratte (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)



Nothing you have said contradicts the reasoning of why this image was kept. You are attempting to use modern situations as a stepping stone of faith regarding historical situations, and you have not provided any evidence that directly proves this image is not too old, everything indicates that it is. You are taking massive leaps of faith and deliberately ignoring inconvenient sources that don't support your claim. Perhaps you should stop wasting everyone's time. Fry1989 eh? 01:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and just to make it clear, the smoking gun that you repeatedly have chosen to ignore is the fact that images of this badge have existed for decades, while you claim it was only adopted (as opposed to "re-adopted")in 2013. It if was only adopted and created in 2013, that would have been impossible. Fry1989 eh? 01:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Every bit of evidence lies in the direction that this is the exact same badge from WWII-1960s, which means that it is too old under Canadian law. It is you, Trackratte, who is making assumptions that it is not the same badge, or that even if it was that it was never published or never official or never used in any sort of manner which could be considered public, which flies in the face of what everything suggests. If this was the badge of the Canadian Army, you expect us to believe it was never used in any way from uniforms to signs or wherever else and it was some top secret. Also I have provided a lot more than just the sentence "This day-to-day badge is based directly on our WW II to 1968 badge used by our historic Canadian Army" which you pretend is the single thread holding this all together. I have provided other sources showing that this is the exact same design. You refuse to see the truth, nothing will convince you otherwise and so this discussion is pointless. Fry1989 eh? 20:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


You know Trackratte, ignoring me does not make your arguments any stronger. The biggest hole in your claims is that the current badge is only based on an older one, but is essentially a new design. That is simply impossible when FOTW has hosted the same drawing (albeit black and white, it's the same design) since 1998. You can't explain it so instead you ignore it and continue insisting the current badge is a modern invention. Fry1989 eh? 05:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
There's also this website which shows this recruiting patch which definitely would have been from before Unification, I guess that doesn't matter either. Fry1989 eh? 06:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Symptomatic

“Since this map was ong in use, it is clear that some WMF editors feel that it has value. It is not up to us to accept the word of one editor that it does not.”

Sorry it should read: “Since this map was long in use, it is clear that the majority of WMF editors were not able to notice its deficiencies that, however, are obvious to everyone that is familiar with this topic. Nevertheless we ignore the opinion of the one able person who did notice, because otherwise we would have to concede that most WMF editors are a bunch of incompetent jerks.” --Gretarsson (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that the file was mainly used on pages created by bots...

It’s so ridiculous and so sad at the same time...

And you’re still wondering why there are so few academic persons active in the Wikipedias?!

Thanks for nothing!

--Gretarsson (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

We see map disputes on Commons all the time. They are mostly political:
  • what is the name of this region?
  • in which language should this map be presented?
  • where is the border?
In fact this is the first time I've seen a disputed map that predated political boundaries. It is firm Commons policy that we do not adjudicate such disputes -- we are not experts. The basis of this is the same theory that requires every fact stated on WP to have a cite -- WMF projects do not allow experts to tell us the facts based on their expertise, but only on their ability to cite relevant information. Commons has no way of evaluating whether you are "one able person" and therefore whether you are are correct or not and nowhere near the time that would be necessary to do it. So, we expect you to tag the image as disputed and we expect that editors on the other projects will see that and make their own choices.
In addition, we have a bias toward keeping images of all kinds that have long been used on WP. This is based on the fact that such images are more likely to be in use outside of WMF projects. Deleting them removes the license trail for outside users.
I don't understand:
"I would like to add that the file was mainly used on pages created by bots."
Bots don't create pages and don't add files to pages.
Finally, I suspect that one reason that there might be few academics on WMF projects (if, indeed, that is the case), is that they don't have the patience to put up with the baloney that comes back from relatively new editors who don't understand and don't like Commons policy. If you don't like Commons policy, you are free to try to change it, but it does little good to rant at Admins who are simply carrying it out.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, sorry for ranting and thanks for explaining all that stuff a little more in detail. Usually, I’m quite sociable. However, many users who participate in deletion requests don’t really debate but simply vote. It feels to me as if they act like robots, always saying Keep..., keep..., not out of scope..., not out of scope... but never say why... This is annoying and of course will provoke ranting. I’m impatient too.
And if academic persons on Commons are equally distributed among relativley new users and older users/admins then their number probably will remain constant ;-)
Cheers! --Gretarsson (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology. One of the constants of Commons is that we re vastly understaffed -- we get about 10,000 new images every day and delete about 1,500. 90% of those deletions are done by around 25 people. Inevitably DRs get to be shorthand, without the explanation that they might get if we weren't so pressed to stay ahead of the deluge. Most -- certainly not all - Admins who do a lot of deletions would be happy to explain in detail if you drop a note on their talk page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Happy to help anytime, just drop me a line on my talkpage. I think I can explain most of it fairly well... plus see my userpage here at commons where I've tried to provided a glossary for all the alphabet-soup. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: Thanks for the offer. I may take you up on that if necessary. Cheers! --Gretarsson (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Now *my* question for Jim

On faithful reproductions of 2D image, please see convo on my talk page re: actual sources versus Bridgeman acceptable statement. I know this was hashed out months ago with those ancient Asian images, but now I'm concerned that some other nuance has been missed. Please advise. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Replied there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Tolowa Dunes

Jim, just so you know for future reference, here is a link to the previously uploaded file.--Nowa (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Note that File:25 tolowadunes.jpg and File:25 tolowadunes.JPG are two different names -- names on WMF projects are case sensitive. The version you named was uploaded by Albianmoonlight and was deleted for exactly the same reasons as the one today -- it was not clear that Albianmoonlight was authorized to load Horvitz's work, Albianmoonlight is a known sock, and Horvitz's spamming of Commons is unwelcome. While the last of the three reasons can be debated, the fact that neither of the versions was uploaded by a person with any known connection to Horvitz requires their deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point on case sensitivity of the names. I missed that. I also appreciate that Hovitz's spamming of Commons is unwelcome. If that was the stated reason for the deletion, I would have dropped the subject. But to say that you don't think that David Horvitz uploaded the original image completely disregards the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I don't meant be disrespectful, but you are not honoring yourself or Commons with that position.--Nowa (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
What evidence? As I said, the 2011 image was uploaded by a sock named Albianmoonlight. Although we know that he was a sock, we did not connect him with Horvitz. So, I think my statement is correct -- "[no] known connection to Horvitz". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
This may be a classic case of two people looking at the exact same thing and seeing something very different. When I first read “public access” at a local art installation, I was firmly under the impression that David Horvitz uploaded the original 2011 images. He doesn't specifically say “I am Albianmoonlight and it's associated socks”, but he does say “Not long after I posted them, some people caught on and recognized that my IP address was producing similar content for different articles.” (p4) --Nowa (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you're right. Unless I see a clear connection, often backed up by OTRS evidence, between off Commons events and those on Commons, I am very skeptical. We see far too many people who come to Commons, adopt the names of others -- Flickr users, perhaps -- and upload images that they have no rights to. You may be right that Albianmoonlight is Horvitz -- I wasn't a CU then so I wasn't involved in the check, but it was never proven. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I see something else in that same PDF cited by Nowa above... page 98 of 101 ... There is a note that in the SilverStrandBeach image there's shadow of person "behind the camera taking the photograph of which the subject is present." So I think the entire copyright situation of these images may be that Horvitz is the subject and someone else is taking the photo which of course means that copyright stays with the photographer. On some of Horvitz' trips, his mother is along, on others he has other friends (based on his writings about them). In the writing cited by Nowa, there is a very clear statement by his coauthor that Horvitz didn't take the photos himself. The entire series of uploads and who holds the rights is a twisted strand, I was not an admin at the time of the original uploading having only been between this rock and its associated hard place for six months.
I said before and I still don't think Horvitz tripped the trigger with any kind of electronic device, the height of the photos is wrong for a tripod and he'd be nuts to leave a camera hundreds of feet away from himself to take self-portraits on many of the beaches in the series, particularly Silver Strand Beach and a few others in highly populous areas. Also note how the footprints of the subject do not go straight out, so someone is telling him "you are in frame", because there really is no way to be that accurate if you don't beeline direct to the water from the camera. We tried it last week at Centerville Beach with four people, two of whom have been professional photographers. None of the four could get into the frame of the camera on a tripod if they walked non-beeline over 20 feet from the camera. If they walked bee-line, two of the four (surprise, the pros) were able to position themselves in frame even so neither were off to one side as in the Public Access series. Also the sight-line was wrong with the camera on a tripod.
So from my temporal perspective, regarding the images uploaded by Albionmoonlight
  • (a) we don't know who Albionmoonlight is - could be Horvitz, could be a prankster - we have no way to tell;
  • (b) if Horvitz wishes to state that he holds the copyright, and we know he knows how to use computer, why can't he just OTRS the entire series and be done with it? and,
  • (c) the Public Access project commentary on page 98/101 pdf cited above further muddies the issue rather than clarifying it.
In the absence of Mr. Horvitz personal OTRS form, I don't think we can keep any of the Public Access images after all these shenanigans. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Jim: Thank you for the clarification. I see that it must be a quite a challenge to keep track of the people that come to Commons posing as others.--Nowa (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Ellin: I'm impressed with your thoroughness and diligence. You've convinced me that David H. had other people operating the camera. Before we get into a discussion of OTRS, however, I would like to offer to move the conversation to your talk page or mine (and of course if Jim doesn't mind us continuing it here, that's fine with me too.)--Nowa (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Afiche Sin Señal.jpg

Dear Jim, my poster Afiche Sin Señal is mine. I´m the owner of the all copyright for all content of Sin Señal Movie. How can I do for upload my poster again? Thank you very much.

First, never upload an image second time. It is a serious violation of policy and wastes time and computer resources. Commons never actually deletes anything. "Deleted" images are simply marked so they can not be viewed by anyone other than a Admins and a very few others.
Second, read the instructions at your Undeletion Request. They are, I think, clear. The producer of the movie must send a free license for the two images to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I already send an email to OTRS asking what information they need.
Again, read OTRS -- it tells you everything you need to know and do. The OTRS volunteers have a backlog of over two weeks, so you will not get a rapid answer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear Jim: I have read and OTRS clearly says if the picture is mine I only have to upload it to Commons. But nowhere explains how I show it. I do not speak English and I use with google translator. Nowhere explains that if I'm the owner of the image I can upload it directly to my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farorojo (talk • contribs) 20:22, 3 August 2014‎ (UTC)
Did you see that OTRS instructions come in 28 languages? Tell me what language you prefer and I will try to find someone who can help you in your language. In fact, since the movie is from Argentina, I'm going to guess that it is Spanish.
The problem here is that the two images are movie posters. Although you say that they are yours and that you own the copyright, we have many people who make false claims about movie posters and therefore Commons rules require that the actual copyright holder, the producer of the movie, must send a license to OTRS.
You do not have to worry about the image -- we have it stored, but because we have "deleted" it, you cannot see it. Once OTRS gets a good license from the copyright owner, we can easily restore it to everyone's view.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Now I fully understand the criteria that you have to protect. My language is Spanish, indeed. Thank you very much Jim. User:Farorojo —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:31, August 4, 2014‎ (UTC)

@Farorojo: ¿Usted sabe lo que necesita hacer para subir el archivo? Sí es posible subirlo a Commons; solamente necesita enviar un correo electrónico a OTRS de una dirrección de http://www.nosignalmovie.com/. Las instrucciones son aquí y aquí. Usted puede responder aquí en español; déjeme saber que ha respondido con esta plantilla: {{subst:ping|Magog the Ogre}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Jim

Thank you Jim have deleted the page I created by mistake, I'm not very good on Commons! And I have noted, the next time I will use Speedy for such small minor corrections. Good evening and best regards, --Jlvenet (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome. That mistake happens several times a day -- I have done it myself more than once. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

File:AlbanyCounty Westerlo with NY.svg

Today you deleted all of the files nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:AlbanyCounty Westerlo with NY.svg, but not File:AlbanyCounty Westerlo with NY.svg itself. Could you complete that? Rcsprinter123 (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Montestrela.jpg

Hi Jim,

I reopened this DR. The nomination was mainly because it is a derivative work, in addition of being a hoax. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

CallPanipat

Hello Jim. Just noticed this block. Wrong date for the category? Green Giant (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I've notice that before, thanks for the nudge to do something about it. The date was hard wired in the {{Bian}} template. I've removed it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Laketahoewhalebeach.jpg

Russavia undeleted the photo (also the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Whale Beach, Lake Tahoe, Nevada.jpg) because I had the gall to go on the IRC channel to ask for assistance in dealing with a newly identified sockpuppet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Jim, indeed I have undeleted the image. I was going to drop you a note but Ryulong's latest DR kinda halted that momentarily. Jim, whilst some of the images uploaded by Horvitz are out-of-scope and should be deleted (the standing in a tree image for example), this photograph shows a notable beach, it is high resolution, has full EXIF, and was uploaded only 4 days after it was taken. Whilst we should discourage people from uploading out of scope crap (User:Toilet comes to mind), we should also make it clear that we aren't Wikipedia, we aren't an encyclopaedia, we are a media repository, and that we will gladly accept in scope images, whilst deleting out of scope nonsense. I don't like these crusades which is seeing a lot of useful content actually being deleted from our project based purely upon on who uploaded it; rather than looking at things objectively and saying "This image is shite, we'll delete that, but that image is actually useful for our project so we'll keep it." I hope you can understand why I've undeleted it. Cheers, russavia (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You've done it twice after two separate DRs though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Russavia, the issue is not how we feel about Horvitz, it's simple copyright. Horvitz appears in all the images, so he is not the photographer. Various sources including his blog make it very clear that various people actually took the pictures. Although his blog tells us who some of them are, none of them are identified picture by picture. While I'm willing to stretch "own work" a little in cases where the subject set up the photo and had someone else just push the button, these are images where Horvitz is not even close to the camera and where composition choices are important. Therefore we have unknown photographers who own the copyrights. US law requires that copyright transfers be in writing and I doubt very much that Horvitz has bothered with that formality. So, I ask, with no license from the actual photographer and copyright holder, how do we keep them?
As for the undeletion, that's what we have UnDR for. I understand that you disagreed with the deletion, but for one Admin to simply revert another Admin's closure without any process is not good. I would appreciate it if you would delete the images again and then go to UnDR if my comments above are not convincing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I see that the subject image has already been deleted again. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 5 Seconds Of Summer Chile

Please take care about second part of request. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been seven days. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Great Palestine.png

Hello, regarding your decision to keep that picture [50], your only reason for this is that (It's in use). Although it's NOT used in any page except the user (uploader) personal page. Could you please review your decision? Thanks. --Dr-Taher (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Although he or she has made only 76 edits on Commons (versus your 48), User:Uishaki is a fairly active contributor to WP.
COM:scope says,
"but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images ... for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed."
That seems to cover keeping this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ascasodurrutijover.png

Could you explain your closure here? Spain is life+80 years as I wrote, but no evidence was provided that the anonymous author has been dead for at least 80 years. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I just hit the wrong buttons. My closing comment clearly explained a deletion, not a keep. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that the picture was taken in Paris (France) in 1927 -- not in Spain. Does this change anything? Anyway, File:ASCASO-DURRUTI-1927.PNG contains another version of the same picture.--QuimGil (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Only that France is 70 years while Spain was then 80 years -- in either case it cannot be kept now. I have nominated the other version for deletion on the same grounds at Commons:Deletion requests/File:ASCASO-DURRUTI-1927.PNG. Stefan4 please take note. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
France is publication+70 years whereas Spain is life+80 years for anonymous photograph. However, what matters is not where the photograph was taken, but where it was first published. We also do not have any evidence that the photograph is anonymous in the first place. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward and Stefan4: , I believe all these scans come from page 178 of Durruti in the Spanish Revolution, by Durruti's official biographer Abel Paz. There it says that the picture was taken on July 1927 at the offices of w:fr:Le Libertaire, the main Anarchist magazine in France at that time. I have tried to find the archive of Le Libertaire online, to no aval. After having campaigned during months for the freedom of the three anarchists, one would think that a picture taken at their offices would be published at Le Libertaire, but if we need a proof, we don't have it yet.--QuimGil (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to ping me on my own talk page and, as a general rule, you don't need to ping any user who has recently participated in a thread.
If you can show that the image was first published in France, which seems likely as you say, and that the photographer intended to be anonymous, then we can keep the image as PD. The second part of that will be harder, as our merely not knowing his name does not make it "anonymous". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
If you can show that it was published in this French magazine in July 1927 and no photographer is indicated in this magazine, then this is typically a good indication that the photographer is anonymous. However, this requires identifying the exact issue. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

that long german category names

Hello Jim, you asked [51] us to "create a category redirect in the other language". Now i write here because i don't want to disturb Rainer (who's still a newbie user) on his talk page. What i want to know is, how you mean this (or what exactly "your point" is).

  • First: with "the other language" you mean only english, right?
  • Second: the category we talked about is Category:Landschaftsschutzgebiet Neckartal zwischen Benningen und Großingersheim mit angrenzenden Gebieten. I added the usual "multilingual description" template with basic information in English like i did in many more cases. Generally i think this is enough (compared to the masses of strange named categories here without any information text at all). But if you want extra redirect(s) i need to know to which extent i should translate from German. The following is not meant to make you angry (or to make you laugh about long German names like [52]), it's really unclear to me and meant serious. For example i could use:
    • Protected landscape area "Neckartal zwischen Benningen und Großingersheim mit angrenzenden Gebieten"
    • Landscape protection area "[name part also left untouched]"
    • Landscape conservation area "[name part also left untouched]"
    • or the three options above in an other order – maybe more correct English? – like "name part" followed by type of protection (one of the translations of "Landschaftsschutzgebiet")
    • or the (now six) options with also the name part translated? in this case it would be something like "Neckar valley between Benningen and Großingersheim with neighbouring/bordering/adjacent/adjoining/contiguous areas" (same problem like with "Landschaftsschutzgebiet": there's not only one translation possible)
  • Please notice that for nearly none of the Protected areas of Germany officially translated English/French/other language names exist (only for the few National Parks and some Nature Parks), so you only find information on the web when searching for the non-translated names. And even for the different protection levels there are no homogeneous translations (for example on Commons we use "nature reserve" for "Naturschutzgebiet", but in specialist literature you also find "nature preserve", "nature conservation area" and other translations of the German term).
  • So adding a new category redirect "system" for translation matters (English) could be a bit like introducing lots of "original research" to Commons by chosing only special terms (or we have to create more than one redirect for each German category to reflect really all possible translations).
  • I am willing to follow your request for additional category redirects, but i need guidance. And if we introduce this for German named "last/lowest level" categories (also many for cultural heritage monuments, churches, castles etc), i think there are thousands (!) of cases where translation options are as complex as in the example above. I can't manage this alone (too much work for one person).
  • Another question is, what purpose should such redirects have when the translations are not present anywhere else than on Commons? Does really somebody search in English for "Landscape conservation area Neckar valley between Benningen and Großingersheim with bordering areas"? Do you think there is a demand?

Your ideas? Holger1959 (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you are skirting right at the edge of the rule that all category names must be in English. The reason for the rule is simple. There can be only one category with a given name -- translations of the name simply mean double categorization and the potential for having items in only one of the places people might look for it. The reason for English is that it is the lingua Franca of Commons and the world. While German is a moderately difficult language for others to read, consider if we allowed categories named in Chinese, Thai, Arabic, or Japanese -- the contents would be essentially unfindable by those of us who do not read non-Latin alphabets. Hence the rule.
I also think that by proposing alternative translations, you are just muddying the waters. There are always going to be several ways to translate into English. No matter, pick one -- or let Google translate pick it.
With that said, I certainly understand that language issues are very sensitive. It is a good thing that "Paris" is "Paris" in English, because I doubt that the French would stand for having their capital categorized on Commons under a name other than the French one. Category:Munich is a testimony to German willingness to follow logical rules. Therefore I regret having waded into this subject -- there are enough difficult subjects on Commons that I really care about so that I need to ignore those, like this one, that I don't really care about. Do what you will. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

File:EYE en toren Overhoeks Amsterdam.jpg

Mind undeleting this version + the text? That should solve the copyright problem. Multichill (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the uploader prefers that the image stays deleted if the image must be blurred. So maybe you should ask what he wants Multichill? This will only frustrate a valuable content provider. Natuur12 (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I have never thought that blurring was a good solution to this problem. I might be OK if the photograph were blanked, but I'm not at all sure that this degree of blurring eliminates the copyright problem and I suspect it might raise issues of the creator's rights to have his image shown correctly, not blurred. There is also, as Natuur12 says, the uploader's wishes. While the license permits us to blur the image without his consent, I think that doing so against his wishes is not a good idea. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Transfer a file to Wikipedia

Hi Jameslwoodward, based on the previous experience of the similar files, I guess this file (File:Tehran International Tower.JPG) will be removed from wikimedia soon; but in order to have a photo to represent and introduce the building in English Wikipedia, is it going to be fine if someone uploads it in Wikipedia instead? FaraM (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the WP:EN rules for fair use to answer with any authority, but I think it is possible if you follow the correct procedure. Take a look at File:VillaSavoye.jpg for an example. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
talk page stalker comment - you can upload the image to English Wikipedia as long as the image fits all ten criteria at WP:NFCC. My experience is that images are usually deleted for not meeting criteria 3a/b (minimal usage) and criteria 8 (contextual significance). You will need to ensure that any article does not have too many unfree images and that any image outside the infobox is necessary for helping a reader understand the topic. It is a world if difference to how images are handled at Commons.
I note that the image is used on several articles at EnWiki. You will need to provide one fair use rationale for every article that the image is used on; I recommend using Template:Non-free use rationale 2 but feel free to use any appropriate template in Category:Non-free use rationale templates. One other crucial thing is that EnWiki images have to be of a reasonable size for which the recommended guideline is 100,000 px, so approximately 250x400 should be fine. If you need more help, feel free to ask me on my Commons or Wikipedia talk pages. Green Giant (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Poursuite de recherche

Rebonjour, pouvez vous revenir sur la discussion de : Files_uploaded_by_Oursmili, en effet après recherche les insignes militaires en photo ou scan entre dans le cadre des productions industrielles, donc avant tout protégées par le droit des modèles (« modèle déposé »). Or le droit des modèles autorise la photographie (c'est pour ça que les photographies de voitures sont admises sur Commons). Donc on peut a priori les prendre en photo sans autorisation ni paiement. Et les insignes en photo en scan sont donc en CC-BY-SA. Merci d'avance de votre compréhension. Oursmili (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No. "Industrial production" has nothing at all to do with copyright. Cars, tools, airplanes, etc. do not have a copyright because they are utilitarian, therefore there is no problem as long as the photographer gives us a license. However, such things as military badges do have a copyright, so we must have a license from both the photographer and the creator of the badge -- or the badge must be PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Le droit des modèles est un statut juridique français qui autorise pour les productions industrielles en grande quantités ( pas de nombre sur le texte de loi ) la publication en CC-BY-SA des photographie avec le nom du possesseur de la licence ( ici pour les insignes militaires : Ministère de la défense fr ) donc je dois pouvoir remettre ces photos . Merci d'avance. Oursmili (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, industrial production has nothing to do with copyright. Hundreds of thousands of copies of a book can be printed and it still has a copyright. Toys are produced by the millions and they all have copyright.
In most countries other than the United States, government works except for laws and judicial decisions have copyrights, so I would expect that a work by the French Ministry of Defense or where the Ministry of Defense held the copyright, would have a copyright. There is no reason that I know of that a work such as military badges would be PD or have a CC-BY-SA license.
As you saw at the Undeletion Request, several very experienced members of the Commons community agree with me. We have dealt with military badges before and no one has found a way to keep them unless they are old (and except, of course, for the USA where all government works are free of copyright). I certainly can change my mind -- I have been wrong many times -- but you will have to provide a specific citation to a specific law or government rule that allows this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that laws differ from country to country. Under French law, it is irrelevant whether something is utilitarian or not, as it does not affect whether it is copyrighted. If these are French badges, you therefore only need to consider whether they meet the threshold of originality. The utilitarian aspect is uninteresting. See for example this court ruling, where it was decided that photos of French chairs need permission from the "author" of the chairs (and the chairs look like fairly simple chairs to me). --Stefan4 (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I think these badges would have a copyright even in those countries where utilitarian things generally do not, such as the USA. While it is true that badges are "useful" for identification, copyright law takes a much narrower view of the term. Obviously sculptures and toys are useful for enjoyment and books are useful for many purposes, but all have copyrights. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that you should be careful about making statements about other countries. If I have understood this correctly, the South Korean supreme court ruled that the beautifully decorated textiles on this page are purely utilitarian and therefore ineligible for copyright protection in South Korea. On the other hand, the United States Copyright Office approved copyright registration of the textiles (left = VA0000423119, right = VA0000472505). Also, according to this Japanese court ruling, a certain toy model (w:Furby) is purely utilitarian in Japan --Stefan4 (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Stefan, my friend, you know as well as I that all generalizations about copyright law are false. We can both cite exceptions to anything that's said on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleting photos

Hi Jim. The OTRS ticket have been updated. Please restore these photos/close nomination:

Also if you think OTRS email is not enough, ask for email from uploader before closing the nomination for deleting. Just because the nominator is a old admin or the one restored is new don't justify anything. Thanks! -- Meisam (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my actions. It has nothing to do with individuals on either side of the argument. Commons gets about 10,000 new files every day and deletes more than 1,500. We simply do not have time for out of process handling of situations. That's too bad, and I wish it were otherwise, but that's the way it is. I get very suspicious when I see an OTRS license from gmail when the sender owns a domain of their own. 90% of the time, it's a fake, hence my action. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that I did not close the larger DR -- in fact, I deliberately did not in order to give you time to do exactly what you did. I guess that User:Hedwig in Washington decided to ignore my comment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes and no. I guess I could have waited a few days, but the DR is overdue (started on the 7th of Aug.) and the last edit was made on Aug, 14. We have a backlog in the old DRs again. Sorry if I interfered with Meisam. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Hedwig in Washington, Meisam -- I just flipped a coin to see who gets to undelete them -- I lost. However, if one of you sees this before I finish, I wouldn't mind a bit if you started at the bottom of the list. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both! -- Meisam (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Kocsis Sándor.jpg

Hello James. Thanks for processing the deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MÁV 470 010-4 Aranycsapat.jpg. I just wanted to let you know that you might have forgotten to delete File:Kocsis Sándor.jpg, which was co-nominated. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It appears that this filename is in use again. Is this the same image you deleted a few days ago? Green Giant (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
No, but. The one deleted was one face from the side of the tram. This image is a photograph, but the source site is NC. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Guidance please

What to do with an image like this? The OTRS ticket box hasn't a number, the source page on flickr looks like a collection not user's own work and etc. I went bugeyed trying to figure this out. 2), what about [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&user=Frozeficent&ilshowall=1 this gallery}? 3) and what about this one where it seems that there's a living artist painting a picture, works by other artists labeled "own work" by user, etc. My head swirls. It's probably still after effect from the surgery and I'm going to log off now. Back in the morning. Thanks for your help! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Oliver Trevena headshot1.jpg: It seems a vandalism by Kittymccaffery. I doubt such OTRS is permitted (which was for the first image). Both images available at [53] and [54] though. Jee 03:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It needs some attention. Jee 02:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Eronda

Hi. I am dedox, "owner" of the account talcobiz. My full name is Marco De Donà, live in Milano, Italy. Eronda is the art name of my father Mario dead in 2009. On behalf of the family I have created a page on Wiky Italy (and a short bio on Wiki.org). Since he was a graphic-designer I thought obvious to insert pics of his wiork in Commons. I am the legal heir, but could not find any flag to declare that. I stress that I did not violate any copyright and accept any suggestion to make proper declaration in uploading further pics of my father work. I'll be happy to answer any other question. Thanks, Marco De Donà, deodx.

Seen your last message: it is quite complicated to me. Let me time to try to understand and learn what to to. dedox

You need to send a formal license for all the images and basically set forth what you say above. The procedure is at Commons:OTRS. Be sure to list all the images which you wish to license.
Note that I put a DR on File:Eronda ExLibrisAbis.JPG, which is your father's work, but which you did not upload. If you want to license that as well, you must include it in the OTRS e-mail.
There is a backlog at OTRS, but if you put a note here after you have sent the e-mail, I will deal with it. If you have any questions, please ask -- I know it is a nuisance, put our policy is to protect copyrights. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks: I will comply with it, and agree that inspite of beeing a nuisance, "our policy is to protect copyrights!

Dear James: I am driving crazy, procedure are too much for my strenth!!! I have wrote,but no answer, how can I continue my contribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talcobiz (talk • contribs) 11:43, 11 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Have you sent the e-mail to OTRS? As I told you above, they have a backlog, but I can deal with it if you tell me after you send the e-mail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi James. Update: I eventually got a tutor in italian and keep learning. I just uploaded a picture I shot myself. I followed the procedure hopefully correctly. In case of mistake pls correct me before deleting. Thanks. PS: my tutor is Syrio. dedox--Talcobiz (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of File:Thums up.jpg

Hi Jim,

You recently deleted File:Thums up.jpg. However, I do not believe the logo meets the threshold of originality as it is a simple "thumbs up," a common and general gesture meaning "good," and indeed is similar to this case: [[55]]. --Holdek (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand ToO. A painting of a hand will have a copyright. There is no reason why a drawing of a thumb does not also have a copyright -- it may be a common gesture, but it is still a drawing of a part of the human body.

Aside from that, as I said in the DR, it is also to small to be much use anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ek Hi Raasta (Original).jpg

Why should "1956 photographs [be] out of copyright"?    FDMS  4   

Because that is the law in India for images created before 1958, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory_-_full#India. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Backside of Beachgoer possible Socks

Greetings Jim: I hope you had a good holiday. I was pinged by a Wikipedia editor to read this on his talk page [56]. I see the possibility of some socking as well as the "game" of "can I get my buem into Wiki"... See [57] etc. It looks like Binkster is on it, but I thought you might like to see it because there might be more to take out/find/etc. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want to do -- these are all old, so Checkuser won't work. It has a ninety day limit. He may have done more, but unless they show up as unused personal images, I'm not sure what we can do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Just keep your eyes out, with his modus operendi he will be back. Or maybe his back will be back... Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim: The sock is definately back with multiple new accounts. I made a sortable chart User:Ellin Beltz/Sock Drawer to show the real extent of the problem. Formerly lists were kept on Com and en:W but no cross checking. Perhaps the June 2014 users are new enough to search out? Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

After I made two corrections to your list (changed Undoingpropertee Commons date to 2012 and marked Followingfollowing as blocked - by Denniss 7/12/14) I see no user on the list with a 2014 edit who is not blocked. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, there was a complaint about the list in my userspace - despite not being linked to any other page but my own "review these", so I removed it. I am not up to speed on how the check user works, but I know you said they had to be more recent, so I pointed it out. Thank you for going through it, that was great. I was going crosseyed from all those names, dates and events. Now, back to the images without a source, "Men of Canada" series that the bots dumped in 2,000 more images "no source" even though the source is now clearly stated in the description instead of in the source. 2,000 edits all from same book, same en:w bot transfer just making more work for everyone and complaints about pages in user space. Sometimes I think INC has the right idea. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to learn to use AWB or perhaps VFC will do it. I know that AWB would do it, but it takes about ten seconds per image -- something over five hours of dull work for 2,000 images. I don't know VFC well at all, but I think it might do it automatically. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ægypten kort.jpg

Hi!

I see that "Uploader is different from copyright holder". Can you tell me who the copyright holder is, so I can assist User:Ziff in getting the necessary permissions? TIA, --Palnatoke (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


The file description says:
source=Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, København
author=Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, København
so presumably the copyright holder is the author. Since Ziff wrote the description, he already knows that.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
She certainly does. She works there. --Palnatoke (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
That may be, but it doesn't tell us anything about whether she has the authority to freely license this map. In order to restore it, we will need a free license from the copyright holder using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Kwets.jpg

Dear James, you removed a picture of me of a Belgian Beer. I see no reason why, but you have to be consequent. If you remove this one, you have to remove my other ca. 800 pictures of Belgian beers for the same reason. I will nominate them all for deletion, I do not wish to contribute anymore for Commons because there is no logical explication for your action. Kindest Regards --DirkVE (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You should read the section on product packaging which was linked in the DR. Your image clearly infringes on the copyrighted work on the bottle label. It is probably true that there are many more similar images that should be deleted.

However, if you simply nominate all of your images for deletion without considering them on a case by case basis, I, or one of my colleagues, will almost certainly close the DR as a keep. 800 image DRs are not manageable. If you make such a nomination simply out of anger, you may also be blocked from editing on Commons..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so, I'll just nominate the ones who have the same contents as the one deleted. Kindest regards --DirkVE (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
THat would be good, thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BeatR7

Hi Jim, thanks for closing Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BeatR7. You kept quite a few of the images, however you probably forgot to change the file description pages to correctly reflect the copyright status. Right now they are all tagged as own work and CC-by-sa by the uploader which is very unlikely true. Would you mind adjusting the information? Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the amount of work that Admins have to do every day, I don't view post closing cleanup as part of the job of the closing Admin. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim, then whose work is it? The files clearly have insufficient information to determine the copyright status but you decided to keep them. IMHO either the copyright status needs to be made clear or the files need to be deleted. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Good question. We have many colleagues who enjoy that kind of detailed work. Actually most of them, maybe all of them, do have sufficient information. For example, the front page of the NY Times from 1912 is clearly PD-1923. However, since you chose to bring it up, I'll do this one, but for the future I will simple avoid closing DRs that require a lot of cleanup. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim, thanks a lot for taking care of that. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Chrisi, I'm not happy about having used "unknown" for most of the sources -- all but the newspaper front pages -- but I can't think of anything better. Any ideas? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim, thanks for your work. To be honest, the lack of sources is part of the reason why I requested deletion for these images. Many of them do not have a date so there is no way we can be sure whether they were really published or created before 1923 and what their country of origin is. I don't really know how we are supposed to find that out which is why I think they should have been deleted. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I sympathize with your point of view -- the lack of source makes me a little uneasy. However, various photos taken in New York after the sinking -- crowds at the White Star offices -- seem to me to be safe. We have an image of a famous tennis player taken the next year -- we don't have a publication date, but it was almost certainly 1913 -- certain beyond a significant doubt for me. We have Arthur Rostron's letter. We don't know the source, but he died in 1940, so it is surely PD. And so forth. If any of them make you particularly uneasy, by all means bring them up here or start another DR -- Except for the newspaper front pages and Rostron's letter, which are solidly PD, I agree that the rest are a little uncertain. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
From looking at a few samples it seems that all (or at least most) of these images have been imported from the LoC, albeit very poorly. The resolution on some images is way too low to use them for anything, among them the Carpathia captain letter (higher resolution to be found at LoC). I fixed up File:Survivors from TITANIC aboard rescue ship, unidentified group on deck.jpg to give an example of what these uploads should look like. As these images are still available via the LoC and the uploads are lacking all information that would make them useful (for most not even a reasonably sized image has been provided, let alone meta data or copyright information) I think we are better off deleting them and reimporting the files from the LoC when we want to use them. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Or simply uploading better versions from LOC now. I wouldn't object, though, if you want to DR all of them that aren't in use except the newspapers. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Another user permission template

Hi Jim: See Commons:Deletion requests/File:İzmir - 01.jpg for a very interesting user template. "Illegally" ?? (me is confuzzled) Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

English does not appear to be the user's first language; presumably the user means "unlawfully." Indeed, failure to follow the provisions of a "free" license is an infringement of copyright (i.e., unlawful). The "immediate vicinity" verbiage may be another (problematic) matter. Эlcobbola talk 20:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The line between "illegal" and "unlawful" is very fine. The OED lists them as synonyms. This reference says that the former refers to things that are expressly forbidden while the latter refers to things that are not authorized by law. Since there are criminal penalties for willful infringement of the Copyright Act in the USA, that would make "illegal" perfectly correct.
As for "immediate vicinity", I've already put a  Delete at the DR for that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:72MM 14 DominicJames 2550 (a).jpg

Hi Jim, not sure why this photo I took has been deleted. I filled in a permission form ages ago. Can you let me know what why it was deleted and what needs to be done please. Thank you. Dominic]] using HotCat Template:Usigned2

  • As I said in the closing comment, the source site has an explicit copyright notice -- there is no evidence that you have permission to freely license the image.
If
"I filled in a permission form ages ago."
means that the copyright holder sent a license to Commons:OTRS, then please be aware that, like Commons, OTRS is all volunteers and runs a significant backlog. If the copyright holder has not yet done that, then it will required for the image to be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim, this photo [59] was speedy deleted because I had failed to provide its location to the wikimedia team after it was originally approved/uploaded. My mistake. Once the permission was provided, the photo was undeleted: [60] However, it still has the DR notice on it and cannot be used. I asked the wikimedia approvers, "What's the next step?" but have received no response. Can you please tell me how to get the DR notice removed? Thanks LauraLeeT (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
One of my colleagues has taken care of it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Gallery of logos

Hi Jim: I took one look at this gallery and I'm running for help [61]. I see piles of CC-by-SA and what looks to me like a user who doesn't get the idea of permissions and copyrights at all. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, yes, mostly. I just knocked off half a dozen of them as speedy because they came from web sites with clear and explicit copyright notices. There are probably five or ten more like that. On the other hand, a great many of them are PD-text-logo, so aside from the false claims of "own work", there's not much you can do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

not

So you deleted a page about "periodic table colors". I do not understand the reasoning provided (if there was one), I do not get the intention, and I abhor the non-common abuse I am confronted with. For the rest, I guess you must be helping something someone. -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually I want to say: fuck you see below. Now block me wikiworldwide for a week. -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Commons galleries have a specific purpose -- showing collections of Commons images -- see Commons:Galleries and Commons:Scope. Your table of periodic table colors does not belong on Commons, and with the attitude shown above, perhaps you also do not belong here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
What "galleries" are you talking about? -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Nicely done, you got me!
Now back to the topic: you deleted. Why this way? -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

We see around 100 new galleries a day while doing New Page Patrol. (A gallery is any page that does not have a prefix such as "File:", "Commons:", "User", etc.) Almost all of them do not meet the Commons definition of a gallery, which, as you have been told many times by me and others, is at Commons:Galleries. We simply do not have time to have an individual discussion of them. About once a week, someone who has created a gallery that was subsequently deleted will come here to ask about it -- that's about 1 in 300 for my deletions, which, it seems to me, justifies not discussing each one. In this case, if you had asked, I would have moved it to your User space, as has been done, or sent the Wiki markup to you via e-mail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for being such a dick. All just about a deleted page, what I could have handled more useful. I also see you have acted in a more kingly way, for which I compliment you and thank you. -DePiep (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Apology accepted, thank you very much. If I can be helpful in the future, please don't hesitate to ask. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

carregar uma imagem que já foi eliminada

eu não restaurei nenhuma imagem, apenas fiz 2 uploads de novas photos a partir de antigo ID Costapppr - o atual é CostaPPPR. Não entendi também porque Costapppr está ativo ? Ação de Hackers?

I have not restored any image just did 2 uploads new photos from old ID Costapppr - the current is CostaPPPR Nor did because Costapppr active? Hackers action?

--Costa P.P.P.R. 02:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Entendi agora - a página ID Costapppr = ...commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Costapppr é que deveria ter sido deletada - Grato pelo aviso

I understand now - the page ID Costapppr [ - Its a ghost ] is what should have been deleted - Thanks for the warning

Sometime ago I requested the name (ID) change The correct is ...commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:CostaPPPR

Thanks

--Costa P.P.P.R. 02:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CostaPPPR (talk • contribs) 02:36, 15 July 2014‎ (UTC)

I don't understand -- I deleted the new gallery page Costapppr twice because it was out of scope and warned you not to recreate it. Is there anything you need me to do or explain now? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Note from Dave re picture

Jim - not sure if I'm using this correctly. I'm sorry if I'm not. I have permission from WWSG to use the picture as if it is ours...so not sure why I can't keep it there. Will you please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.131.231 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 15 July 2014‎ (UTC)

My apologies for the late response -- I thought I had answered this yesterday, but I must have distracted. I'd be happy to help, but I need your username or the name of the file in question -- your IP address doesn't tell me anything because it has made only one edit. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Communauté silhouette.png

Hello Jim, I don't agree with your closing reason. What is for you widely used.? A single template with an inclusion of seven [62] is for me definitely not widely used. But this as I said before, can you please more explain your decision (maybe simply because you can't delete it)? → User: Perhelion 05:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

For me, "widely" is more than four, but the point is moot. Any use at all on any project means that an image cannot be deleted except for copyvio..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Open proxys are evil

Hello, fyi: Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Open_proxy_detection It seems not difficult to use proxy here. I know that on nlwiki is a script, but it is not open source :/. Rergards--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Montreal Montage July 7 2014.jpg

Hi Jim. I would like to obtain some clarification about the nomination reason that you provided. Also, I disagree with the fact that my file "does not properly credit all of the underlying images". In fact, in the "source" section of the file, all references have been clearly provided: I have indicated the names of the original authors and/or their Flickr or WikiCommons usernames, whichever was available. Is there anything that I left out while citing? Moreover, this new montage that I created is greatly appreciated by the users on Wikipedia (see Montreal talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Montreal#Montage). Anyway, if you insist on deleting this file, could you please tell me which image(s) of the montage are not properly credited or have been copyviolated so that I can create another montage with other images that will fit your criteria. Thanks Jolenine (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I stand corrected on the question of attribution and I have corrected the DR to reflect that. My apologies for the mistake.
However, the fundamental issue here is that some of the images are licensed CC-BY-SA, while others are licensed CC-BY.

You can't mix the two -- a CC-BY-SA derivative work must be licensed as CC-BY-SA, while a CC-BY work may not be. This is clear at the formal CC-BY license, paragraph 4:

"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder."
Since a CC-BY-SA license imposes additional restrictions on the use of the work, using it on the montage violates the CC-BY license on those elements of the montage that are licensed CC-BY.
Since you apparently want to use this only on WP, I suggest that you simply set the individual images using Wiki markup. This is non-trivial, but can result in something that appears the same on the page while not mixing the licenses in a montage. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it is possible to mix these 2 licenses under CC-BY-SA. Proper attribution has to be done for every image through. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Yann, obviously we disagree. How do you get around the plain language in the CC-BY license that forbids "any terms ... that alter or restrict the terms of this License"? The CC-BY-SA license clearly has additional restrictions which my reading of the CC-BY license forbid. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I am not sure. It seems to me that it is possible to relicense CC-BY into CC-BY-SA, and therefore mix works from these licenses. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
People who put CC-BY licenses on their works want them to have the freest distribution possible, saving only for the attribution. They chose not to require SA on their works and the CC-BY license reflects that by forbidding the additional requirements imposed by the SA license. They could certainly be relicensed as CC-BY-SA if the photographers agreed, but unless that happens, I think we are stuck. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes; CC BY is the freest license in that group. It means we can use such works in adaptions with any other type of licenses (NC, ND, or even ARR). The adapted work can also be NC, ND, or even ARR. The only requirement is that attribution is provided (BY). See my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Montreal Montage July 7 2014.jpg. Jee 11:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC) See [63] and the topic above. Jee 11:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Jee, you have not answered the question I asked Yann above -- the CC-BY license specifically forbids adding additional restrictions to works licensed with it. That means that, contrary to your assertion, we cannot use a CC-BY image with any license that is more restrictive. CC-BY-SA has additional restrictions, so we can't mix the two except, as I suggested above, by using Wiki markup which solves the problem neatly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Jim, you are mixing two things; license of a work and license of adaptation. Here we're talking only about adaptations. Original author has no control over what license is chosen for adaptation (unless it is SA). The adapter can mix with any; but he should choose the most restricted one for the adaptation. CC well explained it in that FAQ.
See our Commons:Multi-licensing. It is not talking about BY licenses because only SA licenses have such limitations. If you still have doubts, hope people like Jarekt can help you. Jee 12:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow! It is already available in Commons too. Jee 13:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Jim. I understand your concern with respect to the mixing of CC-BY-SA and CC-BY in my derivative work. In this case, we might as well also nominate for deletion the following montages (just to name a few) since these montages also mixes both licenses...

We have more than 20,000,000 images on Commons. My best guess is that more than 1% of them -- 200,000 images -- are problematic in one way or another. Therefore it is very easy to find counterexamples to almost any DR. I suggest you nominate the three above for deletion and read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Jim, if you really think that these licenses can be mixed, you need to be consistent and also put these montages for deletion.
@Jolenine: Meanwhile, if owners of CC-BY images allow to relicense their work under CC-BY-SA, that's a way around this potential issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you mean "cannot be mixed" above. I have no interest in searching out all of the examples of mixed licenses which occur on Commons -- it's certainly hundreds, probably thousands. That doesn't mean, though, that we should let this one go just because Other Stuff Exists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. However, look at the link Jee provided. I think I was right. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I sure don't understand, because the license is clear that no additional restrictions are allowed, but I can;t argue with a chart created by Creative Commons itself. Apologies to all for wasting time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Since you said "I sure don't understand", I'm sharing one more link. These examples explain many possible combinations. Example 2 and 5 are very interesting as they allow adapter to chose licenses like GFDL too. Jee 03:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Jee, I appreciate very much your effort to enlighten me. I do understand that my position is not acceptable, but, as I said several times above, the CC-BY license has language that, it seems to me, clearly prohibits putting additional restrictions on a CC-BY file, including the requirement that the derivatives be SA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
One more attempt: CC0 and CC BY are not Copyleft licenses whereas CC BY-SA, GFDL and FAL are. (You can see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode 3b is not in http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode) Jee 11:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Denis Payre.jpg

Hi Jim, Denis Payre is the founder of a new political party is France, called "Nous Citoyens". I've contacted the community manager of this party. She says that Nous Citoyens have bought this picture I had uploaded. Please tell me how can I do to use it on Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Best regards, --Didier VICENTE (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

While Nous Citoyens may have purchased the picture, buying the picture and buying the right to freely license the picture are two very different things. As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Denis Payre.jpg, in the case of unclear copyright, Commons policy requires that the photographer, Christophe Lebedinsky, send a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dictionary of Southern African Place Names by Peter E. Raper (1987).djvu couldn't wait?

Not sure why this one had to be decided there and then. I said that I wrote, and it would have been the polite thing to have waited for a response. You are not the only administrator, it isn't solely your decision, and it is a little presumptuous to act precipitously, up to an extra month, when the work had been there since September is hardly an issue. :-/  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It had been ten days. There was no evidence whatsoever that the author or publisher had allowed this upload. I think it qualifies as a {{Speedy}} -- a copyrighted work uploaded without any evidence of permission. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I know what you thought, however, I had put it on hold (as an administrator) and said that I had written. You could have left it for me, or you could have contacted me to discuss the matter. It was not urgent, it was listed with a process in place to manage it, and a week or two longer was not problematic. You just decided that you could take action because you could. :-/  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I took action because I saw an upload that qualified as a {{Speedy}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

MapWordl ETS.png

Screen It was my screen from game! Thepiterwayne (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • That may be, but it was created using copyrighted game software and the base map and the image behind the map both have copyrights. Unless you can show beyond a significant doubt that everything shown there is either your work, or freely licensed, it cannot be restored.
And, by the way, it was uploaded by User:ConchitaWurst69. If you are the same person, please be aware that using multiple accounts in this way is a serious violation of Commons rules. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The second account User:ConchitaWurst69 has been locked. The case was solved. My second question. Why did you deleted photos Warsaw Spire? I had the consent of users with SkyscraperCity. They sent emails with permission. Ask User User:JarektThepiterwayne (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Restore these images !!! Thepiterwayne (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This consent was requested Commons: OTRS / enThepiterwayne (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the spire images because the OTRS team had marked the permissions as unacceptable. If Jarekt thinks otherwise, he is free to undelete them -- he is both an OTRS volunteer and an Admin.
As for User:ConchitaWurst69, I see no indication that that account is locked. Are you the same person? If so, which account do you want to use? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Jim, I think they are referring to Wikipedysta:ConchitaWurst69 which has been blocked on Polish Wikipedia for (Google translation): "Username incompatible with the principles of Wikipedia". Green Giant (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


Undeletion request

Hi Jim, I am an inexperienced user, and had some errors with my uploads. I think the mistakes can be fixed. For Commons:Deletion_requests/File:SB_logo_big_gradient.png, I can now get the template permission completed by the graphic artist who created the image. The instructions page said to post on your talk page first. But is it better for me to just re-upload the image and email OTRS. Or is there a way of getting the right information to you so the image can be reinstated? Thank you for your help. Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

First, never upload an image second time. It is a serious violation of policy and wastes time and computer resources. Commons never actually deletes anything. "Deleted" images are simply marked so they can not be viewed by anyone other than a Admins and a very few others.
Since this is a logo, it is not obvious who owns the copyright. Generally, a company that engages a graphic artist to create a logo will make sure that the result is a work for hire so that the company owns the copyright, but that is not always the case. So, first you must determine who actually owns the copyright, then get the person, or an authorized officer of the company, to send a free license to the logo using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
OTRS, like the rest of WMF, is all volunteers, is understaffed, and is running a backlog that is sometimes several weeks. Once they get to the license e-mail and process it, the image will be restored without further action on your part.
If you have more questions, feel free to ask -- Commons can be a difficult place to start cold, but most of us try hard to be helpful to new users. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Clear advice. Yes, bit of a learning curve. But very appreciative of your explanations. Thank you. Danh108 (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Maryam Mirzakhani 2014-08-12 18-14.jpg

Dear Jim, regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maryam Mirzakhani 2014-08-12 18-14.jpg. Where is the copyright notice that you found on this image at Stanford? Of course their home page has a copyright at the bottom. Sorry, I really don't like it that you came in and deleted this image without consulting anyone else. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I still don't believe that you reopened and then closed a deletion request that was already closed. You must have superpowers. Anyway, if you would slow down a second and go to Stanford's home page, and click on this image, you will wind up at Stanford's news article. This article has the same image but with a caption right on it, "Courtesy of Maryam Mirzakhani". Please don't start speculating on the source of that. So my question stands, where is Stanford's copyright on this image? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
First, I don't understand
"I still don't believe that you reopened and then closed a deletion request that was already closed. You must have superpowers."
Although I made my closing comment in several parts, as I often do when it is complex and the little box in DelReqHandler doesn't work well, I didn't reopen a closed DR -- the last edit before my three edits shows an open DR.
I also wonder about
"Sorry, I really don't like it that you came in and deleted this image without consulting anyone else."
Commons policy does not require Admins to consult when they close a DR. We delete around 1,500 images every day. 90% of that work is done by fewer than 25 people and there isn't anything like enough time to have consultations after a DR has been open for a week. None of the three  Keep comments even looked at the Stanford site or considered where the Math Union got the image and who might actually own the copyright. None of the three have much experience on Commons. I found the image on a page with a clear copyright notice -- I fail to see why you think that the (c) at the bottom of Stanford's home page is irrelevant -- and I deleted the image, wrote a lengthy comment, and moved on.
As for the copyright issue, you are correct, Stanford may not own the copyright, but it is clearly owned by someone and we certainly have no evidence that it is freely licensed. Since the image appears on Stanford's we site with a clear copyright notice, policy requires that we have a license from the actual copyright holder, probably the photographer, not Mirzakhani, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
As for
"Please don't start speculating on the source of that."
It is an Admin's job to speculate about who actually owns the copyright to Commons images. So far, all we know is that Mirsakhani gave a copy of the image to Stanford and probably to the Math Union as well. The fact that the Math Union says there is no copyright is meaningless since it is contrary to the applicable law. We know nothing about who actually owns the copyright. On Commons, the burden of proof is on those who want to keep an image to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is freely licensed. We're far from that at this point. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear Jim, I am terribly sorry. You are right, this deletion request was never closed! I'll get back to you on the copyright. Clearly this image does not belong to Stanford just because it appeared on their home page. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Also I was not aware that the commons does not require admins to consult when closing. All I saw was a closed request with no way for anybody else to discuss the conclusion which I believe was wrong. Thank you for agreeing with me, "Stanford may not own the copyright". -SusanLesch (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The Math Union has the only statement about copyright associated with the image. Which is "copyright free". Stanford's inclusion on their home page does not and never will reverse that. Once an image is PD, there is no provision in any law for ever changing that. So it is not true to say, "The fact that the Math Union says there is no copyright is meaningless since it is contrary to the applicable law."
Mirsakhani was being awarded an international prize: I would imagine she was in contact with her employer about a photo. But this last is speculation. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The Math Union site seems to be license laundering. Time Magazine; NPR; and The Guardian--in en.wiki terms for the participants at the DR, reliable sources--credit Stanford. Stanford's terms of use says "User may download material from the Sites only for User's own personal, non-commercial use. User may not otherwise copy, reproduce, retransmit, distribute, publish, commercially exploit or otherwise transfer any material." (emphasis mine) There is no reason outside of credulity to believe the Math Union notice is genuine (particularly per Jim's logic that the image's genesis is with Stanford, not vice versa.) If one of the Math Union images was Mickey Mouse, would we take them at their word? Certainly not, as we have credible evidence that the Mickey image is not theirs to license (or release to the public domain)--as indeed we seem to have here with Mirzakhani. The foregoing not withstanding, COM:PRP establishes a threshold of "significant doubt." There is clearly a significant doubt related to the copyright status of this image. As an apparent proponent of consultation ("I really don't like it that you came in and deleted this image without consulting anyone else"), I wonder whether you've contacted Stanford to clarify the discrepancy. Эlcobbola talk 16:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Эlcobbola and Jim, I would be happy to write to Professor Mirsakhani directly. I don't think Stanford ever enters into the conversation except that it was brought up in the deletion request, and three reliable sources asked them for a photo. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
That seems a promising first step. I would caution, however, that copyright generally belongs to the author (i.e., photographer); as Mirsakhani is the subject, she would not be expected to hold the copyright absent an actual legal conveyance. As something of an aside, I've myself been in a university academic department and been on selection committees for tenure-track professors in departments outside my own. Whether for me or new hires, it is common in my experience that a student or professional photographer will be enlisted by the university to create images for profile websites, department sites, and general sites/usage. I rather suspect that is what happened here. As this is likely a work for hire, it does seem reasonable to expect Stanford will hold the copyright. Эlcobbola talk 17:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Sent. Because Stanford's only notice is "Courtesy of Maryam Mirzakhani", I asked her for the name of the photographer, the date of the photo, and a free license. Thank you for your help. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be great. It's a good image and her WP:EN article clearly needs one. Note, by the way, that all four of the Math Union images have the same problem:

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you think I should just send her OTRS boilerplate? I'm sorry, I'm in school and don't have time to learn about the other three winners. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd send her a link to OTRS and the file name File:Maryam Mirzakhani 2014-08-12 18-14.jpg, noting that it's the image on the Stanford home page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Eldred

Hi Jim, it looks like two of the images were not deleted. Was this intentional, or due to the software bug? Эlcobbola talk 18:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have said it was my mistake, but I went back and tried again. DelReqHandler chewed on it for over an hour without result, so I went to the image file. Got:
"Error deleting file: An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-swift-eqiad"."
on the first try; finally deleted it on the second try. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim and @Elcobbola: , sorry I did not see the response on the DR earlier. EC, you are right, there has to be a limit on the "geometric shapes" argument, and perhaps this is over that limit -- I don't know. But I think there is a stronger reason to keep that one, which I failed to state: if you can still look at the file description page, you will see that it had a "free/open source software" template on it. Could you take another look? Or is it better for me to file a deletion review? -Pete F (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I should say also...if my reasoning is sound and that template is accurate, I think it's rather urgent to undelete that file, since as I recall I believe it illustrates dozens of pages on different WM projects. -Pete F (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Tetris is a copyrighted product. That's pretty clear, because Hasbro, which is both careful spending money and very knowledgeable about game IP, recently paid the Tetris company for the rights to develop variations of the game. If they could simply go forward without a payment, they certainly would have. Therefore the version which was pictured, while nominally freely licensed, is a knockoff of a copyrighted product. Therefore, I think the deletion is correct, but go ahead and file at UnDR if you wish. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for considering it. I didn't know the IP status of Tetris, and your argument makes sense to me. -Pete F (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I'd need some time to think about the issues here, but at first pass I'm inclined to agree with Jim (for what it's worth, the U.S. Copyright Office's registry has hundreds of registrations related to Tetris in its various forms). The software, regardless of the license this particular rendition's programmer chose, is still derivative of the original. This is more intellectual exercise than anything relevant, but I'm also curious about the relation between software code and software output under the license. As we learned from Eltra Corp. v. Ringer and Adobe v. Southern, copyright law recognizes the distinction between (and treats separately) underlying code and output. There, a displayed typeface is PD as a useful article, but the software that produced it is copyrighted. Would the inverse (free code and copyrighted visual) be true? Likely not, but it's a wrinkle to consider. Эlcobbola talk 20:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes -- I've been wondering about that as well. (Well, not in as clearly articulated a way as you put it...and without knowledge of relevant case law.) Anyway, glad to see it confounds others as much as me.... -Pete F (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clearly setting forth the issues. For me, the answer to Эlcobbola's question lies in Hasbro's being willing to pay money. They didn't do that for the code, because the code is easy. So they had to do it because they thought that it was required for the user side of the equation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
We do have a 2012 ruling that a Tetris clone infringed on copyrights which seems to support that notion ("Tetris’s [sic] copyright is not protecting the style and movement of the pieces as methods of operation, but instead the expression associated with those elements.") Эlcobbola talk 21:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The particular ruling is one of many -- it notes in the third paragraph of the Background section that Tetris "has removed hundreds of imitation games from the market" by aggressively protecting its IP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Flickr human review

Dear Admin James woodward,

As you know, we are all volunteers on the Commons project. While Commons has many licensed reviewers, I have noticed that many of them are inactive and don't mark images anymore. When I don't mark images in flickr human review, the backlog seems to grow and grow--and the images are mostly the same unmarked ones that I could not mark earlier. Unfortunately, after September 2, I will have to spend much less time marking images here because I have a job to do in the real world. It is unfortunate that there are not many active reviewers on Commons but if the flickr human review system starts to get overloaded and users ask why their images are not marked, please ask other reviewers to mark images too...or the whole system will break down. Its unfortunate but I don't know where the other licensed reviewers are sometimes.

About Beefcake the Mighty (Gwar, Sweden Rock)

He didn't wears mask, is a helmet.

Otherwise, this guys wears masks or makeup.

Progenie (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Mask or helmet, it doesn't matter. The point is that headgear of that sort is not utilitarian, while clothing, even fairly outlandish clothing such as this, is considered utilitarian in most jurisdictions. So the headgear has a copyright while the clothing does not in most places. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Who said you that the helmet has copyright? Look this, that should have "copyright" too. C`mon and delete all the photos! Progenie (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
First, the fact that there are examples of things that ought to be deleted should not surprise you -- we get 10,000 new images every day and delete around 1,500. We certainly miss some -- perhaps as many as 1%, or 200,000 images that ought to be deleted. Second, the woman in your example is wearing an elaborate hat. The law on masks or helmets that cover the face is very carefully delineated, but also very clear. Hats are OK, face coverings are not, unless specifically made for protection, such as ski masks.
Some DRs are close calls, but this one was not -- the law is very clear..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyright apart, can possibly ugliness be a valid reason for deletion? :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 20:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Is this helmet "covering the face". No, his face is cover with makeup. I'm looking that you only delete heavy metal related photos, why?! Progenie (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I've deleted over 75,000 files from Commons. I have no idea how many of them were heavy metal -- maybe three or four? You're just wasting your time and mine with this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I repeat: Is this helmet "covering the face"? Progenie (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • For an example of a helmet copyrighted in the United States, see this page: "Lucasfilm sued for $20m in 2004, arguing Mr Ainsworth did not hold the intellectual property rights and had no right to sell them - a point upheld by a US court." On the other hand, the UK supreme court used a different definition of "utilitarian" than the US court. Maybe we should create a page like COM:TOO or COM:FOP somewhere which explains where utilitarian objects are copyrighted, where they are exempt from copyright and how each country defines 'utilitarian', since those things seem to differ quite a lot from country to country. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but the helmet of the imperial soldier covers the face. This helmet NOT. And Jameslwoodward wrote that: "The law on masks or helmets that cover the face is very carefully delineated, but also very clear. Hats are OK, face coverings are not, unless specifically made for protection, such as ski masks". This is very simple, Beefcake the Mighty's helmet didn't cover his face. The helmet only covers his head like a hat. Progenie (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Apology for yesterday

Dear Jim. I'm sorry for various accusations I made here on your talk page yesterday. I have an excuse ready, a new medication. Last night a couple words slipped through my lips that I don't like, and it was pretty easy to connect the dots. Excuses aside, I appreciate the good work you admins do every day. There's no good reason to make your work even harder than necessary. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Susan, most Admins have been attacked by experts and have developed rhino hide skins to protect themselves. You were really pretty reasonable -- you need to hone your attack skills. I have lived on the cutting edge of women in new roles for many years. My wife has been an Episcopal priest for 25 years and I have been a Founder of two successful high tech companies run by women. As a result, I understand and sympathize with your frustration at not being able to keep an image of a woman who has broken into yet another all male club, so I discounted your anger completely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Destroyed by year by country

Hello Jim, I was trying to give a bit of consistency to the category "Destroyed buildings" and around. I found the abovementioned one, and was wondering whether wouldn't be better naming it "Destroyed buildings by year by country", because I find not very logical a category identified by an adjective but without noun... Destroyed "what"? What is your opinion? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Since all of the subcats are of the form " Buildings in the United States by year of destruction‎", I might use "Buildings by country by year of destruction. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - ah and I guess that your opinion here would be useful. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Images by Zdzisio71

Please restore all the photos in my account which I took myself in the 70’s when I was a young photographer. These pictures are more than 40 years old and therefore do not possess any copyright protection. I don’t know why the Polish editors think I should be dead by now, I am not, for I am not Zdzislaw Ciesiolkiewicz who died in 2005.

Zdzislaw (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that I thought you were dead, but that you were a brand new contributor and that forty year old images needed a little more investigation. If you had added your comment above to the DR, it would have been closed as a "keep".
By the way, it is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image again after it has been deleted, as you did with File:Płk._Zdzisław_Ciesiołkiewicz_i_Jan_J.Więckowski,_Warszawa_1971.jpg. Please don't do it again.
Also note that your assertion that they don't have any copyright protection is probably incorrect. Unless they were published in Poland without copyright notice before 1994, they will be under copyright until 70 years after your death.      Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi James, thank you for your decision, can you please restore my photos to my original account Zdzisio71? I opened another account under my real first name Janusz71 not to get confused in the future with the deceased ZC (Zdzisio). As I had indicated above, I was the one who took those photos, and I am the copyright owner. I uploaded one photo to Janusz71 account to see if the Polish editors would continue to make false claims, and since you were on vacation. After this upload I decided to wait for your decision as to the other photos. Because of the political nature of ZC page they had created in 2006, after deleting my photos they are trying now (Ciacho5) to close this page altogether to make sure that my photos will not come back. Is there anything you can do to prevent deletion of the ZC page? Please advise, with many thanks -

Janusz 18:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your request. Please remember that this is Commons and while I may be able to help you here, I have no ability to help you on the Polish Wikipedia. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim, my question is how to prevent Ciacho5, who asked me a few months ago about the ownership of my pictures, and despite of my affirmative response lied to you that they are not mine, from closing the Zdzisław Ciesiołkiewicz page?

Janusz 06:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I still don't completely understand -- User:Ciacho5 is an ordinary user here on Commons, not an Admin, so he cannot delete a page without community consensus. The gallery page named Zdzisław Ciesiołkiewicz has never existed on Commons. I see that you have had trouble at the WP:PL page Zdzisław_Ciesiołkiewicz, but I cannot help you there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim, it is me again, I am proceeding here incognito, so I don't have my email listed in Wikipedia, that's why I responded so late to the DR. Now I am confused too, if Ciacho5 is just a user like me, how come he can approve changes to the pages, and I can't? And what is a consensus, i.e., how many "users" or editors are needed to close a page? Thanks -

Janusz 22:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Again -- this is Commons, not WP:EN. Are you confusing the two? User:Ciacho5 has done nothing at all here since July 25. Except for his uploads, the only edits he has made on Commons this year are category changes and a few minor edits. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Mesa Grande refugee camp 1987 062.jpg

Regarding no permission for this and other files, please check: User_talk:InverseHypercube#Category:Photographs_by_Linda_Hess_Miller. I restored it. Masur (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Why? The home page has a CC-BY notice, but the source page for this image has a clear copyright notice and a copyright watermark, see http://www.lindahessmiller.com/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=217&pid=10040. A copyright notice on a particular page always overrules a free license on a home page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexandre Galopin (1879-1944).jpg

I left you a message there, your deletion was'nt fair. More than that, it was wrong. Still expect an answer or a suppression of the undue deletion. Best regards, --Madelgarius (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said in the DR, "anonymous" and "unknown" are very different. In order for an image to fall into the "anonymous" class, as required in Belgium, the photographer must actually have not revealed his name when the image was first published. That is usually the case only for controversial images, not studio portraits. The fact that you do not know who the photographer was does not make it anonymous. In order to claim that status for the image, it is up to you to prove that the photographer wanted to be anonymous. That proof is very difficult. It is usually possible only in cases where you can show a printed source for the image that has a credit line like "Photo:Anonymous". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding reinstating deleted image

Hi Jim, I wanted to check about the process for reinstating this [SB logo big gradient.png image]. It was one of my first uploads, so I hadn't got the permissions/licensing right. If I uploaded under fair use, the same way this logo is, could I get it undeleted?

Thank you for your help. Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Your example is from WP:EN, which allows fair use. Commons does not allow fair use, for the simple reason that a fair use claim requires a context and that requirement negates Commons goal of having only images that are free for use anywhere. So, to answer your question, no, you must try uploading it to WP:EN under their rules. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Great, thank you for explaining Jim. I didn't even realise there was somewhere else to upload things. I wanted to check one other deleted file with you. I hadn't uploaded it properly, but now I think I understand where I went wrong, and want to check about getting it reinstated. This File:Om Mandali President Om Radhe.tif. There aren't many of these old pictures. I have confirmed that the organisation asserts it has copyright on the basis the photo was taken by an agent of the organisation back in 1964, and they have been using the image for various things copyrighted in the organisations name without acknowledgement of the photographer. If I get the authority completed by the person responsible in the organisation, adding the above few lines to the permission template, would you be okay with reinstating the image? If so, do I email that permission to the same email? How do I ensure that information will get to you? Sorry for all the questions....thanks Jim. Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Just follow the instructions at OTRS and have the photographer or copyright holder send the e-mail. I don't have to be involved -- the OTRS volunteer who handles the case will arrange for the restoration of the image. Please note that OTRS, like all of the WMF projects, is staffed by volunteers and there aren't enough of them, so it may be several weeks after it arrives before they act on the e-mail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your fast response. I will get onto it. Cheers Danh108 (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Summer of Monuments question

I was holding my submissions until September because I thought Wiki Loves Monuments was in September only. I didn't know here in the United States it had turned into a Summer of Monuments. This summer I've already uploaded landmark photos like File:Wilcox County Courthouse (South face).JPG. What is the procedure for entering already uploaded photos to the Wikipedia Summer of Monuments contest? Thanks in advance. --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anything at all about Summer of Monuments. All I know is at Commons:Wikipedia Summer of Monuments..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Mail

Hi Jim, I hope you had a great holyday. Did you receive my email? Jcb (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, had a very good time, thank you. I don't think I have an e-mail from you -- at least not one I found while dealing with eight days of e-mail. Please either resend or tell me when you sent it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, resent. (This time not from a buggy hotmail account) - Jcb (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Screenshots

Hmmm… What do you think about this and this, Jim? I am not fully convinced (euphemism) that those screenshots are free, but you know the U.S. laws better than me. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of any reason why these screenshots would be free of copyright. The no-notice tag is silly -- all TV shows carried a copyright notice in those days. Any claim that an image is free because it doesn't have a notice is silly -- it is well established that video and movies require only a single copyright notice for the entire work -- not one on every frame. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Martinscriminalcode

Hi Jim, My name is Franklin, I received permission from Curtis Hooper via email. I would rather not put the email chain up here but here is an excerpt regarding ... From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository < Commons:Deletion requests Files uploaded by Martinscriminalcode (talk · contribs)[edit] Both of these images include a painting by Curtis Hooper, a living artist. They are derivative works of that painting. We cannot, therefore, keep them without permission from Hooper, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.

File:Strosberg sitting.jpg File:ADVOCATE.JPG

"Please feel free to use the portrait of Harvey on his wikipedia page…anything for Harvey! I’ve attached a photo of “The Advocate” for you at a higher resolution that you would get from the website….and, I have also attached one of my favourite photos when I was painting Harvey for the Law Society of Upper Canada. He was a joy to paint!

Thanks for the offer of making a wikipedia page for me…I have been thinking about it for a while, I might get back to you on that...

Cheers, Curtis PS These are some of the first images I have put on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinscriminalcode (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello, Franklin. Welcome to Commons. Discussions relating to open DRs should take place at the DR, so I have copied your note above to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Martinscriminalcode and replied there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Eduemoni

Something wrong here. You closed as "deleted", but the files weren't deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Twintowers of Deutsche Bank Headquarter in Frankfurt a.M..jpg

Hi, Was this deletion a mistake? --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No. As I understand the German FOP law, the photographer must have been in a public place that is accessible 24/7. Generally that means he must have been on a street, although there are a few other places that qualify. Reading the discussion, the image was taken from one of two places, neither of which qualifies. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi Jim,

Sorry, but I don't understand on what basis you deleted this. LGA's comments are pure trolling (well shown by Russavia). Nobody else has argued for deletion there. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) :See the comment above. The case seems pretty clear to me.

"Private property that cannot be freely accessed, e.g. because it is enclosed by a fence or there is some form of admission control, does not qualify for § 59 UrhG." from Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany
As I understand it, the image was taken from one of two places, both of which are described by the quote above -- neither one is accessible 24/7. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I am copying what Axpde said: "Eine zeitweilige, insbesondere nächtliche Schließung steht der Öffentlichkeit nicht entgegen. (quote from de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium „öffentlich“" (Google tr.: A temporary, especially nocturnal closure of the public is not invalidated.).) It is quite clear to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Please read Axpde's comment again, very clear case imho... --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I think clarity is very much in doubt. See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany:
  • "Private property that cannot be freely accessed, e.g. because it is enclosed by a fence or there is some form of admission control, does not qualify for § 59 UrhG."
  • "...the Federal Court of Justice found that a photograph taken from a balcony of a privately-owned flat in a neighboring house the key to which was handed out freely to everyone who asked for it, does not comply with the restrictions imposed by § 59 UrhG because it was not taken from a public way, street or place."
As I understand it, the image was taken from one of two places -- either a private viewing balcony with an admission charge or a restaurant, which is also a private place. Although there is usually no admission charge per se at a restaurant, one cannot usually just barge in, take a picture, and then leave. The first quote above seems to cover both possibilities and contradicts Axpde's assertion. The second quote seems similar -- if a private balcony with no admission charge does not qualify, how does the private balcony or restaurant in this case qualify? The restaurant also would be ruled out by the requirement that the space be dedicated to public use -- if railroad stations, subway stations, and airports do not qualify, how does a restaurant? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
It is a bit a gray zone imho. I files a COM:UNDEL request, maybe someone else can comment (Pls don't take it personal ;)) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
No worries -- I see that the summary of the law here on Commons and at WP:EN does not completely agree. I don't pretend to know which is right, but by our rules I must follow the one on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dutch propaganda newspaper

An user asked me whether they can upload safely a front page taken from here. It's about a 1944 Nazi collaborationist propaganda newspaper from the Netherlands thus very unlikely to be copyrightable. As for Italy propaganda publications during wartime were not eligible for copyright but I don't know the Dutch law. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know of any Dutch law about wartime propaganda. If it was collaborationist -- not produced by the German occupation government, but by third parties, I would expect that it is copyrightable and therefore still under copyright. I don't know when it will go PD, but certainly not until 1/1/2015 at the very earliest, and probably much later. You might ask User:Trijnstel -- she's Dutch. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I've asked others, but I don't think this is free to use. It will become PD in 2015 and there is not an exception mentioned here. Trijnsteltalk 13:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Crown Fountain

Hi Jim,

Do you think that the Crown Fountain in Chicago is complex enough to get a copyright? See DRs on Commons:Deletion requests/2014/09/01. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the USCO agrees with me. Copyright Registration Number / Date: VAu000544065 / 2002-03-22. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Eva Janina Wieczorek

Thank you!--Armax (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Crest Craft Permissions approval

Hi Jim: As a newbie, I’m not sure where to turn on this so perhaps you can advise. Months ago, I uploaded an image to Commons to support the article, No._168_Squadron_RCAF

The image in question is

When I was made aware that there might be copyright issues, I found the appropriate individual, obtained their approval and permission and forwarded that onto the Permissions-commons group (Aug 2nd) via email under the Subject, “new ticket request - Crest Craft Images”.

I heard nothing for a month then received notice that since the image hadn’t received verification from the OTRS group, it could be “speedy deleted”. I have resent the original information to the permissions-commons group and still haven’t had any feedback, now with only a week remaining before the original image stands to be deleted.

I clearly don’t understand the process and I am uncertain as to how to proceed. I don’t know how to reference the emails I sent to this group to you short of repeating the entire document here. Your advice would be appreciated.

A much better place (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done The OTRS backlog is apparently more than a month -- like all WMF projects, they are short of volunteers. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks Jim for cleaning all of this up.

Regards
Wayne

Thanks Jim for finishing this up! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

forgot to delete?

(Edit conflict)Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/South Korean motages with non free content, you left one file not deleted. Did you forgot to do so? — Revicomplaint? 18:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Likely one of the frequent hiccups of DelReqHandler, but possibly my oversight. Thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Two questions...

Hello Jim, two questions for you: first one, could you please have a look here and tell whether I did anything bad because I can't find a point in that discussion - second one, I am noticing that there's no uniform - consistent way to disambiguate film directors. I see for example John Smith (director) or Jane Smith (film director) or even John Doe (filmmaker). What could be the consistent way to disambiguate correctly? I am thinking to "film director" but if one has also directed plays in theatre? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Your questions are always subtle and interesting. I think I would use "film director". "Director" has many uses -- "Corporate Director", "Director of Music", "Chorus Director" all come to mind. "Filmmaker" is too general. Producers, directors, even camera operators could fit that category. You could then use "theater director" or perhaps "stage director" for the theater. As for the other, I have commented there..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:MDavis cropped.jpg

Why was this deleted? As discovered in the discussion, this was a crop of a bot-reviewed file uploaded a couple of years earlier. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. It did not help that the listed source was a file that did not exist on Flickr when this image was created. I have restored this and fixed the permission. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Brick-making.png

You are correct. i should have seen this was in use. i think i tried to clean out all the files there that didnt fit, and missed this one, then missed that it was in use when i DR'd it. thanks for actually following policy on files like this. I am going to give this file a rest for a while, and return later. question: is it policy that admins reviewing DR's not make edits that could change a decision, such as removing a file from a project? i assume admins cant close a DR that they participated in, and i guess not editing would be a similar conflict of interest. I know that it sometimes doesnt look good if i remove a file from a project, then DR it, but another editor could easily review my edits and perceive if i acted in good faith or not. I believe i have, in my efforts to remove these really bad files from commons, been fair in doing so, and tried to not game the system. again, thanks for the correct (and EXPLAINED) decisions here and on other files.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is a problem if an Admin participates in a small way in a discussion on a DR and then closes it. I do think that the nom, or an Admin who has taken a major part in the discussion should let someone else close it.
As for removing an image from, say, WP:EN, and then DRing it -- I think that would be OK if maybe a week elapsed between the removal and the DR -- long enough for another WP:EN editor to put it back, if he thought that was good. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted pages

Hi Jameslwoodward,

why you deleted my pages Ursus on stamps and Ursus arctos on stamps? Its aren't duplicatesǃ --Matsievsky (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't need three very similar galleries on essentially the same subject. It's much better to have the single gallery covering all bears on stamps. That is much more likely to be well maintained over the long run. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It was a beginning. These three galleries was the same, because it was beginning. The gallery Ursus must contain some pages: Ursus arctos, Ursus thibetanus and so on. And the gallery Ursidae will be contained Ailuropoda, Helarctos, Melursus, Tremarctos, Ursus. And galleries Ailuropoda, Helarctos, Melursus, Tremarctos, Ursus will be contained some pages. --Matsievsky (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Please return my pages. --Matsievsky (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so, for the reasons given above. Build out the one Ursidae page first, and then we can discuss it. I and the Commons community have see far too many complex projects undertaken by beginners who don't understand that they will not be here to maintain them over the long run. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't undestand you, the pages are absent. --Matsievsky (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry -- another Admin deleted the page that I had left. I have left a note on his talk page. I suggest that you recreate Ursidae on stamps, fill it out fully and then we can discuss it. I don't see a need for more. Please remember that in most countries stamps are copyrighted, so this will be a limited gallery..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bank Block Description Ohio Historical Society description, north facing.jpg

Just a heads up that I've heard back from the Ohio Historical Society; details on that page. Floatjon (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Uploading an image from a blog/TISTORY

Can I upload an image from a blog that does not indicate its copyright? For example: http://sunnybobo515.tistory.com/ And if I ask permission from the owner of the photos, what are the things needed to prove I was given permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tianram (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 September 2014‎ (UTC)

My apologies for the slow answer -- I completely overlooked your question.
The short answer is "no". Everything has a copyright, so the only works you can upload from the Web are works that have a clear and explicit free license. There are exceptions, particularly for works of USA origin before 1989 and, of course, works for which the copyright has expired.
The requirement is that the copyright owner -- who may or may not be the owner of the blog -- must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Beacon Hill, Surrey

I understand your reasons for deleting the Wikimedia Commons page Beacon Hill, Surrey. It is work in progress for user User:Tony Holkham. See Talk:Beacon Hill (Hindhead, Surrey). Just give him a chance to finish it. I will keep clear, other than to upload images, which cannot yet have the new category. SovalValtos (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we have a misunderstanding here. I have corrected the name (above) of the page I deleted, but there has never been a talk page by either name.
You say "which cannot yet have the new category" -- if User:Tony Holkham intended to create a new category, then he forgot to include the necessary prefix "Category:" and therefore created a gallery. I see that he has added a category by that name to an image that you (SovalValtos) uploaded. One of you needs to finish the job by creating the category -- I can't do it, because I don't know what categories it belongs in.
If, on the other hand he actually intended to create a gallery, then please understand that we get many new galleries every day. Most of them are mistakes or vandalism and are deleted. We do this very rapidly in order to discourage the vandals.
When you create a new gallery, there are three different ways to avoid rapid deletion. Any one of them will work:
1) Create it in your own space, such as at User:JohnDoe/Sandbox, and then copy it to the new gallery name when ready. You can then just leave User:JohnDoe/Sandbox for future use.
2) Create it as a gallery, but do not save it until you have added at least two images.
3) Put a note at the top that it is under construction.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I will only reply to one point here now; the Talk page I referred to is for the page in Wikipedia, not Commons. The rest I am leaving to others as a bit beyond me. user:Tony Holkham will soon be on the case I expect, he just needed 24hrs grace. SovalValtos (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
If you want to cite a page on WP:EN, you must use the appropriate markup. Neither I nor the software can read your mind. There are several ways to cite a WP:EN page from Commons. The easiest is
{{w|Talk:Beacon Hill (Hindhead, Surrey)}} which produces Talk:Beacon Hill (Hindhead, Surrey)
The template defaults to WP:EN, but can be used for any WP. See Template:w for more information.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm a bit lost here. There is a page "Beacon Hill (Hindhead, Surrey)" on WP en. Some photos on Commons have titles like "Beacon Hill, Surrey". I tried to create a category called the latter on Commons so it would pick up those photos, but I must have got it wrong, and I now know I should have asked for advice first! Can I have some help to sort it out, please? I also tried to add "Beacon Hill, Surrey" to the Beacon Hill disambig page. Apologies for causing consternation. Tony Holkham (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You tried to create Category:Beacon Hill, Surrey here on Commons, but forgot to include the prefix "Category:", so you actually created an empty gallery, which I then deleted. Commons has a nice feature, that if images are added to a category that doesn't yet exist, it will show them if you go to that page. Therefore, all you need to do is click here and then click on "Create" in the upper right corner, add the appropriate Commons categories, and save it. As I said above, I can't create it because I don't have a clue what categories should be put on it.

As for the dab page, there is an entry for Surrey at Beacon Hill on WP:EN, and your new entry on the Commons dab page is correct, but it's a red link because you need to create the category. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Done that, I hope correctly. The next step I presume is to add each relevant pic individually to the category. Thanks very much for your help. Appreciate it. Tony Holkham (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks good so far. As you say, now you need to go to each relevant image and add [[Category:Beacon Hill, Surrey]] to it. There are a number of tools which can speed that up under various circumstances. You should look at
  • Preferences >> Gadgets >> Tools for categories >> HotCat
  • Preferences >> Gadgets >> Tools for categories >> Cat-a-lot
both of which you will find under the Preferences link at the upper right of every Commons page. Links to documentation are there.
HotCat allows you to add a category without opening an edit box on the image page, eliminates typing "Category:" and autocompletes when you get close. It will always be faster than doing them one at a time.
Cat-a-lot allows you to make changes to more than one file at a time. I'm guessing here, but you might use it to move relevant images from Category:Hindhead to the new cat.
HotCat is pretty safe, as it only makes one change at a time. Cat-a-lot can be dangerous, as you can change hundreds of categories with one click, so be careful and start small.
Feel free to ask if you have questions, but I'm off now until around 11:00 UTC tomorrow (Thursday).
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I did it manually, but I will remember your useful speed-up tip for next time. Thanks again. Tony Holkham (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Depri.jpg

I disagree with keeping the file Depri.jpg. Yes the text is too short to warrent copyright, but it's subtitles. Subtitles don't excist in a vacume, I think they were added to the photograph of the woman pictured which the artist then added some paint to. TwoWings seems to know too little about copyright to either deny nor confirm this but under the cautionary principle the file should be delete. --Vera (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You may be right -- I reopened the DR. Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Shadow puppet of Bima, Java, Indonesia (17th-18th century).jpg

Hi, I'm raising this one at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Shadow_puppet_of_Bima.2C_Java.2C_Indonesia_.2817th-18th_century.29.jpg due to the potential precedent against our norm for the 2D artwork template. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

How about waiting a while before deleting newly created articles?

Hi, I see that you have deleted Gaganendranath Tagore a few minutes after I created it. How about waiting a while before getting those scissors out? :) -- Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If you were trying to create a Creator: page, you forgot the "Creator:" prefix. If you were intending to create a gallery, then the inclusion of creator information in the form you used is not appropriate.
Also, please note that we get around 100 new galleries a day. Most of them are mistakes or vandalism and are rapidly deleted. We do this very rapidly in order to discourage the vandals.
When you create a new gallery, there are three different ways to avoid the problem you had. Any one of them will work:
1) Create it in your own space, such as at User:Cpt.a.haddock/Sandbox, and then copy it to the new gallery name when ready. You can then just leave User:Cpt.a.haddock/Sandbox for future use.
2) Create it as a gallery, but do not save it until you have added at least two images
3) Put a note at the top that it is under construction.
If you have more questions, feel free to ask them here.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Request to undelete files

Hello Jim,

Could you please find and if possible restore the files that you deleted previously: the appropriate letters were sent to OTRS about 2 months ago, and yesterday 19.09 I also sent to OTRS attachments with the copies of the images (as I was advised to do by an OTRS administrator).

The deletion requests are:

1) Ticket #2014072210012853, File:Мемориальный знак.jpg

2) Ticket #201407301000224, 2 files File:Plagiarism Table of Sokolov's Thesis.png and File:Андрей Ростовцев.JPG

3) Ticket #2014080610008566, File:Пархоменко Сергей Борисович.jpg

If you need some more information, please let me know. Mlarisa (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's one for you

Hi Jim, Please see [64], thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Also three more by the same uploader. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Skore183

Hi James,

I'm referring to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Streetart skore183 buy euro bonds.jpg which you've closed. We've now received a substantiated claim by the copyright holder, this time via email, requesting the deletion of the file from Commons (ticket:2014092110009016). The person requesting that does not claim to be the copyright holder of the graffito (which, as you wrote, could be used under the FOP rationale) but of the photograph itself. I find it plausible, particularly given the lack of documentation on the image page. A copyright claim is also made for File:Skore183 InGreedWeTrust.jpg. Both uploaders were more or less inactive besides providing these files and the latter file's description also seems dubious ("Source=Website: www.skore183.com |Author=[[Artist:Skore183|Skore183]]" despite the uploader's name being "Graffitifan"). Most importantly, however, the complainant has included a screenshot showing the image file on his personal file system, including metadata and in considerably higher resolution. Could you (re)check if these files can be deleted? Best, — Pajz (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure of procedure here. Your analysis is fairly convincing, but I'm uncomfortable with simply deleting them without any discussion -- I think the best thing would be a regular DR. Another Admin may disagree with my caution and delete them sooner. Or, of course, you may put a {{Speedy}} on them, with the information above, and see what happens. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jameslwoodward, sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. Sounds perfectly reasonable; actually I wanted to start a DR here but the DR script instructed me to talk to the deleting admin first. (I see that the files have been deleted in the meantime, so this is resolved.) Cheers, — Pajz (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oxbow Inn/Saloon and Gila/Salt River Meridian.... in response to your request to remove both

The Wikipedia Summer of Monuments said it had no pics on these places, and was asking the public to submit pics. I went to both places, took pics, and submitted them. I have absolutely no idea what issue you have with them, or even why. If Wikipedia didn't want pics, why does it even ask for help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jseckardjudd (talk • contribs) 22:44, 21 September 2014‎ (UTC)

In both cases, the problem is that the objects you photographed are themselves copyrighted -- the Meridian marker and the Oxbow plaque. That makes your photographs derivative works of the marker and the plaque and, therefore they infringe on the two copyrights. We cannot keep such images without permission from the copyright holders.
I suggest you read Commons:Monuments and copyright, which is linked from the Summer of Monuments Home Page, for more information.
As for your question, the people who organize events such as this are not much concerned with copyright. For a while last month, the Summer of Monuments Home Page was illustrated with an image that had the same problem as yours and has now been deleted. That is unfortunate, but in a project as large as Commons, we all have specializations. And, of course, your pictures of the tavern itself are fine as there is no copyright there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Disagree!

I totally disagree with Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Automobiles with advertisement in France, if no rights have violated. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 09:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, you, and several others at the DR, think that advertising does not have a copyright. That is simply wrong. All created works have a copyright. There is nothing in French law or the law of any other country which even hints that advertising does not have copyright.
Feel free to post an Undeletion Request if you wish, but you will get the same answer there as at the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of File:Rosebud battle.pdf

I regret that I was not aware that this map had been tagged for deletion. Your reason for deleting it was "because it is a personal document and therefore out of scope. It might be in scope if the author were a noted historian, but he is not."

Your reasoning is incorrect. The Atlas of the Sioux Wars from which this map is taken was published by the Combat Studies Institute of the U.S. Department of the Army. You may purchase the atlas with this map through the General Printing Office of the U.S. Government or from Amazon or Barnes and Noble. In other words, this is not "a personal document," nor do you have any basis to say that the author/artist is not a "noted historian." I believe that the publication and sale of the "Atlas of the Sioux Wars" by the U.S. government is proof that this book/map is not a "personal document" and is a credible, verifiable source.

I don't know how to play around with the Wikimedia bureaucracy, but, whatever the procedure, I request that you restore this image to its proper position in the Battle of the Rosebud article on Wikipedia. It is important to the comprehension of the reader of the battle. With regards. Smallchief (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you are thinking of the wrong document. This is not a map. It is a Master's thesis written by Richard I. Wiles, Jr. Amazon does not show any other publications by Wiles, hence my belief that he is not a noted historian. We do not normally keep Master's or PhD theses unless the writer is notable.
You may request a review of the deletion at Undeletion Requests, but it seems to me that this thesis PDF is well outside of our scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to trouble you. I saw a red link instead of the map earlier today, but now it is visible again in the Battle of the Rosebud article.Smallchief (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
No trouble -- things happen. Hard to explain this one, as neither the map nor the WP:EN article have been edited since September 10 and even that was only a change of capitalization. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Need some advice, please re: license tags

Hi Jim,

Would you mind taking a look at an image review at en:WP? At first it looked like the trailer screenshots from the two older films would need to go to DR. Got curious and went back to original registrations. Compared the dates to those IMDB gave for both films premieres and got news clippings showing that both were in theaters before copyright was filed. Both trailers in question do have copyright marks. What should the license be changed to on the screenshots from both films since we can't say they had no notice. Am willing to copy what we found to all affected files so nothing gets deleted and will change their licenses once it's determined what "fits". Thanks, We hope (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  • As I said there,
Under the pre-1976 law, copyright began upon publication, provided that the appropriate notice was included. A work that was not published could be registered and that would also begin the copyright. Although there were certain benefits to registration, it was not required for initial copyright (the first 28 years), so the fact that the registrations in this case were after publication is irrelevant. see Copyright Basics, page 6
Therefore, if there was notice, the copyrights are valid even though the registrations were after publication. In fact, they would be valid without any registration, provided any required renewal was filed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in both spots, Jim. Renewals were checked and both films in question were renewed. Will see what I can do to help them and then guess all of the trailer screenshots from both films will need to go to DR. We hope (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yücel Erten

Thanks for your Warning. Excuse me. My English is not so gut.I don't know very well about Commons. I wanted to make only what the good. I follow from now more. For another Images, I let send permissionsletter.--Gemalmaz ileti 07:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Question on several images by Aristide Maillol (1861-1944)

Dear Admin Woodward,

I had passed this image and one of these two images by Aristide Maillol who died in September 1944.

I have not marked these other images in this category or this other category or this category by the same uploader. (He may have other categories) Its not yet 2015 but will be in about 3 months. What would you do here? Could you personally either pass these images or file a DR on them...and revert my flickpass if you wish on the 2 images that I mentioned. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have tagged them all with {{Delete}} with the comment that they can be restored on 1/1/2015. Your Flickrreview was entirely correct and should remain, as it establishes that the photographs are correctly licensed. It would be good if you did that for all of them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giani Tirath Singh Ji.jpg

Sorry about my other two uploaads Jim, this is my first article hence i wasnt fully familiar with the violations, because both of the newspaper articles were handed in by us so i thought it wouldnt violate. But this image is not from the newspaper, Giani Tirath Singh Ji is my grandfather and this was a personal photo that I took him to a studio to take. hence i am sure that this image doesnt violate any copyright issues. So can you please take back your deletion request. kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhsta888 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 30 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Routinely DRs run the full 7 days before closure. Please see my question there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

gallery

Hi Jim, where can i find the policy concerning gallery sizes and does this also apply to the packed-mode? --Pandarine (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that Commons is used all over the world -- by people on very fast connections with large screens and by people with dial-up connections and people with small screens. By using the default image size in galleries, you allow users to chose the size at which they will see the images. If you set a gallery with non-default settings, some users will have to scroll to see each image and may not even be able to see the whole image at once. It also means that dial-up users must download larger images than they would like. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

i understand your reasons (and i insist on those principles in wikipedia anyway), still project policies are supposed to be written down somewhere, otherwise this is only your opinion you're talking about. --Pandarine (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

MatthewFiler

Hi Jim,

I didn't evaluate who is the user, I only warned him for what he did. Do we have a policy that this account must be blocked undef because, as you say yourself there a "fifty/fifty" chance that he is actually Matthew Filer? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Image

IMHO, you made a mistake deleting File:Cristina Scarlat.jpg. ”The license on youtube is irrelevant” - it's not a valid argument. On commons exists thousends and thousends of images talen from youtube Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:YouTube_CC-BY. Would you like to recover image? --XXN (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly a valid argument, see COM:License laundering. When we see a Flickr or Youtube account that has many obvious copvios, we must assume that any license given in that account is not valid. We certainly have many valid images from Flickr and Youtube, but that does not mean that we should accept images that are obviously not correctly licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete files related to Gustavo A Delgado

Mr. James,

I required on September 18th, 2014 deletion of two pictures:

But you answered that those file will kept, I'm Leocardo user, I tried to recover my password using "Forgot your password?" but I received the message "User Leocardo doesn't have any e-mail address registered" What can I do in order to recover my password and have the capacity to delete those files?

Regards, Leocardo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.60.47.235 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 6 October 2014‎ (UTC)

  • Since you are Leocardo, I must tell you that you cannot have your files deleted. The CC-BY-SA license you gave when you uploaded the files cannot be taken back.
As for recovering your username, you can ask a bureaucrat to give you the name -- post a request on Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr. James,

Thank you for take time to answer me, the matter to delete files releated to Gustavo A Delgado, is because he, Mr. Delgado who is my boss, is worried about his personal security, initialy he was looking to create a wiki page about himself and ask to his personal assistant to create, that is because there is a .PDF file like a wiki page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GustavoDelgadoWikipedia.pdf) that I also asked to delete it; due Delgado's assistant couldn't create the wiki page, he asked me to create the site, of course the site was deleted (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavo_Delgado) but the .PDF file and pictures are still available on Wikimedia Commons and he asked me to delete it, I can post a request to bureaucrat in order to recover my user, but I'm really needing to delete those files.

As I said above, you should have thought of all that before you uploaded the files with an irrevocable license. We very rarely delete files on request and almost never after they have been here for more than a week or two. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking for pointers

Hello Jim,

My trusty old Olympus died and I'm wanting to improve my photography by getting a good DSLR. I've been trying to look around to survey what others are using and reading lots of reviews. I couldn't glean from your uploads what your equipment is so I was wondering if you might be willing to share that. If it is inappropriate to discuss brands here, I'll understand. I have my email enabled and linked from my user page if you prefer. I have gotten down to Nikon vs. Canon and I know it will be costly once I decide and take the plunge.

If you know of links to good discussions on equipment or improving photography from a Commons perspective that would be good, too. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really qualified to answer the question as my own choices are constrained by my history. As it says on my user page, "I bought my first Nikon F while in college... Subsequently, I have used ... three Nikon F3, two Nikon F4, and now a Nikon D1." Because of that history with Nikon, I own a lot of Nikon glass and it would cost me a lot of money to use anything else. However, Nikon's implementation of features in recent years means that my older Nikon lenses will not work on any but their top of the line cameras (D1, D2, D3, D4, etc.)
I do think you are correct in limiting your choice to Nikon and Canon -- over the years I have bought almost all of my Nikon glass used -- first through a local rag called The Want Advertiser and then through eBay. When buying used lenses, once you get beyond Nikon and Canon, the choices get much more limited, particularly at the ends of the spectrum -- very wide and long lenses-- and also in the specialty lenses such as perspective control (PC).
Since I think that at a given price level you will get more or less the same features and quality in either line (heresy from a fifty year Nikon user, but certainly true), I think you should look hard at the backward compatibility of the two lines. With Nikon, as I said, I can use almost any Nikon lens ever made (the exceptions are completely unimportant), but I must use their top of the line cameras. If I want to use a mid price Nikon, I must use only later, more expensive, lenses. I think that Canon has changed its lens mount over the years so that you are more limited, but that may be irrelevant if you aren't planning on springing for a high end camera.
Of course that choice is also irrelevant if you want full point and shoot capability with all lenses. I'm accustomed to focusing, so that using manual focus lenses is easy for me, particularly since Nikon D cameras provide viewfinder focus indicators for all lenses. I'm also accustomed to setting the aperture and letting the camera set the shutter speed, which Nikon also does with all lenses (this assumes that pre-F3 lenses - 1980 - have been AI modified).
You might also want to look at at the availability of any specialty equipment you might want -- there was a time when I almost bought an Olympus, because only Olympus offered a 24mm PC lens. I decided, though, to make do with my Nikon 28PC.
You'll also want to look at flash equipment. Nikon works best with its own flashes and they have changed over the years from camera to camera. I don't know about Canon.
Summing up, I don't think you can go far wrong with either. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. So the Nikon D7100 wouldn't be compatible with much of your older lenses then? This is the model that I'm leaning towards and looking at a two lens kit for a starter. I'm still trying to decipher the lens compatibilities listed under the tech specs tab as I try to compare with other lenses including Sigma and Tamron compatibles. I would want to add a good macro lens to this kit so I can photo small subjects...I'm going to look at comparisons today and admit that I don't know much about macros except that I want one. :)
So stick with the actual Nikon flashes and avoid aftermarket models. That is good to know. Anything else in the aftermarket category to avoid? Is it the same with their Li-ion batteries? I'm seeing aftermarket batteries and grips like Vello, Watson, etc. but wondering how they compare to the actual Nikon products.
Are you a Linux user by chance? I am and was discouraged when I saw the official Nikon stance on it. The D7100 comes with ViewNX but to get the best conversions from RAW (NEF) I would need Capture NX2 from what I can gather. I'm looking for how other Linux/Nikon users cope with this.
Thank you for your advice. This is very helpful as I narrow things down and get close to purchasing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Here is a list of all the Nikon lens types http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenstype.html. On the same site is a list of all Nikon lenses ever made. All but one of the ten lenses I own are AI-converted, AI, or AIS. My only AF lens is an 80-200 AF Nikor D, so I'm stuck with the high end cameras. It appears that the 7100 is in that category -- the Tech Specs tab says
"AF NIKKOR, including type G and D lenses (some restrictions apply to PC Micro-NIKKOR lenses) and DX lenses. AI-P NIKKOR lenses, and non-CPU AI lenses (exposure modes A and M only). Electronic rangefinder can be used with lenses that have a maximum aperture of f/5.6 or faster (the electronic rangefinder supports the center 1 focus point with lenses that have a maximum aperture of f/8 or faster). IX NIKKOR lenses, lenses for the F3AF, and non-AI lenses cannot be used."
which covers all of mine, although my 28-PC might be a problem. Thank you for calling my attention to the 7000/7100 series -- I wasn't aware that they had introduced a series below the D1-D5 that could use my AI lenses.
Of course, the DX format means that my selection of very wide lenses, including a monster 15mm f3.5, a 16, an 18, and a 20, are just ho-hum mid-wides instead of the ultra-wides they are on a full 35mm frame. There was a time when I was doing a lot of boat interiors and the ultra-wides were essential. Fortunately that's gone away, so I don't have to spring for a full frame digital camera.
Three or four years ago, fed up with MS issues, I worked hard at becoming a Linux user, but couldn't make it happen -- too many issues with essential software -- IIRC, I had trouble with both AutoCAD and Visual Basic using WINE, and perhaps others as well, so I stuck with MS.
I don't know about third party batteries. I have owned several third party lenses in the past, but was unhappy with both overall quality and imaging, so I'm now all Nikon in that department. I do use third party filters and all sorts of minor accessories.
If you get serious about macro work, you will probably want a bellows or at least an extension ring set. Rather than spring for a macro lens, you might want to start with an extension ring set, including one that has a 52mm thread on one side so you can mount the lens backwards on the camera -- the theory is that in macro work the object is closer to the lens than the film plane, so you get best results with the lens reversed. You could also just spring for a Micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5 AI -- an old design, but if you find one in good condition, probably under $100, it will do good work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking though eBay, it looks like you can buy a good used 7000 body for around $400-450 or a 7100 for $100 more. I don't think I've ever bought a Nikon new, so that would be my choice and spend the difference on glass. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, you may find this helpful -- as you will see, I wrote it several years ago and never did anything with it. User:Jameslwoodward/Architectural photography. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I had originally looked at the D300S but something in the official Nikon online literature (or someone's post there) drew my attention when they explained the D7100 as Nikon's suggestion for wildlife and sports photography when an FX lens is used because of the 50% increase in effective focal length achieved optically (leaving behind minor distortion from the outer areas of the FX lenses). You're in a great position from that perspective. The extra high ISO ranges helping in low light even if at a cost of increasing graininess.
I'm now starting to wonder if I should be looking at a full frame body like the D810. I've inundated myself with photography books, magazines, manuals, videos, etc. and digging through them. One impetus that had been driving me was that I was hoping to have armed myself with a quality camera before Autumn colors peaked but I've accepted that this isn't going to happen for me this year. :) Better to make a slower methodical approach and not regret purchasing decisions later.
From much reading, the status quo of running Nikon software on WINE remains the same...it doesn't work. There are Linux users who are successfully running VirtualBox or VMware upon which they install Windows or Mac OS and then install their Nikon software. This seems likely to me that this would take a performance hit because of the extra layer of OS architecture...and I'm not crazy about having to obtain a copy of Windows just for this. Apparently, Capture NX2 is now unsupported by Nikon but they released Capture NX-D which is free but has many of the features from its predecessor stripped out such as GPS support. I can see Nikon users aren't happy about losing so many features. I'm learning quite a bit about work flow as I read and the mess these changes have created for others. I'm still researching this...
Your essay is exactly the kind of thing that I had hoped to find either here on Commons or in WP namespace but hadn't turned up. Specific info like that to help Commons' photographers is gold. I envision myself doing macro work to cover articles for plants, insects, etc. but I also do have a few NRHP places on my photo wish list. There are also certain views of lighthouses that I'd like to get such as panoramic views from the light over the surrounding area, views up through (or down through) the structure showing the stairs or ladder, views of internal workings, etc. So yes, your advice offered in essays is something that I would encourage you to do more of. Commons could also possibly use a navigational tool for those who want to improve their skills. I have just discovered this category at Wikibooks but haven't delved in there yet for all that I have buried myself into already. This subcat is particularly interesting since it seems to tackle some of the issues I'd been wondering about. I'll be reading there soon but I'd boldly encourage you to go ahead and edit there.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, for you I think the full frame versus DX issue cuts the other way than for me. Since I own a number of fairly pricey wide angle lenses that will cover a full frame, I am giving away weight and size when I use them on my D1 (which is DX). You, on the other hand, are not burdened by your history, so you can take advantage of the fact that it is easier to design any lens that needs to cover a smaller image size -- that is, a DX lens for a given angle of view will be cheaper and smaller than one that will cover a full frame. A 6X tele is a 300mm covering full frame, but only a 200 in DX. A 200mm f2 AI weighs 2.3kg, while a 300mm f2 AI weighs 7.1kg (I don't have AF data easily at hand, but I'm sure they're comparable to AI). The Nikon 10–24 mm f/3.5-4.5 ED AF-S DX weighs 460g and costs $800 new from Best Buy, while my 15mm f3.5 AIS Nikkor with the same maximum width weighs 630g. It's no longer made, but sells for well above $1,000 on eBay. The image quality is probably a little better with single focus lenses, but the DX zoom would replace four lenses that I routinely carry weighing a total of 1,600g.
In fact, you've got me thinking -- maybe I'll sell the four full format wide angles, buy the 10-24 DX zoom, and pocket around $1500. Or, more conservatively, I might buy the zoom used, try it against the four wides, and then decide which to sell. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for an opinion

Hello Jim! Monopoly31121993 and I have a content dispute that is mixed with a personal dispute; they've asked for an uninvolved admin's decision. I've tangentially seen you as an admin but I don't believe I've been substantially involved with you, so I'd appreciate if you could take a look.

Last week we had a dispute on en.wikipedia about their forking an article; during the discussion on that I made a rude comment because I felt they were ignoring the views of several editors. That's probably something that they and I can resolve among ourselves; I've been cooling off before doing so because I'm stressed off-wiki and don't want that to bleed into Wikipedia.

Earlier today, they added a category to an image that I transferred from flickr a while back (and thus had watchlisted). I felt that was a mistake - it was already in several subcategories, and per COM:OVERCAT should not also be placed in the parent category. I reverted with the generic edit summary "already in subcats". They reverted that, saying "Undo revision 136402116 by Pi.1415926535 (talk) the category exists therefore it belongs there and stop stalking me". I left this comment on their talk page, noting that I'd only reverted because it was already on my watchlist and that they'd done the same thing with dozens of files that I believed should be reverted, and asked if they wanted an admin's comments before I did so. They agreed.

I believe that category addition, and several dozen others they've made in the last few days, is wrong based on COM:OVERCAT. Regardless of my personal feelings about Monopoly, I believe the files should be only in the appropriate subcategories. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, see User_talk:Monopoly31121993#File:Sounder_train.jpg .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion of File:Master Vithal and Zubeida in Alam Ara, 1931.jpg

I took it through the official forum rather than your or nominator's talk page because I thought if the nominator was right it would affect a vast number of images and hence broader discussion forum would have been better. I wasn't fully sure on my reason. Thanks for restoring it! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It cuts down on the workload by a very small amount if you take it to the deleting Admin first, but no harm done. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Will do that from next time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Fekner OTRS

Hi Jim, Thank you for informing me of my files scheduled for deletion. I wrote a letter informing Wikimedia Commons that these are my works. I need some help. Who should I email my letter to? Thanks - john fekner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fekner (talk • contribs) 19:47, 10 October 2014‎ (UTC)

  • John -- I'm sorry for this, as I know it is a nuisance, and I'm 90% sure that User:Fekner is actually the artist, but we do get good fakers claiming to be someone they are not, so we ask for confirmation whenever we get an editor who claims to be a notable person. Please send a brief note, using the instructions at OTRS, being sure to send it from your own domain and not a gmail account. OTRS has a substantial backlog -- weeks, maybe a month -- but if you drop me another note here after you have sent the e-mail, I'll handle it promptly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Jim, thank you for the info. I will send it off to OTRS, and will let you know when I do- BIG THANKS - john

Jim, I just wanted to let you know that I sent the letter to OTRS permissions-commons@wikimedia.org today -john

John, there are two problems with the OTRS e-mail. First, you did not give a general license, as described at OTRS, but only a limited one for Commons and WP. That is not enough -- both projects require a free license such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Please read OTRS.
The second problem is that you sent the message from a gmail account. When we know that an artist has his own domain (johnfekner.net), getting a permission from a gmail account only raises our suspicions. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Jim, I just sent the requested letter from my domain. john
Again you did not follow the instructions at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS.
Your letter gives us two things:
1) Permission to use the images on Commons and WP
2) A CC-BY-NC-ND license
(1) is fine thank you, but not sufficient to keep your images either place.
(2) is unacceptable -- Commons does not accept either NC or ND licenses.
Acceptable licenses (among others) are CC-0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

•Hello Jim, I resent per your instructions. thx- john

Jim, Thanks for all the guidance and support; and a BIG THANKS for all your time and effort you put in getting my pages back up. Best, John Fekner

This DR

Dear Admin Woodward,

The time is gettimg close to the end of this DR--which I admit I launched but should the image in this DR be kept or deleted. Maybe you can close this as a keep or delete either way. I don't know who is right now. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status

Jim, I am asking this question,becuase it has been a common occurring theme while I have been on Wikipedia, and you seem knowledgeable on copyright. This image here that I have uploaded (which I thought would make a great addition to its related article) [65], is used by the U.S State Department through the Rewards for Justice program,[66] who cite it as being in the public domain. My initial impression was that it was a mugshot photo taken by a U.S employee, as it didn't have an author or copyright tag but it was actually an ID photo taken in Afghanistan in the early 1990's. Therefore, I thought it was in the public domain anyway, as it way first produced in Afghanistan in the form of an ID photo. I hadn't grasped the concept of the term "published", as you can't publish a personal identification document like an ID photo. Furthermore, it turned out that the image did in fact have an author, Khalid Hadi, an afghan native, and the image was published in the United States in 2003 in a Vanity Fair article [67], the first time the image had been published ever. The image contains a copyright from Magnum Photos [68] which I later discovered. I tried to defend the version I uploaded as being in the Public domain, as it is vastly different to the original version in terms of lighting, digitization and image cropping and used by the U.S government. However, after digging further, I discovered the image was actually first published in Afghanistan in September 2002, 4-5 months before it was published in America in that media article, and used by the U.S Department of Defense [69].

My question is this: Can one version of an image be copyrighted while a derivative version be in the public domain? e.g The U.S State Department version [70] or the original version copyrighted [71] or are they both copyrighted? And my other question is if the image was first used and published by the U.S government in its place of origin (Afghanistan) could it be considered in the public domain in either the U.S or Afghanistan, or does its copyright with Magnum Photos seal the deal? Thanks. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. My first suggestion is to ask Carl Lindberg as he is very knowledgeable about the interactions of copyright law. All of what I say below is my best effort, but I usually defer to Carl on such matters.
You say:
"and the image was published in the United States in 2003 in a Vanity Fair article, the first time the image had been published ever."
but then go on to say:
"I discovered the image was actually first published in Afghanistan in September 2002"
If the first statement had been correct, then it would have a USA copyright. If the latter statement is correct, then it is PD in Afghanistan, in the USA, and most other countries. However, for Commons, you would have to prove the negative -- that it was not previously published outside of Afghanistan. Note that "published" has a special meaning in copyright law -- a work is published if a physical copy of it is made available to the public for sale or other transfer, without any agreement to keep it secret. Thus a passport photo is not published by its use in a passport, but almost any other use would constitute publication.
As for
"My question is this: Can one version of an image be copyrighted while a derivative version be in the public domain?"
the answer is "no". A derivative work has two copyrights -- that of the original work and that of the derivative. If the original is copyrighted, then the DW cannot be used with a license from the original's copyright holder. It is possible for a DW to have a copyright while the original is PD -- a good example is colorized B&W movies, but not the other way around. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, but how do you prove that something hasn't been published? This is just so murky to wade through, I have been having this discussion about this image's copyright status for more than 2 months. The U.S Defense Department distribution of the image in Afghanistan is the earliest known date that I can find, however in the 2003 Vanity Fair article it states "he was interested in selling the picture of Omar, who would surely be out of power soon... the image began to run in publications around the world." but it doesn't specify when this happened, whether these publications were before or after the U.S government used them. I can't find any publication on the Internet after copious amount of searches confirming an earlier date other than February 2003. Magnum photos has the image on their website [72] which is cited as being a copyrighted work as per the Terms and Conditions, however there is no date of when the copyright was issued, and this raises another question for me. If the copyright was issued after it was first distributed in Afghanistan, is it sill in the PD in either the U.S or Afghanistan? StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, you have to prove the negative, which is very difficult. It is hard for me to believe that an image of the head of the Taliban, taken 1996-98, was not published anywhere outside of Afghanistan before 2003. While Afghanistan was not often on the front pages until 2001, the Taliban was a subject of interest to the world. Please remember that the Internet was not as important then as it is now, and if it was published, it was likely in a newspaper or magazine that does not have back issues on line.
A copyright is not "issued" in the usual sense of the word. Copyright happens upon creation. A work can be registered, in which case the copyright office in the country of registration will confirm the registration, but registration is not required for a copyright to exist. Afghanistan is an exception to this -- at that time it had no copyright law and therefore a work that was first published there at that time has no copyright anywhere.
Magnum claims a copyright. While that may be copyfraud, it certainly raises a significant doubt that the image is PD, so I don't think we can keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I see, better to play it safe and not upload questionable copyright material. I tried contacting the U.S State Department in relation to the PD/copyright status of that image I was talking about, but they never got back to me. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Jim, I have another query regarding this discussion. Does it affect the status of the image if Magnum placed the copyright in 2004, 2 years after the U.S published it for the use of the Afghan public in Afghanistan? StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What matters is first publication. If Afghanistan (then, but not now), then it is PD and Magnum's copyright is not valid. If outside of Afghanistan, then it has a copyright and it is possible that Magnum simply licensed or bought that copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

John G. Johnson Collection

The collection was bequeathed to the City, and is on permanent loan to PMA. From the 1930s to the 1980s, the Johnson Collection was exhibited at PMA as a separate collection. A new 100-year loan was negotiated in the 1980s, which allowed PMA (for the first time) to integrate the art into its full collection. My choice of "housed" was deliberate. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The article at WP:EN tells it slightly differently -- that in the 1980s the museum took full control and integrated it into its collection. After reading the cite that supports that description, http://www.philadelphiabar.org/page/TPLWinter07Johnson?appNum=2, I agree that the facts are not quite as described on WP:EN, but I think that you need to fix that first, then the sentence on Commons. I'm not sure I would use "housed" -- perhaps "on loan to the Museum until at least 2083"..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
PMA's website uses "housed" and "administered by," but it may be less confusing to leave it as it is. I added the 100-year loan to the Wikipedia article.
Johnson's collection truly is extraordinary. And the way that he amassed it himself over the summers (while the Supreme Court was not in session) is amusing. There are plenty of duds, but also plenty of masterpieces. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. And then there's the Barnes.... .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this picture being deleted or not?

Dominic James - http://www.dominic-james.com/goodwood-72mm-2014

Hi, I'm looking to use an existing picture in an article, but the picture has a speedy deletion note on it from July 2014. Does this mean that it's alright to use, or should it be ignored? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:72MM_14_DominicJames_2550_(a).jpg

As far as I know, it's being used in two articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savile_Row_tailoring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Poole_%26_Co

I was not the original uploader, nor have anything to do with it- I just want to use it. Richard Nowell (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted, restored, deleted again, and then restored, all during a messy OTRS sequence. The DR tag was inadvertently left in place -- I have removed it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks for your help: I will use it as above. Richard Nowell (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Hommageur

Hi Jim, you made some assumptions concerning the pictures in Heidi Brunnbauer's book. I am prepared for an assumption-by-assumption discussion. If necessary followed by a file-by-file discussion. Is this the right place to do it ? Hommageur (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Guess so.

Your assumption 1: "Some of these are quite old, so it is obvious that not all, perhaps none, of these images were actually photographed by Heidi Brunnbauer." My comment : The book is about Hellmuth Marx *1915. I am 63, Heidi is, well, older than I am, but let us assume for the sake of simplicity that none of these images were actually photographed by Heidi Brunnbauer née Pichler-Stainern. But let me assure you that there are Pichler-Stainern family archives. Heidi has access to these archives. And Heidi has access to the archives of all the "participating families". Please note that the book is also about the sculptures, paintings, drawings etc. by Hellmuth Marx. Many of them are owned by members of these "participating families" including myself. These members have taken many photographs for Heidi's book and have transferred the copyrights to Heidi. In fact they, including myself, own the original works of art, so why not give the copyrights of their photographs to Heidi ?

Your assumption 2: "Usually, people putting photos in books either don't bother with copyright, or get a license that covers only the use in the book -- not a general license." My comment : Heidi has written many books and of course she is used to bother with copyrights. In the case of this book things are especially simple because the "participating families" willingly have given her licenses that cover the use in the book PLUS the use in Wikipedia, i.e. a general license.

So the only thing to (potentially) worry about could be the pics of the sculptures etc. not owned by members of the "participating families" in the public area such as the River Drau Bridge, the Oberdrauburg Market Fountain, ... To make a long story short, this is why exactly 1 (one) pic had to be excluded from the general license. Neither I with my bad eyesight nor my sons or younger relatives are allowed to upload this single pic. Shure Heidi cares. And we appreciate that you care.

Sound convincing ? Hommageur (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate your polite note, knowledge of the problem, and general reasoning, I don't fully agree with you.

First, I'm 71 myself and I wasn't taking photos in 1941, or even 1951. It's certainly possible for someone living today to have taken a 1941 image, but whenever we see images of that age, we question them.

Second, you assume that ownership of the photographs and works of art equates to ownership of the copyrights. That's not correct. As a general rule, the copyrights will be owned by the heirs of the artists and photographers. That means that for Commons purposes you will have to provide evidence of licenses by the appropriate heirs in each case. Since all of Marx's works are still under copyright, that will be two licenses, one for the art work and one for the image. If the only works of art pictured are by Hellmuth Marx, then one OTRS e-mail from his heirs will be good for them. Generally that can be from one of the heirs, who must declare that he or she is authorized to speak for all of them. The photographs will require e-mails from each of the photographers or, if the photographer is dead, his heirs.

Finally, you talk about "PLUS the use in Wikipedia, i.e. a general license." Both Commons and WP require licenses not just for WP and Commons, but for any use by anyone, including commercial use and derivative works. As a rule this must be in one of several forms acceptable to Commons, the most common being CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or CC-0.

All of this is certainly doable, but it is nowhere near as simple as having Ms. Brunnbauer send a note to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is well understood that both Commons and WP require licenses not just for WP and Commons, but for any use by anyone, including commercial use and derivative works; thank you for mentioning the most common acceptable forms.

The only works of art pictured are by Hellmuth Marx. So one OTRS e-mail from his heirs will be good for them. Hellmuth Marx had no wife, no children. He had 4 sisters among whose children I shall contact the legal / designated heirs and make them nominate a speaker. This will take some time (no PCs, no internet). So all I am asking for is some patience so we can as a first step get the required OTRS e-mail from the speaker of the heirs.

This being accomplished, we shall tackle the photographers' emails including one from myself. Hommageur (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

For starters, you might change the "Author=" line on the descriptions in all cases where the photo is not actually your own work. Also, please note that the DR is more than a week old, so one of my colleagues may well close it and delete the images. Never fear, they can be restored easily, including the descriptions, when the licenses are in place. If you put a message here when you have the two licenses for the first batch of images -- your own photos, perhaps -- I can shepherd them through OTRS and restoration. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Jim for these helpful hints and for giving hope. Wilco Hommageur (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Veltnis_Arena_Luftaufnahme_2014.jpg

Hello Jameslwoodward! It is often annoying to see that time-consuming (and money-cosuming) images are deleted. But I understand that you are only executing an (imho partially out-dated) FoP policy. I am wondering how I can properly upload the aerial shot of this arena. Can I upload the image again with the same name, File:Veltnis Arena Luftaufnahme 2014.jpg and add an {{OTRS pending}} template or will this image immediately deleted due to the previous deletion request? My previous experiences show that architects ignore emails from wikipedia users in most of the cases. VERY VERY pity for such useful shots. Nonetheless I will give this image a try. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It is also annoying when issues such as this are argued again and again. The question of German FOP from places other than public ways and streets has been argued many times and is well settled on Commons. It is clear to Commons that the place from which the photograph was taken must be public. Helicopters are specifically mentioned at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany. If you want to change our understanding of the German law, go ahead and try, but the place to do that is not here or at any single DR.
It is against policy, and a waste of computer resources and Admin time to upload the image again. If you can get the architect to give a free license using OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when the OTRS ticket is processed. Note that OTRS is running a significant backlog, so it could be several weeks or even a month before that happens. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward, I agree with you that your talk page is the wrong place to discuss about German law. But let me just mention that the situation is not such clear as your statement German FOP from places other than public ways and streets has been argued many times and is well settled on Commons suggest. Aerial photographs are actively funded by Wikimedia Deutschland. Aerial shots from non-public places (e.g. from an airplane) are not per se a copyright violation. In such cases the question if the copyright of the architect is affected at all is influenced by the way how the objects is photographed and if the object reaches the level of creativity. I am missing such sensitivity by the admins on Commons, they mechanically execute the German FoP policy. I cannot really see why you complain about the time which is necessary to process such DRs. I can assure you that aerial shots and its post-processing are VERY time-cossuming and it is really pity that these shots are obviously mechanically deleted by the admins independently of the arguments given on the appropriate DR page. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, if you feel strongly that Commons policy on the subject is wrong, then, by all means, attempt to change it. I don't read German and am by no means expert in German law, so I must rely on the clear summary of the law at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany. Until and unless that is changed, Admins will continue to ignore arguments made in specific DRs.
You say "mechanically deleted" as if that were bad. Actually, being able to delete something rapidly because it is in clear violation of our summary of the law is good -- it means that we have more time available for difficult cases. Commons gets around 10,000 new images every day. We delete around 1,500 of them. About 25 Admins do 90% of that work and we are currently falling behind the inflow. Of necessity we must rely on summaries of the law and, as I said above, a single DR is not the place to change our understanding of the law.
You obviously feel strongly about this. Fine, spend the time and effort and attempt to change Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany -- but don't complain about images which are deleted that clearly violate the current version. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please check this photo.

Hi, I'm wondering whether you could check a photo and its licence? I asked a business (Dege & Skinner) if they had an example photo of some of their product, stating in my email: "Do you have a picture that could be put on to Wikimedia Commons so that anyone can use it?".

Their PR Cass Stainton emailed me back a photo which I have uploaded under a 'Public Domain' licence. This may be too free, so I would like your opinion if possible. As far as I can judge, the photo has been given to me to upload to WikiCommons for anyone to use. I am waiting for a reply from that business to see how they feel. This is the pic:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Overcoat_with_3-piece_business_suit_web.jpg

Thankyou for any help you can give. Richard Nowell (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. On the one hand you asked for an image for Commons and they gave one -- strictly speaking, they should not have given the image if they did not understand our requirements. However, I doubt that they really do -- I think we need a license from them, using OTRS. As you say, PD seems too free, but you can't simply slap on a license that you choose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou for your reply. The supplier of the photo has asked for credit to be given when the photo is used. So I have emailed the person involved asking that they give formal permission under: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ I will then forward that email to OTRS. I think this is the correct way to proceed. Richard Nowell (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/False Namecoin Logos

Hi, why did you delete all files of this DR? While I agree that most of them were out of scope, I don't think we should keep one of the two logos as it is unclear which one is the generally used version.    FDMS  4    14:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I read the consensus to be that they were all out of scope. All the ones I checked were not in use.
I'm not sure I understand:
"I don't think we should keep one of the two logos as it is unclear which one is the generally used version."
Do you mean that you think we should keep both, or neither?
I don't feel strongly about this one, so if you make a suggestion that seems sensible, I'll do it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
There were two DR discissions in one. One were about the art works which were out of scope, and one were about the logos themself (which is why the DR was started. They were not in use, since the had been unlinked on WIkipedia pending this DR, sinced there are two versions of the logo. One blue and one purple(?). Both of those should be kept, per the discussions, the rest should be deleted as out of scope. Josve05a (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
One about "false logos" (consensus: keep), one about media copyvios (consensus: delete) and one about scope (consensus: delete; equals three btw). Please restore at least the deleted basic logo version(s) (not necessarily derivative works of it).    FDMS  4    22:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • OK -- I restored
File:Namecoin Logo 2 SVG.svg
File:Namecoin SVG.svg

both of which are the purple version. I do not think I deleted any of the blue version. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, done, thanks!    FDMS  4    19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for temporary undeletion

Hi Jim,

I am one of organisers of Wiki Loves Monuments in Ukraine and I have noticed you have deleted one or several images illustrating Ukrainian monuments. We would like to copy these images to Ukrainian Wikipedia (we do accept non-free content) and we want to use them at least in monument lists and articles about cities and villages, and also in articles about monuments (we will have an article contest in November) and about people connected with monuments (if it's a grave, a plaque etc. or created by a notable author) if those exist. Those images are very valuable, as many of these monuments have no illustrations on the Internet at all. Unfortunately, deleted images can't be undeleted via API, and I understand that undeleting identical images is a useless work (as we will only copy one main image + possibly some images of important details), so I kindly ask you to do the following:

  • Please undelete the image of the best quality for each concerned monument (to be used as a main article image)
  • Please also undelete all useful images of details of each monument (especially plaques for notable people living in buildings, we will use them in articles about those people)

Once you undelete these images, we will move them to ukwiki using bot (an example of bot's work is uk:Файл:War museum, Kyiv 6.jpg) and I will inform you once it's done so that you can delete them. If you do not want to undelete these images, please consider uploading them locally to Ukrainian Wikipedia, and we will correct descriptions ourselves.

The concerned DRs are:

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Best regards — NickK (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The first is easy -- it's one file and I have undeleted it.
The second is harder -- it is 50+ files. It takes six page loads to examine and undelete a file -- that's an hour's work. Do you have any idea of which of the 50+ files you want?
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately the first one is of an extremely poor quality, and we have a better local Файл:Hotel ukraine.jpg, thus you may delete it back
Concerning the second one: will it make sense for you to do the batch undeletion and then the batch deletion back? It would be much easier to analyse the files when you can see them. If not, files that were in use should be enough. Please also temporarily undelete:
Thanks — NickK (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Please let me know when you are done with them all. I'd suggest that you look at all of the Wiki Loves Monuments in Ukraine images and make local copies of all the problems -- you might also tag them for deletion. At least watch carefully for DRs -- it's inevitable that in a country with no FOP that many images of monuments are going to be problems. We had the same problem earlier with the sister project in the USA -- even the image on the page that introduced the project was a DW and was deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Jameslwoodward. INeverCry did some undeletions and then decided to send further requests to COM:UDEL (User talk:INeverCry#Request for temporary undeletion), you seem to be ok with proceeding requests in here. But perhaps you guys shall do it one way? The tast is the same and it'd be nice to have it proceeded by one procedure. I'd say better to held it all in one place as well rather than scattered amongst sysops' talk pages. --BaseSat (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I did those above because they were almost all files that I had deleted. Undeletions, as I said above, take six page loads each, so it takes around a minute for each one. That will suck up a lot of Admin time that could better be used elsewhere. There are hints on INC's talk page that there may be a bot way to do it. You can also ask the original uploader to reload them at WP:UK. Since they are all recent uploads, that should be easy. Also, as INC suggested, I think that you should take the necessary action to transfer files before they are deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Denkmal der grauen Busse Deletion

Hi Jim, part of the above linked DR discussion was the concept of the two bus sculptures: one of them is mobile with temporary installations (no FOP applicable), one – the one in Weißenau – is a permanent installation (FOP applicable). You can see a proof of the permanent installation in the documentation of the artists. Please undelete the five files with "Weißenau/Weissenau" in their names, the last 5 items in the list. (I could do it myself if you don't have time, just don't want to overrule your decision without talking). Thanks! --Elya (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Elya (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS permission for Linda Hess Miller photographs

Hello,

I was trying to add the OTRS tags for Category:Photographs by Linda Hess Miller (ticket 2014091610002391) with my bot but it's not working since there is an extra confirmation page for non-OTRS users. Any other way it could be done (except modifying the Pywikipediabot code to deal with it)? InverseHypercube 22:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have just used Visual File Change this way for the first time -- the pulldown at the upper left allows you to "append text", which is what you want to do. If some reason it doesn't work for you -- the extra confirmation, perhaps -- let me know and I'll do it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks! HypercubeBot (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorcerer's Hat

Hi, Jim; I don't understand your closing comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sorcerers Hat at Disneys Hollywood Studios by eddison moreno.jpg. All of the items you cite as not protected by FOP are supporting elements of the hat structure, which you agree counts as a building. Without those supporting elements, the hat wouldn't serve its structural function! And the artistic elements thereof seem to be de minimis anyway, since the focus of the image is on the hat proper.

Had you made these arguments as part of the discussion, I could have addressed them, but by making them as part of the closure, you've cut off debate. Would you consider re-opening the discussion?

-- Powers (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I think you may be right with respect the spiral but the hand is not actually holding up the hat -- there is another spiral supporting the hat that is mostly hidden by the hand so the hand is not part of the building. Also, the gold three spiral structure under the left side of the hat, just to the right of the hand, is clearly not holding up the hat and is also clearly copyrighted as sculpture. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
But again, those are de minimis, surely. Powers (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so, although I agree that it's not a completely obvious decision. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Since it's not completely obvious, I think you should have raised that possibility as part of the discussion rather than closing the discussion using that as a rationale, without allowing anyone to rebut. I ask again if you would consider re-opening the discussion. Powers (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Reopened .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

These images

Dear Admin Woodward,

I hope that these architectural details here have no impact with FOP since this modern building from 2006 is in France which has no COM:FOP. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like all the images are DWs of the architect's copyright and should be tagged for deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Created on the wrong URL

Hi Jameslwoodward, Recently I created the page Design/Scenarios in the wrong url, and it was deleted. It was intended to be at Commons:Structured_data/Design/Scenarios where it makes sense as part of the designs for the Structured Data project. Would it be possible to have access to the deleted content so that it is easier to add it to the right place?

Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience.

--Pginer-WMF (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yogi Berra

re Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yogi Berra Plaque.png

An unpublished original work does not need a copyright notice to have a copyright. Putting a sculpture on display is not publishing it.

http://copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf

To me, there needs to be proof of publication without a copyright notice.

Compare: copies of Yogi Berra's Hall of Fame plaque were published as HoF postcards. Those postcards did not contain a copyright notice, so Berra's Hall of Fame plaque is not copyrighted.

Where is the proof that this plaque (which is not the HoF plaque) was published?

Glrx (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The more important copyright here is not as a sculpture, but as a literary work. In order to remain "not published", a work must never be photographed and a literary work must never be quoted. Publication does not require that a work be sold, it can be given away (by allowing photographs, for example). There are a few sculptures formerly on Commons that have been deleted because it could be shown that the owner prevented photography and did not sell postcards or other images, but it doesn't happen often. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Files uploaded by hommageur (revival of #121 "Files uploaded by hommageur")

Jim, I have been able to identify 6 heirs to the Austrian sculptor Hellmuth Marx who died in 2002. 3 of them deceased between 2003 and 2009. Furthermore, 3 heirs to the latter ones have been identified, 2 of them deceased between 2009 and 2013. Question 1: As a rule, we do not need formal proofs for each and every successorship but just one email from a living speaker of the remaining heirs, correct ? Question 2: There is at least one exception to the rule that requires this declaration concerning the copyrights to the works of art from the speaker of the heirs. It is the freedom of panorama that seems to apply to all of Marx' works of art visible from public areas in Austria, correct ? Are there other exceptions to the rule ? Question 3: What happens if not all the identified heirs/ heirs to heirs can be contacted, or in the case that I might not have been able to identify one of these persons ? Question 4: Is it possible that an artist or one of his heirs rightfully transfers all or some of his "copyrights to the works of art" to another person or institution without any clearly visible indication to the public ? Could this be done in a will or by contract ? Hommageur (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I am speaking generally and Austrian law might make different provisions, although I think that is unlikely.

1) I think that if one speaker says that all of the heirs agree to the license, that should suffice. If, however, they do not all agree, then the works cannot be licensed. Note that I am assuming that Marx's will did not make specific provisions for his copyrights -- that they devolved to all of his heirs. If the will named a single or made other provisions, then, of course, that governs.

2) FOP would allow free license of the works provided the location met the FOP requirements of the country in which they are located. There are other unlikely possibilities -- if a work was published in a book or catalog and it could be shown that Marx gave the publisher a general license instead of one specific to the book, then the publisher could sub license the work here. That's very unlikely. More possible is that one of his works might have been exhibited to the general public in the USA before 1978 without notice -- it would be PD here in the USA and therefore OK for Commons.

3) Unless someone is willing to state that all of the heirs approve of the license, then the work cannot be licensed -- it is an orphan work -- one where there is a copyright but it cannot be licensed. Note that I am hedging a little here -- I think we could accept a statement from a responsible party that all of the heirs approve -- that's not quite actually getting the approval of all, but I think it will suffice.

4) Transfers and licenses of copyrights must be in writing. A single heir can transfer only his or her own interest, not the whole thing. Wills are public documents, but Marx could have transferred or licensed some or all of his works before his death without it being public. In the USA, generally transfers of copyright are registered with the USCO, but I don't know about Austria.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

thx jim, this helps. Hommageur (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You have been right, Jim. "It" seems to be doable: The identification of all heirs to the artist required me to contact quite a number of Austrian probate courts (Innsbruck, Klagenfurt, Vienna Josefstadt, Spittal an der Drau to name just a few). Some of theses local courts had to be contacted several times. Looks like there have been no provisions in wills or contracts afa copyrights to Hellmuth Marx' works of art are concerned. But just to make sufficiently shure, I am still trying to find out about the existence of some sort of Austrian USCO.
The heirs involved are not young, few of them have access to email. Electronic obituary notices like ASPETOS or TRAUERHILFE still seem to be the exception rather than the rule in Austria, so many phone calls and guesses are necessary. Somewhat surprisingly, everybody knew who was calling and addressed me with the informal "Du" plus Christian name. So I am confident everyone will approve of the licence, afa the works of art and the fotos of the artist are concerned. There is no special email form for this declaration of all living heirs in this context, is there ? Hommageur (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes -- someone, as we have discussed, speaking for all of the heirs, must give us a license using the procedure at OTRS, marking it up a little to match the circumstances. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Jim,

regarding,

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Analysis (Osnabrück 2014-2016) Teil I Vorlesung 2.pdf

I have uploaded the slightly renewed pdf-file under the 'right name', which is linked to from the German wikiversity. therefore this file can be deleted. We (professor and secretary) have been using Wikiversity for course material for six years, now the print version is migrating to commons, so there are some starting problems, where we may need your help. Please also have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mgausmann, where somebody wants to delet everything. best--Bocardodarapti (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said at the DR for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Analysis (Osnabrück 2014-2016) Teil I Vorlesung 2.pdf, an incorrect name is not a reason to delete the file -- it is easy to move it. If revisions were necessary, they should have been uploaded over the old file. This is not a big deal, but deleting File:A and uploading slightly revised File:B is a small waste of Commons computer and human resources.
I have commented at the other DR -- I think you will have to keep an eye on your files for a while, until active Admins like me and Eugene learn of the change. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Rico Carty

Hi. Could you please review the Creative-Commons license from:

that i uploaded. I referred to:

and its marked with:

Thanks. --Gary Dee (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No Sorry. Thanks. --Gary Dee (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Permission from copyright holder

Jim, I'm sorry to disturb you, but I recently contacted a copyright holder of a photograph if I could upload his image to Wikipedia using a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and he agreed. I don't know what to do now, as I don't know if he has filled out the ticket form for the OTRS (Which I included in a link in the email). His works have been used on Wikipedia before, so I'm sure he is familiar with the procedure. You're a member of the OTRS permission thing, so how can I find the ticket, if it works like that? Thanks. StanMan87 (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't ever worry about "disturbing" me -- or any other Admin, for that matter. We're here because we want to help the project along in whatever way is useful.
I can do a text search on OTRS for the message, but I'll need something to search on -- his name, the name of the image, or anything else that seems logical -- they come back with the most recent first, so even if his name is "John Smith", I should be able to find it, but give me whatever you have. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks allot. The author is Hamid Mir, he is the same individual who allowed Wikipedia to use this file [73]. StanMan87 (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
At the moment, the only OTRS ticket with his name is the one authorizing the use of the image you cited, which dates from 2009. I'll check again in a few days. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I assume you sent the OTRS e-mail yesterday with Hamid Mir's permission. Normally we prefer to have the license come directly from the photographer, but I think we can accept this one. You may upload the image and add {{PermissionOTRS|id=2014110910015359}} to the bottom of the file description. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Photography File Names

Aloha Jim!

I frequently upload concert photos to Wikimedia Commons, you can check em' out on my user page. As I continue to learn more and more about contributing to Wikimedia, and Wikipedia, I learn what is what is considered bad practice, and good practice. Thanks for doing such great work. So here are my questions:

1. I noticed that certain file names of photos have been deleted off of Wikimedia Commons. From what I have observed, this happens most when someone doesn't upload original content. When given the correct oppurtunity, is it okay to upload a photo that I take with the same file name as previously deleted image?

2. I have copy and pasted the editing from my user page on Wikipedia, to my user page on Wikimedia Commons. I noticed that the infoboxes dont show up. Is there a way to fix this?

Mahalo for your time and your contributions! Peter Chiapperino (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Peter:
Yes, it is OK to reuse names of deleted files if they are appropriate. I wouldn't use one if it had been deleted recently -- in the last six months or so.
Commons templates are often different from those on WP:EN. We also use them differently. Because Commons is a multi-lingual project, the most used user page template is a babel box. Admins are required to have one (see, for example, User:Jameslwoodward) and most other active Commons users also have one.
See Category:User templates for other possibilities, and take a look at {{User info}} and {{Userboxtop}} / {{Userboxbottom}} which might meet your needs.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Mozel W.

Hi Jim, thanks for the notice. I contacted Snježana Kordić using the email address (kordic.snjez@gmail.com) on her website if I could upload diagrams from her books to Wikipedia and she agreed. I don't know what the next step is, probably someone should send her the ticket form for the OTRS, but I'm not familiar with that. Thanks.--Mozel W. (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to ask her to go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS and follow the instructions there. Although I believe you that she consented, "to Wikipedia" is too limited a license, which is why we require a formal e-mail from the person giving the license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Thank you for your work with these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello James

Did you know polish? If not please don't finish my deletion request. Sorry for my english. --polar123 (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about:
When you put a message on a talk page, it is helpful to link the subject so that the recipient doesn't have to search for it.
Your English is fine. Google translate usually does a pretty good job, so we often use it. In this case, since there is no copyright problem and the images are of important cultural sites, there is no reason to delete them. I don't need to read Polish to understand that your DR had no basis in Commons policy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
When you put a message on a talk page, it is helpful to link the subject so that the recipient doesn't have to search for it.

Thanks for advice. I'm new on wiki and commons. My DR have basis in Commons policy. I think that license CC-BY-SA-3.0PL was broken by Commons. BTW This monuments have other pic on commons.--polar123 (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think Commons broke the license? That certainly should not happen. I will investigate if you tell me what you think is wrong. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
On this page https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Images_from_Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2014_in_Poland&from=B and others are my pictures. Where is Attribution ? Where is information that are transform? I know that they is link on miniatures but on "Terms of Use" is "Attribution: Attribution is an important part of these licenses. We consider it giving credit where credit is due – to authors like yourself. When you contribute TEXT, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions:
Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article to which you contributed (since each article has a history page that lists all authors and editors);(...)
TEXT not pictures. About pictures is: Non-text media: Non-text media on the Projects are available under a variety of different licenses that support the general goal of allowing unrestricted re-use and re-distribution. When you contribute non-text media, you agree to comply with the requirements for such licenses as described in our Licensing Policy, and also comply with the requirements of the specific Project edition or feature to which you are contributing. Also see the Wikimedia Commons Licensing Policy for more information on contributing non-text media to that Project. --polar123 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Your point of view would have it that all images on Commons that are used on Wikipedia and most other places do not have the correct attribution. That simply is not correct. Throughout all WMF projects, including Commons, attribution is by a click-through link -- if you click on any image, you go to the page which has, among other things, the required attribution. Click-through links are a perfectly acceptable mean of attribution under CC-BY licenses, which require "Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit."
From the FAQ at CreativeCommons.org
"Additionally, you may satisfy the attribution requirement by providing a link to a place where the attribution information may be found."
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Your point of view would have it that all images on Commons that are used on Wikipedia and most other places do not have the correct attribution.
Yes.
That simply is not correct.
I don’t think so.

Throughout all WMF projects, including Commons, attribution is by a click-through link -- if you click on any image, you go to the page which has, among other things, the required attribution. No. In Terms of use is only about TEXT.

Click-through links are a perfectly acceptable mean of attribution under CC-BY licenses, which require "Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit." I don’t care about the image of other people but I would like to mine were labeled in accordance with the CC-BY-SA-3.0 PL. The license is a clear record that is to be marked with name or a pseudonym author. I do not think it is unreasonable. Just because someone did not tag all the images does not mean that no broken of the license.

From the FAQ at CreativeCommons.org "Additionally, “ of course additionally. “you may satisfy” – I’m not satisfy

And look it :

"All CC licenses require users to attribute the creator of licensed material, unless the creator has waived that requirement, not supplied a name, or asked that her name be removed. Additionally, you must retain a copyright notice, a link to the license (or to the deed)'Tekst tłustą czcionką', a license notice, a notice about the disclaimer of warranties, and a URI if reasonable. For versions prior to 4.0, you must also provide the title of the work. (Though it is not a requirement in 4.0, it is still recommended if one is supplied.) You must also indicate if you have modified the work—for example, if you have taken an excerpt, or cropped a photo. (For versions prior to 4.0, this is only required if you have created an adaptation by contributing your own creative material, but it is recommended even when not required.) It is not necessary to note trivial alterations, such as correcting a typo or changing a font size. Finally, you must retain an indication of previous modifications to the work." Where is information that photos was modified? anywhere. If you want to help me delete all my photos. I think polish administrators like CLI Yarl or Polimerek will be very pleased.

Sorry, but I am not going to debate this any more with you. Commons and all of WMF attributes images with a click-through. Your images, and everybody else's are correctly attributed in accordance with the license. I am not going to delete your images and I will oppose any request that they be deleted.
I'd be very surprised if any WMF Admin disagreed with me, but I would be happy to discuss it with them here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear Jim, just for your info, I blocked his account indef since he kept nominating files even after your explanation. He even renominated files which where kept and I doubt that we can expect any useful contributions from him in the foreseeable future. Natuur12 (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your intervention. I agree that he was a nuisance and didn't seem to be understanding that he was challenging every image on WMF, but perhaps an indef is too much? Maybe we could involve a Polish speaker? At least one of his images was probably useful, so I hate to just ban him. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I can certainly agree with that and when everything is solved he should be unblocked but indef isn't forever, just untill a solution has been reached. Otherwise we will cause us hours of adminwork. Natuur12 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Brittany Maynard

Hi. Could you please make a demand (or tell me a place where i could do this), for the authorization of this pic:

into the german article about her

as: this image will only be used on the "Brittany Maynard" page., as i am not sure if there is a possibility to do that..? Thx. --Gary Dee (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the rules on WP:DE -- the image is used on WP:EN as "fair use". If that is permitted on WP:DE, then you just need to follow the rules there. If not, then you cannot use it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Then i guess it will not be (able) being used, so far i know & guess. Do you know someone please, who is in a kind more familiar with copyrights (...and so) between diverse (international) WP-Projects, as i guess that the copyright holder (in particular someone of her Picture) could be handled inbetween the different Articles in all of the WP-Projects worldwide..? Thanks. --Gary Dee (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
For this specific problem, we have a lot of Admins who speak German -- see Commons:List_of_administrators_by_language. There are a lot of good people there, so it's hard to pick, but among the most active on Commons are Denniss, Elcobbola, Krd, and Túrelio.
For the more general problem you posed, almost any Admin or experienced user can answer questions -- fundamentally you will need images that are either PD or have one of the Commons permitted licenses, the most commons being CC-0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh man, seems pretty much housekeeping for just one simple Picture ;) . I will transfer this on my disc-page, so in case i (will) would need it. Thanks :) --Gary Dee (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

CU

Hi Jim, there's job for you :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Himno-Nacional-Orquestado.ogg

James.

You deleted this file. The reasons exposed by Green Giant may be correct, but neither answered my comment about this orchested version of a derivated work of the XIX century (a National Anthem!) is already in the Public Domain or not. Almost all of these kind of works from the Government of Chile are licensed under the CC-BY-SA license (that allows commercial uses and therefore is allowed in Commons). Also, converting the file from MP3 to OGG don't break the works, because is a format change only, and CC-BY-SA CC-BY allows them. I think to remove an official symbol of a country (like a National Anthem) is a very disruptive action, because these are the official versions of them, regardless the non-official versions of them on the Web.

Anyway, I'll contact to the Government of Chile according to the Ley de Transparencia in order to get legal information about the official symbols like the National Anthem and its ussage on Websites like Commons. This my second time that I need to contact to the Government for issues with files from the Government of Chile, uploaded to Commons. Therefore, the answer given to me will prevail over the contents of the cited website. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

First, changing from MP3 to OGG is clearly making a derivative work -- similar to changing from color to B&W or vice versa, both of which are DWs. Although that would be allowed by the CC license, the privacy policy forbids DWs and the rules of construction require us to take the more specific -- the privacy policy written for this site -- over the more general CC license.
Second, the national anthem, as a work, may well be PD, but musical works have many copyrights and it is not clear that all of them are PD in this case. Orchestral works have separate copyrights for the music, for the lyrics (if any), for the arrangement (the composer of a national anthem usually writes it for one instrument -- an orchestra requires that it be arranged for all the orchestral instruments), and for the performance itself. Even if the government says that the work is PD, please make sure that you can prove that the government actually owns the copyright to the performance -- I don't know the Chilean law on the subject, but in the USA for that to be true, all of the orchestra would have to be employees of the Federal government. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
changing from MP3 to OGG is clearly making a derivative work -- similar to changing from color to B&W or vice versa... WTF? You're right mentioning the interpretations of older works have different copyright holders, but mentioning the format change compared compared to color change is a huge mistake (different format gives the same output, in contrast to color changes, obviously); I expect I'm not wrong with them.
I agrere there is a problem with the interpretation of the ussage. The Políticas de privacidad (Supreme Decree N° 100 of 2006 ) forbids the commercial ussages, the main reason of the deletion of the file. But there is a newer, official document published in 2010 as part of a refference of the Law 19.032. The newer document don't explicitilly prevails over the older one, but the Laws prevails over the Supreme Decrees.
Anyway, as chilean, I just contacted to the Government of Chile. Once they answered my question, I'll contact to OTRS to clarify the ussage of these files. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I know too little for expressing an informed opinion, Jim, but shouldn't be the spell of a legitimate Government authoritative enough on such matter? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, the specific trumps the general. Of course, if it turns out that the specific is an error or illegal, then it will go away, but for now we're stuck with the policy set forth on the site. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Please continue the discussion in the [[74]], I provided important information about the licensing of the file. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: Jim, I just recived the answer from the Government of Chile. I sended a message to OTRS with the forwarded message, and also in the UD thread. As you as OTRS member, please take this case and please restore the file as soon as possible. Thanks. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • It's ticket #2014111710019689. The OTRS e-mail refers me to an attachment which is an image of a document. I don't read Spanish, and Google translate can't deal with an image, so I'm not qualified to handle it -- we have many Spanish speaking Admins. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi FOP deletions

Hi Jameslwoodward, could you please explain your uncommented deletions at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Monument_to_the_unknown_soldier_(6966336236).jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bagdad_moschee01.jpg? I had also asked meta:User_talk:Slaporte (WMF)#WLM and iraqi FOP deletions but haven't got any responses or reasons. --Atlasowa (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

About 25 Admins delete 1,500 images every day, so we work fast and do not comment on closures where the reason for deletion is both straightforward and set forth in the discussion.
As explained there, the monuments are copyrighted -- all such works are copyrighted in every country for a period which varies from country to country. Therefore, any image of them is a derivative work of the copyrighted monument and infringes on the creator's rights. In some countries, this is permitted for works that are permanently located in public places, but that is not the case in Iraq.
You seem to think that somehow this is a change, but copyright is universal -- every country has it and it has been in place in Iraq for many years -- at least since 1971 according to our summary at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Iraq. Recent changes have extended the term of copyright somewhat, but these monuments would still be under copyright even under the 1971 law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Sexy Dolphin.jpg

Hi! You forgot to delete the file. --Juggler2005 (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Occasionally DelReqHandler, the script that almost all Admins use to close DRs, hiccups and doesn't do what it is told. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Israel Hernandez was allegedly Tasered to death by Miami Beach Police officers the 6th august 2013- 2013-08-07 23-37.jpg

Hi Jim,

Do you think {{PD-FLGov}} apply here? Thanks for your input. Reagrds, Yann (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No. As I just said at the DR, I think the image was taken in a high school classroom, probably by one of his classmates. There's no reason in the world why MBPD would have taken such an image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Gonzaga 28-08

hello MR. Jameslwoodward I am writing to tell you chelas following user she is not being blocked by a1cb3.. from what I saw, seeing the 'user,, is not any act of vandalism. seems to have been nominated for no reason by 'user Caarl 95

then,, I would like to ask you if he can unlock the 'user, because the 'user is not absolutely be a sockpuppet --82.50.34.128 19:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL thanks Jim, you saved me the hard job of blocking him :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Umm-ul-Banin-Salaam.jpg

Dear Admin Jim,

Can you consider marking (passing or failing) this image? It appears to come from a fickrwashing account but the design may be too simple to be copyrighted. I don't know here, Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I stuck a Flickrreview on it for the record. I don't read Arabic, but calligraphy in any language does not have a copyright in the USA and I don't think it is long enough to have a literary copyright. It is possible that calligraphy does have a copyright in its country of origin, but since I don't know where that is, I have no opinion. I think it's probably OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

London Treaty (1915)

Why was london treaty image with Croatian captions deleted, but the very identical one, but with captions in Slovenian, left standing? What happened? --Bojovnik (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no conspiracy against Croation speakers here -- I have no opinion about such matters on either side. I wish that we could all just do our volunteer work here without implicit accusations of conspiracy. Such things are very rare among the very active Admins -- we have too much work to do to take sides in debates.
I deleted a file and all of the derivatives that were listed in it. The file you mention wasn't one of those listed, so I didn't know it existed. If it had been listed I would have deleted and I have done so now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, but what is the reason for deletion in general? By the way, I'm not trying to construct a conspiracy here, but when I asked a friend to make a Croatian version of the Slovenian map, someone tried endlessly to delete it. We are all volunteers and I appreciate your work, but I just wanted to know what the reason for deletion was. Cheers, --Bojovnik (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
To save you some time, I looked at it myself - so if file "lands for serbia.gif" was indeed a breach of violations, why are .svg maps drawn using "landsforserbia" just as a reference deleted as well? --Bojovnik (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Maps are almost always derivative works. The effort required to draw a map from scratch, without reference to a previous work, is enormous, so almost any map that does not have a freely licensed map as its basis will be deleted. Just as I cannot draw a picture of a famous person using a copyrighted photograph as a reference, so it is not legal to use a copyrighted map "just as a reference". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suzannah Clark Analyzing Schubert.jpg

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suzannah Clark Analyzing Schubert.jpg: the uploader's claim of "own work" is of course false, but I provided a link to the depicted work on the book's cover which proved that it is old enough to be PD (it's from 1818). I then added that the rest of the cover design is mere text and doesn't rise above COM:TOO. I wondered why that claim was disregarded. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Right you are -- sorry for ignoring that. However, as my revised closing comment says, in the UK the publisher has a 25 year copyright in "the typographical arrangement of published editions". That applies to the cover as well as the inside of works published in the UK. Since typography has no copyright in the US, the cover is PD in the US, but not in the country of origin. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Willowbl00

Hi Jim,

Regarding your closure of [75], I was awaiting more opinions about a partial or complete restoration. Two people said that these files might be useful. I think it requires more attention. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

re Multiple Accounts -- Sockpuppets

Actually you don't have any evidence that to proved me that I have created at least two accounts in commons. If you are free, plz try to see this discussion post "請Tony_YKS尊重大家共識" before (sorry only for Chinese, but you can translate it) [76] Is it possible for me to discussion article conflict issue in these two account by myself and the signature time format is different too?

Your messages makes me feel very disappointed and angry. If you still try to attack me again. I will boycott commons and it is not good for Wikipedia development.--Wing1990hk (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

As a Checkuser, it is my role to find and deal with sockpuppets. I have excellent evidence that you have used three different accounts here, two of which are now blocked. Please see my comments below for more details. Since you have used two sockpuppets here on Commons and have yourself uploaded a variety of copyright violations, I have to say that it probably would be a good thing if you boycotted Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please Unblock Tvb10data Immediately

Mr Woodward:

I am Tony YKS, a user of Wikipedia. I have just started editing Wikimedia Commons for 9 days only, due to a controversy about deleting the photo "Xi Jinping Banner in Mong Kok 20141026.jpg". I regret that I have to express anger to you, despite being a "newcomer" here. I am outraged that you accused Tvb10data as "sock puppets" and blocked Tvb10data permanently just because of the request of undeletion about the aforementioned file. I demand to unblock user Tvb10data immediately, because what you have done is causing severe threat to freedom of speech, and is enough to destroy the reputation of Wikimedia Foundation.

The file "Xi Jinping Banner in Mong Kok 20141026.jpg" was deleted 3 days ago despite that only 3 users supported deletion (including the one who made this request), while 7 users (including myself) opposed. It is unreasonable that the opposition of the majority was overridden, so Tvb10data requested for undeletion, stating that the removal of that photo is "river crabbing" (censoring) and "tyranny". You replied that it is not a vote, and "Fair Use" is not allowed on Commons. Before Tvb10data or I could reply, though, more outrageous things followed. You accused Tvb10data as a "sock puppet" of another user Wing1990hk, and issued a permanent User Block to Tvb10data immediately afterwards.

Blocking Tvb10data forever is extremely ridiculous, as Tvb10data is definitely NOT a "sock puppet" and there is no proof that this user has violated any other rules that can cause the issuance of User Block. User Contribution in Wikimedia Commons of Tvb10data cannot be used as verification, because both Tvb10data and I only started editing Commons when the controversy of deleting that photo occurred. In other words, we are both "newcomers" in Commons. The User Contributions of Tvb10data in Wikipedia (both in Chinese and English) can prove that Tvb10data is NOT the "sock puppet" of Wing1990hk. Furthermore, as pointed out by another user of Wikipedia, "Hong Kong is a city-state of highest population density in the world. Accusing puppet by the similarity of IP address should not apply on Hong Kong wiki users". Although Tvb10data requesting undeletion in Chinese or even Cantonese might be inappropriate in Commons, this is not a valid reason to issue a block as well.

User Block of Tvb10data is severely jeopardizing freedom of speech, which can completely destroy the reputation of Wikimedia Foundation, if this incident is leaked. The action of blocking Tvb10data is tyrannizing other users, forcing them not to oppose deletion or make undeleting requests. Freedom of speech is a core value in Wikimedia Foundation, because it is a kind of human rights. Blocking the aforementioned user, however, is against this value. It also does absolutely nothing to achieve consensus. The issue of that photo reflects the conflict between copyright, "Fair Use" and "self-censorship". I agree that copyright has to be protected and "Fair Use" might violate copyright, but possible copyright violation is not a reason for "self-censorship". We need the photos to provide facts for Umbrella Movement, and the controversy can involve photos of other contents. This should be solved by reviewing the policy of Commons, rather than dictatorial acts like ignoring oppositions by the majority and blocking users that request undeletion. I regret to say that, by blocking Tvb10data permanently without forceful reasons, you are putting the reputation of Wikimedia Foundation in peril.

Please unblock Tvb10data now, if you do respect freedom of speech, and if you do not want to put the fame of Wikimedia Foundation at risk. Even if the request for undeletion is not reasonable to you, there is no need to block that user eternally, especially the accuse of "sock puppet" is proven false. I suppose every user want to protect the repute of Wikimedia Foundation, but if Tvb10data is still blocked after 8:00AM today in HKT (which means midnight of 17/11/2014 in UTC), Tvb10data, other users and I may have to consider further actions.

Yours sincerely,
Tony YKS (talk)
Wikipedia User
1:05AM (HKT), 17/11/2014

@Jim, I blocked Tony YKS for 24 hours. Feel free to change the block if appropriate, e.g. based on CU data. Jcb (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Jcb. Tony YKS is not a sock, but it is very clear that Tvb10data is. I would not be surprised if Tony YKS is a meatpuppet. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
@Tony YKS -- User:Tvb10data is a sockpuppet -- that is to say, he is the same person as User:Wing1990hk. I happen to be a Commons Checkuser and have the tools and skill to determine that with little doubt. We do not discuss those tools and methods in detail, but please understand that I am satisfied that Tvb10data is a sockpuppet. I would be happy to have that opinion reviewed by my colleague CheckUsers or anyone else who has the appropriate tools and skill.
Using a second (and third, in this case) account to edit on Commons is a very serious violation of our rules. It would have been within our rules for me to have blocked Wing1990hk also, but I chose not to do that in the hope that he can become a good contributor who obeys the rules. So, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech, because the human who is both Wing1990hk and Tvb10data can use the Wing1990hk account to express himself here.
As for the image which was discussed, first, you must understand that Commons DRs are not votes. If six people (two of the seven "keep" users are the same person), most of them very new to Commons, express the opinion that the image should be kept and four people (KTo288, STSC, Underbar dk, and INverCry) who are very experienced on Commons agree that the image is a copyright violation, then the DR must be closed as deleted. In this case, it is completely clear that the image violates the copyright belonging to the person who created the poster and cannot be kept on Commons without a license from the poster's creator. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr Woodward:

Thank you for your reply, but I am disappointed with it. I cannot understand what do you mean by "satisfied that Tvb10data is a sockpuppet". There is no doubt that controlling "sock puppet" is a serious CRIME in all projects of Wikimedia Foundation, but that is why we need to be extra careful with this. If you charge Tvb10data as a "sock puppet" only because of the request for undeletion, you are pressurizing the others not to do so. The power of Checkuser and Administrator must not be misused. Being both Checkuser and Administrator, you have great responsibility to use the power your status provides with caution. I will put the argument of that photo aside for now, because that issue will involve the policy of Commons, and the permanent block of Tvb10data is urgent.

Wing1990hk, Tvb10data and I have enough evidence to prove that Tvb10data is absolutely NOT a "sock puppet" of Wing1990hk. From the User Contributions of Tvb10data and Wing1990hk on Wikipedia, there is no way that Tvb10data is controlled by Wing1990hk. I do not reckon that Tvb10data and I should be suspected respectively as "sock puppetry" and "meat puppetry", merely from the argument of that single photo. We both look like "single purpose accounts" only because we are "newcomers". As Tvb10data focuses on improving the Wikipedia like I do, we did not come here until the issue of that photo. That is why we are giving the evidences in Wikipedia rather than Commons. I do not suppose that Tvb10data is suspicious enough to be accused as "sock puppet" of another user.

It is also illogical that the 2 accounts are operated by different users in Wikipedia, but the same user in Wikimedia Commons. In English Wikipedia, Tvb10data was accused for "meat puppetry" and blocked for 2 weeks. I did not know that incident until this morning. User LungZeno was accused as "sock puppet" of user Instantnood and blocked permanently just because of LungZeno's opinion about whether Hong Kong should be listed as a country or not. Tvb10data came to express opinion and demand unblock, but was charged as "meat puppet". It would not be reasonable to make these prosecutions, especially when they gave enough elaboration to support their opinion, instead of leaving only a few sentences which were rubbish. Furthermore, Wing1990hk did NOT involve in this mess. This can verify that Tvb10data is NEVER a "sock puppet" of Wing1990hk.

You ignored the evidences we provided yesterday, however. It seems that you have done a "thorough" investigation with your tools, and those tools for Checkusers are much more "forceful" than our evidences, but due to "privacy reasons", I know that you are not going to provide what you have investigated via those tools. I will not expect you to change your mind even with my reply here. I am going to request other Checkusers to have another check, and if Tvb10data is proven not to be the "sock puppet" of Wing1990hk, Tvb10data must be unblocked instantly. Before that, I can only hope that I am not blocked again by reasons that are total nonsense. I do not even know why I was blocked without prior warning yesterday, as "calm down" is not a legitimate reason for a block without warning in the blocking policy.

Yours sincerely,
Tony YKS (talk)
12:35PM, 18/11/2014 (HKT)

Let us suppose for a moment that Tvb10data is not actually the same person as Wing1990hk. I don't believe that, but the possibility is worth discussing. The account TVB10data has been used in only two places -- similar cases here and on WP:EN. In both cases it was clear that he was either a sock or that he was recruited -- new users do not step into the middle of contentious DRs out of the blue. If he is not a sock, then he is a meatpuppet. We absolutely don't need meatpuppets who step onto the wrong side of DRs that are completely obvious to any experienced Commons editor. There was nothing to discuss there, because it was perfectly clear that the image infringes the rights of the creator of the poster. Wing1990hk and others, including you, made a zoo out of it, trying to invoke free speech, fair use, and other important but irrelevant issues. Whether Tvb10data is a sock or a meatpuppet really doesn't matter, because we don't need such people on Commons. The job of Admins on Commons is hard enough -- more than 10,000 new images every day, of which more than 1,500 must be deleted -- without having users with no experience on Commons fanning flames of controversy over perfectly routine deletions.
I should add that that comment also applies to you. I will not block you because I am too involved with you in this discussion, but if you continue being disruptive over a simple DR, one of my colleagues surely will..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to say that you are wrong. TVB10data focuses in Chinese Wikipedia, so your statement of "The account TVB10data has been used in only two places -- similar cases here and on WP:EN" is false. I do understand that job of Administrators is hard -- this is no exception in Wikipedia, but from the day you issued the infinite block on TVB10data, this is no longer an issue of "a simple DR". Another Checkuser is having a second check on TVB10data. If it is 100% sure that the photo infringes copyright, fine. I admit that "Fair Use" is controversial. -- Tony YKS (talk), 1:45AM, 19/11/2014 (HKT)
You are, of course, correct. I should have said that Tvb10data's only edits on WP:EN and Commons were disruptive. He has made many edits on WP:ZH and a few at JA, KO, and Wikidata.
Fair use is not at all controversial -- it is solid Commons policy that fair use has no place here. Before you step into the middle of another DR here, you should learn a little more about our rules. As I have said several times, this one was very cut and dried and should have had no controversy at all.
The further investigation you requested has led me to change my mind -- I will lift the block on Tvb10data. Please urge him to avoid stepping into controversy as a meatpuppet again, at least on Commons and WP:EN. Such disruptive editing is not permitted and will earn him a longer block next time..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Comparing the contributions of Wing1990hk and Tvb10data, I am convinced they are not the same person. From Wing1990hk's contributions in Chinese Wiki, English Wiki and Commons, Wing1990hk started contributing in November 2005. Wing1990hk focuses on contributing in places and buildings in Hong Kong, made over 13000 edits. On the other hand, from Tvb10data's contributions in Chinese Wiki, English Wiki, and Commons, Tvb10data started contributing in November 2009. Tvb10data focuses on anime, made over 1000 edits. From the time difference of the first edits they made (2005 vs 2009), the differences of entries they contributed (places & buildings in HK vs anime) and the amount of edits they made (13000 vs 1000). There is no clue suggesting they are the same person.
Jim mentioned "new users do not step into the middle of contentious DRs out of the blue." From my point of view, especially because they are new users in Commons, they are not familiar with the rules so they will get themselves into trouble. It is unreasonable to accuse new comers are puppet just for they are arguing. It is like 'This is my first edit in Commons and I am arguing so I must be a puppet.'
New users invoking irrelevant issues is one thing, being a puppet is another. Banning new users for they are causing trouble is biting new users and Wiki doesn't supposed to like that. The ban also forbids Wing1990hk, a constant wiki contributor since 2005 who has uploaded over 500 photos since May 2013, from upload photos. This will no doubt cripple the quality of the entries Wing1990hk will edit in the future and the growth of entries of places & buildings in Hong Kong.--HKO2006 (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see my comment above that I wrote before seeing yours. Also note that I have not blocked Wing1990hk although it is completely clear that he did use at least one sock, User:Taifoklau, which I have blocked and which he has not denied.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I should add that "This is my first edit in Commons and I am arguing so I must be a puppet" is not far from the truth. Copyright is a very technical field. Seven people commented in favor of keeping the image. Of them, 3 had fewer than 10 edits on Commons and 3 more had fewer than 1,000. Only Wing1990hk has more than 1,000, and that is only 1,500. And you, by the way, have only 10. When people who have little or no experience on Commons come to comment on a DR that should have been completely routine, like almost all of the 1,500+ deletion we do every day, it is completely logical to assume that someone asked them to come. Meatpuppets are no more welcome here than sockpuppets, and while it turns out that Tvb10data may not be the same person as Wing1990hk, he is no less unwelcome for being a puppet of a different kind. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


When a DR that should be utterly routine because the issues involved are absolutely clear and the image is clearly not acceptable becomes contentious with several people who are new to Commons stepping in and offering opinions that have no basis in law or Commons policy, it is quite obvious that they were asked to come here and join the discussion. That makes them meatpuppets, which are not welcome here any more than socks.

Thank you for unblocking Tvb10data. I hope that the unblock can put an end to this incident. I promise to be careful about "Fair Use" and not to upload any files that involves "Fair Use" here in Commons (even though I have uploaded nothing in Commons). Copyright must be protected, that is for sure. Whether to review the policy or not, though, is up to you and other Administrators to decide. I apologize for not reading the policy thoroughly before stepping in. -- Tony YKS (talk), 12:40PM, 19/11/2014 (HKT)

Hi, I just checked these two users on zhwiki and based on data there I would say they are unrelated from a technical point of view. Just that you know :) Jimmy Xu (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Maps

Hello! Regarding deletion of Swedish maps. I do stick to the position that maps that are no more than a printout of a databas have no copyright protection. The statement about maps in the Swedish copyright law is far from as straigthforward as it might seem. The source backing my position would be Henry Olssons "Copyright". If maps are covered by FoP is not relevant since it is not protected by copyright in the first place. Edaen (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not pretend to know the details of Swedish copyright law, but a DR is not the place to change Commons understanding of it. If you think you are correct (and I doubt it very much -- maps are far more than just a database), then discuss it on the talk page of the FOP section I cited in the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I made an update to that page. Edaen (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The w:Database Directive specifies two kinds of databases:

  • Creative databases (Article 3.1), a database which meets the threshold of originality. For example databases of products and product numbers, cf. NJA 1995 p. 256. All Berne Convention countries are required to provide protection for creative databases (referred to as "collections" in Article 2 (5) of the Berne Convention).
  • Non-creative databases (Article 7.1), a database which doesn't meet the threshold of originality. For example, w:Feist v. Rural is a non-creative database under United States law. Unlike EU law, United States law only provides protection creative databases, so non-creative databases are in the public domain in the United States.

The originality criterion is given in the EU directive as a database "which, by reason of the selection or arrangement of [its] contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation". This wording is also used about other things in several EU documents. The exact meaning of these words has I believe neither been settled by a Swedish court nor by the EU court. However, from what I have understood, the wording has been interpreted by courts in both Germany (about the originality criterion for photographs) and in the United Kingdom (about the originality criterion for short extracts from copyrighted works), with, from what I have understood, very different results.

In Swedish law, the database protection is codified so that creative databases are given protection under sections 1 and 49 of the copyright law, whereas non-creative databases only are given protection under section 49. Section 49 gives a slightly weaker protection than section 1. For example, the term is a lot shorter, and there are no moral rights for non-creative databases.

Creative databases are listed as literary works in the Swedish copyright law. Maps are also listed as literary works, so there should be very little difference between maps and creative databases. It may very well be that a court simply would treat a map as a database, but many maps would then be creative databases. Maps are treated in the same way as technical drawings, and there have been at least two supreme court rulings about the originality requirement for technical drawings:

If you want to find out if a map is "creative" or "non-creative", I guess you would have to compare the 1998 ruling with the 2004 ruling. I don't know how to find out whether a map is a database, or whether it constitutes some other kind of literary work. This distinction should not matter if more than 15 years have passed since the publication of the map, and should typically only matter if the map doesn't reach the threshold of originality. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Maps are often databases, see SOU 1956:25 and the SOU from 1967 together with the Royal proposition 1973:15 where the minister wrote:
Med anledning av uttalanden av en del remissinstanser vill jag slutligen framhålla att en förutsättning för att karta skall erhålla upphovsrättsligt skydd givetvis är att den är att anse som verk i URL:s mening (prop. 1960: 17 s. 50). Är kartan inte att anse som sådant verk, kan förhållandena i vissa fall vara sådana att den utgör arbete vari sammanställts ett stort antal uppgifter. På sådant arbete äger i princip 49 § URL tillämpning.File:Kungl Majts prop 1973 15.djvu p. 160
There is no mention of a creative database in this quote.
In an answer to the proposed law, the faculty of law at the University of Lund wrote:
Konsistoriet vid Lunds universitet och juridiska fakulteten vid universitetet uttalar att den föreslagna särregeln beträffande kartor inte synes ha motiverats på ett övertygande sätt. Vidare uttalas att kartor väl i allmänhet inte äger tillräckligt individuell prägel för att erhålla upphovsrättsligt skydd men att skydd enligt 49 § URL ej sällan kan bli aktuellt.File:Kungl Majts prop 1973 15.djvu p. 117
There is a court case from a Hovrätt (appelation court) on copyright to maps. Hovrätten för Västra Sverige, 2002-01-24, T 3627-00, Sjöfartsverket (Swedish Maritime Administration) against a nautical bookprinter. The court found that a very similar choice of facts was not an infringment since the format, construction and choice of colors for surfaces and lines in combination gave a different impression than the original.
Hovrätten fann sålunda att den ifrågasatta efterbildningen visserligen utgjorde en ”nära avbildning av vissa former” och kännetecknades av ”ett mycket likartat urval av faktauppgifter”. Likväl förekom inget intrång i Sjöfartsverkets rättsskydd med hänsyn till att den påstådda efterbildningens ”format, uppbyggnad, färgsättning av ytor och linjer” vid en helhetsbedömning uppvisade en annan karaktär än förlagan.SvJT
Edaen (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
His Majesty's Proposition 1973:15: The first sentence of the quote is about creative databases while the other two sentences are about non-creative databases. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
This is not the place to debate the issue as it will not get the widespread attention it deserves.
With that understood, I tend to agree with you. I am a very active mariner. Most navigators who use charts (not the Sunday small boat person) are now using electronic charting systems. On most such systems in many places, including, for example, the entire USA, we have a choice between a raster chart and a vector chart. Raster charts are mostly scans of existing paper charts, although some new raster charts are being produced electronically and all US paper charts are printed on demand from a raster image. Vector charts are created by the charting system on the fly. On a raster chart, as you zoom in and out, the detail does not change, except, of course, for size. On a vector chart it does, with the system showing more detail as the scale becomes larger. That would appear to mean that vector charts would be my choice, but it is not. A skillfully drawn raster chart will show the detail in a better and easier to read format than the vector chart produced by the system. So, I would be inclined to agree that a vector chart, drawn by machine, does not have a copyright. I would argue, however, that a standard raster chart does have a copyright and certainly the UK Hydrographic Office and the French SHOM would agree as they aggressively enforce their copyrights. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Brasao.jpg

Is this a repost of the file with the same name that you deleted back in 2010? The source, author and permission fields contain text which suggests that this might not be own work... --Stefan4 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it looks suspicious. However, it is not the same file -- the filename has a long history -- at least five different images -- which is understandable, since Google translate says "coat of arms". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Tagged "no permission". --Stefan4 (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

block and delete NZ's files?

Thanks for blocking Ketsuban Pichu. What about deleting her (numerous) files? [77] They were uploaded in evasion of a block. Could you please help me figure out the process? Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Unlike (I think) WP:EN, Commons files uploaded by a sock are not per se suspect and therefore automatically deleted. The normal rules apply. It would be very good if you went through them and nominated for deletion where appropriate. There are many more socks of Newzealand123 whose uploads also need checking, see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Newzealand123.
Since there are a lot of files, you may find Visual File Change helpful if you are not already familiar with it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:ESC 2007-Natalia Barbu-IMG 2761 (crop).png

Hi Jim,

Should we also delete File:ESC 2007-Natalia Barbu-IMG 2761.jpg? Best regards, Yann (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Yury Muhin 2006-03-10.jpg

I am deeply saddened that you removed the photo without any discussion.

AVN (Armia Voli Naroda at rus., Army of People's Will at ­eng.) was political organization (like a party). All photos and another materials prepared by members of the AVN on the activities of AVN is owned organization. Now AVN don't exists, Yury Mukhin as ex-leader inherited all material with the consent of the other members. Prilutsky (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The DR was open for the full week that our rules require. I cannot help it if no one was interested in discussing it during that time.
The image had no author listed -- an organization is not the author, a person is. It is that person's life that determines how long the copyright will last in most countries. As I said in my closing comment, the subject of an image cannot consent to the license, that must come from the photographer. It is possible that the photographer transferred the copyright to AVN, but that transfer would have to be in writing, not informal.
Even if AVN did own the copyright, with a formal written transfer, there is no evidence of that on Commons. While it is policy to believe our uploaders when they claim "own work", policy requires that under these circumstances that the organization must provide a license using OTRS. Your assertion that you have permission is not enough because "permission for publication" is not sufficient permission for hosting on Commons -- we require permission for any use by anybody, including commercial use.
I suggest that you get the actual photographer to provide a license, or, if the photographer has transferred the copyright in writing, then get the actual copyright holder to provide a copy of that written transfer and a free license, using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank for quick answer!
I think so. To simplify the procedure, I will try to find a photographer (perhaps he's Wikipedian Alexander Sokolov, but I'm not sure). And we shall enter his name and free license into the description of file.
Do I need his written consent? Prilutsky (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me for asking, as this may just be a small error in your English, but "I will try to find a photographer" suggests to me that you will find someone who may or not be the actual photographer just to have a name. Did you mean to say "I will try to find the photographer"?
Yes, you need the actual photographer to use the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, my English is very bad. I said about real photographer, of course. And I don't understand what must we do now — when photo deleted. Send letter to address permissions-ru(at)wikimedia.org? Prilutsky (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The actual photographer needs to send a license to OTRS using the form shown there and referring to the image name above. Once that is received, the image can be restored. If you tell me here when the message has been sent, I can go to OTRS, read the permission (with the help of Google translate if it is in Russian) and restore the image. The backlog at OTRS is several weeks, so having me do it will speed things up.
And don't apologize for your English -- it is much better than my French, which is the only other language I can even begin to read. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pharmaceutical product packaging

Concerning Deleted: A copyvio is a copyvio. It is unlikely that Bayer or others will release their copyrights on these. As for the 1930's products , that is 50 years too recent for us to assume that they are out of copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim, Does this mean that expiration of copyrights starts at today -120 years, because as i understood it, it was 70 years. Regards, Alfvanbeem (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Seventy years after the death of the creator is the most common copyright period. My comment was directed to the fact that if you do not know when the creator died, then 120-130 years is a reasonable period to allow in order to be reasonably certain that the creator has been dead for 70 years. For example, a person creates a work when she is 25 years old and lives another 60 years, dying at age 85. The work will be under copyright for another 70 years, until 130 years after its creation. Note that some countries have a different period, a few time copyright from the creation or publication of the work, and for the United States, any of those may apply, depending on circumstances. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Halloween6

Hi,

I appreciate that some of those logos were borderline cases, but I'd have thought that (e.g.) File:Robocop 2014.png was definitely on the wrong side of that line, due to it being a fully rendered 3D object with artistic effects and lighting, rather than just "plain text".

I've seen administrators previously delete files with significant (but not as significant as that) artistic text effects- e.g. glossy "shine- on the basis that they were above the threshold of originality. I'm not clear as to why this case would be different- can you please explain? Thank you.

Ubcule (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The US law is very clear -- type fonts do not have copyrights. Therefore a logo that is nothing but letters and numbers does not have a copyright in the the USA, no matter how complex each letter is. This is true even though the logo may have multiple different versions of the same letter (the o in Robocop, for example) -- they are still just letters and letters do not have copyrights. See the USCO's Copyright Basics at page three where it says explicitly that "mere variations of typographic ornamentation" do not have a copyright. This is in contrast to the UK where there is a separate copyright for typography which lasts for 25 years and is held by the publisher.
As for the action of other Admins -- just as different courts reach different conclusions on similar cases, so different Admins can read and interpret the law differently, each believing that the other is wrong. And, of course, as I noted, copyright law varies substantially from country to country. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand the basic principle that in US law typefaces (and non-copyrightable text using them) aren't copyrightable. However, does a three-dimensional model (which I assume the logo is derived from) constitute a "typeface" in the legal sense?
The letter Os appear to be the same 3D model rendered from different viewpoints, rather than three different Os as such; if a typeface was sold with pre-rendered 3D letters, I guess one could (in theory) supply the letter O pre-rendered from three different angles in a single pseudo-3D-effect typeface, but I don't think anyone would actually do that.
And do the rendering textures and lighting effects constitute "mere variations of typographic ornamentation" especially if it's open to question whether what they were applied to is a "font"?
I guess this sounds nitpicking, and I hadn't wanted to get into a long discussion on the matter (maybe some other time!), but it seems that by your reasoning- taken far enough- anything letter based is non-copyrightable. But (e.g.) what about a photograph of the "LOVE" sculpture taken against a featureless sky background?
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain your decision! All the best, Ubcule (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, thank you for removing the copyvio still from the history of File:Colorado-Stanley Hotel.jpg. Ubcule (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What licence is appropriate?

Hi Jim,

Could you please help me. I'd like to upload a video that is free available on the website of Croatian Television. It is the talk show Nedjeljom u dva, guest is the linguist Snježana Kordić, she talks about linguistic issues in Croatia. However, I don't know what kind of licence I should choose for it. Best regards,--Mozel W. (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't read Croatian, so I have to rely on Google Translate, which tells me that "Autorska prava - HRT © Hrvatska radiotelevizija. Sva prava pridržana" in the lower left corner translates as "Copyright - © HRT Croatian Radio and Television. All rights reserved." It is certainly possible that I am missing something here but I don't see anything else that make the video freely licensed. Please remember that "free" as in "no payment for" is not the same thing as "freely licensed", which is what Commons requires. see COM:L. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I wonn't upload it.--Mozel W. (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

deletion and copyright

Hi I am trying to fix this stuff for you. I'm almost 80 and doing my best. I have tried to put the correct sources and copyright information all my railways photos etc. If I am doing something wrong that is easily fixed my daughter will help me but can you please just tell us simply what is missing. She seems to have figured out how to load the photos and we are aware of the need to explain where they came from. If these photos are in the public domain already what do we put for copyright if they are freely available on google images for example or if the photos have come from my relatives and I have no further information. I'm not trying to breach any copyright or sourcing issues but the photos are very old ad sometimes I only have information that has come down the line from family. Any help would be great as I don't want my account terminated and I really want to share these wonderful old photos as I think they are important for Brisbane and railway history. I'm happy to make edits or feel free to edit yourself. I usually do try to put the correct information on about these photos and respect the process you're trying to do here. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spots (talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 December 2014‎ (UTC) -- Please sign your posts as shown here.

First, please don't worry -- you have to work very hard to get blocked on Commons -- we try very hard not to bite newbies. I myself am 71, I'm still learning and I have a lot of sympathy for the very steep learning curve here. And, by the way, I'm also a railfan -- see my comments at my WP:EN talk page.
I think the major problem you have is that you don't really understand how long copyright lasts -- 70 years after the death of the author in most countries, including Australia. Thus we don't generally assume that a work is out of copyright unless it is earlier than 1885. Australia has a special rule for photographs -- anything before 1/1/1955 is PD, but the 1965 image you uploaded is recent. Your several World War I images are OK only because of the Australian special rule for photos -- if they were from almost any other country, they, too, would have been marked with a DR.
Also, please remember that most images that appear on the Web are still under copyright -- the Web is infamous for ignoring copyright, so just because you find it with Google means little or nothing.
As for family images, they present special problems. If you know who the photographer was and you happen to be that person's sole heir, then you can list the actual photographer as the author and provide a license using OTRS. If you are not the sole heir, then you need to get permission from all the heirs and have one of them send a license to OTRS. If you don't know who the photographer was and the image is later than 1954, then it can't be hosted on Commons.
Please feel free to ask either general or specific questions and I will be happy to answer them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:All media needing categories as of 2012

Hello, could you close this nomination as speedy kept, please? I withdrawal because I made a mistake. 1989 14:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Table4five_photographs

You deleted nearly every file I had marked useful, including those where copyright cannot be an issue! Why? --Pitke (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry -- I just noticed that and am undoing it.      Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I restored all of the images you mentioned with the following exceptions:

These all have DW issues with the products or other items imaged, including the sculpture of the pumpkin and the lengthy text on the Tonics and Liniments.

Except for the exterior shot, the Spaceship Earth images all have copyright issues as DWs of the stage sets and the mannequins, all of which have copyrights.

This is a personal image – the bacon is de minimis

I restored all of these in deference to your wishes, but I really think that none of them should be kept. They all have focus, camera movement, or composition issues which should prevent our keeping them.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. What's DW though? I understand roughly what the issues is about with the files you listed, but don't recognise the abbreviation. --Pitke (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Forgive, me -- I try not to use Commons jargon with beginners, but I figured someone with your experience would know all the usual shorthand. Derivative Work - the image infringes on the copyright of something in the picture. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

License irrevocable as argument to keep images

Hi James, you've just closed a row of DR initiated by me and affecting pictures I created. I have no problem with the terms of the license, but I cannot understand the argument you used to keep all those pictures ("We do not generally delte images that have been on Commons more than a few days. The license is irrevocable"). The point here is that I have photographed all those subjects under a higher quality standard (mostly better camera) and to me it makes no sense to keep bad quality pictures when we have similar ones that are clearly better, especially if it will not cause any conflict (with the author) but rather in this case fulfill his wish. In my opinion we should ease the task for those looking for pictures in Commons. Saying that only those pictures with a QI are of good quality is not an argument anymore since there is a tough restriction regarding the amount of QI nominations on a daily basis. Regards, Poco2 15:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless the images are identical, we do not delete images that have been around for more than a short while. The reason is partly that deleting images that are not identical reduces the variety available to our users. A print user might very well want to use an image that is not the same as the one on WP. The major reason,however, is that it breaks the chain of the license for any images that may have been used off-WMF. Since we don't know which images have been used elsewhere, both on the Web and in print, we keep them all so that there is never any question of their having a free license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, to mee not only the diversity but also the quality plays a role. If the pictures are similar and one of them is of high quality, I don't see the point of keeping the poor one. Agree with you that if somebody picks up a (in this case) deleted poor quality picture, it is than gone, but that is quite . Since I ask for it I usually get emails from people outside Wikimedia about the usage of my pictures. Furthermore it is easy to figure out which pictures are being used online. That I can also check before starting a DR. Under this circumstances I really don't see the "broken link" argument as a real problem but rather theoretical. Poco2 10:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC) PD: What do you understand under "a short while"?
A short while is a week or so. In you analysis, you entirely ignore print use, which is an important part of our users. And, it's policy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
TWell, as said, for print use I ask for an email, that I get actually regularly. Which policy regulates this topic? I couldn't find anything. Poco2 13:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't know about any print use that didn't send you an e-mail -- I have several images that appeared in print without my being notified, that I just happened to receive paper copies of.
See both Commons:Courtesy deletions and Commons:Courtesy deletions/2, neither of which is policy, but both of which are pretty much our practice. Note that the second wants 10 opinions before a deletion. They also talk of seven days and thirty days, which is a great deal shorter than two years.
You're spending so much of our time on this issue that I wonder whether you don't have an undisclosed motive here -- certainly keeping a few images isn't worth all this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Poco: We rarely delete some poor quality works upon author or subject request. But there should be some convincing reasons like "subject feel uncomfortable on the way depicted" etc. But I see most of your DRs like File:Glyptothek, Königsplatz, Múnich, Alemania01.JPG and File:Glyptothek, Königsplatz, Múnich, Alemania22.JPG are reasonably good quality architectural photos where little chances of complaints from "subjects". So I wonder whether you are fully aware of the licensing terms. The licenses are designed in a way to avoid the requirement of any communications with the author and reuser in future. You can request for an email; but can't demand. So Jim's argument about broken link is a valid concern, even though we are not guaranteed to keep the file forever. But we try to keep deletions as minimum as possible. Another point is COM:OWN. The author own copyright of the work; but not of any pages here. So an author request has no priority unless it is within 7 days of hosting here. Jee 16:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Jee: I'm aware of the terms of the license I have been publishing my work with for the last years. In every description page I politely ask for an email if my work is used outside of Wikimedia. I am aware that I cannot demand it nor I can complain if that is not the case. Is fine, will not initiate further DRs claiming poor quality, though. Poco2 16:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

New Commons contributors in Israel - the Western Galilee WikiProject

Greetings, Jim, and thanks for following up so quickly on User:Zipig's problem relating to Derivative works. User:Zipig and I are members of the Hebrew-language Wikipedia's Western Galilee project, meeting every second Monday morning at the local college library. Presently I'm the group's sole native speaker of English (also an in-house Hebrew>English translator/editor at a museum archives) and a WP veteran relative to the membership (though we have guidance from a neighborly Wikimedia Israel volunteer). As I'm new to the Commons: while I review my groupmates' uploads for language and formatting corrections, I'm learning the guidelines as I go. Photos and the Commons are the main topic on tomorrow's agenda, so I'll be sharing the benefits of my recent experiences here. I appreciate your intervention and look forward to becoming an active contributor here as elsewhere, even if mainly gnomework. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said, we try very hard not to bite newbies, so any help you can give with language would be good. Questions are always welcome here. We have three Hebrew speaking Admins on Commons: Geagea, Matanya, and Yuval Y. I'm not close to any of them, but have had pleasant interactions with the first two -- I don't know Yuval Y at all. You might suggest them as a resource for your colleagues if you're not available. Those of your colleagues who have another language besides Hebrew and English might look at Commons:List of administrators by language, although some are much more active than others. Special:Contributions/Deborahjay for any given user will tell you whether he or she has been active recently. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

DR

Can you please review this DR? I believe the same reasoning applies as was your conclusion in this DR, and both are uploads by the same user. Fry1989 eh? 15:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right, but it's not so obvious. The other had the Cyprus map on it, so it was clear that it could not in any way be the flag of a SE Asian place. Do you recognize the symbol on this one? If so, start a new DR and I'll support it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I have renominated and explained the symbolism and why it is fake. Fry1989 eh? 19:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Baltimore County Historical Society

Jim, I posted a basic info box for the society today. Can you check it over, please. The biggest question I have is how to enter the web site. Every organization's box that I looked at for guidance did it diffidently, so I finally just picked one. I have not yet had an opportunity to take a new photo. Many thanks, N. Nancyhmarshall (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We're told to be bold, not diffident ;-) Looks good, with the one change I made. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks from Spots

Hi Jim

Many thanks for all your kind advice. I think we understand it a bit more and will try to edit some photos if we can to get them listed correctly so we are not violating any copyright. If the changes don't resolve the issue then I guess you'll have to remove them. It is indeed very tough for new people and the site is even a little complicated for my daughter (who is typing this)and pretty good with the computer but we are getting there.

Again, I am very sorry if I have unknowingly made mistakes. We will be mindful of this in future. I enjoyed looking at your stuff also - my daughter has shown me how to look at it! Lets keep in touch. It's nice to meet someone else who is a rail fan. The photos being so rare I feel that it is important for others to look at. I am especially interested as I was born and lived in Darra all my life. I have travelled on many steam train trips and I worked for the Queensland Railways for a very time before I retired.

Anyway, thanks again. My daughter helps me monitor the page and she uploads the photos etc. when I visit so if it takes a couple of days for me to respond don't worry as we will get there when she has time to look at it for me. In the meantime I will keep looking at interesting things here on the internet and really appreciate you kind help once again.

Take care, Grahaam (aka Spots)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Don_Giovanni_1_2014.jpg

Hi!

You deleted this file. Plz also delete the files listed in that DR, they can be found here. /Hangsna (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you cannot do that. Each file must be listed in the DR, tagged with {{Delete}} and the uploader notified. I deleted the only file that met those rules.
I suggest you look at Visual File Change. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
But they are all not okay to be on commons and uploaded by the same account so he is notified. Why cant you just delete them and link to that DR? It seems bad to keep them for "bureaucratical reasons" when we all know they violates rules to be on commons. /Hangsna (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
DRs require open discussion. Tagging an image for deletion encourages people who have used the image to raise questions. If Admins start breaking the rules because they think it is OK, then they will lose the trust of the community. Admins have been removed from the position for such actions. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Okey, I get it. But in this case they could all be marked as speedy since they violates copyright (photo taken on screen). Is it so that an admin that finds something untaged that violates copyright first tags it as speedy and then delete? /Hangsna (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I find it a bit rude that you don’t answer me. I really want to understand how commons work because it seems like its in this aspect a lot different from other projects. I am an admin at Swedish Wikipedia and if I find that someone create an article that is a copy+paste of non-free material I just delete it directly. Are you saying that something like that cant be done here? /Hangsna (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I intended no rudeness. I didn't respond to your last post because I thought we had covered the subject thoroughly. With 38,000 edits on WMF and 1,300 here, you are by no means a newbie, so I assume you know how to look things up. Deletion policy is at (surprise) Commons:Deletion policy. Since you obviously believed that a full DR was needed for the one that I deleted, I don't understand why you think the rest can be speedied? They are not all obvious screenshots -- some of our colleagues might believe that some of them were actually taken in the theater.
Also, we generally use DRs for screenshots because not all screenshots are copyvios. If the image is on a screen in the theater -- to show subtitles, for example -- and is never recorded, then it does not have a copyright. Since recording is now very cheap, most such things are recorded, but it is not automatic, hence the need for a DR. Also, if the image is taken by a fixed camera, as is often the case in theaters, there is no creativity and therefore no copyright. This is similar to our practice on FOP -- in a non-FOP country such as France or the Ukraine, an image of a recent sculpture is almost certainly a copyvio, but because FOP is complex, we always require a DR for FOP issues. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Aha, i think i get the point. My intention was to report them all in one DR, that’s why i linked it and that’s why i didnt go speedy on it. So its not because i "obviously believed that a full DR was needed". I dont think any of them are screenshots but i though that taking photos of screens displayed in theatre was not okey in Sweden. And since the uploaded removed them all from flicker (guessing because of copyright issues) i didnt understand then why all the rest would need another DR, it should fall under the same ruling as the deleted one. If i would have found just one of then i would have marked it as a speedied. /Hangsna (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
For the record: DR started at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Don Giovanni. User:Hangsna, consider using COM:VFC. It helps a lot when nominating lots of files by the same user or from the same category for deletion. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

no consent DR reopened

Just to inform you I reopened Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aoi_Sora_Fest_-_Marseille_-_2011-12-04-_P1300310.jpg#File:Aoi_Sora_Fest_-_Marseille_-_2011-12-04-_P1300310.jpg_-_second_deletion_request.
since you were the closing admin.
My interpretation of the french law (photographes were not taken into America) is still the same.
Such photographs should not be hosted on Commons, since there is no consent and it's breaking the Commons policies on the subject.
Esby (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bobcat (5414278106).jpg

Jim, you deleted Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bobcat (5414278106).jpg as serving no purpose. I have provided a very clear educational scope for this image in the DR. It likely would not be used in an encyclopaedia to illustrate bobcats, but if someone was wanting to write a how-to guide on 'shopping it would clearly serve a purpose as how not to photoshop. I would ask you to undelete the image because scope clearly was identified by myself. Thanks, russavia (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said in the closing comment, we don't generally keep bad images just because they illustrate a particular kind of bad image -- we have plenty of those. Take it to an UnDR and see what the rest of the community thinks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Jim, as admins our job is not to close discussions inline with our own personal opinions on matters, but rather inline with the consensus in such discussions. I addressed the concerns of the nominator by way of moving the file to a name which makes it clear the image was photoshopped, and I presented a very clear scope. Rather than closing the DR with your own opinion, you should have opined in the DR and let someone close it accordingly. Inline with this, please undelete the image, provide your opinion and let someone else close it inline with an established consensus. I seriously hope that DR's aren't regularly being closed in this way. russavia (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. In the first place, as you well know, DRs are not votes.
"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." Commons:Deletion_requests#Overview
While many DRs have very objective criteria which the closing Admin can use ("did the sculptor of the French work pictured die after 1944?"), others require the Admin to exercise judgement ("is the sculpture de minimis?"). This case is a judgement call. There is nothing in our policy or practice which requires an Admin to recuse himself from closing a DR simply because he has an opinion.
Furthermore, there was a two to one consensus on the side of delete -- I and the nom believe that the image is out of scope -- you believe it is in scope.
As you also probably know, Commons:Project_scope#File_not_legitimately_in_use explicitly rejects the argument you make for this image. As I have said twice before, we do not keep bad images just to illustrate "bad images". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree that the image in question is out of scope. While have DR to restrain overzealous administrators, I think Jim used good judgment in this instance. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Jim, there is no two-to-one consensus in this instance, just need to make that clear. Again, admins are supposed to close on the basis of consensus, not make their close part of that consensus.
Commons:Project_scope#File_not_legitimately_in_use does not say that files need to be deleted, but that we need to consider "realistic utility". That consideration is more than met with my comments above about it realistically being able to be used if one was writing a how-to guide on photoshopping images. We have Category:Photoshopped images but there is nothing in there that comes close to fulfilling the scope that I have presented. Additionally, the photographer recognises that it is a poor photoshop attempt; I think it's important that we don't piss off CC-contributors by referring to their images as "bad" but in this case the photographer recognises that.
Please reconsider your close; if not I'll take it to COM:UDEL. Thanks and no hard feelings :) russavia (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I suggested UnDR at the very beginning -- feel free. I refer you again to the quote from policy above -- Admins not only do not need to consider consensus, they are expressly instructed not to. And certainly the closing Admin is not going to take a DR which evenly divided between keep and delete and close it against his own opinion -- there is nothing in Commons policy which suggest that that is appropriate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Jim, your comments have taken me by surprise. Especially your belief that admins do not need to consider consensus. Sure, we don't keep a copyright violation if "consensus" is who gives a stuff let's keep it. But we certainly don't ignore consensus on issues which are based on personal opinions. And we certainly don't use the tools to force through our person opinions in the way which it appears you have here. If this image wasn't uploaded by myself, I would have undeleted it if someone came to me with the comments I've presented to you and I was the deleting admin. Absolutely shocking! russavia (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course we consider consensus on de minimis and other pure judgement calls, although we sometimes weight the consensus somewhat by experience -- your opinion is worth more to me than a ten edit newbie's. But we do not need to consider consensus when the reason given for keeping an image is a clear violation of policy -- as this is.
Also, I still don't understand why you think there was a consensus for keeping it. The nom wanted to delete it and you wanted to keep it. That's a tie any way you count it. In case of a tie, we generally delete, but even so, do you really expect the closing Admin to break the tie against his own opinion? How does that make any sense? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Watermark

Hi,

"A watermark is not a problem for Commons" Thank you for this remark. First time I was seeing someone signing his pictures. I have simply used Template:Watermark since. Not sure to use it right : I've placed them at the top of the page hoping it's its right place.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I probably should have said "On Commons, watermarks are discouraged but not forbidden." Usually when someone objects to a watermark, they have in mind the policy at WP:EN, which forbids watermarks, hence my comment. Although I'm not sure there is policy on the subject, I usually see the template below the license and above the categories, which is where I would recommend placing it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinion?

What do you think of [78]? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yann beat us to it, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by VectorOpenStock. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
WTG Yann! Thanks Jim! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Walther Benser, Poster 42x59cm, 1965.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Walther Benser, Cover Prospekt "Original Benser" Kamera-Zubehör.jpg

Dear Jim,

YES, Benser took both photographs.

Am the granddaughter of Walther Benser (his heirs) and asked for OTRS license (permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org) on December 11th 2014. File:Walther Benser, Cover Prospekt "Original Benser" Kamera-Zubehör.jpg -> Ticket#: 2014121110008762 File:Walther Benser, Poster 42x59cm, 1965.jpg -> Ticket#: 2014121110007754

Till now no answer!!!, so no licenses.

Thanks, that I can clear the situation, maybe with your help.

Jula2812 (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • If you are (a) the only descendant of Benser or (b) named as the heir to his works in his will, then you can license his images; if not, then all descendants must consent.
In any event, the discussions must take place at the DRs, not here.
I must leave now (the real world calls) but when I return here I will look at the OTRS tickets. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

airport diagrams

Hi Jim: This nomination has been going on a long time. I really don't care if you bust my chops and keep all of them, or see what I do in the images and delete them; but could you make a decision on this just so we can close this old page? Thank you so much for all your help! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

undel requests

Hi, why did you strike elcobbola's "support" here, if you state your agreement to his reasoning? https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=143317859&oldid=143317701 Unfortunately Fastily reacted to this in a manner, that I can't reconcile with your statements after your edit. --h-stt !? 11:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the quick reaction. --h-stt !? 12:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I happened to glance at your note before I went up to breakfast and fixed my careless error immediately -- now that I'm back, I can say "thank you" properly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Kathleen McEnery and other UDRs

Hi Jim,

I don't understand why you didn't create a DR for this file. The discussion is quite interesting, and it would be useful to keep track of it. That's not a speedy anyway.

Also I worry about your remark about the files under a BSD license. As I said there, singling out these files is discriminatory, and we should not use a special case to create a new policy. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

On the first, it had been deleted by Fastily. You then undeleted it and closed the UnDR less than an hour after the request, while I was writing my comment, so I restored it to deleted status to continue the UnDR. I didn't see any reason to create a new DR when the file had already been deleted. By the way, my first reaction to it was the same as yours -- a no-brainer because it had been published in 1913. Only when I looked for a color version of the painting did I realize that it probably had not been published in 1913, only exhibited briefly.
I don't mean to pick on this particular case -- it happens fairly frequently that a file will go to UnDR and be closed there while the closing Admin was asleep in another part of the world. I think it might be good to have a general rule, or at least an agreement among those of us who are active at UnDR, that we will leave the requests open for a reasonable time -- after all, if a DR takes seven days, an UnDR shouldn't take less than an hour. You'll note that I very rarely close an UnDR, except in the very most obvious cases, because I think that more than one of us should take a look at each of them. If you agree to this, we might open a more general discussion. For me, a reasonable time might be 24 hours, but I'm sure others will differ.
I am fine with a 24h delay for closing a UDR. Yann (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
As far as the other went, I think that GFDL and BSD licenses are ridiculous if we are to fulfill our mission. My vehemence here probably comes from the fact that I come out of the print world -- I had many publishers of all kinds as customers while at Iris Graphics and an image that has only a GFDL license cannot be used in most print media -- where can you put the license in a newspaper, magazine, or calendar? (A book might have the license at the back, but only if the image were really special).
I saw these files with a license that is not mentioned at COM:L and opposed restoration. I still think that the BSD license for those images requires the whole five paragraphs in the caption and not two links away, hence the position I took. Since the BSD license was not listed at COM:L, I didn't think it was new policy to oppose its use. I backed off when the various cites made it clear that we actually had approved it in the distant past.
I think we agree on the substance. I just think that policy should not be decided on the UDR page. So either these files are under a free license, and then should be undeleted, or they are not, and they should stay deleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Best regards, Yann (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that new policy does not belong in a DR or UnDR -- if policy has it wrong, it must be decided in a broader forum. I have frequently taken that position in DRs. The problem here was that I did not see it as new policy until you and others beat me over the head with it.
Best wishes for the season for you and yours -- I'm off to a tree trimming party at our son and daughter-in-law's house -- their daughter is 3, exactly the right age for maximum reaction to such things.... .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
So would you restore these now? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If you are asking me to do the restoration, no, I think I'm too involved and someone else should do it. I think the McEnery image should be restored because, as I said there, it's PD one way or the other. On the others, the community consensus is for restoration, so that should happen also. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand your objection. You are not the uploader, or connected to him/her in any way, so how are you "involved"? Same for the McEnery image, and as I already restored it once, and that you deleted again, it is much better than you restore it yourself. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I think when an Admin has had a significant role in the discussion, it is better to have someone else close the UnDR. However, based on your strong request, I'll restore the McEnery image. On the others, no -- I don't think they should be restored -- since the community does, I cannot object more than I have, but I won't be the one who does it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rnieders

I noticed that all the images were deleted from the article Tijuana Cross-border terminal as you stated no one knows who rnieders is, rnieders is Ralph Nieders, that Wikipedia article is supported by a large number of references, the second reference is from the Wall Street Journal, and there is speaks of my images. I am requesting that the images be undeleted. The editor of the article Keizers lives near San Diego and I would be more than happy to meet with him. The Wall Street Journal saw my information, I also presented my diagrams before the State Department and was actually contacted by them to present the project, all this is covered in the lengthy dialogue, also Ww2censor reviewed the information and I contacted him. Do you want to talk to me directly I will be more than happyRnieders (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you miss the point -- I should have been more clear. We know who Ralph Nieders is and we have User:Rnieders, but we don't have any way of knowing that they are actually the same person. It happens all the time -- certainly weekly -- that some third party will claim the name of another person in order to upload images here that belong to the other person. Therefore, policy requires that in circumstances such as these, the actual copyright owner must send a free license to OTRS, even in cases such as this one where the two people appear to be the same -- we have been fooled too many times in the past to take such claims without verification.
On these images, as I said, there are also questions about whether you actually own the copyright to some of them and that some of them violate COM:ADVERT, so I don't think all of them can be restored even if you do send a license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your response and explanation and I understand fully the problem of identity theft. As mentioned in the last correspondence with Ellin Beltz, who also contacted you, the original editor of the article, Keizers lives near San Diego, and I offered to have him review my information in San Diego, in person. I can also remove my name from the image descriptors and the San Diego Reader published a picture so that the identity can be verified. As for copyright, I still have my reports from 1990-2, I created and started the project at the end of 1989 and the images were part of promoting the concept counter to the San Diego and Mexican airport authority ASA, which differed from my images. The computers I did not keep. There was also a lot of confusion with fair use, Stephan2 from Sweden corrected that and I requested the deletion of the files incorrectly uploaded in August, I then uploaded ONLY my images and Stephan2 did not object, I made the mistake of reusing the file names, if you can access the files to which Stephan2 was making reference to, I was clear as to who was the copyright owners, i.e. ASA, SANDAG and City of San Diego, and those images I did not use or upload onto commons. Once only my images were uploaded onto commons, the Tijuana cross-border terminal article and images then were nominated and reviewed for DYK and accepted. As mentioned I am on the road and will not be in San Diego until December 26. Do you suggest contacting OTRS, the article now confusing as it make reference to images that do not exist.Rnieders (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, OTRS is the way to verify your identity and go forward. By the way, any images whose copyright is owned by the City of San Diego are PD and can be uploaded without OTRS -- see {{PD-CAGov}}. If you reload them here, use that template in the license section. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Your last piece of information is very helpful, i.e. that images from the city of San Diego are Public Domain because previously I was told they were not. I appreciate your patience and will go through the OTRS process. I will read the PD of CAGov, but before uploading any images, I will ask you first. I have made mistakes in uploading images, but I did not try to deceive anyone. The files I originally uploaded as fair use and which Stephan2 from Sweden objected to (I was wrong and he was right), of the six images, I did disclose who the copyright holders were, 1 from ASA (Mexico's airport authority), 1 from SANDAG, 1 from City of San Diego and 3 were mine. SANDAG is the San Diego Association of governments and is a government agency funded by the different cities of San Diego County. Subsequent to that, all the images I uploaded to commons were my images, I made the mistake of using the same file names which has created a tremendous amount of confusion. Again, that is my mistake. Thank you for explaining the process and I will start working on this within the next two days.Rnieders (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

K-S1

Hi Jim,

i`d like to know please if it is a "legal" aspect (option), when a File (pic) is transformed (f.ex colour changed, mirrored, turned etc.), it can be uploaded ? Thx. -- Gary Dee (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question, so feel free to rephrase and try again if I miss your point.
If an image is substantially changed, then, yes, a new copyright is created that will have to be licensed for use on Commons. That is in addition to whatever copyright existed for the old image. Mirroring probably does not create a new copyright. Colorizing a B&W image probably does. As with most copyright, it depends entirely on the amount of creativity that went into the transformation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, i guess you know what i ment, and i think you kind of gave me a better point about the topic. :) Once more thanks. -- Gary Dee (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Delivery of Mach III before Christmas not possible

So sorry but Mach III is completely out of stock for this Christmas, however there's a vintage one available.

Merry, happy & safe holidays !! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleting File:Nafisa Abdullaeva.jpg

You deleted file, but it was written, that she(Nafisa Abdullaeva) gave the acess and permission was there, in Facebook, in Russian Language! --Ochilov (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

1) The subject of a photograph is not the copyright holder, so she cannot give permission. That must come from the actual photographer.
2) She did not specify a specific license. Only some Creative Commons licenses are acceptable here. She mentioned only Wikimedia and Meta -- we require licenses to be free for any use anywhere by anyone, including commercial use.
3) Facebook itself is copyrighted, so an image found there cannot be hosted here without a license from the photographer. Her permission on Facebook cannot fix that even if (1) and (2) were done correctly
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy holidays! 2015!

* * * Happy Holidays 2015 ! * * *
* Merry Christmas! Happy New Year!
* Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année!
* Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr!
* Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)  

which license would be appropriate?

Hello, Jim. I noticed that the sole image on the GQ wiki article is a small thumbnail of poor quality from 2007. I checked the talk page and I'm not certain if that image is acceptable because it is such poor quality or because there is not a better one with the appropriate license/permission available.

In the past few months, I have chatted online (via social media) with Chiun-Kai Shih, the Creative Editor for Conde Nast / GQ China. He is also a professional photographer who has shot several covers for GQ. As a photographer, there is no doubt that he can give permission for the use of his own images (without cover graphics).

Recently, I asked Mr. Shih if he would also have legal authority to give permission (in his capacity with Conde Nast) for cover images to be used on GQ's article on Wikipedia. He says he does and is willing to give that permission. In addition, he is willing to assist in obtaining permission for GQ cover images shot by other photographers. Can you tell me if this would be in keeping with Wikipedia/commons guidelines and if yes, which license do I send him for magazine cover images? Thanks for your assistance. LauraLeeT (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, or perhaps you are. Before I came to this page this morning, I stopped, as I usually do, at the list of new gallery pages, and found a new gallery called GQ (magazine). I deleted it because it was a single image gallery, which is out of scope for Commons. Your link above refers to a redirect which I also deleted because it was directed to the gallery page I had just deleted. There is no article about GQ on Commons and there never will be -- articles are out of scope for Commons and are explicitly forbidden by our policies.
Now, if your question is actually about the article on WP:EN which is at GQ, then yes, a more recent issue might be helpful. Please remember, though, that just as Commons does not have articles, the Wikipedias do not have galleries of images, so while one newer cover might be good, more than that are probably out of scope for WP. And, of course, W{:EN can host one cover under fair use, as it does now. You might also look at the comment at Talk:GQ#Non_notable_cover_image.
From my long experience in corporate governance, I would be surprised if a Creative Editor has the authority to license IP -- normally we expect a corporate officer to give licenses -- but I won't argue with it if he is sure. You must be clear with him, however, that for the cover image to be acceptable on Commons or WP:EN, the license must be free for all use anywhere by anybody, including commercial use, derivative works, and parody. If he is OK with that, then refer him to OTRS for details. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt response. I'm sorry that my message was so unclear. Let me try again...
First, regarding the GQ (magazine) commons page that you deleted, in addition to the logo I uploaded, I also intended to post the cover images that are currently being used on the GQ, GQ Thailand, GQ (Indian edition) and GQ Australia articles. I'm sorry that I got distracted before uploading those additional photos. The page would have had a total of four international GQ covers--in addition to the corporate logo--and would have been set up for any future images that might be approved later. Would you consider reinstating the GQ (magazine) Commons page so that I can upload those images to it?
Second, I never intended to create a GQ "article" in commons--that was indeed a mis-statement. You guessed correctly that I was referring to the GQ article. The "gallery" that I referred to was intended to be a collection of the various cover images located in one place in Commons as noted above. Once all four cover images had been uploaded from their individual articles, I would have linked all of the GQ wiki articles (in all languages) to the gallery of cover images on GQ (magazine).
Finally, thank you for the clarification on the question of licensing of new cover images. I did not realize (and I'm not sure that Mr. Shih does) that the license would enable the unlimited use of those photos as you spelled out. I doubt he (or Conde Nast) would want to risk that.
Thanks again for your help. LauraLeeT (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
All of the images in the articles you cite above are on WP:EN as fair use and cannot be shown in a gallery on Commons. As far as I can see, there are no GQ covers on Commons, see Category:GQ (magazine). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings and Good Wishes
Best wishes for the season and the New Year. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Inadvertent greeking in The Straits Times (26 April 2014), Singapore - 20140428.jpg

Hi, I just noticed that "File:Inadvertent greeking in The Straits Times (26 April 2014), Singapore - 20140428.jpg" that used to appear in the article "en:Greeking" was deleted by you on 8 December 2014 as there was too much copyrighted text in it. Would it be possible for you to e-mail the file to me (using the "Email this user" link) so that I can pixellate the offending text, as I've done here? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, Jack, but "Email this user" doesn't take attachments -- you need to send me an email, so I can attach the file to my reply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah ... silly me. OK. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

closing DN pages

Hiya Jim: We're getting very backlogged at DN's, could you take a look at [79] and see if you can close those last two? I've been getting brave and doing the admin massive mop and wax, but there's two on that page, I can't clear. If you have time to poke thru the other DNs, or if we could interest the talkpagestalkers into helping with that it would be great! Thanks!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wamedia2

One file was not deleted. Please take a look. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Karaoke and the second list of files

For Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Karaoke, there are two lists of files. All of the files in the first list have been deleted but none of the files in the second list (which starts with File:DAM-CM2000 of Daiichikosho Co., Ltd.jpg) have been deleted. If there is a reason for this, it would be useful to please clarify the situation. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive_2014&oldid=567279596"