User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive 2017

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

File:Eiffel Tower wearing Europe colors - panoramio.jpg

I, Bender bid you hello and wish you a happy new year. Yesterday, it was decided to {{Keep}} the above mentioned image on commons by Jcb according to the previous closure. The previous nomination had no discussion and Yann kept the media saying, "There is only a copyright on a show." But, this media contains special lighting as well as beacon. I have re-nominated this media for deletion. I hope you share your opinions on its DR page.
You are paid to think. A mindless worker is a happy worker 🍺💲🚬 08:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Gaetano Di Martino article : pictures deleting

Hi, You have deleted pictures for which permissions are in progress... cf. Marin Person (Wikimedia / e-mail 26, 27 dec.2016). > https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaetano_Di_Martino It could be a good idea to ask before deleting !? ... Especially during the christmas holidays :( Time is precious... Thanks for restoring Best Regards Z.A. PS/ Happy new year 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeno Alto (talk • contribs) 17:32, 02 January 2017 (UTC)

In this case licenses are required from several photographers and the heirs of the sculptor. Our history shows that most complex license requests fail, so if the license have not come after a week, the images are deleted. They will be restored automatically if and when the required licenses are received, checked, and approved by OTRS volunteers. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. So bad. I sincerely hope that the restoration period will be the shortest possible. Thanks for your action for that! Please do notify the staff about the fact : sending the material to clear the rights between the 26th of december 2016 to the 2d of january 2017 which was a really big challenge :(. Be "punished" for weeks about that is perharps a little bit strong... for a volunteer too ! It doesn't matter deeply but time is precious even when you love to share knowledge for free. This could dampen the enthusiasm for participation. This also gives me the opportunity to express my admiration and gratitude for all those of you who give their time to sustain Wikimedia & co, for free and for the long time. :) Zeno Alto (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

File talk:Esperanto Shavian.png

File talk:Esperanto Shavian.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file talk, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:PL

Hey, you just closed my deletion request on Bmbslogo.png in favor of keeping the file. As reason you cited "per WP:PL" - WP:PL does not exist; and COM:PL links to the polish version of Village pump. As reason you cited that it is used on Polish Wikipedia, and that might be true, but the logo is of a streamer "gang" that plays the game in question, making Commons a personal gallery for that group of people. Hence, the image is out-of-scope for Commons and should be deleted. Could you depthen your reasoning? All my other requests (about 8) were deleted for being out of project scope, which is a valid reason, however, you decided to go against that. Why is that? Lordtobi (✉) 14:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)
Lordtobi, "WP:PL" not a link, it is shorthand for "the Polish Wikipedia". As shown in the file's "File usage on other wikis", the file is in use at Grand Theft Auto Online. Commons rules do not permit deletion of any file that is in use on another WMF project unless it is a copyright violation. Therefore, if the reason for deletion is not copyvio, you must always check file usage before nominating a file for deletion..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I see, I have removed it from the page in question, the caption literally stated that it is "the logo of a team". Could you remove the image now? Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 14:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
No. Since you are not a regular editor of WP:PL (you have made only 3 edits there), your removal does not allow deletion of the file from Commons. After a reasonable time -- a week or two -- you may renominate the file for deletion if no one restores it to the WP:PL article in the interim. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
How exactly does my edit count on a different project impact the handling of an invalid, out-of-scope file on this project? Makes no sense to me. My primary project is the English Wikipedia, I only perform edits on other Wikipedias to aid their usage of the Commons files, as such also on the Polish. Now that the image is removed, we are back to zero, and your closing rationale from only a few minutes ago is now invalid and improperly checked, as you could have seen the file's invalidity as well. It would be nice if you could link me to the guideline that says that no in-use image may be deleted unless it is copyvio. Lordtobi (✉) 15:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
For the cite, see COM:INUSE.
As for the other, when the validity of a file comes up, most often with reference to ethnic maps, but also other cases such as this one, Commons has no good way of assessing whether your claim that file is useless is correct or not. You assert that it should be deleted, but an editor on WP:PL has chosen to use it. That suggests that you are wrong and that the file is, in fact, useful, but it is not definitive. By removing the file from the WP:PL article, you have not changed anything -- there still exists the fact that an editor on WP:PL chose to use it to illustrate an article there. As I said above, if the file is not returned to the WP:PL article within a reasonable period, then we can conclude that your DR was valid.
As for the particulars here, since team play is an important part of the game, I see no reason why the logo of a team is not a perfectly natural addition to the article. I also note that your removal has already been reversed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

delete delete delete

Hi. I answered you there : Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jean-no... But I take this personaly, I won't upload anything ever to this place. Jean-no (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Jean-no -- you shouldn't take it personally -- copyright is a very complicated subject and new users often make the same mistake. But, frankly, since your comment suggests that you do not respect copyright, perhaps it is just as well that don't do any more here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I've just been feeding wikipedia twelve years long. I respect copyright, but I know it enough to be aware that there are many blury lines : a picture of an artist obviously showing his own work during a public event is not a reproduction of this work. A person performing a painting is not a reproduction of this painting. When the line is blury, each one has to chose. You chose to despise other's people's work, or at least, my work. Yes I do take it personnaly Jean-no (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Although I don't like your attitude much, I don't for a moment "despise" your work. I recognize that copyright is a difficult subject and that inexperienced users often make mistakes. However your argument is entirely wrong -- there is no blurry line here. It is black letter law that we cannot keep images of created works without consent of the artist unless they are out of copyright or there is an appropriate FOP exception. The fact that the image has the artist in it, that it is at a public event (again, assuming FOP does not apply), or that artist is actually working on the creation is entirely irrelevant.
In french right (usualy quite straighter, as we don't have freedom of panorama or fair use), there is a strong exception for public events - how could there be a press if there was not ? But anyhow, you convinced me I'm definitly not Wikimedia Commons compatible. It's quite hard for me to speak english, and therefore to discuss that matters in a peaceful way. Jean-no (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Jean-no, There may be an exclusion for public events, but if there is, I am unaware of it. If there is , it probably allows use in the press, but Commons requires that images be free for any use by anybody anywhere. As I said above, it is black letter law that we cannot keep images of art from living artists without their consent unless FOP applies.
As for your language difficulty, you English is a great deal better than my French. However, Google translate is now so good that you can write your comments in French and expect most Google users to use Google to translate. OR, if you prefer, you can write in French, have Google do the translation to English, touch up the results, and then post the English. I do both in the other direction from time to time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Isabella, Countess of Vertus.jpg

Hi Jim- Thanks for your attention to the above deletion request. That uploader is an uncommunicative maintenance-generator I've been trying to rein in of late. A question as I continue to struggle with our deletion/retention policy: Wouldn't any license that Getty claims be on the jpg file itself, not the work?

Note: My first instinct was to post this on the talkpage of the deletion request and ping you, but a notice there prompted me to start here. Feel free to move it to a more appropriate place. Side-note to my note: I think that template could be tweaked to read something like "If you would like to comment on this deletion request while it is still open..." --Eric my en.wp talk page 18:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Eric. I'm more flexible than some of my colleagues about asking questions post DR closure. Putting a comment here has the advantage that it doesn't require a ping and that it becomes a part of my archive, which may be useful for future reference. It is also somewhat more public than the DR talk page, which wouldn't be seen by anyone other than you and me. On the other hand, the DR talk page will be there for reference in case the subject comes up again there.
WMF has adopted Bridgeman as policy for all 2D works that are in the public domain. Therefore we ignore Getty's copyright claim in cases like this on the grounds that there is no creative effort in scanning or photographing a 2D work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jim- Thanks for your reply and the Bridgeman ref, that makes sense. And we're ok with watermarked images? --Eric my en.wp talk page 00:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, in a limited way (unlike WP:EN, which prohibits them). See Commons:Watermarks. I wouldn't have kept this if we had another version without the watermark, but we use what we can get. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, Jim! --Eric my en.wp talk page 19:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

My note here on a possible flickrwashing account

Dear Admin James Woodward,

Would you consider deleting all images from the noted flickr account or would you prefer to take no action. It appears to be a flickrwashing account from the examples I cited...but I am not an expert here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

As I noted at the cited discussion, I would delete them all. They are licensed ARR or PMD on Flickr, which are not acceptable, and are copyright violations to boot. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zlatnik HQ.jpg

Hi, you deleted this. However, Ukrainian currency is not copyrighted. --62.202.183.81 14:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

That is correct, but is not the problem. There is no license from the photographer, so it is a copyright violation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Caprice dydasco.jpg

Hello Jameslwoodward, please recheck today's deletion of File:Caprice dydasco.jpg. IIRC it was simply a crop of File:III MEF Band performs at exhibition soccer match between Kobe Leonessa, UCLA 140323-M-PJ295-002.jpg, wasn't it? Headlocker (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be correct. I have to wonder why you did not tell us this at the DR and save this trouble? The file, as it existed during the DR, did not have any reference to its actual source. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, how would I have known about the DR in the first place? I'm neither the original uploader of the source image nor the cropped one... Headlocker (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair question -- but how did you jump on it so fast? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
My personal watchlist on dewiki alerted me of the deletion because of the CommonsDelinker bot's edit in de:Caprice Dydasco and prompted me to investigate. --Headlocker (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hajdu.orsolya.judit

Thanks for closing that discussion and deleting the images; however, I notice that one is still there (File:Indienne-fabric.jpg).

Since you don't specifically mention it, I'm going to guess that this was an oversight or a glitch with one of the deletion tools? Ubcule (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Admins use a script, DelReqHandler, to rapidly close DRs. Occasionally it hiccups and doesn't delete when asked. Thanks for telling me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes; I recall that happening once before, which was why I suspected it might be the case here. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Pan-STARRS images

Hi Jim, I'm writing to you because you started deletion request for 2MASS survey images. That topic is already explained and closed but I noticed someone is adding images from Pan-STARRS survey released last year, for example here. Here is a site of this survey: https://confluence.stsci.edu/display/PANSTARRS/Pan-STARRS1+data+archive+home+page I'm not sure if these images can be posted on Commons since they are not in public domain and their copyright policy doesn't look clear to me. Could you please check it and start deletion request if necessary? I would like these images to be available for us because they cover most of the sky and could be used in thousands of astronomical articles but rules are rules. They have contact e-mail posted on their site so if any doubt it would be good to contact them. Greetings Pikador (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I can find nothing that speaks to copyright on the web site. I have sent a message from OTRS strongly suggesting that they add a license to the web site or at least reply with a statement of their copyright position. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Pikador, unfortunately, I got a quick response to my inquiry -- the files are licensed NC by the University of Hawaii, see OTRS:2017011310011108. They are reconsidering that position, so maybe it will change. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, let's hope they will change their policy. Pikador (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Quite unpleasant treatment

What do you mean precisely by the term "offender"? L'honorable (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
PS. do you really think I am some sort of offender, or somebody, who is painstakingly trying to help Wiki Commons in its purpose? Please advise. Many thanks.

L'honorable, you offend because

- you waste a great deal of editor time on issues that are cut and dried
- you haven't bothered to learn the most fundamental aspects of what we do:
"and a photo which I own could be deleted so willy-nilly" -- the fact that you own a book, a painting, a sculpture, or a photo does not give you the right to freely license it. That right is held by the creator and must be licensed in writing. There is no evidence of such a license in the "photo which I own".
" I can also assure you that those Wiki Commons uploads which I have made will not result in Wiki being sued by any party." -- that line of reasoning is explicitly prohibited by our most basic principle, see Precautionary Principle #1.
-you waste editor time by carrying on lengthy discussion on the same topic (e.g. the current DR) in multiple places. Without looking very hard, I have found 6,000 words of discussion instigated by you, much of it either irrelevant or duplicate.
-you are now demanding to correspond with WMF's General Counsel, which is silly. WMF counsel does not write policy or directly interfere with matters here. You say you have issues to discuss with WMF counsel, but you have never raised them, or, if you have, they have been shown to be wrong.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward:  : clearly you are more important than me, and I get it "put up & shut up". Again this discussion gets hushed up & goes nowhere. However, this still does not solve the issue whereby images that I own have been systematically deleted as if part of a process. I am afraid now to say anything for fear of being told that I am silly. This really scrapes the bottom of an intelligent discussion about correct licensing. Anyway, let's leave it for now, but I should still very much like to liaise with Wiki's counsel whenever convenient. Much appreciate your consideration. Best, L'honorable (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
PS. for the avoidance of doubt, this concerns Heraldry
L'honorable, you don't need to ping me on my own talk page. I have removed your ping for Carl so as not to waste his time. I am not more important than you, but I am far more experienced and I have learned from my mistakes, while you have refused to admit to any mistakes.
You are being silly. You still don't seem to accept that owning a copyrighted work -- whether that is a book or a photograph -- does not give you the right to freely license the work. That is black letter law and is not subject to debate, yet you continue to debate it in several places, wasting a lot of editor time.
In order to have a copyrighted image on Commons, the uploader either must have been the photographer or must provide satisfactory evidence that he has a written license agreement with the photographer that gives him the right to freely license the image. The latter is almost always accomplished using OTRS. In addition, if the image shows a copyrighted work, then the creator of that work must also provide a free lciense for his or her work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
You are now lecturing me on matters which are self-evident. What I simply do not understand is that when an intelligent point of view (sorry to big myself up like this!) is brought to the table, and where it does not seem to be understood, one gets shouted down. It has been readily accepted by at least three others on Commons Discussion pages that there is a flaw in the licensing of Heraldry & COAs; but astonishingly you carry on like a steam roller bullying , accusing & generally making the small guy feel like a fool. One of your cohorts even mentioned the word trolling ! This type of behaviour is guaranteed never to get to the crux of the matter, hence I should like very much indeed to liaise directly with counsel. Thank you very much in advance. Best, L'honorable (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
PS. & just so we are all in the know, it is not these exchanges that bother me - so not to worry about that - it is to do with a fundamental principle of law (this is why I should like to liaise with counsel - ie. I can give them advice).

Oreos

Not that I'm particularly upset about that photo going away (I was mainly debating the point because of the interesting legal info) but I think the actual issues there would be that a coin, though utilitarian, also serves a separable function as 'art' in an of itself.

Also, the judge in that case (and lawyers, several places where it was written about) seemed to be coming to the conclusion that the embodiment of a work as a 'perishable food item' did not meet the fixation requirement.

I can't really contest the decision to delete it, though.... even after 'making the case' myself, I really can't say I don't have significant doubt, if nothing else than because a conclusion that it was uncopyrightable just seems weird. We probably do need to form a better consensus about 'food selfies' in general, however. - Reventtalk 08:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the close, I didn't read the cited case that way. The important point was that the one party was claiming that a bowl of cereal was a sculpture, and that failed the test of creativity. We know that transient works -- sand, ice, and butter sculptures -- have copyrights, and, with lives in hours or days rather than years, all of them are far more perishable than an Oreo . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
{nods) I think it was a bowl of vegetables, actually, but same point. Really, what I found from reading articles about the 'copyright in food as art' is that due to somewhat recent legal cases (that one, and ones about the 'plating' of gourmet foods) is that there seems to be an understanding in the legal profession that some works, which would be copyrightable in another medium, are not if created as 'food', with a couple of different rationales. Applying that to Oreos, though, was indeed probably a stretch, but seemed worth discussing a bit to 'expose' the consensus. - Reventtalk 22:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Providing link, just in case: File:Halloween Oreos, Fall 2013.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Thanks. I think what we can get from this, if anything, is at least that the 'local' consensus was that the 'weak' legal precedent about 'food as art' not being copyrightable is not considered (by us, PRP and all that) to extend to mass-produced food items with a standard design. Sound fair? - Reventtalk 02:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, for now, a case-by-case basis would do until the amount of such cases is tremendous enough for central discussion. However, are there any contradicting deletion cases about this? --George Ho (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:J. Samuel White portrait.jpg

This file was deleted long ago ! User:Tfitzp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfitzp (talk • contribs) 10:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


Yes, almost two years ago. What do you want me to do? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Data talk:Neighbourhoods/New York City.map

Could you elaborate on your reasons for choosing to close this as keep, please? What RolandUnger said would have been right if the data in question was coordinates of legally defined areas, which NYC neighbourhoods aren't ("community districts" are, but they're different from the neighbourhoods depicted). On the contrary, the coordinates of that dataset are most probably based solely on the author's personal perception of where one neighbourhood ends and another one begins and as such clearly are works involving copyrightable activities. (Pinging Revent with whom I further discussed this on IRC.) FDMS 4 22:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

My impression would be that the main arguments raised (that it's uncopyrightable) are probably wrong, though we can't know without knowing how the author decided where to put the lines. If it is copyrightable, my concern would be with the verbal grant of license permission to a third party (not that he's likely to be lying, but we typically want evidence of such grants in OTRS). - Reventtalk 22:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Raw data -- a list of coordinates -- is not copyrightable in the USA. If I say, "The best part of Central Park is bounded by East Drive, the 65th Street Traverse, and 5th Avenue", the sentence has a copyright. But if you then say, "Woodward likes Central Park from the East Drive to 5th Avenue and the 65th Street Traverse", or if you draw a map of those borders, you have not infringed. The facts, even if they are opinions, have no copyright. Only the presentation does. Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. is the most relevant case. Note that in other countries, data sets can have a copyright, but for this case US law is the only law that can possibly apply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

These 25-27 Copyvios

Dear Admin Woodward, These copyvios could be deleted. I don't have VFC unfortunately. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Leoboudv, you don't need to install VFC -- just run it by clicking here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:VisualFileChange.js&withJS=MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by George R Gutlich

Second file was not deleted. Please take a look. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Eugene. As you surely know sometimes DelReqHandler fails to do all the images. Feel free to simply delete any of mine when that happens. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Mexican copyright

Hi Jim, since you participated in the recent undeletion discussion about that old image of a tramway network, I thought you might also be interested in Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

De728631, thanks for the heads-up, but I don't read Spanish and, despite the good quality of most Google translations, this sort of research is probably best left to people who do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why I also poked Amitie 10g and Discasto. Let's wait and see how this proceeds. De728631 (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giuliano Nicolini.jpg

was murdered on 6. April 1945, i do not understand the deletion??--Gedenksteine (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It is polite, when asking about a DR, to link to the file or the DR page, so I don;t have to look it up.

The same applies to this as your file below. Please remember that copyrights can last 150 years. 1945 is recent. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Eugenio Lipschitz

have You seen this? http://digital-library.cdec.it/cdec-web/fotografico/detail/IT-CDEC-FT0001-0000019785/eugenio-lipschitz.html? publihed after 1947??? not believable. do you know, what this card is??--Gedenksteine (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

In order to show that this image is PD, you must prove that either (a) the photographer died before 1947 or (b) that the photographer is unknown and the image was published (in the technical, copyright meaning of the word) before 1947.
It is unlikely that the photographer of a circa 1944 image died before 1947 and he is unknown anyway. It is, as I said in the closing comment, also unlikely that the image was published before 1947. It was certainly published after 1947 -- that is proven by the web page you cite -- but you must prove that it was published before 1947. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Special:Diff/229296346

Hi Jameslwoodward. Something went wrong. Could you please fix it? --Leyo 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Leyo. I had never seen the {{Milim}} template before, so its special parameter upset the regular template. ✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

why you decided to delete pictures?

hi, in wikipedia we talk about keeping the article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sand_picture#Sand_picture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sand_picture

and i replied in the talk page in common too, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_868,383,950edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 868,383,950edits (talk • contribs) 13:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You must discuss this at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_868,383,950edits. Discussing it here just makes twice as much work for both of us. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new and i thought you need to my post here too.868,383,950edits (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

There is a message in your mailbox that awaits your answer as a matter of urgency. Can you kindly have a look at it, please? odder (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

odder, the only new e-mail message from Commons is a question from the Dutch OTRS team. I'll read that right now, but if there's something else you have in mind, give me a hint of what it is about. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Check your inbox now. odder (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
odder, Got it, thanks. Will read and take appropriate action. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Can't wait to hear your thoughts! odder (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Half-open DR

Hi Jim, could you have a look at File:Khanda.jpg? Yann has left a mess here. The file is still tagged for deletion, but no longer listed in an active DR. I think the second closure of the DR should be reverted, but I am probably not the right person to do that. Jcb (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I globally replaced it with the SVG and deleted it, per the discussion at Yann's talk page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Jcb (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, While I don't oppose being deleted as it is not in use anymore, I am quite disappointed by your closure comment. If you think that there is a copyright violation, sorry to say, but you are out of touch with reality. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yann, it is well established that individual representations of symbols such as Coats of Arms and this can have a copyright. This symbol is less than 100 years old and the creator of this version is unknown. I said "may or may not be under copyright". While I think that there is only maybe a one in ten chance that there is a copyright, it is certainly possible, so my comment was true. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The JPEG version is strictly identical to the SVG version (and to the thousand ones available everywhere), so how could there be a copyright on the JPEG, and not on the SVG? That's why your argument doesn't make sense to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I saw you decided to keep on this deletion request, but I don't understand the reason you have given for that. Clearly from the right hand side of the picture, this is a photograph of a framed photograph. EXIF does not tell much about that, nor can I connect this to your reason "certainly the pueblo is not under copyright". But that might be my lack of knowledge. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I assumed it was shot out a window, but you're probably right. I'll reopen it, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Lymantria (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This Question

Dear Admin Woodward,

Do you have any views on these 3 pictures by the City of Belo Horizonte? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Joalpe. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your reply Admin Woodward. I contacted you since it appeared to be a city's flickr account but I agree now that the difference is whether the images are PD under the city's law or US/Polish KPRM law. This does not appear to be the case here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Monika Kruse imaes

Hi Jim, hope you’re good.

Contacting you regarding two images titled ‘Monika Kruse at the Echelon Festival 2014’ and ‘Monika Kruse 2014’ we are trying to get deleted from the following page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monika_Kruse

I see this was requested already by Monika’s previous management: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2014-08-23_Monika_Kruse_at_Echelon_2014_0721.JPG

Can you please explain exactly how she most send a request herself to OTRS. This isn’t clear.

Monika views the photos as unflattering and it causes her distress to have it on her wikipedia page that receives frequent traffic. I have contacted the photographer to request it be taken down but have not received a response. We are happy to upload a collection of copyright free / approved images, so the page isn’t short of content.

Look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.

Clare — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClareDickinsBerlin (talk • contribs) 12:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I see an anonymous request for deletion of File:2014-08-23 Monika Kruse at Echelon 2014 0721.JPG, but nothing for the other one.

Unfortunately, there are people on Commons who would damage the the project or might want to damage article subjects, including, possibly, Ms. Kruse. Therefore, when we get a request to remove an image, we require that it is from the person him or herself, via OTRS so that we can verify that the request is genuine and not the work of a vandal or an enemy of Ms Kruse.

In order to accomplish this, she must send the request from an address traceable to her to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. When that is done, the Commons community can consider whether to take the image down or not. It would help that decision if she were to have previously uploaded a selection of freely licensed images that she prefers. The final decision on the selection of images belongs to editors at the various Wikipedias, but if there is a good selection availalbe, it is likely that her wishes will be honored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Shustov

Hi Jim, I didn't include File:Bri Teresi at gym.gif and File:Bri on a fitness ball.gif because Shustov does not appear as a subject and could thus plausibly be the author (notwithstanding his struggles with factual statements). In any case, these were clearly created with the same service (the former even has the watermark) and may thus need to be deleted as well. Эlcobbola talk 16:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think he is the man on the left in the first image and, as you say, the conversion service TOS clearly apply to both. Is it time to think about a permanent block? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. He's uploaded a number of these and/or similar images (e.g. [1][2]) at ru.wikiversity (if not elsewhere) with the note "This image is my bystander selfie, whose legal status does not yet have consensus on Commons" ("Это изображение является моим bystander selfie, легальный статус которого еще не имеет консенсуса в Commons.), so he's apparently absorbed the authorship notion from the historical DRs and discussions, but nevertheless continues to upload such images here? (I misspoke above; he does in fact appear in File:Bri Teresi at gym.gif, uploaded today). I just can't reconcile that thought process. Then, obviously, there is the conversion service issue which continues unabated. These issues have been a slow burn for years now and I don't see an indication of a willingness to change, which seems reasonably suggestive that there is disruption to be prevented with a block. Эlcobbola talk 17:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, I think we are agreed -- one more bad action and he's blocked for good. He's one of those guys who likes to argue black letter law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vladimir Nabokov 1969b.jpg

Hello Jim. I have to say that I agree with you: "there is no evidence that this image was first published in Italy". As simple as true. Can I write this simple comment after your final decision to confirm it considering the long debate? Thanks. ;) --Lucas (msg) 17:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand -- my closing comment is not that long -- only four sentences, or which the clause you quote is in the first one. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Bare Facts Boys 2014.jpg

Hi James, could you please explain your specific concern about a potential copyright issue with the photo The Bare Facts Boys?

Sincerely Wesley England Wesrelips (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The correct place for any discussion of a DR is at the DR. It will get much more visibility there than here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bare Facts Boys photo and Notability

Good morning James,

Thank you for taking my question. I recently proposed a Wiki page on the Band, The Bare Facts. You had two questions that you had addressed with me concerning deletion.

1.) I had posted two photos. One of which contained my name. You had mentioned that because I am in the photo, I could not be the one to approve the use of the photo. May I ask how I would go about verifying that this photo is mine, taken with my camera, at my request? The second photo was taken in 1968, and there is no copyright of this photo. 2.) The second question that you proposed was why this band is notable? I would refer you to two things. One, there is another band, already on Wiki, with the same name as ours. Their background and experience is very similar. However, unlike this other band, we have been recognized in print, The Secret History of Chicago Music, as a significant influence in Chicago music. The band has been interviewed on Radio and Video many, many times, as recently as 2016. I had added a link to the publication on the Wiki page I had created.

I am an honest and sincere contributor to Wiki and I would like to have these issues resolved, to your satisfaction. I do believe that we should be given the exact same consideration as the other band, mentioned above.

Sincerely, Wes England — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesrelips (talk • contribs) 15:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, the correct place for this discussion is the DR, not here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

about this discussion

No, I just wanted to put an "agree" after your closing sentence. The irony is that we spent kbs and kbs talking about pd-italy without talkiing about the main point that you caught. ;) --Lucas (msg) 20:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

System glitch

Hi Jim: I think the system glitched at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hingol National Park.JPG. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ellin -- when you see that happen, feel free to delete it yourself. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Umm

You appear to have made a mistake at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kirk Alyn as Superman in a publicity still from 1948.jpg. While I (really) dislike the argument that 'such things were rarely copyrighted' as a rationale for keeping a work (per the PRP), you said you deleted it while keeping it. - Reventtalk 18:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Revent, thank you for noticing my error. I mentioned in passing that "such things were rarely copyrighted", but while that is true, I would not have kept it on that basis. My rationale for keeping it was, as I also said in the closing comment, the very solid fact that if there was a copyright, there is no evidence that it was renewed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any particular reason to assume that a 'registered name' for it would have included the name of the actor.... 'useless' names are the biggest problem with searching for images in the copyright records. That being said, searching for 'superman' shows that the actual 'episodes' of "Atom Man vs. Superman" were renewed by "D C Comics, Inc." (but no images), and searching for that registrant shows no photos either, so we are probably okay as long as it was an actual 'publicity still' and not a frame from one of the films. This is really close to the cutoff point, however... if it actually 'was' from 1948, we would not see it in the database. - Reventtalk 19:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem!

because i used this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Robert_und_Ernestine_Auer,_letzte_Briefe_01.jpg. thue uploader is the grandson of ernestine and robert auer. i can't understand the prob. i used a commons picture.--Abadonna (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert und Ernestine Auer, letzte Briefe 01.jpg. Also, your crop did not mention the source, but the result is the same. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
hello! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Robert_und_Ernestine_Auer,_letzte_Briefe_01.jpg - photographer is known and dead since 1943. can i have my picture back? thanks!--Abadonna (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi, see here, Yann has more or less declared that he will continue to speedy reclose DRs if reopened after his keep-closure. In case of most other admins, a reopening would not even be necessary, because they are open to talk about a closure at their user talk page, but Yann has been ignoring my questions at his talk page for some time already. I'm also not a fan of creating a new AN/U topic for every future occurence. Do you have a suggestion on how I can get a second opinion on a Yann keep-closure in future cases? Jcb (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said at the cited discussion, I am tired of being in the middle between you two. Johan, we have 36 million images on Commons. At least several hundred thousand of them need deletion. I suggest that your time, Yann's, and mine would be much better spent if you let marginal cases go instead of battling them to the end. Yann and I disagree frequently -- most recently on Pokemon airplanes -- but there comes a point when I just move on.
Yann, as I've said before, I do think it is a mistake for an editor to close a re-opening of a DR which he closed originally. The only exception to this is when the nominator is someone who is relatively new and is just being foolish. While Johan often pushes things beyond where I would go, I don't think he is ever foolish. If Johan keeps on re-opening your DRs -- which I really hope he will not -- then either let them run the seven days or call on someone else to close them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aliole

Dear Jim,

On January 27, you have deleted the following files marked as {OTRS pending}:

File:Stukalov Domashny ochag.jpg
File:Stukalov Sadovy budynok.jpg
File:Stukalov Blagoustroistvo 2.jpg
File:Stukalov Catalog.jpg
File:Stukalov Blagoustroistvo.jpg
File:Stukalov Roman Fora.jpg
File:Stukalov Old Park.jpg
File:Stukalov Modern Berlin.jpg
File:Maksymovych sign.jpg
File:St.Georg Church Kyiv.jpg
File:Montazh Maidan.jpg
File:Stukalov Oleg.jpg

The author of the artworks, Oleg Stukalov, have sent his permission to OTRS [Ticket#2017012210004582] on January 22. As I can found on the OTRS/Noticeboard "The permissions-commons queue has a backlog actually of 50 days approx.". So, what should I do to keep the files on Wikimedia Commons until the permission is confirmed by OTRS volunteers? Thank you in advance to your answer. Aliole (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that except for finding us a great many more more OTRS volunteers, there is nothing you can do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Smile2.png

Hi!, It seems that after the deletion of File:Smile2.png, it was run a command to remove it from all places where it was used. Could that command be rollbacked? I planned to upload another Smile2.png file (with a proper {noncomercial} license) Thanks you very much. --Rizome (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. Given your intention, you should have simply uploaded the new image over the old one and said that at the DR. The we would have only deleted the first version in the file. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

USSR / Russia criminal case materials

Hi, I'm writing you in reference of your conclusion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:YETI Unsolved Mystery Since 59.jpg. My questions are:

  • "It is not clear that it is covered by the tag in use" — this is upon the conclusion from 2014 made by other bureaucrat Ellin Beltz. If the consensus has changed / tending to change at Commons and PD-RU-exempt is not more applicable to USSR / Russia criminal case materials - then it would be valuable to know in advance.
  • "I don't see a moral issue here" - based on Commons practice (personal medical examinations removal for instance) I personally see such an issue here within WP:LIVE. Just like I cannot come to a hospital or a mortuary to photo the needed for some article injuries or levels of body decomposition.

Yet the principal question so far remains about the template applicability. --NeoLexx (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

On the first, I read the law to include documents, but a photograph is not a document. On the second, you cannot quote WP:EN on Commons -- we have different rules. Also, the dead have many fewer rights than the living. For example, it is axiomatic that you cannot libel a dead person. I doubt that they have the same privacy rights in many countries. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
On the first question it would be then helpful to get some more-or-less common decision about photos made by police (militsiya for USSR) employees as a part of their duties and as a part of a criminal case folder. For text documents of the kind I see some consensus but for photos of the kind I see a contradiction between two fresh Commons bureaucrats' decisions (Ellin Beltz-2014 and Jim-2017). ru-wiki would strongly prefer neither fell into middle of such conflict (so be wrong/right upon who's viewing some request page) nor sticking to one side against other. Maybe some actual common decision could be pronounced by bureaucrats, or over some COM:VPC conclusion?
The privacy rights most definitely apply to Commons as well, no special exception for it. And the death is not any form of transforming a body into the public domain. Nor it is a form of a public performance anyone free to attend and to photo by default. If say someone's wife died, it doesn't mean at all that right after her last breath any Wikipedian can enter to the room and to photo her and/or the process of her autopsy for project purposes and w/o a clear written permission of her husband or other relatives. This is important to remember for some future cases but can be skept for now as not directly related to the first question. --NeoLexx (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I did not suggest at all that a photographer could intrude upon a death and force his way in to take an image. However, as I did say, the privacy rights to an image taken legally are minimal. A dead body is, in the law, no longer a person. Newspapers often show bodies in newsworthy situations, which this clearly is. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
"the privacy rights to an image taken legally are minimal" — taken for a publication or taken in the line of the duty (medical or criminal examinations)? What you suggest here (and it is pretty same mistake as in this RFC or this discussion) is that any doctor or a police department soon obtains a large set of photos of personally identifiable corps and their parts in public domain - free to use for any purposes w/o anyone's special permission. If Commons (and Wikipeda respectively) would ever go with that logic, the result soon would be become financially intolerable. Here one of rather often cases when the in-project practice very wisely refrains from in-project wording ;-)
Should we invite Ellin Beltz or move to COM:VPC to commonly clarify the first question and the frame of applicability of PD-RU-exempt? --NeoLexx (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The image we discuss here has no relation to newspapers or newsworthy situations. It is clear that the photo was taken by a government employee on the duty: investigator, forensic pathologist, or a specially employed photographer. In any case the copyright of the photo was alienated from the photographer from the very beginning.--Yellow Horror (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Only if you intend to quote me correctly, I don't see any use of what you said I said at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dyatlov Pass incident. The entire issue here is copyright and there is no conflict between what Jim decided and what I did. The images that I dealt with were not taken by the police or official agency. The incident happened in the late 1950s, the images are not yet out of copyright. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
If there is no concern about copyright for File:Dyatlov Pass incident 02.jpg, there should be no concern also about copyright for the photo that we discussing here. The photo of Rustem Slobodin body in the morgue of Ivdel was taken in the course of official investigation of the Dyatlov pass incident and kept in the case file.--Yellow Horror (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

File:WV_banner_Balkan_province_Statue_in_Balkanabat.jpg

Being a derivative work of File:Balkanabat.jpg that has been deleted as per Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Statues_in_Turkmenistan, I suppose that this image should be deleted as well. --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done, thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Low quality images

Based on your decision at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yayamamo do you think the rest of this user's uploads are ok or are some of them too low quality too? Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't look at all of the remainder in detail, but as you said in your comment, they all seem to be in the several hundred pixel each side range, while the ones deleted had one dimension less than 100 pixels. As I said in my closing comment, using images less than around a hundred pixels as thumbnails does a disservice to our users with impaired vision. They will have set their default size for thumbnails to suit their needs -- several hundred pixels.
While I wish the remainder were larger, there appear to be useful images among them, so I wouldn't advocate a mass deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
That is my thought too; they rest are small but not really too too small to be entirely useless. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


Freedom of Panorama in France

Dear Mr. Woodward, I'd like to question the deletion of the image of the Paris symphony hall from Wikimedia Commons. The French law on Freedom of Panorama was modified in October, and now Freedom of Panorama does exist, with certain exceptions (no commercial use, extended to individuals only). i've written a number of articles on architecture in France, and find that it's impossible put up images of important buildings, such as the new concert hall, the new museum by Frank Gehry, the Pompidou Center, etc. Even images of the Louvre pyramid are forbidden, though most editors seeem to overlook that. Since France has changed the law (the new text is found in the article on Freedom of Panorama) I wonder if Wikimedia Commons Editors can take a more inclusive approach toward French architecture, in light of the new French law. It's not perfect, but its much better than it was before. Many thanks for your thoughts on this. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) While I'm not Jim Woodward I'd like to comment that these recent changes in French copyright law do not effect the situation at Wikimedia Commons. Media at Commons must be free for anyone to use for any purpose including commercial re-use by organisations. So the exceptions made in the latest update to the law (no commercial use, extended to individuals only) are still contrary to the requirements of Wikimedia Commons. De728631 (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
De728631 has described the situation much as I would, thank you. The problem with non-commercial use restrictions is that there are almost no non-commercial uses. All of the following are commercial:
- Any web site that is run by a for profit company, that solicits contributions, or that has advertising. This leaves only personal web sites.
- Any print use unless the work is given away free without advertising. This includes text books, unless free at every stage.
- Almost any other educational use unless the school is free.
So, the new French law is really not very useful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

(Cat-a-lot: Removing from Category:People by name)

Hi, why are you currently performing such edits? Please note that Category:People by name as well as Category:Men by name and/or Category:Women by name are considered as flat catgegories. Both People and Men/Women should be set. --JuTa 21:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ju -- I screwed up -- I was just removing the images from the Cat, but my Cat-lot preferences were wrong. I'm about to fix it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually there's a template (to be substed), {{PeopleByName}}, which puts automatically both People by name and Men / Women by name (according to gender). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Sorry about that. {{PeopleByName}} looks useful -- if I understand correctly, it adds DEFAULTSORT as well as the two cats. However, here all I was doing was replacing the Category:People by name that I removed with HotCat. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes Jim. But, since someone expressed concerns because of the hiding of DEFAULTSORT, then the template should be substitued. Not a great deal, I have to say, but I can understand that such functions like DEFAULTSORT would better appear in the code. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Restore

Hi Jim, why files deleted before 16 June 2006 can't be restored? Either policy or technical limitation? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea. I tried it on the image at UnDR and it came up with the description but not the image. So technical, not policy..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please restore discussion page

Hi Jim,

Would you mind restoring (temporarily or permanently) the discussion page File talk:Kamianets-Podilskyi August 1941 roundup.jpg which you deleted recently? There was information there that I'd like to have access to. Thanks!

--Malatinszky (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done I copied it to Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Kamianets-Podilskyi August 1941 roundup.jpg where it can remain permanently. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The formatting is weird but I can work with that. Thanks. --Malatinszky (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Malatinszky, note that I put around the whole text so that all of the sigs in it would not ping all of the people named. If you remove the nowikis temporarily and click on preview, you will get it the way it was originally. Please don't save it that way, though. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Museum of Bad Art

Hello James. I see that the awful painting "Lucy in the Field With Flowers" has been deleted from Commons. Would you (or User:INS Pirat) please check out the Wikipedia article Museum of Bad Art to see if there are problems with any of the other images. I plan on contacting the museum to get proof that the Lucy image is legitimate for donation to Commons, and I may as well discuss with them any other images that we have questions about. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I have two problems with the OTRS e-mail that covers the paintings in the article. First, as I said in the DR closing, it includes a name, e-mail address, and signature line for the "Permanent Acting Interim Executive Director" but actually comes from a third party with an address at yahoo. My experience suggests that there is a 50/50 chance it is a fake.

Second, there is no reason to believe that the museum has the right to freely license these works. That right almost always remains with the creator of the work. In order to accept the Museum's license for the works, we would need to see the written agreement with each artist allowing the Museum to freely license the works. Note that that would have to go directly to OTRS from the museum -- not be forwarded by you.

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Museum of Bad Art .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Jim, yes, I understand your objections. What I am asking is whether you see any problems with the other images at that Wikipedia article. I want to work with the Museum of Bad Art to fix all the problems together, instead of going back to them again and again. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand this question. The two images of the building and the one of the security camera seem to be OK. All of the other images in the article are cited in the DR cited above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please

have a look at [3]. Gerardus has died in 2011. Yours, --4028mdk09 (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I know that, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't delete this image, which infringes on the sculptor's copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

UDR

Hi Jim, You included the whole page of COM:SCOPE in UDR: [4]. ;oP Yann (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Nikki Phoenix

2238 words
Hi Jim, apparently you seem to think Nikki isn't her, since she uses a Gmail account. (odd if you looked at her signature block) But Since that's the case, and since another editor incorrectly cited My photo on Jetset Magazine as the reason I didn't own my photo, you should read the additional email sent into Permissions: [Ticket#: 2017012510017269]

But, for fairness sake, I like to make sure everyone is able to read it, so here it is..... you will note, 1) Jetset Magazine correctly lists me as the photographer for my photos now, thanks to whoever found these and was dumb enough to infer that I am not the owner of my own photos, 2) She has reached out to Jetset, and THEY have corrected it, acknowledging I am also the Photographer and she is obviously the model, as well as 3) her email in fact being actually hers. Also yes, she owns 4) NikkiPhoenixxx.com as well as her mainstream website IamNikkiPhoenix.com

In a way this is good, it found someone using my photos without credit, it ends any speculation by pundits here about Nikki's email, and it cites the problems people here have caused for her (and as a byproduct me) in correspondence with Magazines that somehow seem more legitimate to people here than the Model or Photographer. There also will be NO DOUBT that whoever looks at this trouble ticket will be siding correctly with regards to ownership of the photo, and not base their opinions on if emails are using a gmail account. Perhaps it will also encourage Editors here to be a little more unbiased, however, in my experience having been here for over 7 years, with a multi year break because of this very type of thing, I doubt it. You are however, free to publicly apologize for stating that Nikki is not herself because of her gmail account though, and I will make sure I make her aware of it.

Feel free to read the email correspondence below which has already been forwarded to permissions and feel free to leave a message on my talk page fellow wikipedian, for future reference, when people are who they say they are, and do own their photos, and know the owner of the magazine in question, it's easy for them to prove these things enjoy the read.

" from: IamNikkiPhoenix to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org CC: Art Javier, (LAWYER) subject: [Ticket#: 2017012510017269]

You will note that because someone at Wikipedia cited this site as holding the copyright to this photo instead of the Photographer Art Javier, I have now fixed that as well.

IF There is anyone else you want to try and infer owns this photo besides Art Javier, let me know and I will fix that as well. LOL

http://www.jetsetmag.com/model-search/vote/nikki-phoenix

You will NOTE this page now give full credit to Art Javier, and in addition comes from my Actual email which is a gmail account, another point someone at wikipedia made trying to insinuate I am not ME. (Really? Did you read the signature block? There's no one else that has my verified accounts, but Since the OWNER of JETSET MAGAZINE knows I'm me, That's will be good enough for Wikipedia won't it.)

From: David H. <XXXXXXXXX@jetsetmag.com> Date: Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:12 AM Subject: RE: Hi there, it's come to my attention that you did not give photo credit to the photographer To: IamNikkiPhoenix


Hi Nikki,

Thanks for your message. I reached out to the Crow Vote team and they added the byline underneath your bio. If you’d like we can just have your profile deleted from the site instead? Just let me know.

Thanks, David

From: IamNikkiPhoenix Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:28 PM To: XXXXXXXXXXXX@jetsetmag.com Cc: Art Javier; (LAWYER) Subject: Hi there, it's come to my attention that you did not give photo credit to the photographer

On the Photos I sent in for the Miss Jetset Magazine contest, and we need to do that since we don't want anyone to infer that you hold the copyright on the photos, and that is not the case, the Photographer Art Javier does.

If you can please add:

Photos courtesy of Art Javier/Sights & Sounds Productions Inc.

Below the written copy block that will alleviate any potential problems before they become problems, as Wikipedia has now tried to infer that you are the copyright holder on a photo that he owns.

Otherwise I'm sure we will have to remove all of them, in order to protect him, his copyright and my Wikipedia page which is being vandalized because of this now."

--Art javier (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

1) This is not the time or place for this discussion. It should be at Commons:Undeletion requests if and when the restoration is denied by the OTRS volunteer handling the case.
2) The first OTRS message has not reached the head of the Queue there, so anything done now would be allowing you to jump the line.
3) So far I have seen nothing that proves that User:Art javier is the person cited in the various OTRS e-mails and I have seen enough suspicious behavior so that I will not take any action. When the message reaches the head of the queue at OTRS several weeks from now, then the volunteer handling it will act according to his or her judgement and experience. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Jim, I find that it is always best to make sure EVERYONE can see what we are talking about, so in my opinion this is the perfect place. IF you are going to say I don't own my photo, its best to actually have some proof before making a statement like that. Your comment that the photographer owns the rights to the photo is absolutely correct, which is why your statement that a website (nikkiphoenixxx.com) should send a something into OTRS is complete nonsense. However, rest assured, I sent in the Signed Model Release, the ID Pictures of Ms. Phoenix holding her IDs to OTRS, and she has also emailed OTRS confirming I own the Photo, as did her Lawyer and I have been CCed on all the emails. That way no one will be thinking that anything is 'Suspect' as you put it, especially since the Jetset Magazine now credits me as the photographer too. Wickology has also pinged you about this now, as he disagrees with your viewpoint as well. It is a pity that you are so confrontational about something that you already know are totally mistaken on, and I have all the necessary documentation to prove. Either way, the next trouble ticket will be settling this as there is no room for speculation on who owns this photo.

However, it will please you to know that Nikki sent in and email from her site anyways, just so you would know there's no room for you to cite that either.

Ticket#: 2017012510017269

Nikki Phoenix Support <support@nikkiphoenixxx.com> To permissions-commons@wikimedia.org CC Nikki Phoenix, Art Javier, Lawyer 

Today at 12:41 PM

To Whom it may concern,

The owner of this site, Nikki Phoenix, asked us to send in this email, since one of your editors (Jim) erroneously has asked for permission on this photo's use to come from us, instead of the Photographer, Owner, and Copyright holder, Art Javier, who has notified us that You have tried to tell him he doesn't own his own photo.

Note the Art Javier, (Art javier on Wikipedia) is in fact the Photographer, Owner, and Copyright holder, can use the photo as he sees fit, already sent in copies of Ms Phoenix's IDs and Model Release, Ms. Phoenix has already responded comfirming that he owns the photo and can do anything he likes with it, and Our Lawyer has already emailed confirming this as well.

Why it is that we need to send and email from her site, because this editor says:

Deleted: As far as I can see, we have no evidence that the subject of the image has the right to freely license it. That right usually belongs to the photographer. The OTRS message is from a generic address and gives no evidence of anything -- it includes a photo of an unknown person holding what purports to be a model release from Ms. Phoenix and the subject image showing on a screen. Note that Ms. Phoenix owns www.nikkiphoenixxx.com, so the fact that the OTRS e-mail comes from a generic site is itself suspicious behavior. Lastly, the OTRS e-mail has come in recently and has not yet reached the head of the queue, so the image must be deleted until the OTRS message can be acted upon.

Is puzzling, but in order to support the actual owner, photographer and rightholder, Art Javier (Art javier on Wikipedia) who donated this photo many years ago and took the photo for free, and to completely debunk false statements, we are happy to do so.


Regards,

Nikki Phoenix Owner NikkiPhoenixxx.com --Art javier (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Everything above is irrelevant because we do not accept third party letters that appear on Commons -- anyone could have written them. And, as I said above, any discussion here is meaningless because I am not the person who will handle the matter some weeks from now. Anything more you say or do here or elsewhere on Commons will simply be a waste of your time until the matter is opened on OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Ummm...... Since you wanted an email from NikkiPhoenixxx.com documenting ownership and She sent you one, best to stop trying to be right on a losing battle you have already lost. As you already know, I sent in the signed model release, and her ID shots so you just simply look like a person who refuses to admit wrong doing, and I have all the documentation necessary to prove it. Instead of besmirching my name with false statements you can't prove, best to realize OVERWHELMING evidence has been sent in that TOTALLY refutes your False and Unproven statements. --Art javier (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, anything you say here is useless. This matter will not be considered until it reaches the front of the OTRS queue several weeks from now and I will not be the one that deals with it. You are wasting your time and mine here.
And, I have made no false statements and have not besmirched you in any way. I have simply said, repeatedly, that we do not know who you are and will not know it until the OTRS case is considered. That will be at least several weeks from now. Considering your attitude and tone, I am glad that I don't have to deal with it.
That is the last of this I will tolerate here. If you continue to rant here on my talk page, I will ask one of my colleagues to block you from editing on Commons..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
As Jim did not mention it above, I could do without being called dumb ("Jetset Magazine correctly lists me as the photographer for my photos now, thanks to whoever (sic) found these and was dumb enough to infer that I am not the owner of my own photos" [5]), thank you very much. To say the photo does not have adequate evidence for our purposes is not to "infer that [you are] not the owner"; indeed, tellingly, no one to this point has supported your novel position and, your self-indulgent posts [6][7][8][9] remarking on the submission of additional evidence are an implicate admission that such evidence was indeed lacking. Further, your use of "pundits" as a pejorative and unfounded accusations of bias is also unacceptable (see COM:BLOCK). One appreciates the irony that you believe Wikicology to be unbiased--who was defending his conversion from a speedy to a DR and who is indefinitely banned from en.wiki for copyright violations and self-promotion (!!!) I, and presumably others, was/were aware of this issue because of concerns of your attacks brought to an admin noticeboard. (That Ms. Phoenix chose a crass message is no excuse for your lack of judgment in uploading it. [10]) Accordingly, consider this a warning that you may be blocked if such misbehaviour continues. You are aware of AGF, you are obligated to follow it (e.g., the opposite of "Instead of besmirching my name with false statements". [11]) Эlcobbola talk 21:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
elcobbola, is this your comment "a statement on a legitimate publication's website is, in fact, exactly that. not a clear evidence that you have no idea of copyright. Do you? You really need to stop directing an ad hominem attack to me. Linking to my en:Wiki ban as an ad hominem means of dismissing and discrediting my views is personal attack. I remind you that you have no special editorial authority by virtue of your position over anyone here and refusal to refrain from personal attack may result in a block. Wikicology (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seoul Cityskape.jpg

hi you deleted page aiflc i am trying to build this page because its correct information. its school — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramjiramji10111987 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC) The issue on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seoul Cityskape.jpg was that the account was Flickr washing. Because of that, the review tag was invalid. Elisfkc (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Same with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vegan raw chocolate hazelnut cheesecake (14073676527).jpg. Elisfkc (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Ramjiramji10111987, I'm not sure why you came here -- when you left your note, above, the file had not been deleted. However, I now understand the situation and have deleted the two files. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Ian Tomlinson

Hi James, I can't see why you deleted File:Ian Tomlinson speaking to police.jpg. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ian Tomlinson speaking to police.jpg.

I can't see the file page, but as I recall it was a still from the video that was released by the author, as the OTRS ticket explains. Can you tell me what the file page said? Pinging Miniapolis. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The reason was exactly as shown in the DR. We have an OTRS permission, ticket:2009042410048381, for three related images, but it does not include this image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
James, the OTRS release is for the whole video. All the stills come from the video. There was one image that was not a still, and it had a separate copyright, but I don't think it was the image you deleted. SarahSV (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
No, the OTRS message discusses three specific images. It also says that the video is PD, although the reason given is not particularly good:
"The video was obtained by the guardian and the man who shot it, a new york fund manager who wants to be anonymous, wanted us to publish and distribute. He did not want money or ownership. So there are no copyright implications."
There is no indication that the anonymous New York fund manager actual executed a transfer of the copyright or freely licensed it. The OTRS correspondent is a journalist, not a copyright expert, so I am inclined to believe that the Guardian relied on Fair Use and a verbal consent, and actually does not have the right to freely license the video.
The message also points out that there are other images on the Guardian site and elsewhere taken from similar vantage points that are not PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Images by user Vespertunes

Hi Jim, I don't understand what happened here on this DR. You seem to agree with the fact that the artwork should be deleted, but then closed the DR without actually deleting those files. Could you explain please? Thanks, - Takeaway (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. Note the dates. There are two DRs there. I closed the second one a day after it was opened as housekeeping because there was a similar DR on the same files. I did not intend to close the first one because it had only run one day, so I made a  Delete comment. However, the software that we use to close DRs, DelReqHandler, closed them both. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


Help for upload

hello sir, please tell me that, how to upload in wikimedia commons using API url's ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddst40 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean. Of course I know what a URL is and what an API is, but I don;t use either term in reference to uploading to Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you sir. --Ddst40 (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Treasury bills.jpg

Hi Jim, thanks for cleaning up and closing the confused DR from JHerbstman. The file usage of the old File:Treasury bills.jpg is no longer visible to me, but from memory I think it was used in more wiki articles than I'm currently seeing for the "File usage" of the replacement File:1969 $100K Treasury Bill (front).jpg. Are you sure it got replaced everywhere via User:Jameslwoodward/GlobalReplaceLog/2017/2? Or does it take some time for the "File usage" section to update fully? —Patrug (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

My recollection is that the six shown in the log is right -- I used the global replace tool and, as far as I know, it works correctly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmmmm. "File usage" for the new image currently shows a total of 6 files, but 5 of them already had the new filename previously, and only 1 (on hi.wikipedia.org) shows your GlobalReplace in the edit history. Do you have access to the old File:Treasury bills.jpg page, or a detailed log anywhere, to show which 6 articles the GlobalReplace attempted to update? –Patrug (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Just found these 6 diffs from your Xtools log. It looks like the new image links ended up with "T00K" instead of "$100K". Can you fix globally? (I don't want to risk manually editing wikis where I can't even read the alphabet.) —Patrug (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
(1) http://kn.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%B2%B8%E0%B2%A6%E0%B2%B8%E0%B3%8D%E0%B2%AF%3ASandhya_murugan%2Fsandbox&diff=prev&oldid=749733
(2) http://kn.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%B2%96%E0%B2%9C%E0%B2%BE%E0%B2%A8%E0%B3%86%E0%B2%AF_%E0%B2%AC%E0%B2%BF%E0%B2%B2%E0%B3%8D%E0%B2%B2%E0%B3%81&diff=prev&oldid=749732
(3) http://hi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%3ATheoder.m.s%2F%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A0&diff=prev&oldid=3382840
(4) http://kn.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%B2%B9%E0%B2%A3%E0%B2%A6_%E0%B2%AE%E0%B2%BE%E0%B2%B0%E0%B3%81%E0%B2%95%E0%B2%9F%E0%B3%8D%E0%B2%9F%E0%B3%86&diff=prev&oldid=749731
(5) http://kn.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%B2%B8%E0%B2%A6%E0%B2%B8%E0%B3%8D%E0%B2%AF%3AMani96_bcom%2Fsandbox&diff=prev&oldid=749730
(6) http://hi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%3AARATHI_R_SONI%2F%E0%A4%96%E0%A4%BC%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%BC%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE_%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B2&diff=prev&oldid=3382838
✓ Done Thanks for your effort here. At first, I thought I spelled the replacement incorrectly, but since it got one of them right, that wasn't it. Strange problem.
As for editing in a strange alphabet, it's actually pretty easy since all you're doing is replacing a file name that is in Latin characters. I've done it in many of the non-Latin alphabets for the same reason. The hardest part is when it asks you whether you want to edit in place or edit the source and you can't read which one you want to click on. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Talk page stalker Probably it interpreted the dollar sign ($) instead of taking it literally. It is a bug that should be reported. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe it was a typo after all. In the article where you saw the right filename (my diff #6 above), apparently there are TWO copies of the image, and one is still a red-link to the wrong filename from the GlobalReplace. —Patrug (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Not fair

James, regarding https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_La_Comunificadora I believe you have not been honest. From what I see, you initially nominate them for deletion arguing that the images are not notable. And after our initial comments, you delete them by providing a totally different reason which is "virtually everything in these images is copyrighted" for which we have no chance to answer because the deletion request is closed. Images are deleted and not visible anymore. Maybe you were right, but this is not a fair way of working.--Jordiferrer (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Jordiferrer, actually, it is not only fair, it is required. When any Commons user sees an obvious copyright violation he is required to add the {{Copyvio}} tag to the file, which will cause its immediate deletion or, if he is an Administrator, he must delete the file on sight. This is done both to protect the rights of the copyright holder and to protect WMF from legal action for hosting copyrighted files.
That fact that our colleague, Eugen Zelenko did not consider the copyright issue when he nominated the files for deletion is completely irrelevant. See Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#File for policy and more information. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert and Ernestine Auer

and again https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Robert_und_Ernestine_Auer,_letzte_Briefe_01.jpg, can i get back the picture? see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gedenksteine last section. or have i to reacreate a third time?--Abadonna (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the request any more than I did last month when you asked the same question. File:Robert und Ernestine Auer, letzte Briefe 01.jpg was kept after the DR and, unless some different information comes to light, will not be deleted. The other version of the photo (cropped to remove the mat) has been deleted and cannot be restored since it is a duplicate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I also note that you have apparently created two sockpuppets to discuss these images and for other purposes. As a general rule, a person should have only one account. There are specific reasons why a user might have more than one account, but they must be declared and must never be used to edit the same page or to create the impression that more than one user supports or opposes an action. I have blocked User:Gedenksteine and User:Martinvie and will block User:Abadonna if you create any more user accounts. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear Jim, there must be a misunderstanding. Firstly: Martinvie is not Abadonna/Gedenksteine. He is the grandson of Robert and Ernestine Auer. Abadonna is a woman. Secondly, Gedenksteine is the working account of Abadonna for all memorial purposes. At least in deWP this is well known and openly declared that Abadonna uses this second account. See: [12] and [13]. When some users in deWP requested that Abadonna/Gedenksteine should use only one account, she tried to unify them as User:Donna Gedenk, but failed as some unfriendly user had already created this account in czWP (after she signed several times as Donna Gedenk on my German disk, see: [14] and [15]). Therefore the unification of the two accounts failed (until now). On 15 January 2017 I informed the administrators of deWP about this act of stalking: [16]. Abadonna/Gedenksteine is currently very sad and upset, not only because of this bad trick someone played with her but also because of several acts of unfriendliness elsewhere. Maybe she forgot to log in with the proper account in this discussion, but I can assure you it was not bad will but good faith to save this image. The user who requested the deletion did also some other unfriendly things in deWP, i.e. [17] where he deleted references and substituted them with the tag references missing. I assure you that I will assist Abadonna/Gedenksteine in unifying the two accounts and politely ask you to unblock Gedenksteine. (Her IP has been blocked and she can't even use the account Abadonna any longer). Best wishes--Meister und Margarita (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information above. I have received three convincing e-mails from Abadonna on the subject. I have unblocked User:Martinvie, but he or she must be more careful not to give the impression of acting in concert with Abadonna. While they may not be the same person, two persons working in concert is also against the rules here. I first suspected the problem with the request above, where all three were involved with the two versions of the same photograph.

I have also unblocked the IP address used for Abadonna and Gedenksteine. I don't understand why she needs two accounts -- is one personal and the other for her job? That would be a good reason to have two as long as (a) she declares them on both user pages here and on any other WMF project where she works and (b) she carefully avoids ever using both accounts to edit any page or make comments of any issue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

ok, my english is bad and i tried! to wirte, why and so on. martin uploaded a picture, i do not wanted to use with the frame, so i cropped it. yes, i asked him for pictures, he uploaded it in commons. why i answered with abadonna, and not with gedenksteine, is because i want only use abadonna for discussions any more (since a few weeks). and i can't see that i used both for same discussions (but possible, that i not see it now). whatever, the account gedenksteine has the permission to upload fotos by two fotographers (otrs tickets), abadonna do not have the permissions and it is very very difficult in commons with permissions. so i need gedenksteine for uploading the pictures. i can write on both accounts, that abadonna is gedenksteine and gedensteine is abadonna (like in german wiki). thank you.--Abadonna (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC) i have a lot of pictures stolpersteine praha, i can upload, because of permissions (otrs ticket is running for gedenksteine).--Abadonna (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, that all makes sense -- by the way, your English is certainly entirely understandable, not a problem at all.
There is, however, a better and easier way. I can put a note in the OTRS ticket file(s) that says that gedensteine is abadonna, so that you can put that ticket on uploads by Abadonna and it will be OK. Let me have the ticket number(s), please. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
it is this one 2015051110021786 and i am waiting for the second (i sent mails for on 5 december last year and today again (i got no answer). --Abadonna (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

false attribution as own work

Hi Jim- Do you know if we have a procedure or template for dealing with uploaders who claim images as their own work when they are clearly not? I've noticed this issue enough to imagine we might have a process for addressing it, but I have trouble mining our help pages for guidance. Most recently noticed this activity on the part of a troublesome en.wp editor who claimed a BPL scan from archive.org as his own work. I should add that I have had less than collegial interactions with this person. Thanks in advance for any tips or help. --Eric my en.wp talk page 14:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

If the image is PD, or is of a work that is PD, which is the case with the book you cite, you can simply change the license and description as I have done there. One cannot claim copyright for a scan of a 16th century work, so a CC license of any kind cannot be used. I also changed the author and source in the description.
If, on the other hand, the image or the pictured work is not "own work", is under copyright, and is not covered by an OTRS license, then the appropriate thing is to nominate it for deletion. Although it is possible to do this manually, by far the best way is to click on "Nominate for deletion" under "Tools" in the left column.
If the uploader has done this more than two or three times, then please use VFC. It will save you considerable time in making the nominations and it saves the closing Admin one click per file plus having to write only one closing comment for the whole batch. You can access it easily by using
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:VisualFileChange.js&withJS=MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js
or learn more at Help:VisualFileChange.js. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi again Jim- Saw your changes to that file--thanks! Glad to learn of that easier en.wp link template. But now more questions: How does the template "know" to go to en.wp for BPL, but it.wp for ol' Cherubino?? And another: When I put BPL as the author, I assumed that parameter was looking for the author of the image, not the work portrayed in the image. Do we have parameters for specifying both? Regards, --Eric my en.wp talk page 15:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The {{W}} template assumes WP:EN as the default. So {{w|Boston Public Library}} goes to Boston Public Library at WP:EN. To use it for another language WP, you add the language tag as the third parameter {{w|Cherubino Ghirardacci || it}} (note the double pipes "||" there) going to Cherubino Ghirardacci. The second parameter is used as it is in most links to use words other than the title of the target, as {{w|Cherubino Ghirardacci|the sixteenth century Italian Cherubino Ghirardacci |it}} will give the sixteenth century Italian Cherubino Ghirardacci.
If the author of the image is significant, particularly if it is a CC-BY license for a 3D work, then you list both, as at File:View_from_Olympic_Sculpture_Park_Seattle_WA_-_panoramio.jpg. However, in cases like the book, where the scan or photograph has no creativity, then the only author that anyone cares about is the creator of the pictured work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Got it, thanks for all that info! Sorry, I thought I'd nixed one of my questions after I noticed the language tag parameter. That's a template I wish I'd discovered long ago! --Eric my en.wp talk page 15:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by El cóndor andino

Hi Jim, in my !vote there I mentioned another file with the same issue. Did you also consider to delete this one? De728631 (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The case of the VW logo is much less clear -- it certainly does not have a copyright in the USA and as mentioned in your DR, the threshold in Germany is not clear. Therefore I left it to others who might know the German ToO better than I. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually I meant File:2808 audi logo nuevo th 2.jpg which is also of German origin but was part of this DR. De728631 (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Same problem -- no USA copyright and I don't know about the German... .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I see. So I have marked that Audi file as "kept". De728631 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Does a simple sentence have copyright in the U.S.?

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:KandaMyojinZenigataHeijiSign8808.jpg (note that I am not arguing on the deletion, but your deletion comment), you said that any text on one or more sentences have copyright as a literary work in the U.S. and many other countries. I would like to ask for a clarification regarding that. If this is true, does it also include "simple" sentences, like facts (ex. Paris is located in France.)? If also true, then there are a lot of files to be deleted. Maybe a link to the copyright law of the U.S. would be useful, so I can see if this also include simple sentences (likely include, since you are a native speaker of English, while I am not). I don't think the TOO of the U.S. is high like that. Thanks, ★ Poké95 10:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Good question. I had based my position on the following, from the USCO's Circular 1, Copyright Basics:
What Is Not Protected by Copyright?
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:
  • works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)
  • titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
  • ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
  • works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)
[emphasis added]
The fact that USCO calls out "short phrases" as not eligible said to me that a long phrase or any full sentence will have a copyright.
I find, however, that it is not so simple. I just did a search and found a scholarly summary from Stanford. The author, Mary Minow, is the executive editor of Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use website, so it carries Stanford's considerable weight.
The article and the cited cases make it very clear that there must be a measure of creativity in the words, so your "Paris is located in France" would not give rise to a successful suit for infringement. A single very creative sentence (“E.T., Phone Home” or "Euclid alone has looked on beauty bare.") will have a copyright and multiple sentences almost certainly do.
I will have to change my stock response to these situations. Thanks for the prod to add to my education. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, especially to the link to an explanation by Stanford regarding short phrases. I think this should be added to COM:TOO, for future reference and to avoid future confusions. It seems we are clear here that a phrase or a sentence needs enough creativity to be protected by copyright. ★ Poké95 10:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Public benefit-related attitudes in Sweden.png

It seems that I misunderstood the intention with the deletion request. I thought the information would be moved to a page with wiki markup. Instead it was simply deleted. Where can I now find the information provided on the deleted page? I hope I can add it to a Wikipedia article. --Jonund (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

{{Information |Description={{en|1=Public benefit-related attitudes in Sweden. Percentage of people agreeing with the statement ‘claiming government benefits to which you are not entitled is never justifiable’. Source: Heinemann, F.: "Is the Welfare State Self-Destructive? A Study of Government Benefit Morale," ZEW Discussion Paper No. 07-029; with the latest World Value Survey data for 2005-2008 added.}} {{sv|1=Socialbidragsrelaterade attityder i Sverige. Procent av människor som håller med om påståendet "att ta emot socialbidrag som man inte är berättigad till är aldrig acceptabelt". Källa: Heinemann, F.: "Is the Welfare State Self-Destructive? A Study of Government Benefit Morale", ZEW Discussion Paper No. 07-029; kompletterat med de senaste data från World Value Survey för 2005-2008.}} |Source=[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iea.org.uk%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpublications%2Ffiles%2FSweden%2520Paper-%2520revised.pdf&ei=6OhVUPm-GsqQ4gTjmIC4Dw&usg=AFQjCNGBLFzJNDjiOn2PQFP-7enkICpgfw&sig2=6Zi438hHWiSz2K0ZT5fFdA Nima Sanandaji: The surprising ingredients of Swedish success – free markets and social cohesion] |Date=2007 |Author=F. Heineman, World Value Survey
Image:

1981-84 81.5
1989-93 74.5
1994-99 57.9
1999-2004 55.3
2005-08 61.0

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Donald Campbell Photo/s

Why have you removed these?? If you didn't like the changes, why not just undo them rather than delete the whole picture and caption.?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beltane43 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about. The Donald Campbell images were clear copyright violations for which policy requires deletion on sight. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

inappropriate revert by an admin

I think I was the subject of an inappropriate revert by an admin on Commons. It began when I nominated for deletion a serious of pictures like this one whose PD in US is no longer valid. There are about 60+ of these pictures all uploaded by the same admin. All my nominations for deletion were approved on Feb 5 by you. On Feb, 6 the admin reverted the file move I requested that was approved by User:Dyolf77. I am led to believe this is in retaliation. I am hesitant to confront admin or nominate any more of his files for deletion. I just wanted advise on the matter. Am I misinterpreting the situation? Was my file rename request "Unwarranted"? —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I think you did not act as well as you might. When you see what you think is a bad file name, asking for a {{Rename}} is OK. However, when that file was uploaded by one of the very active members of Commons, it would be better to drop a note on his talk page rather than using {{Rename}}. Since he was an Admin, it has the same effect of requesting a rename and ultimately, the uploader is allowed some control over his file names.
As for the reason for the rename, as noted in the file description, it is a 1972 trading card, so the longer name is perfectly accurate and is, I think, helpful to users choosing files. If I had seen the rename request, I would have refused it for that reason. As a general rule, active editors don't have time for revenge games. While I can't read his mind, I think he might have been unhappy with your move and reverted as a knee jerk reaction, but I don't think it was revenge for the DRs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I hear you on the revenge aspect. However, I requested the rename to the longer name. The admin revert the rename to the shorter name. My request was to clarify the year because Abebe Bikila was paralyzed in 1969 and he is almost clearly standing in the picture. This is how the photo appeared before my involvement. Notice I investigated and added the details about the trading card. As it stands now, the name sounds like the photo was taken in 1972.
This is not a small matter either. The name had an effect on the Abebe Bikila's article on wikipedia, a very important article to several Wikiprojects. The caption in the infobox used to say "Abebe Bikila in 1972," the reason for my request in the first place.
The misleading file name continues to have an effect: french article on Abebe Bikila. I usually don't check the uploader's rights before requesting a rename. I will in the future.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Licence agreement for Oliver Harrison photo sent on 11 Feb 2017

Hi Jim Richard Townshend has signed a Wikipedia licence for the use (permissions) of this photograph (he had already given permission to me verbally on condition that he was credited). Richard sent the email on 11 February 2017 to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. (Underground Art (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC))

That's good. OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks until the license is read, approved and the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, I appreciate the difficulties with understaffing and that things might take longer. I'll be patient and monitor the article.(Underground Art (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC))

Underground Art, note that if the license is satisfactory, the image will be restored to Commons eventually, that it will not be replaced anyplace else, so you would do better to keep an eye on the image page here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

PDM images & Upload wizard

Upload wizard allows PDM images to be uploaded to Commons as in this 2017 photo by user Slowking. In this case, Slowking is both the uploader and copyright owner so there is no problem but there may be a problem if one uploads other people's images through Upload wizard. This seems to be a loophole on Commons that was missed.

Admin Revent is trying to change this situation here This is just for your knowledge. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but as noted at the cited discussion, there actually is not a problem..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

DR

Hi Jim, Hope you're well, When you're not busy could you close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Missed the bus ! (8139321628).jpg as Withdrawn please?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done It is perfectly legal for non-Admins to close DRs as Kept as long as they know what they are doing. That's particularly the case when you are withdrawing your own DR. You need to:

  1. Add Kept, a closing comment, and your sig to the bottom of the DR.
  2. Add {{Delh}} to the DR top and {{Delf}} to the bottom.
  3. Add the {{Kept}} template to the file's talk page.
  4. Remove the {{Delete}} template from the file.

Admins use the DelReqHandler script to do all of this with two mouse clicks plus the comment, but we used to do it all by hand. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a very bad confession .... I couldn't be bothered to find all the templates etc and then close it all , I used to close my own Drs but these days I've become lazy, I gathered you lot had some sort of tool! , Anyway thanks for your help - As always it's much appreciated. –Davey2010Talk 23:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of photos from the Berlin festival of lights

Hi Jim, I think you forgot to delete two pictures in this deletion request. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Please, on the basis of WP standard policy and practices, undo

…your deletion of the C&EN magazine cover, which was taken over one objection, and which would have had at least my tentative second Keep had you not acted peremptorily. On the same day you short shrifted the discussion and made the decision about this cover, another C&EN cover was widely supported to remain (and so does remain, here), where it was noted that there was no valid reason for deletion. Please reverse your deletion action, here—please allow the community to decide, together, about this issue. Will wait a day, and only then communicate then matter more broadly. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

PS. love the land tool and light house images, by the way. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
You may, of course, post an Undeletion Request, but threatening to do so will not get you the reaction that you want. Threats can even get you blocked.
The vast majority of Deletion Requests have no comments -- only the nominator and the closer, so I hardly "short-shrifted" the discussion or "acted premptorily" at the one you are complaining about. It was open for the full week required by policy and only one person had bothered to comment. It had two people in favor of deletion (the nom and me) and one opposed. I don't think that there can be any question that it has a copyright. All that is required in the USA is a measure of creativity. The combination of layout, graphics, logo, and two full sentences of text easily put it over the Threshold of Originality. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Your closure statement is clearly erroneous and unspecific. The sentence “I see no reason to start keeping copyrighted magazine covers.” is superfluous at best since it answers a question that hasn't been asked. The only question to be answered is, whether or not this cover actually is copyrighted. The pieces of text are not, quad paper is not, the logo is not etc. --Leyo 19:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Dr.Direk Lavansiri.jpg

Hi. I think you may have missed the file in the section header when closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dr.Direk Lavansiri.jpg. Sorry for the confusing nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Closing DRs

Hello Jim

I did use DelReqHandler. It made this edit but didn't touch the File: or File talk: pages. Maybe it's not working correctly? Sorry for the noise. Platonides (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Martadosanjos2.pdf

Hi Jim,

you commented that the file might qualify […] if the subject were important and it was cited in such an article. Well, it's pretty much safe to say there are few mosquitoes more important than en:Aedes albopictus and the file has been cited as a source in pt:Aedes albopictus since 2008 (diff). May I kindly ask you to re-think your decision? Best, --El Grafo (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read my closing comment again -- that is not what I said. Citing a dissertation as a source does not require that it be hosted on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Muebles BOOM.png

Hi Jim,

I am new in commons so I am very grateful for your help in order to learn how to manage the galeries and files. Today I uploaded some pictures of a retail business from Spain in order to include this information in the company Wikipedia entry. I tried to do it in the same way I saw in El corte ingles (another retail company from Spain) but obviously I did not done it well since you erased the gallery and the page. Could You please tell what would be the right way? I am a bit lost because I do not know what I did wrong.

Thanks in advance and best regards.

--Vbmoritz (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I have just seen one previous message. Sorry Jim, I recreate the page because I thought that it was simply not saved instead of erased.

Thanks for your help and best regards.

--Vbmoritz (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Vbmoritz. Thank you for your polite request for help' If you don't understand something, please do not hesitate to ask again.
Fundamentally, almost everything on the Web has a copyright unless it has expired. Since copyright in most countries lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator, you can't assume expiration unless the work is from the 1880s. There are also some other exceptions, particularly for government works -- more so in the USA, less so in most other countries. So, when you find something on the Web, unless the site clearly has a CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or another free license named on it, you probably cannot upload the images here. See COM:Licensing for more information.
The gallery page El Corte Inglés is all images taken by Commons contributors which are freely licensed. Your images for Meubles BOOB were all taken from the company's Web site without the company's permission -- that's the difference between what you did and what the creator of the other gallery did. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanation Jim. I will have it in mind in my next steps in Commons. --Vbmoritz (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower's copyright issue

The special lighting of Eiffel Tower is copyrighted, but there were some photos (on Commons) which were not deleted, when I nominated them for deletion, with one of the closures saying something like "the tower with only red colour lacks creativity.

Here, in this photo, I am using Arch Linux's logo for representing Eiffel Tower. It is lit in French colours, which is definitely a copyright violation. On the other hand, if we crop the original photo, in a way I did (each cropped image is bordered), we can say, individual photos lacks creativity. So, individual photos can avoid deletion, and, they will be governed by CC BY-SA license. Since it allows SA, one can download those files, and stitch them together. Overall, in a way, this will account for copyright violation. What do you say about it?

I am pinging other users who participated in the discussion for their comments as well: @Asclepias, Fugitron, and Yann: .--Canopus Grandiflora 18:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Canopus Grandiflora: Hi,
There is no proof that any special lighting of Eiffel Tower is copyrighted. Only a show is copyrighted, the rest is a unproven claim from SETE, the Eiffel Tower company. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. The decision of the French court which was invoked multiple times in deletion requests only applies to SETE's shows, not lightings. Some of SETE's lightings, including the French flag one, do not reach the threshold of originality (the rotated French flag is not theirs). Therefore, they are not entitled to forbid pictures of the tower at night to be published without their consent. ▸Fugitron‘‘❗’’, 18:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, To keep it short:
1. I'm not sure Jim (or any user) will be happy to see his talk page requisitioned for a general discussion. If you expect multiple comments and replies, you might want to move the discussion to a non-personal talk page.
2. I don't know why some people would treat the tower differently. My take is that the matter should be treated like any other, with common sense and the same principles.
3. To be copyrightable, a work must be sufficiently originally creative and "reflect the personality of its author". Juxtaposing the three colours of the French flag, or of the Belgian flag, does not pass that test, by far, IMHO. Besides, before anything else, there would be a need to show that an individual has actually claimed authorship for this.
4. I reckon that YMMV and I'm not opposed to another round of discussion of this recurrent topic somewhere if you think it can be useful, but pretty much everything has been said and there's not much new to add. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

While I don't object to having a discussion here, I agree that the Village Pump might have been a better place. I think that the question has been well covered above, so I have nothing to add. Thanks to Asclepias for a good summary. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

well, if the French flag won't be an issue, let us consider about the show. So, if photos are cropped in such w=a way that a single colour is visible, making the individual images not so creative to be copyrighted, what can we say then?--Canopus Grandiflora 19:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It sounds like you're asking us a personal tutorial about some general principles. If I understand your question, which is highly theoretical, it could be about a situation like the following example. You're the photographer who takes a photo of something that is actually copyrighted, let's say of a recent sculpture, and that sculpture is the main subject of your photo, so you can't publish freely that photo without the permission of the copyright owner of the sculpture. Then you cut your photo in several parts in such a clever way that each part of the photo shows only a part of the sculpture small enough, or away enough from the center, that you believe that it may be either de minimis, or merely incident, or unrecognizable, and for this reason you believe that you can offer each part of the photo under a free license without the permission of someone else.
  • One important point is this. Your license applies only to the creative aspects that are embodied into the photo as a result of your photographic work, created by yourself as a photographer. Your license does not apply to the creative aspects that contribute to the photo as a result of the sculptural work created by the sculptor, because you don't own the copyright on it.
  • The law may allow you to license freely a part of the photo as long as it shows the sculpture only incidentally. The law does not allow you to freely licence without permission an image where the actual result is that the sculpture is the main subject of the image. It does not matter if the resulting image was pieced back together from smaller parts.
  • This part of your question about cutting and reuniting pieces is unnecessarily complicated. The copyright principle is much the same as, for example, in the famous court case about Place des Terreaux, and it could be explained more simply with the following example. You take a photo on which a copyrighted sculpture is shown, but that sculpture is not the main subject of the photo. Let's say you take the photo of a public domain place and the copyrighted sculpture happens to be shown on the far left side of the photo. In France, you can publish your photo, without the permission of the copyright owner of the sculpture, as long as it is clear in good faith that the sculpture is not the main subject. But if you crop your photo to keep only the far left side, thus making the sculpture the main subject of this cropped version, you couldn't publish that version without permission. It is also a similar general idea that is explained in relation with Commons:De minimis. (How the sculpture may be shown may depend on the law of the country where the photo would be used).
  • It can be summed up with two very basic principles of law: 1. One can't give more rights than one has (e.g. they can't grant a license on a copyright that they don't own), and 2. one can't do indirectly what one can't do directly (they can't use a scheme to try to do what the law forbids them to do).
-- Asclepias (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with everything Asclepias has said, but I'm not sure it's on point. First, as Yann pointed out above, only the light show is copyrighted. Lighting the tower blue, or red, or white is not. Even using all three is not because there is nothing creative about it. I suspect that unless the light pattern wee very complex, that no single pattern from the show -- no still image -- would be held to infringe. The only infringement would probably be a video of the show.
Now to Canopus's question. To some extent it is moot. If the red, white and blue are not sufficiently creative to give rise to a copyright, as I suggested above, then any image of one color is also not sufficiently creative. However, the general answer to the question is that if you take a photo of a detail of a copyrighted painting, the photo will usually infringe. The only such photo you could take that would not infringe would be one of blue sky, black background, or something else so plain that the artist could not be identified. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
If cropped photo is difficult to identify, one can use CC license and upload it. So, it delete it, we can only comment about the scope of the media?--Canopus Grandiflora 00:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Analjit Singh.jpg

I think this PDM DR image was missed. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Leoboudv, I don't see why you are bringing this to my attention here. It is simply one of many February 14 DRs that I didn't close for lack of time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Loksa108

FYI you closed the wrong discussion section. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Town45

Thank you Jim for help. I have the permission to freely license the work of the sculptor by an e-mail. How can I get send to you of the persons who need to solve it. Thank you again. Town45 --Town45 (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The sculptor must send a free license directly to OTRS himself. Unfortunately, we have too many vandals and fans who try to upload works to be able to accept licenses forwarded by the uploader -- they are far too easy to forge. The images will likely be deleted when the seven day DR period expires. They will then be restored automatically when the license has been received and approved. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


Thank you so much Jim. --Town45 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Remove my personal photo

Hi, I uploaded my personal photo in commons,

please remove it.KPU0 (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No valid reason?

In reference to my deletion request of File:LluisRamirezDeLucena.jpg that you rejected because of "no valid reason", what reason do you expect to delete a portrait of a person better than the portrait IS NOT of that person? WTF. This means that if I publish a portrait of Leonardo DiCaprio saying he's Vladimir Putin that's not enough to be deleted?Lironcareto (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you read my closing comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:LluisRamirezDeLucena.jpg again. Deleting a file because it has a bad name and description is never valid. Instead, you should change the description and request that the file be renamed by using {{Rename}}.

Also, it is a waste of your time and mine to raise the issue in two places at once. That is particularly the case since no one except the two of us is likely to see your comment on the file's talk page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Boulevard Plaza, Dubai, UAE.jpg

Consider a review here, Since FOP has been changed in the years after old discussion ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Captainofhope, sorry but I don't understand your comment above or why you reopened the DR on faulty grounds. The FOP rule in the UAE has not changed since the last DR. However, FOP is irrelevant, because the image came from the Flickr site belonging to the architect, so the image is fully and correctly licensed. Unless you have something new to add to the discussion, I suggest you withdraw the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
The page says "Designed by Andrew Bromberg of Aedas" so Will Aedas hold the copyright or Andrew Bromberg.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I've been in the IP world for a great many years and I have never known of a firm that deals regularly with IP that does not have in place an IP assignment agreement in place with each of its employees. In many countries, including the United States, such an agreement is actually redundant, since the US copyright law explicitly says that the copyright for work done by an employee in the course of his or her employment belongs to the employer, see Work for hire. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for throwing the light on this, Got the real picture behind the same ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Hi, just noting that you seem to have closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:BSicon ÜSTdr-l.svg as delete without deleting the file. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Admins use a script, DelReqHandler, to rapidly close DRs. Occasionally it hiccups and doesn't delete when asked. Thanks for telling me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fischoff Gold Medal on String.jpg

Hi Jim, if the medal wasn't copyrighted by mark when it was first presented, wouldn't contemporary versions of the medal design be copyrighted? Not sure how the grandfathering would work czar 16:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. If the design of the medal changed since 1989 and the subject image is from after that, then yes, we have a problem. I assumed that like most organizations (Nobel, Oscar) giving this kind of award that the medal has stayed constant. If you believe otherwise, I could reopen the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Ankaracenter.jpg

Is this the same image as en:File:Ankaracenter.jpg? If so, isn't it by the uploader, and isn't it high enough quality to be in scope? —innotata 18:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

They are the same image, although the one on WP:EN is a little larger. I think the quality is poor and the image is not in use. On Commons, the upload was by Zaparojdik~commonswiki who tagged it {{GFDL-self}}. On WP:EN, the upload is by Jayzel68 who claimed to be the author in the GFDL license and on the Author line of the description, but said "A snapshot from Kızılay. (John J. McGough)" in the summary.

Given the not great quality and the fact that the image has three different claims to authorship, I think it is best left deleted here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Kızılay is the neighborhood depicted, not a person, to be clear, and Zaparojdik uploaded it later; I still don't see a reason to doubt Jayzel68 is the author. And since it's in scope and doesn't have any copyright issues, there's no reason it shouldn't be on Commons. —innotata 20:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
First, who is John J. McGough? It seems to me that Jayzel68 is saying that McGough is the author. Second, we have two editors who both claim the image is "own work"? -- why believe one over the other. Granted that Jazel68 has more edits, but they both have clean records, and Zaparojdik has been active over a much longer period. Finally, there is the fact that the image is unused and relatively poor quality. Given the uncertainty over the authorship and the poor quality, I see no reason to have the image on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Jayzel68 gives his name as John M. on old versions of his userpage, in addition to giving the author to all the files he uploaded and tagged as own work as John M. McGough. Looking at the log for the Commons upload, it looks like Zaparojdik copied the file from commons with its description intact rather than intending to claim copyright.
What I really can't agree with, and the reason I'm still pressing this, is the idea that Commons can or should restrict what's on it beyond the COM:SCOPE criteria, to the point that it can't include free media that are or have been used on sister sites, etc. I'd like this to be discussed if needed in a regular forum with input from others, so unless you object, I'll transfer this and Jayzel68's other remaining photos to Commons, and you can nominate them for deletion if you are sufficiently concerned. —innotata 04:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
If you had said at the start "Jayzel68 gives his name as John M...", I would have agreed that it seemed that the copyright status of the image was OK.
We still have the issue of quality. You don't seem to understand that policy says that Commons cannot refuse to keep an image that is in use on another project. We apply that policy rigorously, and regularly refuse to delete images that someone thinks are poor quality if they are in use elsewhere within the WMF group. However, that does not seem to apply here. Even though the image is available on WP:EN, it is in use only on talk pages, which don't count under the policy I cited above.
I also disagree that we ever "restrict what's on [Commons] beyond the COM:SCOPE criteria" in the way that you mean that. Of course we can delete files that are copyvios or violate other rules or laws. But "scope" includes quality so the quality issue with this file is a Scope issue.
In sum, you've spent a lot of time arguing that we should restore a poor quality image that is available on WP:EN, but not used there, and that, until you finally revealed more information, appeared to be a copyright problem. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Umm, my original request identified the uploader as the author. I don't think these photos are quite poor enough on scope grounds, and there are reasons they may have some value. Thanks for explaining your reasoning though. —innotata 16:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Kyenge sentence undeletion request has been archived

So, the undeletion request has been archived while I was waiting to have some time to reply, since wiki*s are not my main occupation. I've given a time frame that I've not respected, I understand that; anyway, consensus for non-restoration has been achieved on disinformation. In fact, the vote of @Ruthven: was contrary because he believed sentences are not PD in Italy and its publication could have violated privacy law. This was the reply I couldn't give on that:

According to art. 2699 of Italian Civil Law), a public act (or atto ufficiale, or atto autentico) is any legal document whose content is to be considered true for the law. It is written by a notary or a public official, that is, according to art. 357 of Italian Penal Code, any person who is in charge, even temporarily, of a juridic, administrative or legislative function for the State or any other public office. In particular judges are public officials (even teachers are, too). Public acts usually contain juridic facts; judgements are by definition public acts.
The fifth article of the first heading of the first title of Italian copyright law affirms that:
  • Le disposizioni di questa legge non si applicano ai testi degli atti ufficiali dello stato e delle amministrazioni pubbliche, sia italiane che straniere.
  • This law does not apply to the text of the public acts emitted by the State and by public offices, even not Italian ones.
So, judgements are public domain, if we intend that a work is in public domain when it is not protected by copyright law.
The fact that you have to pay to obtain a paper version of a judgement does not imply that the document itself is copyrighted. I can publish something in public domain and still charge you for obtaining a paper copy from me. This is actually the way many opensource project use for finance themselves. Debian costs 10 USD if you want official CDs.
Still someone can limit the spreading of a public domain document, when it contains private informations, so that it falls under the domain of privacy protection law.
In this particular case anyway, since the document it is been published by a newspaper and the actors of the proceeding are an MP and a party, I don't think there can be privacy concerns.
PS: sorry for being late.

What I'm asking you here is how to behave now that the request has been archived. I think to have provided enough details on why that file can stay on Commons; what I have to do? Reupload the file and reach again for consensus linking previous discussion? Upload a similar file, reach consensus and then appeal for this file basing on the existence of a precedent? Open a discussion in the bar to change PD policy for legal documents in Italy? Ogoorcs (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Even for old hands like me, decisions on Commons do not always go the way we like. Your best action is to forget it and move on. We have more than 36,000,000 images on Commons, and a great many of them -- several hundred thousand at least, need attention from our few active Admins. Therefore, when a decision has been made at UnDR, any further action is likely to result in nothing except irritated colleagues and, eventually, if you push it hard enough, your being blocked. That has happened more than once when new editors come here and expect us to do things their way rather than according to Commons policy and precedent. You have already gotten more than your share of attention for this relatively minor issue.
I firmly believe that the page is out of scope. References for WP articles do not need to be on Commons, or even on line. Many refs are behind on-line paywalls or are available only in print form, sometimes in only one library. I see no reason at all to use WMF resources to store legal decisions that are readily available through other means, albeit not always easily. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jameslwoodwardǃ

Please, select 2 pictures and delete the other ones. There are two different shirts. Thank you for your advice. Have a good weekendǃ --Regions (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/19th and 20th century work from Quai Branly

Plase restore all the files you deleted here. Authors were not notified until now, so cancellation is against the Commons rules. Moreover there is no issue on those files, besides a clear copyright paranoia --Sailko (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

As you will see, I am about halfway through correcting my error -- I had intended to keep them all and just hit the wrong button by mistake. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for all the work I caused you and the friction that my forgetfulness triggered. Rama (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Kings Walk Shopping Centre, Gloucester

Hey, Can you re-delete this article again, Wasn't thinking when transferring the photos to my Category:Kings Walk Shopping Centre, Gloucester.D Eaketts (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dubai_marina2.jpg

Can you review the picture, I believe that there is no exception for "Skyline" for such closer images, If the designs of the building is invisible, the image may stand on COM:DM - ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

As you see at the DR, I nominated it the first time. I think that the keep closures are both clearly wrong, but I don't spend time fighting losing battles. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I dont know how admins rule it, Since the awareness of FOP situations are not equal to all, So a new policy to be made as the FOP cases can be dealt only an experienced admin who fought with win and loose on all battles, Further such keep is one sided and tempting to re-open the DR again. What is your suggestion on it......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Jcb is the fourth most active Admin of all time, so you can hardly argue that he is inexperienced. He also tends to be on the deletionist side most of the time. We have 36,000,000+ images on Commons, several hundred thousand of which should probably deleted. I have much better things to do than opening DRs for a third time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Got it...Let some one else try - ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

File:LASCO C1a.png

Hi Jim!

Can you undelete the above file for a brief period so that I can import it to Wikiversity for fair use? Thank you in advance for your kind consideration! --Marshallsumter (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Please let me know when you're done with it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Transfer process complete! Thank you! --Marshallsumter (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

the copyright's termination

✓ Special:Diff/236472117. Thank you. very much --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wellington Building photo deletion

[moved from a category created for this comment] It would appear that the copyright for my recently sumbitted image on the Wellington Building entry is being questioned.

I was the project architect for the heritage conservation component of the Wellington Building between 2008-2016. I assure you that the photo (Wellington birdseye.jpg) is one of several taken by a member of EVOQ Architecture staff (namely Philippe Laflèche phil.lafleche@gmail.com, who has since left our firm) for promotional reasons. I myself requested that bird's eye photos be taken from the vantage point of the Confederation Building, where we were also designing a window restoration contract at the time. A series of comparable photos taken from a similar vantage point at different times of the day are available for reference in the following location: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nejkxb7u0opqjdt/AABGppAoUAX-drnMtM4LZDg_a?dl=0

With this in mind, I request that the photo be reinstated.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Estein (talk • contribs) 15:59, 9 March 2017‎ (UTC)

Opening a subject in two places at once is a waste of your time and mine. I have responded at the UnDR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

DR

Hi, please see my reply to you at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Morris County New Jersey Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Beatyestown Highlighted.svg. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you for clarifying that -- "update" has more than one usage in this context and I assumed that the geography had changed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Comparación de gestores bibliográficos deletion

You deleted the file "Comparación de gestores bibliográficos" Commons:Deletion requests/File:Comparación de gestores bibliográficos - 6a actualización (junio 2016).pdf. I do not understand why no uses of the file are listed. It is used (at least) in the following articles:

- would I have to add them manually in wikimedia commons for them to show?

The original source is an English language file published under Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0). ShareAlike means that if you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. Does this not include a translation? If it does, the translators have to make their translation available under the same license, which they do, since the translation bears the same copyright information. Did I get something wrong, here? Pahi (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

First, I suggest you read my closing comment to the DR again. The problem here is that a translation creates a new copyright, which is owned by the the translator(s). As I said there, although you have credited the translators, they must give a free license to use their work and there is no evidence that they have done that. In order to restore the file to Commons, both Martín Bertrand and Patricia Rodas must each send free license using OTRS.

Second, the Wiki software automatically keeps track of and lists every use of a file that is properly linked elsewhere in the project. However, at least one of the links used in WP:ES is incorrect:

  • [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Comparaci%C3%B3n_de_gestores_bibliogr%C3%A1ficos_-_6a_actualizaci%C3%B3n_%28junio_2016%29.pdf wikimedia.org/Comparación de gestores bibliográficos - 6a actualización]

will not properly show up on the file page. The software sees it as an external reference, not a file from a related WMF project. Instead, you should link it as any other Commons file like this:

  • [[:File:Comparación de gestores bibliográficos - 6a actualización (junio 2016).pdf]]

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. I am a little surprised, I must admit. I had thought that if a document includes the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0), this was enough to declare it Creative Commons. Also, as it says on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing, an exception to derivative work applies, at least as far as copyright in the US goes, since the intrinsic nature of the text is utilitarian. If I am mistaken, I will of course ask the translators to send in the request. I corrected the links to have them point directly to the file (which is not there, at the moment). Some links appear in the reference section, and I do not see how I could follow the bibliographic format at the same time, because it is not compatible with the appearance of the direct link in Commons. Pahi (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There are two copyrights here, both of which must be licensed. The first, for the original work in English, is correctly done. But, as I said, there is nothing from the translators. Since you do not own the copyright for the Spanish translation, you cannot license it with CC-BY-SA any more than I can. When the translators send their licenses, have one send it first and wait for the automatic answer, which will give the ticket number. Then have the second one put the ticket number in the subject line. When that is done, let me know here, and I will expedite the clearance.
Just as any other Wiki link, you can use the pipe character (|) in the middle of a file link to display different text from the name of the linked file. I think this what you might want:
[[:File:Comparación de gestores bibliográficos - 6a actualización (junio 2016).pdf|wikimedia.org/Comparación de gestores bibliográficos - 6a actualización]]
which will display as:
wikimedia.org/Comparación de gestores bibliográficos - 6a actualización.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The first translator sent her license yesterday to permissions-es@wikimedia.org, but there was no automatic response. Is that correct? Pahi (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why she did not get a response. It is Ticket:2017031410017286. Please have the second translator put OTRS Ticket 2017031410017286 in the subject line the second message. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The second translator has sent his email, too. Is that sufficient so that you can restore the file? Pahi (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Just a final question: now I remember why I did not hot link the file before: Look at https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendeley under "Véase también". The file is shown with a thumbnail. I would rather only have the link. Is this possible? Pahi (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, found it: a colon in front of :File: will not display the image. Pahi (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm, disadvantage: :File: will have the link disappear from the wikimedia page. Any way around this? Pahi (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand the problem, but I don't know if there is an answer. Try asking at The Village Pump. If there is not a solution, I suggest you put a note in the file description with links to the WP:ES uses of the link. That should keep it from being delweted again as "unused". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The solution is not to use File: or :File: but media: to avoid the thumbnail and still have it show on the mediacommons page Pahi (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Theatre

Hi Jim. I'm not particularly interested in the file, and have not observed closely who's doing what, but it attracts my attention that every now and then red-link new users pop up to edit File:Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese insurgencies.png and almost nothing else other than that. FYI. Have a good week-end. --E4024 (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Louis A. Perrotta photo

Hello Jim and Thank you for your time. I see that a photo File:Iphone feb2017 314.jpg from the page Louis A. Perrotta was removed. This photo belongs to the subject's daughter, taken by her in her personal collection. It was taken in New York in the 1960's and is the property of his family member Vera Perrotta of Huntington NY, who is allowing its use on the page. Thank you. --Mgenzac (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Who was the photographer? Apparently it was not you, as you claimed when you uploaded it. Making incorrect claims here just creates more work for you and the other editors and admins.
As I said in my closing comment:
"Owning a paper copy of a photo does not give you the right to freely license it any more than owning a paper copy of a book allows you to make and sell copies. In order to restore this, we need a license from the actual photographer or his heir, using OTRS."
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please look

Hi Jim: Would you look at File:La Crosse Lager.jpg and its license? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Inca Kola Advertisement Hartog Bell.png

Hi James. Peruvian copyright law indicated that images had a 20 year copyright protection. The Inca Kola advertisement that you deleted is in the public domain. The photographer of the image is unknown, which was not uncommon in Peru (the image legally belonged to the company, Inca Kola, not the photographer). I've studied Peruvian copyright law on images not too long ago. Please do let me know where you're getting your information from about Peruvian copyright law; otherwise, please restore the deleted image. Thanks.--MarshalN20 (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting my information the same place you should be getting it, namely Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Peru. If that is in error, then you should take steps to fix it, but otherwise it is our standard reference. I note that you have on your User page "Link to Peruvian copyright info". That link produces a document that is clearly not the 1996 law, so I suspect you are working with obsolete information.

The cited article says, among other things:

"The Peruvian copyright law of April 23, 1996, which entered in force on May 24, 1996, states in its transitional provisions that "[works] protected under the previous legislation shall benefit from the longer terms of protection provided for in this law". It is unclear whether that also applies to works where previous shorter terms had already expired."

That lack of clarity means that we cannot know beyond a significant doubt (Commons standard of proof) whether of not the image is PD even if we knew it was published before 1976. We also don't have a publication date, so it may well have been first published in 1976 or later and therefore have been under copyright when the terms definitely were extended under the 1996 law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The publication date of the image is 1968, per [18] and [19]. The image copyright expired in 1988, based on the 20-year copyright law that preceded the 1996 copyright law. What exactly is unclear about it? The "unclear" statement is a reflection of the author's lack of understanding, but not of the law. What is perfectly clear is that an image that has been in the public domain since 1988 has been deleted here under the claim that it is not PD. This needs correction. Regards.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
And, no, James. I shouldn't "be getting" my information solely from here. The Wikimedia page on Peru clearly lacks the historical depth to fully understand that country's copyright law. We should always strive to better our understanding of things that we don't know. I don't know how to improve the current Wikimedia page on Peru, but it seems that you do. Instead of criticizing me for where I acquired more information Peruvian copyright law, would you be so kind as to help update that page so as to avoid any further (ie, future) misunderstandings. Thanks.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

When a country changes the term of its copyrights, either of two rules can apply:

a) the new term applies only to works that were still protected by copyright under the old law at the time of the extension. Examples include:
Australia
Iraq
Lebanon
Poland
b) the new term applies to all works, including those works whose copyright had expired under the old law. Examples include:
Argentina
Armenia
Jamaica (partially retroactive)
Netherlands
Paraguay

The 1996 Peruvian law reads, at the end:

"DISPOSICIONES TRANSITORIAS - PRIMERA.— Los derechos sobre las obras y demás producciones protegidas de conformidad con la ley anterior, gozarán de los plazos de protección más extensos reconocidos en esta Ley."

Which WIPO translates:

"Transitional Provisions - First. The rights in the works and other productions protected under the previous legislation shall benefit from the longer terms of protection provided for in this Law

And Google translates:

"Transitional Provisions - FIRST.- The rights over works and other productions protected in accordance with the previous law, shall enjoy the most extensive protection periods recognized in this Law.

My reading of that is that the 1996 Peruvian law belongs in category (b). The work we are arguing about was clearly "protected under the previous legislation" until 1988. If the 1996 law had not intended to extend all copyrights it should have read "The rights in the works and other productions which are now protected under the previous legislation" or words to that effect.

Therefore, I think that the summary I cited above and which you mocked is probably incorrect, but not in the direction you would prefer. However, since we do not know beyond a significant doubt which applies, it should stand as it is.

It is possible that there is case law on the subject. Certainly if you can cite one or more relevant cases on the subject, we can amend the summary as necessary. However, the burden of proof is on you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Suiside Inferno Deletion

Hello there, I just wanted to ask about Suiside Inferno being notable. What does he have to do in order for him to have a Wikipedia article about his music career? He has been mentioned in articles, has a Google knowledge graph, songs in major stores, barcodes etc. Please provide feedback with details for undeletion, that way our team can properly provide Wikipedia with the correct information so Suiside Inferno could have an article.

Thanks again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suiside Inferno (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 March 2017‎ (UTC)

That's not an appropriate question here -- this is Commons, not Wikipedia, and, as a general rule, Commons follows the lead of the various WPs on the question of whether an individual is notable or not. Suiside Inferno can never have an article on Commons because no one has articles on Commons -- they are out of scope. Commons is a repository for images, not a place for articles.
Are you yourself actually Suiside Inferno? Or someone else writing about him. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Restore photos plz

Hi Jim this is the ticket number: Ticket:2017030710002984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Australianblackbelt (talk • contribs) 14:47, 15 March 2017‎ (UTC)

As I said at the DR:

"....Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored." .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your time and reading this message i appreciated and I understand you time is valuable and limited as volunteers. This wikimedia process is more difficult for me that creating wikipedia pages from scratch specially since I am just a highschool drop out. Kind regards.(Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC))

File:Mozilla Firefox logo 2013.svg

Can you please tell me why is this file is kept on Commons when Mozilla says "you may not alter our logos in any way"? (other file which lines up for this call File:Mozilla Thunderbird logo.png).--Canopus Grandiflora 22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Good question. I would say that the license is an ND and therefore not permitted. The disucssion at the DR did not rais that at all. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Should I renominate it for deletion?--Canopus Grandiflora 19:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, a good question. It will certainly be a contentious DR. You certainly can if you want and I will support it unless someone comes up with a credible reason why it can be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
James, you know very well the "you may not alter our logos in any way" is a Trademark restriction! And also you know the Mozlilla Foirefox and Thunderbird logos are explicitely licensed under the MPLv2 license. So, why you're still questionating that? Your advice to Canopus Grandiflora should be consistent with your closure at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mozilla_Firefox_3.5_logo_256.png. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
That was six years ago -- do you really expect me to remember something I did six years and several hundred thousand Commons actions ago? You have a better opinion of me than I do.
Having said that, in re-reading that discussion, I'm not sure that my conclusion was correct. I think the DR is a good idea to clarify the situation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

DR by Jim

Hi Jim. I think there is a mistake about the File:Ata1.jpg. This is not a "personal" file. It is a rare pre-1935 pic of Afet Inan with Ataturk. Ataturk died in 1938, after a long agony. Pictures older than 70 years are in the public domain in Turkey and this one is at least 80 years old. Please correct the mistake. Cheers. E4024 (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

E4024, you are certainly correct that it does not belong in that DR. Thank you for catching it. I am not sure, however, that you are correct that Turkish images are PD 70 years after creation -- see: Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Turkey. It's either 70 years after publication or 70 years pma depending on who owns the copyright. It turns out that it is a bug in VFC. Avilaroman uploaded an image with this name in 2006, which was subsequently deleted. VFC included this image in his upload list. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Official pic. Thank you very much for keeping it. E4024 (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

File talk:Château de Beauregard - Jeanne d'Albret & III of Navarre.jpg

Hi Jim- Would you have a minute to look at the above talkpage of yet another problematic image uploaded by Каволо? I nominated it for deletion, but was turned down. Another editor has since fleshed out the description and sourcing, but I think that just introduced new problems to a file I suspect we should not have. Thanks in advance. --Eric my en.wp talk page 16:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done see Bridgeman. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim! --Eric my en.wp talk page 17:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Apple logo black.svg

I am not sure about this file:

  • The license template says, "was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977", but if I am not mistaken, this logo was not used in 1977. Actually, the company was formed in 1996, and the logo of Sir Issac Newton under an Apple Tree was used, which was designed by Ronald Wayne who is still alive.
  • It is not made up of simple geometric shapes.
  • Apple Website Terms of Use says, "All text, graphics, user interfaces, visual interfaces, photographs, trademarks, logos, sounds, music, artwork and computer code (collectively, “Content”), including but not limited to the design, structure, selection, coordination, expression, “look and feel” and arrangement of such Content, contained on the Site is owned, controlled or licensed by or to Apple, and is protected by trade dress, copyright, patent and trademark laws, and various other intellectual property rights and unfair competition laws."

The file was never nominated for deletion, but I don't think it is fit for Commons. What to do?--Canopus Grandiflora 23:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

How old are you? I am surprised that you could say that Apple was founded in 1996 -- most of us know it as one of the two remaining founders of the personal computer era -- it dates to 1976. The Apple logo shown above was applied for as a trademark on March 20, 1978 and first used in commerce in 1977 -- USPTO registration #1114431. Any use of it for the next ten years without notice or registration of its copyright would have rendered it PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
While rewording that 'this particular logo was used in 1996' to 'The company was formed in 1976, when the logo featured Newton' this error took place. This is because the template says this logo was released in 1977. The multi-coloured logo was used in 1977, not this particular logo.--Canopus Grandiflora 12:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, the official USPTO registration shows this black logo first used in commerce in 1977. That's conclusive evidence that the logo was first used during the notice-required period. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Isn't it 95 years after the first publication? (COM:PD)--Canopus Grandiflora 14:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest you learn File:PD-US_table.svg by heart. Until January 1, 1978, a copyrighted work in the USA had to "notice" as specified in the 1909 copyright law. If it was published with the permission of the copyright holder without notice, then it instantly became PD. Since this apple was used in commerce in 1977, that applies. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Olympia Traveller.jpg

I have uploaded a better version: File:Olympia Traveller de Luxe (1977).jpg , so File:Olympia Treveller.jpg could be deleted.

  • for deletion
    for deletion
  • new
    new

Carl Ha (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done It's not the same model typewriter.

If you do upload a new version of the image of the Traveller, please do not create a new file. Simply click on "Upload a new version of this file" which is below the file History box. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible deletions

Photos of some artworks by a living artist were added to Commons a few days ago. Should these be deleted? They are in Category:Peter Dreher --Jdsteakley (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Peter Dreher. Next time, please just do it yourself. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

romeinen in Nederland

Hi Jim,

(edit to translate from Dutch)

You deleted my category just a moment ago, and I understand a lot of people are busy keeping Wiki's tidy. This week I got help from HenkvD and I get a lesson every month by Ronn.

I'm new, and you chose to delete 'Romeinen in Nederland' before I was ready with it. I am slow, but I'm busy. I would like to make that category and add, for example: {{Category redirect|Category:Ancient Rome}} I believe this is the right way to add a Dutch category and link it to an active English page.

Isn't there a time limit to moderate other peoples work? I mean: if you notice an addition is 5 minutes old, could moderators then wait until my intentions become more clear? Is that workable of impossible difficult for moderators?

What's your opinion on the category 'romeinen in nederland', if it will soon contain a huge part of archeological object from Museum Het Valkhof and others?

Kind regards H. Molenaars 20 maart 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHV GAC (talk • contribs) 10:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You did not create a category, you created an empty gallery, see Commons:Galleries. As a general rule, an empty gallery can be deleted on sight. In order to avoid that, you must either put at least two images in it, use the {{Underconstruction}} tag, or add a couple of words to that effect.
As for Category:romeinen in nederland, it is not allowed. With the exception of Latin names of biological taxa, Commons categories names are in English for technical reasons. see Commons:Categories#Category_names. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
There is already Category:Ancient Roman categories in the Netherlands with a multitude of subcategories so I think you don't need to create a new one. De728631 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both. MHV GAC (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

'File:Lou Sander 2015.jpg'

I posted a response on the file deletion page, or whatever it is called. I hope I am following the proper procedure. I am familiar with procedures on the English Wikipedia, but not so much on the Commons. Lou Sander (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lou Sander 2015.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I have the original photo in size 4032x3024 pixels. I cropped it and photoshopped it to remove reflections in my eyeglasses. Then I saved it in a smaller size. You suggested that I upload the original version, which I am certainly willing to do, but a bit reluctantly at this point. The "Upload a New Version" seems to default to the same filename, which concerns me. I DO NOT want the uncropped, unphotoshopped image to appear on my user page or anywhere else. I am concerned that the original image may replace my painstakingly prepared version, and in fact I have a slight preference not to release the raw photo to Wikipedia. Please let me know what to do here. BTW, the metadata about the image includes the name Zanieski, including in some sort of copyright field. He is a neighbor of mine, and I had borrowed his camera to take this picture. I don't know if his name comes directly from his camera or from some processing he may have done before he sent me the file. Lou Sander (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It would be fine if you uploaded the original, as cropped and photoshopped, but not in reduced size (except, of course, for the crop). And, yes, the Upload a new version will load the new image over the old -- that's the point. You should add to the file a note along the lines of "Zanieski is the person from who I borrowed the camera." .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I photoshopped it and reduced its size all at the same time, so I don't have what you'd like me to upload. I suppose I could once again work on the original to take out the glare, but that seems like a lot of work just to satisfy somebody's suspicions about a photo I took myself and uploaded in good faith. Don't they assume good faith where images are concerned and the uploader provides an honest and detailed explanation? Not to be a jerk about it, but I find myself wondering why there is such an insistence on having a large, high resolution photo. Lou Sander (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, frankly, I work mostly with the part of Commons that deals with problem users. I have run into a great many very plausible liars, so while I 90% believe you, there is still a 10% residual question. I'm not at all sure why a person would deliberately downsize an image of himself that he was uploading. Also, one of the reasons that Commons exists is to have good images available for others besides Wikipedia -- that actually works. A small image is much less usable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I will try to photoshop the original today or tomorrow, and replace the existing photo with it. FYI, the whole world does not revolve around people wanting good images in the commons. I created that small photo (and a series of others like it) to use on my own websites and other publications, for example HERE (scroll to the bottom of the page) and HERE. Unlike the extraordinarily suspicious and editor-unfriendly Wikimedia Commons, a lot of us have a need for, and routinely work with, smaller versions of images. I honor your selfless work for Wikimedia, but I do not appreciate your suspicions, and I do not appreciate the annoyance and work you have put me through. I am not any sort of "problem editor". I am just trying to provide illustrations that will be useful on Wikipedia. Finally, and it's a minor point compared to the inconvenience, extra work, and anger arousal, I am not happy that anyone, possibly an identity-protected someone connected with some sort of identity theft scheme, requires me to upload high-resolution images of myself. As I recall, low-resolution images are OK for book covers, film posters, etc., (but you know more about this than I do). Why not for humans? (No answer required. I do not want to cause anyone any extra work.) Lou Sander (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Lou, again, it is an unfortunate fact of Commons life that we get many people claiming to own the copyright for images that they do not. Most of them are simply ignorant of the law, but a substantial number are deliberately lying for one reason or another. The liars are often very plausible. Therefore, while we accept "own work" when there is nothing about the image to raise suspicions, we require proof when there is any significant doubt about an image. You may find that unfriendly, but the fact is that it is entirely intended to protect the actual copyright holder. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I have uploaded a replacement photo, HERE. It was made from a different original. Please let me know if it meets your standards. Lou Sander (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The photo is great -- good size and you are either very lucky or very skillful with the self timer work. Thanks for your effort with this. I would ask that you add categories -- maybe writers from America, 19?? births, Alumni of ?. People is way too generic -- see if you can drill down to the most specific categories that describe you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Please go ahead and delete File:Lou Sander 2015.jpg. I replaced it with a defaced version in the high resolution you wanted, just to illustrate that I do, indeed, have the original.
It takes more luck than skill to get a good picture with a timer and tripod. Take ten pictures and maybe one or zero will turn out well. It's like trying to get a good screen grab from a YouTube video, just by pressing PrintScreen at the proper moment. Patience is the key.
I believe I will pass on your categories suggestion, to avoid getting into another can of worms, and to avoid revealing too much about the subject of the photo.
BTW, in he Metadata section of the "File:" page, it is emphasized that the timestamp may be wrong. This applies to other metadata as well, which is stated but not emphasized. It's not hard to change a lot of that stuff, and it's not hard for it to stay the same, and wrong, if a camera changes hands. Some of the metadata makes copyright holder claims, based solely on camera settings. If nothing else, those claims are false if the photo was subsequently licensed or released to the public domain. Those vandals you deal with are entirely capable of substituting "Getty Images", e.g., for whatever ownership or copyright info might be legitimately in the camera. Lou Sander (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course, but few of them know that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Your spell checker hates my name

Hiya Jim: Your spellcheck keeps changing me to Eileen.  :) It's really "Ellin" sounds just like "Ellen" but I'm named after my godmother "Ellin MacKay Berlin" (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/30/obituaries/ellin-berlin-85-a-novelist-dies-the-songwriter-s-wife-of-62-years.html) so I get it spelled "Ellin". HUGS! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Ellin, it's not my spell checker -- I have it trained to accept "Ellin Beltz" and most other colleagues' names. Of course, the spell checker also accepts "Eileen", so it's no help in getting your name right. It's just my wayward fingers. I know your name and I believe strongly that people's names are important, so please believe that I try hard to get them right, the spirit is willing but the body is weak. I'll try harder. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
No worries, Jim, I've lived with Ellen, Eileen, and "hey you" my whole life!! :) HUGS!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

March 1, 1989

The point I made had nothing to do with the absence of a copyright notice. My reference to 'legally' was whether volunteers or reusers were at risk in the light that all reasonable efforts had been documented to determine copyright claims, which might then contradict the presumption that federal publication provides a default of PD. The case in point poses no risk to any volunteer, or the WMF. Similarly, the same logic applies to whether under Commons policies the level of doubt can be assessed as 'significant' or not. At the current time, these cases depend on a subjective determination by a deleting administrator. --Fæ (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

We had an image that had first been published on a Texas web site. We have no idea who the photographer was, but, as I said, it is virtually certain that he or she was not a Federal employee. The fact that it later appeared on a Federal site proves absolutely nothing. There is not and could not be any rule that says that everything on a Federal site is PD, so I can't fathom why you think we could have kept it. Sure, there's little risk of a problem, but that's true of the vast majority of the images we delete and that line of reasoning is expressly forbidden by PRP#1. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
We may be talking past each other. In a case where there is no risk to anyone in using an image and by reasonable enquiry (including contacting their office by several means), all the evidence is that the subject is the photograph copyright holder and they have chosen to repeatedly release the photograph without attribution as their official portrait on sites where PD can be presumed to apply, then any court will support the evidence that it was reasonable to presume PD applied. There will always be doubt when a copyright claim might be unexpectedly asserted, however whether this is "significant doubt" per PRP is a question of judgement. In your judgement this is enough evidence of significant doubt, so it has been deleted, but my statement with regard to legal status and risk remains factual and it is fine for others to assess this as not significant doubt.
BTW, with respect to PRP#1, "The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to", that is expressly not the point being made. In fact in line with the preceding paragraph of PRP, "which to the best of our knowledge are free or freely-licensed", it is true that to the best of our knowledge the file is freely-licensed as there is no assertion of copyright anywhere, even after a lot of research and several direct enquiries.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
(frustrated shrug) -- But you can't assume that just because someone posts an image on the Web, even repeatedly, that he intends to freely license it. If that were true, then we could host any image that did not have an explicit (C)- ARR. In order for us to keep this image, it must be explicitly freely licensed so that his opponents could publish it with a Hitler mustache or make other derivative works that he didn't like. I don't know of any site where we can assume that PD applies to all the images. (Of course, there are many sites which have CC-BY licenses covering the whole site, but in those cases we don't assume, we have actual knowledge.) .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Cdfi/Clevermercury

I'm quite confused by your statements at Cfdi's page. What WMF rules are being seriously violated? The fact that en:WP:STRAWSOCK's statement "Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project" refers to an arbitration case, and not to some WMF rule or policy, appears to tell against that idea — why would it cite some decision by en:wp if there's a global policy on the subject? Also, on one discussion, the Clevermercury account simply asked a process question, while in the other discussion, the connection between the accounts was acknowledged; there's no attempt to influence one discussion by both accounts, and there's no way the connection could be missed on the other discussion. Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

PS, do we even have a sockpuppetry policy here, or do we just use the one from en:wp? Obviously we enforce no-disruptive-sockpuppetry, but between the fact that COM:SOCK goes to Commons:Requests for checkuser (why would it do that if we had a sockpuppetry policy) and the fact that Commons:Requests for checkuser links to en:WP:SOCK (again, why do that if we had our own sockpuppetry policy), I'm wondering if we've basically incorporated en:WP:SOCK by reference into our own policies here. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact is that he made edits in two different DRs using two different accounts and then, several days later, when called on it, disclosed it formally on the user page of one of the two accounts. Since then he has consistently claimed that it was properly disclosed before the fact. Even if he had done that, he would still have been in violation of the rule since no one can possibly be expected to have read and remembered such disclosures for all of our 25,000 users.
If he had just said "Oops, sorry, I made a mistake", it would have passed without drama or block. However, he has ranted outrageously that there is a conspiracy against him and that he has not broken any rules. For policy, see the lead at Category:Sockpuppeteers, which says:
"The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position...." [emphasis added]
At Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pycckhcoz we have:
"Another frivolous deletion request is here, on a related image:" (Cdfi)
"Why has this image not yet been deleted while the other one" (Clevermercury)
At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait of Dragut - The Drawn Sword of Islam.jpg
"Keep Faithful reproduction of public domain images remain public domain." (Clevermercury)
"Discussion of deleting this image is not based on any logical reasoning." (Cdfi)
In both he is clearly expressing the opinion that the images should be kept and, therefore, using multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for a position. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Not a rules violation, but a problem of form and courtesy; one of the C-twins sent a summoning ping to me, and the message was something like "don't talk on my talk page." Seriously! Troll-level "we've seen better". Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

A question of Copyright

This question revolves around the page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Crest_Craft_Patches

There is an issue that has arisen, it's actually been going on for some time, where some of the Crests illustrated in this Wiki Commons category have been duplicated and are for sale on eBay. The seller is not making any comment about the origin of the patches for sale nor whether or not they are original or modern duplicates but it is well known his business is to copy other designs and sell them. Clearly, other identical examples of the patches in this Wikimedia category exist of course so one can’t definitively prove that he is copying these specific images. Ironically, the high quality of the images in this Wiki category lends them to probably be the best reference examples for copying.

Penny, the daughter of the original owner, designer and manufacturer, agrees that it is improper for someone to duplicate and sell “identical” designs created by her father and has authorized me to act on her behalf with eBay to try to have this individual stop selling the Crest Craft designs. I have sent in several NOI's (Notice Of claimed Infringement) to eBay with specific examples of the the copied Crest Craft designs and I've referenced examples of the design to the Wiki link. Here is the link to one (of many) examples:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/311813766789?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

which duplicates:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RCAF_2_TTS_Camp_Borden_Aero_Engine_Tech._circa_1950.jpg

___________

I guess my questions are:

  1. Is there in fact a copyright infringement on Gus Werle's Crest Craft Ltd. designs irrespective of the Wiki connection? Am I correct that (in Canada) there is at least a 75 year copyright on his creative designs?
  2. Is there any infringement of this Wiki page and the images contained therein, if one copies and sells the designs without credit to the original designer or manufacturer?
  3. Are these images (on the Wikimedia Commons page) considered, "copyrighted images"? I think I know the answer to this one - no.

I have just received back the following comments from eBay:

Dear Wayne,
Thank you for contacting the eBay Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) Program in regard to your report for listings:
381972981034, 361921216761 311821550156, 311821550199
We understand that this is a pressing matter and eBay wants to assist you in protecting your intellectual property rights. From the information provided, however, the nature of intellectual property infringement you are attempting to report is unclear. First, if you are hoping to report on behalf of Penney Werle, we will need a signed letter of authorization from Penny Werle that includes the full name, address, email address and phone number of the person who is granting authorization. Also, before we will take appropriate action regarding copyright, we will need a link with exact examples and we will not take action on images or designs found in the public domain. <emphasis mine>
If you still feel the listings are infringing upon your intellectual property rights, please respond to this message with the requested information so that we may investigate the matter further.
Thank you for your concern in helping to keep eBay a safe and reputable forum in which to conduct business. We appreciate your participation in the VeRO Program.

AND:

Before further reviewing this claim, we will need a link to the copyrighted work other than the wikimedia commons link. The VeRO department will not take action on items found in the public domain and wikimedia commons describes itself as "a media file repository that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all". In addition, please submit a letter of authorization that includes the full name, address, email address and phone number of the person who is granting authorization or Penny Werle in this case.

___________

To this end, I have again contacted Ms. Werle, who is elderly and not entirely computer literate, to obtain the detailed information required by eBay, via snail-mail.

Sorry for the poor formatting on this comment (relative newbie) and for being so wordy but I felt the details were important. Your thoughts and comments will be most appreciated.

Regards, Wayne --2001:56A:F352:9500:A1CB:2F12:B1CA:20CA 20:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


Hmm. Much as I would like to be helpful, I must first strongly remind you that I am not a copyright lawyer. Here at Commons we are almost entirely concerned with reading and interpreting the laws of the various countries to the best of our abilities. The details of actually enforcing a copyright are not relevant here. So everything I say below is my best guess and may well be wrong.

Following your numbering:
1) Canadian law calls for a term of 50 years pma on copyrightable works other than photographs and works subject to Crown Copyright. However, while Commons takes the position that any individual creation of a coat of arms or crest has its own copyright, if these crests are close copies of the originals used by the military, then they might not have copyrights of their own. If they were created for the military from designs provided by the military, then Crown Copyright would apply, for which the term is 50 years after first publication. Checking that would require looking at the documentation of the government orders. I'm not entirely clear whether:

a) The government came to Crest Craft with a design or
b) The government told Crest Craft it needed a design for such and such a unit and had Crest Craft design it

and whether

A) Crest Craft sold the patches to the government
B) Crest Craft sold the patches to distributors and/or retailers directly to the soldiers and others.
C) Whether Crest Craft was the only manufacturer of patches for some or all of these units.

The answers to these questions will make it possible for me to suggest routes of inquiry for you.

2) That depends on the answers to the questions above. 3) ditto

Are you reasonably sure that the eBay patches are not actual Crest Craft patches taken from old stock or uniforms?

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
_______________________________

As for your question, "Are you reasonably sure that the eBay patches are not actual Crest Craft (C.C.)patches taken from old stock or uniforms?" I am positive they are replicas in every case selected.
Your question and points are excellent Jim. I can see I'll have to do some homework. I would speculate that in most cases, the items selected would have been ordered by the individual units or Squadrons and paid for by the Unit/Squadron members themselves, thus your option::B)
Accordingly, most patches ordered would have some tacit approval by the Squadron or base commander but to call it a "government" order?? I don't think I could say yes to that in general. I'm sure in some cases they were ordered and paid for by the Government by I think determining that now on an individual basis would be impossible.
Yes,to :C) C.C. patches would have been unique manufacture for any given design request and issue. Gus, the owner of C.C., probably made thousands of unique designs over the 35+ years he was in business.
Regards,
Wayne

--A much better place (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I assume from your answers then, that Crest Craft actually did the designs, perhaps guided by what the unit actually did and by a description of what the unit thought would be appropriate. If that is correct, then Crest Craft certainly owns the Canadian copyright, which will last for 50 years after the designer's death. I'm pretty sure that if he died after 1946, the URAA applies and there will also be a USA copyright which will last either 95 years after first publication (effectively creation), if created before 1977, or the later of 70 years pma or 12/31/2047 if created after 1/1/1978 (I think).

The copyright holder can collect damages for misuse of the copyright, which is certainly the case with the eBay seller. However, note that he has made approximately 10,000 sales at $10 each -- around $100,000. While you may be able to stop him fairly easily on eBay, a suit to recover damages will cost tens of thousands of dollars and Crest Craft seems to be only a fraction of what he is selling -- there may not be enough there to make a suit worthwhile. You could, though, get a friend to buy a patch, thus getting his address and have a lawyer send him a formal cease and desist letter. That might or might not accomplish anything. You might also find that he is copying patches belonging to companies with deeper pockets whom you might join in a suit. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Skydrive logo.svg

Just a reminder: you closed the deletion review as "done" but didn't actually restore the file. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks, got called to breakfast. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a reason but hardly an excuse for neglecting your valuable administrative work. Maybe we should introduce the pancake slap to go along with the trouts. De728631 (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:MTR Lightrail icon.svg

Hi,

The deletion request was just to get rid of the copyrighted version but leave the simple "text icon" as this image is referenced by dozens of EN:WP articles. I created the simple version to fix the issues without breaking copyright and someone else changed it for the recreated copyright violation version. So could we have the simple version restored? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks, the DR was not clear to me what was wanted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)

Category:Local nature partnerships

Hi Jim Could I get you to recreate the category you just deleted, please? I thought it best to create the brand new category prior to uploading an image into it - but you beat me to it by about three minutes. You might also care to assess the image I uploaded into it- if you think it will require a formal permission from the organisation, I can arrange for that to be emailed as per procedure. But as the person who created the image, I hope the information I put with the logo will suffice. Cheers. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that -- we're fairly aggressive about cleaning out galleries and categories that don't meet the rules, and about one time in 100 it catches someone a little too early. And, yes, I'm sorry to say that you should have the organization send a free license using OTRS. If you get them to do that promptly, I won't hang a {{Delete}} tag on it, but someone else may. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Donetsk Peoples Republic flag.svg

Hi The file is very important and used in the all versions of Wikipedia. So, in Commons, for the others countries, it is legal to represent a flag. Could you restaure it or purge the file for the copyright ? Also, the licence of the coats of arms have been changed. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

No. The image I deleted was taken from a copyrighted source and cannot be kept on Commons no matter how much other projects need the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

But no, all the flags of Donetsk, like the flags of several countries, are made of national coats of arms and bands of colors. The source was wrong. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, no. It is well established that individual realizations of complex flags and coats of arms have a copyright, see Commons:Coats_of_arms#Copyright_on_the_representation. Therefore you cannot lift a flag off the Web and expect that it can be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Ukrainian law are applied for the files of the separatist republics. Moreover, we have of course the files with the coat of arms of the Ukrainian cities and oblasts. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that the flag was downloaded from an outside site and not made by a contributor? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I  Support the undeletion of this file. The alleged "source" only refers to the blazon of the flag, while the immediate source of the graphics in the Commons file was stated as File:Official Donetsk People's Republic coat of arms.png. The rest is just plain geometrical forms and text, so there is no copyright infringement. De728631 (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Although the file history is complicated and I'm not sure I have it right, it looks to me like the ultimate source is https://vz.ru/photoreport/692109/#ad-image-0 which has an explicit copyright notice. The svg is a derivative work of that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

In fact, the source that was put in order to prove that this new flag is not a fake. The source quoted is an article with pictures, not a file in svg or in png. Thank you for restoring it. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Why don;t you take it to Commons:Undeletion requests -- I think it needs more eyes on it than it will get here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I have another request. For the file File:Flag of the Lugansk People's Republic.svg, could you move the "19:56, 24 June 2014" edition to File:Variant Flag of the Lugansk People's Republic.svg. Also, for the file File:Flag of the Donetsk People's Republic.svg, could you move the "22:59, 11 April 2014", "20:45, 12 May 2014" and "16:19, 16 May 2014" editions to File:Flag of the Donetsk Republic (Organisation).svg ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
No, sorry, I know very little about the politics in that region and shouldn't get involved where I am ignorant. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
It is a technical request to respect the licence. Should I ask another admin ? --Panam2014 (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Hagi ware Japanese tea bowl, 18th-19th century, Freer Gallery of Art.jpg

Hi Jim,

Could you please take a look at the license of this image? I found it to be from the database of the museum, but am not sure if it's correct: http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/edan/object.php?q=fsg_F1898.88 . Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC) ps: the same applies with this image File:Tea bowl with designs of pine boughs and interlocking circles, unknown Raku ware workshop, Kyoto, 18th-19th Cent, Freer Gallery of Art.jpg

Let's see:
  1. We don't know who took the photos. It could have been a Federal employee or someone else. According to WP:EN, "More than two-thirds of the Smithsonian's workforce of some 6,300 persons are employees of the federal government."
  2. We have {{t|PD-USGov-SI]], which apparently ignores that inconvenient fact.
  3. We have an explicit copyright notice and Terms of Service calling out No Commercial Use.
I guess that if I wanted to upload anything from the Smithsonian web site, I would ask their General Counsel what basis they have for claiming copyright, as suggested at https://www.si.edu/termsofuse, using www.si.edu/OGC.
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Manhal37

Manhal37 has uploaded another file of the dresden bus monument yesterday. I think he very well knows not do do that and his account should be closed. Also sasha wilms has uploaded a black and white monument file. --80.187.100.56 06:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. It is helpful if you link to the people or images you write about. I cannot find any "sasha wilms". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Poularde

Hi Jameslwoodward,

Just a question about the category Poularde that I created and you deleted. Was the only problem that it only contained 1 image, or was there something else? I had literally just created the category and only had time to add 1 image before you deleted it. Isn't there some sort of time period you would normally wait before deleting a new category? Anyways, no harm since it wasn't a lot of work to redo, but I was just curious. Thanks for all of your work here! Rystheguy (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't delete Category:Poularde. I deleted the gallery, Poularde, which, as a gallery with no images, qualified for deletion on sight. Forgetting the "Category:" prefix happens a lot. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahh that's where I went wrong. Thanks for the quick answer! Rystheguy (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hatsune Miku

The Files

were cropped not to be fully deleted but revisions of them --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The first two are pointless as cropped. I have restored the third one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
They were about Dogeza --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps, but there is also the question of whether they are derivative of the copyrighted costume. There are other images in the category -- these are not worth the potential problem. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not convinced.There are other pictures in the category like them and they have no problem --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Pycckhcoz

Question was about source and author, its is not clear on the images -...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 19:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Although we like to see the source and author, some images are old enough so we can keep them even if we don't know where they came from. These fall in that category. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Monument sascha wilms

File:Monument by Manaf Halbouni Dresden.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.187.100.56 (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Garbled Archive15

Hi, Jim. I just went back to check something from our productive discussion last month about a duplicate file (Treasury bills.jpg), but apparently a big chunk of User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive15 has become unreadable (and invisible to the Table of Contents) because of an unpaired nowiki tag. The system won't let me edit the archive page to fix it, but I presume that you can? In the section "Please restore discussion page", where the garbling begins, I think all that's needed is to change your "bracket-nowiki-bracket-s" to "nowiki's" (without brackets) and everything should instantly be readable again for posterity. Thanks in advance. —Patrug (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Need some eyes

Hi, can you help keeping an eye on this persistent copyvio uploader? User has a fan club here. Keeps uploading this copyvio after warnings, saying that the permission is in OTRS, but apparently unwilling to provide a ticket number. User has tried to attack me of this behaviour, after which other users explained to him how it works. Nevertheless he reuploaded the file again today and personally attacked me again when I warned him for that at his user talk page. Jcb (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Elmondaná nekem valaki, hogy miképpen kell akkor engedélyeztetni a képet, ha sem akkor nem lehet feltölteni, ha folyamatban van az engedély, sem akkor, amikor bent van az OTRS-ben az engedély? Az OTRS-ben benn van az engedély. A sorszáma ismert a Commonson. De úgy tűnik, ez sem elegendő. Mit kéne még csinálni? Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You must wait for the OTRS process to be completed. You have uploaded one image four times -- that is three times too many. The next time you upload a copyvio you will be blocked. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the permission's link: [20]. This is permission's number and name's: Ticket#2017040110009432. Blokkolni kell azt, aki engedélyezett képet tölt fel? Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but an e-mail from you proves nothing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Need some eyes actually involved in the original problem

Jim, please read the whole problem before making a judgement: the summary of the problem here, the debate here (especially the part about the problems of handling the issue, not to repeat them).

I have not realised that you are a different person from Jcb (for that I apologise), however I am quite disappointed that you handle a permission in a language you do not understand, which contained the copyright owner's permission(!), and you neglected to contact anyone who was taking part in this problem (or actually speaks your language). You also blocked someone you have been an ongoing case with (you tried to handle his OTRS ticket).

I would like to invite @AFBorchert: , @Jkadavoor: , @Oliv0: to have their opinions heard as they've been more or less involved. HF is right now blocked by Jameslwoodward due to uploading an image which already had the permission in the OTRS (2017040110009432 and I have checked the timestamps and the permission was before the upload), and the permission contained in Hungarian the details which ticket were reassigned by Jameslwoodward to himself (who, I suppose, don't speak Hungarian, so possibly don't understand a word about the email; I am not aware that any Hungarian-speaking admins or agents were contacted).

I am not familar with the guys but when

  • there's an ongoing discussion about the process, and
  • when the user have even followed the request of commons admins to presend the permission and
  • his image gets repeatedly deleted anyway, and
  • gets blocked by reuploading them (which is understandable when you have sent the permission and they get deleted by description "copyvio"), and
  • all the while two admins refer them as "copyvio" while the legally suiting permission is already in the OTRS

there must be something very wrong with either my ideals or with some people's attitude here. Jcb suggests that I'm wrong and they're right and I obviously disagree. --grin ✎ 10:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

…I also request a fellow admin to unblock HF; I do not want to unblock him due to my unfortunate role of protecting the innocent. Thanks. --grin ✎ 10:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the block was because his revert to this and this. He need to ask at Commons:Undeletion requests than re-uploading a deleted file. For general discussion on procedure, I had invited all to Commons talk:OTRS. Jee 10:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: yes, this is a valid argument, I vote for the block to be kept. Thanks for your input. He should not have removed the notices and should have started the undelete process instead of reuploading. I see a large language-barrier problem, though. (Do the templates have a way to force them to show a given language by default?) --grin ✎ 11:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that HF refused to provide the ticket number. Being an OTRS agent himself he should know the processes.
We are now talking more about side effects and non-problems, though. If anybody could process the ticket and restore the file (if applicable), and only one of the involved could bring oneself to make the first step and apologize (for whatever), we'd have no problem remaining. This could have happened already yesterday, besides that the whole story was totally avoidable. --Krd 11:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I have grabbed the OTRS ticket but I do not want to start the undeletion process since I am not really involved in the upload. I have now a ticket number (2017040110009432) with a valid permission (which actually predates the upload) but no image to put it into. :-) [Yes, I am an admin and I could undelete it but I do not want to generate more agry reactions.]
As a sidenote: HF is a real strong-willed blockhead, and I am aware that he's not an easy person (and I guess he knows that as well). Nevertheless this must not be the only factor in judging the validity of his uploads. (And admins here should act like they're objective and responsible persons and handle blockheaded replies with more patience than any average commons contributor.) I would welcome apologies (but I wouldn't hold my breath) but I would really liked if someone with a flag is in an emotional disagreement with someone else then the case would be handed even more carefully, objectively and civilised than usual. And, naturally, I apologise if I have offended anyone unintentionally. When someone pulls me into a case I usually try to follow it through and I stand for anyone who haven't been treated fair in my personal opinion. My bad. --grin ✎ 11:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Another sidenote: as you see even long-term contributors may not have been fully familiar with Commons processes (and in this case even the process is in question). Consider this as well when you handle such cases with suggesting deliberate bad intentions. --grin ✎ 11:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
As you confirm that the ticket is valid I don't see any reason for not undeleting the file as the deletion reason is no longer applicable. @Jcb: Do you agree? --Krd 11:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
No problem. @Grin: Could you take care of the email reply to the author? Jcb (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Grin, I took control of the ticket because it had no validity -- we do not accept licenses that are forwarded by the uploader. To do so would invite forgery. That is particularly the case when the uploader has repeatedly acted well outside of the rules. Perhaps as a CU, I see too many flagrant rulebreakers that must be dealt with rapidly and firmly, but I make no apology for landing hard on HF -- after all, he uploaded the same image four times, and repeatedly deleted warnings from his talk page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jameslwoodward, it is documented practice that the uploader forwards the permission to the support team. This should indeed not be accepted on its own but allow the OTRS member to get in contact with the copyright holder to get that permission confirmed. To characterize such tickets as having “no validity” is not helpful. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
AFBorchert, was written there is to "ask the author to forward the email with their clear statement of permission"; not by the user/uploader who is not the copyright holder. I tried to clarify it; but was reverted. Jee 14:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Since I have been pinged above: I understand that the reason why Hungarikusz Firkász has been blocked is he uploaded again a deleted file after its permission had been sent to OTRS and he deleted the warnings on his own talk page; I cannot comment about what is required on this matter by Commons policies which I do not know enough, only about the fact that on frwiki or huwiki more would be needed for a block. And now after the question of this File:A lélek mélyén.jpg has been solved, the only thing to be discussed is the policy and it is being done on Commons talk:OTRS#Simplifying the instructions. Oliv0 (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Oliv0, it's not quite that simple. First, he uploaded the file four times. We warn people if they upload a deleted file a second time and generally block them after the third, so he got an extra bite. Second, while there may or may not have been an OTRS message, he refused to give the ticket number, so that could not be verified. Also, at that point the OTRS message was not valid since it came from the uploader and, the OTRS message had not been read by a volunteer or acted upon. The proper procedure is that a file remains deleted until the message reaches the front of the long OTRS queue and the license is approved. As an OTRS volunteer himself, HF should have been completely aware of all of this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether the file can be uploaded or deleted until then is exactly what is debatable and presently discussed here as I mentioned, since the proper procedure for the time being is in fact what COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder and Template:OTRS pending say. Admins are in charge of making users follow Commons policy as it is without any adaptation or opinion; the community is in charge of discussing and changing it. Oliv0 (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
That may be, but unless and until policy is changed, the old policy controls.
However that is irrelevant. First, as far as Jcb and I knew, there was no OTRS ticket because HF refused to give a ticket number. Second, even if there was a ticket, it had not been read and approved. Third, even if the ticket had been read and approved by an OTRS agent, it is still never permitted to upload a file a second time, much less four times. It is also not permitted to erase warnings from one's talk page. HF was repeatedly warned that both things would bring a block. He ignored the multiple warnings and was blocked. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Philip Jaisohn statue.JPG

how about migrating the image of the sculpture to english like i asked you? here is the existing english article [21]. alternatively, i can elevate the issue Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

As a general rule, a Fair Use migration must be done by someone who is interested in the subject because he or she must construct a Fair Use Rationale. That means that the closing Admin is not generally able to do it. I have restored the file for 24 hours so you can do it if you wish. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Typeface

Correct me if I am wrong: Typefaces can be uploaded on Commons, per COM:L#Fonts. But the font has to be in the raster format. So, is it okay to have a logo text in SVG format?--Canopus Grandiflora 15:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

If it is a logo, {{PD-textlogo}} is what you're looking for. However, if the SVG file was not created by you, the code itself may be copyrighted and non-free. De728631 (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Any printed or displayed representation of a font, no matter how complex, is PD in the USA. The code used to generate it -- an SVG or anything in a standard font code such as a ttf may be copyrighted. Note that this is USA only. Fonts can be copyrighted in many other countries, including the UK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. File:Pinterest Logo.svg is in the vector format, and the uploader is not the author. Source is also useless.--Canopus Grandiflora 17:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Estonian stamp deletion

I just saw this deletion Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KCharitakis because it removed a stamps from a page I watch. FI don't remember the stamps but from 1941-1991 USSR certainly law applied, so I think {{PD-RU-exempt}} may be the correct tag. Thoughts? Ww2censor (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I've figured out it was this stamp in which case the RU tag does not apply and it was issued in 2007, so the deletion was valid. I actually have not investigated the Estonia stamp copyright though the other two Baltic states do have PD tags {{PD-LV-exempt}} and {{PD-LT-exempt}}. Thanks Jim Ww2censor (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I had much the same line of reasoning. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


Rude Boy USA COI notice and image removal

I m new to Wikipedia and I received a notice on the page. I wanted to put the images of the book covers back on the page because I got a notice that a bot removed the old ones. There is no intent to violate the service I just want the information to be accurate. I uploaded the information to the commons before I loaded it here.m I am not sure why my book cover or any book images wont stay. I own the rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tammuriah1 (talk • contribs) 2017-04-06 00:28:21‎ (UTC)

The problem with your book cover is explained at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive#File:Trilogy_wiki.png. Asking again here will not change the response.

The COI notice is fully explained at the notice -- you cannot write promotional articles on WP about yourself or anyone else with whom you have a conflict of interest. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

COM:UDR

Hi, I am trying to help. The permission is valid, so I don't understand what's the issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking about my comment at the UnDR for File:MPI FS 2017HBA SHOW 157.jpg? If so, I think it is bad practice to allow people to jump the OTRS queue by bringing a case to UnDR -- I think we should treat everybody the same and make them wait for their case to come up at OTRS. Having said that (and believing it), I admit that very occasionally -- maybe once in three or four months -- if a newbie is very polite and comes here for help getting an image on Commons, I may find the OTRS ticket and deal with it out of order. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Graffiti retratro de Julian Assange.jpg

@JameslwoodwardYou are very exaggerated with the Copyrigth theme and I think you do not understand what creative commons licenses really are and what their use is, to discuss this, I will do it better based on your supposed deletion requests:

!) One for photography, which is properly licensed on Flickr, which you yourself have given the answer since Flickr's linked photography is licensed creative commons.

2) One for graffiti, which may or may not be covered by the Flickr license - is covered only if the flickr photographer is the graffiti artist, at this point I think you have not read the description of the image properly You have taken the trouble to investigate that the author of the graffiti (Cart'1 @ the Abode of Chaos) is under a license of Creative Commons Paternity which grants the necessary permissions for the strict use of this graffiti.

3) one for the photograph of Assange on which the graffiti is based, which is certainly not covred by the Flickr license, for this point I am in need of expressing to you that as long as the photograph is under the creative commons license there is no need to Get more copyright since all creation has the rights of his work, otherwise would be illogical. The painter was not based either on any kind of photography nor do he owe anything to Jullan Assange since the painting does not necessarily represent the same but is a creation of the author. In fact not even the wikipedia (Wikimedia Commons) is so strict in this sense as it only requires that the linked images of the Flickr page have a type of creative commons license, therefore I should not justify any of its causes aboslutamente. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnzlndrs (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Gnzlndrs, you should comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Graffiti retratro de Julian Assange.jpg, not here, as any comments you make here will not be seen by the closing Administrator. After reading your comment above, I have revised the DR and shown that I was correct. Both the second and the third copyrights are not correctly licensed for Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Go Rocket Marketing Web Agency

Sorry if I've done something wrong, is my first experience here, and i'm glad to change everything is needed or to delete if the content is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James O. (talk • contribs) 08:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia's currency

COM:CUR tells nothing about Saudi Arabia's currency. Does the Saudi Government allow reproduction of Saudi Riyal? And why is the entry missing from the project page?--Canopus Grandiflora 23:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the status of Saudi currency.
There are approximately 195 sovereign countries in the world. We show copyright rules for 133 of them and currency information for 86. Like everything else on WP and Commons, the list is expanded by volunteers as the spirit moves. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Just wanted to know if you are aware of its status.--Canopus Grandiflora 14:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Michele De Lucchi

Please restore my file, as per the previous deletion discussion I linked there is no reason to delete it. Please restore asap before the Commons delinker deletes all the connections from wikipedias (and be more careful next time, here again you were not carefull enough). Thank you. --Sailko (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The rule on utilitarian objects varies from country to country. This chair would certainly have a copyright in France and Scandinavia. We don't know the rule in Italy, so COM:PRP applies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
But the picture was taken in Australia... what's wrong with that? Please restore that file yourself, I dont want to start the procedure again... And I'm starting to get tired of your misconsiderations, sorry........ --Sailko (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Barbara-Ann Scott.jpg

Dear Admin Woodward,

Are there any URAA problems with this 1946 image which the Canadian government has formally licensed with a free CC BY license? Instead of a PD-Canada license. The Canadian government owns the copyright over this image--as the National Film Board of Canada and Library Archives Canada are under the Canadian Government's control so I guess they can license this image as freely as they wish. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Assuming the Canadian government owns the copyright, which is a fair assumption, I think, then he CC license overrides the URAA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you Jim. this is what I thought too. The Government of Canada owns both the National Film Board of Canada and Library Archives Canada so I was surprised that they put this image out on a CC BY license but Barbara Ann Scott is the only Canadian figure skater who won Olympic gold singles...and she is a symbol of pride for all Canadians and well known as "Canada's Sweetheart". The photo is also 71 years old. So, its clear why they would do this. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This DR

Dear Jim,

I apologise to disturb you. Do you agree with the uploader's comments that Italian law allows this image to be considered PD. The license is PDM. I just ask this since there are other "La Nostra" images in this category

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

You are never a disturbance -- you always have interesting questions. See my comment at the DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Five years later

Would you please restore https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulrich_Fleischhauer&diff=next&oldid=99545049 -- Virtualiter (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Olympic Mountains

I agree that Olympic Mountains is correct, and I tried to override "Olympic mountains", but the system did not override it despite my effort. The page Olympic mountains would not be appropriate to merge with Olympic National Park as many of the mountains are not within Olympic National Park. ̴̴Ron Clausen

Eglise Saint-Nicolas de Myre

Merci pour cette suppression de page, après mon erreur je ne savais pas comment solliciter cette suppression.--Brunodumaine (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Please consider

Please consider notifying users who contribute out of scope pages etc. It may not prevent re-occurrence however it makes it clear that they have been warned previously when the behaviour is repeated. I've deleted a couple recently that had previously been deleted by you with no warning issued. --Herby talk thyme 11:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Herby, I probably delete ten gallery pages a day, almost always because they are empty or single image galleries or are articles. If they create the page a second time, I put {{Dont recreate}} on their talk page. I could, I suppose, warn all of those that I delete, but it more or less triples the effort and I think it is not worth it, because the number of second creations is maybe 1 in 20 or 30. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Ngv design, michele de lucchi, first chair, 1983.JPG

Now that I was right, can you please revert the Delinker cancellation of the image around all the wikipedias? Thank you --Sailko (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No, you can do that as well as anyone else. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
It was your fault, because even if I had linked you similar cases you did wanted to delete the image anyway, without giving any consideration of the policies I linked. I am not asking for apologize, but you should at least restore what went missed for your mistake. --Sailko (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
It was not a mistake -- it was a difference of opinion. I think Carl's interpretation of COM:PRP is wrong, and the restoration was a mistake. However, since it is clear that we considered the issue at some depth, I think it is unlikely that the copyright holder will be able to act against us in any way other than requiring that the image be removed. Therefore, I think that keeping it is very low risk, so I will not open a new DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

SUUper playing card game image you deleted

Jim, Christopher Burtt said he sent in an OTRS email a few days ago.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, but until the message reaches the head of the queue in several weeks, and then is read and approved, the image cannot be kept. The length of the OTRS queue is an unfortunate fact of life here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
What's this about "head of the queue" -- once it is in the queue, surely you can see it, and restore the image you deleted?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I could -- but I won't. There is no reason to allow this image to jump to the head of the queue as most of the images in the queue are in the same situation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Since when is it official policy that the queue position is more important than making good decisions? Is it like OTRS emails have a "spot in line" that must be honored? Come on, please be reasonable. It won't take you any more time to simply look for the email regardless of its position in the sacred queue. When it does get to the top spot, will the image be reinstated?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) To the extent it will help to hear from another OTRS member, Jim is not being unreasonable here ("Come on, please be reasonable.") While it is not "official policy"--and I don't see that Jim claimed it to be--it is established practice and, more importantly, a matter of fundamental fairness. Numerous editors are waiting patiently for permissions to be processed; their images are no more or less important than yours. To afford you special treatment would, as I said, be fundamentally unfair to the others. The queue is not "sacred," not disadvantaging patient editors is. Asking that you wait your turn like everyone else does not preclude the "making [of] good decisions"; if everything is in order, the image will be restored once the ticket is processed. If the ticket is not in order, the OTRS member will communicate the issue and the ticket will remain at the head of the queue pending a resolution. Эlcobbola talk 16:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
What I don't understand is why there should be a queue in the first place. Jim put the image up for deletion -- the image creater (Christopher Burtt) wrote it was fine, an OTRS email was sent -- and after the OTRS email was sent, even knowing the email had been sent, Jim deleted the image. It would have taken one second to check if the OTRS email was there (given digital technology, I assume nobody has to read through all of the other OTRS emails in the queue to get to the Burtt OTRS email). Just seems like a lot of fusswork for no purpose, if the image will be reinstated later on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please review

Hi Jim: Could you review [22]? There's many western artists and images with copyright claims; I looked and nominated a few, but it seems to me more than that few have issues. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done I opened several new DRs. I also commented on a couple of yours. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Spammer blocked

Hello Jim, I just blocked this spammer. Since it's an IP address I only issued a one-month block. Since you're a CU can you see whether it's a static IP or less and change its expiry time should you find it appropriate? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

request to the deletion of the deletion request of File:Demetrios I. Kantakuzenos Ahnentafel.pdf

(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Demetrios_I._Kantakuzenos_Ahnentafel.pdf)

Hi James, I did this genealogy tree by myself during three years (2006-2008). It is an extremely large work containing sources from hundreds of genealogy-sites and books. It is absolutely impossible to give all the sources. For each family there is at least one source. The most important 8 Sources are already indicated in the article by "Literatur", "Weblinks" und "Enzelnahweise" (look the article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demetrios_I._Kantakuzenos)

This file is for 8 years in Wikipedia. Why should be deleted just now? It is a unique work in Wikipedia. Many genealogists are very interested in it. A genealogy specialist can verify such a tree, even without all sources. But the genealogy specialists have proved it and didn’t found in this 8 years any mistake.

Please don't delete this file! Please delete the nomination to delete this file! Thank you!

(Dan Rascanu (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

Please see my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Demetrios I. Kantakuzenos Ahnentafel.pdf. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Pictures deleted, Please reconsider.

Mrs Liana Șerbescu is writing an article about her mother, Silvia Șerbescu, a leading Romanian pianist of the first half of the 20th Century. I am helping her for the technical part, and this is why I am contacting you on her behalf. She had inserted 4 photos, which were proposed for deletion. This proposition was met with a request to reconsider, with some argumentation.

Knowing that Mrs Șerbescu was researching the history of these pictures in order to document her claim, I was looking forward to an enriching dialogue between her and the Wikimedia moderators. Hence my disappointment to discover that the pictures were deleted on the very day on which she was able to supply some more constructive information.

In order to maintain the quality and the information value of the above mentioned article, we need advice on how to obtain the right to publish these pictures. Mrs Șerbescu has asked me to post her text, in the hope that the discussion will not be abruptly interrupted, and that it will be possible to reintroduce these photos. Her text follows between the two horizontal lines.

I must apologize for having supplied incomplete information about my photos of Silvia Șerbescu, my mother, which I wanted to insert in my Wikipedia article about her. Not being aware of the fact that Wikimedia Commons' strict policy also applied to the photographer’s copyright on very old pictures, I declared improperly that those photos were my own. In reality, since my mother’s death in 1965 they have belonged to my archive of documents, which made me wrongly think that I had the right to use them. Besides, I always put them at the disposal of people who wanted to write something about Silvia Șerbescu. Therefore, these photo’s have already appeared in many different publications, both on hard copy and on the Internet. So I would find it disappointing to have less rights on this material than other authors who have obtained it from me. No one has ever claimed copyright for the publication these pictures. Anyhow, after receiving your notification about possible deletion, I started making elaborate investigations about each of the proposed items. Here are the results.

1. Portrait of Silvia Șerbescu, about 1960. This photo was taken at Studio M. Bilinski in Bucharest, Calea Victoriei 38. The only clue about the photographer Bilinski I could find on the Internet was in a blog mentioning that even during the communist period in Romania, he was still allowed to have his own business. We often stopped in front of his shopwindow to admire the beautiful portraits exposed there. This studio no longer exists.

This portrait of Silvia has appeared several times in the media, for the first time in 1965 in my mother’s Obituary by prof. Theodor Bălan (“Însemnări. Silvia Şerbescu”, in Muzica 10/1965, 33). It is the most emblematic representation of the artist, because it is an introspective look into her inward world, full of great wisdom. The photo was published several times in different articles, books and on record covers, and there was no claim of any copyright owner!

2. Portrait of Silvia Şerbescu in Paris, between 1925-28. My mother was studying at that time at the Ecole Normale de Musique de Paris, as a pupil of Lazare Lévy and Alfred Cortot. For her publicity she needed a good picture. The most famous Studio for artistic photos was the Reutlinger Studio. One can see at the lower part of the right side of Silvia’s portrait the name of the studio: “Reutlinger”, and under it – “Paris”. On the Wikipedia site I could find more information about the founder of this studio – Charles Reutlinger, 1816-1881 and his descendants. The Reutlinger Studio at Bd. Montmartre 21, Paris, was very popular for its successful portraits of actors, artists, musicians, composers and dancers. This Studio ceased to exist in 1937.

I have two large portraits of Silvia made by Reutlinger. They are the only representative pictures of Silvia’s youth, a period of which there are no other witnesses left to remember her. I think that deleting this beautiful image would be a great loss for the posterity.

3. Group photo of professors of the Music Conservatory in Bucharest, with Silvia Şerbescu, Cella Delavrancea and Florica Muzicescu. This is a photo taken by some private person I ignore, after an exam of the piano class in the late fifties. It is an interesting document, because it shows some of the most important piano pedagogues of that time in Romania. An interesting detail is the presence of the young Romanian composer Dan Constantinescu, the first profile on the left in the second row. He was at that time a new assistant at the composition class of the Bucharest Conservatory.

4. The photo with George Georgescu and Aram Khachaturian was taken in Moscow on October 21, 1955, after a concert given there by the Romanian Philharmonic “G. Enescu”, with Silvia Şerbescu soloist. What I own is only a cutting from a magazine or newspaper from 1955-56, of which I ignore the name. I put this photo at the disposal of different authors writing something about Silvia Şerbescu and it exists in many publications. It is a precious document, because it shows Silvia Şerbescu next to two very important musicians and collaborators of that time: the Armenian composer Aram Khachaturian and the famous Romanian conductor George Georgescu.

In order to keep these photos on my mother’s Wikipedia entry, I am positively willing to pay the copyright duties whenever some claim arises. But for the time being I don’t to whom, and I consider it a real loss to deprive the history of music of such interesting documents only because of my ignorance.

In the hope that my humble plea will elucidate and eliminate the risen doubts about the appearance of the proposed photos of Silva Serbescu on Wikimedia, I am sending you my kind regards.

Liana.Serbescu (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

PS. Another last question: I would like to add the picture of George Anghel’s bust of Silvia Şerbescu which exists in the Art Museum of Oradea and in the main hall of the Bucharest University of Music. There are two possibilities: to put a good photo which already exists on the Internet ([23]), or to use a shot I made myself which is of a lower quality. Which one is allowed without further problems?

We both thank you in advance for the attention and time you will spend on helping us resolve this problem.

Jpkent (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, but all of this simply confirms what I said at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Liana.Serbescu. The copyrights to the four images are held by their photographers or their heirs and they cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the copyright holders via OTRS. That is true even of commissioned works taken by portrait studios -- unless there is a separate written agreement which explicitly transfers or licenses the copyright, it remains with the photographer or the studio.

It is unfortunate that many images that we would like to use on WP cannot be used because they are orphan works, with the copyright holders untraceable, but that is a fact of life here.

As for the George Anghel bust, the bust itself will be under copyright until 1/1/2037, 70 years after Anghel's death, so any image of it is a derivative work which infringes on the copyright. Such images cannot be kept on Commons unless the sculptor's heir sends a free license using OTRS. If you want to use the image you cited above, you will also need a free license from the photographer, also using OTRS. Of course, if you use your own image, you can license it yourself, but you still need a license for the sculpture. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry to say I find this a little bit confusing. If I look at the following page, I read in the licensing section: "The copyright of this image has expired in the European Union because it was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship (anonymous or pseudonymous), and no subsequent claim of authorship was made in the 70 years following its first publication.". I fail to see the difference with at least one of Mrs Șerbescu's pictures, No 2 in her list above, which was made by a studio that ceased to exist 80 years ago.

For the other images it would be convenient to be able to use the type of licensing found in the portrait of Cella Delvrancea, although I don't fully understand the two parts of the licensing statement, which seem mutually contradictory to me. In any case, it does not seem logical to me that two artists that were colleagues and were portrayed in similar circumstances, where the licensing issues are exactly the same, should be treated differently. There must be a way to honor Silvia Şerbescu's memory in the same way as Cella Delavrancea's. Jpkent (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

In the first case, for that to apply the work must be anonymous (which your #2 was not) and it must be proven that it was published more than 70 years ago, which may or not be the case, but has yet to be proven.

As for your second paragraph, the Cella_Delavrancea image is on WP:EN, not Commons. You may be able to post the images to WP:RO, but only if both WP:RO hosts its own images and Romanian law permits WP:Fair use -- many WPs do not host their own images and the laws of many countries do not permit Fair Use. I am not qualified to help you with Fair Use on either WP:EN or WP:RO. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this valuable information. We both were unaware that WP had different sections falling under the laws of different countries. May I ask you a last question? What is the best way to find a person qualified to coach us on the WP:EN and WP:RO platforms?

Jpkent (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Reference desk for WP:EN. For WP:RO, I don't know, but there is probably an equivalent page their -- look on Pagina_principală for its name. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. We will try there. Jpkent (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker), Jpkent, I can probably help you with the enwiki use of a non-free image, so long as the subject has been dead for some time and all reasonable efforts have been made to find a freely licensed image. RO is out of my area of knowledge but you might try Wikipedia:Întrebări privind drepturile de autor which is looks like it is their media questions page. On the enwiki, for deceased people it is usually acceptable to use one non-free image to identify the subject in the infobox of their article so long as our very strict policy if complied with. Ping me on my enwiki page and I'll see what I can do for you. Where is the image you would like to use available? Is it on a website or just in the family possession? Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Eritrean Railway Map of March, 1998.jpg

This file was superseded with File:Eritrean Railway Map of March, 1998.svg, therefore we can delete

or is there still a reason to keep them?  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 10:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't looked at them in a long time -- thank you for asking. The SVG is not a real SVG -- it is just copied from the raster file. If you look at the largest size of the SVG, nothing is as crisp as it is on the largest PNG, so my choice would be to keep only the PNG.
I offered to provide the original AutoCAD DWG file to convert to a proper SVG, but got no takers. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I would convert it 2SVG. I have AutoCAD2017 (I could install never/bigger version.) but I normally use older file-formats to exchange (f.e. 2010 DXF).
If you have Inkscape there are three usefull possibilities:
  • DWG2PDF (AutoCAD), PDF2SVG(Inkscape)
  • DWG2DXF (AutoCAD), DXF2SVG(Inkscape)
  • DWG2EPS (AutoCAD), EPS2SVG(Inkscape)
I already converted several Pics to SVG: Category:SVG created with AutoCAD by JoKalliauer
There are some more (simpler files): Category:SVG created with AutoCAD
I send an E-Mail to you some Minutes ago.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 12:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hello, Jim

Past revisions of File:AutoWikiBrowser screenshot image.01.png and File:AutoWikiBrowser screenshot image.02.png have copyright-protected elements that I have cropped out in the latest revision. I believe we need to delete those revisions.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the MS icons are de minimis in both cases and it might have ben better to leave them as they were. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I agree with Jim. These were not blatant copyright infringements, and some of these icons are even too trivial for copyright. De728631 (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Those icons are appearing at full resolution. Ask yourself this: Would it be acceptable for someone to extract them from the image and use it in his or her own app and claim "I used free contents?" The answer is a resounding "No". —Codename Lisa (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
That may be true but is irrelevant. We host thousands of images with de minimis copyrighted items in them that cannot be extracted and freely used. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nestor Alí Quiñones

I took the photos... and I know he has no problem about showing his work on-line.. otherwise he would told me so... anyway... How could I show u some sort of permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtualhat (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

In order for the images to be kept on Commons, the artist must be freely license them for any use -- which means not only "showing his work on-line", but also allowing people to make and sell posters and fine art prints of his paintings. If he wants to do that, he -- the artist, not you -- must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That's ok. thanks for give the instructions. I'll follow the steps in OTRS. :) VH (virtualhat) (talk to me) 18:06, 3 May 2017 (VET)

(virtualhat), please note, that as I said above, OTRS will not accept a message from you. The OTRS e-mail must come directly from an address traceable to the artist. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Never understood

For which exact reason was A Captains Type rate diplomacy for the right to fly (as commander) an Airbus A320 deleted. Was it "own work", "quality problem" or what ? To say there is a copyright is totally absurd - this is just like a driving license. There really is no logo on it, it has nothing to do with art, and I have examined the paper very thoroughly. And there is NO copyright symbol. If I had uploaded it as "not my work" - would that had meant any difference ? Please give me an explanation for the exact grounds. Please. Boeing720 (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I assume you are asking about File:Airbus A320 Captain TypeRatingCertifikate.jpg. As I said in the DR closing comment, it is of such poor quality that I doubt that it is actually usable for any educational purpose. This is not a difficult thing to digitize -- a scanner will do it perfectly, but even a careful photograph would be in focus and looking very much like the original. Therefore, anyone wanting to use it would expect a perfect copy.

Then there is the question of copyright. The certificate has several sentences of text written by Airbus. We deal largely in images here so we tend to forget that text was the first subject of copyright everywhere. There is also a logo, which has a copyright. A copyright symbol has never been required in France and has not been required anywhere since 1989.

It is not "own work", so your description was incorrect, but that would have been easily corrected if the file had been one that we could otherwise keep. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

So, in a nutshell - I must buy a scanner ? Boeing720 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
First, you must obtain a free license from Airbus. I doubt that they will grant one, but you are free to try. An authorized official of Airbus must send a free license directly using OTRS. Then, either take a careful high res photo of the document, have it scanned at a local copy shop, or, yes, you could buy a scanner, although that seems a bit much for one document. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your reply at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Almonty_Industries_and_Panasqueira_Mine and no need to apologize. We have both been here for years and if anyone around speaks shortly I know it is just to be direct in giving information.

Despite my doing OTRS tickets occasionally for years there are still some routine things which are still new to me. I follow your lead, and when I talk with others, I try to pass on word about how things are done. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you understand the problem?

Hi Jameslwoodward,

I saw your comment on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Temp_cat_files_Tore_Danielsson and wonder if you really understand the problem?

"OTRS 2017010510010437 is from Danielsson, not the artist, so is not valid. The mneioned image is entirely copyrighted works."

I have got a permission from the artist, written i Swedish, signed in two paper copies. One for the artist and one in our archive. I have made a PDF and had it send digital to the Swedish OTRS agents (So with all the permissions). The permissions have all started with a telephone contact, before the physical letters.

I still have the permissions here and wonder who I will send it to now? So we can start the correct upload again?

Best Regards --Tore Danielsson (Riksutställningar) (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid that it is you who do not understand the problem. License sent to OTRS must come directly from the artist who created the work and cannot be forwarded by the uploader or others. This rule arises from the fact that, unfortunately, we have fans, vandals, and others who are perfectly willing to forge licenses in order to have their images on Commons. While I have no reason to doubt that the licenses you have forwarded are authentic, the identity thieves also appear very authentic so it is impossible to be sure. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


File

Hello. The problem is that all voters had good arguments and being an administrator does not make the opinion of the person a notice that is above others. There was never a consensus for the deletion. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

NO, again, they are not votes and those who express opinions are not voters. The closing Administrator must take into consideration all of the factors involved, including Commons rules and copyright law. And, of course, highly experienced editors and administrators opinions are likely to be considered more than those of less experienced people. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Except that there is no rule to say that opinions of directors or experienced contributors (I am registered since 2013) have more weight. For the rest, no copyright infringement has been demonstrated. And how to challenge it? An admin who voted can not be judge and party. Or in this case, it wasn't necessary to delete with debate. I do not understand anything. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Common sense says that one puts greater weight on the opinion of very experienced contributors -- ones with hundreds of thousands of actions on Commons rather than those with one or two thousand. However, in the case in point, the opinions expressed were four to four -- you missed one on the delete side (Yann, Daphne, Hedwig, and the nominator). At this point you can also count Sebari and me on the delete side from the UnDR, so it is six to four. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Common sense is not an argument recognized by the spirit of neutrality of the WMF project. For the rest, it was the closure that was contentious so before you supported it on the form, there was no substantive argument. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Files_uploaded_by_Holy_Goo

Can we get this thing solved asap? I'm getting tired of all this. Holy Goo (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I request we continue the discussion. Reply to my message there. Holy Goo (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

the discussion has been closed and archived. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bird of Baghdad.jpg

Hi James - I'd like to reopen this case for deletion; I missed out on seeing the only response (by @Stas1995: ) "Keep, see File:Sitta europaea distribution map.png (Sitta europaea occur near Bagdad)", before you closed the nomination. Unfortunately, due to the very small scale of File:Sitta europaea distribution map.png, Stas1995's comment is inaccurate. Sitta europaea is a highly sedentary species which very rarely even moves as much as 10-20 km, and does not occur near Baghdad; its closest approach is in the Zagros Mountains, 250 km distance and 2000 metres higher altitude in a totally different habitat. I have further checked just now in Harrap & Quinn's monograph, that the subspecies found in the Zagros Mountains (S. e. persica) does not resemble the bird in the photo, having a different plumage pattern; the bird in the photo is the European subspecies S. e. caesia which does not occur closer to Baghdad than about 1,800 km. There is no possibility at all that this photo was taken as claimed, and it cannot be trusted to be validly licenced. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Stas1995. It is a large image with full EXIF showing an appropriate camera and lens, and it produces no Google hits. Note also that the uploader did not name any species, so the extended argument over whether Sitta europaea appears in Baghdad is entirely irrelevant. With that said, note that File:Sitta europaea map.png puts the bird very close to Baghdad. I see no reason not to Assume Good Faith, noting that perhaps the uploader mis-remembered where he took the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Possible that the uploader mis-remembered the location, but to be honest, I doubt it, very strongly. I realise it conflicts with 'Assume Good Faith', but regrettably, I have found - and deleted after finding original sources - a large number of uploads from the Middle East where clearly, many contributors don't have good understanding of (or respect for) copyright law. Of File:Sitta europaea map.png, it is badly drawn; I can assure you, the species does not occur where it is shown on that map: woodland birds simply do not occur in hot treeless desert, nor in the riverside reed swamps that occupy part of the Baghdad area. It is important to relate bird distributions to available habitat suitable for the species concerned. I have not yet been able to identify the tree the bird is perched on, but even the blurred background alone indicates a shady forest environment that simply does not occur in lowland Iraq, and probably not in the Zagros Mountains (mainly occupied by open, sunny scrub woodland) either. I would be 99.5% confident that the photo was not taken in Iraq at all but somewhere in western Europe, and how many Iraqi citizens have access to this region yet are unable to remember taking a photo there rather than 'back home'? There are just too many factors that stretch credulity, for me to accept it as a genuine contribution. - MPF (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't remember our paths crossing, so I looked you up -- 400,000+ edits, mostly in File space. Thank you for all your efforts here. The volume of my experience is more or less in the same league as yours, but it is more focused on Admin work. As a CU, I see the bad side of Commons all the time and although my sense for trouble is by no means perfect, it's pretty good.
Again, we have a largish image here, with complete EXIF and no Google hits. We also have a rather naive file description - "this was taken just before this nice bird fly away !! amazing experience and amazing effort". Although I am by no means a bird expert, I've seen enough nuthatches to know that they are not as bold as chickadees, but that the behavior described is typical. This is the user's only upload -- it's a good pic and I would hate to blow it way on a suspicion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Have I really done over 400,000 edits!?! OMG!! I've never stopped to count. I think part of the trouble with this pic is that it's too good: a single high quality upload, of a bird of a subspecies over a thousand km from the claimed photo location, with a caption that looks to me evasively "pseudo-naive" made-up. Someone who takes pics that good, generally takes lots of pics, and is likely to add several of them. And likely knows what they're taking, and where they are. One suspicion, OK, but three . . . pushing their luck a bit? To me, it reeks of someone stealing a pic and adding it to Commons to get their name into the "Wiki loves Earth" campaign. I've seen it exactly like this many times before, with the only difference being that those cases got google hits. But it's true, I do tend to err on the cautious side over copyright questions. I'll ask a pro bird photographer I know what he thinks, in particular whether e.g. it is possible for photographers to have websites set up so that google image search won't find their pics. - MPF (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

MPF, there are all sorts of tools for watching what you've done. Two that might interest you are:

As for your question, yes it is certainly possible to create a web page and add the "noindex" and "nofollow" parameters to request that the page not be included in a search engine's results. Possible yes, but except for private information, why would a photographer do it?
Finally, I don't think the quality of the image is necessarily an indicator of a prolific photographer. The camera was a Canon EOS 750D -- full auto focus and exposure. He could see the bird maybe eight feet away and take a quick shot of this quality without thinking about it -- a far cry from the cameras I started out with. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jim - yep, I knew there were ways of counting edit totals, but never having been afflicted with "editcountitis", I've never bothered to look them up. I guess I just like to get on with identifying birds, trees, etc., and getting things sorted into useful categories.
Thanks for the info on "noindex" and "nofollow" parameters; I can easily see a photographer wanting to use them if they want to share their pics with a reasonably large group of friends, but not with the world in general.
Sitta europaea is not usually so confiding as the N American Sitta species; obviously exceptions do occur, but typically, you'd only be able to get to around 8-10 metres without using a hide, or food to attract them. - MPF (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry to interfere, and it is a neutral comment in relation to the potential deletion of this image, but starting, myself, to make the picture of birds (look at my last uploads), I confirm it is very hard to approach the birds to make close-up. That said, certain bird photographers, photograph captive birds in enclosures with realistic decor to give the illusion of photos taken in nature, I assure you that the result can be bluffing. Maybe this photo was indeed taken in Bagdad but with a captive bird. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

MPF, as you say, exceptions do occur:

. ;-) .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hence the "... or food to attract them" above ;-)
@ @Christian Ferrer: - no problem, any comment welcome from anyone! Though the likelihood of it being captive is very low and there's no evidence of captivity (no cage, nor any of the feather or damage so often seen in captive birds). Also the shady woodland habitat in the photo doesn't fit with Baghdad's climate / habitat ecology at all (or of anywhere in Iraq).
The pro photographer I was going to ask has just gone off on a tour, so no idea if or when he'll be able to respond. - MPF (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@MPF: Regarding the cage, the purpose of a staging to create an illusion of natural habitat, is to hide the attributes of captivity. If I find a specific account in Flickr, I will show you a close-up photo of a bird, and then a photo of the wide scene with the cage, the material..... A well-imitated natural setting, the small depth of field of the long focal lengths, associated with good photographic technique can create perfect illusions. But if you are used to watching birds, and to watching the damage of birds in captivity, you will maybe not be fooled by the tricks. I do not praise this kind of photography. Furthermore my argument may very well turn in the opposite direction because it's also true that people capable of pushing photography so far will likely not make the mistake to take a bird picture at such a low speed (1/60 sec) at 250 mm focal length, which causes an inevitable slight blur (camera shake or/and movement of the bird), which is clearly the case here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

inappropriate username?

Hello Jim, this looks to me an inappropriate username because it might be deceitful. What do you think? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, ✓ Done, thanks. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of File:KoteHristov.jpg

I believe that this recent deletion was overkill. If the deletion rationale is to be applied consistently across Commons, one would have to remove thousands of early 20th century images with unclear authorship that are currently hosted on commons. Just two examples of images that would have to be deleted are File:Scotia_on_Laurie_Island.jpg and File:Omond_House_-_Laurie_Island.jpg - because they are not strictly anonymous. It seems to me that deleting files like these, whose copyright will very, very probably never be claimed, is 1) a waste of editors' time and 2) hurts the project. Tropcho (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you read our precautionary principle, which explicitly forbids using "whose copyright will very, very probably never be claimed" as an argument for keeping a file. Also note that we get 10,000 new files every day and have no consistent process for looking at them -- my guess is that at least one percent of Commons files -- more than a quarter million files -- should not be here, so any claim of other stuff exists is meaningless. If you think that the two files you cited have a similar copyright situation to the subject file, by all means tag them for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion appeal (WannaCry screenshot)

Hello Jim, I want to appeal to your deletion decision there. You seemed to be concerned by that the said latin maxime Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is nothing American. Well, it's quite easy to google references that are presumably US based, and one that clearly is: a ruling by the Supreme Court of Connecticut, where you may find the following quote: „This court has recognized the common-law maxims that “[n]o one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime. These maxims are dictated by public policy, [and] have their foundation in universal law administered in all civilized countries․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Thompson v. Orcutt, 257 Conn. 301, 316, 777 A.2d 670 (2001); see also Gagne v. Vaccaro, 255 Conn. 390, 407, 766 A.2d 416 (2001) (“[w]e recognize the broad general doctrine founded on the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio—no cause of action can arise out of an illegal or immoral inducement”).“ So, if I'm not much mistaken, we can safely assume the validity of the "Ex-turpi"-argument. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

First note that the UnDR for this issue has been opened and closed. Please read my comment there. Second, the decision of the Connecticut State Supreme Court is binding only in Connecticut. There can be no question that as a rule everywhere, a criminal may not profit from his crime, but it is also true that a criminal has many rights which are not taken away be his crime and, as far as I can see, there no reason to believe that he loses the copyright to his writings. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

French presidential election-Morges

For the record, I respectfully and intensely disagree with you. The images show several posters in context to one another and in their environment. That you can crop and image to turn it into a copyrighted one has never been an argument, and you very often see images like these in the mainstream media. I believe that your understanding of de minimis is not correct. Rama (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The mainstream media can rely on Fair Use. We cannot because there is no Fair Use for a repository. De Minimis requires that the average user will not notice if the copyrighted work is removed from the image. In this case, the only things of any interest in the photograph are copyrighted posters. They cannot possibly be de minimis. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, We have to taken into account the Terreaux case. Are the posters "unavoidable" when taking the pictures? If yes, this picture should be OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The posters are the only notable thing in the photograph. This is not an image of a building that happens to have posters in the window. This is an image that was deliberately taken to show the posters. If the posters were blurred out, the image would be useless. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Mechanical deletion of files related to the Academy

Dear Jim! Several hours ago you deleted all the files uploaded by me. As for deleting the images of the Academy members, formally, I cannot protest (despite some scientists have already signalized a readiness to issue permission). However, a deletion of the certificate and, especially, of the diagrams seems to be a pure mechanical action without any reasons. Could you please explain me what is wrong with these? The diagrams were plotted by me, in order to present the relevant statistical data; it was decided that to have such pictures is better than a table in the article body. --Mikisavex (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Since you had claimed that many of the files I deleted were your own work, you should not be surprised that the two that actually were your own work were deleted with the rest. I am not at all certain the graphs are in scope, but I have restored them -- you should not be surprised if they attract a new DR from someone else. As for the certificate, while you claimed in the file description that you actually created it, I don't think that is correct. If you did create it, then it is certainly out of scope as personal art. If you did not create it, then we need both evidence that it is in scope and a free license from an authorized official of the organization which owns the copyright.
Note again that "some scientists have already signalized a readiness to issue permission" is mostly irrelevant. The right to license the images is held by the actual photographers, not the subjects, so the subjects' willingness to issue permission is nice, but not relevant. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jim! Thank you for a rapid and very concise reply. Good that you restored the diagrams. The license status of the certificate should indeed be clarified, as my work consisted only in its adaptation for upload. I know that the author right for the images belongs to the photographers, I only stressed that certain steps with OTRS are already undertaken (some of the scientists will be able to contact photographers etc.). --Mikisavex (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedmoyan brenn

I appreciate this was a big big DR. And it touched on several issues regarding copyright and consent. However, I think your closing comments saying "Commons does not care" was very very poorly worded and think you should take more care how to word this and the effect it may have. You go on to say "non-copyright restrictions do not affect Commons". You are not a beginner admin but that is a big mistake. COM:IDENT is a "non-copyright restriction". COM:SCOPE is a "non-copyright restriction". In addition we have a practice (if not official policy) of performing Commons:Courtesy deletions where requested. In the case of a person or organisation having a "cause of action against the photographer", I most certainly hope Commons would have sympathy with the photographer. While we don't tend to pro-actively delete random images just because of some imagined contractual difficulties that could concievably be incurred by the photographer/artist, I would very much hope that we would do if requested by a photographer who believes sincerely they are at risk and where there is a resonable chance this might be so. While I don't think all of Moyan's concerns were as signficant as he first thought, some remain and I think deserve a more sympathetic response than "Commons does not care... (about) the photograper", which is the message your words may deliver.

Some photos did not perhaps get the full attention they needed, and some got forgotten when the second DR was created, so can I ask you to specifically review the following:

Hope you can help with this. -- Colin (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Colin, thank you. When I waded into this mess, I did not realize how long it would take -- my Internet connection here is much slower than my usual one and there were a lot of images to examine. As a result, I rushed the closing comment and was, as you say, insensitive and inaccurate. My understanding is that Moyan has withdrawn the request, so I don't see a need to delete images based on his original concerns. I also think it is highly unlikely that any of the museums involved are going to bring an action against a resident of a foreign (in at least all of the many countries but one) country for uploading a few images here. In most jurisdictions the most they could hope to recover would be his profit, which is, of course, nothing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I mentioned the original DR only for history, and to explain why some images were not included in the second one by accident. While I agree that "unlikely" is reassuring, COM:PRP doesn't work on "unlikely to sue" wrt copyright concerns. I think sometimes we need to balance the concerns/fears/risks of the photographer more (particularly for unused images like here) against our natural desire to retain what we think we legally can. And none of us are lawyers or able to give legal advice for sure. Long term, it is better to lose a few images, and retain a photographer in good motivation. -- 22:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I think you are comparing two very different likelihoods. It is easy to imagine a copyright holder suing to force Commons to take an image down -- winning the suit would have a positive result that might be worth the several thousand dollars (or more) that the suit cost. A museum suing a photographer who had violated the museum's rules is very much less likely. First, the museum has to prove that the photographer was aware of the rule -- unless they get a signed statement from every person they admit, that's a very tough proof -- they have to prove that he read the sign or the back of the ticket. If I were defending such a suit brought by a museum which had a no-commercial photography rule, I would argue that my client had not made any commercial use of the image -- he had simply donated it to Commons and, therefore, had not broken the museum's rule. The fact that the image is PD is the museum's problem, not my client's. Then, even if they win, they gain nothing -- as I said above, the only thing they can win is the photographer's profits and there are none. Winning a suit against the photographer would not force Commons to take the images down. Museums are not quixotic -- they don't spend thousands (or tens of thousands if the suit is foreign) without some hope of gain. I doubt very much that anyone can find any cases of this sort. (Note that I don't say that a museum might not sue a professional who photographed one of their PD works and sold posters and tee-shirts, or used the image in advertising, but not a person who had no profit.)
I sympathize with the concern that we don't want our colleagues agonizing over the possibility of their being sued and I would certainly immediately take an image down if such a suit did materialize, but I think that's a free promise, because it will never happen. I would hope that we can talk any such future requesters out of them, using the arguments I made above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


Dear @Jameslwoodward: ,

it's Moyan here, good morning. Firstly i want to thank you for your work. You are certainly a nice person, because you are spending your time for the world of freedom without any money in change, and in this sense, we could consider nice colleagues, because i have a great love of world of free resources too anc contributing as well since years.

I'm writing after @Colin: , who really really kindly helped me (i will never say thanks enough to him), told me that he would have probably tried to talk you about my worries.
So, i'm here today to present myself a little bit, to thank you for your contribution, and to kindly provide some clarification regarding the background of my problem so that you can have a better vision of my worries.
Basically, and personally, I am very willing to contribute to Wikimedia and not only. Infact, during the previous years, you can't imagine how many pictures I have given for free to people, privately, and through internet (we are talking about hundreds), by also advising them about commercial potential problems that they must firstly solve before using my pictures (the famous FOP issue, and property/model releases). Lot of people always ask me, "why the hell do you do this? do you know you could sell your beautiful pictures and become rich? you are so talented!!" I put an incredible passion in photography, and probably, if you have checked my works on Wikimedia, you may appreciate my pictures as well. However, my answer to those people who always think to money, has always been, "sorry but, i don't care of money"....Linux is free, Wikipedia is free, i want to give something for free as well, from my blood and flesh, to the humanity to which i do and proudly belong, before i die". That's my intention. Sometimes i admit I have accepted some small donations to renew my expensive photography equipment, but that's it, my best pictures are out there for free.
I did this through Flickr, with the CC license, and by also putting a BIG warning in each description of my pictures, where i strongly invited every user to read my rules/terms/disclaimer in my profile to better understand how to use my pictures without having problems. And in this regard, in my profile, I then strongly reported to always contact me by email for clarifications, and to always FIRSTLY check if they have permission in regard to private property or privacy of humans, because this was not included in my pictures (i also asked them to obfuscate faces with Photoshop for example). However, it seems that people don't care about rules because most of them make the stupid mistake to believe that CC license means "horray let's go for it!! it's 360° free!!"... so most of them just downloaded the pictures and start to make lot of mess......
And now the great question.....why am i suddenly so much worried after all this time? Basically, this is what happened....all this whole issue has arised, because in the first periods, i was constantly receiving mails from people asking for permissions/explanations, and to those people i was always replying "go for it, but be careful, and check for the necessary permissions as explained in my profile". So i was confident that everything was fine and that people was reading the CC terms and my warnings thanks to those email i was receiving.
However, just for curiosity, i recently found a tool to make a reverse search of images (imageraider.com), and I made a reverse search on internet to understand who used my pictures and how. Well, i have been badly and incredibly surprised by how many users in reality, didn't care about writing or reading the CC license terms and/or my warnings, and how many have used my pictures in a bad way, by putting themselves at risk, (and me too) because they have TOTALLY ignored my warnings and my advices about this issue, and about the fact that the CC License doesn't mean, "GO FOR IT YOU ARE FREE!!" but rather, and more simply, that I, as the photographer, don't want any money change. Basically i just found that those email received were from just a 30% of users. The rest, was just ignoring my warnings.
Due to this discovery, from that moment i started to feel my stomach exploded, i started to cry like a baby every night, and to feel crazy. I am almost going to the doctor to ask for some anxiety pills because i feel incredibly bad and I can't believe to what i discovered. At present time I feel almost dead. And this is why, i have temporary withdrawn my gallery, to deeply review all my material in the hope that from now on, only less dangerous pictures will be published to not put further users into trouble, and myself into trouble as well. Some users are too stupid to deserve free resources, and we all need to be more careful. That's it.
Of course, although it is clear that in many instance i would be safe, in my mind, i imagine myself in the next years closed inside tribunal halls to demonstrate each day my innocence, and I am so afraid of this happening. Yes i am innocent, but i will spend my entire life inside tribunal halls due to users fault.
However, i don't want Wikimedia to help me for free and just because i explained my story with tears in my eyes. As I already stated to Colin, I still want to contribute as a way to thank you for your big help. For this reason, i have an idea to let Wikimedia earn something even better from this situation.
I have a positive proposal. To alleviate my suffering, if you remove the pictures I ask for in the next days, those who really make me have bad nightmares in the night (although for some you explained that it should be fine, but you know, fears are difficult to control for humans being, and I have many problems in this sense), in change, for each picture you kindly remove, i will upload 2 new high quality pictures from my beautiful travels around the world, with not less than 3840px on long size (ULTRA HD quality for modern TVs), which contain elements for which there are no worries for me.
You remove 1 picture, you earn 2 more like it was an investiment for Wikimedia. After the end, Wikimedia will have 2 times the pictures it had, and so altogether we will reach these goals:
1- I will sleep better in the night and start to live my life again
2- I will continue to contribute in the future with less fear
3- Most important, Wikimedia will have more pictures than yesterday, of same quality or even superior (if you want i can provide even bigger resolution).
Of course we can agree on how you want me to upload the pictures. For example i can open a DR, and then send the pictures privately to pre-agreed administrators (2 pictures in change of each one asked for deletion) with a written authorization to publish them. After the administrators confirm they received the pictures, they can then delete the pictures and close the DR, to have maximum security you have effectively received pictures from me as agreed.
I am also available to make a money contribution to Wikimedia in change. I usually make periodically money contribution to Save The Children or Wikipedia. This time i can make a contribution to Wikimedia.
Let me know what you think. I only ask to alleviate my suffering a little bit.
PS: i would have also liked to talk about a project with you all users. What do you think if we propose to make a change. A big and more visible warning on the template used for pictures marked with CC license, to let people MORE CLEARLY understand that they need to furtherly check for authorization? We could put that by default, so that in this way, it would be damned evident that it's just their fault if they then use the pictures in the wrong way. We could also propose to put a BIG download button and impede the usual "save as", and after the user press the button, a popup appears stating "HEY, PICTURE IS FREE, BUT YOU NEED TO CHECK FOR FURTHER AUTHORIZATION WITH PROPERTY OWNERS ECT......".
What do you think about? wouldn't be great? Imagine how easily would be for each photographer to sleep better, and how many users we would save from troubles in the future. I believe this would be such an incredible useful change for Wikimedia.
If you like, we can try to talk more about it
Thanks for reading and apologize for my long and boring message!

Moyanbrenn (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Jim, just to make it clear, the images Moyan has told me he is still concerned about are:

The first three are personal/social/holiday photos of friends/family that he did not intend to share with a free licence. I really like the first photo, but I can understand why he wants to remove them. I don't post my family photos in the public section of Flickr and I don't give them CC licences either. The last two I don't understand the concern and have tried to explain the freedom to photograph/publish strangers in the US as well as a strong US tradition of street photography making such photos ethically acceptable to Americans. I think if they were deleted it would be purely as a favour. I have also tried to explain we don't delete images in return for donations, etc. I hope we can come to some resolution of this with a fair compromise perhaps. None of the images are currently in-use. -- Colin (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The two which I deleted are easy -- there is a potential personality rights issue. The other three are all images clearly taken in the USA, where there is absolutely no legal basis for the subject to object to their presence on Commons. They were clearly taken in a public place and show the subject in a very good light (i.e. they make the subject look good).
I must say, I take offense at the suggestion that making a contribution to Commons would make me do something that I might not otherwise do. I think it is best if Moyanbrenn takes any further requests to someone else. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you should "take offense". I think it was made in good faith but in misunderstanding about our role on the project. More a "if you do me a favour then I'll do you a favour", but the favour is not our right to give without community consensus/policy. -- Colin (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Good morning @Jameslwoodward: and @Colin: , just wanted to thank you very much. I have seen you at least deleted a couple of more pictures, especially the one called happiness in relation to the privacy of my friend. I want to thank you and let you know that for now i don't want to disturb you more than this. You both made a nice job to support my worries. I want to remember that thanks to your contribution, i have a little bit of fear now, and I am more willing in the future to upload some new pictures to continue to contribute to the Commons. Thank you again for alleviating my worries and to help me finding again the courage to contribute in the future. Really appreciated. All my best. Wish a great day to both of you. Moyanbrenn (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Rail Alphabet

Same issues as with respect to files already deleted but in a photo context.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I deliberately left this one alone. It is not at all clear to me that this alphabet, which looks a great deal like most other san-serif block alphabets can have a copyright, even given the very low UK ToO. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, as you have OTRS access you will at least be able to see Tickets [Ticket#2017052210014402] and [Ticket#2017052210016428] the last e-mail added to the latter ticket was recovered correspondence relating to this matter and to the earlier British Railways Logos.
The latter ticket also relates to the recent spate of DR's about diagrams of UK traffic signs and related material. (For reference an earlier tickets on this was [Ticket#2015070210009947].) Someone had asked for the text of these to be disclosed in one of the relevant DR's, something I didn't feel happy about doing directly in the discussions, for various reasons. It seems the relevant contact may have become confused as to which typeface was being referenced.
Because of various concerns and bad feeling generated by both sets of DR's. I am on a semi-wikibreak from Commons right now. Perhaps as someone experienced in such matters, you could help defuse this before the wiki-pitchforks come out again?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Feedback sought...

User:ShakespeareFan00/Sandbox/TrafficSigns User:ShakespeareFan00/Sandbox/DesignRights ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Subnational US states?

Dear Admin Woodward,

Someone has uploaded about 2,400+ images of images from the state of West Virginia in this category such as the two US images above but I believe that they are all unfree since images from West Virginia are not PD...although I can't find the right commons webpage for this. If I recall, only a few US state's images are free such as North Carolina and Florida and maybe Illinois but not West Virginia. So, if this is right filing a mass DR for images here , here, here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here will be a massive task. Unfortunately it goes on and on.

Do you know how to handle these images and do you have the webpage for subnational US states' copyright. This is a huge mess. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

First thing, see User_talk:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao#West_Virginia. Then we'll proceed from there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

West Virginia

Looks to me to be specific to the governor's office - the images were listed as "PD" on Flickr by whoever uploaded them, and they're credited to Governor Jim Justice. Furthermore, all of his videos on Flickr are released under the CC license. It may not be formal, but it appears a decision has been made on his behalf. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, actually they are on Flickr with the PDM, not CC-0, so we can't keep them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Why gates without knowing? (Clemen Parrocchetti)

RE: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Martino Guidobono Cavalchini

Do not allow to delete the contents that I have uploaded on the voice Clemen Parrocchetti: I am an heir (Clemen was my grandmother) and in agreement with other heirs we decided to create a dedicated page for those interested to know her work. So I have the rights to do so. Clear?


These are all works by Clemen Parrocchetti who died in 2016. They will be under copyright until January 1. 2086. There is no evidence that the uploader (who claims "own work" for them all) has the right to freely license them. That right almost certainly belongs to Parrocchetti's heirs.

You must comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Martino Guidobono Cavalchini. Comments here will do no good. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


But if the page is on behalf of Clemen Parrocchetti and I am an heir in agreement with other heirs, therefore I have the right, What I would be doing violating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martino Guidobono Cavalchini (talk • contribs) 10:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, User:Martino Guidobono Cavalchini, you must comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Martino Guidobono Cavalchini. Comments made here will do no good. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jim, I'm not understanding what the problem is. You could explain me better. I have already told you that I am one of the heirs who had the right to publish Clemen Parrocchetti (my grandmother) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martino Guidobono Cavalchini (talk • contribs) 14:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

First, as you have been asked several time, please sign all of your posts. See the note above for instructions.

The problem is, that although you say you are the artist's heir, we have no way of knowing that. There are many fans and vandals on Commons who make false claims in order to have works posted here that they have no right to freely license. Therefore, one of the heirs must send a free license using OTRS and explain the situation to the satisfaction of the OTRS volunteer who processes the license. Since OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, it will be at least several weeks, maybe more, before the email reaches the head of the queue and is acted upon. Meanwhile, alomost certainly the images will be deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:La Baionnette 2 December 1915.png

I saw your closure on this discussion and am not really disputing it but am puzzled by it.

French copyright law defines a "collective work" as something that merges contributions from many authors and is published by one person or company who owns the rights for the work as a whole. A newspaper is a standard example. It goes out of copyright and into the public domain 70 years after publication. The Bibliothèque nationale de France, who ought to know the law, has been digitizing pre-1943 newspapers and magazines since 2005, putting them up on its Gallica website with a statement that they are public domain. They say they can do this because the publications are collective works.

The deleted 1915 cover is here on Gallica. If you click on the (i) symbol to the left you will see "Droits : domaine public". The cover is almost entirely the work of one artist who did not die until 1962, apart from a bit of printed text above the picture and in the lower part of the picture, so it mainly consists of an image that is still protected. I don't see how a magazine can be in the public domain, but the contents are still protected, so only a ghost of the magazine is publicly available. The BnF seems to think the magazine can be freely copied and published online page by page.

What am I missing? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You are missing several things. First, it is highly unlikely that the magazine actually "owns the rights for the work as a whole". Magazines rarely buy all the rights to a work -- they almost always buy only "first serial rights" -- that, is, the right to be the first publisher of the work in a magazine. There are several reasons for that -- first, it is cheaper. Second, it is almost always what the creator of the work wants, and, third, they don;t need anything more.
The term "collective works" is meant to cover works such as newspapers (as you point out) where the work of individuals cannot be clearly separated. A magazine cover by an identified artist is not part of a collective work.
As for the opinion of the BN, it is well known on Commons that even institutions that should (and do, as a whole) know better have junior people making assessments of copyright status who have no real understanding of the issues involved. If there is a significant doubt that the institution is wrong, we regularly ignore such postings. I strongly suspect that if you asked the BN's copyright counsel for a formal opinion, you would get a different answer than PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but I am still not comfortable with it. Article L113-2 says in a collective work "the personal contributions of the various authors who participated in its production are merged in the overall work for which they were conceived, without it being possible to attribute to each author a separate right in the work as created." That seems to say the authors do not get rights to the collective work created, not that they are anonymous. I agree the publisher would rarely have exclusive rights to the individual works, just to the newspaper or magazine edition as a whole. An author can reprint their own article, but only the magazine owner can reprint the whole magazine.
The BnF says here, they consider a newspaper to be a collective work which enters the public domain on 1 January of the year following the seventieth anniversary of publication. I assume they are talking about the whole paper, not just the anonymous parts of it. The BnF has digitized thousands of magazines and newspapers up to 1942, many of which identify authors who were still alive 70 years ago, e.g. alive in 1947. They really do seem to be digitizing all the newspapers or magazines over 70 years old they can find, and have been doing so for 12 years. I can imagine the odd mistake, but this is wholesale. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The key to this is in your quote:

"the personal contributions of the various authors who participated in its production are merged in the overall work for which they were conceived, without it being possible to attribute to each author a separate right in the work as created." (emphasis added)

It is clearly entirely possible to attribute the cover to Albert Jarach -- he is credited. Therefore it is, by the terms of the quote you are relying on, not part of a collective work.

Commons is not responsible for and does not rely on the BN's mistakes. Also note that this is a magazine, not a newspaper. Most of the contents of a newspaper, even stories with a byline, are rewritten and edited heavily so that it is not generally possible to determine all of the authors of a particular piece (there are, of course, exceptions -- the OpEd page, usually). Magazines, on the other hand, are much less heavily edited and generally each article can be attributed. Therefore I find BN's opinion on newspapers (which you link above) to be unconvincing as applied to magazines. Finally, it would not surprise me if the BN is deliberately digitizing works which it knows are perhaps PD, perhaps not, on the simple grounds that no one is likely to sue. Most 70 year old magazines have no one left with any interest in or standing to sue to protect the copyright. As you know, that line of reasoning is explicitly prohibited by Commons Precautionary Principle..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I think by "separate right in the work as created" the IP code must mean separate right in the collective work. The full definitions are:
  • Article L113-2: ... "Collective work" shall mean a work created at the initiative of a natural or legal person who edits it, publishes it and discloses it under his direction and name and in which the personal contributions of the various authors who participated in its production are merged in the overall work for which they were conceived, without it being possible to attribute to each author a separate right in the work as created.
  • Article L113-5: A collective work shall be the property, unless proved otherwise, of the natural or legal person under whose name it has been disclosed. The author’s rights shall vest in such person.
  • Article L123-3: In the case of ... collective works, the term of the exclusive right shall be 70 years from January 1 of the calendar year following that in which the work was published.
Another source says "collective work" typically means a dictionary, newspaper or encyclopedia, but could also mean the elements of a car body, a computer program, a poster, a guide of administrative formalities, etc. The whole work is collective. When a cartoon in published in a comic magazine, it is hard to say how much value it adds to the magazine, the collective work. The cartoonist keeps the rights to his cartoon, but does not have 6.73% rights in the comic magazine.
I can't see the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the French National Library, deliberately publishing masses of copyright violations in the hope that they can get away with it. These are librarians and government bureaucrats, and are steeped in copyright law. There must be some other principle here. Maybe it is something like New York Times Co. v. Tasini that says a newspaper can be reproduced in its original layout (as BnF is doing) but the individual works cannot be pulled out and reproduced separately. Where would we find an expert on French copyright law who could clarify this? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, I completely fail to see how you can repeatedly quote "without it being possible to attribute to each author" as the basis for this magazine being a collective work when it is completely obvious that it is possible to attribute the cover to Albert Jarach and, probably, the rest of magazine's content to individual authors. The fundamental requirement of a collective work is completely missing in this case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
In French law (Owners of Copyright: Articles L113-1 to L113-9) a newspaper or magazine with multiple authors may be a collaborative work (joint authorship / ownership), composite work (e.g. translation or annotated version) or collective work (typical newspaper or magazine). There are no other possibilities. Some or all of the authors and their contributions may be identified in a collective work. The authors have rights to their own work whether they are identified or not, but do not have rights to the collective work, the whole "work as created". If they did it would be a collaborative work. It is certainly possible to attribute rights to the cover art to Albert Jarach, but not to attribute to him rights to the whole 2 December 1915 edition of La Baionnette, the work as created or collective work.
The Bibliothèque nationale de France clearly feel they have the right to reproduce online copies of newspapers and journals published up to 1942, since they consider them to be out-of-copyright collective works in the public domain. It is possible that they can only do so under certain very limited conditions, one of which may be that the pages are displayed as scanned images, and another that all pages in the work are linked together. I don't know. We need an expert on French copyright. There must be some forum? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
For libraries exceptions you can see EEC Directive 2001/29 art. 5 and French CPI L. 122-5. — Racconish ☎ 14:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
That is a red herring. The BnF are not claiming any libraries exception. They have stated they consider the newspapers to be collective works with expired copyright, and have marked their digitized versions as public domain. To understand why they can say that and what conditions apply we need someone who can point us to a reliable explanation. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The BNF is a library, so it is entitled to the libraries exception mentioned above by Racconish, and by me in the DR (but without a reference). Aymatth2: I really feel that things have been explained in details over and over, but you don't want to understand. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Since there is no WM forum where we can find expertise about collective works, I did some research and saved the results in en:Collective work and child pages. This is just a start, but the articles give a framework where other editors can add material from other sources to give a more complete view. On this specific case, there seems no reason to question the BnF's view that La Baïonnette is a collective work that is now in the public domain, and that they have the right to display it online in the form of page-by-page digital images of the whole work. But it is not clear that anyone has the right to display a single page in isolation, particularly one that is mostly the work of one author who lived until 1962. In the absence of case law that would clarify this obscure point, it is best for Wikimedia to avoid doing so. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort here. I completely agree that while the whole work may (or may not) be a collective work and therefore free, the front cover is still under the artist's copyright and should not be shown separately..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Clearly the magazine is a collective work, now in the public domain. The Bibliothèque nationale de France understands and complies with the law. The image is under the artist's copyright, but the cover may not be. May an excerpt from a public domain work be used? We need case law to give clearer guidance. I suspect it will be hard to find. Disputes over the rights to an image of a magazine page more than 100 years old will be rare. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
You say, "Clearly the magazine is a collective work...". I see nothing clear about it. Under French law, collective works are, by the definition you have quoted several times, works "without it being possible to attribute to each author". Magazines have signed articles and therefore everything in them can, in fact, be attributed to the authors.. I still don't see how you can repeatedly quote the law and the apply it to a work that it does not fit. However, I think there is little point in continuing this discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
There is an excellent discussion of the subject at en:Collective work (France). The conditions for a work to be considered a collective work are that some natural or legal person coordinates preparation and publication, and it is not possible to attribute a separate right to the whole collective work, the work as created, to each author. They were authors of their contributions, which may be attributed to them, but the collective work as a whole was coordinated by and is attributed to the natural or legal owner of the collective work. This is true of all periodicals other than collaborative efforts with joint authorship or works where everything that is submitted is published without any selection or arrangement, such as bulletin boards. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: You may be confusing "collective" with "collaborative". A collaborative work is one where the authors work together, as in an academic paper with several co-authors, and the individual contributions cannot be distinguished. Each author has a right to the work as a whole. By contrast, a collective work is one where the authors work largely independently under the direction of a coordinator, a natural or legal person. The contribution of each author usually can be distinguished and they retain rights to their contribution whether or not it has a byline, but only the coordinator has rights to the collective work as created. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Ihre Löschwut

Wie kann der offizieller Matchball eines gesamten Bewerbes (Österreichischer Fußball-Cup) eine Urheberrechtsverletzung sein? Sind Sie dazu bereits auch alle anderen Fußbälle von Weltmeisterschaften und von Europameisterschaften, die zahlreich auf commons zu finden sind – Fotos von Fußbällen –, ebenfalls zu löschen oder muss ich dazu Löschanträge stellen? Wenn meine Fotos Urheberrechtsverletzungen sind, was sind denn dann diese Fotos?

Was soll denn an dem Fan-Transparent eine Urheberrechtsverletzung sein? Ist es wirklich Ihr Ziel, Fotografen, die mit professionellen Bildern konstruktiv zum Erfolg von commons beitragen, so zu verärgern, dass sie keine Bilder mehr hochladen? Ist das wirklich das Ziel der Administratoren von commons? Ich erachte Ihre Löschungen als klaren Affront meiner Person! --Steindy (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Coming here and insulting me is going to get you nowhere. I am sure the creators of the unique soccer balls consider your uploading photographs of them in violation of their copyrights insulting to their persons. These are very clear cases -- there can be no question that both the posters and the soccer balls I deleted today are copyrighted. As I said in the closing comment, the fact that something appears widely in public says nothing about its copyright status. Billboards, magazines, and television ads all appear in thousands or millions of places and all have copyrights.

As for the images above, it is never valid to ask to keep your images based on the fact that there are similar images on Commons. We have almost 40 million images on Commons -- my best guess is that at least 1% of those -- 400,000 images -- should be deleted. However, in all but perhaps one of the cases above, either the balls shown are permanently installed sculptures covered by Freedom of Panorama or have been shown to be below the applicable threshold of originality and therefore lack a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Nicht ich beleidige Sie, sondern Sie bringen mich und meine Arbeit in Misskredit in dem Sie behaupten, dass diese Urheberrechtsverletzungen sind, und löschen diese in vandalistischer Weise. Auf welches Urheberrecht wollen Sie sich beziehen? Auf amerikanisches, deutsches oder österreichisches Urheberrecht? Ich verwehre mich gegen solche Unterstellungen. Dies umso mehr, da für den ÖFB-Cup die Medienrichtlinien des ÖFB gelten. Dies bedeutet, dass man zum Fotografieren eine offizielle Akkreditierung des Heimvereins bzw. des ÖFB benötigt. Der offizielle Spielbeobachter des ÖFB (den ich auch fotografiert habe) überwacht vor Ort den ordnungsgemäßen Ablauf. Dieser hatte mich auch aufgefordert den offiziellen Spielball der ÖFB und die Interviewand zu fotografieren. Und das soll eine Urheberrechtsverletzung sein? Das kann wohl nicht Ihr Ernst sein. Das Logo des ÖFB-Cups, das für die Berichterstattung sogar verwendet werden muss ist übrigens auf auf der homepage des ÖFB frei herunterzuladen [24], [25]. Warum wohl, wenn es dem Urheberrecht unterliegt?
Ich fotografiere seit 40(!) Jahren Fußball und Sie dürfen mir glauben, dass ich sehr wohl weiß, was ich am Fußballplatz fotografieren darf und wie ich mich dort zu verhalten habe. Es wird schon seinen Grund haben, weshalb mir user:EugeneZelenko jegliche Antwort verweigert hatte. Und ein ebenso trauriges Kapitel ist, dass Sie ihr Recht des Stärkeren missbrauchen und mir mit Ihrer haltlosen Unterstellung womöglich Schaden zufügen; Schaden deshalb, weil ich auch in den nächsten Jahren Akkreditierungen des ÖFB für Länderspiele und den ÖFB-Cup benötigen werde und mir nicht vorwerfen lassen will, dass ich die Richtlinien des ÖFB nicht eingehalten habe. Aber seit der Affäre um user:Dr. Bernd Gross weiß ich ohnehin, was von den Inhabern der Macht auf commons zu halten ist...
Übrigens ist auch Ihr Hinweis auf Freedom of Panorama falsch, denn die Panoramafreiheit gilt nur, wenn diese Installationen dauerhaft (nach gültiger Rechtsauslegung: für mindestens zwei Monate) im öffentlichen Raum steht. Für Innenräume gilt überhaupt nur in Österreich und Großbritannien die Panoramafreiheit. Dass dies bei den Bildern 1, 2, 3, 4 und 6 der Fall ist, ist ganz sicher nicht zutreffend! --Steindy (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, there is not much point in your continuing to rant on the subject. The posters and balls are clearly over the threshold of originality and, therefore, are copyrighted. The applicable law is the law of the country of origin of the object and that of the United States. Objects in Commons images must be freely licensed or PD in both the country of origin and in the United States. If you think that some of the images above should be deleted, by all means nominate them.
Your accusing me of abusing my powers is just silly. First, why would I abuse my powers? -- I don't know you and I have no particular opinion on soccer -- there is no conceivable reason why I would abuse my powers in this case. And, of course, even if I wanted to abuse them for some strange reason, it would be impossible. Commons Admins have 25,000 users looking over their shoulder every time they take an action. Fewer than one tenth of one percent -- 1 in 1,000 -- of my actions are reversed, and those are almost always because of new information that came up after the action. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Vielen Dank für Ihre Beleidigung meiner Person. Ja ich bin tatsächlich dumm, dass ich mit guten professionellen Sportfotos, mit denen ich woanders viel Geld verdienen könnte, zu commons beizutragen versuche. Wenn ich mir commons ansehe, bemerke ich ohnehin, dass hier auf solche Fotos kein Wert gelegt wird. Wenn, dann sind es meist Sportfotos von flickr & Co., oder amateurhafter Pixelmüll. Es ist auch bezeichnend, dass Sie auf keines meiner dargelegten Argumente eingegangen sind, weil Sie als "hoher Verwalter" von commons vor der Richtigkeit Ihres Vorgehens überzeugt sind und meine Argumente nicht im Geringsten interessieren. Wie gesagt, seit dem permanent ban von user:Dr. Bernd Gross weiß ich, was von commons zu halten ist. Wikipedia braucht sich bei solchen Verhalten der Verwalter nicht über die immer geringer werdende Beteiligung (minus 1/3!) zu beklagen! --Steindy (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Poster and soccer balls are not installed permanently as required by Commons:Freedom of panorama#Germany. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: Jetzt brauchen Sie mir auch nicht mehr zu antworten. Sie hatten lange genug Zeit dazu und haben es nicht getan, obwohl ich Sie angepingt hatte. Nehmen Sie auch zur Kenntnis, dass Unsinn reden, wenn Sie auf Commons:Freedom of panorama#Germany verweisen, denn wenn schon, dann ist für Österreich Commons:Freedom of panorama#Austria relevant und da gibt es gravierende Unterschiede zu Deutschland. Wie ein Fußball dauerhaft an einem öffentlichen Ort installiert sein soll, bleibt Ihr Geheimnis. Stellen Sie daher auf alle meine Fußballbilder, auf denen ein Ball zu sehen ist, einen Löschantrag, wenn Sie Spaß daran haben! Ebenso können Sie Löschanträge auf Bilder stellen, auf denen Transparente und Werbebanden stellen, da diese ebenfalls nicht dauerhaft an einem öffentlichen Ort installiert sind und selbstverständlich auf Bilder mit TV-Kameras (wie hier, da diese ausschließlich zur Übertragung des Spiels aufgestellt werden. Merken Sie eigentlich selbst, welchen Unsinn Sie zur Verteidigung Ihrer Löschanträge reden? Mit Ihrer Einstellung ist es so gut wie unmöglich, gute Fotos von Sportveranstaltungen zu veröffentlichen, denn irgendwas findet sich fast immer, das durch Commons:Freedom of panorama zu beanstanden ist! --Steindy (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Wilhelm_Deecke_ju.jpg entfernt, auf Commons von Jameslwoodward gelöscht. Grund: per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wilhelm Deecke ju.jpg)

Thank You very much for delete this picture!! If You don't speek German, than do not anything these stupid thing. The picture is older than 70 years and I am the owner. --Sorgenlos (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Owing a paper copy of a picture does not give you the right to freely license it -- that right remains with photographer. As I said in the closing comment, seventy years is far too recent to assume that the photographer died more than 70 years ago -- we usually use 120 years for that test. And, yes, it is true that I do not read German, but Google Translate does a good job and there is nothing complicated in your comment at the DR. It is not necessary that every photographer must be known, but it is necessary for you to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is in the public domain. You have not done that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Woher nimmst du das Recht zu behaupten, dass der Fotograf noch keine 70 Jahre tot ist? Eine Vermutung, keine Tatsache. Wikipedia führt in Deutschland einen Prozeß um Bild- bzw. Veröffentlichungsrechte mit dem Ziel, dass die Veröffentlichung von Fotografien legal ist, wenn das Objekt älter als 70 Jahre ist, unabhängig von dem Zeitpunkt der Aufnahme - und verfährt so mit den Einträgen. Löschanträge von mir in diesem Sinne sind nicht genehmigt worden. Also zweierlei Maß? Ich verstehe den Feldzug der englischsprachigen Wikimedianer nicht. --Sorgenlos (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on the uploader to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is PD. As I said above, we usually use 120 years as the cutoff date for images when the death of the photographer is not known. Note, by the way, that Goesseln, who originally tagged this file for deletion, is a German speaker. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Author with unknown death

Hi Jameslwoodward, You handled this deletion request. What do you consider a safe date, if the death of an author is unknown, when the image can be undeleted? Thanks! Romaine (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

In that DR, as I said, we knew the author's birth date of 1867 and it is reasonable to assume that he might have lived past age 80. In cases where we don't know the birth date, in countries where the law is pma 70, we generally assume that if 120 years have passed since the creation of the work that it is OK. See {{PD-old-assumed}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Information

Hello, about the comment "there is no other significant subject among the buildings on either side". From left to right in the image: Löffler Palace, Chamber of Commerce Palace, the cathedral, Dauerbach Palace, Merbl Palace, Neuhausz Palace Lloyd Palace. All the palaces in the picture together form the historic monument "Corso" of Victory Square, more important than the cathedral. The tourist who took the picture did not know this. I am an OTRS volunteer for Romanian. There also commented another OTRS volunteer for Romanian and a former OTRS volunteer for Romanian. We believe that we know the Romanian copyright laws very well, and I personally know respective buildings very well, you can see where I am, see my user page in Romanian. And I also started with vacuum tube computers, see the article written by me ro:MECIPT. So, we are not children, and we believe that we are the ones who know best the copyright of images from our country. I hope we work together better in the future. --Turbojet (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

You may know the Romanian law, but I think you are stretching the point. While others of the buildings may, arguably, be more important buildings than the cathedral, there can be no question that the front facade of the cathedral is the most important visual element in the picture. It is the only building in the image that is face on, square to the camera and is dead center in the image. I would find it very hard to agree with you that it is not the main subject of the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Hi Jim. I just wanted to thank you for how friendly you always are, and how you're always willing to help out new people like me with copyright messes. Without people like you, Clindberg, and others, I'd spend half my time on Commons lost in policy pages or searching for them. Daphne Lantier 01:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Ledrappier 2013 Oberwolfach.jpg

Bonjour, je reviens à vous, mais aussi à @Droit de retrait 03: , à @Cbyd: et @Nomen ad hoc: concernant l'image supprimée. J'avais signalé que j'allais m'enquérir des droits, mais la photo a été enlevée bien vite. La réponse de Boris Hasselblatt, auteur de la photo est :

Dear All,
I am happy to make it "Creative Commons License Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Germany." to match the others in the MFO collection.
Best regards
Boris

J'ai transmis cette réponse aussi à la MFO Photo collection. Bien cordialement --ManiacParisien 17:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The image was deleted on the seventh day, which is Commons standard for Deletion Requests. In order for the image to be restored, either Boris Hasselblat must send a free license using OTRS or MFO must change the Copyright designation at http://owpdb.mfo.de/detail?photo_id=18973. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Je ne peux pas laisser votre première remarque sans réponse : je ne mets pas en doute que 7 jours est un standard pour les demandes de suppression ; c'est bien pour cela que j'ai demandé que l'on me laisse faire le travail de recherche des droits, et que cela pourrait durer quelque temps à cause les fêtes de Pentecôte. D'ailleurs, un délai de sept jours ouvrables serait plus raisonnable, mais je ne veux pas me mêler de cela. Je constate juste que la possibilité que j'arrive à trouver une solution ne m'a pas été facilité, et je vous en suis reconnaissant ! --ManiacParisien 12:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
We get 10,000 new images every day and must delete about 1,700 of them. Seven calendar days has been the period for deletion requests for many years. Since OTRS has a backlog of several weeks, maybe months, there would be no reason to leave the DR open a few days longer -- it can be restored if and when the photographer sends a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

French collective works – one last try

Were any contributors to this page, published on 4 June 1927 and digitized by the BnF, still alive 70 years ago, e.g. Maurice Levaillant? The whole journal is in the public domain. Is this page?

I think I understand the cause of confusion, so will make one last attempt to clear it up. The definition (my bolding) is:

"Collective work" shall mean a work created at the initiative of a natural or legal person who edits it, publishes it and discloses it under his direction and name and in which the personal contributions of the various authors who participated in its production are merged in the overall work for which they were conceived, without it being possible to attribute to each author a separate right in the work as created.

What is the "work as created"? I think you are taking it to mean the work of the individual author, while the intent is to mean the collective work as a whole. The authors do not each get rights to the whole work.

See en:Collective work. All countries have laws that cover collective works, where an entrepreneur puts together a newspaper, magazine, encyclopedia or other publication that combines contributions from several authors. As a rule the individual authors, whether they are identified in the work or not, retain rights to their contributions. The entrepreneur has rights to the work as a whole, including the right to publish revisions and fresh editions of the collective work, but does not have the right to reproduce the individual works either stand-alone or in a new collective work. A publisher can reproduce a magazine online as a set of images of the print edition pages, but cannot publish the articles on a website in a new layout and context unless the authors consent.

With its digitization program, the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) is asserting that newspapers and magazines are collective works whose copyright in France expires 70 years after publication, when they can be digitized and displayed on the Gallica website. If we interpret French law as saying multi-author works in which the author of a contribution has been identified with a byline are not collective works but some other type of work (?), that would make the BnF the perpetrator of copyright violations on a massive scale. Many of the newspapers and magazines they have digitized include contributions with bylines that identify authors who were still living 70 years ago.

But there is no discussion in French copyright law of a special status for newspapers that print bylines. Author rights do not depend on identification of the author. An author may assert their right to not be identified without waiving their copyright. The same questions of journalist vs. publisher rights apply to newspapers that print bylines and those that do not. The law covers all standard newspapers and magazines.

There is, I think, some ambiguity about the status of a digitized image of a page in a newspaper issue that is now in the public domain, 70 years after publication. Can that page alone be copied? On the date the newspaper issue went into the public domain almost all the contributions on the page would still be protected since the contributors were alive at time of publication. Gradually the contributions on the page would also go into the public domain, but it could take many years before all the contributions were clear of copyright. Some case law would be useful. Meanwhile, I think we have to avoid publishing page images where is any chance any of the contributors were still alive 70 years ago. I am not volunteering for this clean-up job. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


Hi ,

I am contacting you in regards to urtina.com logo, maybe you are aware

My designer emailed the OTRS to commons, how I make sure that you received it and that you know for which art is that license for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanDzudzevic (talk • contribs) 02:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

--OsmanDzudzevic (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

As I said at the UnDR, you must first prove that Urtina is notable. Since the web site is not yet in Beta, that appears to not be the case. Therefore, your designer's OTRS message is irrelevant since the files will not be restored. I looked, however, and there is no OTRS message in the last year that contains the word "urtina". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward)

So whenever my website becomes beta - I can reach you out for undeletion ? --OsmanDzudzevic (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

No -- when your company becomes notable -- that is, when someone not connected with the company decides that it is important enough to warrant an article in WP and writes one. That usually implies that you have many customers -- millions perhaps -- and revenues to match. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Further Fantasy - Exhibition Galleria Giò Marconi, Milano, 1.-21. March 1999, catalogue Associazione Italiana Pellicceria by Vogue Italia.jpg

Deleted: per nomination COM:DW. The central photo is still visible and the image would not be useful if it were removed or blurred enough for it to stop being a copyvio.

The central photo is NOT visible! "the image would not be useful if it were removed or blurred enough" - this is not a delation reason (by the way, for the lemma where it was used it is useful). -- Kürschner (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The central photo is partially obscured by a semitransparent white rectangle. What remains certainly infringes on the copyright. The only way to avoid it being a copyvio is to completely obscure the central photo and that would leave an image that, as I said, is not usable for any educational purpose. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, this was my first version. You are right! -- Kürschner (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about Goldston images

Hi Jim, excuse me for disturbing you. I found that user:WaPu uploaded some files licensing them wrongly. He presented them as his own works, but they derive by "Asteroid Radar Research": https://echo.jpl.nasa.gov/

I didn't understand if the copyright statement accompaining them allows their use on Commons, by virtue of Template:PD-USGov-NASA, as it seems to me. What do you think? Thank you. --Harlock81 (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

No trouble at all -- one of the reasons I am here is to provide help when I can.

Although https://echo.jpl.nasa.gov/ clearly calls out "Copyright 2013 All Rights Reserved", it seems to me that these are covered by the Image Use Policy at https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/imagepolicy/ which looks very much like a CC-BY license and certainly covers our requirements. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by WaPu. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Double file extension

Hi Jim. There is an issue with a double file extension (see e.g. de:Spezial:Diff/166323438). Could you please check if other wikipedias are affected, too? --Leyo 14:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure there is any way to do that. It's apparently a bug in Global Replace that does not recognize that "Datei" is the German for "File" and should have been removed. Unfortunately, as far as I know, Global Replace doesn't keep a log, so there is no list of the files it replaced. Local editors should discover the problem, as you apparently did at WP:DE. I've filed a bug report. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe (or for sure) it was a typing error by you User:Jameslwoodward/GlobalReplaceLog/2017/6. Sometimes we put a namespace too much and don't recognize it. Anyway the tool need a file exist check and also could trim this mistake. (Which e.g. User:Perhelion/JustReplace+.js has) -- User: Perhelion 19:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
PS: I fixed the remaining 20 inclusions. -- User: Perhelion 20:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Aha -- thank you very much, both for fixing my error and for the education -- now I understand -- the Global Replace tool does not want the file prefix and I probably included it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I wonder if other file might be affected, too. --Leyo 12:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand -- which other file? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I missed the “s”. It should read “(any) other files”. --Leyo 21:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
If I read Perhelion's note correctly, they fixed all of them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK Perhelion fixed all errors associated with the file mentioned above. --Leyo 21:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Special:Undelete/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Martino_Guidobono_Cavalchini

Hi Jim. I see what you were trying to do there, but am not sure the original DR should have been deleted. Was that your intention? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC) never mind.. seems you caught this while I was typing. BTW, I sent you an email on an unrelated topic. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-06#Files uploaded by Biewerlover

Hi. At the time of posting, neither Arthur Crbz nor I was an Admin here, thus we didn't have access to the licenses on the deleted files. We need prima facie releases of permission (preferably generated via relgen) in permissions tickets, this ticket didn't have one.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Aha -- now I understand. In my first comment, I did not say how or if the files were licensed. Therefore you couldn't be sure that they were. I probably should have said that, but you might also have made your concern conditional on the files not have good licenses at time of upload. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Tamil videos

Hi Jim. Would you happen to know what additional licensing is needed for these files: Category:Tamil Wikipedia video tutorials? Daphne Lantier 05:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Daphne, sorry, I lost track of this for a day. I looked at several of them and they all appear to be licensed CC-BY-SA here or CC-BY on YouTube, so I think they're all right. The YouTube ones needed {{Licensereview}}, which you did. What's your concern here? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I just wondered if they needed any extra licensing for the Wikipedia screenshots they use? Daphne Lantier 16:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Aha. Good question. It wouldn't hurt to add {{Copyright by Wikimedia}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I've added it. Thanks for the help Jim. Daphne Lantier 22:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

WaPu pictures/animations

Hi Jim I am not sure I understand what was the problem with the pictures I uploaded? I only improved on the SNR of the pictures for all to see and enjoy and I can not see the harm in that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaPu (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by WaPu is pretty clear. You claimed that you were the photographer and copyright holder on images that were, in fact, created by NASA. Claiming the work of another person or organization as you own violates our fundamental respect for copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Indian military photos

Hi Jim. I came across Commons:Deletion requests/File:Field marshal SHFJ Manekshaw.jpg while doing some checking of images on English Wikipedia. I am wondering if your close would also apply to images such as File:General S M Srinagesh.jpg and File:Field Marshal SHFJ Manekshaw.jpg since they were also uploaded under the same type of licensing. The latter photo has the same name as the one you deleted in the DR, but I'm not sure if it's the same image or if it's the same uploader. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. The copyright policy at

https://indianarmy.nic.in/Site/FormTemplete/frmTempSimple.aspx?MnId=E9d1ZBFPlP+TuXvqgtLAUw==&ParentID=QWRYMKYE9uH04Lni8aQOvA==
"This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context."

is unacceptable. As I said in the DR which you cited, "Commons images must be free for any use, which includes parody and misleading contexts." I would tag any images from that site with {{Delete}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this Jim. I will DR the two files and any more I come accross. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi again Jim. Somebody uploaded File:Gen S M Srinagesh.jpg and File:FM Sam Manekshaw.jpg from the same source which are basically the same images being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Indian Army Photos. Do I need to start a new DR for these files or can it be added to the one I've already started for the other two files? If it's a case of the latter, please explain what needs to be done or even better add the files yourself. Also, from the look of Special:Contributions/Zwerubae, it appears that this editor has uploaded dozens of similar image from the same website under the same license. Can these all be handled in one uber-big DR or do they need to be dealt with individually? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Brief answer -- guests arriving in a minute -- they can (and absolutely should) all be handled together using COM:VFC. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. I've never used VFC before. Would it be acceptable just to add manually these new files to the DR I have already started. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I encourage you to try VFC - it's easy to use, gives you a lot of information -- try mouseing over the file descriptions - and also makes it much easier for the closing Admin than individual DRs. You can, somehow, install it, but I just click on https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:VisualFileChange.js&withJS=MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js and fill in the blank.
Failing that, strictly speaking you must notify the uploader for every image and tag every image with {{Delete}}, but if the images are all from the same uploader, I have, from time to time, added images to a DR without doing either. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I was able to use VFC. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zwerubae. Thanks again for your help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Coordinates from camera do not upload

Dear Jim, I have bought a Sony HX400V with GPS function. When I upload individual files the location is not transferred to the uploaded file on Commons. When I upload multiple files the coordinates are uploaded to all files save the first one. Can I get around this issue? Thanks, Ad Meskens Ad Meskens (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a clue. None of my cameras have GPS. I suggest you post the question at Commons:Village pump -- you will surely get help there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Image Deletion

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Katiecpy#Notification_about_possible_deletion

Dear Jameslwoodward

The email with all the above image links is sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and waiting for OTRS permission. What else can I do to get a permission of uploading these images? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiecpy (talk • contribs) 10:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

If you go to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Katiecpy, you will see that I added the OTRS permission to all of the applicable images, closed the old DR with all images kept and then opened a new DR because all of the ones I tagged for the new DR are too small and blurry to be useful. They also lack any useful categories, but if that were the only problem, you could fix it.

Note that your other images may also be deleted unless you add useful categories. At a bare minimum, each of them should be in a category such as Category:Hotels in Scotland -- with as much specificity as to the building type and location as is possible. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Lobby_of_the_Ynaggakdo_Hotel_Pyongyang,_DPRK_(11957528203).jpg

Jim, you deleted this file under the pretence of it being part of a video. This is incorrect.

You'll see from this that it is a photo taken with an Olympus E-M5. Just one of many photos taken on this individual's trip to North Korea with Young Pioneer Tours.

Can you please undelete the photo (and perhaps check delinker for any usage) and let's be thankful that he made it out of North Korea alive to CC license them. Thanks 124.148.66.130 12:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The same source references the video and Flickr camera data is very easy to fake. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Jim, this is Scott (aka Russavia).

  1. http://www.flickr.com/photos/26781577@N07/11957528203/ is the photo in question. 4543 x 2256 px in size
  2. EXIF states it was taken with Olympus E-M5 OLYMPUS M.12-50mm F3.5-6.3
  3. https://www.flickr.com/photos/26781577@N07/albums/72157638650312475 is the set of 230 photos taken with the same camera from the very same trip. That would mean that Clay has falsified EXIF data on ALL of those photos.
  4. His 2014 trip to Myanmar with over 300 photos (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26781577@N07/albums/72157646363048704) also have the same falsified EXIF data (going by your stance).

That's the first indicator that the file you deleted ISN'T a result of video screengrab with falsified EXIF data.

If that doesn't convince you.

  1. http://www.flickr.com/photos/26781577@N07/11957528203/ is the photo in question. 4543 x 2256 px in size
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W21IXFzZDU8 is the video you mention
  3. The video description states "This is the video prepared by the KIT cameraman who accompanied my group tour of the DPRK."
  4. The video resolution size is 480p
  5. The video quality is actually pretty shit
  6. A screengrab from that video would NOT result in either the 4543x2256px photo which you deleted or the quality.

This stuff that one can see from a just a quick cursory glance at the same links you and I have looked at.

So can you please undelete that photo and perhaps check delinker in case there was usage. Thanks. 15:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.148.66.130 (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Jim, I see you are back to editing (processing other DRs). Can you please address your mistaken deletion of this photo by undeleting it as it should be. Thanks, 124.148.66.130 11:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No. Russavia --- if you are Russavia -- is a controversial figure here and I'm not comfortable doing anything with this. Take it to UnDR if you wish. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I went ahead and simply restored the file in light of all the above information. I'm assuming this was a mistaken deletion on your part as the file does not look like a still frame from a video. Please do feel free to delete the file again if you disagree, and I'd be happy to request an undeletion via UDR if you wish so — so that we can discuss this file in more detail if necessary. Thank you for all the hard work you've been putting into Deletion Requests, really appreciate it! odder (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

SatanManson

Hi Jim, I will be traveling for a couple weeks from tonight, I know it's a little rude of me to presume but I was hoping I could dump this on your lap. I will not oppose an unblock if you are satisfied, and that's of course separate from the copyright issues. See also en:User talk:Storkk#FRom_Satan_Manson. Storkk (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Now that it has devolved on my enwiki talk page, I think it's less and less likely that you'll have to do anything at all, but if you could put his commons talk page on your watchlist and possibly lend a hand if he does do something here, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Storkk, between you and me and any talk page stalkers who are lurking about, I'm not sure I want a colleague named "Satan Manson" -- two really evil names. That aside, sure -- I assume that all you anticipate is something appearing on his talk page. I'll take a look at the history when I have a little time -- if it's just the one case, I don't think a permanent block is warranted, but if he's a repeat offender without any redeeming good uploads, then why do we need him?
I should add that from July 11 for a month we will be traveling on our boat and while WiFi is usually available in most harbors, there will be days when I won't be active on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Username aside, I thought it might have been worthwhile to offer him a little help. Since my initial request here though, it has continued to go downhill. I'm not sure it's worth your (or anyone else's) time at all any more. Anyway, no worries. I hope you have calm seas and good winds! Storkk (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Beautiful pic

Feeding the birds (31374562564)

Hi Jim. Is this not a beautiful pic? Could we use it somewhere (main page?) or make a candidate to some quality pic thingy? Got no idea about all that but loved the pic... Best. --E4024 (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons has a variety of contests and recognition for quality images, but I know little about them. See: Commons:Featured pictures,Commons:Quality images, Commons:Valued images.

File:CNSM 700.jpg

Hello Jim, while you gave an approximate location of this photograph in your original description, I (as a native to the area) determined a more precise location, detailed on the image's talk page.

Nice photo, by the way.

--CA&E460 (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

File:CWBHotelProject.jpg

Hi there! I found my files being deleted and there's a message stating "These are small, unsharp, and have no useful categories. They will be lost in our 40 million images." What does this means and how can I improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiecpy (talk • contribs) 03:58, 4 July 2017‎ (UTC)

The message you copied says it all.

  • The cited image is only 180 × 240 pixels. That is not a useful size.
  • The image is blurred. Unless the image is unique, a blurred image is not useful.
  • Category:Hotels is not useful -- there are thousands of files in that category and its subs. It could be either:
Category: Crowne Plaza Hong Kong Causeway Bay‎ or
Category: Crowne Plaza Hong Kong Kowloon East
but you don't tell us which one. Without good categories, no one can find an image among the 40 million on Commons.

File:Mother Theresa 18.jpg

Jim, apparently this image isn't Mother Teresa per some research done by the Snopes folks, it's a lady who admired her. The confusion apparently stems from the fact that the lady's obit had this image and right underneath was a quote from Mother Teresa. This is a valued image, so I don't want to just nominate it for deletion, but how best to go about fixing this error? I found out based on this post at en.wiki. Can you suggest a solution? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the file from the articles, corrected the description, removed the wrong categories, renamed it and started a process to remove the VI tag. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Yann. —SpacemanSpiff 12:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Rotation v spin Parent 1.png

Hi Jim, you've deleted this file "per Commons:Deletion requests/File:666years Slide8.JPG", but that was deletion request for the unrelated file. Why this file was deleted? Alexei Kopylov (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

My error -- thanks for catching it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I have restored links to this file in Russian and English Wikipedias, but I don't know how to find out where else this file was used before? Alexei Kopylov (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

File:LingerieAdverisement001.jpg

Hi Jim, Bluefarrow here. I was wondering why this file has been renominated for deletion? You previously closed the DR as having no valid reason for removal (11 June 2017). The renomination states that the image is missing evidence of permission, but the source file is clearly licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 by the author. Is that not enough to satisfy Commons policy? Bluefarrow (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yann, you stuck the {{No permission}} tag on this. The source has it has CC-BY-SA. It needs {{Licensereview}}, but otherwise it looks OK to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I missed that. I thought this was a derivative work without a proper source and permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like you to explain to me how to add a free license via OTRS. The photo of my father, which you decided unilaterally to delete, was taken by me. I have re uploaded it and kindly ask you not to tamper with it again. Thanks. --Cicoree (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bernard Margueritte.jpg, I made the following closing comment:
"Deleted: Policy requires that images that have appeared elsewhere without a free license must have a free license from the author via OTRS. AGF does not apply."
The deletion was not unilateral as our colleague Taivo created the DR. As I noted, the deletion was entirely within policy; the image appears at least eight times elsewhere on the Web. Also note that I linked OTRS -- full instructions will be found there.
Finally, note that re-uploading an image that has been deleted is a violation of Commons rules and can result in your being blocked from editing here. Please don't do it again. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you advise me?

Because I do a lot of image reviews, I don't know what happened but suddenly, in the left-hand tool section, I no longer have the tools for adding no-source, no-permission, etc, buttons/link when on file pages. The only button/link of that type is "Nominate for deletion" and "Perform batch task" but that's not useful to single image notices. Do you know where the others have vanished to? I did not change any of my preferences. Any ideas? Thanks in advance. Ww2censor (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a clue -- I still have them. The only thing that occurs to me is to ask if you have perhaps been logged out and haven't noticed. Try the Village Pump. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I'm logged in but have logged out and back in again but no change. I'll try VP. Ww2censor (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, brother....

Jim, if you can sort your way through this thread, it would be helpful. Thanks, We hope (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, thanks much! I was on the verge of becoming rude at the thread yesterday and saying "If what you've done is correct, why do we need to do so much clean-up?" ;) We hope (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Boston Light Sunset.jpg

File:Boston Light Sunset.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Akoosijhon (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Wick harbor scotland.jpg

File:Wick harbor scotland.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Akoosijhon (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Wick harbor scotland.jpg

File:Wick harbor scotland.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Akoosijhon (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey dude why you are asking to delete my file please remove the requst for deletion on my file so I can remove yours

Hey dude why you are asking to delete my file please remove the requst for deletion on my file so I can remove yours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akoosijhon (talk • contribs) 15:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Covert-action-crypto.png

Covert-action-crypto.png was deleted without any questions, there wasn't any discussion and you didn't answer my questions. Likewise, there was no any help or movement to resolve the situation. First of all, I write here according to the Appealing_decisions. The basic argument that at first, it's personal work, and at second, it's not screenshot, it's close enough to show readers gameplay process of the game and it's the purpose of educational. Thus, it's a request for your reconsideration of decision. Bsivko (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a fairly common problem. As I said in the closing comment, if an image of this sort is close enough to the original to be educationally useful, then it is a copyright violation. If it is not close enough to be a copyvio, then it is not useful. In this case, the former applies.

There is no good resolution of the situation except getting the game publisher to freely license a screenshot. You are welcome to try that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

  • As I mentioned above but maybe not clear enough, the purpose of the image is to show gameplay, in other words, key gameplay elements (not graphic! not art! not sound! - these elements are under copyright, but schematic drawing of ideas which is made from scratch can't violate copyright) to make one of the issues more understandable (educational). Bsivko (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but your image is obviously not actually made from scratch -- it was made with the original screen either in front of you or clearly in your mind. It's a clear copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok. What should I do to fix it? For example, is it enough to make it in black-white-red colors? Maybe smth else? Bsivko (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, it is a Catch-22. If your image is close enough to be useful, it will be a copyvio. If it far enough away from the original to not be a copyvio, then it is not educationally useful. Changing colors will not free an image from copyright problems. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Colors can be part of art, or style, or graphic prentation, and it can violate in this way. In contrary, idea has no color and doesn't violate copyright. Black-white picture is neutral and has no graphic connection to original (and red can be used to emphisize smth, and in addition there are no red in original). As a result, this kind of picture shouldn't violate copyright. The goal (to off catch-22) is to depict the idea and avoid the art. And the question is, are there any other facets which should be changed or removed, from your perspective? And where should I put another version of image (another upload? ..) ? Bsivko (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Bsivko: if the original screen contains original enough authorship to be copyrightable (I think it clearly does), then your artwork "inspired" by it is in a similar situation to the Obama Hope poster problem. What Jim's argument is, and I agree with him on this, is that the very things that make the screen copyrightable are things you cannot imitate without violating that copyright... and if you make different enough choices so as to not imitate them, then there would appear to be little educational merit. These choices are not just colors, and not just the text of the message, but also the choice of visual elements, their placement on the screen (counts down the left with a border, time on the top right, message number in the middle of the title bar which is color-inverted, etc., etc.) i.e. anywhere a creative choice had to be made... and everything that differentiates your picture from, for example https://a.fsdn.com/con/app/proj/substitutioncip/screenshots/SCDscreenshot.png/1 . Storkk (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
(And if you are just trying to illustrate the concept of substitution cipher decryption, you may as well use that last image... it's under a CC-BY license. Storkk (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, the ideas are not under copyright law. Gameplay in fact is a set of ideas which does not intersect (see en:gameplay) graphic/art/.. (as Obama case). The goal is not to "imitate screen" or show how the game looks like. The goal is to depict the gameplay ideas in more understandable way (educational). Moreover, your example clearly shows that the idea to show ciphered and dechipred text at the same time does not belong to MicroProse. The idea to show frequency of letters also does not belong to MicroProse. Likewise, the idea to dechiper letter by letter does not belong to MicroProse. And etc. Your provided CC-BY-picture can be used but should be simplified - menu, borders, three-letter-freq, ... distract attention and mislead the reader. Anyway, I consider your comment quite helpful. And the next approach is to start over:collect gameplay elements and depict them in my own way. In this case, for example, borders have no sense, time should be absent (it's easier to say it in the comment), no message number and color inverse (it's redundant) and so on. Bsivko (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
So, the last version according to the discussion looks like this. Bsivko (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Please check two images I uploaded

Hi Jim: Many months ago, you had kept a photo image of a manuscript dated over 100 years ago. I have uploaded two photo images (1, 2) of a manuscript dated over 200 years ago. Please check if the two photo images of another old manuscript are okay to keep, per our Bridgeman policy, just like the previous case. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why they would not be OK. As a general rule, if the work is PD and strictly 2D (coins, for example, are 3D), then it is OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jim, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/User:Hockei/license-4.0

Hello Jim,

Hockei asked me to have a look at this, and I must say I don't quite understand your reasoning for this deletion request. Perhaps the English version of his template is poorly worded?

Essentially, he's requesting attribution in one of the following two forms (example is File:2014.03.09.-06-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-C-Falter-Nominatform.jpg):

  1. Andreas Eichler, Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0), https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2014.03.09.-06-Kaefertaler_Wald-Mannheim-C-Falter-Nominatform.jpg
  2. Andreas Eichler, Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0), Wikimedia.

Looking at the license text of CC-BY-SA-4.0, I think the license allows him to request any of these. Namely (section 3, a.1.A), the licensee "must retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material":

  • identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated) – Andreas Eichler
  • a notice that refers to this Public License – Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)
  • a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2014.03.09.-06-Kaefertaler_Wald-Mannheim-C-Falter-Nominatform.jpg or simply Wikimedia

The name should be no problem, the hyperlink can be substituted with the shorter Wikimedia (which should be ok for print), and the license notice is a bit long, but I doubt one could call it unreasonable. Perhaps he'd settle for just CC-BY-SA-4.0.

So what do you say? Did I overlook something, or did you mean something else entirely? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 16:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not completely clear. The template requires attribution "next to the picture my name as author". That prohibits use on WP, which does not, as a matter of policy, show any attributions on the same page as the image -- the attribution is always linked. As a practical matter it also prohibits use in most print media, which collect attributions on one page, usually at the end of the work. We have consistently prohibited the requirement that the attribution be given beside the image.
Perhaps User:Hockei does not understand his own template. It is clear that he permits use of his images on Commons and WP in ways that violate its requirements..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
Thanks, now I understand what the actual point of debate is. I think that can be solved, Hockei already added some text about another appropriate way to give attribution.
BTW, when you say "print media", you're apparently referring to books. Many, perhaps even most newspapers and magazines do credit images right next to the image. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 12:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
That's certainly true of most newspapers and some magazines, but Commons images must be free for use (and free from restrictions which would make use difficult) for all media, books, newspapers, magazines, posters, tee-shirts, etc. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Jim, the license is corrected now. Jee 03:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • After you pushed me like this without talking to me before and you didn't care that I could be maybe in the summer vacation or where ever so that I couldn't have done anything it is the least I can expect of you that you after my changes withdraw your deletion request. --Hockei (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hockei, there is nothing in policy or Common sense that requires a user to discuss a deletion request with the target before placing it. Busy Admins deal with hundreds of DRs -- they cannot possibly discuss each one. Also, discussing it on your talk page would not have gotten the general attention that the DR has gotten -- a private discussion between us would gain nothing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Les arcs 2000.jpg

On a related note, Hockei also asked why you deleted this file. The way I see it, the photographer Michel Bobillier is identical with User:Athos99, which is also the name of his blog where you most likely saw the copyright notice you cite in your deletion rationale for this file. Surely everything is in order if he uploads his own photo here? Or is there any reason to doubt that User:Athos99 = Michel Bobillier? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 16:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

As I noted in the closing comment, the blog says "©Michel Bobillier aka Athos99, tous droits réservés 2009 CGU. Toutes les photos de ce site sont protégées par copyright, si vous en désirez une, contactez-moi". Our rule is that if an image appears without a free license elsewhere on the Web, then the actual photographer must give a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
That's one way to handle it, and if this was a freshly uploaded image, I probably would have done the same or added a "no permission" tag. I probably would have left it alone if, like in this case, the image in question was uploaded 11 years ago and the uploader claimed on his user page, since 2007, to be the guy behind said blog. Since he uploaded only two images and wanted the other one deleted because of people not respecting the license, he probably won't mind the deletion of this image. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 12:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted files and new OTRS email

Hi Jim - User:Cookie suggested that I give you a heads up when I submit my images via OTRS. The files I'm including in the request, which I plan on sending in the next few days, have already been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and subsequently deleted. I wasn't sure how to reference the deleted files in the email, so I included a link to the deletion request page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Artofjohnpugh). I hope that's okay. Artofjohnpugh (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

As noted above, I am on vacation and may not see e-mail. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Ralf Roletschek/NoFacebook

What's your opinion on this template? The sentence

It is not permitted to upload this file to Facebook.

makes me feel uncomfortable. Should this be read to mean that you may never upload the file to Facebook under any circumstances, not even if Facebook changes its terms of use at some point in the future? In that case, the template seems to make the file unfree. Also, I suspect that the Facebook user only violates Facebook's terms of use but that the CC-BY-SA licence isn't necessarily violated, i.e. the violation is only a matter between the Facebook user and Facebook but doesn't involve the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I use a similar template for my files. The Facebook term of use is incompatible with a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
But if two legal documents are incompatible with each other, then a violation of the terms doesn't have to imply a violation of both documents. You could have a situation where your use is compliant with one of the documents but not with the other document. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Stefan2, Facebook require the uploader to grant Facebook perpetual rights to do whatever they like with your photo, including selling it for profit without attribution. It's a "rights grab". You are right that the uploader is legally not permitted to grant Facebook such rights, since they are not the copyright owner. But the CC licence doesn't permit it either. Facebook is likely protected by "safe harbour" like Wikimedia so will blame the uploader if anyone sues and will respond to take-down notices. The irony is that we are now taking billions of photos each year, the vast majority of which are uploaded to social media companies, and after we die, most of us will have no estates to manage our works... so Facebook et al will have rights to licence trillions of images and nobody else can touch them. "If you're not paying for the product, you are the product" -- Colin (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Facebook is legally using the material under article 512 of the United States copyright law: Facebook is free to use the material as long as Facebook is unaware that Facebook uses the material illegally. That's not the point here. The point is that this sentence in the disclaimer seems to imply a general ban on Facebook use and that the file never can be used on Facebook, not even if Facebook later changes its terms of use. A free licence should not make the assumption that other websites will continue to use the same terms of use perpetually.
I think that user-created disclaimers often are badly formulated and that these bad formulations may unintentionally create additional licensing conditions. Another problem with user-created disclaiers is that some licences (at least GFDL) require you to preserve all disclaimers, so if you wish to produce a postcard out of a photo, then you might have to quote a long disclaimer on the postcard.
Also, let's say that a file doesn't have this disclaimer and that the photographer sues a Facebook user, then who would win? If the Facebook user includes sufficient information, such as attribution and a statement that the Facebook user is violating Facebook's terms of use, then I'm not sure that the photographer would necessarily win. On the other hand, if the file has this disclaimer, then the outcome may be different. Facebook would probably win if Facebook sues the Facebook user over violation of Facebook's terms of use, but that's a completely different matter. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the template is completely unnecessary. It is a violation of the license to upload a CC-BY file anywhere that does not honor the license. That includes Facebook and most other web pages. If a Commons user uploaded any CC-BY file that was not his to Facebook he would be violating the license and the photographer could demand that Facebook take the image down. Facebook would comply. The fact that Facebook claims copyright in everything uploaded to it does not mean that it can keep works uploaded by people who had no right to do so.

However, if the template is to be kept, I would be more comfortable if the template included words like "unless Facebook changes its terms of use". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully but strongly disagree. People who should have known better were already uploading, for example, the POTD to Facebook without getting the author's permission (I seem to remember this happening a lot last year). The template serves a useful purpose, IMO... and if and when it becomes irrelevant through a Facebook rule change, the template can be removed or modified. "unless Facebook changes its terms of use" would IMO be superfluous to the first sentence's "... which is incompatible with Facebook's licensing terms." We don't add language to the FOP templates (e.g. Template:FoP-Spain) to the effect of "this file is covered by Law XYZ... unless they change the laws". Storkk (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Storkk that my comment above was not my best effort. However, I think Christian has summed it up well -- if this template is appropriate, why stop at Facebook? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I too have same thoughts and commented like earlier. It is better to have a generic template or mention it in Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. The current template only helps to give Facebook unwanted publicity. Jee 11:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
This kind of thing is the price to pay to leave some freedom of editing and formatting to the users in their file pages. question about English language : must we say "file pages", "files page" or "files pages"? Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I assume you want an answer to your small question -- you say "file pages" if you mean all of the pages which you have uploaded that contain files. You might say "files page" if you were referring to a gallery, but it is a little awkward and I would say "page with files" or, of course, "gallery". Similarly several galleries could be called "files pages", but I don't think most native speakers would say that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Great, thank you, it was exactly the kind of help I wanted, my choice was the right one but I was torn by the doubt. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted File:OttawaRowingClubCA025374 8x10.jpg

Good day Jim. To my Undeletion request, you responded the following on 8 August 2017: "if the Ottawa Journal credited the photographer, then the law in Canada is 50 years pma, so, unless the photographer died before 1967, the image is still under copyright." The picture was referenced in the newspaper as a "Journal Staff Photo" without mentioning the name of the photographer. What rule should apply then? Thanks, Eric Aubin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric ottawa (talk • contribs) 13:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that the Canadian rule for anonymous images applies -- the shorter of 50 years after publication or 75 years after creation -- and that, therefore, the image is PD. However, I am not comfortable with restoring the image on my own. I suggest you file an undeletion request, which I will support. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Is there any issue with filing another request to undelete the same picture? Note that the picture was taken 66 years ago. Moreover, what do you mean by 'PD'? As you see, I am a newcomber in wiki. Eric_ottawa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric ottawa (talk • contribs) 02:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Has it been the subject of an UnDR before? When -- I'd like to take a look at it? Generally there is not a problem with a second filing if there is no information or support for the restoration. "PD" is shorthand for "Public Domain" -- a work which either never had a copyright or for which the copyright has expired. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The UnDR has been archived and is now available at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-08#File:OttawaRowingClubCA025374_8x10.jpg. I was also able to find the following information on copyrights in Canada: 'In the case of a work where the identity of the author is unknown, copyright in the work exists for whichever is the earlier of: the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work plus 50 years, or the remainder of the calendar year of the making of the work plus 75 years.' As the author of the picture is anonymous and that the picture was taken 66 years ago, I would therefore conclude there is no copyright. Thanks for your help in guiding me on how to resolve the situation. Sincerely. Eric. Eric ottawa (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Now what?

In this DR, you come across the several matters being discussed and had to consider the matter of “personal images” (which I always found a poorly defined concept, mostly used as an excuse for sloppy DR arguments) and how this is a case of probable copyvio (it is not, by any reasonable definition of both "probable" and "copyvio"), and you decided to act on it and delete one more image of a girl in hijab that looks like neither a victim nor a fanatic (there’s a few photos like there left undeleted, not sure for how long).

I wonder what you’re going to do about the other matter discussed in that DR (and also elsewhere, as linked), the matter of an admin/’crat that has shown to have a pattern of “preparing” images for DR by stripping off their categories beforehand, and who cannot give a straight answer when challenged about that behaviour. What are you going to do about that?

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to bring Eugene Zelenko to ANB or another appropriate place if you wish. I agree that the behavior is not ideal, but I balance that against all of the good work he does. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Jim, this is the Super Mario effect that I often refer to, based on the long term issues with problematic behaviour of some administrators on the English Wikipedia and the project's issues with credible governance for those 'power' users. The fact that a contributor does lots of good work, does not mean that they should not be accountable in precisely the same way as any other contributor. --Fæ (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
That's entirely true, but it does not mean that I have to be the one to call such people to account. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (repl. to: «does not mean that I have to be the one»…) Okay, so you don’t mind to weigh in in the matter of deleting a couple photos, but you suddenly have better things to do when it comes make use of the trust the community has on you to deal with a delicate matter concerning another admin. Good to know. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (repl. to: «Feel free to bring»…) I knew from the outset where this was going, so I created this. You can see how well that went. It’s all sorts of ironic to witness how an admin advises me to do something about another admin’s behaviour when I tried to do that 12 days before and was cut short by a third admin who meanwhile fell off the sky due to misbehaviour. Something’s wrong here, and (as a simple user) I’m exactly the last person able to have it fixed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Base di Dushanbe.JPG

Hi Jim!

Can you undelete File:Base di Dushanbe.JPG, File:Cupola aperta Dushanbe.jpg and File:Cupola Dushanbe.JPG for a brief period so that I can import them to Wikiversity for fair use? Thank you in advance for your kind consideration! --Marshallsumter (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Please let me know when you have copied them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Transfer process complete! Thank you! --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Lower Jerry Run Natural Area (17) (18126853568).jpg

Dear Admin Woodward,

The flickr sources appears to license almost all his images as 'cc by 2.0 generic' except for this one which he states is "cc0" but is actually pd-mark. If you think the flickr account owner's statement gives enough permission to pass this image, please consider passing it. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Secondly, I cannot tell if PD-1923 applies to the image below

PS: You may have noticed this De-Adminship situation. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lower Jerry Run Natural Area (17) (18126853568).jpg.

I revised the file description at File:Jesus and the Woman at the Well (34035525870).jpg.

Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Lionel Ducos, Alfred Hitchcock, 2009, Dinard (25643530381).jpg

You may forget or skip the File:Lionel Ducos, Alfred Hitchcock, 2009, Dinard (25643530381).jpg. ~Moheen (keep talking) 17:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Deer Island Light Boston MA 2009.jpg

File:Deer Island Light Boston MA 2009.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

180.190.50.145 10:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That most recent DR

I double closed it - apparently I was typing a close rationale while you were closing. Should we just leave it as is, should I undo my close, or would you like to undo yours (I only mention the last because it concerns your file)? On a separate note that I noticed because of that DR, this guy seems to really like your user page layout. Storkk (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ordinarily, of course, I would not close a DR that concerned one of my images. I figured it was OK in this case because it was the same user as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boston Light Sunset.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wick harbor scotland.jpg. However, perhaps it is best if we leave the double close -- thanks. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries... and I've tagged that meta user talk page for deletion. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
That's weird -- he got blocked on Commons last October but I don't think I was involved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Quick check

Hi Jim, I did this and indef blocked the user as a quacking sock of Maybeonlyone/Seememlyonly. I am having second thoughts, though. Could you please double check? Thanks. Storkk (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Same ISP in the same city -- and, of course, you are right that the form of the name and the comment quacks very loud. Thanks. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
You may not have noticed, but he also removed the {{Delete}} tag from all the files in the DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Aha -- I see you did replace the tags. Thanks. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. I was worried I had overstepped by blocking a meatpuppet as a sockpuppet, but I suppose I shouldn't be too worried. Storkk (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Trying to help

Hi. Look at File:Islam In America .jpg. Could a personal trainer be a convert who changed his name? --E4024 (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Bah, User:Storkk had discovered that already... --E4024 (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Try to help

Hi again Jim. I had taken the picture of a famous artist a few years ago and had not loaded it up to now because I wanted it to be trimmed of some unnecessary stuff. In the end I managed to get rid of those surrounding elements (no photoshop or anything in the saved part of the image) -with the help of a more intelligent nephew- and tried to upload it. To my surprise now the file name ends in bmp (it was jpg before) and the system does not accept it. Frankly I don't even now what jpg or bmp mean. What now? Thanks for using a "simple" language in your kind reply. --E4024 (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

See Commons:File types for a longer discussion, with links. BMP, JPG, and PNG (among many many others) are all extensions that specify a type of image file.

  • BMP is a bitmap of the image with limited compression -- BMPs can always be converted losslessly to PNGs and therefore are not permitted on Commons because they waste disk space and download time.
  • JPG or JPEG is a compressed file that is the most frequently used format for photos.
  • PNG is also compressed and for technical reasons is mostly used for graphic images -- those that contain only a limited number of colors.

I don't know why (or when) your image got converted into a BMP, but it should be a JPG. Ask your nephew to convert it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions to your user page userboxes

I split the babel user information and user boxes for your user page. 

{{#babel:en|fr-1}}
{{Clear}}
{{Boxboxtop}}
{{User admin}}
{{User bureaucrat}}
{{User checkuser}}
{{User OTRS}}
{{User AutoWikiBrowser}}
{{User email}}
{{Boxboxbottom}}

See if you like it and replace. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 03:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, but I see no advantage and it takes more screen space. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

1930's Karsh images

Dear James,

These 1930's bridal images by Yousuf Karsh on the Library and Archives Canada flickr account are on a CC BY license. I probably won't upload them to Commons but if I do, is it OK to upload them to Commons? All I know is that Karsh donated many of his works to the Government of Canada and that Wikipedia's article on him says "In 1987 the National Archives of Canada acquired the complete collection of Karsh items, including the negatives, prints and transparencies produced and retained by Karsh since 1933. The current Library and Archives Canada collection has 355,000 items in its Karsh collection, including all of his 150,000 negatives, kept at a facility in Gatineau, Quebec".

If Library and Archives Canada flickr account here licenses some of his say 1950's images on a CC BY license are there any URAA issues for Commons? Karsh is a problem because the Karsh estate still claims royalties on his images including pre-1946 PD ones as this long DR notes on a Churchill photo. There was a problem in the past with the PD-Canada tag for his images. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Since the LAC received all of the images and negatives, I think it is fair to assume that it has the right to use the negatives and, by extension, to use the images digitally and to license the use of the results as it sees fit. Therefore, I think that the CC-BY is valid.

Karsh died in 2002, so his images are still under copyright in Canada. URAA is a concern only for images where the copyright has expired, not for those that we can use by license from the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your insights. The copyright holder would be the LAC/Government of Canada here since Karsh donated all his images to them. But LAC is in no hurry to put many of his images on their flickr account I see. The copyrighted ones would not be licensed freely...if at all by them. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

File renaming

Hey, I've been granted with File mover rights but don't know if there's a page dedicated to files requested to be moved. Could you please help me with this? Regards, --Mhhossein talk 06:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Category:Media_requiring_renaming and its subcats. Storkk (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Right, thanks, Storkk. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

URAA and 1950's LAC photos

Dear Admin Woodward,

Can any of these 9 1950's Korean War photos of Canadian soldiers be posted on WikiCommons due to URAA problems. The PD-Canada tag I thought applied to photos taken before 1949 but in this case the Canadian Government is the copyright owner and the images are licensed as CC BY as in this case or this case. Sometimes the photographer is identified and sometimes not.

What does {{PD-Canada}} mean here if the images are uploaded from a Library Archives Canada (LAC) flickr account and the copyright owner is the Government of Canada? URAA is my question regarding its impact on CC BY licensed images taken after January 1, 1949 from the LAC flickr account as in the Korean War (1950-1953) images. If it was not an LAC Canadian Government flickr account image, the photo would be deleted if it dated after 1945 under URAA with the {{PD-Canada}} tag. But here...its complicated since the image dates after 1949. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Since these must be, as you say, photos from the early 1950s, {{PD-Canada}} cannot apply. That template requires creation before 1/1/1950. Second, as I said above. "URAA is a concern only for images where the copyright has expired, not for those that we can use by license from the copyright holder." It appears that we can use these images with a CC-BY license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank You Jim. In this case, the copyright holder, the Government of Canada through one of its Departments is clearly licensing this images on a CC BY license. I get you now since the CC BY license by the copyright owner overrides URAA in this old response by you. But that image was pre-1949 and this set of Korean war images postdates 1949. The date does not matter now...the license from the LAC flickr account does. Some of the newer LAC images have NC and ND restrictions like the 1972 Hockey Series which is still copyrighted in Canada....which makes sense. Have a good day, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Komposto for you

Komposto

Because you help people! I wanted to offer you some fresh peach compote in this summer heat but I cannot cope with the "rotate" thingy.Can you spare half a minute or less to correct the position of the bowl? We don't want the dessert to spill, do we? :-) --E4024 (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the rotatebot request that you inserted will do the job -- 90 degrees clockwise. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion

Why did you delete my 2 pictures ? I added the copyright and everything was ok... MangoZona (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

For

File:Benjamin Lemaire by Terry Richardson.jpg

you showed

"source=Published by Benjamin Lemaire in C.C. for press use."

but you offered no evidence of that -- no link to the place where it was published and, in any event "for press use" is not a free license acceptable on Comons.

For

File:Benjamin Lemaire.jpg

you claimed that you were the photographer, but it appears at IMDB with "© Terry Richardson". Making incorrect claims that you were the author is a serious violation of Commons rule.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Stamped envelopes

Did you happen to accidentally forget to delete the file in this nomination Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prof.R.Raychev-Val-3.png? Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes DelReqHandler, the script we use to close DRs, hiccups and forgets to do what it is supposed to. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

And I thought it was you! That's amusing, so we'll blame the software. Fanny, ha, ha. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Might have been me -- but more likely the glitch. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Wherever the fault lies, I'm not pointing any fingers, it's all good. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Redirect

please see: Commons:Galleries#Redirects, All languages do not use the Latin alphabet, Stop your deletion at all, Please Camulogene77 (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

First, it is polite to give a link to the page or file you are referring to. I assume this refers to Զանգեզուրի լեռնաշղթա.

Although your comment is entirely correct, it does does not apply here. The page that I deleted was not a redirect -- it was an empty gallery. The redirect construction was commented out so that it did not show up when the page loaded: The entire contents of the page was

<!--#redirect--> [[:Category:Zangezur Mountains]]

which displays as a blank page. We see and delete a dozen similar empty galleries every day.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA Images

Hello James. I'm hoping you can mediate a misunderstanding between one of the admins and myself.

I recently uploaded a number of images from PDSH and Flickr. In each case, the artist has stated that he's released the pictures (including two animated gifs) under a cc-by-sa 3.0 license. For some reason, Jcb believes they are copyright violations and deleted them without notice. I've approached him on the subject and he's told me to provide an OTRS ticket as evidence of permission.

Could you take a look at the images in question and determine whether there's a problem with the cc-by-sa license? Direct links to PDSH and flickr are posted below:

http://pdsh.wikia.com/wiki/File:Selina1.jpg https://www.flickr.com/photos/150218610@N04/36099656804 https://www.flickr.com/photos/150218610@N04/36933931705 https://www.flickr.com/photos/150218610@N04/36763005682 https://www.flickr.com/photos/150218610@N04/36551581320 https://www.flickr.com/photos/150218610@N04/36538390620

Any advice or help you could offer on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, CrutchCargo (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Jcb believes and I agree that the person posting the images did not have the right to freely license them on Commons. We call this License Laundering. I suggest you read that page and then come back here with any questions you may have. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll email the copyright holder and ask him to contact your permissions department. For future reference, will an OTRS ticket be required whenever an image from this artist's flickr account is uploaded to commons? Just asking, as I'm not familiar with the OTRS process. CrutchCargo (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
When an artist sends a free license using OTRS, as long as the message is clear, he or she can make it as wide as he or she likes -- ranging from a single specified image to a list of licensed works by name to "all of my works to date" to "all of my works created before or after now". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of image

Hi Jim, why did you delete the image on the Luis Macedo page? And what would it take to have it restored, or a different picture of the same person put up? Davidgoodheart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidgoodheart (talk • contribs) 03:23, 2 September 2017‎ (UTC)

Sorry, but there has never been a page called Luis Macedo and the three of your images which have been deleted were not my deletions, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.
Aha, I did find File:LUIS MACEDO wanted.jpeg which was deleted, as it says at Commons:Deletion requests/File:LUIS MACEDO wanted.jpeg because it is probably not PD as claimed. Since the FBI does not have custody of the people on its most wanted list, it is unlikely that photographs of them were actually taken by the FBI. In order for the image to be restored, someone must prove that the image is actually PD or provide another image that is. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Images from museums

Hello Jim. Reading this DR, it reminded me this other DR. For this last one, I'm not sure to understand the result, the files were kept because they "come" from a museum, but I see no OTRS verifications, nor the museum is listed in the GLAM Projects, neither valid sources are provided for each files. With your experience can you tell me if I missed something, or at least your general impression? Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

For DR I think all we have is a statement from an editor that "[the museum has] permission from the artists and creators and will be organising official permission evidence." I don't think that's enough for us in case like this. If we had a formal OTRS declaration by the museum that the artist(s) had transferred or freely licensed the copyrights, I would accept that, but as it sits now, I think you might open another DR -- let me know if you do.

For DR, the Brooklyn gives it CC-BY, which might be OK, but they do not say whether that is the copyright for the photo, the copyright for the bracelet, or both. That makes me uncomfortable. See my comment there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

падла

падла
ты сука пошёл нахуй от меня ! я тебя зарою хули ты лезеш в мою редакцию и удаляеш сносиш страницы слабачёк давай встретимся Александр Заможский (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Александр Заможский, If you follow the rules, you will be welcome here, but when you do not follow the rules, you can expect that your work will be promptly deleted. If you continue to make threats, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Taking your time with stupidies

Hi Jim. Can you have a look at File:Atilla Taş-2012.jpg and if you consider necessary revert the newcomer who has reverted me three times (instead of thanking for my help :)? Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page and reverted the edit -- let me know if more is needed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons Conference project

Hello

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around. But since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

Cheers,

--Touzrimounir (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but it is highly unlikely that I would choose to travel to a Commons Conference unless it were very close. While I could teach several of the proposed sessions and learn from one or two, I don't see enough gain to make it worth the travel. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Oldies

Hi Jim. I think there is some extra delh or delf here. --E4024 (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks -- when you see that two admins have closed a DR within a minute or two of each other, feel free to remove the second close yourself. Or, just leave it -- no harm done..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hello Jim! Can you please delete all the files, which are nominated for deletion on my site Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Petra S. Schröck? I now talked to the artists. They do not wish to publish their images on Wikipedia under the terms of Creative Commons. At a later date I will upload a licensed photo. I am pretty new to Wikipedia as an editor and therefore I need your help. Greetings Petra Schröck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petra S. Schröck (talk • contribs) 15:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done by Jcb. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hi Jim, I'm a bit new to Wikimedia Commons. Just trying to understand what was incorrect in the Licensing of image MosheLang.jpg. When I uploaded it I thought I filled out something stating the image could be used freely. Thanks. JoeyLehrer (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

As I noted in my closing comment

"Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing: © Moshe Lang. Site construction by Joey Lehrer. Powered by Wordpress",

it appears elsewhere on the Web with an explicit copyright notice. Although the same name appears there as your username, we frequently have identity theft here for various reasons -- we cannot know that Commons [[User:JoeyLehrer is actually the same person as the owner of the Web site. Therefore policy requires that you send a free license using OTRS. If possible the message should originate from the same URL as your site. Alternately, you can change the Web site to include a CC-BY license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank Jim. From what I read on the OTRS page, the current backlog for tickets is 47 days, so might start with the CC-BY license method. If I include the following text under the image "This image can be used under the CC-BY license" is that sufficient? do i need to include the licensing under every occurrence of the image or just one? and if I include it under the one on the 'images' page, rather than the homepage, is that ok?
Then, if that text is sufficient, do i simply re-upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons (for use in a Wikipedia page)?
Sorry for the many questions. Thank for your help. JoeyLehrer (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You only need do one, but it must be the same size (or larger) than the one you uploaded to Commons. Having done that, come back here and give me the URL of the image with the license. I'll then restore the image and mark it as license reviewed. It is never necessary (or allowed) to upload an image a second time -- we don't ever actually delete anything -- we simply make it invisible to those without Administrator credentials. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim, here's the URL http://moshelang.com.au/images/
With regards to the image size, the source image is the same size as the one uploaded to commons. But on this page the image is displayed very marginal smaller. Do i need to change that to display at original size? Thanks JoeyLehrer (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all your assistance. JoeyLehrer (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion request for maps

Dear Jim, could you please review my undeletion request for maps deleted almost year ago. Somehow it appeared not so easy to prove those maps are not derived work. --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That may be because you admitted yourself that they are derivative work. Jcb (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done See my comment there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons email from user "Odra"

Hello Jameslwoodward
Please don’t delete (or u ndelete=) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EMG666_Program_lista.gif file, I was send 4-9-2017 message to EugeneZelenko
“Hello
Sorry, I forget to insert the file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EMG666_Program_lista.gif into the https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMG_666
Today I completed, please don’t delete.
Best regard
ODRA
(István)

First, this sort of message should be placed on my talk page so that there is a record of it on Commons. E-mail is used only for messages that must be confidential. Please do not send more e-mails on this subject.

Second, as Eugene and I both said, the file is out of scope. If the program snip shown is needed on WP:HU, then it should be set in wiki markup or a wikitable. We do not keep images of program code. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Doebereiner_Gamba.jpg

Hi James,

hope this is the right place for an answer. The picture listed to be deleted (File:Doebereiner Gamba.jpg) was digitized from the original photograph, which is part of the legal estate of Christian Döbereiner. The estate is in posession of Döbereiner's grandson Klaus Döbereiner, who gave his explicit permission to upload the picture on Wikimedia. Apart from that the Munich photographer Henry Traut, which is mentioned on the photograph, died in 1940 (https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/sfz110839.html and https://www.fotografenwiki.org/index.php/Henry_Traut), so he is dead more than 70 years.

Regards, Tobi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgrill (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


For next time, the correct place for this i would have been Commons:Deletion requests/File:Doebereiner Gamba.jpg, where I have copied it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Presaregolgo.jpg

Hi.

I'm the author of File:Presaregolgo.jpg and I want to delete it. So, why I cannot do it? Thanks, --Gonzalo P.M.G. (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

When you uploaded the image to Commons, you gave the world a license to use the photograph. That license is irrevocable -- you may not take it back -- so you have no control over whether Commons keeps it or not. As a general rule, we do not delete images at the request of the uploader unless there is a specific reason to do so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, is an specific reason, because the image it's not mine, is from a friend. He don´t want to have his the photo in internet, so I want to delate it. In the moment I uploaded the image I don't know the "rules" of Commons and my friend's opinion. --Gonzalo P.M.G. (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
When you uploaded the picture, you claimed that you were the photographer. Now you claim that you were not. One or the other is a lie. There is no good reason to believe you now. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
When I said that I'm the author of File:Presaregolgo.jpg and I want to delete it, I meant that I'm the one who uploaded it, not the one who physically took the photograph. Is different, or is it not? --Gonzalo P.M.G. (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The author is the creator, the photographer in the case of a photograph. The uploader may or may not be the author. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Création de File:Guy.lebegue 1986.jpg

Bonjour, Je vois que vous avez supprimé l'image. J'ai fait une demande d'autorisation par mail la semaine dernière, et j'ai eu une réponse disant qu'elle est en cours d'examen mais que ça peut prendre plusieurs semaines, compte tenu des fortes demandes à traiter. Pouvez-vous la laisser visible--Cordialement, Kasos_Fr, (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC) pendant ce temps en indiquant cette information ?--Cordialement, Kasos_Fr, (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

No. If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Je suis conscient du travail demandé aux examinateurs OTRS, en nombre trop faible probablement, mais, compte tenu du délai de plus en plus long dans la délivrance de l'autorisation, il est très dommage que l'illustration soit supprimée d'un article. Il faudrait qu'elle reste visible, quitte à ce qu'elle soit renseignée par une formule : "En attente de confirmation d'autorisation". Vous qui êtes administrateur vous devez être conscient de la frustration des créateurs d'images qui passent beaucoup de temps dans les formalités, au risque qu'ils "ralentissent" leur effort, ce qui est dommageable à la grande Wikipédia.--Cordialement, Kasos_Fr, (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
We are all certainly aware of the problem, but there is no fair way to restore your image while others must wait their turn in the long queue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Files from Jupiler

Hi, you have deleted several files from Jupiler in DRs that I started, e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hallepoort.png. Today we found out that although uploader added a bogus own work claim, the map does come from a free source, see here. Would you agree if I would dig through those files in the next few days and where possible undelete and fix them? Jcb (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me like the source you cite has the same problem -- who drew the original base map. The history doesn't trace the map back to a free base map. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
If I remember well, this user drew a lot of basemaps himself. But that's a long time ago. Maybe @Multichill: remembers something? Jcb (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests

hello mr Jameslwoodward I wrote to you because I noticed that recently you were in favor of restoring a file that was previously loaded by a user currently blocked for multiple user abuse, well I would like to take advantage of the fact that you can check some files deleted by wikipedia because not all user uploaded files are copyrighted, many of the deleted files were part of several wikipedian projects and included in various wikipedia entries, I might ask you if you would like to restore some files, respecting PD licenses, of course I do not ask you to restore them all, many of the uploaded files are paintings and photos of PD-70 to the PD-100 and no more, could you give us a glimpse if you can restore please? :)

--79.17.31.199 11:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this request has already been denied at Commons:Undeletion requests, but even if not, that is the proper place for it -- I cannot restore deletions done by other Admins without a community consensus. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
could she make any request to restore some files?--79.17.31.199 14:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand -- "she" who?
I recently asked for a restore for a portrait uploaded by this user. I'm looking for some recovery files from quitting blocked user--79.17.31.199 15:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Again, unless I was the Admin who did the deletions, I can't help you here. Such requests must go thought UnDR.

mixup with file names

Hi, I posted this at COM:AN but didn't get any replys. Could you help out?

Hi, so at the zoo today I found out that one of the Syrian brown bears is actually a hybrid of Syrian and brown (which is why he is so much bigger than the rest), I moved (&replaced) the images of him to names of Syrian brown bear hybrid for more correct ID, and now I have been left with a redirect at File:Syrian brown bear hybrid 01.jpg and a set of files named Syrian brown bear hybrid 0X.jpg starting at 02 (instead of 01). Is it possible to delete the redirect and move all of them down one (02-->01, 03-->02, etc.)? The files in question: File:Syrian brown bear hybrid 02.jpg, File:Syrian brown bear hybrid 03.jpg, File:Syrian brown bear hybrid 04.jpg, File:Syrian brown bear hybrid 05.jpg. Thanks, --SuperJew (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. It looks as if the action should be to move the file at File:Syrian brown bear 01.jpg to File:Syrian brown bear hybrid 01.jpg and leave the rest as they are. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The files are currently correctly named. File:Syrian brown bear 01.jpg is a full Syrian brown, not a hybrid. I want File:Syrian brown bear hybrid 02.jpg to be named Syrian brown bear hybrid 01.jpg, etc. (all the numbers pushed back one). Did I explain myself better? --SuperJew (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, but there is no reason to use the system and human resources needed to do that. It would create problems for anyone currently using the files, either on or off WMF, as any existing links to the files would point to the wrong file..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

So just leave it like this? --SuperJew (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


File:Mgr Joseph Chhmar Salas.jpg

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Martin Luther King, Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albeiror24 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 October 2017‎ (UTC)

User:Albeiror24, that is true, but what's your point? Your uploads violated the copyrights belonging to the various photographers. We do not keep copyright violations on Commons, no matter how important the images may be. Unless you understand and accept that, it would be better if you did not upload any more images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Re/ Do whatever, James. My Wikipedia fever is over from too many years already. Just go and delete anything I have uploaded in the past. I will need it for my works. Have a nice time. --36.37.203.9 05:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Actually I am --AlbeiroR24 (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Licensing guidance

Hi, would you please check if File:Gateway_and_Pavilion_at_Hemakuta_Hill_1856_photo.jpg and photos in Category:Greenlaw_1856_Hampi_Vijayanagara_photographs are okay on wikimedia commons from licensing point of view? Here is what I know:

  • Alexander Greenlaw died in 1870
  • He created those photos in 1856
  • The photos were printed at least twice in 1910, one collection has been held by V&A museum ever since
  • The second print also made in 1910 was held by a private collector, that came to light in 1980
  • It is unknown how many prints were made in 1910.

To confirm the above years and details, please see this, including the more information tab. If for some reason it does not qualify under the pre-1923 and author's death plus 70 year clauses, please delete all the photos in that category. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, the 1856 creation date and the photographer's death in 1870 make these PD under any law anywhere. In fact, that has been true since 1970 (for the few countries where the rule is pma-100. The US rules are more complex, but moot, as everything is PD in the USA 120 years after creation. Note also that it is the date of creation of the image -- the negative -- that is important. I suppose one might argue that extensive darkroom work while creating the print might create a new copyright, but that would be a stretch. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. There are a few more of these created in 1856 / printed + distributed in 1910 Greenlaw photos that exist. I will now try to locate them and upload to wikimedia commons. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictures of modern buildings in countries without FOP

Hello, I have recently discovered that Lithuania does not have Freedom of panorama and because of it, it is not possible to illustrate modern buildings in our country with free-licensed images. As a result, I faced a question: could we use low resolution non-free images to illustrate them in Wikipedia by qualifying it as a "Fair use of an existing building"? In this case it is definitely irreplaceable as there is no way to photograph such buildings and upload pictures of them to Wikipedia without the copyright infringement. I wish to add 2-3 pictures to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilnius#Economy section and/or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Šnipiškės of the most notable modern buildings in the Vilnius business district. Would it fit among the Wikipedia rules? -- Pofka (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The rules on fair use on the various Wikipedias are different from those on Commons and different from each other. I am not completely familiar with any of the rules except those on Commons, where, as I think you know, fair use is not permitted. It is also not permitted on many of the individual WPs.

Fair use is permitted on WP:EN in limited circumstances. I don't know if that extends to architecture. I would guess that if it does, that a high-res image would be permitted since the image itself is not the subject of the copyright at issue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Eclipse Solar Anular. 26.02.2017 - Argentina.png

Of course Jameslwoodward, the base of maps I didn´t designed and drawedǃ... And I think that two base maps aren´t in Wikicommons too. The cities, shadows paths, lines, percents and other graphics infromations, well, I did it. However, there is not the reason for delete it. Please, don´t mark it for deletion, it was a hard work to meǃ... Again, yours truly. Fernando T. de Gorocica 20:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to comment here and at the DR. Since you admit that the base maps are not your work, unless you can prove that they are PD for some reason, the image will be deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I added the IMAGE SOURCE = Own work based on Mapoteca which has free license for use published by the argentine government. See http://mapoteca.educ.ar.
I think that is the solution to the problem to avoid erasure. Fernando T. de Gorocica 01:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Rubber_Duck.jpg

[the following is copied from an e-mail] Hi, I had added the rubber duck from File:Rubber_Duck.jpg as easter egg in the open-source LaTeX editor TeXstudio. At far as I remember that was an allowed usage of the photo, but you deleted the rubber duck in 2014: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=File:Rubber_Duck.jpg after the discussion failed Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Rubber_ducks ) and now people are worried ( https://sourceforge.net/p/texstudio/bugs/2226/ )

I heard admins can see deleted pages, can you tell me who the author of that photo was and what its license was?

Best, Benito (user:BeniBela) [end of copy]]

The problem here is not the photo, but that the image infringes on the copyright for the toy itself. The same problem exists with the new file that has almost the same name, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rubber duck.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Complete Works of Percy Richard Morley Horder

Dear Mr. Woodward,

It came to my notice yesterday that my PDF which took me months to type (!) of my Grandfather's complete architectural works, has been removed from Wikimedia.

I am not sure of the reason as I missed the debate about it, having only noticed yesterday after originally uploading it on 30th September.

If you or anyone else at Wikipedia/Wikimedia are in any doubt about the authenticity of this document, I would happily get Professor Clyde Binfield (who was going to write a book about my grandfather) or Celia Hughes of the National Trust at Upton House, nr. Banbury (my Grandfather remodelled it in 1927 and they currently have an exhibition with a room devoted to him) and they will both attest to it being 100% genuine and correct. Prof. Binfield actually has all the photocopies of the record book of buildings kept by my Grandmother, from which I typed the PDF table.

Please do email me or get in contact - I find Wikipedia/Media a bit of a maze to navigate and I don't know what to do about this.

Kind regards,

Louise Mclean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louise Horder Mc. (talk • contribs) 14 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Louise, PDFs of tabular material are out of scope for Commons. If needed for the article Percy Richard Morley Horder, the material in the table should be set in a Wikitable. That would make it editable and sortable and in this case would allow the addition of photographs of the various works mentioned. Wikitables can be a bit daunting -- I find the easiest thing is to copy a similar one into a sandbox and experiment.
I also note that the document has no citations to outside sources. Before the material could be posted to WP:EN, you would have to find and provide "reliable published sources" for the information presented there. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability for a full statement of the policy. Similar policies exist on other WPs.      Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the deletion of File:Material identificatio nith nano-FTIR.png

Dear Jim,

I am kindly asking you to reconsider the decision of deleting this image. In your decision, you are applying the rules of arts to science, which is simply wrong. The image on the left (which you say is probably copyrighted) is the topography image of the sample obtained using a standard AFM technique. It uses a standard color scale for presenting sample topography, which is grayscale. It is obtained from the same dataset as the publication http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nl301159v (which I measured as a coauthor of that publication, and which is not copyrighted, but in fact is freely available for the purpose of verification). So this topography image does and will always look the same for the purpose of scientific presentation! I emphasize, that this is not a painting, not a photo, but a scientific presentation of a measured dataset using standards utilized in the field - how can it look different? Most importantly, presenting parts of a figure published in a scientific journal is not a violation of the journal's copyrights. Only presenting the whole unmodified figure is a violation. And this is exactly why I have changed the scale bar color, location, font styles and one panel label. But I can not change the content and the standards of the presentation! So I urge you to consult with the journal copyrights or ask a trusted wikipedia admin who is familiar with the rules of scientific publications, and reconsider the deletion.

Sincerely, --Clearscience (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The test of whether something is a derivative work is whether a causal observer will notice the difference between your version and the original. The two are, in fact, so close that in looking at the two side by side I could not immediately see any difference at all. Your changes are on the same order as taking a copyrighted short story, changing the names of the characters, and claiming that your work was not derivative.
You say of the image on the left "this is not a painting, not a photo", which is technically correct, but, in fact, copyright law does not talk about photographs, but, in the USA, of " pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" (see 17 USC 101(a)(5)). AFM is simply an imaging technique which creates pictorial works, albeit of very small objects, and images made with it have the same copyright as a photograph, an X-Ray, or an image made through an optical microscope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with your your treatment an AFM and other microscopy data. An image is a representation of data collected from a certain sample by means of a certain technique. The data obtained in a publicly funded project (as that in question) is a public knowledge and is not subject to copyrights. Therefore a mere representation of this data in an image can not violate any copyrights. Otherwise, nobody (even the authors!) would be able to visualize a measured dataset more than once, because both the data and the rules of presentation are fixed and, therefore, the visual appearance will always be the same.
I understand, however, your point about the close resemblance of the two images. Indeed, a figure as a whole published in the journal is considered as art/graphics and is copyrighted. So I will make more changes to my figure so the differences with the copyrighted figure are more apparent.
On the other hand, I see another solution. The purpose of this image is to illustrate the point in a wikipedia article about a particular microscopy technique, i.e. noncommercial. The publisher does not prohibit the use of a single figures from an article in other sources (upon a proper attribution), so I can simply use the original figure. Is there another way of including an image in a wiki article which does not require releasing right, but simply a consent of the copyright holder? I would appreciate if you could let me know if there such a way. Best regards. Alex --Clearscience (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
It is clear that X-rays have a copyright, as do photographs taken through a microscope. I do understand how you can say that AFM images do not -- AFM is simply a technique for making images of very small things.
Please remember that both Commons and WP require that images be available for commercial use, see COM:L. You can, of course ask the journal to send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I think, that you see every image as a piece of art like a photograph taken by an artist. From the art standpoint, an image is the expression of artist's creativity and for the publishers - the means of making money on this creativity. Therefore, duplication of the image constitutes an act of plagiarism and copyrights violation. In the scientific community, an image is not an art but a representation of the scientific data/knowledge that can not be copyrighted. Plagiarism in the scientific community - is claiming the acquisition/ownership of data and not a duplication of an image. The publishers are making money on selling the articles, which are scientific stories based on the data expressed in images, not on images as such. So there is no problem on reusing images since they do not tell the story on their own (a whole figure can, so this is normally not allowed). --Clearscience (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Again -- for the last time -- that is not the law in the United States or anywhere else that I am aware of. The AFM image we are discussing, like all other images, scientific or artistic, no matter what imaging technique is used -- digital photography, film photography, x-ray, sonography, microscopy, SEM, AFM, or any other -- has a copyright. That is clear, blackletter law. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not arguing for the sake of arguing or changing the copyright law and I can stop if you wish. I am simply trying to find a way of presenting my measured data at a wikipedia page without it being deleted again. The way you (and the law, according to you) treat my data being an image prevents me from further showing it because I have already published an image made from this data in a copyrighted journal. This does not make sense to me! It is like copyrighting a tree based on its photograph in a journal. --Clearscience (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red

Hi Jim

I request that you reconsider the closure of the deletion request of the files in Category:Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red (including one file that I submitted) on grounds that it was premature. May I draw your attention to the sentence in DR which states that "Problematic or complex requests … can wait longer – even for several months if necessary." I believe this to be one of those cases, especially as it inappropriate to expect NOW14-18 to respond in 10 days - in the real world things do not always happen that fast. Martinvl (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The DR is closed. It was open for a full month. In any event, I doubt very much that we want to keep 250 images of the event. If Cummins and Piper provide a free license via OTRS, a limited number of the images, perhaps 25, can be restored. As far as the time required for response goes, it has been my experience here that generally individuals respond to license requests immediately or not at all. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe individuals respond promptly, but do organisations respond promptly? I don't think so. I could cite many examples of organisations that are tardy in handling their correspondence and I assume that you can do likewise. I must therefore again ask you to reconsider. Martinvl (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I also think that this needs reconsideration. I note that @Nick Moyes: was in contact with the representative of the artists, and as far as I can see that discussion is ongoing (unless it was closed privately/on OTRS). I'm also not convinced by the arguments against de minimis here, or the argument you made about the relocation of the 'permanant display'. I think that a second viewpoint is needed here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I can confirm that the discussion is indeed ongoing with the Executive Producer of 14-18NOW, Nigel Hinds, on behalf of both artists. After an initial attempt to contact one of the artists on 10th September 2017, I followed it up by emailing their agents on 1st October, and reported this in the deletion discussion. I received a reply from 14-18NOW on 3rd October (copied to @Nilfanion: ). That email include the statement: They have asked me to reply to you. 14-18 NOW is the organisation responsible for organising the current First World War centenary tour of Poppies Wave and Weeping Window. Because I doubted the legality of pasting the full email online, I reported its receipt in the discussion thread on that day, but will gladly email it to anyone who needs to see it. The email recognised our attempts to honour the artists' wishes and said both artists were considering the matters we raised with them. On 4th October I sent Nilfanion a rough draft of my suggested response to 14-18NOW for his/her comments (text pasted below). Not having received any response from Nilfanion within 24 hrs (and noting that their user log has shown no online activity from 29th September to the present time, I sent a holding email to 14-18NOW on 5th October. It clearly stated that the Wikimedia expert was currently unavailable, and that we would be in touch again soon with some suggestions for a way forward. I received an acknowledgement immediately. As far as I am concerned, we are now awaiting Nilfanion's return from holiday - or some equivalent real life situation - and we would have then resumed trying to assist the artists express their wishes without making it unduly onerous for them. That task has not been helped by what, under the circumstances, will look like premature deletion of all the images under discussion. (I doubt anyone expects we will end up retaining every single image, but I can assure you that Nilfanion and I are are actively and constructively working towards a positive outcome that will fully meet the wishes of both artists and the needs of Wikimedia. Shown below is the text of my email sent to Nilfanion (who I note is an OTRS team member):

START OF EMAIL sent 04 October 2017 13:07 UTC

Hi Nilfanion

I'm pleased to forward you a reply received yesterday from 14-18NOW - the organisation coordinating Paul Cummins and Tom Pipers poppy installations. I'd like to send an acknowledgement ASAP, and think we need to keep this as simple as possible for them. Would you be agreeable to guiding me with this, please? If we can help them appreciate the ease with which they can grant their permission for at least some of the images of their installation to be retained, so much the better - and everyone should be happy.

How does this sound as a first draft? . . . Nick

Dear Nigel

Thank you for relying on behalf of Paul Cummins and Tom Piper. I think there are four options they [the artists] might wish to consider:

  • a) total image retention

(IMPLICATIONS: All images on Wikipedia pages (in whatever language) remain in articles -especially this one. All other photos not yet used on Wikipedia also remain available -see all thumbnails here. )

  • b) total image deletion

(IMPLICATIONS: Everyone's photographs showing any of the poppy installations as the main focus of an image is deleted from Wikimedia Commons. All future uploads will also deleted. No Wikipedia pages about their artwork or venues they visited will have any images of the installation. No free images will ever be available on Wikimedia for anyone else to use)

  • c) selected images retained

(IMPLICATIONS: All images are removed except those selected in advance the artists. Only those would then be available for use on Wikipedia. A consent form would need to be completed and emailed back to Wikimedia.

  • d) future uploads

(IMPLICATIONS: Dependant on decision made in a) to c) above, Wikimedia volunteers would ensure future images uploaded by members of the public are thenceforward processed in accordance with the artists' wishes. I have copied this reply in to a Wikimedia administrator who initiated the discussion on their image rights. Please include Nilfanion into any responses from the artists can be dealt with as quickly as possible.

As background, they might wish to bear the following in mind:

  • Photos placed legitimately on Wikimedia Commons are available for use in Wikipedia articles (in any language version) as well as elsewhere for personal or commercial purposes (from private study, school project to a published book or calendar)
  • Almost all images are taken by amateurs and are unlikely to have commercial value - but this cannot be guaranteed.
  • It's not possible to allow an image to be uploaded to Wikimedia for subsequent use on Wikipedia but then to prevent it being used elsewhere - it's all or nothing.
  • Sometimes a person may upload an image directly to their own language Wikipedia, rather than to Wikimedia Commons. In these cases ????? this applies ??????? (I've absolutely no idea what to say here!!!!)
  • Clarity in their wishes now will enable Wikimedia volunteers to manage how any image uploaded by a member of the public will be handled in future. i.e. no need for further involvement by the artists.

I am hopeful that Paul and Tom really will see the benefits of allowing at least a few good photographs to remain in Wikipedia articles about their Blood Swept Land and Seas of Red installation, and the travelling Weeping Windows installations, too. The key things, of course, is to ensure their rights as artists are respected - and that will definitely happen. But it really would be a shame to lose every example of their amazing and moving work from the world's greatest free online encyclopaedia - built and maintained solely by volunteers for the benefit of everyone.

We look forward to hearing from you, Regards, Nick Moyes, etc.

END OF EMAIL

So, to summarise: I formally request a second viewpoint, please, and for the images under discussion to be undeleted for the time being so that conversations with the artists as to their wishes can continue unhindered. I have demonstrated that the licence holders have responded in an extremely timely manner, and that negotiations are open and ongoing. Premature deletion of all the images will make the task of working with the artists very problematic, as well as somewhat embarrasing for us, as they will not be able to view the Wikipedia pages on which some of these images once appeared, or have the opportunity to select which ones they would like to be retained (assuming that were to be their wish). I do understand why a non-involved admin has closed this discussion after what may have appeared to have been a two week period of no activity, but I can assure all concerned that this is very far from the reality of the situation. The comment per Martinvl seems very relevant here. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this a good example where Wikimedia's desire to be legal is taken to ridiculous levels. Courts are strict about the law but they would not see themselves placed in disrepute. Every newspaper in the world will have shown pictures of this piece of art and none will have asked permission. For us to imagine that we are doing something illegal is ridiculous. I have not read all the material but I think this should be referred to our legal counsel at WMF as this represents an important interpretation that could restrict our ability to share information with everyone.... which is what we are here to do. OK we have to do it legally, but this is our flag (even if the varnish on the pole was out of date when it was applied). Victuallers (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason to revisit this until the two artists provide free licenses to their work. Until then, my comment above, "it has been my experience here that generally individuals respond to license requests immediately or not at all" summarizes my point of view -- this is not an institutional decision -- it is one that must be made by two men. As for the reaction of the artists to the deletion, it is, after all, their copyright we are protecting here. If I were in their shoes, I would be dismayed by the mass infringement we had here. The fact that newspapers have carried similar images is entirely irrelevant, as they have fair use available to them and we do not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Your comments (not previously discussed) in your wrap-up statement caused me to look at the case Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc. In this case the judge ruled that the design documents for LEGO bricks are subject of copyright, not the bricks themselves. The bricks could (and have been) patented, though the patents have long since run out. I believe the same legal principal applies to the poppies – the drawings relating to the templates used to make the poppies are copyright, but not the poppies themselves.
This is of course not the place to develop this argument further, but merely to draw attention to this court judgement. Meanwhile articles in at least some of the 200-odd Wikimedia projects that rely on Commons have red links where such links are potentially unnecessary and editors in those projects are possibly "repairing" those links as we talk. If it is found that you have been over-zealous in deleting these articles, who is going to make sure that these unnecessary "repairs" are rolled back? You? If not, please do the honourable thing and roll back the deletions until the question has been fully settled. Martinvl (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear (Jameslwoodward), you might be right to say If I were in their shoes, I would be dismayed by the mass infringement we had here. The reality is, you are not. So, whilst Nilfanion and I have successfully begun negotiations with the two artists via the commissioning body (14-18NOW), you have acted in good faith and mass-deleted these images, unaware of the progress we have made. That's fair enough. However, I believe I have now demonstrated both on the deletion discussion page, and here on your Talk Page, that sincere and earnest discussions are in well in train with them. I have offered to supply emails from 14-18NOW to prove this. So, by declining the simple request to temporarily revert your actions so that our negotiations can continue when OTRS Team Member Nilfanion returns from whatever has taken them away from responding here, we are no longer able to engage with the artists and allow them to see or select from the images whose copyright concerns we have proactively raised with them. You said I see no reason to revisit this until the two artists provide free licenses to their work., but I have to question what likelihood is there that they'll suddenly be minded to say "OK" to one, many or all the images being retained via an OTRS ticket when they are unable to view them to make that choice, or see the Wiki pages where some had been embedded. Why should they jump to our tune when we are trying to work with them to make their choices easy? Your refusal to temporarily undelete is now embarassing for us in our negotiations, nor does it reflect well on the Wikimedia organisation, I feel. This could have been an excellent opportunity to demonstrate just how well Wikimedia can work with external organisations to raise concerns on behalf of artists and to protect their interests; I fear it is about to do quite the reverse.

I therefore once again respectfully ask you to revert your closing actions for the time being to allow our direct and ongoing negotiations with the artists' representative to continue so that one of the draft options I planned to present to the artists can be carefully considered by them and then acted on by an adminstrator here, safe in the knowledge that all copyright interests and wishes are acted upon, both now and in the future. A little bit of reasonable time to conclude those discussions is all we're asking for. (More on my personal involvement in this process can be found here) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying in Undeletion requests

d1g 20:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Хайруллин Айрат Ринатович.jpg

File:Хайруллин Айрат Ринатович.jpg This is the official photo of the person-politician, the Head of the District, which is used in the congratulations with the holidays. It can be used in regional newspapers, sites such as http://zt116.ru/2017/05/pozdravlenie-glavy-almetevskogo-rajona-s-dnem-vesny-i-truda/ with "Региональная газета "Знамя Труда" © 2017". How I can convince you that this photo was made by me, the representative of the Press-servise of the Head, a person in the pic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almet ( (talk • contribs) 05:17, 18 October 2017‎ (UTC)

We have no way here of knowing who User:Almet is. That is why we use the OTRS system for confirming the rights to images that have appeared elsewhere with a copyright notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedFluoxetine 2

All the uses appear to be talkpages and discussions (some seem specifically about various problems in one of these images) from two years ago. Is any of that really an "in use" blocker? Let me know and I'll dig deeper and try to replace them. DMacks (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. You're probably right. ✓ Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of National photo

Thanks, Jim, for deleting the photo.

Jeremy Gilbert Canada Jack (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Banner Liqui-Moly-Stadion.jpg

Are you kidding me? It is NOT a temporary banner. I am a copyright expert of German Wikipedia, I know what I do. Please restore my image. Chaddy (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jameslwoodward, it would be fine if you would feel obliged to answer me. Thank you. Chaddy (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the image. The discussion was clearly against deletion, the given cause is valide. Such deletions are frustrating for volunteers. Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Marcus.
Additionally it is very sad that Jameslwoodward did not bother to answer me... Chaddy (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Marcus certainly knows that a DR is not a vote, and that the closing Admin is required to apply Commons rules, and must use the discussion only as advice, not as a vote, so the fact that the discussion was against deletion is irrelevant.

As for my not answering -- why should I answer? A rude message is left on my talk page -- I saw no need to respond. Since its a German image and Marcus is German (I think -- certainly he speaks German), I let it go without comment. There's no point in wheel-warring over a single image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You know what? Marcus is right, it es very frustrating for volunteers to have to discuss such nonsense. I know that the banner is permanently, I live in this town and are fan of this club, I am very confirm with copyright rules due to my longtime work in this field in German Wikipedia, I paritcipate in Wikipedia for 17 years now and know this project like the back of my hand. I know that I am right in this case but I still have to fight battles around my photo. And you wonder why Wikipedia constantly loses editors?
@Christian: It shows a specific team? You are right, it shows VfB Eichstätt. VfB Eichstätt will stay VfB Eichstätt also next year, and the year after. Which team should this banner display in future? Bayern München? By the way, the players shown on the banner still wear last season´s kits when Westpark still was main sponsor, not Liqui Moly as it is now. Furthermore, VfB Eichstätt plays in Regionalliga (4th grade), and is not a professional football club. They also have the smallest budget of almost all clubs in their league. In amateur football it is very unlikely to regularly change its corporate design. These clubs just don´t have enough money to do so.
Jameslwoodward made a mistake which is ok. Everyone makes mistakes. It is sad that he didn´t react to my message but whatever. It would be absurd to redelete the image and to discuss the whole thing again. This would be nothing else than sprawling bureaucracy. Chaddy (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
To be sarcastic, is in nothing helpful, nor in no way an evidence that you know something about copyright. I well understood it is the team of this town, but I guess it is the team of a specific period, therefore the destiny of this banner will be to be removed at one time or another. This is the opposite of to be permanent. And no, Marcus is not right to restore a file in this way. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Your arrogant behavior isn´t helpful, too, Christian. Think about it. Chaddy (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
P.S.: Now I am sarcastic: It says much about Commons and the sometimes quite strange decisions here if more people think that knowledge about copyright laws isn´t helpful. Chaddy (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: - you really think it would be better to go a long way instead of a short would be better? Frustrating volunteers once more? And why? Because of an obviously false descission? If you think, your answer to this is yeas - go ahead, I don't stand in the way. I think, rules are of importance and a fine thing. But rules for the sake of the rules are not helpfull. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: I leave it as it is, because Jim himself don't bother to go further. However keep in mind that administrators can be frustrated too, you could very well have tried to discuss with Jim, because a polite message from you before the undeletion would have been clearly better than the rude message of this "frustrated" user, and I'm sure that Jim would have answer you. Of course in the extend that your purpose was not to be rude in your turn to somewhat repair a kind of thing that you think to be an injustice. Please next time try to discuss, I mean really. If you are sincere in your fight against frustration, then you can only agree with me, and if you are not sincere in this fight against the frustration, then ..... best regards, and see you soon. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: and I add that if I was (I am) not far from re-delete this file to force you to follow the normal way, it is less for "rules for the sake of the rules" than for your lack of indelicacy and your lack of communication attempt, and I don't talk about that but about an attempt coming from you, an administrator toward another administrator. Jim is acting in good faith, is doing a lot of work and a great job in 99% of time, and deserve all possible respect. Do not hide behind a potential exasperation, whether yours or that of another. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I'd like to introduce you all to a recent ruling issued by the Federal Court of Germany (27 April 2017). The highest court ruled that FOP even applies to paintings on vehicles such as ships - which are not permanently located in a single place. What is more important though is the rationale for the ruling where the court cited advertisments and applied art in general on buses and tramways as being "permanent" installations in the sense of FOP (comment in German). So even this temporary banner is in fact covered by FOP. De728631 (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Don´t waste your time. It is in nothing helpful, nor in no way an evidence that you know something about copyright. SCNR Chaddy (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of .wav files from Alan Braden Wikipedia Page

@JamesBWatson Hi Jim, apologies for the incorrect syntax or process as I am not a developer. I recently updated my father's wikipedia page (Alan Braden) with three .wav files that are interviews that I conducted with him, edited and posted. All my work, copyright me and sanctioned by my father. Are they allowed? If so, how can I put them back on? Thanks, Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbraden (talk • contribs) 08:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Assuming there is nothing in the wav files except your voice and his, from a copyright point of view they could be restored. However, they would be a violation of WP:EN rules. Since, as the subject's son, you cannot possibly have a neutral point of view, files containing your interviews of your father will not be permitted on WP:EN. Indeed, almost all of Alan Braden is a violation of the rules there. I suggest that you read and comply with WP:COI. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for clearing up this matter of Bilbil juglets. I thought the article might be appropriate, but I guess I was wrong. Y-barton (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Objectivist1.jpg

I didn't have the file watchlisted, so I only saw Commons:Deletion requests/File:Objectivist1.jpg after the fact. If I remember correctly (not having the image visible any longer), this was a photo of this Atlas statue, which was previously determined to be out of copyright in a discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:5th Avenue (2).jpg. If you undelete, I will add the {{Artwork}} template with the details to avoid future confusion. Figured I should come to you first rather than Commons:Undeletion requests. --RL0919 (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

OK -- I looked at SIRIS and it did not mention an inscription. If it had mentioned an inscription, but not a copyright notice, I would have kept it. However given that there is good evidence of no renewal, I'll restore it. Thanks for your effort here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Donald Trump Official Presidential Portrait.jpg

Hello. Thanks for keeping the file above. I have one question, though. What medium did you use get in contact with Doug Coulter? He hasn't posted an email, and I was planning to DM him on Twitter. Philroc (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I simply read the cited OTRS ticket, which was frustrating, because, as I said in the closing comment, he didn't actually name a license despite being asked several times to do so, but did, as I also said, make it clear that he was OK with the image being on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
LOL, those admins can be so picky sometimes when it comes to releasing photo rights. Just because he doesn't name a specific license doesn't mean it shouldn't be used in Commons. Philroc (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
This image is being discussed at en:Talk:Donald_Trump#Donald_Trump.27s_official_portrait. I would be grateful if you could weigh in. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Per COM:L, all images on Commons must be released under a free license that is perpetual and irrevocable. Please explain to me how the non-license provided in the email ("It is fine") is irrevocable or undo your close. Thank you. ~ Rob13Talk 01:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Almost all of our users don't have a clue about copyright, so we carefully insist on a license that explicitly meets our needs -- it must be irrevocable and allow use anywhere by anybody for any purpose, including commercial use. We do this to try to ensure that the uploader knows exactly what he is doing when he gives us an image. Even so, that fails in a surprising number of cases -- two or three times every day an uploader tries to retract the license.
Coulter, on the other hand, is a professional photographer, and, given the nature of his work, is dealing with copyright and licensing issues on a daily basis. It would be fair to assume that he understands the terms that use on Commons implies.
However, we don't need to make that assumption. On May 5, 2017, he said (in the cited OTRS ticket):
"Coincidentally, I looked at the image again today and noticed it reflected the proper authorship, Doug Coulter. If this can be left as is, it’s fine with me."
When he looked at the page, he wasn't looking at the photograph -- he was looking at everything else, in particular the attribution and the license. I don't see any way to read "it's fine with me" in any way other than as an acceptance of the license that he saw when he looked at the page on May 5. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Ha. That is absolutely not a legally-binding release, and I think you know that. In any event, I'm done with this, Commons, and OTRS. It has become increasingly clear both Commons and OTRS can be absolutely steamrolled by Commons admins who are willing to supervote and care no more about the legalities of copyright than your common infringer. There's absolutely no point in bothering. As an aside, given that you copied text directly from a ticket onto a public website and disclosed the client of an OTRS email, you may wish to at least follow through on a portion of the copyright agreement you signed and alert the WMF that you violated it. ~ Rob13Talk 12:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
User:BU Rob13, of course it is binding. One doesn't have to use formal words to have a statement binding upon him -- "It's fine by me" is just as binding as "I agree to" or any other words to the same affect. He saw the page with the license and agreed to it. There is no wiggle room in that.
As for my violating the terms of OTRS confidentiality, I did not disclose anything confidential. The OTRS policy and the WMF Privacy Policy clearly is limited to personal information which might be used to identify the writer unless that information has previously been disclosed publicly. The fact that Coulter was the photographer was already public and, as I quoted above, he explicitly approved that disclosure.
We routinely disclose that the copyright owner has agreed to a particular license -- quoting his exact words is no more a breach of confidentiality than simply saying "Coulter agreed to the license". I value my role here as Admin, Bureaucrat, and Checkuser very highly and I would never breach the trust that the community has put in me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The fact that he emailed us most certainly was not public. The text of the ticket was not public. "Nonpublic information is private information, including private user information, which you receive either through the use of tools provided to you as an authorized Wikimedia community member or from other such members." That is a full stop. It goes on to give examples, but anything private accessed by a tool (OTRS) is nonpublic information. ~ Rob13Talk 12:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that an OTRS volunteer cannot disclose that the copyright holder e-mailed us and gave us permission to use his image? How, then, do we tell the world that the use of the image is properly licensed?

You don't give a cite for your quote and I do not find it at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Definitions. The definition I cited is quite clear:

"Information you provide us or information we collect from you that could be used to personally identify you."

His name was already known. The quote cannot be used to identify him.

The OTRS rules are designed to protect privacy -- email and postal addresses and the like. The rules also protect names, but only when the name has not been previously disclosed publicly. Although I would not disclose a part of a message that might put the writer in a bad light, I see no protection in our rules for the text of a message and certainly not one as innocuous as this one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

My source is the actual confidentiality agreement. [26] ~ Rob13Talk 14:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Which says:
"Nonpublic information includes "personal information" as defined by the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, IP addresses, and other personally identifying information that are not otherwise publicly available. It does not include information about a user that that user has made public on the Wikimedia projects."
Again, I disclosed no non-public personally identifiable information. Coulter's name was already public and was mentioned in the DR before I even saw it. His words that I quoted are not personally identifiable. It is silly to suggest that somehow the words that a copyright holder uses to agree to a CC-BY license are confidential.
You seem to think that everything in OTRS must be held confidential. Reading both of the documents cited above makes it clear that that is not the case. The things that are confidential are only personally identifiable information, including the writer's name, email address, IP address, and all other personal information that is not otherwise public. The fact that a copyright holder has agreed to a license cannot be confidential -- it must be made public or no one can benefit from the license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Include: "comprise or contain as part of a whole" (emphasis mine). That sentence emphasizes one aspect of confidential information. It does not state it is providing an exhaustive list. We can never provide a writer's name, and saying the copyright holder agreed to a license does not necessarily imply we communicated with the copyright holder. In any event, I've forwarded this on to the OTRS admins. Good day. ~ Rob13Talk 15:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
That's fine with me. I was going to suggest that you raise the issue with OTRS or WMF legal. ::::You apparently fail to understand "It does not include information about a user that that user has made public on the Wikimedia projects." .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The only person who's made public the text of the ticket or its author is you. ~ Rob13Talk 00:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
And again, the words used by the copyright holder to say that he agreed with the license are not "confidential information" as defined in the privacy policy. As for identifying him, his name appears three times in the DR before my close, the image is on his Web site, and he was identified by the White House, no less. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Question about VP Pence portrait

James, due to the result of this discussion on Trump's photo, what's the possibility that the Mike Pence portrait could be restored? Pence's portrait was only taken down for the same reason Trump's was taken down... referred to the same OTRS ticket and everything (see here)... Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 00:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The word "Pence" appears only twice in the long string of entries in the cited OTRS ticket. Those two entries were internal, so there is no evidence in the cited ticket of any permission for the Pence portrait. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:HIRES-AVATAR-AJB.jpg

Hi Jim, closing this DR you seem to answer to a request of deletion for "personal image of inactive user" :) The discussion was on the copyright for the avatar, and on the terms and conditions of the company that makes it. Can you double check your closure please? --Ruthven (msg) 06:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Sorry -- it seemed obvious to me that whatever Pickface is trying to do with its self-contradictory terms, they are at worst a non-copyright restriction, which doesn't concern us. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! It wasn't clear to us during the discussion; that's why we were waiting for the closing argument. --Ruthven (msg) 10:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Jim. I apologize for this message. You revised/removed a photo I added to the David Bryant (musician) page. I took the photo myself. I am very new to Wikipedia and do not understand how to post photos correctly. I would very much like to have that updated photo of David Bryant on that page. Is there any way I can do this? Thanks so much!

Northernlights333 (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The image appears in a number of places on the Web without a free license or with an explicit copyright notice. Since we don't know here who User:Northernlights333 actually is and identity theft by fans and vandals is common, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. I know that's a nuisance, but the bad actors here have made it necessary. The image will be restored automatically when and if the OTRS license is read and accepted. Unfortunately, OTRS, like Commons, is short of volunteers and runs a significant backlog, so it will be at least several weeks, and maybe more, before the image is restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi James! I've been asked a question here. Is there any problem with the web logo at the upper left corner of the video? --Mhhossein talk 13:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done See my comment there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2017 Präsentation Plakatsujets "Holen Sie sich, was Ihnen zusteht" (35556819683).jpg

How can we be sure until and unless it is explicitly stated the poster photo is under compatible CC license? Without proof, how can anyone claim the poster photo was taken by SPO -- they could have hired a photographer for it/purchased that photo. For example, if Microsoft releases a photo of Microsoft Windows XP in a CC license, with the bliss photo as the wallpaper -- it is not acceptable until and unless it is below ToO. (see File:Intel Classmate Computer with Windows XP.jpg) Without the information of who was the author -- it is copyvio.
acagastya 08:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You're really stretching. The SPO obviously licensed the use of the photograph before they produced the poster. It would be idiotic to steal a photograph and then print it on thousands of political posters all over the area. Since they say, with their Flickr license, that the image cited above is CC, we can be assured that it is, in fact, CC. SPO stands behind that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Statue of the Great Syrian Revolution

File:Statue of the Great Syrian Revolution.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I think the related DR and even the UNDEL were closed oddly, certainly they gave me the wrong impression of the deletion decision which I happened to come across independently. It appears that the original deletion decision was based on the statue being copyrighted (unlikely to have any copyright due to age) and that Syria had no FOP. However the fact is that the legal location of the Statue at the time the photograph was made, was in Israel. Whether the territory is disputed or not, is less relevant to this decision than which court would have jurisdiction for copyright; in this case it is Israeli civil law that applies. As you pointed out in the UNDEL, the file should remain deleted if there are remaining concerns for the photographer's copyright, even though this was not the original deletion rationale.

I'm making this note primarily to help the deleting administrator and nominator, @Jon Kolbert and Leoboudv: , who did not contribute to the UNDEL request, and seemed to go along with the presumption that Majdal Shams was in Syria. We should lay out clear records of accurate and disputed deletions, but especially when the copyright issues are difficult for most users to interpret, and where the records of discussion such as the DR, may be quickly archived without ever getting visibly challenged for accuracy for the benefit of later searchers. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The photograph appears to be a crop of a wider shot, this was used here, which itself may have been harvested from somewhere else. Obviously my potential analysis is limited by not having sysop rights. --Fæ (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Fæ Its interesting that Majdal Shams is in Israeli occupied Golan Heights. I don't know if international law favours Syrian or Israeli copyright laws here. The uploader never mentioned it was in the Golan Heights. But if this is a harvested image then its possibly a copy vio. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Fæ, you raise a good point. While not frequent, certainly from time to time images are deleted for one reason and then, after an undeletion request it is found that the original reason was not valid, but a different reason applies. That seems to be the case here -- I am not certain which law applies in an occupied territory, My guess is that it is not the occupier's law, but that of the base country. We certainly don't apply USA, UK, French, or USSR law to images taken in the four zones of occupied Germany from 1945 until 1955. However, based on the variety of images the Flickr user has uploaded with CC licenses, I am fairly certain that the Flickr user does not have the right to freely license it. I have posted a note on the DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a note. You may wish to compare with the Wikipedia article Majdal Shams, which states that Israeli civil law applies. The article itself may not be "correct", but I'd go with that as a source in the absence of a consensus... but I'm not going to pursue the matter, this stuff is a terrible timesink for volunteers. --Fæ (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Aha. Israel clearly thinks that my German analogy is incorrect because they are not occupying the city, but have annexed it. Fortunately we don't have to get into that political question. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

OTRS permission has been accepted, restoring this files

Hi! Can you restore this files?

OTRS permissions has been accepted and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system (Template:Cc-by-sa 4.0) Ticket link:[27]. Thank you. –Makele-90 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. While I see that I deleted these four years ago, as a general rule, OTRS volunteers who are not Commons Admins should request undeletion at UnDR. The principal reason for that is that the workload can be more evenly shared by whoever has time on a particular day and also in order that the community gets a chance to comment.
I see several problems here. While we apparently have a license for the photographs themselves, I don't see a license for the screen content in the first image or the maps in 2999. Several of the others also have maps, but I think they are probably de minimis. There is also the question of personality rights. We don't have any information on Estonian law on this, but this event was apparently not public, so I would guess that the consent of everyone pictured would be required to keep these on Commons. Neither Jcb nor I mentioned this at the time they were deleted, which is too bad, but doesn't change the requirement. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
This files was deleted 9 October 2017, not four years ago. I don't know the content of this images, so I thought that just needed permission from copyright holder for the images them self, not for the content of images. But you are probably right about the content issues of the images. I contact customer Pekka Sarkola again about this. –Makele-90 (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Apologies -- I don't know where I thought I saw 2013. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Just wanted to say, thanks for not deleting but reposting the content where it belongs. Usually people just delete stuff that I spend hours on. Appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taco fleur (talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

They delete things because you upload other people's work. I don;t have time now to deal with it all, so I'm going to block you until tomorrow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

PD-old-70-1923

Hi James,

Thanks for your clarifications in the past.

1. Would you please take a look at this case, where an editor has taken a screen shot from a copyrighted book and uploaded it. I have no preference for keeping it or deleting it, but I have been to this site and this black and white photo is not a faithful reproduction of the colored artwork at the site. There are a few other issues. I tried to ping you, but may not have done it right.

2. Also, please clarify if I am using the correct PD-old-70-1923 license for this. John Griffiths published this 2D art in 1885, he died in 1918 per sources. Am I supposed to use multiple license related categories or a different one. I use the standard upload file link on left, and out of the six standardized options, the template offers "First published in the United States before 1923" and "First published before 1923 and author deceased more than 70 years ago". Which one should I be using?

Appreciate your guidance, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I looked at the DR in your first paragraph and decided to pass it by. The issue is whether the art portrayed falls under Bridgeman or not. If the photo is essentially a mindless copy, then the fact that the photo comes from a copyrighted book is irrelevant. The tag {{PD Art}} would be correct. The author, however should be "Unknown" rather than the author of the book.

As for the second, the choice is entirely dependent on where it was first published -- if in the USA, then the first, if not, then the second, which shows that it is PD in both the USA and in the original 70 pma country. Of course if it was first published in a country that is not 70 pma then a different tag might be needed. I say "might" because in many cases it doesn't really matter. Griffiths died in 1918, so unless it was first published in a 100 year pma country, it is PD. We don't need to agonize over whether it was first published in the UK (70 pma) or India (60 pma). So the tag as it is looks fine. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Dear James. I am here at the suggestion of Ms Sarah Welch. The images she is referring to in 2) above are actually modern photographs by the Victoria and Albert Museum of pre-1923 paintings by John Griffiths, part of the following set of modern photographs here. Often, modern background is even visible in her uploads as in here. And all these photographs are copyrighted “The text and images published on 'Search the Collections' are protected by copyright law” and “All images must be credited as follows: © Victoria and Albert Museum, London.” [28]. As far as I know this can only be uploaded under PD-ART (and only once cropped, when there is a frame or background), not PD. She has many similar uploads. On another plan, she also has several issues with modern photographs of old 3D objects (such as here or here) that she claims are usable under PD-ART this time, and which I believe can only be deleted since violating copyright rules. I was hoping she would acknowledge the problem, and relicense or DR as necessary, but in vain. Full discussion on her Talk Page [29] under "Photo licensing". Could you kindly give us your feedback? Thank you पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Jim: FWIW, I checked V&A. User:पाटलिपुत्र seems to be confusing the website notice with the image copyright notice. According to V&A, if the image is in copyright, their policy is to post "image in copyright" in red, to the right above "More information" tab with the image. For example, this 1935 image, has that "image in copyright" in red, to the right. In every case before any PD-old-70-1923 upload I made, I made due efforts to check that PD-old-70-1923 conditions are met and V&A has no active "image in copyright" notice for it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's very hard to believe, and everything points to the contrary: if you click the “Download image" button on the individual page of each image [30], they clearly specify that the image is © Victoria and Albert Museum, London, and they do have very restrictive conditions such as "Non commercial use only" etc... and they ask you to acknowledge all that before downloading... and of course they say in their general conditions that "The text and images published on 'Search the Collections' are protected by copyright law” and “All images must be credited as follows: © Victoria and Albert Museum, London." [31] That's nothing like Public Domain, contrary to what you claim in your numerous uploads. I am afraid the page you are mentioning is different in that it's a comparatively recent book (1935), probably itself under copyright by a third-party (the creator of the book and/or the publisher), and V&A therefore does not even offer the image for download, hence the different tag "Image in copyright" and no download options, which probably is a way to mean "do not even think to download this, whatever the conditions". पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The long and the short of it is that John Griffith died in 1918. Therefore his work went out of copyright in the UK in 1988. It is PD-1923 in the USA. The V&A may claim copyright for the photographs of Griffith's work, but Commons and the rest of WMF follow Bridgeman, believing there is no copyright in a photograph of a painting. Thus I see no reason why Commons should not keep photos of Griffith's work, no matter who took them or when. I note that frames were mentioned -- generally I think that the question of whether the frame is in the image or not is irrelevant. Unless that frame is extremely elaborate, it will be de minimis and can be ignored in these decisions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Thank you. So if we do "follow Bridgeman", to which I very much agree since the photographs are visibly modern (here) and are visibly copyrighted, this means concretely that the photographs should be licensed under PD-ART. Can you confirm? पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Dear Jim, based on your comments above about subject 1., would you have the possibility to close the corresponding Deletion Request here, since it has been pending for nearly three weeks now? Best regards पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done And, by the way, there is never any need to ping someone on their own talk page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi Jim, could you have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:1916 - Retragerea din Dobrogea - Detaliu.png? The DR was closed without any explanation and, to be honest, I do not have the impression that closing admin has read the discussion. The file still does not have a license for the source country, which is a requirement per COM:L. I contacted closing admin about this at their user talk page, but Thuresson somehow found it suitable to ignore me (which is unbecoming for an admin of course). As far as I can see in the discussion, it was not demonstrated that their would be a valid PD reason for the source country, now we know that the author has died in 1956 and we can easily calculate that 2017-1956 < 70. Could you have a look at this DR? Jcb (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Much of what Macreanu Iulian says is wrong.
  • He quotes the FOP rule out of context -- the next clause prohibits commercial use.
  • He also says that the copyright law was not retroactive, while Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Romania says that it is.
  • He also says that "limited the right of the author only for reproductions realized by manual, mechanical or chemical means" does not include photography. That's absurd. If photography is not prohibited then there is no effective copyright.
  • He argues that the work has been on display since 1919 and therefore is PD. Many works by authors who died after 1947 (Picasso, for example) have been on display for a long time but are still under copyright.
  • He argues that the painter worked for the government, so the work is PD. There is no evidence that the Romanian law on government works is as broad as the USA law, see {{PD-RO-exempt}}.
  • In the first DR he provided a cite to a PDF that showed that the painter had given all of his rights to the museum. That's possible (I don't read Romanian), but he goes on to conclude that the copyright no longer depends on the date of the painter's death. That's incorrect -- if the author gives his rights to a museum, the length of copyright remains the same.
Have I missed anything? If not, I think that all of the arguments made are wrong and the painting is still under copyright. Let's wait and see what User:Macreanu Iulian says here, and unless he can offer some better reason, I think I'll reopen the DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Hearing nothing, I have reopened Commons:Deletion requests/File:1916 - Retragerea din Dobrogea - Detaliu.png. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The Machine photo

Hi Jim,

On October 2, a member of the band "The Machine" nominated this photo for deletion: [[32]] not simply because it showed a trans band member prior to her transition, but also because this 8-year-old photo, via Wikimedia, is the first thing that someone sees upon googling the band, as seen in this screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/R3rpAw1.png

While the person in question fully understands that they can never make that photo "disappear," we, the band's management, have already taken steps to have several other sites that link to the photo remove it in good faith. Our intent here is not to censor the existence of this photo, but to accurately portray the band as they are today. If you are absolutely sure the photo cannot be removed, we would appreciate your assistance as an administrator and as someone far more familiar with Wikimedia than us to take steps towards getting a different, more recent photo of the band to show up in those Google results.


-Katt Kilpatrick

Rockit Artist Management — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.99.26.237 (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

First, please consider that I have absolutely no idea who you actually are. The DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Machine Band Portrait.jpg) was posted from one IP address. You are writing from another. So I have two different anonymous addresses asking for me to delete a file. You could be a vandal or an enemy of the band. People claiming that they are someone else is common here. Therefore we never take down an image at the request of an anonymous person. We will consider it if the subject requests it using OTRS which allows a volunteer to discuss the matter in confidence.

Second, the Google right column construction is done by Google. They have, for some reason, chosen to use this image rather than the one in use at your WP:EN article. I suggest you ask Google to change the image they use.

Third, consider that this image is part of the history of the band. The fact that one of your members is trans is public, and fans have a legitimate interest in seeing before and after. We almost always keep images of groups as they were in the past -- this can be a source for biographers and historians.

Finally, the requests to both Google and OTRS would be helped a great deal if you uploaded a new closeup image of the band. The only images we have (see Category:The Machine (band)) besides this one are stage shots. I can see why Google chose to use this one. The new image would, of course, have to be freely licensed, see COM:L. If you have such an image, I can guide you through uploading it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi again, Jim We've decided on an image to use for the band and I've created an account and uploaded it to Wikimedia. If you can recommend any further steps to increase the chance that Google picks up a different image, please let me know. --Kattkilpatrick (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Good. As I said above, I have no good ideas about handling Google -- I did swap out the lead image in the article for this one. Maybe that will help. Meanwhile, we have a small problem. The new image credits Tahrah Cohen as the photographer. Since she is in the photo, that raises the question of who took the photo? If it was a self-timer and tripod shot, then she is the photographer. If not, someone else is. Unless you actually took the photo yourself, (which seems unlikely -- you would have said so), we need a free license from the actual photographer via OTRS. If you make that happen and drop me a note here, I can expedite it through OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help. I was able to track down the photographer and forwarded his release along. The ticket number is #2017111610000257 and I hope everything came through fine. --Kattkilpatrick (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Technically, we don't accept forwarded permissions, so I have asked Kelly to resend the license directly. I have gone ahead and added the permission template to the license because I have no real doubt that his license is authentic. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Quick response from Kelly, so we're all set. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests

thanks to Mr. Jameslwoodward, I write to ask you if I could restore this tiny list that in the past had already been presented on commons for a restore, I resubmit it again, because in the past the list was not completed well

link of discussion: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-09---> (discussion number 6) --95.244.103.165 10:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I should not and will not unilaterally overrule my colleagues. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

LTA A3cb1 IP whinging again. Blocked. Best, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Pierre Paulin

Hi Jim, could you revisit File:Little Tulip Chair - Pierre Paulin.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)? If we compare to File:Orange Slice Chair-Pierre Paulin IMG 5833-white.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) which passed a DR in the same year, there is no obvious difference. In my view either both pass COM:UA or both should have failed it. The fact that UA specifically mentions cars and chairs, means that we probably should only delete photographs of cars and chairs which have very obvious non-functional elements, such as custom decoration, accessories or clearly non-functional design elements.

I'm raising this now, as they were used as case studies in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Plush toys. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The question of whether the chairs have a copyright is not something I can take a position on. Europe tends to give copyrights to creative designs of utilitarian objects that the USA would call ineligible. However, the reason for deletion, as noted by Infrogmation, was not the chairs, but the background. It appears to be a sculpture of some sort. If you can show that it is something utilitarian, then I would support restoring the image. Given that it has been five years, if that is the case, I'll take it to UnDR with a recommendation for restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm unsure whether it's worth taking further, is there a source link I could take a look at? Otherwise I'll just go with your call that the background makes it too problematic. Obviously I'm more interested in establishing the case history, and if it's a poor example, then there's not much to learn from it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
See [33]. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Great thanks. It was one of the images that did pop up in my search for examples. I agree this is best to leave deleted as the background appears to be an 'installation' rather than a real bit of engineering, so it would make a poor case to discuss further against UA and there seems little value in a cropped version. --Fæ (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Stupid question

Uykuda Tomi 02

Hi Jim, a small question: Yesterday I saw you (I hope it was u, I may be wrong) doing an edit on a blocked user page. The user was from Ankara (like myself :). I looked into their files and there was something like a drawing on "Wikipedians from Ankara work hard etc" with an image like factory chimneys. I remembered this now because I was working on Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:Wikipedians in Ankara and Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/04/Category:Users from Ankara and I thought we could use that drawing somewhere. However, I forgot the user name. (If I don't recall wrongly, someone blocked back in 2011.) Maybe I saw your name as blocking admin only, I'm not sure. Any chances of finding the pages? --E4024 (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

There are no stupid questions. I made only a dozen or so edits yesterday (see Special:Contributions/Jameslwoodward). The only user page I touched is not blocked.

Here are my 2011 blocks -- you can get that by clicking on "Logs" in the left column and filling in the blanks. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Got it, User:Nebeviye! And they had a very cute little dog pic also, which I give you as a present. (Hope you won't find it sissy... :) I love these big-eared small dogs!!! Thank you very much for the help. --E4024 (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Explanation

Hi Jim, could you try to explain the difference between 'unknown to us' and 'anonymous' to Vysotsky? You are often better in such things than me. See User_talk:Jcb#Crusade.3F. The user is flooding several DRs now by repeating the same assumption over and over again, without getting the point. I have tried to explain them like ten times now, but without any luck. Jcb (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim, thanks! Now Yann came in and speedy closed some of the DRs. I don't expect you to reflect on the Yann behavior, but maybe you could reflect on the copyright issue itself at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Copyright_situation_itself? Jcb (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding File:Surbhi_Chandna_at_SBAS_Telebrations.png

Just to let you know, I've added a discussion regarding why I feel the image shouldn't be deleted but I'm not sure if you'd see it. So I just left the link here. Also, I realised that the entire template of CC-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama happened to show up there so hope you don't get confused lol. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Surbhi_Chandna_at_SBAS_Telebrations.png#/talk Kammu111 (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Kammu111. if anyone is going to see your comments, you must put them on the DR page, under my comment, not on the DR talk page. The image is not attributed to a BH photographer, which is one of the requirements of the template you used. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Request to relist

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Captain Christopher Hussey, Esq. (1599-1686).gif. where I have mistakenly left a comment, not noticing that the debate had been closed. Surprised that no one noticed that this unidentified image is much more modern than claimed and may still be in copyright. Moonraker (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The DR suggested that it is probably John Greenleaf Whittier. The source confirms that -- and tells us where the uploader got Hussey's name -- the image appears with a paragraph about Hussey. A look at Google images for Whittier confirms that it is he.
Rather than add a snarky comment to the file, why didn't you do the research suggested in the DR and ask for a rename to Whittier? It took me much less time to confirm his identity and change the file description than it took you to add comments to the file, the DR, and here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Would you marry me?

Hi Jim. Sorry for the title, just to attract more curious eyes (of admins). If Google Translate knows anything about Hindi language I just received a marriage offer, or an indecent proposal, or a threat or something similar. Could you speak to any colleague of yours who understands this language and do the needed? The other day I rang the door of a mellow admin -hoping he could warn some user whose hobby is to insult me- that I think could be from the Subcontinent judging by his user name (or I'm just inventing :) but he kept silent. (Or did something behind the curtain and I have not received insults from that party since then.) Don't know anybody else who speaks Hindi. I know a few words in Urdu but only to defend me in a restaurant. Whatever, I think -if I'm not wrong- we will at least be needing a warning and a rev-del. Or not. I hope you yourself understand Hindi and we save time... Thanking you in advance. --E4024 (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Why ever would you think I speak Hindi? I'm a poor American who took eight years of French 55 years ago and has never used it except in French Polynesia while sailing around the world 20 years ago. According to Commons:List_of_administrators_by_language, Yann speaks some Hindi. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Https,--en,wikipedia.org-wiki-Nassau County Police Flag.png,-media-File,NY - Nassau County Police Department.png

Hi Jim. I came accross this file while checking some non-free images used on English Wikipedia. It appears to simply be a reupload of a local Wikipedia file to Commons under a "free" license. Anyway, after I added the notification to the user's talk page, I noticed a previous notifiction I had added for Commons:Deletion requests/Flag files uploaded by User:Radiodjerikstonehvny. For other posts on their user talk, this editor seems to be having problems understanding COM:L, particular with respect ot files of flags. Since you closed the aforementioned DR, I thought I'd ask you if it would be sufficient to just add {{End of copyvios}} at this stage, or if something else should be done instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Since he doesn;t seem to upload a lot -- there's only one other upload in his contributions -- I'd probably let it pass until he acts up again. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Moncho Amigo´s Gallery

Hi Jim. First sorry for my bad/poor English... I don´t understand what was the problem in particular with the Moncho Amigo´s gallery. I read the page of the Commons: Galleries, and I don´t detect the reason why the Moncho Amigo´s gallery has been deleted... Regards! La fabrica de nubes (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your English is fine -- a great deal better than my only other language. I deleted the gallery because Commons galleries must have at least two images. This one had one real image and two placeholders, which don't count. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, sometimes I need Google Translate, hehehe... OK, you must to have at least two real images. Is there a problem if I use this file or a georeference in a gallery? Like this: Antúnez Pousa or Arturo Andrade. Regards! La fabrica de nubes (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Those both are OK under our rules, although I'd rather see galleries with more than two real images -- there are many places that could use help on Commons besides creating small galleries. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I try to collaborate in the Category:Galicia (Spain)... Uploading photos, creating categories, organizing photos in the correct categories, especially in Category:Sculptures in Galicia (Spain) and Category: Sculptors from Galicia (Spain)... La fabrica de nubes (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

File:José Blanco López.jpg & File:Zapatero junto con los nuevos ministros del Gobierno.jpg

Dear Admin Woodward, You closed a DR and another DR on these 2 images years ago. Unfortunately, these images were never marked. But you must have checked it to see that it was on the given page I assume. Can you pass them then? Just curious,

I'm not sure what you mean by "marked". They both have the {{Kept}} tag on the talk page and both have {{Attribution-La Moncloa}} which sets forth the license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Sunil Lanba.jpg

Hi Jameswoodward. Way back in June (User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive15#Indian military photos), you were helping me sort through some photos taken from Indian military websites whose licensing was too restrictive for Commons. This photo appears to be another one of those, but it has OTRS permission. Since you are an OTRS volunteer, I'm wondering if you could check to see if everything is in order. The Indian Navy's website claims copyright over the content appearing on it here, so that would explain the need for OTRS. However, the policy also includes a statement about prohibiting the use of said content in a "misleading or objectionable context". This statement seems to be in direct contradiction with {{Indian navy}} which seems to allow the use of the file for any purpose including a "misleading or objectionable context". -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ticket 2013090610005872 has several messages from the Webmaster of the Indian Navy site and explicitly states that we may use the images under CC-BY-SA-2.5 India. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this. Do you think this permission might possibly be able to be extended to any other photos giving the same website as a source, or does it just apply to this photo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It covers all images on the site. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jim for the clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

restore file

I am writing to ask you if you could restore the files you find at this link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Mehlaugerst --95.244.103.142 18:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No. I should not and will not unilaterally restore files deleted by a colleague. You have made this request before and the answer will always be the same. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

RE: Galleries

Thanks, I had not read your comment. I now understood :) --Daky Egbert (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-10#Files_deleted_by_Jcb

Hallo Jim, you have concluded my undel request. But the current situation is unsatisfactory. A part of "my" files were undeleted and an other part not. Can you undelete the rest? None of these files got a regular DR. We have thousends of pictures made by the concerning NASA photographers, i request an equal treatment for my uploads. Thank you --Ras67 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read my closing comment. I did not take a position there on the issue at hand, but simply closed a request that was far too large and that had become stale. I tend to believe that if a NASA file is on Flickr as NC, then NASA believes that, for some reason, that is an appropriate, legal, license. In order to restore the files, I think you probably would have to get a formal statement from an official of NASA with enough seniority to be convincing -- or, to get NASA to remove the NC from the Flickr license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, i've read your comment, but i thought you can make undone the "inequity" of speedy deletion. There is no justified reason to let one part deleted and the other not without anyone "solution". All files have the same problem respectively IMHO not. Regards --Ras67 (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Several files were undeleted during that UDR, because a valid copyright situation for those files could be established. Not all files were in the same situation. Jcb (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
You are in error! Sunrise over Washington is from Bill Ingalls like this one and 1.105 other photos. Several of the "Soyuz MS-05 crew" photos are from Victor Zelentsov like 255 other photos. 2017 Total Solar Eclipse (NHQ201708210206).jpg is from Joel Kowsky like this one and 296 other. 2017 Total Solar Eclipse (NHQ201708210102).jpg is from Aubrey Gemignani like this one and 225 other. 2017 Total Solar Eclipse (AFRC2017-0233-002).jpg is from Carla Thomas like this and many other ones. IMHO this is arbitrariness! Who can undelete all files? Have i ask Jimmy Wales or who is the next instance? --Ras67 (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion reversal requesthello Jim. In regards to the article name Julia Mora, I was shocked with it's deletion. Julia Mora is a celebrity and she has haters that kept nominating the page for deletion but it was never deleted because reliable sources were submitted. I don't know how familiar you were with the article but at some point Wikipedia editors had to "protect" the article from vandalism from haters. She is the only Miss El Salvador that has a celebrity status from being a TV personality, Erik Estrada's ex girlfriend and for many other reasons. Please re consider reverting the deletion. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:8801:2B00:5F70:594F:D28F:AC13:DCF4 (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Family crest Vallot (Wallot).png

Hi James,
thanks for the feedback and undeletion of the crest created by me.
I was just wondering, whether I should add/adjust any (further) license to the file to avoid confusion in the future?
As we discussed the special rules for coat of arms, I checked the wiki page and noticed that there seem to be coat of arms-specific licenses that can (should?) be added.
Best,
Leshugenottes77 (talk)

While there shouldn't be a problem with this one, it wouldn't be a bad idea to add {{COA}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Bjørn Bisserup.jpg

Hi Jameslwoodward. I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at this photo. It looks like some kind of official photo, but it's licensed as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. The source url is a 404 deadlink, but I did find an archived version here. Unfortunately, it makes no mention of the photo's copyright status. There's also some EXIF data, but it's not clear if the uploader is the same person who's credited as taking the photo. There are a are a few more of these found in en:Chief of Defence (Denmark), which are licensed the same way. Anyway, I just was wondering whether you think this (and the others) are OK as licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. The word "copyright" and the Danish word "ophavsret" ("copyright" per Google) do not appear on the site, so the images are probably not freely licensed. As you say, the EXIF gives a photographer that does not have the same name as the uploader. I would be inclined to think that it is not OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I asked the uploader to clarify the file's licensing. Perhaps there's another page which shows the file being released as licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
File:Bjørn Bisserup General 2017.jpg seems to have the same problem. The source page I added there does credit the photographer if you click the information icon [ i ] at the image but there is no obvious licence. I've just contacted Skjoldbro about this. De728631 (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:FARC party logo.png

Hi James, thank you for your clear closing explanation. At times during the discussion it felt like I was talking in an echo chamber, but it was good to know the rationale was valid in the end. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

CSUDHLokerSrudentUnion

Hi James,

I'm attempting to undo the deletion and update the Copyright License. I work for the university and the photographer that owns the picture. I was not aware of where to place the copyrights. But I am ready to update the information.--Editsmythe (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)editsmythe

The image appears on the web without a free license. Therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder (which is usually the photographer) must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

re: "out of order"

as regards your comment:

asking for proof of copyvio is never "out of order".

& if one makes an accusation, it is incumbent upon the accuser to prove their case. or at the VERY least, to provide some credible evidence &/or reasoning.

& in the specific case, how exactly do you suggest that an uploader should prove that a scan of some old snapshot is really their own work?

i want to get into the "epistemology" here; let's hear your full, complete, & exact definition of "satisfactory proof"? & how a user is supposed to comply with it?

then we can go & delete EVERY SINGLE FILE @ wmc, that does not meet that standard? without mercy, pity, or exception! :)

Lx 121 (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

see:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Julia Mora.jpg

Commons rules do not require proof of copyright violation. They require the uploader or others who want to keep an image to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is free. The burden of proof lies with the uploader. Thus it is, as I said, out of order to ask those who believe that an image should be deleted to prove that the image is a copyright violation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion request reversal

Hi, I would like to reconsider the deletion request File:Indian Chameleon from Nehru Zoological park Hyderabad 4476.JPG. I was not active while this request was raised. Need to understand the what is the Copyright violation in this. Thanks --Rameshng (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The text on the placard is copyrighted. In order to keep the image on Commons, we would need a free license for the copyright from its owner, which is presumably Nehru Zoological park. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


Deletion request for Daoud Naji Photos

Hidear James, I'm just wondering why do you have listed two of the pictures of Daoud Naji for delectation? That's not good. It shouldn't be delete. (File:Naji Profile 2.jpg has been nominated for deletion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daifoladi (talk • contribs) 22:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Daifoladi, you must not upload images and claim "own work" unless you were actually the photographer. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing on Commons. You may comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naji Profile 2.jpg if there is a good reason why that image should not be deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Oblivion :-)

Hi. Good admin, you forgot to delete File:Flaga Albanii.png. --E4024 (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Admins use a script, DelReqHandler, which speeds the closing of DRs a great deal. It occasionally hiccups and does not actually delete the file as instructed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Did you see the error?

User:CommonsDelinker/commands#commands

Evrik (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I didn't remember the correct rename format -- twice. The file was not actually in use anywhere, so there was no error. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay! Can I ask you a favor? Could you pluck these two request off this page: User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Other_requests and place them to be processed?
  • {{universal replace|William of Ockham - Logica - 1341.jpg|William of Ockham - Logica 1341.jpg|reason=Better image}}
  • {{universal replace|Abbey1.jpg|AbbeyPosterOpeningNight.jpg|reason=Same image}}

Thanks! Evrik (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Photo deletion Sarah Daniels

The photos are my own work. If you want the JPG files uploaded i can do that though i don't see the difference between JPG and PNG other than the lack of EXIF. Makro (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Raising an issue in two places wastes your time and mine. Please make your comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Makro. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Sage Lee

Why did you delete my page. I am editing it everyday. This is based on factual information on a factual artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealKarlawithAKay (talk • contribs) 22:42, 25 December 2017‎ (UTC)

Your page was deleted for many reasons. Commons rules prohibit articles or biographies anywhere in Commons. Commons gallery pages are for collections of images. A gallery might have one sentence of descriptive text, but no more. It also must have at least two images, must not have links to other web sites, and must not advertise.

File:Mawupe Valentin Vovor.jpg

[the following is copied from an email:] HI Jim,

Interesting enough that you have deleted an image that was FIRST LOADED on wikipedia and used by others at the reason that it was used by others.

Mawupe Valentin Vovor.jpg was initially loaded from a collection. I thing you should now reload this a keep it a the place so it is used and apprecaietd by reader -

There no copyright violation on this -

Thank you and merry christmas to you. [ends](Djihel)

The image appears to have halftone artifacts, so it is probably copied from newspaper or other print medium. It is clearly not "own work", which you incorrectly claimed. You certainly had no right to license it under CC-BY-SA. Since the subject was born in 1923 and died in 1992, it is highly unlikely that the image is not under copyright. In order to restore it to Commons, either (a) you must prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is not still under copyright or (b) you must get the actual copyright holder to send a free license using OTRS.

I note that all of your contributions so far have been deleted because they were obvious copyright violations. Claiming "own work" on images for which you were not the actual photographer is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you upload any more copyright violations, you will likely be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Kaiser Franz I von Österreich im Ornat des Leopoldsordens.jpg

Hello Mr. Jameslwoodward, I am writing to ask you if you could kindly restore this Hapsburg portrait of Francis I, performed by Johann Nepomuk Hoechle (1790-1835) around 1811.--87.15.94.158 22:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

No. Please stop asking me to do things that you know I cannot do. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

in this case I would like to apologize, but I am reduced to asking the administrators directly for the files to be restored, the reason is that the user Jeff, delete me the requests of the files for no reason, I only wish that the page Commons: Undeletion requests accept and analyze my requests about the files that are required to be restored, that's all, and instead they are continually deleted, you also saw that jeff 's opposition concerned only another user in this regard, and did not treat the file in question, I personally think that on a page this should not be done. that's why I'm reduced in these conditions, I just want my deleted files to be reviewed and restored

Stadsarchief DRs

Hi Jim, you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Afb 010179000257.jpg as delete, which I think is the only possible outcome. These two DRs were part of a bigger series, most of which were vandalized by Yann, see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_66#User:Yann_and_bad_faith_closure_of_DRs_again. Also this upload badge contained many other files I did not check yet, before Yann started to speedy close these DRs. What are we going to do with those files? Apparently nobody dared to reinstate the DRs at the time. Most of these files are still online. Jcb (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Johan, I have no interest in getting between you and Yann. I learned long ago not to wade into dogfights. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand, but how are we going to deal with these files? Jcb (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I do wonder. Why did you delete this file Jim? Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Natuur12, I deleted it because, as Jcb said, it had no source or author information. It's from 1920, so it is far too recent to assume that the author has been dead for 70 years. As far as I can tell, there is nothing on the source page to suggest that it is PD and, in fact, the source page has "© Stadsarchief Amsterdam". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive_2017&oldid=350952077"