This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
@جبران الغافري: While I do not read Arabic, and have to look at translations, none of the three appears to be under a license that is compatible with Wikimedia Commons... please see COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. I don't think images from any of the three are okay, unfortunately. - Reventtalk01:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@جبران الغافري: Double checked, and I see it now... as long as the images are actually the work of that site's owner, and not copied from elsewhere, they should be fine then. - Reventtalk23:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Nothing found in OTRS. Sent it to DR... we would need not only evidence that the editor behind 'UNC System' is authorized to release material under license, but evidence that the professional photographer (Steve Exum) conveyed the copyright to the University. - Reventtalk00:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm much less useful with image copyright than text, but I am confident that CC0 is not correct here at the very least, and also pretty confident that a University official wouldn't have the authority to release it even if they University owned it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Author errors
It seems the only way to prevent errors like this one is to remove the author information completely. This puts the file is a different batch of "errors", but at least the wrong information will not be added back. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Sorry for the slow reply, have been busy offline. Instead of leaving it blank, it would probably be better to either use {{Unknown}}, or just attribute it to the publishing company itself. - Reventtalk00:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
EncycloPetey Regarding the frontispiece from Walden, the caption on enwiki (in en:Walden) claims that the drawing was by his sister Sophia, but without a citation (and I can't find anything that supports the claim). The full page scan on Commons calls it 'unknown' as well. - Reventtalk00:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
WP-zero
Hi Revent,
Just FYI. User talk:Hamzscjjdbdb is another one. Seems to be a how to and someone at IRC suggested that this is not like the other stuff we see and that this is perhaps a way to mess with the metering system. Natuur12 (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Natuur12: I looked at it.... it's a training video on how to use SlowDNS to evade data charges... I've seen such before (though less often than embedded archives), and after sending the first couple to DR (and seeing them speedily closed) I've simply treated them as WP0 abuse in a different form, since most actually ended with a demonstration of them uploading to Commons. - Reventtalk00:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
National Naval Aviation Museum template
Do you think it would be useful to create a template for the photos from the U.S. National Naval Aviation Museum similar to your NHHC-template? I don't know how to create it (or maybe I would have to be an administrator).
Another question: NARA files. Would you just include the mere file number or use the prefix "NAID..." in a file name? Thank you and Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
As far as a template, you don't need to be an admin. I don't think we can actually make a 'license template', though, as I can't find any kind of a blanket copyright claim on their website... it would probably just need to be an 'image source' template like {{LOC-image}} or a modified Information template like {{Image from the Florida Photographic Collection}}. - Reventtalk22:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
In 2009, I received the following mail that I forwarded to Wikimedia: "Our photographs are public domain, with very few exceptions which you do not need to worry about. However, if a photograph is used in a publication we request the image be labeled "Courtesy of National Naval Aviation Museum". Roger Mott- Library Volunteer 9/11/09." I am still waiting for an update of the antiquated NNAM search site. I also inquired, why many photos just vanished from the database (in 2014, long before Trump became U.S. President ...), and the answer was: "Just finished talking to individual who maintains web site for museum and he said the site has been redesigned but the search capability is the same and the pictures are available. Nothing has been removed. I have turned the problem over to the individual who is responsible for the web sight and he is going to take care of it. I can’t give you a time frame so bear with him." Obviously, the time frame is longer than three years... But I know that they sadly mostly have only volunteers to work on the photo section. Maybe they should turn it over to the NHHC. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I think this needs a UDR. The argument is essentially that the author only used noncopyrightable ideas, and that it's not actually a derivative work.... in this particular case, I'm actually inclined to agree with that (and accept it) but it's a judgement call, not a clear case. I clipped out the two particular images from the source PDFs at https://imagebin.ca/v/3Lgr0x1ROLQX and https://imagebin.ca/v/3LgroarrRwy9 for reference. - Reventtalk22:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, should we copy this section there wholesale (permission granted) or would you like to start the UDR by reframing what you wrote? Either is fine with me. — JeffG. ツ22:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Shakira54: The English Wikipedia, at least, allows for the local upload of an image of the subject of an article (who is dead) as fair use, even if it is copyrighted and not licensed. I believe that ar:ويكيبيديا:محتوى_غير_حر has similar conditions, though I cannot read it. - Reventtalk11:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Shakira54: Any image that you find on the internet is copyrighted, unless it is specifically old enough that the copyright has expired (or some other, specific, exemption applies). Since she was from Mexico, which has a copyright term of 100 years after the death of the author (and she was not born 100 years ago) there is almost certainly no image of her, anywhere, that has entered the public domain due to copyright expiration (which is probably why there is no image in the articles about her on 'any' wikipedia). You need to find an image that you can upload locally (not to Commons) under fair use... and since she is no longer alive, any image will probably work. - Reventtalk11:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I didnt understand anything can you Upload the photo ? If you cant no problem,the page in five languages needs a picture Shakira54 (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Worked more on support for lexicographical data (specifically support for lexicographic category and statements on forms)
Dealt with issues after the deployment of automatic interwiki links for Wiktionary
Worked on constraint violation user script based on your feedback (improving messages to make it more understandable, layout, etc)
Add support for the following new language codes for monolingual text properties: brx, chn, cop, gez, quc, kjh, nr (will become available in a few days)
Q: I would like to ref my attrib page on all my photos, in the hopes that people will in fact read it. My last 2 uploads I did it under |permission= User:WPPilot/Credits and was wondering if you would be so kind as to run that with a script for all my photos. Change it up if you like. Thank you! Cheers! --Don (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!
@Acagastya: It's a somewhat subtle point, I guess. The file is a derivative of the original photo, and the original is a derivative of the pyramid, but the file itself is not a derivative of the pyramid because there are no copyrightable aspects of the pyramid itself that are visible. For a copyright to persist, there must be specific identifiable aspects of 'the work at hand' that are the original and creative work of the supposed copyright owner.... since the pyramid is deliberately and completely obscured, there is nothing copyrightable in the work at hand that can be ascribed to the architect of the pyramid.
The original photo is, by the consensus on Commons regarding what is not allowed, a copyright violation of the pyramid.
And it's completely fine to ask someone to comment on something, as long as you are not trying to ask specific people that 'you know will agree with you' to actually vote. - Reventtalk08:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The original photo accounts for copyright violation (it is licensed under CC BY-SA) but any modification is not permitted. The photographer does not have the right to license that photo under the CC terms due to the rules against FoP. So, you are saying a source which accounts for copyvio, which should not and must not be licensed under those terms, is perfectly fine? acagastya09:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Acagastya: The author of that photo is able to license their own contributions to the image under that license, even if their photo violates the copyright in the pyramid. In the photo uploaded here, all copyrightable content other than the contributions of the actual photographer were redacted, so all that is left is material that can actually be licensed.
It's exactly equivalent to if copyrighted material was removed from the 'edge' of a photo by cropping it out... there is nothing left in the image at hand that is the authorship of I. M. Pei (the architect of the pyramids) so it cannot be a violation of his copyright. All that is left is a photo of a PD building, and we have a license for that from the photographer. - Reventtalk09:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #261
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Please feel free to revert me - I sometimes wonder about duplicate tagging, so if I have deleted something worth keeping, please go ahead. I appreciate the AGF message - JarrahTree (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: It's no big deal. I don't think it was actually used, it's just that you deleted a February upload in favor of one from a couple of days ago... I try to always look at the dates if working on duplicates, sometimes people will tag a copy that has been around for years in favor of a recent upload. - Reventtalk23:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #262
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Past: WikiCite, May 23rd-25th in Vienna. Documentation will be available soon, in the meantime you can check on Twitter and the video streams to see what happened
Hello Revent,
I'm following up on the Village Pump topic about the Template:Regions of France. As stated there (Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2017/05#Template_Regions_of_France), the code has been verified and the merger from sandbox to main could be done.
Since there seems to be consensus on the matter, could you proceed with the task when you have a moment?
Plenty of categories need to be renamed from the old regions to the new regions, but the template takes care of it by referring either to the old or new name.
Thanks! --LeZibou (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@LeZibou: FYI, there is no need to ping someone on their own talk page, since they get the 'you have new messages' prompt anyhow.
In most cases such a substitution could be handled with COM:VFC...it can be told to run on the results of a search, but unfortunately it seems to dislike having a / in the search term (which is needed when replacing a subpage). - Reventtalk01:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for everything, and sorry for the ping, I just discovered the functionality and thought it replaced the current notification system. --LeZibou (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Help
@Revent: hi, I wish happy time for you, I need help about (File:Jerashmap.png) my Friend Made for me
@شاكيرا54: After downloading and checking it offline, there is no EXIF data embedded in that image. I don't know why, but there is nothing to display. - Reventtalk21:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: okay, There mistakes in map, I request you to delete a old file (File:Jerashmap.png), he was upload again new File (File:JerashGmap.png).شاكيرا54 (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@شاكيرا54: @Edyn7: Edyn7, please tag the old version as {{SD|G7}} (uploader request)... the request needs to actually come from the account that uploaded the file. In the future, however, you can just upload a new version at the same filename, using the link just below the file history. - Reventtalk08:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Based on your close, am I to assume that the OTRS ticket proved that, contrary to the White House's clear statement, the White House did not have a right to sub-license these images under a Creative Commons license? Thank you. Rebbing11:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The images were taken by Doug Coulter who was not an employee of the US government as at the time those images were taken. Thus, White House did not have a right to license these images under a Creative Commons license. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Wikicology: That's not quite the argument that Rebbing pursues here. If Coulter was not a government employee at the time, and consequently the photo isn't in the public domain, then Coulter has the right to license his work with whatever license he wishes and in whatever publication he chooses. This naturally includes him giving the White House the permission to publish his photo under the CC license. He could have done that, and we need explicit statements that this has not happened, notwithstanding the copyright notice on the White house page that says he has. On the other hand, he could have given the White House the permission to host the photo under a restrictive license á "you get to publish the photo but this permission does not apply to your reusers".
To rephrase, it does not matter what right the White House has with regards to the purportedly public domain status of the image. What matters is what rights Coulter has given them. There are only three possibilities:
Coulter has given the White House the permission to publish the photo under the CC license, as stated on the White House page, and this permission applies to us, too.
Coulter has given the White House the permission to publish the photo under a restrictive license, and this permission does not extend to us (in direct contradiction with the copyright notice on the White House page)
Coulter has not given the White House the permission to publish the photo at all (unlikely, and again in direct contradiction with the copyright notice on the page)
@Rebbing: I think we need to open a deletion review, because the close has not addressed this issue. Publicly available information leads us to think that the photo is CC. If the ticket contains information to the contrary, then it needs to be shared with us. Finnusertop (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Finnusertop: Thank you: this is what I was trying to articulate. The points raised regarding the OTRS ticket do nothing to rebut the White House's explicit license grant. If the OTRS ticket proves that the White House didn't validly license the photo under a Creative Commons license, it would be simple enough for an OTRS volunteer to say so—as many have said concerning the public domain claim—but none has. If distrust of the current administration is the reason for disregarding the White House's license statement, there should be consensus for that outcome, or at least an acknowledgement in the close. Please do take this to DRV. Rebbing22:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Rebbing: This image is not available under a free license per the OTRS ticket. As before, can't say more. It's unambiguous in the ticket. ~ Rob13Talk23:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I have been busy offline the last few days.
The close has nothing at all to do with the current administration.... as a matter of fact, the previous administration themselves created a notable drama in the opposite sense, by claiming that restrictions existed on photos taken by the White House Official Photographer (Pete Souza), that were clearly PD.
Without disclosing details of what is in this specific ticket, the practice that OTRS agents generally follow in regards to a claim made by a third party (in this case, it would be the White House) that a work has been released under a compatible license is to contact the copyright owner directly, and verify that the claim is true. OTRS has communicated with the copyright owner, and we have neither received any confirmation that the 'generic' license claim on the White House website is correct nor received an explicit license grant that is compatible with Commons. OTRS has reliable information that verifies both the authorship of the image (that it was Doug Coulter is public information) and who owns the copyright (which we cannot explicitly disclose as we only know this through OTRS communications). We can state unambiguously, however, that the US Government does not own the copyright, that the US Government has permission to use the image, and that we have been unable to either verify that the license granted to the US Government was in fact the license claimed on the White House website or obtain a specific grant of a compatible license from the copyright owner.
@Rebbing: You asked in your original comment here if there was evidence that the White House had permission to sublicense the images under a CC license. I can unambiguously state that no such evidence exists.... that a licensee cannot relicense a work they are authorized to use under some other license is well understood. A CC license must be granted by the copyright owner, and OTRS has been unable to verify, after communication with the copyright owner, that such a license was granted. - Reventtalk04:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
That's not quite what I said—or asked. The White House asserts that it validly distributes the image under a particular Creative Commons license. (This would be possible if the contract signed between the Trump transition team and the photographer gave Mr. Trump or his representatives the right to sublicense the photograph—or opted to consider it a work for hire. Neither of these scenarios is implausible.) So, that the OTRS ticket doesn't provide evidence of the CC license is irrelevant: we already have evidence that such exists, namely, the White House's website; we don't need the photographer to confirm it to take the publisher at its word. However, Rob13 has stated elsewhere that the ticket affirmatively disproves the White House's licensing claim, and that squarely addresses and rebuts my argument. Thank you. Rebbing12:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Lobillo: Disculpas por adelantado para la traducción automática. Soy consciente de que usted obtuvo las imágenes de ese sitio web, y que afirma que está bajo una licencia de CC-BY-SA. Las imágenes no pertenecen a ese sitio web, sin embargo, pertenecen a "Stratolaunch Systems Corporation" (ver http://www.stratolaunch.com/gallery.html) y no han sido liberados por ellos bajo esa licencia. El sitio web no puede licenciar imágenes de las que no poseen los derechos de autor ... simplemente están usando las imágenes bajo 'uso justo'. - Reventtalk09:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
MySociety (Q10851773) have now completed publishing a "five part series examining how to use Wikidata to answer the question: 'What is the gender breakdown of heads of government across the world?'". Here is the full set:
.jpg){kind=link}
Done Sorry, I've been preoccupied with offline matters. Thanks for the reminder. - Reventtalk 03:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
