User talk:Revent/Archive 5

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Happy New Year!

Have a great 2016. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Classical, but still... thank you for your work on Commons! Yann (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

COM:FOP#Philippines: Photos of Patrickroque01 in Wikipedia are sometimes COM:DM or COM:TOO

There are no freedom of panorama in the Philippines, but what about a copyrighted architectural, art, or sculptural work in the Philippines is included partially in a photo taken there also, like some cases of photos by Wikipedia user "Patrickroque01"(also on Commons as User:Patrickroque01)? Many photos of places in the Philippines (taken by him) which include partially or minimally some architecture, art, or sculpture under copyright, but cannot be copied here on Commons because of no FOP, which is incorrect at some cases. Can you make a look on some photos of that user in Wikipedia (via en:Special:ListFiles/Patrickroque01 and remove the "Do not copy to Commons" template if its de minimis or not eligible? My concerns, because some photos of the Philippines (i.e. photos of historical landmarks, public infrastructure, (such as roads, public buildings, schools and the like), or natural forms) by him that can be copied to Commons only included part of any copyrighted architectural, art, or sculptural work or the work is ineligible for copyright (too simple).--TagaSanPedroAko(Let's talk/Usap tayo) 11:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #191

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Wikidata weekly summary #192

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

To any stalkers

Sorry for the unannounced wikibreak, medical drama. Should be back-ish, at least replying to issues and watching boards, and more active once I finish a OSM project. Revent (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #193

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lotus flower (978659).jpg

Let's leave aside Commons' unsolvable problems for the moment and return to something more interesting, I hope. I'm interested in your review of this JPG. I use Adobe products mainly, with IrfanView as a quick-and-dirty viewer, and Jeffrey Friedl's Exif Viewer. What software do you use to look at the histogram and "colocube"? What counts the number of colours? And what's the "error level analysis"? Also what led you to believe the compression was 94%? The EXIF on that image is minimal. Perhaps it can be guessed from the JPG properties? When I look at the background at 300%, I see squares of horizontal and vertical stripes within 8x8 boxes that look to me like high-compression JPG artefacts (since JPG is based on 8x8 squares). This makes me fairly sure that high compression is a cause of the problems rather than just general overprocessing, which wouldn't have an 8x8 structure to it. Perhaps an intermediate file was saved at high compression and then loaded again and saved once more with very low compression -- hence the 94% figure reported by your software is an illusion.

A doctor once said to me that with all our high tech equipment to take EEG of brain waves or ECG of heart beats, that there is a danger one treats the machine read-out rather than the patient. It can be like that with looking at the meta data or histograms and other software interpretations rather than looking at the image. Sometimes the EXIF contains information on all the processing done by Lightroom or another tool and it is clear that the image has been heavily processed. Whether the result works or not is a matter for the eye. Still, all these tools are useful when trying to work out why an image looks so bad. It's just a shame, with these sourced-off-Commons images, that there's usually little way the image can be fixed. -- Colin (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: I'd gladly talk about the important stuff instead, lol.
If you open an image in Gimp you can look at the "Histogram", which is a graph of the statistical distribution of color values in the image [3]. In a 'raw' photograph, normally, the values will be smooth curves, and a subtle, well done adjustment won't change that much. If the range of values is narrow, though, and you 'dramatically' stretch it with an automatic filter, you end up with spikes at the different values... Histogram_equalization#Full-sized_image illustrates it... not that the equalized image is not 'better' in that case, but it's obvious it was adjusted drastically from the histogram.
There is a really good article about other things you can identify from looking at the histogram here.
There is also a Gimp plugin (standard in most versions) that will do the 'colorcube analysis'... it's a variation on the same idea that just shows the colors separately, but also (usefully) indicates the number of 'unique colors' in the image as a whole [4], based on the actual number of unique combinations of RBG values. Other than that number it's not incredibly useful (the 'graphic' is just a histogram), but it gives an indication of how posterized the image is.... your processing shouldn't substantially change the number of colors unless you meant to.
  • I think here, you can tell that the 'green' parts of the image were processed in a significantly different way than the 'red and blue' parts... and if you decompose the image, the same thing. Any 'natural' color is going to be a mix of all three to some degree, but there is no red in the background, and no green in the foreground.
As far as other points, I used http://fotoforensics.com/ ..... the 'quality' setting (the %) they give isn't from the metadata stored in the file.... some programs don't store it, and different image editors use different algorithms. That site actually looks at the quantization tables stored in the image itself, and tells you what value using the JPEG standard algorithm matches best... in that image, it says they exactly match the 'standard' for 94%... that doesn't tell you if image was resaved, but I don't see the same 'compression artifacts' in the foreground, and you should if it was just over-compressed, unless the sections were edited separately.
You can also do an 'error level analysis' there, but it's not something they invented. The analysis basically shows the 'actual' compression level of each part of the image... it's open to interpretation, and I'm not at all an expert at reading it, but in that particular image it seems obvious to me that a huge amount of detail was digitally removed from the background, and my guess would be with way too much 'blur filter'. I don't think the artifacts are so much from 'literal' over-compression (putting the setting too high) as from an image like this just not being handled very well by jpeg.... I could be wrong, but either way its quite broken. Revent (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The histogram I'm used to on Adobe products (and my camera) is more like the one in the colourcube link you supply (though with white in the back rather than foreground). The fotoforensics site looks interesting. Another trick I've used is to alter the gamma on the image which can often show patches in the sky that aren't very visible normally. For my own images, this can be an indicate that the stitching hasn't been ideal and needs a little patchwork, but it can also show some alterations. Mind you, this failure is visible without any forensics. -- Colin (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #195

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Cheers

I'm very impressed, cheers for taking the time to sort this out: [5] cygnis insignis 14:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

E-mail

I just sent you an e-mail, as I have a question relating to some of the recent work you are currently now doing. Feel free to take your time in responding, but I think it might make more sense to do a concentrated effort instead of individual tagging. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ktr101: Replied by email. As noted, it seemed as if thinning the pile down by addressing the lack of a proper source (which would have to be fixed to keep them anyhow) would make any later discussion easier to manage. Revent (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

OfferUp

Hey, thanks for the note. I didn't see where in the interface I could upload it as a company logo and mark it as theirs and not mine. Is there a different way to upload or mark the file as such? New to this. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nathan V (talk • contribs)

@The Nathan V: The 'upload wizard' does not have a lot of the possible options, for ease of use (you can always directly edit the file page afterward). Don't use the 'my own work' option unless you actually personally created the image... you get more options if you choose that it's 'from somewhere else'.. I don't remember exactly what it offers, I never use the wizard. You show always double check the page after uploading to make sure it says what you intended... if not, ask someone for help (there are some noticeboards at COM:VP that lots of people watch).
To fix the information, actually 'edit' the file page (at File:OfferUp Logo.jpg ) and look at the 'information' template. Change the author to the company name, and the 'source' to the url where you actually got the image. I already fixed the license, since a logo that's just simple text isn't copyrightable. (The 'license template' for it is called PD-textlogo, but that's not an upload wizard option). Revent (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Beer labels and Matches

I'm a bit confused on what is needed for those images you have marked as This media file is missing essential source information. The labels and matchcovers were made presumably for the company by a third party printing service. I have put the company as the source. These items are advertisements for them and meant for general distribution to the public and being on commons isn't going to make a difference, as all are out of bushiness. Please advise what wording I should use to comply with commons and I'll update them as requested. Warmest regards Connor7617 (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Connor7617: The source field must indicate where you, as the uploader, obtained the actual media file that you are uploading. (own photograph, scanned from a specific book, etc) It's intended for potential re-users to know where to search for verifying the licensing we give for themselves (we don't, and indeed cannot, warrant that licenses are 'truly' correct, we just do the best we can). In the case of the labels and matchcovers, a reuser needs some indication of how to validate the given dating in order to ensure the PD claim is correct. In the case of the US military images, they need a way to verify the attribution (I searched online, and found different versions of some, but nothing to actually 'demonstrate' the authorship). It's not 'extremely' unusual for such images to actually be personal images, or taken by professional photographers riding along in military aircraft. (As an example, there is a recent 360-degree video taken during a Blue Angels training flight that actually belongs to USA Today.) Revent (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@Connor7617: For more info, I suggest reading the relevant part of COM:EI. Revent (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
All of those match covers and beer label images are from ebay, as they are being offered for sale by various people. The URL's change for each one and are deleted after the end of the listing. Would stating source: Online Auction be sufficient ? The US Military images are air force photos taken from my shared user groups of Air Force vets that I belong to. As far as I know they are USAF images taken by the various base public affairs offices that are pretty common. I can provide that as well Connor7617 (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Here are two examples. This first one is an official USAF photograph of a target QF-102 and a QF-4 from Eglin AFB, It's not marked as such with the source, but it's not a personal photo, it's one that was made available from the base public affairs office.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207053228701460&set=gm.956995627724066&type=3&theater

This photo from another group is a personal photo taken which was posted. You can see the photo border and it's also not a professional photo, but a snapshot taken by someone. This would not be something I would upload because it's not a government photo

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1225183114175612&set=g.110405332334153&type=1&theater

The first photo in particular is not a "current" photo, as both the QF-4s and QF-102s are no longer in service, and wouldn't be on the official Eglin AFB website. I can add that or anything else to be in compliance with commons, please advise Connor7617 (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I can't actually see the Eglin one, but you might have to contact the Air Force Research Historical Agency and ask them, but this site is a stickler for sources. In terms of the images of matchboxes though, I think the copyright would then fall under the person scanning the image, but I could be wrong. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ktr101: An actual 'scan' of a 2D object creates no new copyright claim.. it's a 'faithful reproduction' of the original object, and there is no human creativity involved... the copyright depends purely on the original object (at least, under copyright law like that of the US that disallows 'effort expended' claims). The Copyright Compendium specifically prohibits (based on case law) the USCO from registering a work that is merely a purely mechanical transformation of a previous work into a new form, and for these US law obviously applies. @Connor7617: For the matchboxes, we 'specifically' need evidence for the dating to show that they are indeed old enough to be PD... a claim by a 'random' eBay seller does not really suffice, since we neither know who they are or if they really have a clue. Also, many of them are of such low quality as to probably not be in scope, though. Revent (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Connor7617: Using incorrect licensing could end up leading to a block. As such, it is imperative that you help us determine the licensing of the images. If you got these all from one source, it could easily be added by a user running a script or a bot, but anything at this point is better than nothing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Mr Rutherford, I have no idea why you listed pre-1923 images for deletion. Please advise why this was done, as a 1919 parade celebrating the end of World War I is a public domain image. Connor7617 (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
For the same reason that Revent tagged similar images (such as File:1865 Zions Church.jpg, because there is no source present, and there is no way for us to trace back the source. If you could provide a source, then we could easily keep that and other images. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Connor7617: Indeed, exactly as Kevin stated. We need not only evidence of the dating of the photograph, but evidence of actual 'publication' pre-1923. There are many images from that time period that, since they were only published many years later, are still in copyright, or which have a copyright based upon the death date of the author (since they were published posthumously by a third party). PD 'status' based upon being pre-1923 is only based upon actual 'publication' that started a federal copyright that has since expired.... an unpublished pre-1923 'creation' was under a common-law copyright until actually published, and the 'federal' copyright only began at that point. Revent (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually all of the old photographs of homes and of the 1919 victory parade (along with MANY other old photographs that I uploaded) are in the holdings of the Lehigh County Historical Society, in Allentown, Pennsylvania. My mother is a member of the society and though her membership I can access their holdings and scan old photographs from it that are interesting and of significance to share, which I enjoy doing. I scanned the photos with a portable scanner at the society then on my laptop I perform an image cleanup and enhancement, and also have added the sepia (brown) tint to them to give them an "aged" appearance. So I suppose I would hold the copyright on the image, as I'm the one that scanned them from the original at the historical society and then performed the image enhancements. However, I don't choose to have any copyright to them, as they are historical and I don't plan on making any money from them. I just uploaded them as unknown, because, in actuality, they are unknown of the original photographer. All I did was scan them, enhance them, and present them to the public from an otherwise unavailable source unless you're at the society. Connor7617 (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@Connor7617: If you actually scanned them from the original object, you need to make it clear that you were specifically able to physically examine it for copyright markings, and also indicate where the original was from (the Historical Society archives). We have major problems with people uploading lots of 'old photos' of unknown provenance that they obtained off the internet, with no way to have any idea as to the actual source, and we have to be careful about it. You should always try to give as much information as possible.
For items such as File:1930 Allentown State Hospital.jpg, a 'best practice would be a 'source' field such as.... {{infosplit|{{self-scanned}}|Archives of the Lehigh County Historical Society}}
This media Self-scanned
Original work Archives of the Lehigh County Historical Society
That makes explicitly clear both that the actual 'media file' is your creation, and what your source for the physical object was. That would allow someone to, if needed, verify the status of the work by contacting the people that own the object.
As far as photographs, if a scan of the actual 'original' you can use {{Photo scan}} instead of {{Self-scanned}}... if you use the templates instead of typing it manually, they are automatically translated.
Giving as much information as possible both means less chance of copyright drama on Commons itself, and actually that the images are more 'usable'... someone wanting to reuse them 'commercially', such as in a book, would need to be able to verify the status... if they know who owns a copy, that becomes far more doable.
Also, for items such as old photographs, you need to be 'very' clear about the licensing..... the easiest summary is that given in {{PD-US-unpublished}}, which is the license template that likely applies. Basically, an unpublished photo does not enter the public domain until either 70 years after the author's death, or until 120 years after creation if either the author or their date of death is unknown. This is probably an issue with a number of the images you have uploaded... if unpublished and anonymous, they are likely not PD yet. Revent (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

As a further note, you also uploaded images such as the (since deleted) File:1950 - Neuweiler Stock Ale - Label.jpg... on that upload, in particular, you explicitly claimed that it had no copyright notice (twice) on the file page, but in the image itself a 1947 notice was clearly visible. It's things like that (which was clearly wrong) and the amount of images you have uploaded that are causing your work to be looked at so closely.... you seem to be wanting contribute useful material, but we have to be quite careful about copyright. Revent (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Madetoja

Hey, Revent! Hope you're well. I kind of am liking the authenticity of http://www.madetoja.org/_wManage_Image/17_514x800.jpeg this version of the W.Dufva photo you uploaded for me better. What do you think? Thanks again; the bio is really coming along nicely! Sgvrfjs (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Just looked. All I can say, on a very brief skim... holy damn, that looks like an outstanding article. Even using sophisticated citation methods.... I am impressed. Only comment that pops to mind, at a quick glance... (and, understand, I have not edited en much at all for a while now, tho I think my user page there shows I was a massive gnome)... you are using html tags for your block quotations, there are some templates (see en:Template:Quotation templates that make them prettier... specifically, using the en:template:quote template might make them read more easily. Also, it's better practice to include the ISBNs (preferably ISBN-13s) for book citations, as it makes them easier to search. It will also (signifigantly) help at some future point when references migrate to wikidata. That, however, looks and skims like something worthy of at least a B-class, and probably an A-class review right off. The only immediate thing that jumps up is a long lede with few inline references, but that's perfectly fine if the material is cited in the body. I'm not claiming, at all, to be able to fact check it, but it 'looks' both quite competently done and very well referenced. Gratz. Revent (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback on the article, and the complements. Wow I hadn't expected you to take the time to hunt down and look at the actual bio! Thanks for being an otter to someone who needs one from time to time. As for the lede, I left it uncited because everything in it will be referenced and restated (and expanded) in the main body, but thanks for warning me of the necessity of this. As for the blockquotes, I admit I am a writer/researcher and not good with code and computers; but I'll take a look at the non HTML templates (tired the one, but struggled and so undid the edit). When you talk about ISBNs, do you mean citing them in text or just making sure the books in the list of references have ISBN tags? If in text, how does one do that? Finally, I was hoping you might be able to switch in the new Dufva photo for the earlier one; I like how this one is sepia and reads Oulu and Dufva. Sorry I'm so difficult (oh, and I actually had to look up what GRATZ meant!!! :) ) Sgvrfjs (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Sgvrfjs: Yeah, gratz is slang. There is actually absolutely no need (or reason) to cite material in the lede if it's referenced later in the article... it's actually better style not to, since the lede is just supposed to be a summary.... there should be nothing there that is not discussed in more detail (and cited) later, it's just unfortunately something that some people might object to incorrectly (adding cn templates without reading the whole thing). What I am talking about with ISBNs, specifically, is using the isbn field in {{Cite book}}, so that there is a clickable link to "Special:BookSources" that allows for easily finding the source at the end of the reference... using the isbn also makes it explicit exactly what edition you were citing.
I missed what you were actually asking me to do at first, done now. I didn't overwrite it, but instead uploaded it separately, and linked them as other versions, so people can pick. It's at File:Leevi Madetoja by W. Dufva (sepia).jpg. Enjoy! Revent (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Gosh, thanks Revent. It's so nice when one finds an expert Wikipedian willing to help us newbies. Sorry that initial ask long ago turned into this multi-request nightmare, but you have really helped keep my work on the Madetoja article inspired (via the pictures)! Can't promise I'll never reach out again, though. Haha! Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Revent. I could really use your help once again. I am trying to find a quality image of L. Onerva, Madetoja's wife, for the biography I am writing about the composer. It is quite hard to find images without a watermark that are clear and of appreciable size, but it seems like the best bet could be here. I have sought to do the type of research you taught me, and have also found the same image as a postcard here. The autograph of the photographer on the first linked image appears to read Helander, who could be Ivar Helander (b. 1895, d. 1959), but I cannot make out what the date is (maybe 1926?) Thoughts? Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit: I also just found this image, which appears to be a much larger version of the thumbnail that already exists on L. Onerva on Wikimedia commons. Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sgvrfjs: Sorry for slow response, somehow missed the notification of this message. I can't read the date either, but the Kuvakokoelmat does indeed confirm it's from the 1920s, and from Helsinki. That's consistent with where Ivar Helander was working at the time... it seems quite likely he was the photographer. The other photographers with the same name listed have clearly incompatible dates of activity. It's again consistent with how Finnish law has been interpreted, as far as what is a 'work of art', and so I'd be fine with the image under that license statement.
The other image (the copy of our existing one) should also be fine to upload, as a 'other version' of the one we have... I'm not particularly crazy about the sourcing given on the existing page, but it seems quite likely correct... Otava published her works at that time, and it's quite likely a 'publicity photo' taken by a uncredited employee. Glancing at the front pages of a few of her books (that have scans visible online) I don't see it used as a frontispiece, but it was quite possibly used elsewhere.
I'm not offhand finding anything better than what you did, but it looks like you have the idea down. :) Revent (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Hey Revent; I have tried and failed to upload the new image of Onerva by Helander. I'm so sorry for my incompetence. :/ Would you mind doing it for me in your free time (if you ever have any!!). Thanks regardless, friend. Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Strange source link of File:Sierra del Retin-2nd Marine Infantry Battalions Amphibious assault (22751525191).jpg

Hi Revent, could you please check this? --Arnd (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aschroet: I know, it's very weird looking, but that is indeed the 'title' of the source image on Flickr... it was copied over directly by flickr2commons. (see https://www.flickr.com/photos/jfcbrunssum/22751525191/in/photostream/ ) I have no idea why, specifically, the name got mangled like that on Flickr, but it's not my 'creation'. (shrugs) I'll make it just show the url, though. Revent (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Removing a categorization nexus

Here you decided to “fix” a cetegorization problem by removing the offending category, instead of moving the file to its relevant parent. I’m sure you had a very good reason to remove the only categorization mention to sunglasses off a photograph where sunglasses are the central topic, but you know what? I’m not even going to read it (i.e., I’m not watching this page) — better use my time improving the project than trying to educate those who should know better. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aboriginal Flag 01.jpg

Can you add amendments to the rationale? --George Ho (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: I added message boxes to the end of both, pointing at the COM:UNDEL discussion. Hope that works for you. Revent (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you email me the description of the file? I would like to upload it to English and Hebrew Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The Aboriginal Flag

I appreciate very much your willingness to jump into a contentious discussion -- it's like jumping into a dog fight.

I would have simply thanked you for your effort and moved on, but I see that you made a serious error in your reasoning.

In point (3) you conclude that the flag is not a "work of applied art" and therefore cannot be covered by FOP. However, I think if you read the law -- or at least the English translation of the law -- you will see that if the flag is not a work of applied art, then it cannot have any copyright in Israel. The law defines an Artistic Work as

"drawings, paintings, works of sculpture, engravings, lithography, maps, charts, architectural works, photographic works and works of applied art".

Aside from literary works, dramatic works, and musical works, those are all of the categories that can have a copyright in Israel. I don't think you can say that a flag belongs in any of them except "applied art". If a flag isn't applied art, then it doesn't have a copyright in Israel.

So, either the flag is covered by FOP or it does not have an Israeli copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I started to write one really long response, but decided to instead address your point more directly. The definition of Artistic Work in the Israeli law, in full, by the WIPO translation[6], is...

including, drawings, paintings, works of sculpture, engravings, lithography, maps, charts, architectural works, photographic works and works of applied art

(the translation there is not machine-generated, they specifically mark ones that are)
The actual word 'including' is what is particularly relevant, in that the definition is only giving specific examples of what 'are' artistic works.... it's not an 'exclusive list'.
The 'correct' argument, I think, that could be made for the flag not being copyrighted in Israel is under section 4, which requires 'originality'.... there seems to be an agreement it would be below the TOO there.
The list in section 23 (which creates FOP) is is not 'inclusive', however... it list three specific types of works to which FOP applies, and the flag is not 'an architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art', so Israeli law does not seem to explicitly 'sanction' the reproduction as being non-infringing. (it's perhaps worth noting that the definition of 'sculptural work' is also inclusive, but 'architectural work' is not... neither applies, but is shows that the difference exists in the law)
Australian law, however, makes it very explicitly clear that the photographs, if imported to Australia, would be infringing the copyright in the flag.
I think, basically, we have to look at it like this.... if the flag had been exported to a non-Union country, where the copyright simply did not exist, and reproduced there, would we consider that reproduction to be allowable on Commons? (it would, obviously, be illegal in Australia) I don't think we would, under the 'source country of the work' part of the licensing policy. Israel is not protecting, in this case, the existing copyright, at all, but neither is it legally 'sanctioning' the reproduction under FOP.
I do not believe that we should (or actually do) consider the mere reproduction of a work, copyrighted in it's country of origin, in a country that does not protect the work to circumvent the original copyright, under the 'country of origin' part of the licensing policy. Only in certain cases (where the reproduction in another country is actually specifically legally sanctioned as non-infringing) do we do so. It would be a fairly profound change to allow reproduction in a country that does not respect copyright to circumvent the 'source nation' rule
I'm not saying that we could not 'choose' to do so, legally... our 'source country of the work' rule is just policy, and 'lex loci protectionis' would in fact allow us to ignore everything but US law. We effectively do so, by consensus, in some FOP cases... but this was not a discussion about changing policy, and there was no definite legal rationale or 'clear consensus'. (And I actually 'really' wanted to keep these, as I think the Aussie copyright is rather inane).
My close was not based on the flag not being protected by Israeli law... it is in fact not. It was based on that Israeli law does not explicitly sanction the reproduction as legal in a way where Commons precedent would let us ignore Australian law. Revent (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
TL;DR, perhaps it would have clearer to say "Are these derivative works legalized by Israeli FOP?". I do not, in fact, think that Israel protects the flag (as under their TOO) and that is the issue, really... they don't give the reproduction a legal sanction that would let us (by Commons precedent) ignore Australian law. I believe the reproduction itself, in Israel, is fairly clearly 'not illegal' there. Revent (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
OK -- first, I think you need to modify your close, because, as I said above, your point (3) is wrong -- either the flag is covered by FOP because it is a work of applied art or the flag is not covered by Israeli copyright because the only Israeli copyright category that could possibly fit a flag is applied art.
Second, where do you think that leaves us with works like Calder's sculptures? We can prove that they were actually made in the United States, yet we keep images of them under the German FOP rules. If we are going to delete images of the flag, manufactured who knows where, because it has an Australian copyright, how can we keep images of sculptures actually manufactured in a non-FOP country that happen to be eligible for FOP in Germany?
Please understand that I know it's a difficult question, with no case law to guide us, but I think we should be consistent. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: (very minor point) Not that it's specifically relevant, but from looking at the wiki articles and lists, I'm pretty sure all but one of Calder's statues on public display in Germany were actually 'created' in France, after he moved there. That doesn't prevent the works from having a US copyright (he was a US citizen, after all), but they were produced in France, and then permanently erected in Germany, where the law 'explicitly' sanctions their reproduction under FOP. They actually have more than one 'domestic' copyright, but the 'source nation' under Berne, for the rest of the world, would be where they were first published (i.e. Germany).
Calder's works are still under copyright in the US, and 'technically' our hosting of images of them, in the US, is probably copyright infringement. The 'Claes Oldenburg' case (see here) pretty strongly indicates that if the WMF was to receive a DMCA notice they would honor it, since in a US court only the US law would be applied (i.e. 'lex loci protectionis'). I rather consider such a case to be a matter where the community has decided, by wide consensus, to create a specific exception to the licensing policy (though it's not explicitly stated, but exists consistently in precedent) for works where the reproduction is 'explicitly' declared to be legal by the law of the place where the reproduction is made... where it has a specific sanction 'as legal'. Admins seem to not have a community mandate to delete such images, despite their likely illegality under US law. What makes me feel okay with that is the probability that Calder (as a specific example) explicitly consented to the placement of his works in Germany.
I think this 'community decision' should be interpreted narrowly, however, in order to avoid the possibility (as was mentioned at the UDR) of allowing the reproduction of 'any' work to be uploaded to Commons, simply by relocating it to a country that does not protect it's copyright, and copying the work there (regardless of FOP). It's only in specific cases where the reproduction is actually explicitly sanctioned as 'non-infringing' by the local FOP law (I think Germany actually says "shall be permitted" instead of using the term non-infringing, but to the same effect) where my reading of consensus is that the community wants to keep them (and I think 'everyone' agrees with that, really). (later clarification, I mean 'with keeping them', only, as what everyone agrees with)
I do agree that, as you pointed out, my wording could have been better... it comes down to exactly how you parse the words, I think. (i.e., 'legal under FOP', or 'legal, under FOP') I was trying to be clear in my explanation, but apparently I flubbed at this spot (I spent several hours of research on it, and went though a couple of drafts, trying to explain the rationale without writing an entire book). I'd be quite willing to amend it, I just would rather avoid doing so repeatedly...so...
(proposed) Post-closure note: The consensus is clear that the flag is not actually 'protected' by the Australian copyright in Israel, as it is below the TOO there. Thus, it's reproduction, in Israel, is not 'unlawful', regardless of if FOP applies or not. Photos of the flag are legal in Israel. The question addressed in Point 3 was if Israeli law specifically sanctions the reproduction as 'non-infringing', in the exact way that Commons has allowed works reproduced under FOP laws to be hosted in the past.... does the law 'make it legal'. (This precedent on Commons is in fact effectively an accepted exception to the licensing policy, since such reproductions are often not legal in the source country of the underlying work.) Since the flag is not 'applied art' under either an explicit definition in Israeli law (which does not define the term) or under the en:plain meaning rule (which exists, in different language, in Israeli legal precedent and rulings), the law does not sanction it's reproduction 'as legal', in the way that Commons has accepted in the past for FOP cases.
How does that sound to you? To be honest, I think this 'general issue' is something that deserves wider discussion, and more explicit policy, at some point. Revent (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Albanian Historian

Hello Revent, since you blocked Albanian Historian since 11 February 2016, can you please enable autoblock and block account creation of Albanian Historian? It has been confirmed that this blocked user is using sockpuppets, see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Albanian Historian. Thanks, ★ Poké95 10:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pokéfan95: Done, though likely a bit redundant to the later CU blocks, tbh... it's likely autoblocking the same IP. Revent (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #197

Wikidata weekly summary #186

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revent/Archive_5&oldid=211714488"