User talk:DMacks

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

Re: SVG bug[edit]

I also noticed that. When I open the file in Inkscape it looks fine. And a bitmap/ODF export in Inkscape also works fine. I have uploaded a higher resolution svg. but in this version the text in the infor box is missing in the displayed versions which looks fine when opened in Inkscape. I have also added a hi-res png and changed the image on the pH indicator page with png for better display.


I pick up images from google which are easily available for all to be uploaded on their profile...if there is any other way to upload please let me know Cpavlankar (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not know a good way. But the way you are doing it is often against Wikimedia policy and often against the law as well. See Commons:Licensing for the official policy, and a nice flowchart explaining the things you are allowed to upload. DMacks (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Reuse images from an ACM publication[edit]

Hey Mack, I have been going through the journals published by ACM and all the publication material seems to be copyrighted by "American Chemical Society". See for example, here. Noce that they place a copyright tag and in bold. Does this mean that the published reactions and material in the text is copyrighted too? If yes, then can they be reused in WikiPedia articles? I might be missing info on appropriate license tag that someone might have created here. Moreover, ACM seems to strongly oppose open access (here). Enlighten me. --Rubber Duck () 20:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Krishnavedala: Sorry for the delayed response...somehow didn't get the notice that there was a new talkpage message:( It is indeed all copyrighted. You can use the ideas (with cite, as appropriate), but not the text. You can use and rewrite the actual data/result-values (with cite), chemical names, etc--facts aren't copyrightable--but not simply cut'n'paste a data-table or a paragraph from a methods or conclusions section. Some diagrams and other graphics might be copyable (with cite) depending on what they depict. The basis is whether it's simply an intrinsic fact of nature (which is uncopyrightable for that reason) vs having some creative or other value added to it (an artistic representation based on nature). Almost always, facts of nature can be redone from scratch (a diagram redrawn, a piece of data or chemical formula written out) and some derived results can be too (though it gets harder when you're talking about a graph or a complex molecular rendering).
On commons, only free is allowed (either free because it's a fact of nature or free because it is a creative work that is created from scratch and licensed freely). On en.wp, there are cases where non-free content is allowed, but there strict limits (essentially it must be fairly important for adding encyclopediac value to a certain article and there must be no way to get a free equivalent that would fill that niche). Let me know some specific image-files you have in mind and I can take a closer look and their situation. DMacks (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I think I wrote the comment while updating the file description for File:Strecker_application.svg. When I updated the citation, I wondered about the journal policies and sure enough, there was the copyright tag in bold. If what you say is true and what I understand is the same, the license tag on this image (and I am sure, may others) are very erroneous. Did other wikipedians already look into this and create an appropriate license tag like they have for "re-use" of / "re-creation" of images based on images and information that is already copyrighted? see for example [[:Template:]]. These will probably fall under Commons:Derivative_works. Even though I created the image entirely on my own accord but based on prior work, I should not be considered as the 'Author' and/or 'Creator' of the image. The scientific publications need to have an expert review in my opinion. --Rubber Duck () 16:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
{{PD-chem}} is the standard for chemical diagrams. But it's just for the image itself. Sourcing info (which would include the original from which it's a derivative) would be separate. But if it's truly public-domain by its very nature, then the licensing does not depend on the original's. IMO it should be cited to help explain what the heck the image is illustrating and give credit, even if it's not a license requirement. DMacks (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Methanol formylation.png[edit]

Hi DMacks. The bond on the right hand side appears to be very short (like a dot almost). Could you make it a bit longer? --Leyo 12:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a bug in several recent versions of Mac ChemDraw. I'll edit it manually later today... DMacks (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes it helps to select everything and just move it a bit. --Leyo 17:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Always looked fine on-screen, never saved any better, so I had to manually edit it:( DMacks (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)