User talk:Dcoetzee

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

[edit] Flickr upload of Ara militaris

I have explained that the name of your file was a bad name because it should have included "Military Macaw" and not "Military macaw", and this was given as one of the reasons why I uploaded the new photograph again with a better name. The binomial name is better because it is more easily used internationally. I think that your badly named file name could mislead people into using the wrong capitalisation for this species. But that was not the only reason why your image upload seems unsatisfactory to me, because the flickr licensing is ambiguous. May I add that putting an alternative licence in the caption of flickr is confusing, if they are your flick photographs. I think that putting two licences on a flickr image is confusing, and you should know that the wiki automated software can only upload the licence with the flickr licence. Where there are two licences on flickr a think that I have to upload with the more restrictive licence. Yes, is would be quite easy to sort this out - it would be clearer if you said in the caption on flickr that the CC flikr licence is replaced by the licence indicated in the caption, and that flickr did not have you licence you were looking for. It would be even clearer if you provided a link in the caption to a PD licence webpage, with the full legal definition of PD. Even so, I am not sure if this would be appropriate as the two licences are conflicting legal documents. I do not know you you used flickr, which is a photography website that does not provided built-in facilities for tagging your PD images, and then pick a CC licence that is not the one you wanted. If you are going use an alternative licence on commons to the official flickr licence, I think that it should have a OTIS tag. I can not see the reasons why you deleted my image with a correct name, but I wonder if you had a conflict of interest in deleting this file and using your administrator privileges in this way. Obviously, I can not view the deleted file, and so I would be grateful of you would tell me what due process you used to delete my file and your reasons given. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

May I refer you to Commons:Help_desk#Some_confusion_over_an_images_licence_and_name where any discussion on this file can be continued. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken regarding the licensing here - where an image is licensed under both a CC-BY license and under a release-all-rights license, the effective result is the same as though all rights were released (this is how multilicensing works in this case). I could have made this clearer, but updating the license statement in all my thousands of Flickr images would be an enormously taxing task of no clear benefit. I hope that Flickr will implement a CC0 option - in the meantime, I think my intention was clear enough, but just to be sure I will update the Flickr descriptions to match and eliminate confusion. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

For good reasons there is a proposal for the binomial names to be used; see Commons:Language policy. The binomial name is more easily understandable in many different languages. I have not had an explanation what due process you used to delete the image with a file name that included the binomial name rather than the duplicate file with a name featuring the common name that you uploaded. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] About Bulk Downloading

Hi ! Just to let you know my e-mail: it is mail at eduardovalle dot com. Thank you for all the information ! EduardoValle (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A note of support

Just a brief note in support of the problems with the NPG. I have read a lot of the material but cannot claim to have read it all. As you know I have done a lot of work researching the 1841 painting of the Anti-Slavery conference. This painting was given to the NPG and I believe is now included in the images in dispute. I suggest that morally this picture was given by the Anti-Slavery Society in order thats its image could be shared with the world. I would like to approach the anti-slavery society (at my expense) to find out what their view is on the moral position on the image that they gave to the NPG. This organisation, I suggest, should historically be concerned with morals and may be willing to give the image more freely than its current legal owners?/guardians?. This may not remove the legal problem, but it might highlight the moral imperative that I suspect many feel aggrieved about

Lastly: Is there a legal aid fund? I realise you may not want to discuss this here, but I would be willing to post my phone or email. Victuallers (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you plan on sticking it out I would like to contribute some money to your legal defense. Please contact me via email. Kaldari (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your support. I will inform everyone if I open a legal aid fund. Regarding the anti-slavery society, that is certainly one of the most valuable images in the collection, but I advise you to tread carefully as they may come down on either side of this. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, you also have my support. You have done a lot of good work around here and I would hate to see you end up on the wrong side of this. Should it be needed, I'd also contribute money to your defense. Dragons flight (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Dragons flight. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A word of support in case it gets lost in the hub bub of the village pump, all that you did was in line with the policies of the WMF and its somewhat combatative attitude to art institutions, as such I would hate to see you suffer for this. You say that so far the Foundation have been supportive, has this merely in the form of words of comfort or have they indicated to you that they will make a firm commitment to you legally and financially. If you think it will help I'm willing to put this petition onto the village pump and forward it to the Foundation, its best for you to know how far the board will go in their support before deciding to reply to the NPG's solicitors.KTo288 (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dcoetzee, I'll contribute to any legal defense fund you set up, or any manumission fund if you're ever enslaved. By the way, good work in liberating those treasures for all mankind (and womankind, and other kinds). -- Noroton (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to both KTo288 and Noroton for your support. :-) I believe WMF is already taking reasonable action in assisting me to the best of their ability - I don't think anyone should expect them to represent me directly. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you think best.KTo288 (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

+1 on support for this. Clearly, you understand copyright law, unlike some people. That Legal Advice on UK Copyright Position bit seems quite helpful. The 'I'm not subject to your jurisdiction' defense would seem to do the trick as well; reminds me of the David Linhardt (aka e360 Insight LLC) v. The Spamhaus Project case because of the (reversed) jurisdiction issues. Glad to hear the EFF is helping you. The NPG should be ashamed for harassing you.--Elvey (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Elvey. :-) I'm not speculating on the legal issues here, but I trust in my attorney to deal capably with any threat. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Recent happenings

Dcoetzee, it is with great regret that I have requested that your commons adminship be temporarily revoked.

Although commons admins do not have the technically ability to permanently delete images or the authority to make such changes against community consensus I believe that nevertheless the spurious legal attack on you has created a potential for conflict between your own interests and those of the Wikimedia Foundation, the community of contributors on this project, and the general public. While this conflict is more likely to be a perceived conflict than an actual one— the resulting confusion will detrimental to all. This negative situation can most easily be avoided by a temporary reduction in your access.

No one should consider this temporary deadminship as an insult towards the great service you've provided here, or as any indication of wrong-doing on your part. I trust that after this matter is resolved you will be able to resume contributing in the same admirable manner that you have done in the past with the full trust and support of the community. I look forward to this less conflicted future. Cheers. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In accordance with the above request and my own judgment that there is a potential conflict of interest justifying such a move, and acting in my capacity as a steward, I have removed your adminship temporarily pending a resolution to this matter of a conflict of interest. ++Lar: t/c 00:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gmaxwell. No insult is taken and I understand the need for the project to take this action under the circumstances. Thanks for informing me. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

May I say that I disagree with this measure. Either Wikimedia stands behind Dcoetzee by associating itself with his actions, in which case he should remain an administrator, or it should request him to comply with the legal request (were he not to agree, then that would be a reason for removing his adminship). It is the worst of both worlds for Wikimedia to deflect the approaches of the NPG on the one hand—and I believe they have a valid case for doing so—while suspending Dcoetzee as an administrator on the other. This action could weaken both Wikimedia's and his argument that nothing wrong has been done, should that be the stance decided on. There can be no conflict of interest between Dcoetzee and Wikimedia so long as he adheres to policy and follows the advice of Wikimedia's authorities. qp10qp (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I must also STRONGLY disagree with this, it plays into the hands of the NPG, who will undoubtedly throw up 'He's had his admin rights removed by Wikipedia you know?' in their manipulations (typical straw man behaviour). Since Dcoetzee has shown themself to be entirely trustworth and honorable in this regard it would be far better to leave the adminship as-is to demonstrate that the foundation stands behind it's contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.233.2 (talk • contribs) 16. Juli 2009, 12:57 Uhr (UTC)

Lar is not a WMF employee; his action is not an action of the Wikimedia Foundation. Lar is a volunteer on this project like any other user, acting in good faith and doing what he believes is right. With the usual IANAL disclaimer, there is no way that this can be seen to affect the Foundation's position. Happy-melon (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it is Dcoetzee's position that is affected. qp10qp (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add my own strong disagreement with this "deadminship". The lawyers' original letter gave Dcoetzee an option to defuse the situation by deleting the images. Now although it is only in some sense coincidental that the photos had been uploaded by an administrator, the fact is that Dcoetzee was one and was therefore in fact in a position to "delete" the images, at least in the sense of removing them from general public availability. Had he chosen to do so (together with the other measures that the lawyers requested) then there would be some chance that the lawyers would have been satisfied with that. If anyone had then felt strongly that the images should remain, they could then take personal responsibility for them by reuploading or "undeleting" them, almost certainly not a big job with a suitable bot. The deadminship is just a cowardly way to ensure that the images are kept while the finger of blame still points at Dcoetzee as much as possible. Not impressed. Alan012 (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notify uploaders please

Dear Dcoetzee, if you nominate one or more images for deletion you have to notify the uploader. Please don't forget this. Multichill (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I accidentally nominated one of the uploaders and not all of them. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alaska-Yukon Pacific

I have been doing the subcategorization. However, I'm not sure if Category:Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition - Seattle, U.S.A. June 1st to October 15th 1909 is right or the files there should be moved to Category:Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition - Seattle, June 1-October 16, 1909.

Given the names, I'd think they're the same but File:Alaska-Yukon-Pacific_Exposition_-_Seattle,_June_1-October_16,_1909_-_Page_6.jpg is quite different than File:Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition - Seattle, U.S.A. June 1st to October 15th 1909 - Page 6.jpg

Could you look at it?

Platonides (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is that these two sets of pages come from two very similarly-titled but otherwise different brochures advertising the exposition. You can see more details regarding this at the source website. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A note from the NPG that may be of interest

I don't know how familiar you are with the situation that happened with the NPG back in 2006, but at the time the situation was settled (according to Gregory Maxwell) by agreeing to link from our images back to the NPG. This may be useful to you in a potential legal case. I have a personal email from Matthew Bailey, the NPG's Assistant Picture Library Manager, from back in 2006 which is related to this. Kaldari (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Kaldari. Of course our image description pages have always linked directly to the corresponding page on the NPG's website, as a matter of courtesy and as an informational resource, and I think this will only be helpful. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting to hear back from Gregory to see if he knows of anything more concrete that transpired in 2006. Obviously, some of the conditions specified in the email I received were not acceptable for Wikipedia, so I don't know if it could be argued that any actual agreement had been reached. Kaldari (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting. In the meantime, you may be interested to know that all the images uploaded from the NPG have hidden digital watermarks. I suppose since their status is not certain at the moment, it wouldn't be worth the effort of marking them all as such, but maybe at some point in the future (assuming this all gets resolved). Kaldari (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AYP Exposition

I notice that you uploaded File:Argus - A.Y.P. ed. - Page 15.jpg and others. Would you agree with me that this almost certainly derives from an artist's rendering, not from a photograph? - Jmabel ! talk 06:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that it says "Photo by F. H. Nowell" in the corner. It may be an artistic rendering based on a photo, or it may just be a photo taken using a process that gives it an artistic appearance - I'm uncertain. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a photograph that's been painted on to me. Maybe the pool was empty in the actual photo so they painted it in. Kaldari (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize you probably have more urgent things to think about, but you might be interested that I've gone through all the images in Category:General history, Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition, fully illustrated - meet me in Seattle 1909 and added descriptions and further categories. There were quite a few interesting things. I also stitched together a panorama of Lake Union (File:1907 Lake Union pano.jpg) from three photos there. Thanks for uploading these. - Jmabel ! talk 00:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, thinking about the NPG matter is about all I've done and I welcome a distraction. :-) That panorama image is spectacular - for future reference, however, when processing this type of scan I recommend applying a Gaussian blur of appropriate radius to eliminate the half-toning at 100% zoom (I already did for some of the pictures but not all of them). This also acts to dramatically decrease JPEG filesize by eliminating a lot of the spurious high-frequency components. Thanks for your help with these. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been known to used a Gaussian blur for that purpose, didn't think about it this time. I did ratchet down the level of information-preservation in the JPEG. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Another question: I don't want to second-guess you, but is there really any point to putting images like File:Baby eating Heinz apple butter.jpg in Category:Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition? The only connection is that it appeared in the pamphlet (Category:57 Exposition Number) that H. J Heinz Co. printed for the exposition. It would seem to make more sense to put it in Category:57 Exposition Number. - Jmabel ! talk 03:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking of that as an image source category rather than a category for things actually related to the A-Y-P. Maybe we need two different categories for this. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine to use Category:57 Exposition Number as an image source category for these, but adding the supercategory Category:Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition seems useless: the only connection to the Exposition is precisely the image source category.

Separately but related: I'm next working through the images in Category:Argus - A.Y.P. ed.. For an example of what I'm up to, see what I did with File:Argus - A.Y.P. ed. - Page 37.jpg or especially File:Argus - A.Y.P. ed. - Page 1.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, this is great work. :-) I'm surprised you were able to track down so many details regarding the subject of these images. This definitely helps put them in context. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Seattle history has been a major focus of mine the last few years. There are a remarkable number of surviving 100+ year old buildings here (for a place that was pretty much wilderness in 1853). Plus I've now looked at so many photos of downtown Seattle in the first decade of the 20th century that I'm beginning to have a fair chance of identifying a building even if the address is wrong or missing. My best piece of detective work so far was probably File:Seattle - M & K Gottstein Building - 1900.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 00:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Another one where I could add a lot: File:Argus - A.Y.P. ed. - Page 50.jpg. Two of these three buildings are still standing (I'd already photographed both) and I didn't have too much trouble tracking down an image of the third that places it in a clear context next to a building that is still standing. - Jmabel ! talk 19:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NPG copyfraud

See my comments at Commons:Village_pump#Copyfraud which may be of use to you. Suggest you check out what I have put there as I'm not a lawyer, but I've laid out the situation as I see it under UK law. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Advice on UK Copyright Position

Hi, here is some legal advice I got here in the UK regarding copyright from a UK Barrister (Senior Lawyer):

"There is no current UK court ruling that says that copyright exists in the photograph of an out of copyright painting.

It all depends on whether the person who took the photograph of the painting made an original contribution, if yes, they may be able to claim a copyright in the photograph. If no original contribution, no copyright. Originality has not been defined in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act and is open for the courts to interpret on a case by case basis.

However, there is UK case law which has established that a mechanical photocopy of an original work is not copyrighted (Reject Shop Vs Manners 1995) and in the case of Interlego A.G. vs Tyco Industries (1989), it was held that that a drawing which was a copy of another drawing did not hold its own copyright. ‘Skill labour or judgement merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality’ said the court in this case."

So it would seem that Farrer are bluffing - there is no precedent that supports their position - but there are precedents in your favour... I very much doubt if they or any other UK gallery would want to take a case to court because the chances are they would lose. The only thing stopping people now from scanning images from books, postcards and posters is either a mistaken belief that it is illegal or fear that it may be judged to be so.. Unsigned edit by Jimbodiddly (talk) at 22:08, 18 July 2009; see this edit.

[edit] Your last name

Hi. How do you pronounce your last name? I have doubts about the “Кутзее” in n:ru:Национальная портретная галерея Великобритании угрожает гражданину США судебным иском за изображения Викимедиа. Thanks. --AVRS (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi AVRS. The short answer is, it's pronounced "koot-SEE-uh" where "koot" rhymes with "soot". My last name is Afrikaans, and is quite common in South Africa; perhaps the best-known person carrying it is Nobel Prize in Literature winner J. M. Coetzee. Vowel pairs in the orthography of this language have a pronunciation that English speakers may find unusual. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

“Кутзее” (also used for the Nobel Prize winner) is something like “koot-ZEH-yah” or “koot-ZyEH-yeh”, which is different from “[kutˈseː]” mentioned in en:J. M. Coetzee. Is that "[z]" OK, or would “[s]” fit much better? Thanks again. --AVRS (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's possible it's begun to develop a unique Anglicized pronunciation. I can tell you that my family raised me to pronounce it the native Afrikaans ways, which is as I described with the "s" sound. I think the IPA is correct but I don't remember my IPA too well so I might be wrong. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I’ve replaced “Кутзее” with “Кутсее”. There is no distinction between short and long vowels in Russian, so “[kutˈseː]” could be something like “Кутсе́” (which might lead to an unpalatalized “с” and thus a too open “е”/“э”) or (if it's necessary to show the long vowel, but I doubt people would accept that; it also avoids the semi-vowel placed between the “SEE” and “uh” by the “е”) “Кутсиэ” (which makes me think of French and “Кутсье” — something like coots-YER; it also seems then that whether the stress is on the “е” or on the “э” doesn’t matter, but that might be because I assume that to be a diphtong, which is also not Russian). Thank you. --AVRS (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your first name

According to the ever reliable BBC, you're called David, not Derrick! Regards, Giant Snowman 20:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I spotted that and mailed them a correction. :-) I think they mixed me up with David Gerard, who they also quoted. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] In the interests of balance …

In the interests of balance are you going to publish your lawyer's reply to the NPG? 92.233.109.79 07:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not publishing any new information unless my lawyer advises me to do so. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI my attorney's response has been made public. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NPG

If there are further developments in the story that can be publicly announced, where would we be likely to find future updates? Dragons flight (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll update User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat and drop a note of the Village Pump, but I'm not publically announcing any more info without my lawyer's approval, so things might be quiet for a while. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ((Forestryimages)) tag

Nice idea! If you find any more that have been uploaded with an invalid non-commercial license, drop me a note and I'll speedy delete them. I'll also run through the category to check for any more that need watermarks editing out. - MPF (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay! FYI I'm in touch with one of the people who run Forestryimages, and I'm hoping we can actually get the original images without the watermarks, which would be even better. I'm pretty sure they're the ones adding them. I'm trying to explain how the use of EXIF data and the image description page is better. We'll see how that goes. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Next would be nice if they dusted their slides before scanning them ;-) Just found another non-com one though, File:Quercus_frainetto.jpg it'll be gone in a moment (gotta delete it from its use es:, ru: & cz: wikis first) - MPF (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay - FYI once they're all tagged it would be easy for me to have a bot run through them and verify licensing. I'm also trying to make sure we have the highest resolution version available of every image - many are reduced resolution (mainly because people are too lazy to register). Dcoetzee (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK! The ones I've uploaded (a lot!) are all top res and with watermarks edited or cropped out; for many, I've also edited out scanning errors (dust on slides) so for those, re-uploads may not necessarily be better - MPF (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you've done a good job with yours. :-) And you've also fixed many of the ones uploaded by others. I'll keep an eye out for any edited ones. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the list! All now deleted. Thanks for notifying the uploader of most of them, I was going to do so and saw you'd already done so ;-) Rather more worrying is that one of the pics (the former File:Fraxinus quadrangulata twig.jpg) was one of my uploads; I'm pretty certain that was a legit license when I uploaded it so wonder if it might have been changed subsequently on the FI site. Not completely impossible that it slipped by my pre-upload checking though. - MPF (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

One other thought - if you're in contact with the site owners, I was thinking it would be very nice if this contributor could be persuaded to change his pics from cc-by-nc to cc-by, as he has a lot of pics of species not represented on Commons at all. - MPF (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AYP Exposition redux

I've more or less finished my pass through the Argus material. I noticed in putting together Argus - A.Y.P. ed. that we are missing a few pages. Some are just text, but others are not, and at least some that are just ads are interesting. I don't know quite how you got these, since I don't see a "download whole page" option on the site linked as a source. Could you possibly snag the missing pages & let me know when they are uploaded (or let me in on the secret of how to do so) so that I can follow through? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 05:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The ones I left out were I think all repeat ads that were already used before... you can double check me on that. And no, the pages had to be extracted. Let me know if you find any pages that are not redundant and I'll grab them for you. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It can be hard to tell redundant to what, since none of these were uploaded with much description. Definitely some of the missing pages are portions of articles, which if someone ever goes to use OCR to get the article content they will want. - Jmabel ! talk 06:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I still have all the pages - I omitted the text only ones because there were so many of them and I didn't think Commons had any interest in those. I'd rather submit those to another project like Distributed Proofreaders. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few entire scanned books on Commons (though most of them are in German). I assume it is being used as a repository to then grab the content of these for other projects. As I understand it, that is one of the acceptable uses of Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 15:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I might upload the full books as DJVU files instead. I'd feel more comfortable with that. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:DcoetzeeBot

Congratulations! It has bot status now. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I haven't been running it a lot lately because my network connection at home has been really unstable which makes it do weird things - but I'll get it back up soon. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback on CC0 Waiver

Hi Dcoetzee, I just wanted to say thanks for your feedback on the CC0 Waiver. We've updated the waiver deed with yours and others suggestions (that attribution is not required and use of CC0 works does not imply endorsement). You can see the new language on the waiver here. Thanks again! Fred (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I like the changes. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio detection

Hi Derrick, I remember your question once at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009May#Designing a bot for copyvio detection. I have another Idea, not so interesting for your from the developing site because it is a merely technical approach to check user uploads. It would be extremly useful to have a tool just like the Gallery that creates a sortable table of all useruploads. I think of:

Filename	Date of upload	Infotemplate	Source	Author	Date	EXIF	Camera	Date of creation	Δ EXIF/Date	Δ EXIF/upload
own.jpg	2009-01-03	Y	Own	User	2009-01-01	Y	Coolpix	2009-01-01	0 days	2 days
flickr.jpg	2009-01-03	Y	Flickr	Flickruser	2007-07-07	Y	Canon EOS 350D	2007-07-07	0 days	2 days
copy.jpg	2009-01-03	Y	Flickr	Flickruser	2008-12-01	Y	Nikon D200	2007-07-07	33 days	546 days
websize.jpg	2009-01-03	Y	Own	User	2009-01-03	N
own2.jpg	2009-01-20	Y	Own	User	2009-01-17	Y	Coolpix	2009-01-17	0 days	3 days

A table like this would help to make it much easier to check uploads by cameras e.g., somthing that is done manually at the moment. Given a larger number of uploads the date differences show how likely something is own work. Somthing that was, according to EXIF, created the day befor upload is most likely correct. Given a short upload time for one camera and a long for others helps to separate the correct tagged images from copyrigth violations. The difference between the EXIF date and the written date gives additional information about the accuracy. I realy missed a table like this in cases of e.g. User:Trowa Barton (w:fr:Le Mans), User:Diego quintana88 (w:es:Mariano Roque Alonso (Ciudad), User:Fernandoespañol (w:es:Palencia), User:Eduardosalles (w:pt:São Miguel do Oeste) and many others. Sometimes I collect the data from EXIF to not delete the wrong files, but doing this by hand takes long and is not fail-safe. --Martin H. (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Query

Dear Dcoetzee,

I am emailing from a documentary company in England called Parthenon Entertainment and we would love to use the following image within our documentary series entitled Mystery Files.

Vesuvius erupting at Night by William Marlow.jpg

We were wondering if you own the copyright to this image as we would like to use it within our documentary for the rights for worlwide, all media and for perpetuity.

If you can email me at: emily.rudge@parthenonentertainment.com or call me on 01923 286 886 that would be great!

Many thanks,

Emily.

Responded by e-mail. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File Tagging File:53 daenarys.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:53 daenarys.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Sv1xv (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:53 daenarys.jpg

Pay attention to copyright

File:53 daenarys.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. For images, you may find Commons:Image casebook useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

--Sv1xv (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that you are not the original uploader, but you might want to know about it. Sv1xv (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image question

Do you know how to save high resolution images from amazon.com? They have a zoom feature similar to that thing you got round. example here. Thank you.--Hbridges (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This can be reverse engineered, but most images at Amazon are copyrighted. If you can identify a specific one that's public domain I may be able to help. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Promo images like http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B002ACPIS0/sr=8-9/qid=1258569897/.--Hbridges (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Any recent (1978 or later) photo used for advertising is not public domain, unless explicitly released under a free license, which is very rare. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

They are promotional shots manufacturers have distributed to retailers to use.--Hbridges (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Images uploaded to Commons have to be free for any use, not just for limited retailer use. These images are not licensed for this type of use. See Commons:Licensing. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I was going to put them on my home page.--Hbridges (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you mean your user page, you're still not permitted to do that (at least, English Wikipedia policy forbids non-free content on user pages). If you mean your own website, I'm not going to help you with that. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not?--Hbridges (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm busy and if I don't have time to do personal favours for you. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)