User talk:Fastily

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

Deleted archive with discussions[edit]

You have deleted Template talk:NGruev. It was an archive of a few discussions referenced from various pages. Please restore the deleted archive with the full history. If there is a rule there shouldn't be orphaned talk pages, please restore the page and move it to my userspace, eg. User:5ko/Template talk NGruev. Thanks. --5ko 08:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, done -FASTILY 04:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. When you have the time, could you be so kind to also restore the edit history? This way we can see who wrote which part. Thanks again. --5ko 16:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Done -FASTILY 20:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Navruz Kyrgyzstan-2010 (6).JPG[edit]

Это мой собственный фото какой лицензия вы спращивают.--Mirzoulug'bek 18:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi you need to specify a license tag in the file description page for every image you upload. -FASTILY 04:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

RMC Flag[edit]

First, I know you're busy, but you still have not offered a justification behind your reasoning with regards to our previous conversation. To recap, I outlined over 20 reliable sources stating that the image falls under copyright along with primary and secondary sources explaining the legal justification on how the government can legally claim copyright under domestic, U.S., and international copyright law, where another user offered no sources in return showing public domain. To this you responded that there were 'no reasons or sources to show that the file is not in the public domain'.

Second, Section 291 of the National Defence Act shows that commercial use by someone of any "badge or insignia in use in the Canadian Forces" could be held "guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction". This along with DND/CAF Crown Copyright, commercial-use is not authorised for Crown copyrighted items unless specifically accorded, and even if permission for commercial use is given, "You agree to credit the source of the Crown copyright protected Work held by DND/CAF in the following manner: © All rights reserved. (Title of Crown copyright protected work) reproduced with the permission of DND/CAF (year permission granted)". Even CC BY-NC-SA licences are not allowed for use here according to COM:Licencing.

Third, the author insufficiently referenced the source material, saying "Image of the crest traced from [1]", where [1] is a webpage with a "©2014 Royal Military Colleges Club of Canada" copyright disclaimer. This is an admitted traced image, so is not even a derivative, but a copy of a copyrighted work.

So, on what basis are we saying that there is evidence explicitly showing this work to be in the public domain? And why is a reverse onus of proof being used here despite COM:DR? trackratte (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, first and foremost, just like you, I'm a deletionist. However, I just have not seen any valid statements/explanations from credible legal sources which dismiss the fact that the flag has fallen into the public domain. Copyright cannot be retroactively claimed over objects whose copyright has been expired, as evidenced by Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. In other words, if I were to take a picture of a 1000 year old coin and claim copyright over it, a court would undoubtedly rule against me. -FASTILY 20:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, ping for Fry1989 -FASTILY 20:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
My issue is that while I have acknowledged The Crown's claims and the questions that raises, Trackratte has completely dismissed the opposing concerns of the legality of that. Furthermore they are being POINTY, creating Commons:Canadian Crown Copyright and twice adding legal protections which are not related to copyright and therefore irrelevant to Commons' licensing requirements. Fry1989 eh? 20:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
@Trackratte: Wow, this is incredibly inappropriate. Yes, you're entitled to your own opinion, but if there is no support for your position, please drop the stick and refrain from disruptive, pointy behavior. Thanks, FASTILY 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect, and I know that when dealing with hundreds of issues per day you don't have the time to do in-depth research into obscure (and unless you're Canadian) and foreign aspects of copyright law (which is why I was trying to do the research and put it into a digestible, neutral, and sourced format). It seems to me that when exposed to well-sourced new information, instead of being met with any engagement to better the treatment of this particular subject, it has been met with simply denying the existence of any of the credible sources or arguments made, without any explanation beyond 'no evidence or arguments presented'.

First, the above is not COM:POINT. In no way have I engaged in disruptive activity, have not tried to discredit any rules or policies, have not satirically applied any policies to other pages, and have been engaging in discussion the entire time. My original speedy deletion request was made in good faith, since we had an explicit source stating that this image was under copyright, which is the sole requirement for a speedy deletion request. My addition of trademark templates are in line with COM:NCR. Other non-copyright restrictions should be posted "as a general public service", where these disclaimers are not relevant to Commons policies or to copyright more generally. Posting non-copyright restrictions (especially when sourced) are not disruptive. If you do not agree with allowing users the benefit of being aware of NCR then that is a separate issue (in this case being restrictions imposed by the Trademark Act, and the National Defence Act). The fact being that if someone were to take this specific image and use it for commercial purposes, they could face legal repercussions. I as a user/reuser would like to be aware of something like that rather than think it is simply released into the PD for any reason.

Second, I am not a "deletionist" per se, and I think I would have the most to lose in the removal of this image from Commons, as I was using it on my own page and on multiple pages throughout Wikipedia for which I think the image is useful (RMC article, John Matheson, Flag of Canada, RMC template, RMC user box, etc, etc). I personally would like this image to be freely in the public domain. I've written to the governing authority to release the image into the public domain, and the best I got was to the effect of "this image may be held under Crown copyright". The manual governing the use of military flags in Canada says that all flags in use are copyrighted. The experts say that this is legally possible. I have engaged with Fry in an attempt to reconcile our outlook on this very specific and rare point of Canadian Crown Copyright and how we apply it to these types of very specific and rare instances. If you read the draft essay (COM:CCC), it outlines all of the relevant and credible legal, expert, academic, and official sources. I was working on it to make it suitable before soliciting any wider input. The eventual goal being a easily digestible consolidation of the relevant credible sources. I would appreciate input on improving something like that, and working in good faith with people, rather than an unexplained mass delete with no warning.

Third, you say that you have 'not seen any credible legal sources which dismiss the fact that the flag has fallen into the public domain". What source are there that explicitly show that the image ever fell into the public domain? The sourced 367 page manual states that all Canadian military flags in use prior to 1967 are held under Copyright by the Department of National Defence, and that all flags currently in use are held under copyright by the Canadian Armed Forces. I then posted section 12 of the Copyright Act, along with 5 or 6 credible legal and academic sources explaining section 12 of the Copyright Act and how, in law, copyright can last beyond 50 years.

So we have an official document explicitly claiming copyright, with a host of legal and academic copyright experts explaining how this works. To this we have no evidence that the image has ever fallen into the public domain. So again, why is a reverse onus being used here for some inexplicable reason? And what explicit source are being used to come to the conclusion that all of the evidence presented is wrong? What explicit sources are being used to show that this image has fallen into the public domain? trackratte (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think I've made my reasons quite clear. You have thus far failed to provide a credible third party source (and no, the 'official' document which you keep referring to is wrong and not valid here) declaring the seal to be non-free content. You're right that I don't have time for this, and so I kindly ask that you not badger me until you have said evidence (which, frankly, I'm doubtful exists since you have failed to produce it thus far). Good day, FASTILY 05:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Crown Copyright[edit]

Please restore the Canadian Crown Copyright page. 1. It is a work in progress and was not given over for any community input. 2. It was never portrayed as a policy. There are numerous essays or commons topics which are not official policy, and you have not deleted them. 3. Nothing in that page was unsourced (ie pure opinion). 4. If you don't want it published, at least afford the common courtesy of a 'this page may be deleted due to policy X' before simply removing everything. trackratte (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not, as you have portrayed this as an official, consensus-supported, policy/guideline of Commons when this is clearly not the case. If you wish, I can userify it for you. However, please do not move it to the Commons namespace until you have filed a formal RFC with community consensus supporting its legitimacy. -FASTILY 05:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Rename mistake[edit]

I hate this so much and you're going to hate me for asking, but can you please fix my renaming mistake with a few files. The Swedish Government was inconsistent on their website ([1] & [2]) which confused me and then I mixed it up by accident. By the time I realized it, I couldn't properly fix it because of redirects and the signs sharing the same names that already exist. The only other way is to overwrite the signs to match the numbers, but that is more messy in the long run.

Fry1989 eh? 02:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, done -FASTILY 05:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)