User talk:Jameslwoodward

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

1st half 2011
2nd half 2011
1st half 2012
2nd half 2012
1st half 2013
2nd half 2013
1st half 2014

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself. The original talk page is located at

My formal name is James L. Woodward, but I prefer to be called "Jim"

Bangladesh FoP[edit]

Thanks for your correction. My earlier change was based on the quote at Commons:Freedom of panorama#Bangladesh, which says that it's permitted to reproduce "a sculpture or other artistic work falling under section 36(c), if such work is permanently situated in public place or any premises to which the public has access". I don't know why but I must have overlooked the "falling under section 36(c)" bit. Does section 36(c) talk about architecture only? (The official English translation of the Copyright Act seems to be down; where did you get your quote from? If you have access to a different translation, perhaps you could look up the exemption for idols someone mentioned at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pratyya Ghosh‎.) —Psychonaut (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The quote is from the article about the Copyright Act linked in the preceding sentence -- it may not be authoritative, but since it is the only cite in the Bangladesh section, it may be all we have. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there is another, more authoritative citation. At Commons:Freedom of panorama#Bangladesh there's a translation of an excerpt of the actual text of the Copyright Act 2000. This is apparently from the official translation which was once hosted on the Government of Bangladesh Copyright Office's web page. The article you cite, on the other hand, is from a private law firm. The two texts differ in a couple of significant ways:
  1. The private summary doesn't explicitly mention that the artwork must be permanently installed in public, whereas the translation of the Act does. (The respective wordings are "kept in a public place" versus "permanently situated in public place or any premises to which the public has access".)
  2. The private summary says that the exemption applies to "an architectural work of art, or a sculpture", whereas the translation of the Act says it applies to ""a sculpture or other artistic work falling under section 36(c)". Unfortunately, the translation of 36(c) is not provided, so it's hard to know whether "architectural work of art" is synonymous with "artistic work falling under section 36(c)".
Given the differences I think we should generally give preference to the translation of the law itself. This would resolve the issue of whether or not the work must be permanently installed, but not the question of what types of artistic works other than sculptures are covered by freedom of panorama. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Now we've an admin from Bangladesh; so probaby NahidSultan can help. Jee 10:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the best thing would be to get a translation of 36(c), but, until that happens, I think we should remain with the more restrictive definition in the document I cited. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Huh? The definition you cited is less restrictive, not more restrictive, than the one from the Act, since yours doesn't require permanent installation. (Whether it's more or less restrictive regarding the types of artwork covered is unknown, since we don't yet know what §36(c) says.) In any case, hopefully NahidSultan will get the ping and stop by to enlighten us all. :) —Psychonaut (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I assume "permanent", as that is a feature of FOP almost everywhere, so its lack in the lawyer's summary is, I think, an oversight. For me, the only important difference is that the lawyer's summary clearly limits FOP to sculpture and architecture. Thus I said "more restrictive". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! According to Copyright act 2000 "Architectural Antiques, sculpture or other artistic work" falling under section 36(c) only if they are permanently located in a public place or any places to which the public has open access". You can find the translation of 36(c) on page 13 (linked above). According to translation (page 13), Subsection (b) covers "Architectural Antiques" & Subsection (c) covers "sculpture or other artistic work". Now in page 52 (linked above), section 36(c) also covers "carving". There is no such description about "idols" but i can assure you the same rules also apply for idols. "Architectural work of art" is synonymous with "artistic work" and they all falling under section 36(c). Hope this helps. Cheers! ~ Nahid Talk 12:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, now I'm really confused. The following are the usual categories for FOP

  • Architecture -- that is, the buildings themselves
  • Architectural models
  • Architectural drawings
  • Sculpture and other three dimensional works
  • Paintings and other two dimensional works
  • Text

In some laws there are subtle differences -- weaving, carving, bas-reliefs -- but those are the major groupings we usually consider. We know that architecture is covered by the FOP, but I'm not clear about anything else. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a bit confused as well, NahidSultan. You said that that we can find the translation of §36(c) on page 13 of some document that was "linked above", but I don't see links to anything in English. Could you post the link to the translation?
Also, regarding idols, this is actually a separate issue, but maybe you can help with that as well. Another Bangladeshi user informs us that according to the Copyright Act 2000, depictions of gods and goddesses are altogether uncopyrightable [1], regardless of where and how they're exhibited. Can you confirm at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pratyya Ghosh whether this is information is correct? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
FOP of Bangladesh is exactly the same as stated here. I've done some research about copyright act 2000 but didn't find more about three dimensional works. As far as i can see the Bengali text there isn't clear details about those types of works. Psychonaut, unfortunately i didn't find an english version but the good news is one of my friend promised me to provide one. As soon as i get the english documentation, i will let you know. I'm also told that gods and goddesses are under exception though didn't find such evidence on "2000 copyright act". But in general they are made only for the festival and eventually destroyed after the event. ~ Nahid Talk 19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The question remains, what works does section 36(c) describe? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Music / musical[edit]

Hello, I have a doubt. What's better in your opinion? Either Music duos or Musical duos? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 20:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I need a little more context. I assume you're naming a category. Is it for music that is in duet form -- written for two voices or two instruments? Or for people who are notable for singing duets? I would probably use "Musical" for the first and "Music" for the second, but I don't much like either. I might use "Musical pairs" for people and simply "Duets" for pieces of music sung or played by two people. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I would like to create separate categories by country and activity for celebrity duos like comedians, actors (like ie Laurel and Hardy), musicians (like ie Simon & Garfunkel); while for Simon & Garfunkel the problem could be solved considering them as "musical group" (incidentally composed by two)... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The idea is good, but I can't think of a title I really like. "Musical pairs" or "Musical duos" would probably be best. "Pairs" certainly goes better with other vocations, like comedian or acting (although only Lunt and Fontanne really come to mind there).

Jaguar Photos Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Hi Jim, last night I was searching for photos of Yasmin Le Bon. She is a fashion model but her profile pic is from last year's Mille Miglia challenge race. Per instructions from her social media assistant, I requested Ms. Le Bon provide photos for which she owns the copyright. I expect to receive those in a few days.

Meanwhile, I stumbled across several photos of Ms. Le Bon that had been posted via the Jaguar Flickr account. I spent about an hour sorting out the categories, removing some, adding some, correcting the others. This afternoon, I noticed that these had all been marked for deletion:

I would like to ask that you postpone deleting these images for a few days. The photos marked for deletion were taken by Jaguar (for Jaguar) during the 2013 Mille Miglia. Perhaps they didn't obtain the proper authorization when they were uploaded--is that the problem? If so, I will message Jaguar's media team. Once they follow the proper procedure, the photos could have the proper wikimedia authorization very quickly.

However, I won't waste my time if there is some other problem with the photos that makes them unacceptable per wiki guidelines.

Last, I created a media page for Yasmin Le Bon. I looked at other pages as my example and tried to follow wikipedia's instructions. I would appreciate your taking a look to see that I set it up correctly:

Thanks for your guidance regarding these questions.PatsySchmatsy (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

All of this should be discussed at the DRs, not here. The reason we DRs is so that the whole community can participate in discussions. Talking about them on my talk page is much less public.
The issue here is whether Jaguar has freely licensed the images. If the Flickr site is actually owned by Jaguar, then there is no problem. If it is a fan site, then it is what we call Flickrwashing, and the images cannot be kept without a license from Jaguar using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
Do I understand correctly that you work for Ms. Le Bon, directly or indirectly?
"Per instructions from her social media assistant..."
If that is the case, you have a conflict of interest, and should not be creating pages for her on Commons. You may upload properly licensed images, but, except for correcting errors, you may not create other content anywhere across WMF without clear disclosure and should not create new pages at all.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I started this conversation in the wrong place. This is my first encounter with a "DR" situation.
First, as far as the Jaguar flickr account, in spite of non-matching url's, it is the same flickr that is linked from the Jaguar website (top right):
here: and
Regarding my reference to Ms. Le Bon's assistant, I have NO relationship, direct or indirect, with either Ms. Le Bon or her assistant. I visited Ms. Le Bon's official Facebook page and her website in search of contact information. Her social media assistant responded to my inquiry. She stated she thought Ms. Le Bon would be able to provide me with a small number of her own modelling photos. Toward that goal, she gave me instructions on how to submit a photo request to Ms. Le Bon--which I have done. Have I violated the policy by attempting to contact Ms. Le Bon personally? I assure you I am an unpaid wiki volunteer just doing a little leg work to improve this particular article. If my work is going to be rejected by my ignorance of the rules, I will stop now--and not waste my or anyone else's time. Please clarify this for me. Thanks, PatsySchmatsy (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It sounds like you have done and are doing exactly the right thing -- independent of the notable person, put together a WP and Commons presence. Sorry for the misunderstanding -- keep up the good work.
I have withdrawn the four DRs -- in the future, keep in mind that reasons for keeping or deleting images need to go in the DRs, not on the talk page of the nominator. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on both of these matters, Jim. I hope I don't encounter any or DR's but if I do, I will remember your advice. I appreciate that there are volunteers like you helping wiki-newbies like me. Best, PatsySchmatsy (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Move page[edit]

Can you please move the page Commins:निर्वाचित चित्र उम्मीदवार on Commons:निर्वाचित चित्र उम्मीदवार. You are right that I wrote the wrong spelling while creating this page.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg It's gluten free and sugar free--the perfect THANK YOU for your patience in working with volunteers (like me) stumbling our way through the wiki process. PatsySchmatsy (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

File check?[edit]

Hi Jim! I received a note (on talk page) from a confused user who uploaded File:168 RCAF Squadron Crest manufactured by Crest Craft of Saskatoon, circa 1944..jpg in good faith only to run up against having his own tag removed and the image ended up "no source". So he contacted me and asked for help. I have worked on that file template a bit today. I retained all the other material within a <!-- comment section -->. Of course the file history retains all, but this made it easier to read. Please let me know if I have the correct information; the uploader says he has a large collection of this material that he wishes to contribute to the project and I do not want to tell him, "do it like this", until I am certain that I got it correctly! Thanking you again for all your assistance!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

My reading of it is that there are three copyrights here:
  • the photograph -- no problem, our uploader has given a license
  • the crest itself as an abstract creation -- no problem, the Crown Copyright has expired
  • the manufactured crest
The latter is a problem. Our rule is that individual realizations of Coats of Arms have a copyright. I would suggest that you take this to a DR and see what the community thinks. I would delete it myself, assuming we cannot get a license from the manufacturer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Manufacturer was held privately by Gustav Werle until 1967. I cannot find a death date for Mr. Werle, nor any other information on him besides the following from this site: "I was in Saskatoon last Spring and decided to drop in at the library to see what information they had on Crest Craft. Here's what I found. Gustav Werle, the founder of the company, moved to Saskatoon from Langenburg, SK as a boy so he could attend high school. One of the things he had done to pass the time on long winter nights on the farm was learn how to use his mother's sewing machine. In Saskatoon he parlayed this skill into spending money by making crests for his school mates. Crest Craft was begun in 1931 and "Gus" was also a member of the RCAF Reserve. When WWII came about, he was too old to join, but he had military contacts across Canada, which is why his crests turn up from coast to coast. One story is that Gus's friend in Gander, Newfoundland was making such good money on his sales commissions that he was the only man ever to refuse a transfer back to Canada. Werle kept the business until 1967, but Crest Craft didn't survive the 1980's." I found dozens of his creations on their Library database. But again no information on Mr. Werle, his heirs or what became of the company. The other consideration of "Take this to DR" is the roasting I just got for another of this type, trying to get a solution to the problem - not merely delete the image. Another consideration is that we have a few dozen (not zillions) of other WWII Canadian Patches in various categories; their licenses are also a mess. I will contact the user with your comments and see if he has any more information on the company or Mr. Werle or his heirs (assuming he has deceased, which seems a fair assumption if he was too old to serve in WWII). I will then wait and see if he can provide more info before going to DN with it and about 55 others of the same ilk. Are we totally sure the Crown Copyright doesn't cover the crest itself as well as the design?? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is fair to assume that Werle is dead -- he founded CrestCraft in 1931 -- even at age 18, he would have been born in 1913, hence 101 now -- possibly alive, but not likely. More to the point is tht we know that he died after 1967, so the copyright will last a long time from now.
No, I'm not totally sure of what I said above. There's no Canadian case law that I know of that's on point, so who knows what a Canadian court would do with it? Our policy, though, is clear to me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Via email from uploader; Mr. Werle's daughter is alive. A suggestion to OTRS the Crest Craft products was sent to the uploader who will send it to the crest collector who is in contact with Mr. Werle's daughter and see if she will OTRS all, some or none of her father's designs. If approved, then the entire Crest Craft line of Canadian military patches, as well as his other embroideries (or not depending on how she fills out the form) would be available for upload to the project. It is of course holidays all over this week, Canada Day and Fourth of July, so this may move more slowly, but it is moving. I assured the uploader that this is only a process and one which I hope turns out OTRS'd and solved. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


Dear Jim. What are we going to do with the images that still transclude this template and do no longer have a licence box now? --Krd 12:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I assume that Nevit will do something -- either put an acceptable license on the images, or file an UnDR on the template. I wouldn't do anything until a little time passes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I just wonder how this will be tracked. The files either have technically "no license", or the template should be replaced with the licence that was in the template. If nothing is done now, how will this pop up later? --Krd 13:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I think (but I'm not certain) that a bot will pick up the no license. Times like this, I wish WMF had a good mechanism for keeping track of things that need followup. Every now and then, I think about starting a follow up list, but there is always too much to do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I personally don't like that tag much (just see in a file page that is not purged so far); but disagree with deleting license tag without a wider community discussion. See m:User_talk:LuisV_(WMF)#Attribution. Even LuisV_(WMF) stated "interpreting the license obligations for the public is also tricky for us". I don't know how you neglect "Note: To clarify, if any of the above explanations seem to contradict the official CC license, official license is valid for legal disputes." Jee 13:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
There is a certain irony in saying to you, Jee, that many (most?) of our users are not native English speakers. The CC license is available in many languages. User tags that have extra language in English simply make it less likely that the image will be used off-WMF. The tags do a disservice to our goal of being a source of freely licensed images. Whether the lack of clarity is inadvertent or deliberate, it has the same effect and I see no reason why we should allow them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Please participate in the VPC discussion for the new license tag. The current tag is horrible and only encourage piracy. See my comment on improving Commons at AN. Even the WMF staff are careless in providing attribution, and we need to fix them. (This is a quick; comment; I will explain later.) Smile Jee 14:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Jim, you stated that "I see no reason why we should allow them." But I think you know we've a lot of such tags. Even WMF staff use them. I think most GLAM uploaders are using custom tags to identify/highlight such firms. The only difference I see is they are much brief compared to individual user tags. And it seems German users are preferring more user tags. See the one used here. It seems very professional, and I see anything wrong. It well explains the requirements than our generic tags. So I repeat: either we must improve the generic tags, or we should be more generous to those who create them themselves. Jee 15:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your example is actually an excellent example for me -- it requires that the attribution be in the caption.

" as long as the author is mentioned in the following form in the caption or for printed products in the image credits:"

Therefore, if you follow his rules, you cannot use any of his images on WP. It also requires a link to the Commons source page.

"When used in online media in addition to the aforementioned copyright and license specifying a reference (link) is also to be set to the original image - so this page with descriptions and license conditions."

Ignoring the "so" which I think should be "to", we have another requirement that is not in the CC license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It is CC BY-SA 4.0; so "link to source" and "Modifications have to be declared as such" are part of that license. I don't know what he meant by "caption". They are not native English speakers and I can found 100+ such tags in Commons. So you are going to delete them, one by one? Could you check and comment on my tag first? I'm happy to make any change if needed. :) Jee 16:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the link to source, question. Thank you for adding to my on-going education.
The "caption" is the image description which goes under a thumbnail on almost all WP images. It is against WP:EN policy (and probably most others as well) to put attributions in image captions unless there are special circumstances. Requiring attribution in the caption therefore makes it impossible to put the image on WP:EN. Your version follows the license -- "reasonable to the medium" -- while he demands a specific location, a demand that the license does not allow. Yours looks fine.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my tag. I personally prefer no additional restrictions; but sympathize with users who try to defend themselves from copyright abuses. Many of them are high quality contributors I frequently meet at COM:FPC. So my opinion is to educate them first instead of handling through DRs. Do you have any idea to make a discussion on it? (Pinging XRay for bringing his attention for his license tag.) Jee 05:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is my attention. ;-) Sorry, I didn't follow the discussion. What's wrong with my meta information and the licence? I'm using my own templates for permission and attribution within the information template. So it is much easier to update the information for hundreds of images. (May be necessary if something is wrong.) The permission field is especially necessary for the Media Viewer, otherwise no detailed licence information is shown. Both should be compliant with the Creative Commons licences and doesn't add any additional conditions, but it should emphasize the use of the licence too.
In the beginnig it was hard to put all the informations to the image. There are too many ways to do it. There was no good explanation how to do it or is wasn't easy to find this explanations. So I had a look to other users and chose a similar way. --XRay talk 06:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@XRay: Jim suggested that "as long as the author is mentioned in the following form in the caption" is a restriction against CC's stand "You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." Everything else seems OK. Jee 06:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your information. I'll update my text.--XRay talk 06:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't for a minute propose going on a crusade against license templates. It's funny. at User_talk:Ellin_Beltz#Couldn.27t_we_just_ask_for_description_to_be_added we are having a discussion about a different name for "Deletion Request", to emphasize that what is needed is a discussion, which, to be sure, might end up in a deletion, but also might end up with a change. THat would certainly apply in cases like this.

I had intended, when this discussion ended, to post a polite note on XRay's talk page suggesting a change to the template. Anyone who gives us wonderful images such as that of the cathedral deserves at least that much consideration from the community. Jee's explanation is good -- I hope that you (XRay) understand that the WP method of providing attribution by linking thumbnails to the image page is both permitted by the CC license and not permitted by your template. Therefore your template actually prohibits use on WP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes; DRs need to be much friendly. Today morning I noticed Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)'s angry comment on Fastily's talk page. I've no wonder as I can see 27 warnings on his talk page stating Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. :)
I think some parallel discussions are going on German and other language VPs about Media Viewer and its effects. See Such bugs are very frustrating and many people are showing very disappointment. Another thing as XRay stated above is Media Viewer only show license tag if it is inside {{Information}}. It do not care tags outside it. There are many such things we need to update to satisfy our contributors. :) Jee 12:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Stefan4: Do you read this? It is not very simple, especially in case of third party uploads. Jee 17:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Does the document User:Jkadavoor linked to state that someone violated the attribution requirement for File:1986 Ulf Fink 800.jpg because he linked to the file information page on Wikipedia (de:File:1986 Ulf Fink 800.jpg) instead of a file information page on the defendant's server? Looks like an interesting case. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Waved Albatross in flight by Roar Johansen.jpg was closed incorrectly. The requirement:
"All usage must display the phrase "Photo: Roar Johansen" in the immediate vicinity of the image."
is, as I said above, contrary to both WP:EN policy and to the CC-BY license. That requirement may be why the otherwise excellent image hasn't received wider use. I note that he violates his own requirement on User:Roarjo..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The copyright holder can of course use his copyrighted photograph in any way he wants (for example on his user page), with or without attribution. On the other hand, this makes it impossible for reusers to use the user page without first modifying it. Maybe the user page should be nominated for deletion as unfree (in its current condition) for this reason. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. We could have fun debating this one. I take the position that while Roarjo added it to the page, every edit becomes the responsibility of the whole community, and, therefore, the community is violating Roarjo's license by allowing it to stay as it is. However, as I said above, I don't think we should approach these with DRs, but with polite notes on talk pages. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I would say that by submitting that revision of his user page, he consented to that revision of the user page, so the current revision doesn't seem to be a problem as long as it remains on Commons. It may not be possible for other users to modify the user page without at the same time changing the attribution, without explicit permission from the owner of the user page. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Nothing prevent us from deleting a user's files if the community think his requirements are too demanding. We need not bothered about whether or not his terms are against the license. But we need consensus; we didn't have it it that previous DR. So I think INC's closing is correct. The result may different if we try again now. Jee 02:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Only CC 4.0 licenses explicitly allow to provide attribution in a linked page ("it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information."). In all other versions, CC only said "You may satisfy the conditions in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material". I had discussed this with the CC Communication Manager earlier. He said CC intended to allow the way Wikimedia operates. But they can't change the wordings in previous versions of license; only court can decide whether it is acceptable or not. May be this is the reason why CC updated this point in 4.0.
In the above judgement, the judge clearly states that whether a user allow his work to be used without proper attribution in one place is not a permission to others. Everybody who doesn't have an explicit permission from that user must follow the license terms.
This may not be a problem if the contributor is a Wikimedian as out ToU 7d allow us some additional permissions: "and also comply with the requirements of the specific Project edition or feature to which you are contributing." But we have a lot of third party uploads and I don't think we win in court if a Flickr user or a similar external user has a complaint.
Anyway I forward it to LuisV (WMF) and waiting for his response. Jee 02:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
This is the best legal advice I found in the web. It advises "attribution" under photo "preferred"; "at the end of the post" "good". Not even mention as "attribute through link" as an option. Jee 03:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes but -- if you look at the print analogy, there is a long history of allowing attributions to be collected at the beginning or end of the book and not put under each illustration. And, the fact that WP -- one of the largest users of CC licenses of all versions -- uses attributions through a link would tend to influence a court to conclude that it was OK. That's even more true for longer attributions such as your own -- I would not want to have to put that under every image in a gallery along with a descriptive caption (I know you don;t require it, but I use it as an example of a long credit.)
What you are suggesting is that every pre CC-4.0 image must either be relicensed or credited on every WP page. That's not going to happen.
Back to Johansen -- his requirement makes use in galleries much more difficult - I have just removed his images from Commons galleries where no credit was given. What about categories? Strictly speaking, including the bird image in any category violates the license because on the category page it appears without the required words "Photo: Roar Johansen", although his name is in the image name for all four of his Commons images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
(First, I would like to say I don't want credits near the image. My only interest in these discussions is to find and stay inline with the legal point of view.)
I think Johansen's works can be deleted as they too restrictive to even our own use, even if they may satisfy the license terms. So there is no need to argue further. But what we will do if people setup separate conditions for off wiki uses? See User:Martin_Kraft/Licence. Here he needs "Legible name of the author close to the image" for "usage outside of Wikipedia". Jee 09:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we cannot allow that. Most of my life was spent without the Internet and a part of my business background is in the printing industry, so I am, perhaps, more conscious of its needs than most Web dwellers. There is, as I said above, a long history of collecting credits on one page. Some of this is convenience -- it was easier to do pre computer. Part of it is esthetic -- credits are not necessary to the flow of the work. A page with a double page full bleed image has no place for a credit and even the customary caption location on the preceding or following page is not "close to the image", so that restriction makes it impossible to use such images in some print uses. Any different requirement for off-WMF would make use impossible on WP repackagers, of which there are many. Since they tend to get our word out to a wider audience, I'm in favor of them and would be reluctant to allow restrictions on their work, much of which is automatic. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
This seems a bit more neutral. Further only "prefer"; not "must". Anyway I think a wider community education is needed for this matter. :)
Why attribution is "preferred" under the photo? Because it guarantee the viewer see the credits. Why attribution at the bottom of page is "good"? Because still chances that the viewer see the credits. Why a link is not advised? Because we have no guarantee that the viewer click on an image (as court commented in their judgement).
One suggestion: Currently our Wikipedia articles have a brief note on the page footer: "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply." What about improving it to "Images are available under a variety of licenses. Click on each image to see attribution and license requirements for reuse." Now nowhere it is mentioned that attribution/credits are available on click. Jee 10:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You and I see attribution differently. I think, that for almost all readers, the attribution is simply clutter that they don't want or need to see. The only time I look at a credit is if I really like an image and would like to see more from the same photographer. And note that I say that as someone who from time to time has made his living as a photographer and who has contributed about 500 images to Commons. I don't care if the average reader knows that Jameslwoodward took the picture -- I only care that someone who wants more of my work knows where to find it.
Given my attitude, I think that providing complete attribution under a link, as WMF and many other web sites do, is just fine. Note, too, that it is consistent with the long standing print practice of not putting credits in the caption. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In many countries, copyright law includes moral rights which require attribution in many situations. I suspect that a court sometimes might look at the moral right attribution requirement, which may use a wording similar to that in the CC licence. For example, article 3 of the Swedish copyright act tells that "the author should be attributed to the extent and in the manner which good manners require" ([...] skall upphovsmannen angivas i den omfattning och på det sätt god sed kräver). A court might decide that CC-BY-SA 3.0 requires in the same way as article 3 of the copyright law, except (presumably) cases where article 3 doesn't require attribution. For example, article 3 typically doesn't require attribution in advertisements, but CC-BY-SA 3.0 always requires attribution, including when an image is used in an advertisement. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not all suggesting that we can do without attributions -- just pointing out that a there is a long history of not having them in a caption immediately adjacent to the illustration. Although we have certainly seen some strange court decisions, it is hard to imagine a court ignoring that history and requiring that images have watermarks (in the case of full bleed double page printing) or long attribution lines in the caption. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jim for sharing your view. I too have a similar view, and you can see my images widely used outside WMF projects with or without proper attribution that I don't care. But our view points are irrelevant if the courts see it in a different way. Hope WMF legal will look into this matter seriously. Jee 15:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In point 7 (d) of the terms of use, Wikimedia contributors agree that a link is sufficient attribution for text. Unfortunately, this point only mentions text, not images. It also doesn't apply to text imported from elsewhere (although there probably isn't too much of such text), and probably not to text contributed to Wikimedia projects before the point was added to the terms of use.
User:Martin Kraft/Licence: Is there a limitation so that images with this tag only can be used in online and print media, or do the attribution restrictions only apply to online and print media, whereas for example television broadcasts only need to satisfy the attribution requirements given in the licence specified?
I started a similar discussion about attribution some time ago at w:Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#Proposed change to Copying from other Wikimedia Projects section, and User:Moonriddengirl (in her WMF position) talked about contacting the legal team, but I don't know if this ever happened. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for info - I have restored the page with the standard license supported by uploader. His last change before deletion mentioned to use the standard license in case of legal questions/problems. --Denniss (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please contact Martin Kraft and ask for toning down the requirement to place the attribution next to the image, if he doesn't change it we have to delete all his images that were uploaded with this incompatible license add-on. See User:Heinz-Josef Lücking/Creative Commons by-sa-3.0 de as bad example where the user refused to do so and many images had to be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Pinging Martin Kraft for attention. Jee 15:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Without reading the full discussion yet: @Stefan4, Jkadavoor, Denniss: All I am doing with my user template (which will be fully moved to User:Martin Kraft/permission soon) is to clarify the rules of CC BY-SA for the users. Many of them are simply unable to cope with the abstract information provided on the regular licence-pages. And I think it's better to provide a clear do this and that instead of letting them run into trouble or provoking CopyVios?! I'm not trying to overrule any of the licences terms and conditions, but to provide a kind of best practice applying them. So, what's wrong with that? P.S.: I know my template is far from perfect, but I just haven't had the time for a revision yet. --Martin Kraft (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Martin Kraft: "Legible name of the author close to the image" has a "must to be" tone. Changing it to "Legible name of the author, preferably close to the image" may be enough. Jee 09:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: I just edited the page. I hope it's ok now?! --Martin Kraft (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Martin Kraft: In print media also (English), remove "close to the image" Jee 11:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What a thread! I would like to give you some information from a user perspective, even though I actually do not follow this discussion. But it may be helpful for your discussion. I'm starting uploading images 2 years ago. It was hard to find the way how to upload images. The uploading wizard is useful but it's not satisfying my requirements. (I am looking until today for a good upload tool with a template for the description page and working with more than 20 images and the ability the upload to pause and resume.) So I added additional informations to my images. That was a good way for only a few images. Every time I found another useful page on Commons I had to modify all my pages. That's not the way for a lot of images. So I chose the way with my own templates like others do it. So it was possible to modify informations only by modifying the template. IMO it is not a really good way to do this with user templates but it's the only way I found. Today I'm using the user templates and a bot for checking and modifying the description page of my images.
From a user perspective it is very difficult to find a very good way for the description page. IMO it is necessary to add hints for contacting the author via mail or to give a hint for a voucher copy. And it is good to have a structured easy to read description page. Some description pages are not structured and it is not easy to see the license information or the way how to use it. I found some pages on Commons with useful information how to use the attribution. So a link to this page is a good way for all users. And some aspects are confusing. What to do with the license details? There is the permission field of the (preferred) information template and there is a license section on the page. IMO the best way was a short information in the permission field with a link to the license section containig all licence informations and FoP and so on. (The short information should, no, must be compliant with the license. If it isn't, I can modify it.) It is necessary to give all the users this information on the description page. They are searching for images with an external search engine and the first page they see is the page with the image. The important information has to be seen at the top of the description page - at best without scrolling. The whole license term is too long for the permission field.
Today it's a little bit easier to use Commons but there are a lot of written and unwritten rules. It is not easy to find a way through the jungle. I got a many hints from other users, do this or don't do this - the unwritten or hidden rules. For example: Where I can find a hint what is allowed in templates? And once a day there is a Media Viewer. The Media Viewer supports copying an image without complying with the licence rules. Important informations like FoP or trademarks are missing. And the permission field of the information template becomes very important. These are all problems of a user.
(And sorry for my bumpy englisch.) Hopefully my explanations are helpful. You are experts using Commons and using the licenses. For a new user it is very difficult if he would like to respect all the rules. And: I really like Commons. A good place for publishing images with a good licence. And I hope my description pages are exemplary for other users. (And thanks to all the friendly and helpful people.) :-) --XRay talk 15:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks XRay for your valuable feedback. Yes; this is a fascinating project. But it is our responsibility to work together to make it more beautiful. I started a discussion here. Please read and make your suggestions there. Jee 15:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you from me also. I have uploaded about 500 images and although the tools have gotten better, I still find it a nuisance to get the categories I want.
I think the key to all the written and unwritten rules is to ask questions. While a few of our experienced editors tend to blow off questions, most of us (and I include myself in this) try hard to be helpful to people who honestly want to improve Commons and their work on it. We've also tried hard to write understandable explanations of things like FOP, but copyright is a complicated subject in any one country and we're dealing with 100+.
I confess that I don't really understand the need for custom license templates. My assumption is that when I put an image up on Commons, most off-WMF users will respect the license and that a few will not. Several of my images are in use on non-WMF web sites without attribution. If a simple e-mail asking them to follow the terms of the license doesn't fix the problem, I shrug. It's not worth the trouble to straighten them out. I could write a license with a lot of warnings, such as Jee's or Xray's, but people who are going to disobey the license won't be changed by that. And, as I said above, I say that as someone who has, in the past, made his living as a photographer.
And, by the way, there's no reason at all to apologize for your "bumpy englisch", which isn't bumpy at all, although it is misspelled ;-)
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Marking_your_works to notify our photographers. Jee 03:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Kocsis Sándor.jpg[edit]

Hello James. Thanks for processing the deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MÁV 470 010-4 Aranycsapat.jpg. I just wanted to let you know that you might have forgotten to delete File:Kocsis Sándor.jpg, which was co-nominated. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It appears that this filename is in use again. Is this the same image you deleted a few days ago? Green Giant (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
No, but. The one deleted was one face from the side of the tram. This image is a photograph, but the source site is NC. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Guidance please[edit]

What to do with an image like this? The OTRS ticket box hasn't a number, the source page on flickr looks like a collection not user's own work and etc. I went bugeyed trying to figure this out. 2), what about [ this gallery}? 3) and what about this one where it seems that there's a living artist painting a picture, works by other artists labeled "own work" by user, etc. My head swirls. It's probably still after effect from the surgery and I'm going to log off now. Back in the morning. Thanks for your help! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Oliver Trevena headshot1.jpg: It seems a vandalism by Kittymccaffery. I doubt such OTRS is permitted (which was for the first image). Both images available at [2] and [3] though. Jee 03:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It needs some attention. Jee 02:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi. I am dedox, "owner" of the account talcobiz. My full name is Marco De Donà, live in Milano, Italy. Eronda is the art name of my father Mario dead in 2009. On behalf of the family I have created a page on Wiky Italy (and a short bio on Since he was a graphic-designer I thought obvious to insert pics of his wiork in Commons. I am the legal heir, but could not find any flag to declare that. I stress that I did not violate any copyright and accept any suggestion to make proper declaration in uploading further pics of my father work. I'll be happy to answer any other question. Thanks, Marco De Donà, deodx.

Seen your last message: it is quite complicated to me. Let me time to try to understand and learn what to to. dedox

You need to send a formal license for all the images and basically set forth what you say above. The procedure is at Commons:OTRS. Be sure to list all the images which you wish to license.
Note that I put a DR on File:Eronda ExLibrisAbis.JPG, which is your father's work, but which you did not upload. If you want to license that as well, you must include it in the OTRS e-mail.
There is a backlog at OTRS, but if you put a note here after you have sent the e-mail, I will deal with it. If you have any questions, please ask -- I know it is a nuisance, put our policy is to protect copyrights. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks: I will comply with it, and agree that inspite of beeing a nuisance, "our policy is to protect copyrights!

Dear James: I am driving crazy, procedure are too much for my strenth!!! I have wrote,but no answer, how can I continue my contribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talcobiz (talk • contribs) 11:43, 11 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Have you sent the e-mail to OTRS? As I told you above, they have a backlog, but I can deal with it if you tell me after you send the e-mail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi James. Update: I eventually got a tutor in italian and keep learning. I just uploaded a picture I shot myself. I followed the procedure hopefully correctly. In case of mistake pls correct me before deleting. Thanks. PS: my tutor is Syrio. dedox--Talcobiz (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of File:Thums up.jpg[edit]

Hi Jim,

You recently deleted File:Thums up.jpg. However, I do not believe the logo meets the threshold of originality as it is a simple "thumbs up," a common and general gesture meaning "good," and indeed is similar to this case: [[4]]. --Holdek (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand ToO. A painting of a hand will have a copyright. There is no reason why a drawing of a thumb does not also have a copyright -- it may be a common gesture, but it is still a drawing of a part of the human body.

Aside from that, as I said in the DR, it is also to small to be much use anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ek Hi Raasta (Original).jpg[edit]

Why should "1956 photographs [be] out of copyright"?    FDMS  4   

Because that is the law in India for images created before 1958, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory_-_full#India. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Backside of Beachgoer possible Socks[edit]

Greetings Jim: I hope you had a good holiday. I was pinged by a Wikipedia editor to read this on his talk page [5]. I see the possibility of some socking as well as the "game" of "can I get my buem into Wiki"... See [6] etc. It looks like Binkster is on it, but I thought you might like to see it because there might be more to take out/find/etc. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Uploader's blog is here where he discusses the various user names and his intent to continue uploading these types of images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment One more user to look into [7] as he claims to upload images by David Horwitz and the username fits the style of the others. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you want to do -- these are all old, so Checkuser won't work. It has a ninety day limit. He may have done more, but unless they show up as unused personal images, I'm not sure what we can do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Just keep your eyes out, with his modus operendi he will be back. Or maybe his back will be back... Face-smile.svg Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim: The sock is definately back with multiple new accounts. I made a sortable chart User:Ellin Beltz/Sock Drawer to show the real extent of the problem. Formerly lists were kept on Com and en:W but no cross checking. Perhaps the June 2014 users are new enough to search out? Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

After I made two corrections to your list (changed Undoingpropertee Commons date to 2012 and marked Followingfollowing as blocked - by Denniss 7/12/14) I see no user on the list with a 2014 edit who is not blocked. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, there was a complaint about the list in my userspace - despite not being linked to any other page but my own "review these", so I removed it. I am not up to speed on how the check user works, but I know you said they had to be more recent, so I pointed it out. Thank you for going through it, that was great. I was going crosseyed from all those names, dates and events. Now, back to the images without a source, "Men of Canada" series that the bots dumped in 2,000 more images "no source" even though the source is now clearly stated in the description instead of in the source. 2,000 edits all from same book, same en:w bot transfer just making more work for everyone and complaints about pages in user space. Sometimes I think INC has the right idea. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to learn to use AWB or perhaps VFC will do it. I know that AWB would do it, but it takes about ten seconds per image -- something over five hours of dull work for 2,000 images. I don't know VFC well at all, but I think it might do it automatically. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ægypten kort.jpg[edit]


I see that "Uploader is different from copyright holder". Can you tell me who the copyright holder is, so I can assist User:Ziff in getting the necessary permissions? TIA, --Palnatoke (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The file description says:
source=Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, København
author=Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, København
so presumably the copyright holder is the author. Since Ziff wrote the description, he already knows that.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
She certainly does. She works there. --Palnatoke (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
That may be, but it doesn't tell us anything about whether she has the authority to freely license this map. In order to restore it, we will need a free license from the copyright holder using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Dear James, you removed a picture of me of a Belgian Beer. I see no reason why, but you have to be consequent. If you remove this one, you have to remove my other ca. 800 pictures of Belgian beers for the same reason. I will nominate them all for deletion, I do not wish to contribute anymore for Commons because there is no logical explication for your action. Kindest Regards --DirkVE (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You should read the section on product packaging which was linked in the DR. Your image clearly infringes on the copyrighted work on the bottle label. It is probably true that there are many more similar images that should be deleted.

However, if you simply nominate all of your images for deletion without considering them on a case by case basis, I, or one of my colleagues, will almost certainly close the DR as a keep. 800 image DRs are not manageable. If you make such a nomination simply out of anger, you may also be blocked from editing on Commons..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so, I'll just nominate the ones who have the same contents as the one deleted. Kindest regards --DirkVE (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
THat would be good, thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BeatR7[edit]

Hi Jim, thanks for closing Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BeatR7. You kept quite a few of the images, however you probably forgot to change the file description pages to correctly reflect the copyright status. Right now they are all tagged as own work and CC-by-sa by the uploader which is very unlikely true. Would you mind adjusting the information? Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the amount of work that Admins have to do every day, I don't view post closing cleanup as part of the job of the closing Admin. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim, then whose work is it? The files clearly have insufficient information to determine the copyright status but you decided to keep them. IMHO either the copyright status needs to be made clear or the files need to be deleted. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Good question. We have many colleagues who enjoy that kind of detailed work. Actually most of them, maybe all of them, do have sufficient information. For example, the front page of the NY Times from 1912 is clearly PD-1923. However, since you chose to bring it up, I'll do this one, but for the future I will simple avoid closing DRs that require a lot of cleanup. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim, thanks a lot for taking care of that. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Chrisi, I'm not happy about having used "unknown" for most of the sources -- all but the newspaper front pages -- but I can't think of anything better. Any ideas? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim, thanks for your work. To be honest, the lack of sources is part of the reason why I requested deletion for these images. Many of them do not have a date so there is no way we can be sure whether they were really published or created before 1923 and what their country of origin is. I don't really know how we are supposed to find that out which is why I think they should have been deleted. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I sympathize with your point of view -- the lack of source makes me a little uneasy. However, various photos taken in New York after the sinking -- crowds at the White Star offices -- seem to me to be safe. We have an image of a famous tennis player taken the next year -- we don't have a publication date, but it was almost certainly 1913 -- certain beyond a significant doubt for me. We have Arthur Rostron's letter. We don't know the source, but he died in 1940, so it is surely PD. And so forth. If any of them make you particularly uneasy, by all means bring them up here or start another DR -- Except for the newspaper front pages and Rostron's letter, which are solidly PD, I agree that the rest are a little uncertain. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
From looking at a few samples it seems that all (or at least most) of these images have been imported from the LoC, albeit very poorly. The resolution on some images is way too low to use them for anything, among them the Carpathia captain letter (higher resolution to be found at LoC). I fixed up File:Survivors from TITANIC aboard rescue ship, unidentified group on deck.jpg to give an example of what these uploads should look like. As these images are still available via the LoC and the uploads are lacking all information that would make them useful (for most not even a reasonably sized image has been provided, let alone meta data or copyright information) I think we are better off deleting them and reimporting the files from the LoC when we want to use them. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Or simply uploading better versions from LOC now. I wouldn't object, though, if you want to DR all of them that aren't in use except the newspapers. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Another user permission template[edit]

Hi Jim: See Commons:Deletion requests/File:İzmir - 01.jpg for a very interesting user template. "Illegally" ?? (me is confuzzled) Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

English does not appear to be the user's first language; presumably the user means "unlawfully." Indeed, failure to follow the provisions of a "free" license is an infringement of copyright (i.e., unlawful). The "immediate vicinity" verbiage may be another (problematic) matter. Эlcobbola talk 20:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The line between "illegal" and "unlawful" is very fine. The OED lists them as synonyms. This reference says that the former refers to things that are expressly forbidden while the latter refers to things that are not authorized by law. Since there are criminal penalties for willful infringement of the Copyright Act in the USA, that would make "illegal" perfectly correct.
As for "immediate vicinity", I've already put a Symbol delete vote.svg Delete at the DR for that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:72MM 14 DominicJames 2550 (a).jpg[edit]

Hi Jim, not sure why this photo I took has been deleted. I filled in a permission form ages ago. Can you let me know what why it was deleted and what needs to be done please. Thank you. Dominic]] using HotCat Template:Usigned2

  • As I said in the closing comment, the source site has an explicit copyright notice -- there is no evidence that you have permission to freely license the image.
"I filled in a permission form ages ago."
means that the copyright holder sent a license to Commons:OTRS, then please be aware that, like Commons, OTRS is all volunteers and runs a significant backlog. If the copyright holder has not yet done that, then it will required for the image to be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim, this photo [8] was speedy deleted because I had failed to provide its location to the wikimedia team after it was originally approved/uploaded. My mistake. Once the permission was provided, the photo was undeleted: [9] However, it still has the DR notice on it and cannot be used. I asked the wikimedia approvers, "What's the next step?" but have received no response. Can you please tell me how to get the DR notice removed? Thanks LauraLeeT (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
One of my colleagues has taken care of it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Gallery of logos[edit]

Hi Jim: I took one look at this gallery and I'm running for help [10]. I see piles of CC-by-SA and what looks to me like a user who doesn't get the idea of permissions and copyrights at all. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, yes, mostly. I just knocked off half a dozen of them as speedy because they came from web sites with clear and explicit copyright notices. There are probably five or ten more like that. On the other hand, a great many of them are PD-text-logo, so aside from the false claims of "own work", there's not much you can do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


So you deleted a page about "periodic table colors". I do not understand the reasoning provided (if there was one), I do not get the intention, and I abhor the non-common abuse I am confronted with. For the rest, I guess you must be helping something someone. -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually I want to say: fuck you see below. Now block me wikiworldwide for a week. -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Commons galleries have a specific purpose -- showing collections of Commons images -- see Commons:Galleries and Commons:Scope. Your table of periodic table colors does not belong on Commons, and with the attitude shown above, perhaps you also do not belong here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
What "galleries" are you talking about? -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Nicely done, you got me!
Now back to the topic: you deleted. Why this way? -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

We see around 100 new galleries a day while doing New Page Patrol. (A gallery is any page that does not have a prefix such as "File:", "Commons:", "User", etc.) Almost all of them do not meet the Commons definition of a gallery, which, as you have been told many times by me and others, is at Commons:Galleries. We simply do not have time to have an individual discussion of them. About once a week, someone who has created a gallery that was subsequently deleted will come here to ask about it -- that's about 1 in 300 for my deletions, which, it seems to me, justifies not discussing each one. In this case, if you had asked, I would have moved it to your User space, as has been done, or sent the Wiki markup to you via e-mail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for being such a dick. All just about a deleted page, what I could have handled more useful. I also see you have acted in a more kingly way, for which I compliment you and thank you. -DePiep (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Apology accepted, thank you very much. If I can be helpful in the future, please don't hesitate to ask. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

carregar uma imagem que já foi eliminada[edit]

eu não restaurei nenhuma imagem, apenas fiz 2 uploads de novas photos a partir de antigo ID Costapppr - o atual é CostaPPPR. Não entendi também porque Costapppr está ativo ? Ação de Hackers?

I have not restored any image just did 2 uploads new photos from old ID Costapppr - the current is CostaPPPR Nor did because Costapppr active? Hackers action?

--Costa P.P.P.R. 02:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Entendi agora - a página ID Costapppr = é que deveria ter sido deletada - Grato pelo aviso

I understand now - the page ID Costapppr [ - Its a ghost ] is what should have been deleted - Thanks for the warning

Sometime ago I requested the name (ID) change The correct is


--Costa P.P.P.R. 02:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CostaPPPR (talk • contribs) 02:36, 15 July 2014‎ (UTC)

I don't understand -- I deleted the new gallery page Costapppr twice because it was out of scope and warned you not to recreate it. Is there anything you need me to do or explain now? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Note from Dave re picture[edit]

Jim - not sure if I'm using this correctly. I'm sorry if I'm not. I have permission from WWSG to use the picture as if it is not sure why I can't keep it there. Will you please help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 15:49, 15 July 2014‎ (UTC)

My apologies for the late response -- I thought I had answered this yesterday, but I must have distracted. I'd be happy to help, but I need your username or the name of the file in question -- your IP address doesn't tell me anything because it has made only one edit. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Communauté silhouette.png[edit]

Hello Jim, I don't agree with your closing reason. What is for you widely used.? A single template with an inclusion of seven [11] is for me definitely not widely used. But this as I said before, can you please more explain your decision (maybe simply because you can't delete it)? User: Perhelion05:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

For me, "widely" is more than four, but the point is moot. Any use at all on any project means that an image cannot be deleted except for copyvio..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Open proxys are evil[edit]

Hello, fyi: Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Open_proxy_detection It seems not difficult to use proxy here. I know that on nlwiki is a script, but it is not open source :/. Rergards--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Montreal Montage July 7 2014.jpg[edit]

Hi Jim. I would like to obtain some clarification about the nomination reason that you provided. Also, I disagree with the fact that my file "does not properly credit all of the underlying images". In fact, in the "source" section of the file, all references have been clearly provided: I have indicated the names of the original authors and/or their Flickr or WikiCommons usernames, whichever was available. Is there anything that I left out while citing? Moreover, this new montage that I created is greatly appreciated by the users on Wikipedia (see Montreal talk page Anyway, if you insist on deleting this file, could you please tell me which image(s) of the montage are not properly credited or have been copyviolated so that I can create another montage with other images that will fit your criteria. Thanks Jolenine (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I stand corrected on the question of attribution and I have corrected the DR to reflect that. My apologies for the mistake.
However, the fundamental issue here is that some of the images are licensed CC-BY-SA, while others are licensed CC-BY.

You can't mix the two -- a CC-BY-SA derivative work must be licensed as CC-BY-SA, while a CC-BY work may not be. This is clear at the formal CC-BY license, paragraph 4:

"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder."
Since a CC-BY-SA license imposes additional restrictions on the use of the work, using it on the montage violates the CC-BY license on those elements of the montage that are licensed CC-BY.
Since you apparently want to use this only on WP, I suggest that you simply set the individual images using Wiki markup. This is non-trivial, but can result in something that appears the same on the page while not mixing the licenses in a montage. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it is possible to mix these 2 licenses under CC-BY-SA. Proper attribution has to be done for every image through. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Yann, obviously we disagree. How do you get around the plain language in the CC-BY license that forbids "any terms ... that alter or restrict the terms of this License"? The CC-BY-SA license clearly has additional restrictions which my reading of the CC-BY license forbid. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I am not sure. It seems to me that it is possible to relicense CC-BY into CC-BY-SA, and therefore mix works from these licenses. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
People who put CC-BY licenses on their works want them to have the freest distribution possible, saving only for the attribution. They chose not to require SA on their works and the CC-BY license reflects that by forbidding the additional requirements imposed by the SA license. They could certainly be relicensed as CC-BY-SA if the photographers agreed, but unless that happens, I think we are stuck. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes; CC BY is the freest license in that group. It means we can use such works in adaptions with any other type of licenses (NC, ND, or even ARR). The adapted work can also be NC, ND, or even ARR. The only requirement is that attribution is provided (BY). See my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Montreal Montage July 7 2014.jpg. Jee 11:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC) See [12] and the topic above. Jee 11:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Jee, you have not answered the question I asked Yann above -- the CC-BY license specifically forbids adding additional restrictions to works licensed with it. That means that, contrary to your assertion, we cannot use a CC-BY image with any license that is more restrictive. CC-BY-SA has additional restrictions, so we can't mix the two except, as I suggested above, by using Wiki markup which solves the problem neatly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Jim, you are mixing two things; license of a work and license of adaptation. Here we're talking only about adaptations. Original author has no control over what license is chosen for adaptation (unless it is SA). The adapter can mix with any; but he should choose the most restricted one for the adaptation. CC well explained it in that FAQ.
See our Commons:Multi-licensing. It is not talking about BY licenses because only SA licenses have such limitations. If you still have doubts, hope people like Jarekt can help you. Jee 12:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow! It is already available in Commons too. Jee 13:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Jim. I understand your concern with respect to the mixing of CC-BY-SA and CC-BY in my derivative work. In this case, we might as well also nominate for deletion the following montages (just to name a few) since these montages also mixes both licenses...

We have more than 20,000,000 images on Commons. My best guess is that more than 1% of them -- 200,000 images -- are problematic in one way or another. Therefore it is very easy to find counterexamples to almost any DR. I suggest you nominate the three above for deletion and read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Jim, if you really think that these licenses can be mixed, you need to be consistent and also put these montages for deletion.
@Jolenine: Meanwhile, if owners of CC-BY images allow to relicense their work under CC-BY-SA, that's a way around this potential issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you mean "cannot be mixed" above. I have no interest in searching out all of the examples of mixed licenses which occur on Commons -- it's certainly hundreds, probably thousands. That doesn't mean, though, that we should let this one go just because Other Stuff Exists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. However, look at the link Jee provided. I think I was right. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I sure don't understand, because the license is clear that no additional restrictions are allowed, but I can;t argue with a chart created by Creative Commons itself. Apologies to all for wasting time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Since you said "I sure don't understand", I'm sharing one more link. These examples explain many possible combinations. Example 2 and 5 are very interesting as they allow adapter to chose licenses like GFDL too. Jee 03:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Jee, I appreciate very much your effort to enlighten me. I do understand that my position is not acceptable, but, as I said several times above, the CC-BY license has language that, it seems to me, clearly prohibits putting additional restrictions on a CC-BY file, including the requirement that the derivatives be SA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
One more attempt: CC0 and CC BY are not Copyleft licenses whereas CC BY-SA, GFDL and FAL are. (You can see 3b is not in Jee 11:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Denis Payre.jpg[edit]

Hi Jim, Denis Payre is the founder of a new political party is France, called "Nous Citoyens". I've contacted the community manager of this party. She says that Nous Citoyens have bought this picture I had uploaded. Please tell me how can I do to use it on Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Best regards, --Didier VICENTE (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

While Nous Citoyens may have purchased the picture, buying the picture and buying the right to freely license the picture are two very different things. As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Denis Payre.jpg, in the case of unclear copyright, Commons policy requires that the photographer, Christophe Lebedinsky, send a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dictionary of Southern African Place Names by Peter E. Raper (1987).djvu couldn't wait?[edit]

Not sure why this one had to be decided there and then. I said that I wrote, and it would have been the polite thing to have waited for a response. You are not the only administrator, it isn't solely your decision, and it is a little presumptuous to act precipitously, up to an extra month, when the work had been there since September is hardly an issue. :-/  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It had been ten days. There was no evidence whatsoever that the author or publisher had allowed this upload. I think it qualifies as a {{speedy}} -- a copyrighted work uploaded without any evidence of permission. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I know what you thought, however, I had put it on hold (as an administrator) and said that I had written. You could have left it for me, or you could have contacted me to discuss the matter. It was not urgent, it was listed with a process in place to manage it, and a week or two longer was not problematic. You just decided that you could take action because you could. :-/  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I took action because I saw an upload that qualified as a {{speedy}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)