User talk:Jameslwoodward

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Jameslwoodward's
Archives

2009
2010
1st half 2011
2nd half 2011
1st half 2012
2nd half 2012
1st half 2013
2nd half 2013
1st half 2014
2nd 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward

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


ArcSoft, ArcSoft and ArcSoft[edit]

Hello Jim. Please see my new selfie taken using the ArcSoft Webcam Companion software. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't be so sure. Have you read the EULA carefully? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
If you don't know, why don't research? I already readed the EULA carefully and also I sended a message to ArcSoft Inc. So, please see my second thread in the Village Pump.
Is really easy to clarify your doubts. Why you expected than other user do the research in order to clarify your doubts? Yes, users must add the right description and licensing in their uploads, but in this kind of special cases that needs deeper researching before nominating or deleting files, is your responsibility as Administrator to do that research. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
No, sorry, you have it exactly backwards. It is up to those who want to keep an image to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is properly licensed or PD.
"In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined:
  • the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and
  • that any required consent has been obtained." [from the policy statement at Commons:Project scope/Evidence].
As far as I am concerned, ArcSoft is a dead issue. If it happens that another image with Arcsoft's incorrect claim in the EXIF is uploaded, it can be dealt with routinely. All of the current round of images with that notice have been deleted because of doubts over the source of the images and the validity of the "own work" claim. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
But anyway, ArcSoft Inc. (or any other hardware or software provider) as copyright holder indicated in the EXIF is not longer a valid reason for deletion (but the already deleted files must still remain deleted). Still with doubts? Please see my thread in the Village Pump, the ArcSoft Webcam Companion EULA and the answer from ArcSoft Inc. for my question sended to they. There is the evidence. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Your comment is true with respect to ArcSoft, as their EULA makes clear. Your generalization is not true. As I have said several times, it is entirely possible for the EULA to transfer copyright to the vendor. While that is rare now, it was very common twenty years ago. Any generalization about contractual matters is dangerous. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleting files before solution from OTRS[edit]

Hello Jim. The files that you deleted Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mlarisa were uploaded by me according to permissions from their authors, and I asked the right owners to write a formal letter to OTRS with confirmation of an agreement, which they have done on 21st and 22nd of July. Could you please restore them and wait for a solution after the letters have been received by OTRS, or what would you suggest me to do now: upload again? Thank you. Mlarisa (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

First, never upload an image second time. It is a serious violation of policy and wastes time and computer resources. Commons never actually deletes anything. "Deleted" images are simply marked so they can not be viewed by anyone other than a Admins and a very few others.
Second, please read my closing comment at the DR
"These will be restored if free licenses are sent to OTRS. Note that OTRS has a significant backlog, so it may be several weeks before action is taken."
I think that is clear, but if you have further questions, feel free to ask them here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, thank you for explanation. Mlarisa (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Selline kevade algus 2010.jpg[edit]

Hi! Here you made no comment about this photo in specific. The building is question quite obviously isn't the main subject on that photo. Pikne 07:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The building is the only important thing in the image, hence I think it is the main subject. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion Request[edit]

Jim, Please review and let me know where besides Permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I need to send any additional information to un-delete photo and put it back up on Wikipedia page. I have all appropriate licenses and permissions to use media, where do you want me to send it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osrius (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 July 2014‎ (UTC)

The whole process is laid out in your choice of languages at OTRS. Note that OTRS has a backlog of at least two weeks at the moment, maybe more, so please be patient. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Pyramidlakenv.jpg[edit]

You forgot something after your close.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

And perhaps you could help me convince this self-appointed proxy to ferret out the rest?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you're fighting a losing battle there. He's not going to do it because he thinks they're OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
So that adds the commons as another website where he's getting in the way of people trying to clean up after this artist.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Badge of the Canadian Army[edit]

Sorry Jim, what leads you to believe that this badge was ever "printed on official documents, purchase orders, uniform specifications and rules, and so forth"? For that matter, what leads you to believe that "many tens of thousands of copies of the sewn badge it were made"?

Secondly, producing sewn badges, documents, uniform specification, or rules, does not constitute publication under Canadian law. If these items were sold or given away to the public, then that would count as publication. If these items were for internal use only, then they are unpublished.

So, I don't understand the logical leap from 'this badge is based on a prior badge formerly used by the Army', to 'this badge was officially published over 50 years ago'. trackratte (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, put I find your logic very difficult. I cannot imagine that a court would find that the badge was unpublished -- while I understand that "published" has a very special meaning in copyright law, and that the meaning varies from country to country, the predecessor badge had been used for at least 22 years by the Canadian Army -- so it appeared on every uniform and all sorts of other places, including signs at the gates of military installation and offices, most of them very public. In order to procure the badges for use on uniforms, the Army would have had to issue RFQs and then purchase orders with detailed illustrations of the badge -- can you actually say that a purchase order is not an official publication? As I said, it was probably used on letterhead -- if so, every letter the Army sent would have had one. And so forth.
Also, although we have no evidence of it, I think it is fair to assume that the original badge was published when it was adopted, just as the current version has been published.
You and Fry went back and forth over this for almost 10,000 words, all of which I read. I often disagree with Fry, so I can honestly say that any bias I might have had was on your side. Stefan made a brief comment, and made it clear that he would keep it if it could be shown that it was PD because of age, as it is. So it looks like it's 3 to 1 for keeping it. Commons rules preclude your re-opening the DR without new reasons, so please don't..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Where are you getting "it appeared on every uniform and all sorts of other places, including signs at the gates of military installation and offices" from? trackratte (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The various sources say that it was the badge of the Canadian Army from sometime in WWII to 1968. That's what such a badge is used for -- appearing everywhere from uniforms to installation signage. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)