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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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"



Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pharmaceutical product packaging[edit]

Concerning Deleted: A copyvio is a copyvio. It is unlikely that Bayer or others will release their copyrights on these. As for the 1930's products , that is 50 years too recent for us to assume that they are out of copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim, Does this mean that expiration of copyrights starts at today -120 years, because as i understood it, it was 70 years. Regards, Alfvanbeem (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Seventy years after the death of the creator is the most common copyright period. My comment was directed to the fact that if you do not know when the creator died, then 120-130 years is a reasonable period to allow in order to be reasonably certain that the creator has been dead for 70 years. For example, a person creates a work when she is 25 years old and lives another 60 years, dying at age 85. The work will be under copyright for another 70 years, until 130 years after its creation. Note that some countries have a different period, a few time copyright from the creation or publication of the work, and for the United States, any of those may apply, depending on circumstances. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Halloween6[edit]

Hi,

I appreciate that some of those logos were borderline cases, but I'd have thought that (e.g.) File:Robocop 2014.png was definitely on the wrong side of that line, due to it being a fully rendered 3D object with artistic effects and lighting, rather than just "plain text".

I've seen administrators previously delete files with significant (but not as significant as that) artistic text effects- e.g. glossy "shine- on the basis that they were above the threshold of originality. I'm not clear as to why this case would be different- can you please explain? Thank you.

Ubcule (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The US law is very clear -- type fonts do not have copyrights. Therefore a logo that is nothing but letters and numbers does not have a copyright in the the USA, no matter how complex each letter is. This is true even though the logo may have multiple different versions of the same letter (the o in Robocop, for example) -- they are still just letters and letters do not have copyrights. See the USCO's Copyright Basics at page three where it says explicitly that "mere variations of typographic ornamentation" do not have a copyright. This is in contrast to the UK where there is a separate copyright for typography which lasts for 25 years and is held by the publisher.
As for the action of other Admins -- just as different courts reach different conclusions on similar cases, so different Admins can read and interpret the law differently, each believing that the other is wrong. And, of course, as I noted, copyright law varies substantially from country to country. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand the basic principle that in US law typefaces (and non-copyrightable text using them) aren't copyrightable. However, does a three-dimensional model (which I assume the logo is derived from) constitute a "typeface" in the legal sense?
The letter Os appear to be the same 3D model rendered from different viewpoints, rather than three different Os as such; if a typeface was sold with pre-rendered 3D letters, I guess one could (in theory) supply the letter O pre-rendered from three different angles in a single pseudo-3D-effect typeface, but I don't think anyone would actually do that.
And do the rendering textures and lighting effects constitute "mere variations of typographic ornamentation" especially if it's open to question whether what they were applied to is a "font"?
I guess this sounds nitpicking, and I hadn't wanted to get into a long discussion on the matter (maybe some other time!), but it seems that by your reasoning- taken far enough- anything letter based is non-copyrightable. But (e.g.) what about a photograph of the "LOVE" sculpture taken against a featureless sky background?
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain your decision! All the best, Ubcule (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, thank you for removing the copyvio still from the history of File:Colorado-Stanley Hotel.jpg. Ubcule (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What licence is appropriate?[edit]

Hi Jim,

Could you please help me. I'd like to upload a video that is free available on the website of Croatian Television. It is the talk show Nedjeljom u dva, guest is the linguist Snježana Kordić, she talks about linguistic issues in Croatia. However, I don't know what kind of licence I should choose for it. Best regards,--Mozel W. (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't read Croatian, so I have to rely on Google Translate, which tells me that "Autorska prava - HRT © Hrvatska radiotelevizija. Sva prava pridržana" in the lower left corner translates as "Copyright - © HRT Croatian Radio and Television. All rights reserved." It is certainly possible that I am missing something here but I don't see anything else that make the video freely licensed. Please remember that "free" as in "no payment for" is not the same thing as "freely licensed", which is what Commons requires. see COM:L. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I wonn't upload it.--Mozel W. (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

deletion and copyright[edit]

Hi I am trying to fix this stuff for you. I'm almost 80 and doing my best. I have tried to put the correct sources and copyright information all my railways photos etc. If I am doing something wrong that is easily fixed my daughter will help me but can you please just tell us simply what is missing. She seems to have figured out how to load the photos and we are aware of the need to explain where they came from. If these photos are in the public domain already what do we put for copyright if they are freely available on google images for example or if the photos have come from my relatives and I have no further information. I'm not trying to breach any copyright or sourcing issues but the photos are very old ad sometimes I only have information that has come down the line from family. Any help would be great as I don't want my account terminated and I really want to share these wonderful old photos as I think they are important for Brisbane and railway history. I'm happy to make edits or feel free to edit yourself. I usually do try to put the correct information on about these photos and respect the process you're trying to do here. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spots (talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 December 2014‎ (UTC) -- Please sign your posts as shown here.

First, please don't worry -- you have to work very hard to get blocked on Commons -- we try very hard not to bite newbies. I myself am 71, I'm still learning and I have a lot of sympathy for the very steep learning curve here. And, by the way, I'm also a railfan -- see my comments at my WP:EN talk page.
I think the major problem you have is that you don't really understand how long copyright lasts -- 70 years after the death of the author in most countries, including Australia. Thus we don't generally assume that a work is out of copyright unless it is earlier than 1885. Australia has a special rule for photographs -- anything before 1/1/1955 is PD, but the 1965 image you uploaded is recent. Your several World War I images are OK only because of the Australian special rule for photos -- if they were from almost any other country, they, too, would have been marked with a DR.
Also, please remember that most images that appear on the Web are still under copyright -- the Web is infamous for ignoring copyright, so just because you find it with Google means little or nothing.
As for family images, they present special problems. If you know who the photographer was and you happen to be that person's sole heir, then you can list the actual photographer as the author and provide a license using OTRS. If you are not the sole heir, then you need to get permission from all the heirs and have one of them send a license to OTRS. If you don't know who the photographer was and the image is later than 1954, then it can't be hosted on Commons.
Please feel free to ask either general or specific questions and I will be happy to answer them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:All media needing categories as of 2012[edit]

Hello, could you close this nomination as speedy kept, please? I withdrawal because I made a mistake. 1989 14:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Nevermind. 1989 14:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Table4five_photographs[edit]

You deleted nearly every file I had marked useful, including those where copyright cannot be an issue! Why? --Pitke (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry -- I just noticed that and am undoing it.      Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I restored all of the images you mentioned with the following exceptions:

These all have DW issues with the products or other items imaged, including the sculpture of the pumpkin and the lengthy text on the Tonics and Liniments.

Except for the exterior shot, the Spaceship Earth images all have copyright issues as DWs of the stage sets and the mannequins, all of which have copyrights.

This is a personal image – the bacon is de minimis

I restored all of these in deference to your wishes, but I really think that none of them should be kept. They all have focus, camera movement, or composition issues which should prevent our keeping them.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. What's DW though? I understand roughly what the issues is about with the files you listed, but don't recognise the abbreviation. --Pitke (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Forgive, me -- I try not to use Commons jargon with beginners, but I figured someone with your experience would know all the usual shorthand. Derivative Work - the image infringes on the copyright of something in the picture. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

License irrevocable as argument to keep images[edit]

Hi James, you've just closed a row of DR initiated by me and affecting pictures I created. I have no problem with the terms of the license, but I cannot understand the argument you used to keep all those pictures ("We do not generally delte images that have been on Commons more than a few days. The license is irrevocable"). The point here is that I have photographed all those subjects under a higher quality standard (mostly better camera) and to me it makes no sense to keep bad quality pictures when we have similar ones that are clearly better, especially if it will not cause any conflict (with the author) but rather in this case fulfill his wish. In my opinion we should ease the task for those looking for pictures in Commons. Saying that only those pictures with a QI are of good quality is not an argument anymore since there is a tough restriction regarding the amount of QI nominations on a daily basis. Regards, Poco2 15:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless the images are identical, we do not delete images that have been around for more than a short while. The reason is partly that deleting images that are not identical reduces the variety available to our users. A print user might very well want to use an image that is not the same as the one on WP. The major reason,however, is that it breaks the chain of the license for any images that may have been used off-WMF. Since we don't know which images have been used elsewhere, both on the Web and in print, we keep them all so that there is never any question of their having a free license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, to mee not only the diversity but also the quality plays a role. If the pictures are similar and one of them is of high quality, I don't see the point of keeping the poor one. Agree with you that if somebody picks up a (in this case) deleted poor quality picture, it is than gone, but that is quite . Since I ask for it I usually get emails from people outside Wikimedia about the usage of my pictures. Furthermore it is easy to figure out which pictures are being used online. That I can also check before starting a DR. Under this circumstances I really don't see the "broken link" argument as a real problem but rather theoretical. Poco2 10:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC) PD: What do you understand under "a short while"?
A short while is a week or so. In you analysis, you entirely ignore print use, which is an important part of our users. And, it's policy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
TWell, as said, for print use I ask for an email, that I get actually regularly. Which policy regulates this topic? I couldn't find anything. Poco2 13:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't know about any print use that didn't send you an e-mail -- I have several images that appeared in print without my being notified, that I just happened to receive paper copies of.
See both Commons:Courtesy deletions and Commons:Courtesy deletions/2, neither of which is policy, but both of which are pretty much our practice. Note that the second wants 10 opinions before a deletion. They also talk of seven days and thirty days, which is a great deal shorter than two years.
You're spending so much of our time on this issue that I wonder whether you don't have an undisclosed motive here -- certainly keeping a few images isn't worth all this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Poco: We rarely delete some poor quality works upon author or subject request. But there should be some convincing reasons like "subject feel uncomfortable on the way depicted" etc. But I see most of your DRs like File:Glyptothek, Königsplatz, Múnich, Alemania01.JPG and File:Glyptothek, Königsplatz, Múnich, Alemania22.JPG are reasonably good quality architectural photos where little chances of complaints from "subjects". So I wonder whether you are fully aware of the licensing terms. The licenses are designed in a way to avoid the requirement of any communications with the author and reuser in future. You can request for an email; but can't demand. So Jim's argument about broken link is a valid concern, even though we are not guaranteed to keep the file forever. But we try to keep deletions as minimum as possible. Another point is COM:OWN. The author own copyright of the work; but not of any pages here. So an author request has no priority unless it is within 7 days of hosting here. Jee 16:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Jee: I'm aware of the terms of the license I have been publishing my work with for the last years. In every description page I politely ask for an email if my work is used outside of Wikimedia. I am aware that I cannot demand it nor I can complain if that is not the case. Is fine, will not initiate further DRs claiming poor quality, though. Poco2 16:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

New Commons contributors in Israel - the Western Galilee WikiProject[edit]

Greetings, Jim, and thanks for following up so quickly on User:Zipig's problem relating to Derivative works. User:Zipig and I are members of the Hebrew-language Wikipedia's Western Galilee project, meeting every second Monday morning at the local college library. Presently I'm the group's sole native speaker of English (also an in-house Hebrew>English translator/editor at a museum archives) and a WP veteran relative to the membership (though we have guidance from a neighborly Wikimedia Israel volunteer). As I'm new to the Commons: while I review my groupmates' uploads for language and formatting corrections, I'm learning the guidelines as I go. Photos and the Commons are the main topic on tomorrow's agenda, so I'll be sharing the benefits of my recent experiences here. I appreciate your intervention and look forward to becoming an active contributor here as elsewhere, even if mainly gnomework. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said, we try very hard not to bite newbies, so any help you can give with language would be good. Questions are always welcome here. We have three Hebrew speaking Admins on Commons: Geagea, Matanya, and Yuval Y. I'm not close to any of them, but have had pleasant interactions with the first two -- I don't know Yuval Y at all. You might suggest them as a resource for your colleagues if you're not available. Those of your colleagues who have another language besides Hebrew and English might look at Commons:List of administrators by language, although some are much more active than others. Special:Contributions/Deborahjay for any given user will tell you whether he or she has been active recently. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

DR[edit]

Can you please review this DR? I believe the same reasoning applies as was your conclusion in this DR, and both are uploads by the same user. Fry1989 eh? 15:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right, but it's not so obvious. The other had the Cyprus map on it, so it was clear that it could not in any way be the flag of a SE Asian place. Do you recognize the symbol on this one? If so, start a new DR and I'll support it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I have renominated and explained the symbolism and why it is fake. Fry1989 eh? 19:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Baltimore County Historical Society[edit]

Jim, I posted a basic info box for the society today. Can you check it over, please. The biggest question I have is how to enter the web site. Every organization's box that I looked at for guidance did it diffidently, so I finally just picked one. I have not yet had an opportunity to take a new photo. Many thanks, N. Nancyhmarshall (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We're told to be bold, not diffident ;-) Looks good, with the one change I made. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks from Spots[edit]

Hi Jim

Many thanks for all your kind advice. I think we understand it a bit more and will try to edit some photos if we can to get them listed correctly so we are not violating any copyright. If the changes don't resolve the issue then I guess you'll have to remove them. It is indeed very tough for new people and the site is even a little complicated for my daughter (who is typing this)and pretty good with the computer but we are getting there.

Again, I am very sorry if I have unknowingly made mistakes. We will be mindful of this in future. I enjoyed looking at your stuff also - my daughter has shown me how to look at it! Lets keep in touch. It's nice to meet someone else who is a rail fan. The photos being so rare I feel that it is important for others to look at. I am especially interested as I was born and lived in Darra all my life. I have travelled on many steam train trips and I worked for the Queensland Railways for a very time before I retired.

Anyway, thanks again. My daughter helps me monitor the page and she uploads the photos etc. when I visit so if it takes a couple of days for me to respond don't worry as we will get there when she has time to look at it for me. In the meantime I will keep looking at interesting things here on the internet and really appreciate you kind help once again.

Take care, Grahaam (aka Spots)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Don_Giovanni_1_2014.jpg[edit]

Hi!

You deleted this file. Plz also delete the files listed in that DR, they can be found here. /Hangsna (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you cannot do that. Each file must be listed in the DR, tagged with {{delete}} and the uploader notified. I deleted the only file that met those rules.
I suggest you look at Visual File Change. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
But they are all not okay to be on commons and uploaded by the same account so he is notified. Why cant you just delete them and link to that DR? It seems bad to keep them for "bureaucratical reasons" when we all know they violates rules to be on commons. /Hangsna (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
DRs require open discussion. Tagging an image for deletion encourages people who have used the image to raise questions. If Admins start breaking the rules because they think it is OK, then they will lose the trust of the community. Admins have been removed from the position for such actions. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Okey, I get it. But in this case they could all be marked as speedy since they violates copyright (photo taken on screen). Is it so that an admin that finds something untaged that violates copyright first tags it as speedy and then delete? /Hangsna (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I find it a bit rude that you don’t answer me. I really want to understand how commons work because it seems like its in this aspect a lot different from other projects. I am an admin at Swedish Wikipedia and if I find that someone create an article that is a copy+paste of non-free material I just delete it directly. Are you saying that something like that cant be done here? /Hangsna (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I intended no rudeness. I didn't respond to your last post because I thought we had covered the subject thoroughly. With 38,000 edits on WMF and 1,300 here, you are by no means a newbie, so I assume you know how to look things up. Deletion policy is at (surprise) Commons:Deletion policy. Since you obviously believed that a full DR was needed for the one that I deleted, I don't understand why you think the rest can be speedied? They are not all obvious screenshots -- some of our colleagues might believe that some of them were actually taken in the theater.
Also, we generally use DRs for screenshots because not all screenshots are copyvios. If the image is on a screen in the theater -- to show subtitles, for example -- and is never recorded, then it does not have a copyright. Since recording is now very cheap, most such things are recorded, but it is not automatic, hence the need for a DR. Also, if the image is taken by a fixed camera, as is often the case in theaters, there is no creativity and therefore no copyright. This is similar to our practice on FOP -- in a non-FOP country such as France or the Ukraine, an image of a recent sculpture is almost certainly a copyvio, but because FOP is complex, we always require a DR for FOP issues. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Aha, i think i get the point. My intention was to report them all in one DR, that’s why i linked it and that’s why i didnt go speedy on it. So its not because i "obviously believed that a full DR was needed". I dont think any of them are screenshots but i though that taking photos of screens displayed in theatre was not okey in Sweden. And since the uploaded removed them all from flicker (guessing because of copyright issues) i didnt understand then why all the rest would need another DR, it should fall under the same ruling as the deleted one. If i would have found just one of then i would have marked it as a speedied. /Hangsna (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
For the record: DR started at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Don Giovanni. User:Hangsna, consider using COM:VFC. It helps a lot when nominating lots of files by the same user or from the same category for deletion. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

no consent DR reopened[edit]

Just to inform you I reopened Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aoi_Sora_Fest_-_Marseille_-_2011-12-04-_P1300310.jpg#File:Aoi_Sora_Fest_-_Marseille_-_2011-12-04-_P1300310.jpg_-_second_deletion_request.
since you were the closing admin.
My interpretation of the french law (photographes were not taken into America) is still the same.
Such photographs should not be hosted on Commons, since there is no consent and it's breaking the Commons policies on the subject.
Esby (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bobcat (5414278106).jpg[edit]

Jim, you deleted Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bobcat (5414278106).jpg as serving no purpose. I have provided a very clear educational scope for this image in the DR. It likely would not be used in an encyclopaedia to illustrate bobcats, but if someone was wanting to write a how-to guide on 'shopping it would clearly serve a purpose as how not to photoshop. I would ask you to undelete the image because scope clearly was identified by myself. Thanks, russavia (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said in the closing comment, we don't generally keep bad images just because they illustrate a particular kind of bad image -- we have plenty of those. Take it to an UnDR and see what the rest of the community thinks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Jim, as admins our job is not to close discussions inline with our own personal opinions on matters, but rather inline with the consensus in such discussions. I addressed the concerns of the nominator by way of moving the file to a name which makes it clear the image was photoshopped, and I presented a very clear scope. Rather than closing the DR with your own opinion, you should have opined in the DR and let someone close it accordingly. Inline with this, please undelete the image, provide your opinion and let someone else close it inline with an established consensus. I seriously hope that DR's aren't regularly being closed in this way. russavia (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. In the first place, as you well know, DRs are not votes.
"The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept." Commons:Deletion_requests#Overview
While many DRs have very objective criteria which the closing Admin can use ("did the sculptor of the French work pictured die after 1944?"), others require the Admin to exercise judgement ("is the sculpture de minimis?"). This case is a judgement call. There is nothing in our policy or practice which requires an Admin to recuse himself from closing a DR simply because he has an opinion.
Furthermore, there was a two to one consensus on the side of delete -- I and the nom believe that the image is out of scope -- you believe it is in scope.
As you also probably know, Commons:Project_scope#File_not_legitimately_in_use explicitly rejects the argument you make for this image. As I have said twice before, we do not keep bad images just to illustrate "bad images". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree that the image in question is out of scope. While have DR to restrain overzealous administrators, I think Jim used good judgment in this instance. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Jim, there is no two-to-one consensus in this instance, just need to make that clear. Again, admins are supposed to close on the basis of consensus, not make their close part of that consensus.
Commons:Project_scope#File_not_legitimately_in_use does not say that files need to be deleted, but that we need to consider "realistic utility". That consideration is more than met with my comments above about it realistically being able to be used if one was writing a how-to guide on photoshopping images. We have Category:Photoshopped images but there is nothing in there that comes close to fulfilling the scope that I have presented. Additionally, the photographer recognises that it is a poor photoshop attempt; I think it's important that we don't piss off CC-contributors by referring to their images as "bad" but in this case the photographer recognises that.
Please reconsider your close; if not I'll take it to COM:UDEL. Thanks and no hard feelings :) russavia (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I suggested UnDR at the very beginning -- feel free. I refer you again to the quote from policy above -- Admins not only do not need to consider consensus, they are expressly instructed not to. And certainly the closing Admin is not going to take a DR which evenly divided between keep and delete and close it against his own opinion -- there is nothing in Commons policy which suggest that that is appropriate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Jim, your comments have taken me by surprise. Especially your belief that admins do not need to consider consensus. Sure, we don't keep a copyright violation if "consensus" is who gives a stuff let's keep it. But we certainly don't ignore consensus on issues which are based on personal opinions. And we certainly don't use the tools to force through our person opinions in the way which it appears you have here. If this image wasn't uploaded by myself, I would have undeleted it if someone came to me with the comments I've presented to you and I was the deleting admin. Absolutely shocking! russavia (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course we consider consensus on de minimis and other pure judgement calls, although we sometimes weight the consensus somewhat by experience -- your opinion is worth more to me than a ten edit newbie's. But we do not need to consider consensus when the reason given for keeping an image is a clear violation of policy -- as this is.
Also, I still don't understand why you think there was a consensus for keeping it. The nom wanted to delete it and you wanted to keep it. That's a tie any way you count it. In case of a tie, we generally delete, but even so, do you really expect the closing Admin to break the tie against his own opinion? How does that make any sense? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Watermark[edit]

Hi,

"A watermark is not a problem for Commons" Thank you for this remark. First time I was seeing someone signing his pictures. I have simply used Template:Watermark since. Not sure to use it right : I've placed them at the top of the page hoping it's its right place.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I probably should have said "On Commons, watermarks are discouraged but not forbidden." Usually when someone objects to a watermark, they have in mind the policy at WP:EN, which forbids watermarks, hence my comment. Although I'm not sure there is policy on the subject, I usually see the template below the license and above the categories, which is where I would recommend placing it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinion?[edit]

What do you think of [1]? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yann beat us to it, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by VectorOpenStock. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
WTG Yann! Thanks Jim! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Walther Benser, Poster 42x59cm, 1965.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Walther Benser, Cover Prospekt "Original Benser" Kamera-Zubehör.jpg[edit]

Dear Jim,

YES, Benser took both photographs.

Am the granddaughter of Walther Benser (his heirs) and asked for OTRS license (permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org) on December 11th 2014. File:Walther Benser, Cover Prospekt "Original Benser" Kamera-Zubehör.jpg -> Ticket#: 2014121110008762 File:Walther Benser, Poster 42x59cm, 1965.jpg -> Ticket#: 2014121110007754

Till now no answer!!!, so no licenses.

Thanks, that I can clear the situation, maybe with your help.

Jula2812 (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • If you are (a) the only descendant of Benser or (b) named as the heir to his works in his will, then you can license his images; if not, then all descendants must consent.
In any event, the discussions must take place at the DRs, not here.
I must leave now (the real world calls) but when I return here I will look at the OTRS tickets. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

airport diagrams[edit]

Hi Jim: This nomination has been going on a long time. I really don't care if you bust my chops and keep all of them, or see what I do in the images and delete them; but could you make a decision on this just so we can close this old page? Thank you so much for all your help! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

undel requests[edit]

Hi, why did you strike elcobbola's "support" here, if you state your agreement to his reasoning? https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=143317859&oldid=143317701 Unfortunately Fastily reacted to this in a manner, that I can't reconcile with your statements after your edit. --h-stt !? 11:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the quick reaction. --h-stt !? 12:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I happened to glance at your note before I went up to breakfast and fixed my careless error immediately -- now that I'm back, I can say "thank you" properly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Kathleen McEnery and other UDRs[edit]

Hi Jim,

I don't understand why you didn't create a DR for this file. The discussion is quite interesting, and it would be useful to keep track of it. That's not a speedy anyway.

Also I worry about your remark about the files under a BSD license. As I said there, singling out these files is discriminatory, and we should not use a special case to create a new policy. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

On the first, it had been deleted by Fastily. You then undeleted it and closed the UnDR less than an hour after the request, while I was writing my comment, so I restored it to deleted status to continue the UnDR. I didn't see any reason to create a new DR when the file had already been deleted. By the way, my first reaction to it was the same as yours -- a no-brainer because it had been published in 1913. Only when I looked for a color version of the painting did I realize that it probably had not been published in 1913, only exhibited briefly.
I don't mean to pick on this particular case -- it happens fairly frequently that a file will go to UnDR and be closed there while the closing Admin was asleep in another part of the world. I think it might be good to have a general rule, or at least an agreement among those of us who are active at UnDR, that we will leave the requests open for a reasonable time -- after all, if a DR takes seven days, an UnDR shouldn't take less than an hour. You'll note that I very rarely close an UnDR, except in the very most obvious cases, because I think that more than one of us should take a look at each of them. If you agree to this, we might open a more general discussion. For me, a reasonable time might be 24 hours, but I'm sure others will differ.
I am fine with a 24h delay for closing a UDR. Yann (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
As far as the other went, I think that GFDL and BSD licenses are ridiculous if we are to fulfill our mission. My vehemence here probably comes from the fact that I come out of the print world -- I had many publishers of all kinds as customers while at Iris Graphics and an image that has only a GFDL license cannot be used in most print media -- where can you put the license in a newspaper, magazine, or calendar? (A book might have the license at the back, but only if the image were really special).
I saw these files with a license that is not mentioned at COM:L and opposed restoration. I still think that the BSD license for those images requires the whole five paragraphs in the caption and not two links away, hence the position I took. Since the BSD license was not listed at COM:L, I didn't think it was new policy to oppose its use. I backed off when the various cites made it clear that we actually had approved it in the distant past.
I think we agree on the substance. I just think that policy should not be decided on the UDR page. So either these files are under a free license, and then should be undeleted, or they are not, and they should stay deleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Best regards, Yann (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that new policy does not belong in a DR or UnDR -- if policy has it wrong, it must be decided in a broader forum. I have frequently taken that position in DRs. The problem here was that I did not see it as new policy until you and others beat me over the head with it.
Best wishes for the season for you and yours -- I'm off to a tree trimming party at our son and daughter-in-law's house -- their daughter is 3, exactly the right age for maximum reaction to such things.... .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
So would you restore these now? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If you are asking me to do the restoration, no, I think I'm too involved and someone else should do it. I think the McEnery image should be restored because, as I said there, it's PD one way or the other. On the others, the community consensus is for restoration, so that should happen also. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand your objection. You are not the uploader, or connected to him/her in any way, so how are you "involved"? Same for the McEnery image, and as I already restored it once, and that you deleted again, it is much better than you restore it yourself. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I think when an Admin has had a significant role in the discussion, it is better to have someone else close the UnDR. However, based on your strong request, I'll restore the McEnery image. On the others, no -- I don't think they should be restored -- since the community does, I cannot object more than I have, but I won't be the one who does it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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

I noticed that all the images were deleted from the article Tijuana Cross-border terminal as you stated no one knows who rnieders is, rnieders is Ralph Nieders, that Wikipedia article is supported by a large number of references, the second reference is from the Wall Street Journal, and there is speaks of my images. I am requesting that the images be undeleted. The editor of the article Keizers lives near San Diego and I would be more than happy to meet with him. The Wall Street Journal saw my information, I also presented my diagrams before the State Department and was actually contacted by them to present the project, all this is covered in the lengthy dialogue, also Ww2censor reviewed the information and I contacted him. Do you want to talk to me directly I will be more than happyRnieders (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you miss the point -- I should have been more clear. We know who Ralph Nieders is and we have User:Rnieders, but we don't have any way of knowing that they are actually the same person. It happens all the time -- certainly weekly -- that some third party will claim the name of another person in order to upload images here that belong to the other person. Therefore, policy requires that in circumstances such as these, the actual copyright owner must send a free license to OTRS, even in cases such as this one where the two people appear to be the same -- we have been fooled too many times in the past to take such claims without verification.
On these images, as I said, there are also questions about whether you actually own the copyright to some of them and that some of them violate COM:ADVERT, so I don't think all of them can be restored even if you do send a license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your response and explanation and I understand fully the problem of identity theft. As mentioned in the last correspondence with Ellin Beltz, who also contacted you, the original editor of the article, Keizers lives near San Diego, and I offered to have him review my information in San Diego, in person. I can also remove my name from the image descriptors and the San Diego Reader published a picture so that the identity can be verified. As for copyright, I still have my reports from 1990-2, I created and started the project at the end of 1989 and the images were part of promoting the concept counter to the San Diego and Mexican airport authority ASA, which differed from my images. The computers I did not keep. There was also a lot of confusion with fair use, Stephan2 from Sweden corrected that and I requested the deletion of the files incorrectly uploaded in August, I then uploaded ONLY my images and Stephan2 did not object, I made the mistake of reusing the file names, if you can access the files to which Stephan2 was making reference to, I was clear as to who was the copyright owners, i.e. ASA, SANDAG and City of San Diego, and those images I did not use or upload onto commons. Once only my images were uploaded onto commons, the Tijuana cross-border terminal article and images then were nominated and reviewed for DYK and accepted. As mentioned I am on the road and will not be in San Diego until December 26. Do you suggest contacting OTRS, the article now confusing as it make reference to images that do not exist.Rnieders (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, OTRS is the way to verify your identity and go forward. By the way, any images whose copyright is owned by the City of San Diego are PD and can be uploaded without OTRS -- see {{PD-CAGov}}. If you reload them here, use that template in the license section. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

K-S1[edit]

Hi Jim,

i`d like to know please if it is a "legal" aspect (option), when a File (pic) is transformed (f.ex colour changed, mirrored, turned etc.), it can be uploaded ? Thx. -- Gary Dee (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question, so feel free to rephrase and try again if I miss your point.
If an image is substantially changed, then, yes, a new copyright is created that will have to be licensed for use on Commons. That is in addition to whatever copyright existed for the old image. Mirroring probably does not create a new copyright. Colorizing a B&W image probably does. As with most copyright, it depends entirely on the amount of creativity that went into the transformation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)