- 1 Eva Janina Wieczorek
- 2 Images by Zdzisio71
- 3 File:Mesa Grande refugee camp 1987 062.jpg
- 4 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexandre Galopin (1879-1944).jpg
- 5 Question regarding reinstating deleted image
- 6 Summer of Monuments question
- 7 Mail
- 8 Screenshots
- 9 Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Martinscriminalcode
- 10 Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Eduemoni
- 11 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Twintowers of Deutsche Bank Headquarter in Frankfurt a.M..jpg
- 12 Dutch propaganda newspaper
- 13 Crown Fountain
- 14 Crest Craft Permissions approval
- 15 forgot to delete?
- 16 Two questions...
- 17 Commons:Deletion requests/File:MDavis cropped.jpg
- 18 File:Brick-making.png
- 19 Deleted pages
- 20 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bank Block Description Ohio Historical Society description, north facing.jpg
Eva Janina Wieczorek
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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"
Images by Zdzisio71
Please restore all the photos in my account which I took myself in the 70’s when I was a young photographer. These pictures are more than 40 years old and therefore do not possess any copyright protection. I don’t know why the Polish editors think I should be dead by now, I am not, for I am not Zdzislaw Ciesiolkiewicz who died in 2005.
- I did not say that I thought you were dead, but that you were a brand new contributor and that forty year old images needed a little more investigation. If you had added your comment above to the DR, it would have been closed as a "keep".
- By the way, it is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image again after it has been deleted, as you did with File:Płk._Zdzisław_Ciesiołkiewicz_i_Jan_J.Więckowski,_Warszawa_1971.jpg. Please don't do it again.
- Also note that your assertion that they don't have any copyright protection is probably incorrect. Unless they were published in Poland without copyright notice before 1994, they will be under copyright until 70 years after your death. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi James, thank you for your decision, can you please restore my photos to my original account Zdzisio71? I opened another account under my real first name Janusz71 not to get confused in the future with the deceased ZC (Zdzisio). As I had indicated above, I was the one who took those photos, and I am the copyright owner. I uploaded one photo to Janusz71 account to see if the Polish editors would continue to make false claims, and since you were on vacation. After this upload I decided to wait for your decision as to the other photos. Because of the political nature of ZC page they had created in 2006, after deleting my photos they are trying now (Ciacho5) to close this page altogether to make sure that my photos will not come back. Is there anything you can do to prevent deletion of the ZC page? Please advise, with many thanks -
Janusz 18:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand your request. Please remember that this is Commons and while I may be able to help you here, I have no ability to help you on the Polish Wikipedia. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, my question is how to prevent Ciacho5, who asked me a few months ago about the ownership of my pictures, and despite of my affirmative response lied to you that they are not mine, from closing the Zdzisław Ciesiołkiewicz page?
Janusz 06:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- I still don't completely understand -- User:Ciacho5 is an ordinary user here on Commons, not an Admin, so he cannot delete a page without community consensus. The gallery page named Zdzisław Ciesiołkiewicz has never existed on Commons. I see that you have had trouble at the WP:PL page Zdzisław_Ciesiołkiewicz, but I cannot help you there. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, it is me again, I am proceeding here incognito, so I don't have my email listed in Wikipedia, that's why I responded so late to the DR. Now I am confused too, if Ciacho5 is just a user like me, how come he can approve changes to the pages, and I can't? And what is a consensus, i.e., how many "users" or editors are needed to close a page? Thanks -
Janusz 22:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Again -- this is Commons, not WP:EN. Are you confusing the two? User:Ciacho5 has done nothing at all here since July 25. Except for his uploads, the only edits he has made on Commons this year are category changes and a few minor edits. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding no permission for this and other files, please check: User_talk:InverseHypercube#Category:Photographs_by_Linda_Hess_Miller. I restored it. Masur (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Why? The home page has a CC-BY notice, but the source page for this image has a clear copyright notice and a copyright watermark, see http://www.lindahessmiller.com/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=217&pid=10040. A copyright notice on a particular page always overrules a free license on a home page. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I left you a message there, your deletion was'nt fair. More than that, it was wrong. Still expect an answer or a suppression of the undue deletion. Best regards, --Madelgarius (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- As I said in the DR, "anonymous" and "unknown" are very different. In order for an image to fall into the "anonymous" class, as required in Belgium, the photographer must actually have not revealed his name when the image was first published. That is usually the case only for controversial images, not studio portraits. The fact that you do not know who the photographer was does not make it anonymous. In order to claim that status for the image, it is up to you to prove that the photographer wanted to be anonymous. That proof is very difficult. It is usually possible only in cases where you can show a printed source for the image that has a credit line like "Photo:Anonymous". . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Question regarding reinstating deleted image
Hi Jim, I wanted to check about the process for reinstating this [SB logo big gradient.png image]. It was one of my first uploads, so I hadn't got the permissions/licensing right. If I uploaded under fair use, the same way this logo is, could I get it undeleted?
- Your example is from WP:EN, which allows fair use. Commons does not allow fair use, for the simple reason that a fair use claim requires a context and that requirement negates Commons goal of having only images that are free for use anywhere. So, to answer your question, no, you must try uploading it to WP:EN under their rules. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Great, thank you for explaining Jim. I didn't even realise there was somewhere else to upload things. I wanted to check one other deleted file with you. I hadn't uploaded it properly, but now I think I understand where I went wrong, and want to check about getting it reinstated. This File:Om Mandali President Om Radhe.tif. There aren't many of these old pictures. I have confirmed that the organisation asserts it has copyright on the basis the photo was taken by an agent of the organisation back in 1964, and they have been using the image for various things copyrighted in the organisations name without acknowledgement of the photographer. If I get the authority completed by the person responsible in the organisation, adding the above few lines to the permission template, would you be okay with reinstating the image? If so, do I email that permission to the same email? How do I ensure that information will get to you? Sorry for all the questions....thanks Jim. Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Just follow the instructions at OTRS and have the photographer or copyright holder send the e-mail. I don't have to be involved -- the OTRS volunteer who handles the case will arrange for the restoration of the image. Please note that OTRS, like all of the WMF projects, is staffed by volunteers and there aren't enough of them, so it may be several weeks after it arrives before they act on the e-mail. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Summer of Monuments question
I was holding my submissions until September because I thought Wiki Loves Monuments was in September only. I didn't know here in the United States it had turned into a Summer of Monuments. This summer I've already uploaded landmark photos like File:Wilcox County Courthouse (South face).JPG. What is the procedure for entering already uploaded photos to the Wikipedia Summer of Monuments contest? Thanks in advance. --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know anything at all about Summer of Monuments. All I know is at Commons:Wikipedia Summer of Monuments.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, had a very good time, thank you. I don't think I have an e-mail from you -- at least not one I found while dealing with eight days of e-mail. Please either resend or tell me when you sent it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm… What do you think about this and this, Jim? I am not fully convinced (euphemism) that those screenshots are free, but you know the U.S. laws better than me. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know of any reason why these screenshots would be free of copyright. The no-notice tag is silly -- all TV shows carried a copyright notice in those days. Any claim that an image is free because it doesn't have a notice is silly -- it is well established that video and movies require only a single copyright notice for the entire work -- not one on every frame. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim, My name is Franklin, I received permission from Curtis Hooper via email. I would rather not put the email chain up here but here is an excerpt regarding ... From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository < Commons:Deletion requests Files uploaded by Martinscriminalcode (talk · contribs) Both of these images include a painting by Curtis Hooper, a living artist. They are derivative works of that painting. We cannot, therefore, keep them without permission from Hooper, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
File:Strosberg sitting.jpg File:ADVOCATE.JPG
"Please feel free to use the portrait of Harvey on his wikipedia page…anything for Harvey! I’ve attached a photo of “The Advocate” for you at a higher resolution that you would get from the website….and, I have also attached one of my favourite photos when I was painting Harvey for the Law Society of Upper Canada. He was a joy to paint!
Thanks for the offer of making a wikipedia page for me…I have been thinking about it for a while, I might get back to you on that...
- Hello, Franklin. Welcome to Commons. Discussions relating to open DRs should take place at the DR, so I have copied your note above to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Martinscriminalcode and replied there. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done Hiccup by DelReqHandler. Thanks. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- No. As I understand the German FOP law, the photographer must have been in a public place that is accessible 24/7. Generally that means he must have been on a street, although there are a few other places that qualify. Reading the discussion, the image was taken from one of two places, neither of which qualifies. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand on what basis you deleted this. LGA's comments are pure trolling (well shown by Russavia). Nobody else has argued for deletion there. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) As far as I have understood, COM:FOP#Germany demands that the photographer must be located in a public place, and that access to this place mustn't be limited by entrance fees or opening hours. This doesn't seem to be the case here. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) :See the comment above. The case seems pretty clear to me.
- "Private property that cannot be freely accessed, e.g. because it is enclosed by a fence or there is some form of admission control, does not qualify for § 59 UrhG." from Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany
- As I understand it, the image was taken from one of two places, both of which are described by the quote above -- neither one is accessible 24/7. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am copying what Axpde said: "Eine zeitweilige, insbesondere nächtliche Schließung steht der Öffentlichkeit nicht entgegen. (quote from de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium „öffentlich“" (Google tr.: A temporary, especially nocturnal closure of the public is not invalidated.).) It is quite clear to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please read Axpde's comment again, very clear case imho... --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think clarity is very much in doubt. See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany:
- "Private property that cannot be freely accessed, e.g. because it is enclosed by a fence or there is some form of admission control, does not qualify for § 59 UrhG."
- "...the Federal Court of Justice found that a photograph taken from a balcony of a privately-owned flat in a neighboring house the key to which was handed out freely to everyone who asked for it, does not comply with the restrictions imposed by § 59 UrhG because it was not taken from a public way, street or place."
- As I understand it, the image was taken from one of two places -- either a private viewing balcony with an admission charge or a restaurant, which is also a private place. Although there is usually no admission charge per se at a restaurant, one cannot usually just barge in, take a picture, and then leave. The first quote above seems to cover both possibilities and contradicts Axpde's assertion. The second quote seems similar -- if a private balcony with no admission charge does not qualify, how does the private balcony or restaurant in this case qualify? The restaurant also would be ruled out by the requirement that the space be dedicated to public use -- if railroad stations, subway stations, and airports do not qualify, how does a restaurant? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think clarity is very much in doubt. See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany:
- It is a bit a gray zone imho. I files a COM:UNDEL request, maybe someone else can comment (Pls don't take it personal ;)) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- No worries -- I see that the summary of the law here on Commons and at WP:EN does not completely agree. I don't pretend to know which is right, but by our rules I must follow the one on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Dutch propaganda newspaper
An user asked me whether they can upload safely a front page taken from here. It's about a 1944 Nazi collaborationist propaganda newspaper from the Netherlands thus very unlikely to be copyrightable. As for Italy propaganda publications during wartime were not eligible for copyright but I don't know the Dutch law. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. I don't know of any Dutch law about wartime propaganda. If it was collaborationist -- not produced by the German occupation government, but by third parties, I would expect that it is copyrightable and therefore still under copyright. I don't know when it will go PD, but certainly not until 1/1/2015 at the very earliest, and probably much later. You might ask User:Trijnstel -- she's Dutch. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and the USCO agrees with me. Copyright Registration Number / Date: VAu000544065 / 2002-03-22. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Crest Craft Permissions approval
Hi Jim: As a newbie, I’m not sure where to turn on this so perhaps you can advise. Months ago, I uploaded an image to Commons to support the article, No._168_Squadron_RCAF
The image in question is
When I was made aware that there might be copyright issues, I found the appropriate individual, obtained their approval and permission and forwarded that onto the Permissions-commons group (Aug 2nd) via email under the Subject, “new ticket request - Crest Craft Images”.
I heard nothing for a month then received notice that since the image hadn’t received verification from the OTRS group, it could be “speedy deleted”. I have resent the original information to the permissions-commons group and still haven’t had any feedback, now with only a week remaining before the original image stands to be deleted.
I clearly don’t understand the process and I am uncertain as to how to proceed. I don’t know how to reference the emails I sent to this group to you short of repeating the entire document here. Your advice would be appreciated.
- Done The OTRS backlog is apparently more than a month -- like all WMF projects, they are short of volunteers. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks Jim for cleaning all of this up.
forgot to delete?
(Edit conflict)Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/South Korean motages with non free content, you left one file not deleted. Did you forgot to do so? — Revicomplaint? 18:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Done Likely one of the frequent hiccups of DelReqHandler, but possibly my oversight. Thanks. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Jim, two questions for you: first one, could you please have a look here and tell whether I did anything bad because I can't find a point in that discussion - second one, I am noticing that there's no uniform - consistent way to disambiguate film directors. I see for example John Smith (director) or Jane Smith (film director) or even John Doe (filmmaker). What could be the consistent way to disambiguate correctly? I am thinking to "film director" but if one has also directed plays in theatre? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. Your questions are always subtle and interesting. I think I would use "film director". "Director" has many uses -- "Corporate Director", "Director of Music", "Chorus Director" all come to mind. "Filmmaker" is too general. Producers, directors, even camera operators could fit that category. You could then use "theater director" or perhaps "stage director" for the theater. As for the other, I have commented there.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- My mistake. It did not help that the listed source was a file that did not exist on Flickr when this image was created. I have restored this and fixed the permission. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
You are correct. i should have seen this was in use. i think i tried to clean out all the files there that didnt fit, and missed this one, then missed that it was in use when i DR'd it. thanks for actually following policy on files like this. I am going to give this file a rest for a while, and return later. question: is it policy that admins reviewing DR's not make edits that could change a decision, such as removing a file from a project? i assume admins cant close a DR that they participated in, and i guess not editing would be a similar conflict of interest. I know that it sometimes doesnt look good if i remove a file from a project, then DR it, but another editor could easily review my edits and perceive if i acted in good faith or not. I believe i have, in my efforts to remove these really bad files from commons, been fair in doing so, and tried to not game the system. again, thanks for the correct (and EXPLAINED) decisions here and on other files.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think it is a problem if an Admin participates in a small way in a discussion on a DR and then closes it. I do think that the nom, or an Admin who has taken a major part in the discussion should let someone else close it.
- As for removing an image from, say, WP:EN, and then DRing it -- I think that would be OK if maybe a week elapsed between the removal and the DR -- long enough for another WP:EN editor to put it back, if he thought that was good. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- We don't need three very similar galleries on essentially the same subject. It's much better to have the single gallery covering all bears on stamps. That is much more likely to be well maintained over the long run. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- It was a beginning. These three galleries was the same, because it was beginning. The gallery Ursus must contain some pages: Ursus arctos, Ursus thibetanus and so on. And the gallery Ursidae will be contained Ailuropoda, Helarctos, Melursus, Tremarctos, Ursus. And galleries Ailuropoda, Helarctos, Melursus, Tremarctos, Ursus will be contained some pages. --Matsievsky (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please return my pages. --Matsievsky (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think so, for the reasons given above. Build out the one Ursidae page first, and then we can discuss it. I and the Commons community have see far too many complex projects undertaken by beginners who don't understand that they will not be here to maintain them over the long run. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry -- another Admin deleted the page that I had left. I have left a note on his talk page. I suggest that you recreate Ursidae on stamps, fill it out fully and then we can discuss it. I don't see a need for more. Please remember that in most countries stamps are copyrighted, so this will be a limited gallery.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)