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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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/False Namecoin Logos[edit]

Hi, why did you delete all files of this DR? While I agree that most of them were out of scope, I don't think we should keep one of the two logos as it is unclear which one is the generally used version.    FDMS  4    14:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I read the consensus to be that they were all out of scope. All the ones I checked were not in use.
I'm not sure I understand:
"I don't think we should keep one of the two logos as it is unclear which one is the generally used version."
Do you mean that you think we should keep both, or neither?
I don't feel strongly about this one, so if you make a suggestion that seems sensible, I'll do it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
There were two DR discissions in one. One were about the art works which were out of scope, and one were about the logos themself (which is why the DR was started. They were not in use, since the had been unlinked on WIkipedia pending this DR, sinced there are two versions of the logo. One blue and one purple(?). Both of those should be kept, per the discussions, the rest should be deleted as out of scope. Josve05a (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
One about "false logos" (consensus: keep), one about media copyvios (consensus: delete) and one about scope (consensus: delete; equals three btw). Please restore at least the deleted basic logo version(s) (not necessarily derivative works of it).    FDMS  4    22:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • OK -- I restored
File:Namecoin Logo 2 SVG.svg
File:Namecoin SVG.svg

both of which are the purple version. I do not think I deleted any of the blue version. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, done, thanks!    FDMS  4    19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for temporary undeletion[edit]

Hi Jim,

I am one of organisers of Wiki Loves Monuments in Ukraine and I have noticed you have deleted one or several images illustrating Ukrainian monuments. We would like to copy these images to Ukrainian Wikipedia (we do accept non-free content) and we want to use them at least in monument lists and articles about cities and villages, and also in articles about monuments (we will have an article contest in November) and about people connected with monuments (if it's a grave, a plaque etc. or created by a notable author) if those exist. Those images are very valuable, as many of these monuments have no illustrations on the Internet at all. Unfortunately, deleted images can't be undeleted via API, and I understand that undeleting identical images is a useless work (as we will only copy one main image + possibly some images of important details), so I kindly ask you to do the following:

  • Please undelete the image of the best quality for each concerned monument (to be used as a main article image)
  • Please also undelete all useful images of details of each monument (especially plaques for notable people living in buildings, we will use them in articles about those people)

Once you undelete these images, we will move them to ukwiki using bot (an example of bot's work is uk:Файл:War museum, Kyiv 6.jpg) and I will inform you once it's done so that you can delete them. If you do not want to undelete these images, please consider uploading them locally to Ukrainian Wikipedia, and we will correct descriptions ourselves.

The concerned DRs are:

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Best regards — NickK (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The first is easy -- it's one file and I have undeleted it.
The second is harder -- it is 50+ files. It takes six page loads to examine and undelete a file -- that's an hour's work. Do you have any idea of which of the 50+ files you want?
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately the first one is of an extremely poor quality, and we have a better local Файл:Hotel ukraine.jpg, thus you may delete it back
Concerning the second one: will it make sense for you to do the batch undeletion and then the batch deletion back? It would be much easier to analyse the files when you can see them. If not, files that were in use should be enough. Please also temporarily undelete:
Thanks — NickK (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Please let me know when you are done with them all. I'd suggest that you look at all of the Wiki Loves Monuments in Ukraine images and make local copies of all the problems -- you might also tag them for deletion. At least watch carefully for DRs -- it's inevitable that in a country with no FOP that many images of monuments are going to be problems. We had the same problem earlier with the sister project in the USA -- even the image on the page that introduced the project was a DW and was deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Jameslwoodward. INeverCry did some undeletions and then decided to send further requests to COM:UDEL (User talk:INeverCry#Request for temporary undeletion), you seem to be ok with proceeding requests in here. But perhaps you guys shall do it one way? The tast is the same and it'd be nice to have it proceeded by one procedure. I'd say better to held it all in one place as well rather than scattered amongst sysops' talk pages. --BaseSat (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I did those above because they were almost all files that I had deleted. Undeletions, as I said above, take six page loads each, so it takes around a minute for each one. That will suck up a lot of Admin time that could better be used elsewhere. There are hints on INC's talk page that there may be a bot way to do it. You can also ask the original uploader to reload them at WP:UK. Since they are all recent uploads, that should be easy. Also, as INC suggested, I think that you should take the necessary action to transfer files before they are deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Denkmal der grauen Busse Deletion[edit]

Hi Jim, part of the above linked DR discussion was the concept of the two bus sculptures: one of them is mobile with temporary installations (no FOP applicable), one  – the one in Weißenau – is a permanent installation (FOP applicable). You can see a proof of the permanent installation in the documentation of the artists. Please undelete the five files with "Weißenau/Weissenau" in their names, the last 5 items in the list. (I could do it myself if you don't have time, just don't want to overrule your decision without talking). Thanks! --Elya (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! --Elya (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS permission for Linda Hess Miller photographs[edit]

Hello,

I was trying to add the OTRS tags for Category:Photographs by Linda Hess Miller (ticket 2014091610002391) with my bot but it's not working since there is an extra confirmation page for non-OTRS users. Any other way it could be done (except modifying the Pywikipediabot code to deal with it)? InverseHypercube 22:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have just used Visual File Change this way for the first time -- the pulldown at the upper left allows you to "append text", which is what you want to do. If some reason it doesn't work for you -- the extra confirmation, perhaps -- let me know and I'll do it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks! HypercubeBot (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorcerer's Hat[edit]

Hi, Jim; I don't understand your closing comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sorcerers Hat at Disneys Hollywood Studios by eddison moreno.jpg. All of the items you cite as not protected by FOP are supporting elements of the hat structure, which you agree counts as a building. Without those supporting elements, the hat wouldn't serve its structural function! And the artistic elements thereof seem to be de minimis anyway, since the focus of the image is on the hat proper.

Had you made these arguments as part of the discussion, I could have addressed them, but by making them as part of the closure, you've cut off debate. Would you consider re-opening the discussion?

-- Powers (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I think you may be right with respect the spiral but the hand is not actually holding up the hat -- there is another spiral supporting the hat that is mostly hidden by the hand so the hand is not part of the building. Also, the gold three spiral structure under the left side of the hat, just to the right of the hand, is clearly not holding up the hat and is also clearly copyrighted as sculpture. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
But again, those are de minimis, surely. Powers (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so, although I agree that it's not a completely obvious decision. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

These images[edit]

Dear Admin Woodward,

I hope that these architectural details here have no impact with FOP since this modern building from 2006 is in France which has no COM:FOP. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like all the images are DWs of the architect's copyright and should be tagged for deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I will ask someone to file a mass DR on these modern images if possible. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Created on the wrong URL[edit]

Hi Jameslwoodward, Recently I created the page Design/Scenarios in the wrong url, and it was deleted. It was intended to be at Commons:Structured_data/Design/Scenarios where it makes sense as part of the designs for the Structured Data project. Would it be possible to have access to the deleted content so that it is easier to add it to the right place?

Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience.

--Pginer-WMF (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yogi Berra[edit]

re Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yogi Berra Plaque.png

An unpublished original work does not need a copyright notice to have a copyright. Putting a sculpture on display is not publishing it.

http://copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf

To me, there needs to be proof of publication without a copyright notice.

Compare: copies of Yogi Berra's Hall of Fame plaque were published as HoF postcards. Those postcards did not contain a copyright notice, so Berra's Hall of Fame plaque is not copyrighted.

Where is the proof that this plaque (which is not the HoF plaque) was published?

Glrx (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The more important copyright here is not as a sculpture, but as a literary work. In order to remain "not published", a work must never be photographed and a literary work must never be quoted. Publication does not require that a work be sold, it can be given away (by allowing photographs, for example). There are a few sculptures formerly on Commons that have been deleted because it could be shown that the owner prevented photography and did not sell postcards or other images, but it doesn't happen often. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Files uploaded by hommageur (revival of #121 "Files uploaded by hommageur")[edit]

Jim, I have been able to identify 6 heirs to the Austrian sculptor Hellmuth Marx who died in 2002. 3 of them deceased between 2003 and 2009. Furthermore, 3 heirs to the latter ones have been identified, 2 of them deceased between 2009 and 2013. Question 1: As a rule, we do not need formal proofs for each and every successorship but just one email from a living speaker of the remaining heirs, correct ? Question 2: There is at least one exception to the rule that requires this declaration concerning the copyrights to the works of art from the speaker of the heirs. It is the freedom of panorama that seems to apply to all of Marx' works of art visible from public areas in Austria, correct ? Are there other exceptions to the rule ? Question 3: What happens if not all the identified heirs/ heirs to heirs can be contacted, or in the case that I might not have been able to identify one of these persons ? Question 4: Is it possible that an artist or one of his heirs rightfully transfers all or some of his "copyrights to the works of art" to another person or institution without any clearly visible indication to the public ? Could this be done in a will or by contract ? Hommageur (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I am speaking generally and Austrian law might make different provisions, although I think that is unlikely.

1) I think that if one speaker says that all of the heirs agree to the license, that should suffice. If, however, they do not all agree, then the works cannot be licensed. Note that I am assuming that Marx's will did not make specific provisions for his copyrights -- that they devolved to all of his heirs. If the will named a single or made other provisions, then, of course, that governs.

2) FOP would allow free license of the works provided the location met the FOP requirements of the country in which they are located. There are other unlikely possibilities -- if a work was published in a book or catalog and it could be shown that Marx gave the publisher a general license instead of one specific to the book, then the publisher could sub license the work here. That's very unlikely. More possible is that one of his works might have been exhibited to the general public in the USA before 1978 without notice -- it would be PD here in the USA and therefore OK for Commons.

3) Unless someone is willing to state that all of the heirs approve of the license, then the work cannot be licensed -- it is an orphan work -- one where there is a copyright but it cannot be licensed. Note that I am hedging a little here -- I think we could accept a statement from a responsible party that all of the heirs approve -- that's not quite actually getting the approval of all, but I think it will suffice.

4) Transfers and licenses of copyrights must be in writing. A single heir can transfer only his or her own interest, not the whole thing. Wills are public documents, but Marx could have transferred or licensed some or all of his works before his death without it being public. In the USA, generally transfers of copyright are registered with the USCO, but I don't know about Austria.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

thx jim, this helps. Hommageur (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You have been right, Jim. "It" seems to be doable: The identification of all heirs to the artist required me to contact quite a number of Austrian probate courts (Innsbruck, Klagenfurt, Vienna Josefstadt, Spittal an der Drau to name just a few). Some of theses local courts had to be contacted several times. Looks like there have been no provisions in wills or contracts afa copyrights to Hellmuth Marx' works of art are concerned. But just to make sufficiently shure, I am still trying to find out about the existence of some sort of Austrian USCO.
The heirs involved are not young, few of them have access to email. Electronic obituary notices like ASPETOS or TRAUERHILFE still seem to be the exception rather than the rule in Austria, so many phone calls and guesses are necessary. Somewhat surprisingly, everybody knew who was calling and addressed me with the informal "Du" plus Christian name. So I am confident everyone will approve of the licence, afa the works of art and the fotos of the artist are concerned. There is no special email form for this declaration of all living heirs in this context, is there ? Hommageur (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes -- someone, as we have discussed, speaking for all of the heirs, must give us a license using the procedure at OTRS, marking it up a little to match the circumstances. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello Jim,

regarding,

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Analysis (Osnabrück 2014-2016) Teil I Vorlesung 2.pdf

I have uploaded the slightly renewed pdf-file under the 'right name', which is linked to from the German wikiversity. therefore this file can be deleted. We (professor and secretary) have been using Wikiversity for course material for six years, now the print version is migrating to commons, so there are some starting problems, where we may need your help. Please also have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mgausmann, where somebody wants to delet everything. best--Bocardodarapti (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said at the DR for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Analysis (Osnabrück 2014-2016) Teil I Vorlesung 2.pdf, an incorrect name is not a reason to delete the file -- it is easy to move it. If revisions were necessary, they should have been uploaded over the old file. This is not a big deal, but deleting File:A and uploading slightly revised File:B is a small waste of Commons computer and human resources.
I have commented at the other DR -- I think you will have to keep an eye on your files for a while, until active Admins like me and Eugene learn of the change. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)