User talk:Jameslwoodward

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

1st half 2011
2nd half 2011
1st half 2012
2nd half 2012
1st half 2013
2nd half 2013
1st half 2014
2nd half 2014
1st half 2015

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

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


Is there a need for indef blocking this IP? AFAIR standard block for these kind of vandal IPs is a week. --Denniss (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know -- he is an IP who has done nothing but vandalize. Too be sure, it's only five instances, but still, he has done nothing constructive. I'd be inclined to leave it indef and change it if he requests it, but I don't feel strongly about it -- if you want to change it to a week, by all means go ahead with my blessing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi Jim, according to your conclusion, you should have deleted all the involved files, shouldn't you? Did you miss the two not deleted ones or you explicitly decided to keep them? Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | analysis 18:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I see one that I missed, thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look?[edit]

Requesting discussion/guidance on this correspondence, thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

See my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Helias Doundoulakis in Camp Crowder, MO, 1945.JPG. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Arlanda Flightower.jpg[edit]

Hi Jim. I was hoping I could get your opinion on this image. It was tagged for LR recently, but it's an 8 year old upload by a user who hasn't edited in over 4 years. The user looks to have been a trustworthy editor. The image is pretty widely used. You know the basic deal with 2006 uploading standards as compared to today's. I wonder if an LR is really needed or even possible, etc. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 23:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you -- I just learned how to use and found which solves the problem: " These photographs are free for all uses." .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. I'll have to use that in future. Here's another one I wonder about if you have time. INeverCry 17:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Tomorrow, probably. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
That's cool. I just started the DR yesterday, so there's plenty of time. I appreciate the help. I try to only bring cases to you that concern issues that're pretty rare. This one is a Youtube video with a CC license, but with an opening screen with a big CC-BY-NC-SA license. INeverCry 22:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done I'm always happy to see interesting cases, thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for studying this situation[edit]

Many thanks for carefully studying the situation regarding a picture. Your input here is very much appreciated: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Helias_Doundoulakis_in_Camp_Crowder,_MO,_1945.JPG. This whole situation has been a headache for me, and very exhausting. I have acted according to what I thought was right, but my knowledge regarding copyright issues is minimal compared to yours. At least I'm comforted by the fact that my initial nomination for deletion was correct. Again, many thanks. Also, on your user page, which is very nice, I read "one used as as a refrigerator magnet." I tried to remove the repeated "as" but your page is protected. Have a nice day. Dontreader (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Great catch! The double "as" has been there almost five years, since I first wrote the sentence. I didn't catch it because on my screen the line broke between the two. Thanks very much.
As far as the DR goes, certainly your efforts are much appreciated, but I'd suggest that until you get more experience, you ask for help earlier if things get complicated. Certainly the next time, feel completely free to come here and ask for help. As you'll see above, even very experienced Admins ask each other for second opinions on things from time to time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I seem to find little typos and tiny mistakes everywhere, all the time, and I'm glad you appreciated my discovery! Also, I think for now I will focus on nominating files for deletion that have clearly not been uploaded using a proper procedure, you know, the no-brainer situations (my track record is good in those cases). I know that there are just too many uploads every day, and not enough people that are willing to examine them, so I do try to help. The rules must be enforced. It's taken me over two months to get informal permission for my latest upload, sending many letters, and the owner has yet to send in the formal declaration of consent. God give me patience! Anyway, it's interesting that even you seasoned Administrators have doubts at times, although given the complexity of the matters here at Commons, I'm not surprised. Many thanks for your kind reply and for being willing to help me in the future! All the best, Dontreader (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Own work‎[edit]

Hi Jim,

Even with your point of view that the passer-by or friend is always also copyright owner of selfies, I think that we should accept (and amend the policy accordingly) selfies made by passer-by and friends, because the subject is co-author. Some people wrote that each author can license a work without the permission of the other. Do you agree? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No. As I said several different ways at the cited discussion, the circumstances vary too much, so PRP must control. Certainly there are cases where Subject hands a preset camera to Bystander, gives Bystander careful instructions about exactly where to stand and how to frame the image, and has Bystander shoot a dozen images, from which Subject selects the best -- that might be a joint work. But the typical case, where Subject turns the camera on and hands it to Bystander; Bystander steps back a few paces and moves left or right as he sees fit, frames the image also as he sees fit, gets Subject to smile and shoots one good image -- that case is clearly the Bystander's work with little creative input from Subject.
As for licensing a joint work, yes, any jointly held copyright, including one that is inherited, can be licensed by any one of the joint owners, but he runs a significant risk in doling so. The joint owner is responsible to the other owners for a fair division of any profits from the license and also responsible to the others for loss of possible profit if he gives the license away. So, if you and I are joint owners and I license it to Commons, if you can show that you could have sold the image, then I must pay you half the amount it would have sold for. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
With a bystander selfie, the bystander would be laughed out of court if claiming damages for loss of profit from an image where the bystander, by behavior, showed no interest in ownership. What is missed here is that in a bystander selfie, as defined, the subject clearly is a co-author, at least, there are too many creative elements involved. What you have been doing, Jim, is establishing that a bystander could be a co-owner, and I agree, technically, it is not impossible. As part of my research for this, I looked at what professional photographers, sophisticated about copyright, wrote on the subject. Yes, they might use professional expertise, but would never claim copyright. With a bystander selfie, the subject expects to own exclusive rights. It's completely obvious. And that is why subjects with bystander selfies routinely claim "own work." And then you have written, many times, that this is not possible.
One thing you have consistently missed is the creative activity of the subject, in deciding to be photographed with their own camera. We all agree that if a self-timer is used, the work is sufficiently creative (normally) to be copyrighted. If someone else participates, and is, say, creative in certain details, such as exact framing, or adjusts zoom, etc., they might be co-authors, however, with a bystander selfie, as defined on the draft at COM:Own work/Bystander selfie, they have abandoned that. Nevertheless, we don't need to know. A co-author may release. You might think that could be foolish, but professional photographers and lawyers, asked this specific question, considered that the subject owns exclusive copyright. And that is because of how the image is handled, the bystander could not release the image, because he or she doesn't have possession of it and took no action to establish rights, but acted in such a way as to clearly indicate no interest.
On Commons talk:Own work/Bystander selfie, I cite a case establishing that by arranging what is to be photographed, with the intention of creating the photograph, a writer who had retained a professional photographer -- who used his own camera -- was a co-author and could release rights. Yes, the photographer could -- and did -- claim copyright. Attempting to claim exclusive copyright, he lost. The writer, by the way, had already paid him a share of the royalties, as I recall. This matter is between the co-authors, and a deprived co-author may indeed sue the releasing co-author. Which would have no effect on a re-user of Commons content, properly released by a co-author. --Abd (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You take it for granted that a self-timer taken photograph has a copyright which belongs to the subject. That's not at all clear to me and I've never seen any case law on it. It is well established that images taken by fixed cameras -- security tapes, for example -- do not have a copyright. A self timer image is very similar.
For me, the only thing that matters in the average bystander photograph is the exact framing and the exact moment. All else is either set by the camera or irrelevant.
However, it is clear that we disagree, but if you expect to have Commons adopt your position as policy you need to get a lot more support than you now have. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. You've missed a major point with your argument about self-timer. If a self-timer image has no copyright, it may be hosted on Commons. Your argument would lead to not deleting such an image (at least not on the basis you have routinely asserted.) As to co-authorship, you have only focused on the creative effort of the bystander, which may or may not be significant enough to create a theoretical ownership. You have neglected legal opinion and case law which establishes that co-authorship exists where the subject participated creatively in creating the image, such as by acting out, say, an exercise for a video, setting a self-timer and handing the camera to a bystander to maintain framing. I was amazed when that explanation was given by the user, why would a self-timer be used? I asked him if he was sure. It was, he wrote, because he found that bystanders often didn't properly press Record, so he had to do it all over again." Hey, I've done that myself, thought I was recording and I wasn't! You called that person a "liar" because he claimed "own work" and then, in a deletion discussion, mentioned "self-timer."
I have no doubt, though, that with such a video, a bystander selfie as defined, the subject would own exclusive copyright. Period. It's not marginal. Your claim above of "significant risk" would not be approved by any knowledgeable copyright attorney. And it's irrelevant for Commons. This has been a frequent dispute, and it's time to end it. So, yes, this will be approved by the community. Did you imagine I thought otherwise? What I've been doing is developing fact and evidence, and soliciting participation on that page, getting the arguments clear, including yours, and that process is not yet complete. When it is, we go to the community, right? --Abd (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I have ever deleted a self-timer/tripod image, so I don't understand your comments above. Shustov lied about using a self timer -- if he had actually used one, with the camera on a tripod, the images would have been acceptable from a copyright point of view, although still out of scope.
All of the conditions you set forth above are special cases -- I agree that a small percentage of bystander images are joint works, but I believe strongly that the vast majority are not and since our policy always errs on the side of caution, we should not accept them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
I did not say you deleted the file. The camera was not on a tripod, and that was obvious. Rather, read what I wrote. The camera was held by a bystander, and a self-timer was used to start the video. Because the camera moved, or the photographer was visible -- there are various cases -- you assumed he'd lied. Shustov also had other photos that were stills, both as self-timer photos and as bystander assisted. Shustov did not understand what was going on and how to communicate what needed to be communicated. That's obvious! See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ShustovVal, the last DR. I had not noticed it before, but Shustov actually did write what I wrote above.[1] I had not understood it on the first reading myself. Shustov did not understand that, on the argument you have been following, the file would still be deletable, because of the "creative activity" of the person holding the camera. Actually pressing the button, especially for a video, is a minor part of it.
Thanks for being clear. This is what I found. All bystander selfies, as defined in COM:Own work/Bystander selfie are owned by the subject. Period. See the WMF legal opinion. It concluded exclusive subject ownership. I suspect it is possible to imagine rare circumstances where the bystander might have co-authorship. Frankly, I have difficulty imagining a practical case, and you have not asserted one. Bystander selfies are a special case!
The primary issue is not the degree of creativity exercised, the issue is the intention of the parties and the custody of the latent image. Above, you claim that it would be risky for the subject to release the image. However, could the subject simply delete the image from his camera? Would that be risky? By your argument, the same risk. You imagine that a bystander has the right to demand some sort of specific performance and rights from the subject, when, in fact, the bystander has, as the situation has been defined, completely surrendered whatever right might have existed.
You mention "out of scope." Most Shustov files were in use on WMF wikis, so "out of scope" would be incorrect. As to the file mentioned, delinker log. I see six pages cross-wiki with that gif. --Abd (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by[edit]

Could you check this permission is sufficient for the first batch of deletions by you, please. Jee 12:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't pass my sniff test -- I suspect that you are also suspicious, or you would not have asked me. He does not say that he is the photographer or that he is the heir of the photographer. I can't tell whether he simply does not understand that owning a copy of an image does not mean that you own the copyright or if he is actually lying, but I see no reason to believe that he actually owns the copyrights to "images taken from my Private Photo CoUectíon". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes; I too suspicious. And I still wonder whether further communication will be helpful. Will make one more attempt, anyway. :) Jee 13:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi Jim- This logo has been removed. How to re-upload considering I have all the information needed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assalych (talk • contribs) 16:07, 23 March 2015‎ (UTC)

I don't see a problem. I deleted it because the file was corrupt, not for copyright reasons. It is {{PD-textlogo}} and all you have to do is put that template in the licensing section. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

File:DC10 Simulator Diplom.JPG[edit]

I would say that a diploma always is given in order to publicly shown. Could You give me any other examples of diplomas which are covered by copyright laws ? If not, the matter of copyright surely must fall. At the time (October 2014) I also asked Västerås flight museum if I could use it at Wikipedia, and the answer was "of cource". Boeing720 (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

A simple university diploma, with only a name, date, degree, and a few words, will not have a copyright in most countries. However, the subject diploma has an image of a DC-10, a full sentence of text, and the logo of the museum which has a second photograph in it. Any of those three items would qualify it for a copyright in the USA and most other countries.
Most created works are made to be publicly shown. The fact that a sculpture, painting, or other work of art is on public display does not mean that it does not have a copyright. The only reason Commons can host any images of recent works of art is that in about half of all countries there are special exceptions to the copyright law which allow us to host them. No such exception applies to this work.
Verbal permission from the museum for use on WP is nowhere near sufficient. Copyright law requires that any license for a copyrighted work must be in writing. Commons and WP require that works hosted here be free for any use by anyone, not just WP.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jim ! Are You saying the museum isn't attowed to use a diploma such as this ? The photo of the DC-10 has been taken by the museum itself. And the simulator was more or less given to the museum , after SAS no longer needed the simulator. Pardon me, but this is all bullshit. Boeing720 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I assume that the museum has a license to the photographs on the diploma. Note that museums don't take photographs, people do, so the museum cannot be the initial copyright holder, but it probably has a proper license for them. The text is similar, so if the museum has properly licensed the photographs and text, then it has no problem -- the museum owns the copyright for the diploma. But that doesn't do anything for us here -- you do not have a copyright license from the museum and therefore you have no right to license it freely on Commons.
I'm not sure I understand why you think this diploma is any different from any other copyrighted work. I hope that you understand that you cannot simply scan a newspaper or magazine page and upload it to Commons. The same is true of the diploma. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
OK. I have only asked the instructor. However I am quite certain that the diploma is made by the museum, and given to those who has started and landed a DC-10 atleast once (in good weather it's not really that difficult after some attempts, provided You can do the same with a Microsoft Simulator (9 or 10 and chose a jet airliner). Anyways I'm planning to return to Västerås (it's around 550 km, of which around 470 is motorway) rather soon. Not that it matters that much, it's just that Tommy Isosalo who is stalking me, when he isn't stalking someone else. But what kind of information would be requiered , in order to make the diploma absolutely safe ? (I understand the photo part, but there is absolutely nothing that indicates copywright issues at all , in this case. + the instructors signature "Chico" is all I can find. (Off topic , the instructer came from Austria to Sweden when he was 4 years old just after the war, he told me. And his real name is Adolf + something very German. So I can understand he uses a nickname. A very nice man around 65-70 years old).
I appriciate You are doing Your work, Jim. I'm trying to avoid Tommy Isosalo, but that appears sadly not to be mutual. I've put another (approved) Commons photo of a DC-10 where the diploma was. Cheers and sorry for my initial sour attitude. Boeing720 (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You can certainly try asking the Museum for a free license. All the required information is at OTRS. Note that the museum must send the license directly -- we do not generally accept licenses forwarded by the uploader. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Bust of Antoni Gaudi by Josep Maria Subirachs.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your Answer Jim. I should do a research about the copyright issue first but want to note that the almost all sculptures of the passion façade at the Sagrada Família are from Josep Maria Subirachs. Therefore are all images of his sculptures copyrighted? Just have a quick look here: Category:Sculptures in the Passion Facade of the Sagrada Família or at the spanish version of :es:Antoni Gaudí where a picture of the bust is included.KKnoefler247 (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all of his sculptures are under copyright and will be until 2084. Therefore all images of his work infringe on the copyrights unless freedom of panorama applies. Spain has a very comprehensive FOP law, but it applies only to work out of doors. The Passion Facade images are all covered by it. The subject sculpture, and other indoor works, are not.
I went through the images we have of works by Subirachs yesterday, see:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sculpture of Saint George (Sagrada Família)
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:L'Eixample (sculpture)
As for the image at WP:ES, it certainly infringes on the copyright. I don't know what the rules are there, and there is far more to do here than I have time for, so I spend little time on any of the WPs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit that i had no clue about the FOP at all and guess i´ll have to reconsider my posting behavior at Flickr too. Thanks for your efforts Jim. KKnoefler247 (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Medium69[edit]

Hi, Jim, I've seen a number of Slovenia-related non-free files (nominated for deletion by User:Yerpo) have been closed as 'deleted' at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Medium69, but they are still kept here. Could you please delete them or should they be renominated? --Eleassar (t/p) 09:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not sure what happened there -- my closing comment suggests that I thought all of them had been deleted, but as you say, that's not correct. A fast look through them suggests that most, but not all, infringe the architect's copyright Jože Plečnik (1872-1957). Some of the subjects are probably utilitarian and copyright free. Under the circumstances, I think it would be good if you nominated the appropriate ones again. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:PRIWALL - Leistungsnadel Nummer 87 vom 13-08-1956.jpg[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Medals of Germany

Hello Jim:

As a former student of LASt Priwall and the SS Passat, I am wondering why this picture was removed. Could you please advise?

Many thanks

Endrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endrick (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2015‎ (UTC)

The medal has a copyright. Since it is German, the copyright will expire 70 years after the death of its designer. The medal is from 1956, and while it is possible that it was designed long before that and that the designer died before 1945, there is no evidence of that in the file description. A derivative work of a copyrighted work requires permission from the creator of the underlying work. Since there is no permission from the medal designer, the image is a copyright violation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)