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

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

Fekner OTRS[edit]

Hi Jim, Thank you for informing me of my files scheduled for deletion. I wrote a letter informing Wikimedia Commons that these are my works. I need some help. Who should I email my letter to? Thanks - john fekner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fekner (talk • contribs) 19:47, 10 October 2014‎ (UTC)

  • John -- I'm sorry for this, as I know it is a nuisance, and I'm 90% sure that User:Fekner is actually the artist, but we do get good fakers claiming to be someone they are not, so we ask for confirmation whenever we get an editor who claims to be a notable person. Please send a brief note, using the instructions at OTRS, being sure to send it from your own domain and not a gmail account. OTRS has a substantial backlog -- weeks, maybe a month -- but if you drop me another note here after you have sent the e-mail, I'll handle it promptly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Jim, thank you for the info. I will send it off to OTRS, and will let you know when I do- BIG THANKS - john

Jim, I just wanted to let you know that I sent the letter to OTRS today -john

John, there are two problems with the OTRS e-mail. First, you did not give a general license, as described at OTRS, but only a limited one for Commons and WP. That is not enough -- both projects require a free license such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Please read OTRS.
The second problem is that you sent the message from a gmail account. When we know that an artist has his own domain (, getting a permission from a gmail account only raises our suspicions. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Jim, I just sent the requested letter from my domain. john
Again you did not follow the instructions at
Your letter gives us two things:
1) Permission to use the images on Commons and WP
2) A CC-BY-NC-ND license
(1) is fine thank you, but not sufficient to keep your images either place.
(2) is unacceptable -- Commons does not accept either NC or ND licenses.
Acceptable licenses (among others) are CC-0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

•Hello Jim, I resent per your instructions. thx- john

This DR[edit]

Dear Admin Woodward,

The time is gettimg close to the end of this DR--which I admit I launched but should the image in this DR be kept or deleted. Maybe you can close this as a keep or delete either way. I don't know who is right now. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  • PS: I created a separate DR on this image in Congo but I'm not sure if the monument is copyrightable. If you think it is not copyrightable, please say so in the DR and I will withdraw the DR. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your replies in both DRs and your help here. It is appreciated. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status[edit]

Jim, I am asking this question,becuase it has been a common occurring theme while I have been on Wikipedia, and you seem knowledgeable on copyright. This image here that I have uploaded (which I thought would make a great addition to its related article) [1], is used by the U.S State Department through the Rewards for Justice program,[2] who cite it as being in the public domain. My initial impression was that it was a mugshot photo taken by a U.S employee, as it didn't have an author or copyright tag but it was actually an ID photo taken in Afghanistan in the early 1990's. Therefore, I thought it was in the public domain anyway, as it way first produced in Afghanistan in the form of an ID photo. I hadn't grasped the concept of the term "published", as you can't publish a personal identification document like an ID photo. Furthermore, it turned out that the image did in fact have an author, Khalid Hadi, an afghan native, and the image was published in the United States in 2003 in a Vanity Fair article [3], the first time the image had been published ever. The image contains a copyright from Magnum Photos [4] which I later discovered. I tried to defend the version I uploaded as being in the Public domain, as it is vastly different to the original version in terms of lighting, digitization and image cropping and used by the U.S government. However, after digging further, I discovered the image was actually first published in Afghanistan in September 2002, 4-5 months before it was published in America in that media article, and used by the U.S Department of Defense [5].

My question is this: Can one version of an image be copyrighted while a derivative version be in the public domain? e.g The U.S State Department version [6] or the original version copyrighted [7] or are they both copyrighted? And my other question is if the image was first used and published by the U.S government in its place of origin (Afghanistan) could it be considered in the public domain in either the U.S or Afghanistan, or does its copyright with Magnum Photos seal the deal? Thanks. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. My first suggestion is to ask Carl Lindberg as he is very knowledgeable about the interactions of copyright law. All of what I say below is my best effort, but I usually defer to Carl on such matters.
You say:
"and the image was published in the United States in 2003 in a Vanity Fair article, the first time the image had been published ever."
but then go on to say:
"I discovered the image was actually first published in Afghanistan in September 2002"
If the first statement had been correct, then it would have a USA copyright. If the latter statement is correct, then it is PD in Afghanistan, in the USA, and most other countries. However, for Commons, you would have to prove the negative -- that it was not previously published outside of Afghanistan. Note that "published" has a special meaning in copyright law -- a work is published if a physical copy of it is made available to the public for sale or other transfer, without any agreement to keep it secret. Thus a passport photo is not published by its use in a passport, but almost any other use would constitute publication.
As for
"My question is this: Can one version of an image be copyrighted while a derivative version be in the public domain?"
the answer is "no". A derivative work has two copyrights -- that of the original work and that of the derivative. If the original is copyrighted, then the DW cannot be used with a license from the original's copyright holder. It is possible for a DW to have a copyright while the original is PD -- a good example is colorized B&W movies, but not the other way around. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, but how do you prove that something hasn't been published? This is just so murky to wade through, I have been having this discussion about this image's copyright status for more than 2 months. The U.S Defense Department distribution of the image in Afghanistan is the earliest known date that I can find, however in the 2003 Vanity Fair article it states "he was interested in selling the picture of Omar, who would surely be out of power soon... the image began to run in publications around the world." but it doesn't specify when this happened, whether these publications were before or after the U.S government used them. I can't find any publication on the Internet after copious amount of searches confirming an earlier date other than February 2003. Magnum photos has the image on their website [8] which is cited as being a copyrighted work as per the Terms and Conditions, however there is no date of when the copyright was issued, and this raises another question for me. If the copyright was issued after it was first distributed in Afghanistan, is it sill in the PD in either the U.S or Afghanistan? StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, you have to prove the negative, which is very difficult. It is hard for me to believe that an image of the head of the Taliban, taken 1996-98, was not published anywhere outside of Afghanistan before 2003. While Afghanistan was not often on the front pages until 2001, the Taliban was a subject of interest to the world. Please remember that the Internet was not as important then as it is now, and if it was published, it was likely in a newspaper or magazine that does not have back issues on line.
A copyright is not "issued" in the usual sense of the word. Copyright happens upon creation. A work can be registered, in which case the copyright office in the country of registration will confirm the registration, but registration is not required for a copyright to exist. Afghanistan is an exception to this -- at that time it had no copyright law and therefore a work that was first published there at that time has no copyright anywhere.
Magnum claims a copyright. While that may be copyfraud, it certainly raises a significant doubt that the image is PD, so I don't think we can keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I see, better to play it safe and not upload questionable copyright material. I tried contacting the U.S State Department in relation to the PD/copyright status of that image I was talking about, but they never got back to me. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Jim, I have another query regarding this discussion. Does it affect the status of the image if Magnum placed the copyright in 2004, 2 years after the U.S published it for the use of the Afghan public in Afghanistan? StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What matters is first publication. If Afghanistan (then, but not now), then it is PD and Magnum's copyright is not valid. If outside of Afghanistan, then it has a copyright and it is possible that Magnum simply licensed or bought that copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

John G. Johnson Collection[edit]

The collection was bequeathed to the City, and is on permanent loan to PMA. From the 1930s to the 1980s, the Johnson Collection was exhibited at PMA as a separate collection. A new 100-year loan was negotiated in the 1980s, which allowed PMA (for the first time) to integrate the art into its full collection. My choice of "housed" was deliberate. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The article at WP:EN tells it slightly differently -- that in the 1980s the museum took full control and integrated it into its collection. After reading the cite that supports that description,, I agree that the facts are not quite as described on WP:EN, but I think that you need to fix that first, then the sentence on Commons. I'm not sure I would use "housed" -- perhaps "on loan to the Museum until at least 2083"..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
PMA's website uses "housed" and "administered by," but it may be less confusing to leave it as it is. I added the 100-year loan to the Wikipedia article.
Johnson's collection truly is extraordinary. And the way that he amassed it himself over the summers (while the Supreme Court was not in session) is amusing. There are plenty of duds, but also plenty of masterpieces. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. And then there's the Barnes.... .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this picture being deleted or not?[edit]

Dominic James -

Hi, I'm looking to use an existing picture in an article, but the picture has a speedy deletion note on it from July 2014. Does this mean that it's alright to use, or should it be ignored?

As far as I know, it's being used in two articles:

I was not the original uploader, nor have anything to do with it- I just want to use it. Richard Nowell (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted, restored, deleted again, and then restored, all during a messy OTRS sequence. The DR tag was inadvertently left in place -- I have removed it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks for your help: I will use it as above. Richard Nowell (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Hommageur[edit]

Hi Jim, you made some assumptions concerning the pictures in Heidi Brunnbauer's book. I am prepared for an assumption-by-assumption-discussion. If necessary followed by a file-by-file discussion. Is this the right place to do it ? Hommageur (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Guess so.

Your assumption 1: "Some of these are quite old, so it is obvious that not all, perhaps none, of these images were actually photographed by Heidi Brunnbauer." My comment : The book is about Hellmuth Marx *1915. I am 63, Heidi is, well, older than I am, but let us assume for the sake of simplicity that none of these images were actually photographed by Heidi Brunnbauer née Pichler-Stainern. But let me assure you that there are Pichler-Stainern family archives. Heidi has access to these archives. And Heidi has access to the archives of all the "participating family" archives. Please note that the book is also about the sculptures, paintings, drawings etc. by Hellmuth Marx. Many of them are owned by members of these "participating families" including myself. These members have taken many photographs for Heidi's book and have transferred the copyrights to Heidi. In fact they, including myself, have the original artworks, so why not give the copyrights of their photographs to Heidi ?

Your assumption 2: "Usually, people putting photos in books either don't bother with copyright, or get a license that covers only the use in the book -- not a general license." My comment : Heidi has written many books and of course she is used to bother with copyrights. In the case of this book things are especially simple because the "participating families" willingly have given her lienses that cover the use in the book PLUS the use in Wikipedia, i.e. a general license.

So the only thing to (potentially) worry about could be the pics of the sculptures etc. not owned by members of the "participating families" in the public area such as the River Drau Bridge, the Oberdrauburg Market Fountain, ... To make a long story short, this is why exactly 1 (one) pic had to be excluded from the general license. Neither I with my bad eysight nor my sons or younger relatives are allowed to upload this single pic. Shure Heidi cares. And we appreciate that you care.

Sound convincing ? Hommageur (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate your polite note, knowledge of the problem, and general reasoning, I don't fully agree with you.

First, I'm 71 myself and I wasn't taking photos in 1941, or even 1951. It's certainly possible for someone living today to have taken a 1941 image, but whenever we see images of that age, we question them.

Second, you assume that ownership of the photographs and works of art equates to ownership of the copyrights. That's not correct. As a general rule, the copyrights will be owned by the heirs of the artists and photographers. That means that for Commons purposes you will have to provide evidence of licenses by the appropriate heirs in each case. Since all of Marx's works are still under copyright, that will be two licenses, one for the art work and one for the image. If the only works of art pictured are by Hellmuth Marx, then one OTRS e-mail from his heirs will be good for them. Generally that can be from one of the heirs, who must declare that he or she is authorized to speak for all of them. The photographs will require e-mails from each of the photographers or, if the photographer is dead, his heirs.

Finally, you talk about "PLUS the use in Wikipedia, i.e. a general license." Both Commons and WP require licenses not just for WP and Commons, but for any use by anyone, including commercial use and derivative works. As a rule this must be in one of several forms acceptable to Commons, the most common being CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or CC-0.

All of this is certainly doable, but it is nowhere near as simple as having Ms. Brunnbauer send a note to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is well understood that both Commons and WP require licenses not just for WP and Commons, but for any use by anyone, including commercial use and derivative works; thank you for mentioning the most common acceptable forms.

The only works of art pictured are by Hellmuth Marx. So one OTRS e-mail from his heirs will be good for them. Hellmuth Marx had no wife, no children. He had 4 sisters among whose children I shall contact the legal / designated heirs and make them nominate a speaker. This will take some time (no PCs, no internet). So all I am asking for is some patience so we can as a first step get the required OTRS e-mail from the speaker of the heirs.

This being accomplished, we shall tackle the photographers' emails including one from myself. Hommageur (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)