User talk:MichaelMaggs

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
I will respond here to any messages left for me on this page. If you would like me to respond on your own talk page, as well, just let me know.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Talk page archives: 2006-7, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

Deleted Pictures of my dad[edit]

A number of photographs taken by my father of artworks he created, and some snapshots of my father at work, that I uploaded were deleted. This was done in a rather aggressive way which I do not understand. My father died ten years ago. There's no discussion of copyrights here, there are no copyrights involved, they're just snap shots of him and his work. I scanned the pictures I own and used some of them for a Wikipedia page about him and his work. I would like an explanation. Thank you. Saflieni (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about that. I expect that any deletions were for copyright issues, as all photos attract copyright protection, but I'm not sure as I don't know who you are nor which images you are referring to. If you could let me know, please (for example by giving me the exact name of an image that has been deleted), I'll happily look into it for you. With best regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The pictures are below. I should add that most of the artworks depicted in these scanned photographs are (or were) in public spaces, were paid for by community funds and were created for the enjoyment of the public. So they are by definition in the public domain, just like any other monumental work of art. As these artworks are made of glass, some of the older ones do not exist anymore today because the buildings were demolished in the meantime or the artworks themselves did not survive. They are documented by these pictures and should be available to anyone who wishes to view them. I replied to the notifications by explaining what the pictures are and that I am the owner of the original pictures. Therefore I have no idea why you went ahead and deleted them unless there was a complaint, which I very much doubt.
   File:Glas-appliqué in Begeleidings Centrum v h Onderwijs Amsterdam 2.jpg
   File:Profeet. Zwevend glas in lagen gestapeld, niet verlijmd..jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in gemeentehuis Dalfsen 2.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in gemeentehuis Stede Broec.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in Amsterdams Lucht en ruimtevaart laboratorium.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in gemeentehuis Zederik.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in gemeentehuis Dalfsen.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in Coöperatieve Begrafenis Onderneming Bussum.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué detail.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in Begeleidings Centrum v h Onderwijs Amsterdam.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in Rode Kruis Ziekenhuis Den Haag.jpg
   File:Glas-appliqué in Gemeentehuis Emmen.jpg
   File:Glaswand Technische Hogeschool Eindhoven.jpg
   File:Miskelk Sint Willibrorduskerk buiten de veste.jpg
   File:Ramen Zaandam Paaskerk.jpg
   File:Willem van Oyen sr..jpg

Saflieni (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'll review and will get back to you here shortly. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. While you're at it: I wish to upload pictures of a lamp, designed and produced on an industrial scale by my father in the sixties. To prevent problems I obtained permission from the current owner of the specimen in the pictures by email. Their statement: We (Nate Lights) hereby give our permission to use our photos from the lamp "Chartres by Willem Van Oyen" ( for free use at Wikipedia. Is this enough, or else, how do I go about it? Saflieni (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Saflieni, I haven't forgotten this. I expect to be able to reply on Monday. Thanks for your patience --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Saflieni, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. We would be keen to keep the images you uploaded of works created by your father, but as I mentioned at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Saflieni we would need to be quite sure that we have proper permissions from whoever now owns the copyright.
Even though the artworks are on public display, it's often unlawful to photograph them and re-distribute the resulting images without permission from the holder of the original artistic copyright. There are nearly always legal restrictions on photographs of public art in public spaces, even those paid for by community funds and created for the enjoyment of the public. The rules differ by country, but the laws in the Netherlands are complex and some of your images are definitely problematic, including the closeups and the school images: see here for more details.
On Commons we take copyright seriously, and that means I'm afraid that there are a few hoops we will have to jump through before I can restore the images. I'm happy to help you through them, though.
We ask that copyright releases in respect of professionally-created art be recorded on OTRS, to ensure that we have a definitive record of such releases. Could I ask you, please, to make contact with me via email to to start the discussions? If you could include the text 'for MichaelMaggs' in the subject line, that will ensure I'll be able to find your message easily when it arrives.
In your email, could you please let me know who (or which company) now owns your father's artistic copyrights? In the Deletion Request, it was stated that the photos "were supplied and uploaded by the heirs of the artist (his sons)". If you are an heir and you now jointly own the copyright with your brother(s), we'd need permission from all of you. Alternatively, if the copyrights are now owned by a company (eg, we'd need permission from the company. Could you clarify, please?
In addition to copyrights in the original artworks, there will be separate copyrights in the photographs. Do you know who took the photographs and under what conditions? If they were taken by employees of your father or his company, copyright will most likely be held by the same person or company that holds the copyright in the works themselves. If the photographers were not employees, the photographic copyright will most likely be held by the photographer and we would need his or her permission as well.
On the question of the lamp, again we'll need permissions both from the current lamp copyright holder and from the photographer. What is the relationship with Presumably they have a licence to produce the lamp for sale, but who took the photo? One of their own employees?
I'm sorry that this all seems pretty complicated. It is, but that's the nature of copyright, and we do have to get this right. I look forward to receiving your email. If you could post a note here when you've sent it, I'll look out for its arrival. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I already told you several times there are no copyrights on my fathers work. What you are asking is largely impossible. How to prove something which isn't there? Of course I can send you a message of my brother who is the current owner of Bevo glaskunst, no problem, but what stops you from asking the same questions afterwards as you do with the lamps for instance. There are no copyrights to that design. As is written in the Wikipedia page they were being copied widely already in the seventies. My father never pressed charges, not did the company that marketed them and they ended up something common for hobbyists to make in their attics until the design was finally outlawed because of sharp edges. Everybody moved on from there, except you apparently. By the way, have you looked at Nate-lights at all? They are re-selling vintage products. The company that used to market the lamps, Raak, has gone bankrupt a long time ago. Again it would be impossible to find out who might or might not own copyrights if there were any to begin with. And really, snapshots of my dad taken by a colleague, or a visitor, or my mum, or a delivery boy, or whoever passed by his studio in the 1950's, how am I to find out such a thing? Which law is relevant here? If I follow your reasoning I couldn't even upload a selfie, because how do I prove I took it myself, and there might be somebody who holds copyright to a building or a passing car in the background, who knows, and how to find out? I don't believe it works this way. So again, If you haven't received any complaints about copyrights in any of my pictures, why did you decide to give me a hard time? Saflieni (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid you may have been misinformed about copyright law. There most certainly are copyrights on your father's original artistic works (they came into effect automatically when he created them). Likewise, there are copyrights in the photographs (they came into effect automatically when the shutter was pressed). Once copyrights come into effect they normally last for 70 years after the artist's or photographer's death, which is why we cannot host recent works without formal permission. We need to satisfy ourselves that where the uploader is not the artist he or she is either the current copyright owner, or is able to obtain a licence from the current owner. (Copyright may be transferred by written assignment or on death).
If you are not prepared to address the question I posed, or if you really do not know the answers, then I am afraid we are not able to host your images. In particular, if the photos could have been taken by anyone who "passed by his studio in the 1950's" it seems that we will never be able to find out who the copyright owner is, and without that information we can't accept the pictures. I know that that might sound unreasonable, given that most social media websites would never bother with such a thing, but Commons takes care to ensure to the best of our ability that all images we host are properly licensed or copyright-free. The problem we have here is that these are so-called 'orphan works', where we know that copyright exists but we cannot tell who owns it. There are many, many millions of such historic photos held in libraries and archives throughout Europe and elsewhere that can't be used for exactly the same reason. Copyright advocates are at this very moment lobbying the European Commission to try to get the law changed so that such photos can be lawfully re-used, but for the moment we have to work within current legal restrictions, even though we may think they are ridiculous. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
You keep refusing to answer my question. If there is no complaint about possible copyrights violations, and the possibility of this ever happening is zero, why are you making a fuzz? I did address the questions. You are just ignoring everything. I told you I am the owner of the pictures and offered a waiver issued by myself, by my brother, and in the case of the lamps, by the current owner of the lamps and the pictures of the lamps. If you keep being unreasonable I will consider this harassment and lodge a complaint. Saflieni (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The reason for what you call a 'fuss' is that we have a formal policy here of allowing uploads only of material that is freely licensed or in the public domain both in the US and in the source country (The Netherlands) - you can read our policy here: COM:L. The fact that nobody has complained so far is not a good argument, as we have no reason to suppose they will not do so in the future. Please see COM:PRP, and in particular the common argument that "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter." Our long-standing policies seem to be fatal to hosting the snapshots of your father and his work here. The lamp image might be possible, if proper permissions can be provided. Let me re-post for convenience the questions I asked about that:
  • On the question of the lamp, again we'll need permissions both from the current lamp copyright holder and from the photographer. What is the relationship with Presumably they have a licence to produce the lamp for sale, but who took the photo? One of their own employees?
When your father died, what happened to the copyrights he held in his works, including the lamp design? Did they pass jointly to you and your brother, or did they pass to BEVO Glaskunst? If the latter, presumably the company would be prepared to grant the necessary free licence?
In order to work through this, if you want to and if it's legally possible, I need you to send an email to the OTRS address I mentioned above. There really is no way round these formalities. I am trying to help you, but you must be prepared to work within the rules. More complaints aimed at me here will not help. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


09:38, 2 January 2015 MichaelMaggs (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:MichaelMaggs from bureaucrat and administrator to bureaucrat, administrator and OTRS member (Noting re-admission as OTRS memebr)

Hello, Please remove self from OTRS group, you are blocking phabricator:T78814. The OTRS group is now global. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
No problem :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #139[edit]


Thanks for closing that. I hope the 'enough' wasn't an expression of frustration with me for the (I admit) TL;DR comment at the end, but I felt it was worthwhile to make it blatantly clear that it wasn't a matter of an 'allegation' that the URAA applied, but a specific case where it obviously did, since there seemed to be a likelihood of more people piling in. Revent (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No, not at all. Actually, I was typing the closure at the same time that you were posting your final comments, and had an edit conflict when I tried to post. 'Enough' referred to the preceding unhelpful attempts to re-open old policy arguments in a forum where we should be discussing the lawfulness or otherwise of specific uploads. I've taken the word out, as I agree that it might be incorrectly read as directed to your final comment. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


Hello Michael Maggs,

I mentioned you her -- Geagea (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi Michael, Commons delinker (the bot which removes deleted files from wikis) dos not work perfect (not working on all wikis and all namespaces, a lot of bugs). Delinker need to be written completely new (phabricator:T66794). It was suggested to build a extension to replace the existing functionality of delinker. Does WMUK can help with building such a extension? See bugreport phabricator:T86483. Have a wonderful evening --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steinsplitter. Not sure. I'm not in charge of deciding which projects WMUK gets involved with, though from a personal point of view I would love to see this being worked on and will happily do what I can to try to get support. We have a WMUK tech committee meeting next week, where I could bring this up. What sort of support do you think the chapter could best provide? Are you looking for a volunteer programmer, for technical maintenance support, or for funding? If this were to be a Mediawiki extension, shouldn't the Foundation staff do the coding? Or perhaps they may not have the time/inclination to work in this area? Any background you could provide would be helpful. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The WMF have a lot of other things to do (no time to write such a extension). I am searching a (volunteer) programmer to build such a extension or to rewrite the bot. The current delinker bot dos not work very good (i have ssh access to delinker - but i am not profi dev, all the dev's (Siebrand, etc.) don't have time to rewrite delinker). And i have the feeling that delinker will stop working soon (big error log) :( --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I will ask. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I tried Magnus Manske, and he has kindly agreed to work on it. He has followed up on Phabricator. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #140[edit]


Hi MichaelMaggs. I found three emails (I merged one) which were explicitly send to you: ticket:2015010710017814 & ticket:2015011210009028. Could you take care of these please? :) The person speaks apparantly Dutch, so if you need help with that, just poke me. Thanks in advance. Regards, Trijnsteltalk 17:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I will take a look. Thanks for letting me know. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Trijnstel, I've left a note for you on ticket:2015010710017814. Could you help in Dutch, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done. Trijnsteltalk 16:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Trijnstel, thanks for your note. In view of this and the user's comments directed at me on OTRS I have withdrawn from this matter. Please feel free to pick it up if you like! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi Michael,

re Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-01#File:1989_Joe_102.jpg: I've been in contact with Charlie Samuels through e-mail. When I contacted him via the e-mail address given on his web page, he confirmed that this was his own account. He has forwarded our e-mail exchange to (and CC'ed me, that's how I know). In private, he wrote to me that he planned to upload many more images. Furthermore he confirmed that the account en:User:Charliesamuelswiki was also his; if needed, I can forward that last part of the e-mail conversation to OTRS, too. I've taken the liberty of undeleting all his uploads (see Special:ListFiles/Charliesamuels) and have tagged them again as {{OTRS pending}}. Could you please take care of this OTRS ticket soon? It took some 10 days for him to reply to my original e-mail, but when I answered then, he got back to me within a day. Would be a shame to lose a professional photographer just because of the usual OTRS delay...

Thanks, Lupo 21:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Good news. ✓ Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. What's the procedure for his future uploads? Shall he add {{PermissionOTRS|id=2015011410021064}} to all his future uploads of his own photos? Do we tag his user page with that tag and state that the account has been verified as being Charlie Samuels? And what, if anything, do we do with en:User:Charliesamuelswiki and his uploads? (One of which is apparently an own work uploaded as "fair use"... but the other one is tagged for transfer to the Commons.) Lupo 13:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
{{PermissionOTRS}} can't be added by non OTRS people. I think a simple mentioning like this on his user page is enough. Jee 15:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
All right; so I've done that at least. What about the en-WP account? Lupo 15:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you can do the same. It will be nice if the user mention his EN account in Commons and vice versa. Jee 15:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
All right, I'll tell him to do so. And if he doesn't, I'll forward the rest of our e-mail conversation (where he states that that is also his account) under the same ticket number to OTRS. Lupo 16:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Could you please add {{PermissionOTRS|id=2015011410021064}} also to File:Earl Manigault.jpg? Lupo 05:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Jee 06:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #141[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #142[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #143[edit]


See Commons:Village pump#WLM 2014 winners announced - did anyone notice, or care?.

You might guess I'm a bit underwhelmed by the results, both at national and international level. It is an awful lot of work which I see partly undermined at the final jury stage, but also limited by the quality of material we attract. To attract great contributors, we need to publish amazing winning images on the photography forums and magazines, along with the call for entries. But some of our "winning" material isn't sufficiently good, technically, to publish, never mind outstanding enough to inspire. I'm not sure of my position for 2015. Seems that FP is good at selecting great images and the Photo Contest is achieving some success at recruiting new users. -- Colin (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Colin. I'll email you about this as soon as I have a moment. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Who shot William Fox Talbot?[edit]

You stated here that you're the author of the photograph ... so how can it be that it's pd? You're still alive ;) Cheers --Sargoth (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted! Now fixed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Have a nice evening --Sargoth (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #144[edit]

File:George Chakravarthi Portrait.jpg[edit]

Thanks for sorting out one of the images I uploaded. I don't know what to do about this one. George Chakravarthi is the subject and photographer of the image, so what do you need?Emerald (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing you need to do. Mr Chakravarthi has just this minute confirmed by email, and I have updated the file with the approved ticket tag.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Resurrection by George Chakravarthi.jpg[edit]

This image is of a photograph, but you have moved it from a photograph category to a painting one, why? It definitely isn't a painting. Thanks for sorting out the other image!Emerald (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see now. I have changed it back. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks. All done now. Have a great day.Emerald (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pittsburgh Sealer[edit]

Thank you for robbing us of plenty of content that has not been proven false. Copyright is not a concern because the images were DWs of our Commons files of the seal and COA of Pennsylvania, you should have only deleted those proven not to be true. Fry1989 eh? 15:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry you disagree, but "not proven false" is not a criterion for hosting content here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe you are sorry one bit, I believe you are being overly broad in your reasoning to delete. Considering copyright is not of concern for these files, and only 2 out of over 50 images have been proven untrue, there was no valid reason to delete them all. And I find it ironic for you to state that you don't wish to "impugn the good faith of the uploader" when that is exactly what you have done by deleting all of them based on only 2 images that are false. They should be evaluated individually. Fry1989 eh? 19:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #145[edit]


Hi MichaelMaggs. I see he didn't inform you, but Odder reverted your closure. Odder, will you never learn to contact people first... Trijnsteltalk 18:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I just saw. Thanks for letting me know! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW, Mentifisto already assigned the rights to INeverCry. Trijnsteltalk 18:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
No need to do anything unless there is a complete turnaround in the next few hours. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Laurelle Mehus[edit]

This was originally 11 DRs, one for each image. I combined them for our convenience in making comments -- I thought I had captured all of the original comments, but I might have missed yours -- sorry. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I was a little confused, but didn't think it was worth following though what had happened. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi, The link you edited [1] goes to a dead tool. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Works for me, though there is someimes a delay after hitting the submit button. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #146[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #147[edit]