User talk:RP88

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

Asteroid symbols[edit]

Hello! Thanks for the note. It is actually a matter of copypasting rather than confusion or my choice in licensing; one I forgot to change the license on and the other I didn't. With works such as these it is hard to figure out copyright issues, as I draw an entirely new image, by hand, rather than using a program to generate a copy of them. I suppose it is like the copyright issues that come up when someone draws a picture of a copyrighted cartoon character: the character is copyrighted but the copyright of the work itself belongs to the artist.

I usually try to follow the original license when redrawing things as svg, but for pd-old works you are right; it is more difficult. I always make sure to credit the original author in my svgs, usually just appending "(redrawn as svg by Editor at Large)" after the artist's name in the description. The original idea and the creation of the work was theirs, and I believe they should be recognised for the work; another reason I'm not fond of the {{pd-author}} tag, as it places my name in undue prominence and doesn't credit the original author.

At any rate... your licensing idea is a good one. The only problem is that they take up a great deal of room and I don't know if they can be put under both (as the image itself is not PD-old, just the work it is derived from is). I think perhaps if I simply make a verbal note in the "permission" part of the infobox and publish the images under PD-user?

Thanks again for the note, and I'll be sure to fix up the Parthenope tag in the meantime so people don't think I died fifty years ago! -- Editor at Largetalk 08:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the images created by Dr. Hilton are not PD-old, they're PD-Art (you can use Hilton's work, despite not having a license from Hilton, because Hilton's work is a mechanical reproduction of a work that is in the public domain). If you create a derivative work of someone else's work then you both hold copyright in the resulting work and anyone who wants to use your derivative work needs a license from both you and the other artist. Normally all one needs to do is to include a link to the source image on commons to show the license for the other artist's work. However, if your goal is to produce an image that might eventually supersede another, resulting in the other image possibly being deleted, I think it is a good idea to describe the license for the source work on the page for your derivative work. But perhaps that is just being overly careful. --RP88 10:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I meant PD-art... I must've had old stuck in my head. But the PNG version will not get deleted, unless Commons policy changes in the future; currently PNG versions of SVG works are not deleted. A GIF version of an image I redrew was deleted once, because it was the incorrect file format; but other than that, the PNGs will remain in existance, as far as I know. I also go through all pages the PNG is located on and switch them to SVG when I vectorise an image, so the PNGs are not actually used, unless added after I have switched all instances over.
As to describing the license for the source work, is it not possible to just make a note with a link to the copyright tag in the permissions section, above the PD-user tag? that way it will be easier to read and take up less space as well as being laid out in a more concise manner. I'm certainly not against adding the PD-art tag in, it makes sense... but I'm not sure if the tag needs to be transcluded as the work on the page is not pd-art (rather a drawing of it). However, if you really think it would be better to include both I think that would be fine. -- Editor at Largetalk 10:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No I don't think it needs to be included if somewhere in the description there is a link to the source and it is commons policy not to delete the source images for PNG->SVG conversions (the source images have "nominate this image for deletion" at the top). I was worried that if deletion occurred someone who wanted to use your SVG wouldn't know what the license was for the source. —RP88 11:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense! I've included a "Original license" bit in other images, but it completely depends on the image importance and the licenses and the weather outside. I'll go add that info now and make sure to add it to future SVGs I do in the series! ^_^ -- Editor at Largetalk 11:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. Sorry about my odd edit summaries; I haven't slept in a while! ... Which can be testified to by the fact that I just tried to close the <small> tag with "</sleep>" ...

The change. Based on your suggestion, but with a link instead of the whole tag... what do you think? -- Editor at Largetalk 11:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it! —RP88 12:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Image:President and Mrs. Reagan pose in the Blue Room for their official portrait 1981.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:President and Mrs. Reagan pose in the Blue Room for their official portrait 1981.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

This is an automated message from DRBot 07:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:CC-BY-3.0[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:CC-BY-3.0 has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Joachimstolz (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That was a rather quixotic discussion nomination Joachimstolz. —RP88 23:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello![edit]

RP88, if you see my user page, I have been blocked indefinitely of the English Wikipedia. Can you please go there and unblock me? Be sure to ignore my block log, okay? Fangusu (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not not an admin on English Wikipedia (nor, for that matter, am I one here on Commons). I have no ability to unblock you. —RP88 03:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

TIME[edit]

Very good work on Template:PD-US-not renewed-TIME. I don't know if you're still working on it but, when finished, could you please add also a line to clarify if the list of issues should be understood as complete or incomplete, i.e. if it should be understood as confirmation that the issues not listed all had their copyright actually renewed without exception, or if it means that their copyright may or may not have been renewed? Thanks. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been a tremendous amount of work. I've done a complete, exhaustive, search of the pre-1978 non-electronic records for Time magazine copyright renewals. This means the list of issues is complete up to the June 26, 1950 (vol. 55, no. 26) issue. So, the current status is that any issue prior to volume 56 not in the table on that template has had their copyright renewed, without exception. Volume 56 and later are in the electronic records at copyright.gov. The electronic records are a lot easier to search for individual entries, but the lack of a targeted ability to search for ranges of renewals makes it quite awkward to do a comprehensive renewal search for all the issues in a periodical. So, my strategy for searching for renewals for the circa 1951-1963 issues is going to have to change. I'm examining the idea of writing a script to extract all of the Time renewal records from copyright.gov. Worst case, I might have to manually assemble a list of the registration numbers for the 300 or so remaining issues and then perform individual searches for renewals for those issues. —RP88 20:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've completed my search, including both the pre-1978 non-electronic records and the electronic records (see here for results). I've updated {{PD-US-not renewed-TIME}} with the complete list of TIME issues that were not renewed, and, as you requested, added a note that the copyright was renewed for any issue not listed. —RP88 03:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Reviewer[edit]

If you use the helper-the scripts, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-

Hi RP88, thanks for your application to be an image reviewer. The application has been removed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can review all kind of image licenses on Commons. Please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Backlogs include Flickr review, Picasa review, Panoramio review, and files from other sources. You can use one of the following scripts by adding one of the lines to your common.js:

importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); // stable script for reviewing images from any kind of source OR
importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); // contains also user notification when review fails, auto blacklist-check and auto-thank you message for Flickr-reviews.

You can also add {{user reviewer}} or {{user trusted}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons! User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 03:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Men montage[edit]

Replaced missing files here, bye, -- Fulvio 314 17:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, looks great. —RP88 17:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

Greetings, I came to your page after I read you were a license reviewer. A few days ago, I placed on the Village pump a question regarding the file Rodrigo Bueno as a Child.JPG that I've been having a doubt about the completeness or validity of its license. I wanted to ask you if you could take a quick look at the thing, it doesn't seem to be a complicated one to figure out, but I just need another opinion to know what to do about it. Thanks in advance.--Rod840 (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

To justify the existing license template, the image summary needs to mention enough information to show that 25 years have passed after the photograph was created and it was first published at least 20 years ago in Argentina. From Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rodrigo_Bueno_as_a_Child.JPG it sounds like you know some details about when and where it was published, but don't have an actual copy of the article. You don't actually need a copy of the article if you know the relevant facts. As a made up example, say that the photo appeared in the July 3rd, 1981 edition of La Voz del Interior with an article called Chébere peforms en el evento de hoy. For that example, I might compose the summary as follows:
Description
English: Rodrigo Bueno at around age 6-7
Date or 1980
Source "Chébere peforms en el evento de hoy." La Voz del Interior (Córdoba, Argentina). 1981-07-03.

Courtesy of the La Voz del Interior Archives:

Author Unknown

The information box above is, of course, only an example containing imaginary information. Replace the details with real details. —RP88 20:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I managed to do something similar and now the info about it is enough.--Rod840 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Favour to ask[edit]

If files are used at English or old Wikisource, that you believe should be deleted from Commons, it would be great if you would mention in the discussion that the files should be treated with {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}} if the decision is to delete. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

From a quick check, it looks like the vast majority of files deleted on Commons that are in use at English WP are not eligible for that tag. In addition, as mentioned in the tag, only administrators are permitted to use {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}} (and the bot only honors the tag if it was added by an administrator). I am not an administrator. If you have complaints with the actions of an administrator, it's best to take it up with them or post to the notice board. There is little I can do. If you'd like me to comment on an open deletion request, it would help if you'd provide a pointer. —RP88 18:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh wait, I just noticed that you are an administrator. I think I misunderstood your request. I take it you are asking me to remind some other administrator about the existence of {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}}? I suppose I can mention it in the future if I comment on a DR to which I think that tag applies. However, if this issue is important to you, wouldn't it be better to educate the Admins who close DRs (or add that tag to whatever procedure documention you admins refer to when processing DRs)? —RP88 19:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Golden Hollywood[edit]

Hi, if it happens again on either of them can you let me know at User talk:Dr. Blofeld on wikipedia? I've updated the hollywood one. Blofeld Dr. (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


Welcome, Dear Filemover![edit]

Commons File mover.svg

Hi RP88, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please do not tag redirects as {{speedy}}. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Deutsch | English | 한국어 | മലയാളം | Русский | +/−


Removes File[edit]

Excusme for deselet File :( Sorry--82.90.33.15 12:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment, as far as I can determine I haven't interacted with any of your contributions. —RP88 13:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I got your message, thank you for the 'help that you give me, and I tell you that I gladly accept your help :)   thanks--Manto28-08 (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks a bunch finding that 1987 Minnesota PDF here! You've really went above and beyond there, my friend. Best regards, Flag of Arlington County, Virginia.png Illegitimate Barrister 18:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the attaboy. I dug up that document while I was researching its copyright status for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of Minnesota.svg. I'll keep an eye on the DR and respond there if anyone continues to question its copyright status. —RP88 18:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated, thanks! Regards, Flag of Arlington County, Virginia.png Illegitimate Barrister 18:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
On a minor note, I removed {{PD-GovEdict}} from File:Seal_of_Minnesota.svg, as it is not an edict of government. The legislative text mandating the features of the new design would not be eligible for copyright as an edict of government, but in general, most works of governments are not edicts. —RP88 18:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Alright, sorry about that. Thanks for the info! Flag of Arlington County, Virginia.png Illegitimate Barrister 19:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Black-headed Shrike-babbler Biodiversity Heritage Library.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Black-headed Shrike-babbler Biodiversity Heritage Library.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

UN Copyright[edit]

I was just going to !vote keep over at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the United Nations.svg when I had a read of 17 U.S.C. § 104 and part 5b. What is your take on that section of US copyright law ? LGA talkedits 09:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. added 17 USC § 104(b)(5) to U.S. copyright law in order to comply with its UCC Paris treaty obligation. Prior to this change the U.S. offered no copyright protection to works of the U.N.; after this change the U.S. offered copyright protection to works of the U.N. Note that all of the works offered protection under 104(b) are offered identical protection under U.S. copyright law, whether the author is a U.S. national (via 104(b)(1)), the work was published in the U.S. (via 104(b)(2)), the work was first published by the United Nations (via 104(b)(5)) or via Presidential proclamation (via 104(b)(6)). Works of the U.N. published in the U.S. receive no more, and no less, copyright protection in the U.S. than a work by a U.S. national. So, if the U.S. had never signed UCC Paris and thus never enacted 17 USC § 104(b)(5) all works of the U.N. would be PD in the U.S., but because the U.S. did add the U.N. to the list of those eligible for U.S. copyright protection, we have to apply all the standard U.S. copyright rules when trying to figure out whether a work of the U.N. is PD in the US.—RP88 10:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Question is, when did this change happen and what stops this section from being retroactive and affording the past work of the UN current protection ? LGA talkedits 10:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The U.S. signed UCC Paris on 10 July 1974 and enacted the change via s:Copyright Law Revision (House Report No. 94-1476) in 1976, which went into effect on 1 January 1978. I am not certain whether or not the change was retroactive, so in our discussions to date I've taken the more conservative choice and assumed it was retroactive (and that's why we can't just claim all U.N. works published before 1978 are PD in the U.S.). However, since so few U.N. works have a copyright notice, it doesn't make much practical difference. If you're interested I'll see if I can find out if was retroactive. —RP88 11:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, if it is retroactive, and that is by no means a given, that leaves the question does it cover the logo and/or flag ? There is also an lot of United Nations copyright renewals listed on the register for works dating from before 1974 but there is also VAu000044358 which might be relevant. LGA talkedits 12:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
If it was retroactive, then they are PD for lack of notice (17 U.S. Code § 405), if it wasn't retroactive they are PD as ineligible works. I don't see a lot of renewals for works of the United Nations in the electronic database, what search are you doing that shows a lot? Whatever VAu000044358 is, it isn't the UN logo as the copyright claimant is "Edward Prim" and it is from 1982 (several decades after the U.N. adopted its logo). It's probably the Edward Prim associated with "Citizens for a Strong United Nations", a peace activist in San Francisco. —RP88 19:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DR closure[edit]

Whoops, sorry, I lost my internet connection just after closing the DR but before editing the file page. Also, I warned the user to don't open another DR unless he has solid reasonf for them. Thanks. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

OTRS permissions queues[edit]

Hello RP88. You are receiving this message as a license reviewer. As you know, OTRS processes a large amount of tickets relating to image releases (called "permissions"). As a license reviewer, you may have the skills necessary to contribute to this team. If you are interested in learning more about OTRS or to volunteer please visit Meta-Wiki. Tell your friends! Thank you. Rjd0060 18:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)