User talk:Magog the Ogre

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34

Disco d'oro .jpg

Thanks a lot Magog the Ogre, I asked permission to publish this image at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Saying that the file I inherited from my father Roberto Michelucci, who had received it from the Philips record label, which now has not existed for many years, giving him the power to do what he wanted, including the publication in the image . Now I do not really know what kind of copyright I can put on, unfortunately I do not have the specific knowledge for this operation. A warm greeting, Stefantonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefantonio (talk • contribs) 22:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The file in oggetto: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/c5/20170417101434%21Disco-d%27oro.jpg

It should be deleted because it does not have the dimensions I wanted, and now it's useless,

Dear Magog, I'm sorry to disturb you yet, but this operation is terribly complicated for me, can you do it for me?

Please do not get angry, I'm a helpless in these things ... Forgive me.

Stefantonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefantonio (talk • contribs) 22:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Stefantonio: upon further inspection, if it is just a record scan, you can tag it with {{PD-text}}. You can just overwrite the existing scan, or create a new one. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"literally a 10 second search on Google Images"

Hi Magog, I've noticed your comment in here. Honestly, I'm not able to see the point. The image was transferred here without properly checking the source. It was tagged as "no source" as it didn't have a valid source. Fastily was warned for him to fix his flawed upload. In spite of that, you removed the notice (unproperly I should say) without providing a valid source. You eventually found the source and fixed the description. Fine. But I'd like to understand whether you think it's up to me and not to the uploader to fix his flawed uploads. I have literally hundred of careless uploads by FastilyClone to review and, honestly, it's not my responsibility to fix their mistakes. If you wish to do it, it's find, but please, use a wording that doesn't seem to put the blame on me and not on the uploader (the actual responsible of providing accurate source information for his updates). Best regards --Discasto _talk 09:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Discasto: you're right on all points. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

OTRS email not processed, it seems

Hi! I'm just contacting you in your official capacity as a Random Commons Admin. Some permissions emails sent a month ago to OTRS don't seem to have been processed. There were two separate emails, and in one case I received a CC, so I'm certain that one was sent, and I have every confidence the other was as well. Is there some way to track this down? I'd rather not bother the senders again.

Email #1 (April 5, 2017) came from grinnell@seas.harvard.edu :

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HarryRLewis_Harvard_ComputerScience20_Feb2012_1.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HarryRLewis_Harvard_ComputerScience20_Feb2012_2.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HarryRLewis_headshot.jpg

Email #2 (April 4, 2017) came from harryroylewis@gmail.com :

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HarryRLewis_Harvard_AppliedSciences11_TeachingFellows_Halloween1982.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HarryRLewis_Harvard_demonstrating_SHAPESHIFTER_1967or1968.jpg

Thanks! EEng (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @EEng: Those emails have been received and are in queue. Please understand that the current backlog of the (English) permissions-commons queue is 53 days.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. EEng (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Um, I've just see the changes in OTRS status to the "Email #2" group of files and (I'm just going to say it) I'm pretty pissed off. This is the second time this month I've run into this "the message was not sufficient" nonsense. On their description pages the images are identified as being sourced from (in the first case) Harry R. Lewis' personal blog and (in the second case) a page which explicitly identifies the image as "Courtesy of Harry R. Lewis"; the release was sent to you from harryroylewic@gmail.com. Now, what more do you want? The instructions at Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS.3F say that if "I have received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons", then I should...

Please forward us a permission statement to the address listed above. We require that owners make a clear statement that they release the image under a free license. To help prevent confusion or misunderstandings we prefer one of the email templates be used. Permission grants must specifically contain a free license grant and may not merely give permissions for Commons or Wikipedia. If you have already uploaded the image to Commons, follow the instructions on Template:OTRS pending.

That's exactly what I did. If more is needed, how in the world was I supposed to know that?

I've done dozens of these arrangements over the years -- asking someone to donate images, doing the uploads, and creating the release text for them to send in -- and until this month have never run into this problem. As it happens, Harry Lewis is my old advisor and (ahem) the former dean of Harvard College; he's very busy and was most gracious in cooperating with my request for images. He's the last person in the world I want to see annoyed, not to mention that you're making it look like I didn't know what I was doing in setting up the release. Now, is there some way to handle this without bothering him again? EEng (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: You've done nothing wrong, but I need him to clarify some thing before I can accept it. If you want to ask someone else to look at the ticket instead, by all means ask at COM:OTRS/N. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@EEng and Magog the Ogre: I've looked at the 2nd ticket, as well, and Magog is quite right. Obviously, as a subject of both photos, Mr. Lewis was not the photographer. How did he come to possess the copyrights? This may apply to the 1st ticket, as well. We are trying to protect the rights of the actual photographers and other content creators, I hope you understand that.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you're both doing your duty, but... well, let's review a few things.

• Email #1: The sender affirms "that I represent The President and Fellows of Harvard College, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work" (signing herself "Assistant Director of Communications, Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences") so unless you're questioning that, there should be no issue here.
• Email #2, "Halloween" photo: Contrary to what you guys are saying, Lewis does not appear in this photo, and he states at [1] (the source listed on the file description page) that "I snapped this picture, which will be 30 years old in a few weeks."
• That leaves Email #2, "SHAPESHIFTER". The release text submitted recites that "I ... am the creator and/or sole owner". This explicitly contemplates the possibility that the person executing the release might be not the creator, but rather merely the owner, of the work being released e.g. the work was for hire or ownership was subsequently transferred. If you're not willing to accept such a statement on its face, then why is it in the text you guys supply at Commons:Email templates? It makes no sense.

  So please, either accept the release as submitted, or change the Commons:Email templates to tell us hapless editors what you actually want in such cases. I've wasted an amazing amount of time on this.

EEng (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: I've fixed the first Lewis photo. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Regarding the second, I will send out an email to the OTRS team asking for a brainstormed opinion, but in general when we see the subject claiming to own a copyright, it's a small red flag for us. While it is possible that the subject snapped the photo by other means, usually when we probe, we find that was not the case.

Regardless, I assure you this experience has proven to me the error of my ways and I will not handle any more OTRS tickets from here on out. Maybe you will volunteer to take my place and handle the long backlog, copyright legal delicacies, cultural delicacies, and hostile editors. Or maybe you can be part of the peanut gallery who sits and berates a group of unpaid volunteers, all while wondering why no one is willing to do the job anymore. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't find it now, but on one of my occasional visits to Commons over the years I gave an impassioned oration (or whatever an oration would be if it was in writing) expressing my appreciation for the important work, carried out in almost complete obscurity, by those who labor here. I certainly would be sorry to be the catalyst for your throwing in the towel.

Having said that, however, I can't understand why you perceive my post above as an attack rather than an opportunity to improve the processes here. You have described the decision procedure applied at OTRS as being something that logically conflicts with the instructions given to editors at Commons:Email templates for preparing releases, so that it's almost guaranteed that problems like this will arise. Either the procedures should be changed, or the email template should be changed, and in the meantime I need to understand what more is needed in order to settle the licensing of the "SHAPESHIFTER" image, or whether on reconsideration you'll accept the representation made in the release text already submitted. Why does that make me a bad guy? EEng (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: Re the first email and three files on Ticket:2017040510012966, I agree that we have sufficient permission, although I must remark that https://www.flickr.com/photos/grinnell/sets/72157650251161931/ is 404-compliant.

I am sorry about my assessment of File:HarryRLewis Harvard AppliedSciences11 TeachingFellows Halloween1982.jpg. The way we normally name files, the subject gets top billing, so I assumed that Professor Lewis was front and center in this portrait. This file might be better named "File:Teaching Fellows Impersonating Professor Harry R. Lewis at Halloween Party 1982 after Grading Papers of AS11 Course at Harvard, by Harry R. Lewis.jpg", and I could rename it as such if you wanted.

Re File:HarryRLewis Harvard demonstrating SHAPESHIFTER 1967or1968.jpg, even though Professor Lewis may have had possession of a copy of the photo, I don't believe he was the photographer, who has rights. Even if the identity of the photographer remains unknown, the earliest we could accept this photo as-is would be 2038 or 2039, especially considering that the website credit on http://catchthewave.seas.harvard.edu/ (© 2014 PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE) reads "COURTESY OF HARRY LEWIS". However, it could be uploaded to English Wikipedia for immediate fair use in an article about Professor Lewis or SHAPESHIFTER. On the other hand, if the rights to this photo were transferred to Harvard or Professor Lewis under an employment, work for hire, matriculation, or similar agreement, and we had an email from Harvard or Professor Lewis to that effect, I would find that acceptable.

Magog, if my actions had anything to do with your decision to stop processing OTRS tickets, I am truly sorry, that was not my intent. I was just trying to help.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff G.. The statement you're looking for is in the release text already submitted: "I hereby affirm that I, Harry R. Lewis, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright" (bold added by me). That the image is tagged "COURTESY OF HARRY LEWIS" on the Catchthewave page is consistent with that statement. The © notice on that page is also consistent, the page being a derivative work as to any constituent works it incorporates, and in fact further reinforces the significance of "COURTESY OF HARRY LEWIS" tag, since the creator of the page went out of his way to call out the content donated by Lewis. EEng (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: how did Professor Lewis become "sole owner of the exclusive copyright"?   — Jeff G. ツ 08:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Jeff G., I don't know. Was I supposed to ask him that? I'm not trying to be difficult (and I realize neither of you is either) but I don't understand why we're engaging in this inquiry. Why does the Commons bureaucracy suggest text for content donors to use in making releases, then refuse to accept it? Is there some reason not to accept the statement on its face, especially since it's supported by the "COURTESY OF HARRY LEWIS" tag on the source page? EEng (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: After consulting with an OTRS Admin, I can offer you three choices: you ask him how; I ask him how; or we let nature take its course and the file gets deleted in about 59 days.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If need be I'll ask him. But you'll forgive me being puzzled at the highhanded tone of this ultimatum.not to mention the subrosa way things seem to be done around here. Do you not have an answer to my question? Can this admin not speak for himself? EEng (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: Krd can certainly type independently, has not registered a gendered pronoun preference here, and is cordially invited to comment here.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just trying to understand why this release can't be accepted on its face. EEng (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Persistent copyvio

Hi Magog! I noticed that even after you have deleted this file, it still persists on Commons somehow, and everybody using those Angolan Facebook pages can still download it. Can it me permanently deleted from here?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 10:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Darwinius: you'll have to take that up with the developers. If you believe it's serious enough, you can file a ticket at phabricator: Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Magog, thanks for your prompt reply. I was wondering if it was something that could be resolved easily, but seems to be more complicated, possibly a cache issue. I don't really know if it's "serious enough"... The Angolan Facebookers are still using that link to download the copyvio, but the file doesn't seem to be officially hosted in Commons anymore. Possibly not that serious, indeed. Cheers,-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Pictures from Flickr that need to be confirmed

Hello, Magog. Recently I uploaded some photos from Flickr. But some of them haven't been confirmed by the bot by default. So I'd be good if you can check them:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beatmania_IIDX_seven_keys.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jubeat_square_panels.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jubeat_knit_front_side.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jubeat_knit_achievement_score.jpg

My regards.--VictorPines (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@VictorPines: they are all confirmed already. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)