User talk:Clindberg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User:Clindberg)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to the Commons, Clindberg!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文(台灣)‎ | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−
Crystal Clear app korganizer.png First steps tutorial

Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy.

Icon apps query.svg Getting help

More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Transmission icon.png Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities.
  • All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
  • Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
  • To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg
  • If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper
Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png Made a mistake?
  • Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}
  • For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)


Do you happen to know of any references that might help me on this, other than the various Lucasfilms cases in the US and UK? --MichaelMaggs (talk)

(un)deletion of some of our files[edit]

Many thanks for your help and suggestions. We will proceed accordingly. With best, ESDC Secretariat

Help ...[edit]

Hello ... Pls Delete all Old & New version of this file

Thanks  :)

« Wemmick's Castle »[edit]

Thanks for the information. You're absolutely right. The best thing is to remove the file from Commons. It's not all that important, since it's not a genuine illustration. Personally, I'm deleting from the article Les Grandes Espérances. Best wishes, Robert Ferrieux

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.


Hopefully you took my comment in the spirit it was meant, as a 'teasing' joke. What you said was quite apt, just a bit of a 'wall of text'... I try to keep things friendly.. the OP's comment was rather not, so a bit of a digression seemed in order. Revent (talk)

Oh, no offense taken ;-) That's hardly my worst example of a stream-of-consciousness wall of text reply on here either... I have some pretty long ones sometimes ;-)


this got archived within hours. :-( Missed it?

Defend this licensing claim[edit]

Please defend this licensing claim for this anthem file: Commons:Deletion requests/File:State Ceremonial Music - God Save the Queen.ogg Also explain the en:Open Government License for non-commercial uses?

Deleting category IMO 9871529[edit]

Hi fellow wikipedian

I would like to inquire about the rason for deleting the IMO Number I have added as category to all World Voyager images listed on wikimediacommons. The IMO number is the only permanet identifier linked to a modern day vessel. Name, call sign, MMSI number and various other attributions may change during its life cycle. From my point of view the Category IMO number is therefore the most valid and useful one to follow a vessel all the way from cradle to grave hence I added it Is there anything wrong with adding the category IMO 9871529 to these 28 frames of World Voyager (ship, 2020) ?

Best --Virtual-Pano (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Virtual-Pano: I removed them due to COM:OVERCAT. For each IMO number, we have a subcategory with a ship name (and build year). That category (Category:World Voyager (ship, 2020) in this case) is in the IMO category, thus by proxy, all images in that category are also inside the IMO category. I did a "move" to the named subcat, but I guess all photos were also already in the ship name category too, so it effectively just removed the IMO setting. The ship name page should have a box with a link to go back to the IMO category, where I typically put the ship details. For links coming from other wikis, they would go to the IMO category, but we break up the photos by ship name first, and basically never have any photos directly categorized into the IMO. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did make a mistake that also removed the IMO category from the ship category; I need to remember to avoid that in Cat-a-lot. I did fix that, thanks. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I've been working on the VRT ticket for this image from Jefferson Labs, and got word that it's clearly in the public domain. The relevant bits from the representative's email are "All of the images that we generate are in the public domain ... Images that were not generated by the lab are credited with the “Image/Photo: credit” or “Image/Photo courtesy of credit” wording in the image caption", so there should be a number of other useful images available from In that undeletion discussion you said "We should probably have a custom license tag for that site". Is that something you work with, or is there someone else more suited to it? I haven't made a licensing template here on commons in a decade, and I can't say I particularly want to dive back into it just at the moment. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If their works are public domain via contract with the government, maybe PD-USGov works. But if we have a VRT ticket which says that, it probably deserves its own tag, with the guidance they give. It's been a while since I've done a tag. I don't have access to VRT though, and some of that would need to be incorporated. Maybe it could be similar to {{PD-LosAlamos}} if it's an attribution-style license, or maybe {{PD-USNWR}} if it's truly public domain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me at those. I guess I'll try to find the closest one and just copy from it. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smirnoff Red Label 8213.jpg[edit]

Hi Clindberg. Do you think this possible has issue per COM:Packaging? Are to five coat-of-arms like elements at the bottom of the label significant enough to require blurring? Just curious because of this discussion about another similar (but perhaps more complex) file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty much directly on point with s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.. Photos of the entire bottle are not derivative of the label, even if it is copyrightable. Only photos focusing on the label. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm assuming then that same reasoning would be applicable to something such as en:File:Evolutionbisson.jpg as long as the copyright status of photo isn't an issue. Does the same reasoning also apply to other bottled products or does it only apply to alcohol? Does it also only apply to glass? Could the same be argued for a bottle of window cleaner, fabric softener, hot sauce, contact lens solution, soda, etc.? I've seen some files on Commons in which the labeling has been blurred out and these were photos of the entire bottle not just the label. I've only seen photos of bottle products treated as non-free content on English Wikipedia since the labeling was deemed too complex to be ineligible for copyright protection. I'm wondering how Ets-Hokin might apply to such things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the principle is that a copyrighted element that is incidental to the overall subject seems to be OK. In other words, the photos is focusing on the utilitarian bottle, and the label is unavoidable. So when taking a picture of a larger subject, copyrightable works that happen to be there are OK. The problem comes in when the subject of the photograph itself is copyrightable, or when a photographer intentionally includes copyrightable expression that was not inherently there. Photographs of packaging boxes are harder, because often it's entirely covered with the copyrightable artwork. Another example was a photographer taking fashion photos, who had the model wear a pair of very fancy glasses (which were copyrighted). Since in that case the photographer intentionally included someone else's expression to enhance his photograph, it was derivative. On the other hand, a photograph of a motorcycle with a painted design on it was OK, since the focus of the photo was the entire motorcycle and the artwork was inherently there. Or a case in France, where a photo of a street which had a prominent skyscraper at the end was ruled not derivative -- the focus was a wider scene, the street, and the building was inherently there. There are no clear lines, but those seem to be the best lines I can guess at, using those limited court cases we have on stuff like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough and thanks for clarifying. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask about a couple of specific files. File:Siracha sauce.jpg seems fine based on what you posted above, but File:Sriracha Hot Sauce Bottles Freshii Restaurant Family Dinner Downtown Grand Rapids June 27, 2014 1 (14552677466).jpg and File:PixelatedHuyFongSriracha.jpg had their label imagery partially removed (see file's talk page for more) or pixelated. On English Wikipedia, there are sometimes files like en:File:Cola Couronne bottle.jpg which have a non-free license for the labeling and a free license for the photo. Do either of those files fit in with your understanding of Ets-Hokin or does their touching up or multiple licensing seem odd. I understand that US case law might not directly apply to them per se, but just wondering if, in principle, they were originally OK as uploaded. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bag balm.jpg[edit]

Hi Clindberg. Do you think Ets-Hokin would also apply to this file? It actually appears that two tins were photographed side-by-side to show not only the side labelling but also the top labelling. While this could be similar to a bottle in which it's hard to photograph the side of the tin without including the logo label; the addition of the top imagery seems unnecessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, would have to think that is there to focus on the packaging artwork -- the topside artwork was explicitly arranged to make it visible, and the artwork is pretty much the entire top. The right half probably OK as de minimis anyways, as it's only a small graphic in the middle which would be copyrightable, but the one on the left, not so much. That is intentionally focusing on the artwork, to me.
On the other hand, that looks like a very, very dated illustration. If that was pretty much the same artwork as on pre-1989 versions of the product, which given a quick Internet search seems to be the case[1], then it would have been PD-US-no_notice long ago. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look at this. Apparently, based upon this discussion at en:User talk:JJMC89#BagBalm refund?, there was another file being used prior to the uploading of this Commons file. The other one was a local file uploaded to English Wikipedia as non-free content. A non-free file wouldn't be allowed if this one on Commons can be kept or if another freely licensed photo of product the could be taken and uploaded. The company's official website, however, shows a slightly different logo being used on its products: similar cow imagery but looks a tad bit different to me. If the cow imagery dates quite a ways back as you opine, then perhaps a cleaner version of the logo could be uploaded to Commons; if not, then it might need to be treated as fair use and uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's a tad different, most of the expression would be PD, and only the changes (which could easily be de minimis) would be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll wait and see what happens over on English Wikipedia. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the company's products appeared in print ads prior to 1977 without a copyright notice, then would that apply to just that particular ad itself or to the product packaging as well. For example, an old ad for XYZ Chocolate shows the entire front face of the product packaging which includes the company's logo. There's no copyright notice provided for the ad and there's no copyright notice visible on the front of the packaging as well (the back is unclear). Does the lack of either notice mean the packaging logo is {{PD-US-no notice}}? What if there's no notice for the ad but a visible notice on the product packaging and vice versa? What if the same ad is published in multiple papers, sometimes with a notice and sometimes without? This is an interesting question to me for a number of reasons, but also because of COM:HD#Help with Copyright. Was a visible copyright notice required for each instance of publication under the copyright laws during that period of time? Would a single instance of publication without a copyright notice (for whatever reason) mean that all prior instances of publication and future instance of publication be considered "no notice"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]