Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand 20:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Tip: Categorizing images
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
- [[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
- [[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").
BotMultichillT 05:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Image:Iron trunk cattle creep.jpg is uncategorized since 6 July 2009.
|File:Helston bus routes.gif 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.
Notification about possible deletion
|Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them.
- File:Wishford railway station 1910.jpg
- File:Wilton North.JPG
- File:Westbury wilts.JPG
- File:Sparkford station.JPG
- File:Radipole Halt.jpg
- File:Radipole railmotor.JPG
- File:Melksham station Wilts about 1905.JPG
- File:Maiden Newton station England 1910.jpg
- File:Lacock railway halt and railmotor 1905.JPG
- File:Holt Junction station Wiltshire England 1905.JPG
- File:Devizes station 1900.JPG
- File:Bradford on Avon Station 1897.jpg
- File:Congresbury station.JPG
- File:Shepton Mallet GWR.JPG
- File:Shepton Mallet Chedd Vall line.jpg
- File:Blagdon station.JPG
- File:First sod Clutton.jpg
- File:Pentewan 1915.jpg
- File:Southampton West.JPG
- File:St Germans Viaduct.jpg
- File:Soton and Dorch Wimborne vdt 1847.jpg
- File:Soton & Dorch op of Droch 1847.jpg
- File:Swindon town.jpg
- File:Cerney stn 1900.JPG
- File:R Wandle Bridge Richmond Rly 8 Aug 1846.jpg
- File:Calstock 1907.jpg
- File:Yelverton next.jpg
- File:P&D Laira road bridge.jpg
- File:Danescombe Hotel.jpg
- File:Marsh Mills bridge.JPG
- File:Lee Moor.JPG
- File:Witney station excursion.jpg
- File:Witney 1900.jpg
- File:Hounslow emu.jpg
Vintage postcard claimed as "own work"
I notice that you claimed the image File:Friochkeim.JPG as your "own work" because you "created this image based on a picture postcard from about 1900". If you mean that you simply re-photographed or reproduced the existing image with no artistic alteration, then it's very unlikely that (legally) you can claim any aspect of it as your "own work".
Regardless of whether or not this is the case, the underlying copyright in the original image still applies (and thus makes the image non-free regardless) unless it can be shown that this copyright has expired.
IMHO it's quite possible (if not probable) that in this case the copyright has expired and the image is in the public domain due to its age. This is why I haven't pushed for a deletion, but I can't be sure about that- the responsibility still lies with the uploader to check this.
This probably applies to a number of reproductions of existing vintage art and illustrations that you've been uploaded as "own work". If you think these are PD due to their age, I'd be grateful if you could please go back and correct the license information with the correct rationale.
- (Following comment cut and pasted from User talk:Ubcule in order to keep discussion together where it was started)
- Hi Ubcule,
- There are a huge number of 1900-ish historical events crying out for an illustration, and of course no-one can go back in a time machine and take one. As far as railway history is concerned, it obviously is possible to photograph the remains nowadays, and there are quite a few images of trees overgrowing what might or might not be an old railway line; but they don't provide much illumination.
- The other side of the coin is that some penniless bloke purchased a new-fangled camera and tripod and took the photo and sold it to some commercial postcard company in 1899 (or whatever date). The copyright expiry date is different according to whether he retained the copyright and merely licensed the postcard company to use the image, or sold them the rights.
- Obviously I could try to find out whether the postcard company kept records of all that -- maybe they didn't bother -- and I could go to their offices if they are still trading and find out when the photographer died on one of the genealogy websites etc etc.
- I tend to rely on the US copyright rule, which seems (it is very badly explained on Wikipedia so I may be wrong) to mean that if it was "published" in the US before 1923 then copyright has expired. That appears to mean that if one postcard was posted from the UK to the US it's ok, and if not, it's not. So I could search every picture postcard website in the US and see if I can find a copy. Of course just because one example *is* in the US it wouldn't prove that it arrived there *before* 1923.
- The reality is that
- * 1) I am not going to do that;
- * 2) the Wikipedia page looks fractionally better with the image than without; and
- * 3) the original photographer's estate (i.e. whoever he left title to the copyright to, in his will) of course won't get any money from this: if the copyright *has* expired they aren't entitled to anything, and if it *hasn't* expired we can't use it on Wikipedia so they won't get anything.
- For those reasons I used the copyright explanation you have noted.
- Frankly life is too short. If you feel strongly about this I suggest you report me to the hierarchy for infringing copyright. Maybe you'd let me know what you plan to do.
- This appears to be the legal status of anonymous works originating in the UK; it suggests that the images are probably free, which I suspected was the case, but needed confirmed. (Commons requires images to be free in both the US and the country of origin.)
- The image content itself is useful and well within Commons' scope. From that point of view alone, I (and- I'm guessing- most other Commons users) be very happy for it to remain on Commons- no problem there.
- Usefulness alone isn't sufficient though- the whole point of Commons is that it's for freely-usable images. English Wikipedia permits limited "fair use" image use for cases where it's not practical or possible to take- or find- a free one. These have to be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, though, not Commons.
- You're correct that I feel strongly about the integrity of Commons. If all Commons was was a repository of images of vague or undetermined status, we'd be as well simply ditching it and searching Google Images, or whatever.
- I already made clear that I didn't think the images were probable copyright violations, that I suspected they were *probably* free due to age, and that I hadn't pushed for a deletion for that reason. However, "probably" okay isn't satisfactory IMHO.
- I'd mentioned the legal status of re-photographed images because some people genuinely believe this makes them their "own work". From what you say, i.e. "for those reasons I used the copyright explanation you have noted", the implication is that you didn't really think this was the correct license, but you didn't know the correct one, i.e. you weren't sure why- or rather, if- it was free?
- Regarding your three points, (2) is addressed above regarding "usefulness", (3) is a good point, but- with respect- irrelevant as the issue here is whether the image is free for use on Commons, not a Wikipedia "fair use" or other argument.
- Regardless of whether it would suit your personal feelings on this matter to force me into being the petty, unreasonable nitpicker who "reports you to the hierarchy", I'll do what I had planned on doing anyway, i.e. tagging any obviously mislicensed images as "mislicensed" and seeking further advice on what the most productive course of action would be.
- I appreciate that you uploaded these images in good faith, and that this seems like turning the whole thing into more hassle than it's worth. The images themselves are good, and probably free due to age anyway, but while finding the correct license can be a nuisance, it's important that we at least know why an image is *meant* to be free for use on Commons so we know where we stand.
- It's generally a lot easier for the original uploader- who ought to know the source and status of the images- to determine this, rather than someone else to come along later and figure it out. On top of which, it's not reasonable for the onus to be on others either; if nothing else, uploading material on an unclear basis then expecting others to deal with mistakes and/or determine if any image is free if they have a problem with it would see Commons quickly descend into unworkability.
- Hey this is an angry message, isn't it? No-one is trying to corner you into those things in your eighth paragraph above. But I seem not to have made my position clear. 1) I think the copyright has probably expired, but I can't prove it; life is too short. 2) When I have used the licence you suggest in the past, someone has complained and the Wikipedia hierarchy deleted a whole string of images. The admin who came to that conclusion was "Idontcry" but s/he would never tell me the rationale, despite several polite requests. 3) In the case of Friockheim I tried a different approach, viz: (a) the copyright had expired, (b) I made some (very) minor changes to the image, so (c) whatever very minor copyrightable artistic content it had was mine, (d) hence the copyright rationale I used.
- I'd intended adding this to my reply before you'd already replied:-
- "Additional; I believe- based on my reading of the copyright status linked above- that if you genuinely believe these postcards to be anonymous works (and I agree that if the postcards themselves don't credit the author then it'd go beyond "reasonable enquiry" to find out) then they can be claimed as PD-UK-unknown. If this is the case, then we can tag them as such.
- Are works like this one anonymous and pre-1945? (Almost certainly, but while the events portrayed date to 1843, it's theoretically possible- but unlikely- that the image is much newer!)"
- If you were talking about IDontCry's deletion in Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Afterbrunel this discussion, I believe the problem is that your legal reasoning was flawed, using the US tags to explain why they were PD in the UK. Ideally, I'd take a look at these and see if they were usable under the rationale above, but I'm not an Administrator and don't have access to deleted files.
Much good may that do you. Isn't the Wikipedia Village Pump a bit like asking some blokes in the pub which is the best football team? (I am assuming you are UK based.)
The public domain licence you suggest looks interesting. A lot of early illustrations from the Illustrated London News and Punch are useful for depicting early railway events, but they suffer from the snag that the author is known, in the sense that "J Bloggs" is inscribed somewhere in the bottom right corner of the engraving. Since I can't possibly trace when J Bloggs died, and I don't know whether he signed over the IPR to the magazine (which shortens the "life" of the IPR), I am still subject to the hairsplitters whom we both dislike. You will notice that if you use this you still have to give a US public domain licence as well. This requires you to declare that the work was published (i.e. seen by someone) in the USA before 1923, I think.
In the case of a picture postcard photograph, to use the licence you suggest I have to state what efforts I have taken to trace the originator of the work. What might one write to respond to that, I wonder.
That reminds me, that in the unhelpful interlude with idontcry, I was using the US PD licence as a justification. According to my reading of the very difficult and obscure explanation of the PD rules in the help pages here, that "as the Wiki servers are in the USA, then the US PD rules are sufficient". Idontcry evidently didn't agree. That appears to mean that if the PD rules in (say) Kazakhstan maintain the IPR for 200 years, and as a Wikipedia article might be read in Kazakhstan, then the UK and US rules are nugatory. (I know about the "shortest term" rule but idontcry was apparently not impressed with that either.)
Let me know how you get on with the Village Pump. (Why does Wikipedia insist on using these folksy analogies? All I can think of in connection with that is Puritans in New England, and possibly "The Scarlet Letter". Don't they know we have mains water nowadays?)
Finally, for now, since you clearly know more about the byways of Wikipedia than I do, can you tell me how to find this page (other than by clicking on the email that comes when you write something here)? If I go to my User Page and then into the Talk tab, none of this stuff is there.
Regarding what you said above...
- You can access your talk page via http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Afterbrunel. It's possible that you're being shown an older cached copy of the page (either by your browser or by your ISP) if it doesn't include this discussion.
- The basic principle governing non-US works on Commons is as described here:- "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work. The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." (My emphasis).
- Re: the PD-UK-Unknown license- sorry, I hadn't noticed that requirement.
- As I mentioned on the Village Pump page, modifying an image to make it your "own work" for the purposes of bypassing the issue is unfortunately flawed. It rests on the assumption that "the [original] copyright had expired", but that's precisely what was under dispute (or needed to be shown) in the first place(!)- i.e. circular reasoning. If that's shown, then the derivative version serves no additional purpose. (It also (i) weakens the veracity or usefulness of the image if it's been modified in some unspecified manner and (ii) adds additional copyright complexities (yuk!))
- I agree that sometimes discussions descend into pseudo-intellectual nitpicking, but I'm more sympathetic to the "hairsplitters" than you seem to think, since it's often a question of where one considers it reasonable to draw the line! As I mentioned, the usefulness of Commons is that it's meant to be a repository of free images- if we didn't care about enforcing licensing details or reasoning at all (and some uploaders care very little) it'd lose most of its usefulness IMHO.
Basically, I like the correct license details to be given even if some people think "oh, it's obviously free, doesn't matter if I just claim it as "own work"" (which is the default license). That way we know where we stand and even if there are problems with the license, we know the supposed basis on which an image is free and can work from there. It also makes organising images and determining their status in other countries (with different laws) much easier if they're labelled correctly. That's why I didn't like the "own work" claim when it apparently wasn't- it's not clear if and why this image belonged on Commons.
The Village Pump discussion doesn't seem to be serving its intended purpose of helping decide what should be done with the uploaded images. There's a place for such discussion (assuming those involved know what they're talking about), but it suggests that they don't already know or haven't figured out this situation yet. (Ideally what I'd have got would have been a pointer to an already debated and settled list of points clarifying the situation).
- This is descending into intellectual masturbation now, and I am unwilling to participate in that. Let me set out my position once again:
- The purpose of copyright rules is to compensate (pay) someone for their intellectual work. Common sense says that some humble photographer who took a picture of a railway station in 1905 and got paid 2/6 by a picture postcard company, is never going to get any more money from anyone, and therefore is not harmed by people using the image.
- The law (and no doubt you yourself) say that such use is not allowed, however. It is also true that if I drive my car at 31 mph (or I suppose 30.001 mph) in a 30 mph limit, that is illegal. Pragmatism tells me that I need not go to the police station to confess that I once did so. In other words, is it remotely likely that Wikimedia will be sued for damages by my hypothetical half-a-crown cameraman?
- I am well aware of the circular argument issue, thank you; I don't for a moment suggest that my use of the marginal IPR I might add to an out-of-copyright work makes it "become" out-of-copyright. My reason for doing it was simply to discourage, evidently in vain, this kind of argument.
- In the wikimedia page on licensing to which you refer, you will have noted (in the colour comic strip section) that "buildings" up to 150 years old may not be photographed licence-free. I respectfully draw your attention to all those photographs of the Forth Bridge (1890) which is most certainly an iconic (i.e. full of IPR) design, only 125 years old. But then two wrongs don't make a right.
- The comic strip- which also appears on the upload page- appears to be aimed at complete newcomers. Presumably in order to keep things very simple while remaining valid worldwide, it's erred on the side of caution. There are issues with photographing buildings etc. in some countries, but the UK has "freedom of panorama", so it's not a problem here.
- With respect, what I said above was a means to an end and an attempt to explain things, i.e. finding out whether (and how) the images belonged on Commons. I don't enjoy this personally and I'd rather this situation was far more clear-cut, but it's not.
- Personally, I agree with many of the points you made regarding copyright. However, since we're keen to minimise "intellectual masturbation", I have to say that such discussion isn't directly relevant to the matter at hand, which is the status of your images under Commons' existing licensing policy (i.e. that requires images to be free under existing copyright law(s)). I don't believe- in this case- that Commons (or the users) will probably get sued for using the images you describe, but that's not the way Commons works.
- Sorry if you felt the explanation of the "own work" thing was patronising- I'd interpreted it as a good faith (if flawed) attempt to work around the problem legally rather than intentional obfuscation. Since we're both clear on the situation now, it's clear that the license on these images will have to be fixed (by yourself, myself or someone else) if they're to remain on Commons.
Right; just tell me, in words of one syllable if possible, what you would like me to do. Don't give me any background, or argument why something should be done or ought to be done. Just what you would like me to do.
I make no undertaking that I will do it. If I decide to do it, you will see the effect by Sunday midnight. If I decide not to, you will infer that fact on Monday morning and you will take whatever action you then consider to be appropriate. Without recourse to further discussion with me. Afterbrunel (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Honestly, what you do is your problem, not mine- I've already wasted too much time and mental effort on this.
- If you require advice on how to proceed further, you should seek it from other "hairsplitters" et al through Commons' usual channels.
- You may receive further automated notifications as a result of actions on my part, and you are- of course- entitled to contribute and respond to any public discussion I might also be involved in.
- However, as far as I'm concerned, this particular conversation is finished.
Cornwall Railway system showing original stations
Hello Afterbrunel, the map File:Swanage rly.gif incorrectly states Map of Swanage Railway at opening, 1875. Actually the line was opened ten years later. I won't correct it myself as the other lines may really depicted as of 1875. --Telford (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)