User talk:Dcoetzee/Archive 2009-07-04

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

Bike shed[edit]

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sign at Walthamstow Central Bike Shed.jpg, would this image be acceptable? I'm sorry to trouble you, but I'm finding the rules on the commons so hard to understand and even find that it's better if I simply ask. Hiding (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hiding - I've expressed my opinion there that this is an unacceptable derive work a non-free copyrighted work, and should be deleted. Is this the information you're looking for? Thanks. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot to include the link. I can accept whatever the outcome is at the deletion debate, I'm asking about this image as a potential replacement? Hiding (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Scratch that, I've been told no derivatives is an unacceptable license. I can;t seem to make head nor tail of commons criteria anymore. Can you perhaps have a look here and let me know which ones are usable? Thanks in advance, Hiding (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's the simplest way to do it. Go to Flickr's Advanced Search, type in your search term, then click all of "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content", "Find content to use commercially", and "Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon." The most promising image I found is this one [1]. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
That's how I used to do it. That's how I found the image that was nominated for deletion, so I hope you'll appreciate the fact that I don't believe it is as simple as that anymore. I have absolutely no idea now what qualifies as acceptable for the commons anymore, since I have no idea what is subject to copyright with regards signs, house numbers, shop signs, etc. etc. Since the onus now seems to rest on the uploader to clarify all the copyright concerns, I'm unsure how to comply with that request. Why are the signs seen within the image you've found acceptable but the sign in the image I found unacceptable? I'm trying to work this out so I can understand what I'm allowed to upload. Hiding (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand your frustration - the rule of thumb is, photographs that focus primarily on two-dimensional objects such as signs, posters, or documents are not okay - imagine taking a photograph of a movie poster and then licensing it under your own license. They're only permitted where the object photographed is itself free. However, incidental inclusion of these elements is permitted under de minimis (see Commons:De minimis). Most images that come up in a search like the one I described will be fine, but occasionally you might run into a difficult case like the one that was nominated for deletion (and the fact that it was nominated, rather than deleted right away, indicates that it's complicated and not something you could have been expected to anticipate). Dcoetzee (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Hiding (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)



I uploaded a few images from LIFE where I am absolutely sure that they were published before. For some I just cropped to remove the watermark, but for others, a bit of your magic would be useful. It would be nice to have a code which can do that. I can use C, C++, Perl, etc., anything which works on Linux.

  1. Would you help for such a code?
  2. Would you remove the watermarks yourself?

Here are the 2 images which need your help: File:Gandhi and Mountbatten drinking tea.jpg, File:Nehru, Gandhi and Patel 1946.jpg. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I have the proof that LIFE didn't own the copyright of the 2nd one: I found the photographer's name and the same image with a higher resolution elsewhere. This other site also claims a copyright on this image, but this isn't true either. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yann, you know I can't support the distribution of LIFE images that aren't in the public domain in the United States. These images are certainly not, because they were still in copyright in India in 1996, when the copyright of foreign works was restored, even if they were never published here. Considering that LIFE is currently monitoring our activity directly, I strongly suggest you refrain from uploading any more images from that source until the matter is settled. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

The Anti-Slavery Society Convention, 1840 by Benjamin Robert Haydon.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:The Anti-Slavery Society Convention, 1840 by Benjamin Robert Haydon.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Anti-Slavery Society Convention, 1840 by Benjamin Robert Haydon.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


History of Modern Egypt[edit]

Dear Dcoetzee,

You seem to be an experienced scripter with lots of knowledge on Batch uploading. I wanted to draw your attention to Commons:Batch_uploading#Batch_upload_Modern_Egypt which I listed there some time ago. The upload would really help improving the coverage of Egypt on Commons and Wikipedia. Hope u consider it. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Diaa - I'm swamped at the moment with existing batches but I can do a preliminary evaluation. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Foreign PD[edit]

Dcoetzee could u please explain the use of other foreing PD on commons at Commons_talk:Licensing#PD-Egypt please?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

British museum[edit]

Hi Dcoetzee,

You probably have too much on the go right now, but if you want another large set of PD images that would be well worth having here, the British Museum has a huge collection which they state if not in copyright for the most part.

--Bwwm (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

They do have some good resources, but unfortunately they do not offer high-resolution images online without a fee, only medium-resolution images (750 pixels wide). Dcoetzee (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. You're right. In some cases they may be worth getting anyway, but I suppose there are lots of other PD images to collect. Cheers. --Bwwm (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please categorized your templates[edit]

We're trying to keep Special:UncategorizedTemplates clean. Multichill (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at Special:ListGroupRights[edit]

And ask yourself: Why did i give myself IP block exemption? Multichill (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been through this several times already. For some reason that is not clear to me, I was blocked by the Tor filter, and I had to explicitly give myself that flag to work around the issue. This is apparently a bug in the platform. Please don't take it away. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

Dame (Alice) Ellen Terry ('Choosing') by George Frederic Watts.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Dame (Alice) Ellen Terry ('Choosing') by George Frederic Watts.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dame (Alice) Ellen Terry ('Choosing') by George Frederic Watts.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


FP promotion[edit]

Elizabeth I in coronation robes.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Elizabeth I in coronation robes.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elizabeth I in coronation robes.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


Picture Deletion[edit]

What is your reason for assuming this is original research? Remember first and foremost. Assume "Good faith". 06:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Please cite proof this is original research or restore file:File:NPCclosed.gif206.53.144.47 06:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)~ttt206.53.144.47 06:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The person who uploaded it is a user who is indefinitely banned on the English Wikipedia for original research, for use in articles describing his original research. This, in addition to examination of the image based on my personal expertise in the area, is the basis for this action. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Question about frame removal[edit]

It looked/looks like a 3D frame to me, and PD-art doesn't apply to the frame so they have to be removed. However, if you're reasonably certain it's a painted 2D frame feel free to re-upload the original (or upload the cropped version to a different name and revert the original). -- Editor at Largetalk 00:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Frederic William Henry Myers by William Clarke Wontner.jpg[edit]

Hi Derrick, I've used the above image which you uploaded and am intrigued by your comment "This set of images was gathered by User:Dcoetzee from the National Portrait Gallery, London website using a special tool." I've been frustrated for ages by the mean size of images provided by the National Portrait Gallery, especially those that are in the public domain, were acquired largely with public funds and are displayed in a building owned by the nation. The same frustration stems from sites that use the "Zoom" feature so that only a small piece of an image is displayed, forcing one to stitch the whole thing together. I'm hoping that you've found some way to tap into their database! regards Rotational (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC) ps are you Afrikaans?

Hi Rotational - the truth is, I didn't access any information that wasn't already publically available, but I did automate the process. I could tell you more about it if you set your e-mail address in your preferences. I'm as frustrated as you with the exploitation of public domain works by museums worldwide, and I'm going to be starting a website to help fight this problem and distribute tools. I'll keep you posted on developments. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

NYPL Digital Gallery[edit]

Dear Dcoetzee,

You seem to have started uploading images of the NYPL Digital Gallery. Could u please give an update on the Commons:Batch uploading page? And please also tell us what's up with the Life images.

Thank you, --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

NYPL: I haven't started uploading them - I'm still in the process of downloading them. I'll probably have to start uploading them soon, because I don't have enough hard drive storage to hold them all. For the LIFE images I still have e-mail out to LIFE. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


You might want to move your gallery to a subpage and just transclude it on your userpage so people watching your talk page don't have every userpage edit show up in their watchlists. Just a tip ;) -- Editor at Largetalk 23:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, good idea - it'll probably be too big for the userpage soon anyway. :-P Thanks. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Sticking it on a subpage in a drop-down box is a good solution, to keeping userpage edits out of talkpage watchers' watchlists and to the "too large" problem. -- Editor at Largetalk 00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I figured out the collapsible box thing. I won't be spamming your watchlist anymore. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


Pls look here? I have uploaded a picture but I am not quite sure whether it is uploaded correctly or not. Is the licence correct?--Raso mk (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raso. On what did you base your statement that this image is CC-BY-SA? I see no license statement at all at the source website. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is. Look carefully at the bottom right angle bellow the photo details!--Raso mk (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I see it now. Unfortunately, that's a no-derivatives license, which is not permitted at Commons (see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses, "Publication of derivative work must be allowed."). I'm going to have to delete the photo. I appreciate you contacting me about it and I hope you have more luck in finding additional photos compatible with our acceptable licenses policy. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. Do it--Raso mk (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC) P.S. I am trying to find something

Your photo deletion request[edit]

Reasons not to delete:

  • The Sydney Airport International Terminal is "open to the public". It's a public space.
  • The display in the photo contains two-dimensional and three-dimensional works that are considered "works of artistic craftsmanship".
  • Sydney Aiport is known as Kingsford Smith International Airport and therefore the artworks displaying significant moments in the life of aviation pioneeer Charles Kingsford Smith are extremely important to the airport.

Please do not delete this significant photo. J Bar (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi - please make your argument at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:MascotAirport5.jpg. I don't want to delete this photo unless it fails to satisfy legal requirements. Because the photos in it are very old, it will probably be okay. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

War memorials[edit]

Are you serious about having to claim FoP rights for War Memorials? How are they any different to Post offices, Town halls etc. The process of slapping FoP tags on these images seems arbitrary to me. I am not even certain what is acheived by placing the tags on the image, FoP rights and obligations exist regardless of an FoP tag placed on an image, or am I missing something? -- Mattinbgn/talk 03:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The tag isn't strictly needed, no. It's just a reminder. I'm just tagging everything that's under Category:Sculptures in Australia, which happens to indirectly include these buildings, although they are not in fact sculptures. I generally try not to tag ordinary buildings since there's no doubt that they're okay - I probably should not have tagged those. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the tag from the war memorial buildings. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Fop Australia[edit]

Can you please explain why you are tagging so many Australian images as it appears that many of the images you tag are not affected by the template you are using? Gnangarra 09:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I only tagged images in the Sculptures of Australia category. Most of the images I tagged are affected - some I accidentally tagged even though they were public domain sculptures. I'm not tagging any more of them, so please feel free to remove the tag from anything that does not require it. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
If you're asking about the cemetary pictures in particular, without sufficient information to tell when the tombstones were produced, I'm operating under the assumption that their designs are still under copyright. If the tombstone is known to be out-of-copyright, the tag is not needed - usually if the death date is before 1950 or so I'd expect the tombstone to be pretty old too. I realise that it's conventional to assume that copyright does not apply to tombstones, but it clearly does. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

Nicholas Kratzer by Hans Holbein the Younger.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Nicholas Kratzer by Hans Holbein the Younger.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nicholas Kratzer by Hans Holbein the Younger.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


FP promotion[edit]

Louis François Roubiliac by Adrien Carpentiers (Carpentière, Charpentière).jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Louis François Roubiliac by Adrien Carpentiers (Carpentière, Charpentière).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Louis François Roubiliac by Adrien Carpentiers (Carpentière, Charpentière).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


File:Sir Michael Ernest Sadler photo by George Charles Beresford 1914.jpg[edit]

Per Commons:Copyright#Ordinary_copyright the work is out of copyright in the UK (where it was sourced and where it was made - by a UK subject): "If the work was photograph with a known author taken before 30 June 1957 then copyright also expires 70 years after the death of the author." Please explain what the problem is here. Thanks. Ty 01:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's out of copyright in the UK but not in the US, because it was in copyright in the UK in 1996 (it only fell into the public domain in 2008) and so the URAA restored its copyright for 95 years from the date of first publication, presumably 1914, which means it's in copyright through the end of 2009. I don't know whether or not it will actually be deleted - there's a lot of disagreement about this - but I did have to tag it. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Woops, looks like I screwed this up, my apologies. :-) The URAA cannot restore works published prior to 1923, so you're good to go. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Judge, jury, and executioner?[edit]

In my opinion, you should not have used your admin powers to close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour; William Henry Grenfell, Baron Desborough by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't. I merely deleted the file, and it was automatically closed. I deleted the file because I uploaded it and it places me at direct personal legal risk for it to remain uploaded under my name. Anyone else may choose to reupload it. I believe anyone on Commons is entitled to this right. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Not anyone on commons has the right to delete his files. You used your admin powers. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I think anyone has the right to request that an upload which threatens their livelihood be deleted, and have such a request fulfilled without discussion. If you want the file to be kept, then go ahead and reupload it, I'm not stopping you. I just don't want my name on it, or the NPG will be sure to sue me out of existence. They've already issued a legal threat and I'm not taking any chances. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
A legal threat to you? Based on URAA? Please tell us more. Of course the NPG has its copyright claim on this image. Which commons chooses to ignore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Not a specific one involving the URAA. They sent a legal threat to WMF naming me, regarding my uploads of images derived from their website and threatening action on a variety of grounds. As such, I am continually striving to eliminate any of my prior uploads that they may be able to use against me in the future. Any file that has my name listed on it is evidence they can present in a civil suit against me. I am not making a statement about whether this image is in fact covered by the URAA, only that I am not willing to assume the legal risk that it may be. If you are willing to assume that legal risk, based on your own interpretation of the URAA, I invite you to reupload any file you choose using your own account. Commons should never compel users to incriminate themselves. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
In my uploads, I try to respect the law of the country of origin, but Commons (with its {{PD-Art}} and several other policies) acts as if US law applies to the whole world. One should not be surprised when this causes problems. Please tell us more - how did you hear about this letter to the WMF? What is the response of the Foundation? Is this discussed anywhere? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I decline to discuss this legal matter further in a public setting. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure PD-Art is the only exception to our PD-in-the-country-of-origin policy, and one that I agree with in the strongest of terms - it is our duty to stand against unjust laws that threaten to repress our cultural heritage. I don't like the URAA much, and truly hope it will be declared unconstitutional, but I can only fight one battle at a time. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Table for copyright status of UK works with known author death[edit]

This is a very useful table. If there are no objections about its content, could you possibly copy it permanently in Commons:Licensing under United Kingdom Ordinary Copyright? Sv1xv (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If I ever figure out exactly what the rules are, I certainly will. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


Can you please reply at Commons talk:Licensing#Restorations by others? Thank you. --NE2 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Aerial view of downtown Seattle.jpg[edit]

Really good photo. Found it when I was going through doing some category cleanup. - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Although frankly I'm not that happy with how the colours turned out, and the window introduced distortions like usual, but still that is one of my favourites. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

Charles Robert Darwin by John Collier.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Charles Robert Darwin by John Collier.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Charles Robert Darwin by John Collier.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


Conflicting licensing[edit]

Hi, you're adding license templates that say the opposite of what the other template says (like [2]). I didn't look into which is correct, but they obviously both can't be right. Rocket000 (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There's been a lot of discussion about this elsewhere (e.g. at Commons talk:Licensing). The error is in the PD-old-70 template. It claims that any work whose author has been dead for 70 years is PD in the US, which is a good rule of thumb but not true in general, particularly for foreign works restored by the URAA published between 1923 and 1977, which are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. The PD-old-70 template is still needed however to assert that the work is public domain in the UK. There's discussion around deleting these images at some point in the future, but the issue is contentious because the URAA has recently been brought to court. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in category update?[edit]

Hi Jmabel, just wanted to let you know that in this update to the categories on one of my images you accidentally forgot the Category prefix, and included an extra space in the name. I fixed it. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. I've been doing hundreds of these, I probably got dulled into a stupor. - Jmabel ! talk 16:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


I just noticed that Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag now has a specific mention of modern photographs of old tapestries. Thank you for that clarification; I assume it would also cover woven textiles (and I hope it would cover "flat" embroidery - that is, not raised or padded work). If there was discussion around this somewhere, I'd like to read it. - PKM (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey PKM. There was some talk at Commons talk:Licensing about this - probably archived by now - but there wasn't a whole lot of discussion. An analogy is often made to paintings, where paint actually has thickness and texture, but that's considered irrelevant at normal viewing distances. My edits were mostly just applying my common sense about the situation. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much. - PKM (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


See Commons:Batch uploading/NYPL Digital Gallery. Multichill (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Irc invitation[edit]

Hi Dcoetzee, we're talking about your nice uploads at #wikimedia-commons. Care to join? See Commons:Internet Relay Chat. You can use your favorite client or . Multichill (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

NYPL images and PD-Scan[edit]

Dcoetzee I'm a little unhappy with the way our images are tagged as PD-Scan only. Many of the images don't have their original publish date and someone who looks on the picture can't be sure if it's PD as there is no clear sign of it. For example File:Arch_on_St._George_Avenue,_from_Robert_N._Dennis_collection_of_stereoscopic_views.png has only "Digital item published 5-5-2005; updated 2-12-2009." which doesn't assert PD-old. There is an NYPL page about the collection which may hold clues about why the collection is PD. I think after we clear why the collection is PD we should create a template stating why it is PD, which goes along the PD scan. I'll post this also on the BATCH upload page, so please post there. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)