User talk:Fastily

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


File:Bob Leaf.jpg[edit]

Can you restore this image that has been deleted? OTRS permission has been received at ticket 2014022410007454 from Burson-Marsteller for Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Thanks, -- TLSuda (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you also restore File:Galveston pirate SC logo.jpg (INeverCry seems retired :()? Ticket 2014022410012626 from Brendan Keyes under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Thanks, -- TLSuda (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to keep coming to you like this. You're the only active admin that I can find. I'm working on the permissions-en queue, and I can restore at en.wp, but not here. I've got another one:
If you restore these and ping me, I'll do the work to clean them up. Cheers, and thanks again. -- TLSuda (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
All done. Ping as requested. Hope that helps, FASTILY 09:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Very much so. Thank you! -- TLSuda (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hauinger Buurefasnacht 2014[edit]

Hello,

you have not readed or understood the points and I request you to revoke the deletion. Otherwise I will open a admin-problem(*) against you. It´s realy irritating how less expert knowledge here admins have and delete stuff that is judicial correct. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

(*) this is already the second time you have deleted [1] my pictures without knowledge

The deletion of File:Klosterkirche St. Peter - Deckenfresko1.jpg was an honest mistake, and is unrelated to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hauinger Buurefasnacht 2014. My close of that DR was proper, as there is no freedom of panorama for non-permanently displayed works of art in Germany (effectively making them derivatives of non-free content which is prohibited on Commons). That said, assume good faith please -FASTILY 09:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are definitly wrong. FoP is completely irrelevant here because we have persons and not buildings. There is no law in Germany that prohibits to make images of persons which are acting in a public event like this one. I argued already that there is not copyright protection about the masks. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Precisely, I'm glad we agree. FoP cannot be applied here, effectively making these images derivatives of non-free content, which are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 19:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but are you playing the fool? Just because you can´t dispose FoP this doesn`t mean we have non-free content. Or is your law knowledge just FoP? This are pictures of persons on a public event which is of course not prohibited. We have no neglect of law in personal rights or in copy right. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that; it doesn't make any sense. The principal concern here is that the masks/costumes are potentially copyrighted. Do you have a document/URL from a credible source explicitly stating otherwise? If not, then these are non-free derivs -FASTILY 22:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
If you are right why we have at Commons thousands (!) of images of masks? In Germany we have no law that makes this stuff unfree. If you have a law that prohibts showing mask then SHOW ME please this paragraphs. Last calling: undelet this free images or I will start a deadmin because of obvious non qualification. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wladyslaw, first, please stop threatening Fastily. If you disagree with a deletion, it is appropriate to discuss it on the deleter's talk page, as you have done here, and then at COM:UNDEL, but threats are not useful. A disagreement is not a reason for a de-admin -- if they were, then there would be no Admins. If you make more threats, you may be blocked.

Second, these deletions were entirely correct. Masks are different from clothing -- clothing is useful, in fact essential, ("utilitarian" is the technical word use in copyright law in English) and as a general rule useful things may not be copyrighted. Masks, like other art, are not utilitarian and therefore can and do have a copyright in most countries, including both Germany and the United States. There is a good discussion of the issue at Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay which explicitly mentions masks. It discusses and links both a 1991 US Copyright Office policy decision on masks and a formal statement on the subject from WMF counsel.

Last, please remember that we have more than 20,000,000 images on Commons and are adding more than 10,000 every day. At least one percent of these, more than 200,000, do not belong here because they violate copyright. Although we do our best to delete them all, we simply do not have enough volunteers to do a perfect job of it, so other stuff exists. When you find such images, please do your part in improving Commons by tagging them with {{delete}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Fastily has asked me to comment, but in reality I have nothing more to add to what Jim and Fastily have already said, IMO the marks are protected by copyright and as I said in the DR, if you can show that any of the mask depicted are indeed out of copyright due to age then they can be kept. LGA talkedits 21:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jameslwoodward,

First: I guess FASTILY is able to answer for himself and didn't need a secretary. I'm not threatening him, but asking questions and searching for his logic. But until now I didn't find it.

Second: You can assume that I will start a request at COM:UNDEL. Nevertheless I can ask first of all the admin if he wants to correct his error. And as you have read FASTILY is well known for arguable decisions and behaviour. He attracts attention in a negativ way and this should be occasion to proof his capability as admin. Every person can make mistakes, no problem. But if you insist it's getting problematic.

Third and last: For sure nobody can check millions of data. But if a DR was disposed on a few images of a very huge category like Category:Masks than a explanation is necessery why he deletes 14 random pictures out of thousands of other pictures. If he takes his job seriously he have to make consistently decisions. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

First: Actually, since you refused to accept his explanation of the deletions, he asked for reinforcements. "I will start a deadmin because of obvious non qualification. " That sounds like a threat to me, which you made twice above.
Second: Yes, you should discuss it here first -- I said that above and we agree. And yes, Fastily attracts more attention than most Admins. That is because he does about 30% of all deletions done on Commons, so inevitably he attracts more comments than the other 250+ Admins. Note, however, that his reversal rate at UnDR is much smaller than the average, so actually his record is much better than the average Admin's.
Third: When an Admin is closing a DR, there is no reason at all why he or she should seek out other similar files which ought to be deleted. As a general rule the ten Admins that do 75% of Commons deletions depend on others to nominate files. That is the only way we have a chance of staying ahead of the flood of problems which we are receiving.
You did not make any further comment on the deletions, so I assume that you now understand that the deletions of the files was correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Jim, please take it light. It is quite natural that a photographer get disappointed when his hard works get thrown to the bin. Wladyslaw is a valuable contributor here with more than 2000 quality images. If his comment to forward it to AN/U can be considered as a threat, your comment " If you make more threats, you may be blocked." too. I think our great photographers should be also treated with dignity just like our super admins. Clin Jee 16:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Being a valued contributor does not give you the right to make repeated threats. In fact, we have only a very few highly productive Administrators and we just lost INC because he got tired of all the threats and other stuff that they have to put up with -- you can measure that loss in the fact that since he left we have gone from having a one day backlog to the backlog being close to three weeks and growing. If Fastily also gets tired of it, as he has in the past, where will we be -- with a DR backlog of months? Maybe years? I know that I don't get anywhere near the nonsense and threats that Fastily does and INC did, but I get tired of it sometimes -- that's the reason I'm way down the most active list recently. So, no, I don't think I should lighten up. Someone who threatens another editor during a dispute should understand that he is adding to the problem of our being badly understaffed. That's true even if the other party was wrong, as was obviously not the case here. If you want to pamper someone, try Fastily, Natuur12, Yann, Steinsplitter, Turelio, Hedwig, Russavia, Ellin, Taivo, and Magog, who are currently doing 75% of all deletions.
In fact, why is Commons:Meet our photographers highlighted on the Main Page, while the All Time Top Admins List is nowhere to be seen? Certainly we need great photographers, but without Fastily and the other top Admins, we will not be able to continue to claim to be "a database of freely usable media files" because the flood of junk every day will overwhelm us. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Awwww, pamper me with cookies and cute cat pictures (with proper licenses only)! Deletions and nominating for deletions are really difficult! Seriously. As a photographer and contributor to Commons - and one who has had her photos deleted (waves at Jim) for licensing issues that made no sense to at the time - I totally sympathize with the personal loss feeling of having a photo deleted. However, think of it from the other way. If it was one of my photos that wasn't free to begin with and someone uploaded it to Commons as their "own work", and it got nommed, I would be so happy with the admins. What's right is sometimes painful, e.g. U.S. tax day is only 4 days in future and we all must pay up whether we like it or not. Getting stopped for 29mph in a 25mph zone feels unfair, but we all have the choice to obey the rules & limits in everything we do, and Commons is no different. Could I beg you for some help? Instead of writing more back here, please go take a look at Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention and help us work through the backlog? You may find things to categorize there, or images to nominate for deletion. Either way it would be super helpful to the project to use your energy to help us out! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Since I was pinged, I'd like to add my 2 Rs. I don't know if these are copyrighted or not. Personally, I don't delete images unless I am fairly certain that there is a copyright violation. Some masks do not have a copyright because it is folklore, and some masks are artistic creations, so get a copyright, but here I don't have enough information to answer. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I discover: Fastily is not able or willing to answer my question. I will not make any conversation with some self appointed representatives.

Fastily: we'll see soon at de-admin. Regards --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wladyslaw, if you file a de-admin in the face of the evidence above -- WMF counsel, the USCO memo, the Commons Casebook, and the opinion above of a wide variety of experienced Commons users, all of which say that masks have a copyright -- I am quite sure you will be blocked -- I won't do it, because I am too involved, but such an action would be simply abusive of our most productive Admin and I am sure that my colleagues won't stand for it, no matter how good a photographer you are. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Jim, I can understand the value of the contributions of the admins and other maintenance volunteers. I can understand the pressure on them too as it is more like a customer care executive. They need to answer patiently to all quires, and chances that they get blamed even if their acts and words are gentle. They are working hard, a few of them are only active and so they are overloaded. But all these matters are not an excuse to being rude or negligent to a "customer". If the current system has issues, it should be discussed and more admins need to be appointed. And I support your idea to set up a pge for most helpful people here including admins, categorisers, patrollers, etc. ;)
Wladyslaw: De-admin is the last step and a single incident is not a reason for it. We need to discuss with the user first, then with the community at COM:AN/U. Any photograph of a creative work should be thoroughly checked for third party rights before publishing. I can understand the feelings of a photographer when his work is deleted. But in fact, such deletions are ultimately helpful for the photographer. It saves him from making infringements, and protect him from further legal issues. In a WMF project, neither WMF, nor our volunteers are responsible for copyright violations. It is always the responsibility of the content creator and uploader. Jee 02:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh there are some people here who need to go on a "How to deal with an angry customer" course. I'll give you a clue: the answer isn't to shout louder. Fastily didn't explain the deletion issue but just stood his ground unhelpfully. Jim did explain the issue to some degree (good) but then threatened to block Wladyslaw (bad, very bad). Those doing deletions need to appreciate better the viewpoint of the content creator getting his work put in the bin. If someone is angry and shouting at you, deal with the reason for that rather than being simply stubborn or threatening to block. Jim, let me be clear: if you continue to threaten Wladyslaw with a block for simply being angry then I shall instigate some de-admin/community-censure action myself. Get a grip -- this is not how to deal with it. I'm not excusing Wladyslaw at all here (he's been pretty grumpy with me too) but I see no reasons for blocking here. If Wladyslaw were to raise a de-admin against Fastily over this issue, it would be snowball dismissed. So leave it at that rather than making things worse.
I hear the same old excuses about our overworked deletion admins doing all the work so we should cut them lots of slack. Well then the deletion process is broken in some way if it relies on so few people. I see people firefighting but not setting up any solutions. You need to realise that DR will always run the risk of provoking an angry response in someone who is normally a reasonable person and valuable content producer. You need to appreciate that copyright law is completely illogical and frustrating, and so acting all Spock-like and unsympathetically explaining it like it actually is rational, doh!, is not a helpful attitude. This isn't some kid uploading photos he's stolen or a blurry photo of his dick. When dealing with this kind of thing, both of you need to consider firstly that we have a valuable contributor here who needs to feel appreciated (because we've just insulted and devalued him by putting his picture in the bin) and helped to understand the issues. Instead, both of you just created a fight. -- Colin (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Colin, you have made the same comment before and I will make the same answer -- propose a solution. As long as we are getting more than 10,000 new images every day, of which more or less 20% are not OK, we have a problem.
One solution would be to have more Admins doing the work, but recently the number of Admins has actually shrunk by about 15 and we have lost our second most productive (#2 recently, #3 all time) Admin, INeverCry. Herbythyme, #12 on the all time list, left us last year for much the same reasons. Given the atmosphere in which we work, I'm surprised we have not lost more. Another solution would be to ban all third party images (e.g. Flickr) that are not historical. A third would be to make all personal images speedies unless they are actually in use and change the rule so that a user could not have a user page or any personal images until he had 100 edits on Commons. And so forth.
And, by the way, I did not ask for anyone to cut any slack for Admins -- we need to be examples of obeying the spirit and the letter of the rules. There is no cutting slack in demanding that a User stop making repeated threats against an Admin who was simply doing his job and who at worst had made a simple error and in fact had been completely correct. Wladyslaw is not a newbie -- he has 34,000 edits here -- and certainly knows that copyright is complex. He also probably is aware of the image casebook, the standard reference for this sort of dispute. So don't lecture me about starting a fight -- Wladyslaw knows full well that he should have simply taken it to UnDR when Fastily refused to restore. Instead he threatened, and continued to threaten even though the underlying issue seems to completely dead.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes and you've trotted out the same "poor little admins, there are so few left" line. And you are asking for slack -- for Fastily to be excused for badly dealing with a difficult client because it would be awful if he gave up. It is absolutely no excuse. Sorry but if you are an admin then you have to deal with "customer service" issues and sometimes the "customer" isn't friendly. Deal with it. Both of you seem to expect the customer has to change. Not going to happen. Nobody elects contributors. We choose admins because we expect them to handle this kind of thing. If you aren't up to handling the "angry customer" situation without flinging around block threats then you should turn in your badge. Running Commons isn't my job so don't ask me to find a solution to the problem. That's both a community and a WMF problem. I'm just pointing out that both of you are handling this wrongly and simply finding excuses for your own failings. You really have no clue if you think experienced contributors are familiar with the image casebook. You are not robots. Simply "obeying the spirit and the letter of the rules" is not enough. This is not a game. These are real people. With emotions and feelings and anger and frustration and disappointment. Your last comments about Wladyslaw show you just aren't understanding "why" or want to care. All that matters to you is that you are right. Being right isn't good enough. The other guy begin wrong or acting badly is not an excuse. Why is this so hard to understand?
Stop trying to deflect the discussion onto other matters (or raise them in another section if they are positive suggestions). I'm only interested at present in how you and Fastily should have handled an angry contributor who doesn't appear to understand the reasons for the deletion. Consider: were your actions here directed towards calming things down and helping the contributor, or about defending a fellow Admin and proving someone else was wrong. Yeh, doesn't look so good when you stop and think. -- Colin (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Jim, we discussed it earlier (probably when INC declared his retirement earlier) and I suggested to set up a whitelist for Flickr streams and users can only transfer files from that list. Any user can suggest a new stream; but an admin should review it first prior to make any uploads. If I remember well, you and Fastily agree with it; but Yann showed disagreement stating it will slow down the process. Yes; it will be a bit slow; but guarantee quality uploads and save maintenance time. I agree with you that personal images, especially "selfies" are a problem. Most of them are very low in quality, taken with cameraphones. People don't know the consequence of applying a free license to self portraits even though CC clearly warned that we can't claim privacy rights for self portraits with a free license. Increasing the number of admins is also a good point; but the problem will remain until we treat our root causes as INC stated in her retirement note on his user page. Jee 10:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Colin, you're not logical. We have the Admins that we have -- not enough of them. You would add an additional requirement for them, that they be saints. OK, fair enough, that would be desirable in a perfect world, but we don't have a perfect world. We have what we have -- a shrinking number of Admins and your additional qualification would only shrink the group faster. Make a constructive suggestion to deal with the real world, not pie in the sky.

In my own defense, I argue that I simply pointed to comprehensive documentation that masks are, in fact, copyrighted and defended my colleague from a wholly unreasonable attack. I will not apologize for defense of my colleagues from repeated absurd threats. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim, I think the problem is you are expecting me to argue on different issues than you feel strongly about, and disappointed I don't have solutions. You keep banging on about the number of admins. Well clearly this is something you care about but totally irrelevant to the issue I see above. Which is simply a classic "angry customer" situation handled badly. Yes Wladyslaw was "unreasonable" but that is totally understandable because he was angry and upset over the loss of his image. If, as an admin, you expect people to be totally rational the whole time, then your expectations need recalibrating. This is simply something admins have to deal with. No sainthood required. Just basic stuff. If handling that sort of thing isn't something you or Fastily think they can do then they shouldn't be admins. It certainly isn't a job I'd want. And you should re-familiarise yourself with our Blocking policy, which absolutely does not condone blocking people who are upset and thus acting a bit out of sorts. Blocking in these cases just makes things worse. -- Colin (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Images from Web Gallery of Art[edit]

Hello, how are you? :-)

Unfortunately I think we have a problem of fair use on all the files in this category...

How can we solve this situation? Kind regards. --Angelus(talk) 22:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Angelus, I sampled several files in the category, and I did not find a fair use issue with any of them; all of these files seem to depict works of art which are over a century old. Could you please elaborate? Thanks, FASTILY 09:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There is the same copyright problem of these files, because they came from the same site. Cheers. --Angelus(talk) 18:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
What do you think about? --Angelus(talk) 23:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, I haven't been online in a few days. According to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., art which has fallen into the public domain due to age does not confer a new copyright if it is replicated (e.g. in a new medium such as digital). Unless I'm missing something, given how most of these qualify for PD-old, I think the Web Gallery of Art's non-free claims are bogus. Regards, FASTILY 21:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the explanation! :-) --Angelus(talk) 21:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Could you also take a look here, please? Thanks a lot. --Angelus(talk) 21:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Problem user[edit]

Hi fasitly, could you please help and perhaps issue a warning to User:Эрманарих, he is edit warring and making a mess of a number of files File:Flag of Leinster.svg. File:Naval Jack of Ireland.svg, he knows absolutely nothing about the flags in question and is reverting to old versions , his page is full of similar previous violations and block warnings so it would seem to be a common theme with this user, I believe he is just attention seeking but he seems to have a problem with the alternate versions also existing which were used as trial files so perhaps you could delete File:Leinster Flag (alternate).svg and File:Naval Service of Ireland Jack.svg. I wonder would it also be possible for you to perhaps clean up the unfortunate mess made of the history of each file so that the last update i included would be the only visible one in order to prevent a re-occurrence. Setanta Saki (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

User has already been blocked by Taivo for edit warring. I went ahead and scrubbed the history of that user's edit warring. Hope that helps, FASTILY 09:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much for fixing all that Fastily and Taivo also, appreciate it Setanta Saki (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC).

File:Rebecca Masisak, CEO, TechSoup Global.jpg[edit]

Could you undelete this file please? We have received an OTRS ticket for it. -- (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 00:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Flag of the Royal Military College of Canada[edit]

Thankyou for your contributions and time. In reference to the RMC flag discussion, and in line with COM:DR, could you please explain your rationale? I have a few issues with your explanaiton, "No good reason/sources have been provided to suggest that this image is copyrighted".

  1. COM:DR states that the burden of proof is on those who wish to keep the file to show that it is not under copyright. So, should not your explanation be that 'no good reasons have been provided to suggest that this image is not copyrighted'?
  2. Your statement that no reasons or sources were provided to suggest that the file is copyrighted is false. The Canadian Armed Forces Manual para 43 under "Flag Ownership and Use" states that "Current CF flags are protected under copyright". This is a current CF flag.
  3. I then provided 15 referenced reliable primary and secondary sources from experts/academics/officials/laws from the field of copyright, showing that the Government of Canada's assertion to copyright are legal according to the Canadian Copyright Act and the Berne Convention. I would appreciate it if you could let me know why or how you came to the conclusion that there were no reasons or sources presented. Thankyou very much for all your time. trackratte (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Trackratte, I've invited Fry to comment, as this wouldn't be a fair undeletion request without input from all participants in the discussion. Depending on what he has to say, I will uphold or overturn my close. -FASTILY 00:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The issue here as addressed and the crux of Trackratte's claim is the perpetual extension of Crown Copyrights. This flag is absolutely too old under Canadian copyright law which states that Crown Copyright expires after 50 years, therefore the only way this could still be copyrighted is if the Crown extended the copyright. If the Berne Convention bans that, the Crown can not legally do so and therefore the claim has no legal effect. Several venues on Wikipedia relating to copyright discussed the implication of the Berne Convention and the consensus there was that it does in fact ban perpetual extensions of copyright. Fry1989 eh? 00:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I would expect COM:COA to be applicable to flags like this. The device in the centre has apparently been independently recreated, so there’s no question of misappropriating any particular artistic work, while its blazon A dexter arm embowed vambraced gauntleted holding a sprig of three maple leaves and ensigned by the Royal Crown proper is a matter of public record. (The flag itself does not appear to have been matriculated by the CHA, but it might have been registered at the College of Arms.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Odysseus, see here for the relevant discussion with backing references. Essentially, any "work based upon one or more preexisting works", even when they "represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work'" (Section 101 US Copyright). Copyright still applies to works based upon copyrighted material, even with "derivative works in different media based on his work". The copyright law here is clear, if the flag is copyrighted, so is this user generated copy. COM:COA only points to works based only on the blazon without reference to the origninal work. Point: If this flag is copyrighted, so is this copy.
  • Fry, the crux of my argument is not perpetual copyright, but that the PD 50 rule in the Copyright Act applies notwithstanding the rights and privleges of the Crown, ie the Executive can enforce copyright for certain works (generally when works depict the Crown for COA) beyond 50 years (Section 12, Copyright Act). Point: Canada can and does exert copyright on its works beyond 50 years.
  • "the only way this could still be copyrighted is if the Crown extended the copyright" (Fry)--> "Current CF flags are protected under copyright" and the Department of National Defence also retains copyright on any flag in use by the Armed Services prior to 1968 (Para 43. of A-AD-200-000/AG-000). Point: Canada exerts copyright on this flag.
  • "work produced by government departments, whether published or unpublished, may be protected either permanently or at the whim of the Crown" (Gina LaForce, Academic). Crown copyright is "said to be perpetual...and not to lapse through non-use or non-assertion" (David Vaver, literally wrote the book on Canadian copyright law, lawyer, academic, copyright professor). A "right to certain works by prerogative amounts to a perpetual term of copyright protection" (David Smith, academic). Experts from the field (reliable secondary sources) explicitly state that Canada can claim copyright to works beyond 50 years, based on Section 12 of the Copyright Act. Point: Canada is able to exert Crown copyright on its works beyond 50 years.
  • From the Berne Convention: "(6) The countries of the Union may grant a term of protection in excess of those provided by the preceding paragraphs", and "(8) In any case, the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed". ""The Berne Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyrighted for at least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are free to provide longer terms" (Wiki-Berne Convention - Copyright Term). "how any particular country implements the Berne Convention is a question of local legislation" (WP:PD). "For Canada to accede to the Berne Convention, it was therefore necessary to modify its copyright legislation and, hence, the Copyright Act...was adopted."(Cariere, RIchard, and Robic; Copyright lawyers). So, the Copyright Act is the application of the Berne Convention in Canadian law. The Berne Convention does not limit copyright terms to 50 years, but leaves it up to the laws of the originating country. Point: The Berne Convention states that copyright terms are up to respective originating countries.
  • There are over 21 reliable sources that have been cited to support the above at the RMC Flag DR and the Arms of the CSA DR, which you can refer to if you want the full references. Summary: Canada claims copyright on this flag. This in line with section 12 of the Copyright Act. This is in line with the Berne Convention. This is in line with reliable secondary sources/experts in the field.
  • In line with Commons Policy, a substantial amount of evidence has been put forward showing that this is under copyright, even though the onus is on those wishing to keep the file to prove that it is not copyrighted. So, unless someone has reliable evidence to put forward explicity relinquishing copyright and placing the flag into the public domain, this is a relatively clear application of Canadian and U.S. copyright law, in accordance with international copyright convention. trackratte (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, perpetual extension of copyright IS the crux of your argument. You can word it whatever different way want you want and call it whatever you want, but that is your argument. You claim that the Crown has the right to extend copyright beyond the normal 50 year limit of expiration under Canadian Law. If the Berne Convention bans that (and I am saying "if" only to be generous to you, I have never moved away from that), the Crown can not legally do so. That is the crux of this entire thing. As for your point of "If this flag is copyrighted, so is this copy", that isn't necessarily true, but sadly you reject any principle of independent works and simplicity. I knew you would drag this through the mud if you didn't get the outcome you wanted in the DR, but it's rather sad. Fry1989 eh? 17:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm somewhat confused as to the standard being applied here, as once again, no evidence oncesoever has been put forward showing this image to be in the Public Domain. Even looking at the topic below this one, the reasoning provided for deletion of an image from 1948 (presumably 66 years old) was:
"Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming these files as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host them on Commons FASTILY 08:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)"
So, unclear copyright and the absence of hard evidence that the file is free is enough for deletion. Yet, with this image we have the Government of Canada/Canadian Armed Forces/Department of National Defence clearly stating that this flag is under copyright. The relevant sections of the Canadian Copyright Act, U.S. Copyright laws, and the Berne Convention have been provided explicitly stating that copyright can extend beyond 50 years. A host of expert and academic secondary sources have been provided explicitly supporting this direct reading of the primary sources. Against this, not a single source has been put forward showing this file to be free. trackratte (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
OSE: files for deletion are judged on their own merit, and not in comparison to others. I think I need to clarify my reasoning. As far as I can see, the file is in the public domain. Canada's government is free to claim all the copyright they want, but if this seal was originally published long ago enough such that it is now in the public domain, the claim is effectively moot; replications of PD subjects/materials do not automatically confer new copyrights. -FASTILY 19:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict)Right, but what makes you believe that this flag is in the public domain?
  • And WP:OSE - "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". trackratte (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Trackratte, I'm more confused by your denial of what this is really about. It's like we're speaking a different language. You do not seem to understand any of this outside of what meets your desired outcome. Canadian copyright law says that Crown Copyrights expire after 50 years. You can not deny that is what it says. Instead, you are trying to use your little caveat "without prejudice to the rights of the Crown..." to say the Crown can have copyrights longer than 50 years. The only way they can do that is by extending the copyright past it's normal 50 year expiration date. The 50 year number has nothing to do with the Berne Convention, absolutely nothing. It is written into Canadian law. All the Berne Convention does is ban perpetual extension, which means the State as an entity can not legally extend a copyright beyond whatever normal expiration date is written into domestic law. In the case of Canada, that means 50 years. Fry1989 eh? 19:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Trackratte, you omitted "When used correctly". I'm arguing that your OSE comparison was inappropriate. -FASTILY 19:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I know that many of us are extraordinary busy on Wikipedia and on Commons and don't necessarily have the time to go through and understand all of the sources provided. However, the Copyright Act does not say that Crown copyright always expires in every case after 50 years. It has a notwithstanding clause for a reason, or else why else would the lawmakers have put it there? Second, this is not my interpretation, but of the leading copyright experts, who themselves say, very clearly, that Crown copyright can go beyond 50 years.
  • I have provided the two sections in the Berne Convention that state that copyright terms can go beyond 50 years, and that terms (in fact the interpretation of the convention itself) are up to individual countries' legislation. Where does it say that the Berne convention bans copyright beyond 50 years? Or that it bans perpetual copyright extensions for that matter?
  • This is a fairly straightforward case. The author of the work has copyright (explicit official source provided). Copyright beyond 50 years is valid according to domestic and international copyright law/convention (explicit reliable secondary sources provided). Against this we have, what? An individual who says that, despite experts' statements to the contrary and a plain reading of the law, that copyright assertion is impossible because it's over 50 years old. trackratte (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
No, the assertion is that the claim of copyright has no legal effect due to treaty. Just because someone says they own the copyright doesn't make it true, there are all sorts of factors at play. Fry1989 eh? 20:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:1948 US Christmas Seal.jpg‎[edit]

Why did you consider it necessary to also delete the pre-1923 seals? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, why delete the category? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
All pre-1923 seals restored. It wasn't clear what you were referring to in the DR, and given how the category was tagged with {{delete}}, it seemed you meant to nominate all of them. -FASTILY 18:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, the text "No-one is intending to delete the category," in the DR should be quite clear enough. Secondly I'm glad that I now seem to have instant power over all Commons content. If I ask to delete something, that's still no reason to actually go and delete it! Deletion should be by consensus on some rational basis, not anyone's whim. There is possibly a reason to delete some of these, after 1923. There has never been any intention to delete the others. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Andy, that was why I said nominate them individually or in groups. Fastily: Didn't the Faroese one(s) have a good licence too? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Just let me revel a little longer in my magical powers to cause Fastily to delete anything I make the slightest request of, whether there is any policy reason to or not. Hey, let's go for a featured picture: File:Walschaerts motion.gif Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

About Some of Your Photos[edit]

Hello, I am re-categorizing photos in the unidentified dogs category and I came accross with the following photo taken by you: Puppy 8 2013-07-30.jpg I would like to know if you know the breed of this dog? It would help my categorizing. I was wondering if it might be a Finnish Lapphund? It looks a lot like that and I have heard that it is becoming a more popular pet also in the US, as it's now an officially recognized breed over there. --Canarian (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I searched for full body images online, did a mental comparison, I think you're correct, it's a Finnish Lapphund. Thanks for looking into it! :D -FASTILY 18:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


File:Martin Millerioux.jpg + other files[edit]

Hi

the author has been the permition for nearly two weeks. Túrelio has say to put OTRS pending in the files.I do it.

I was told that "The queue can be long".

I would like to know where this in is.

Thank you and sorry for my english.Iffrit51 (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

About a week usually. If that hasn't happened yet, it's probably because they're busier than usual (infrequent, since they're usually pretty on top of things), or because the procedure at COM:OTRS was not followed (pretty typical). I recommend having the copyright holder send another email, to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org", and ensure that the COM:OTRS procedure is followed. If nothing happens after a week, let me know and I'll see what I can do for you -FASTILY 18:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Piracetam2D.svg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Piracetam2D.svg 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 | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

DMacks (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Vilazodone2D.svg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Vilazodone2D.svg 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 | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

DMacks (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Zmajski most.JPG[edit]

Hi, Fastily. I don't see why this image was kept. In my opinion, the Dragon Bridge is still copyrighted (work by J. Zaninović, d. 1946) and certainly not de minimis (it's the main subject). Do you disagree? --Eleassar (t/p) 22:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted as a non-free deriv. Hope that helps, FASTILY 21:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have a question about some files you deleted[edit]

Hi Fastily,

It looks like you deleted these three files that I posted on behalf of The McLoughlin Gallery. I gave the gallery owner instructions on how to submit permissions for the files in question but it seems like there must have been some sort of mishap involved in the process. I would be happy to talk to her and have her submit the permissions email again so it properly authorizes the use of all of the photos in question. I apologize for any extra work on your end, but I hope to learn from this instance so I can streamline this process for the future. Thank you for your help! Commons:File:McLoughlin Gallery.jpg, Commons:File:DOC Install 2013-McLoughlin Gallery.jpg, Commons:Valecillos_exhibit-McLoughlin_Gallery.jpg Ethan (HPR) (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ethan, was the procedure at COM:OTRS followed exactly? If not, the email may have been rejected, although usually they send a note to the email's (check your spam box) sender explaining how to proceed. I recommend having the owner send another email to OTRS, at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (be sure that the applicable procedure(s) at COM:OTRS is/are followed precisely). If nothing happens after a week or so, let me know and I'll see what I can do. -FASTILY 21:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the response, I will have them send another email and make sure that it sticks to the procedures of COM:OTRS exactly. Best, Ethan. Ethan (HPR) (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Logo CISOR-Final.jpg[edit]

Can you please restore this image that has been deleted? permissions@wikimedia.org has received a mail from CISOR bureau on 2014, 25 February, 08:33. I will look for OTRS permission directly afterwards. Thanks, --Matthias Blazek (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you emailed the wrong address. The correct address is permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. -FASTILY 21:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Files deleted at https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horacio_de_Egu%C3%ADa[edit]

Hi!

I saw that you deleted some photos of the page https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horacio_de_Egu%C3%ADa. I don't know what can I do to have the photos without problems. There are made by my father (the son of the artist of the article), and I sent an e-mail to have a permission following the indications of the village pump (in spanish and english), and the indications of COM:OTRS, but I haven't answers from that.

What can I do? We have the rights of the photos and I want to show them to the worls with the article about my grandfather, but I don't knoy what is my mistake.

Sorry for my english, I don't write in this language usually.

Regards. -- Kuranes 11.41 - 14.04.2014

When did you send the email? If it's been a few days, please be patient, as it can take a few days to process the email. If not, I'd recommend sending them another email, but be sure to follow the procedure at COM:OTRS exactly. -FASTILY 21:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi!
I Sent one week ago. Yesteday I sent again, but then I see the photos were deleted and I must to upload again.
I will try again, I think that article needs photos! :-)
Regards. -- Kuranes 10.47 - 15.04.2014

De Havilland mosquito plane e000762769 ExC.jpg[edit]

Hi there. I left a message on the discussion about un-deleting this image, and then noticed the discussion had been closed. Anyway, the photo was taken during the war by a Canadian employed as a photographer by the NFB Bio. Thanks for having a look. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay I'll look into it -FASTILY 21:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Simple revision deletion[edit]

I released this file to the public domain, as the current revision is a pure tracing. The older revisions are derivatives of CC-BY-SA work. Perhaps it might be safer to delete them lest people assume that these older versions are PD as well? Lemmens, Tom (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Old revisions deleted. Hope that helps, FASTILY 21:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) Lemmens, Tom (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)