User talk:Jameslwoodward

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

1st half 2014
2nd half 2014
1st half 2015
2nd half 2015
1st half 2016
2nd half 2016
1st half 2017

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself. The original talk page is located at

My formal name is James L. Woodward, but I prefer to be called "Jim"

Help for upload[edit]

hello sir, please tell me that, how to upload in wikimedia commons using API url's ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddst40 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean. Of course I know what a URL is and what an API is, but I don;t use either term in reference to uploading to Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you sir. --Ddst40 (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Treasury bills.jpg[edit]

Hi Jim, thanks for cleaning up and closing the confused DR from JHerbstman. The file usage of the old File:Treasury bills.jpg is no longer visible to me, but from memory I think it was used in more wiki articles than I'm currently seeing for the "File usage" of the replacement File:1969 $100K Treasury Bill (front).jpg. Are you sure it got replaced everywhere via User:Jameslwoodward/GlobalReplaceLog/2017/2? Or does it take some time for the "File usage" section to update fully? —Patrug (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

My recollection is that the six shown in the log is right -- I used the global replace tool and, as far as I know, it works correctly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmmmm. "File usage" for the new image currently shows a total of 6 files, but 5 of them already had the new filename previously, and only 1 (on shows your GlobalReplace in the edit history. Do you have access to the old File:Treasury bills.jpg page, or a detailed log anywhere, to show which 6 articles the GlobalReplace attempted to update? –Patrug (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Just found these 6 diffs from your Xtools log. It looks like the new image links ended up with "T00K" instead of "$100K". Can you fix globally? (I don't want to risk manually editing wikis where I can't even read the alphabet.) —Patrug (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks for your effort here. At first, I thought I spelled the replacement incorrectly, but since it got one of them right, that wasn't it. Strange problem.
As for editing in a strange alphabet, it's actually pretty easy since all you're doing is replacing a file name that is in Latin characters. I've done it in many of the non-Latin alphabets for the same reason. The hardest part is when it asks you whether you want to edit in place or edit the source and you can't read which one you want to click on. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Talk page stalker Probably it interpreted the dollar sign ($) instead of taking it literally. It is a bug that should be reported. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe it was a typo after all. In the article where you saw the right filename (my diff #6 above), apparently there are TWO copies of the image, and one is still a red-link to the wrong filename from the GlobalReplace. —Patrug (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Not fair[edit]

James, regarding I believe you have not been honest. From what I see, you initially nominate them for deletion arguing that the images are not notable. And after our initial comments, you delete them by providing a totally different reason which is "virtually everything in these images is copyrighted" for which we have no chance to answer because the deletion request is closed. Images are deleted and not visible anymore. Maybe you were right, but this is not a fair way of working.--Jordiferrer (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Jordiferrer, actually, it is not only fair, it is required. When any Commons user sees an obvious copyright violation he is required to add the {{Copyvio}} tag to the file, which will cause its immediate deletion or, if he is an Administrator, he must delete the file on sight. This is done both to protect the rights of the copyright holder and to protect WMF from legal action for hosting copyrighted files.
That fact that our colleague, Eugen Zelenko did not consider the copyright issue when he nominated the files for deletion is completely irrelevant. See Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#File for policy and more information. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert and Ernestine Auer[edit]

and again,_letzte_Briefe_01.jpg, can i get back the picture? see last section. or have i to reacreate a third time?--Abadonna (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the request any more than I did last month when you asked the same question. File:Robert und Ernestine Auer, letzte Briefe 01.jpg was kept after the DR and, unless some different information comes to light, will not be deleted. The other version of the photo (cropped to remove the mat) has been deleted and cannot be restored since it is a duplicate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I also note that you have apparently created two sockpuppets to discuss these images and for other purposes. As a general rule, a person should have only one account. There are specific reasons why a user might have more than one account, but they must be declared and must never be used to edit the same page or to create the impression that more than one user supports or opposes an action. I have blocked User:Gedenksteine and User:Martinvie and will block User:Abadonna if you create any more user accounts. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear Jim, there must be a misunderstanding. Firstly: Martinvie is not Abadonna/Gedenksteine. He is the grandson of Robert and Ernestine Auer. Abadonna is a woman. Secondly, Gedenksteine is the working account of Abadonna for all memorial purposes. At least in deWP this is well known and openly declared that Abadonna uses this second account. See: [1] and [2]. When some users in deWP requested that Abadonna/Gedenksteine should use only one account, she tried to unify them as User:Donna Gedenk, but failed as some unfriendly user had already created this account in czWP (after she signed several times as Donna Gedenk on my German disk, see: [3] and [4]). Therefore the unification of the two accounts failed (until now). On 15 January 2017 I informed the administrators of deWP about this act of stalking: [5]. Abadonna/Gedenksteine is currently very sad and upset, not only because of this bad trick someone played with her but also because of several acts of unfriendliness elsewhere. Maybe she forgot to log in with the proper account in this discussion, but I can assure you it was not bad will but good faith to save this image. The user who requested the deletion did also some other unfriendly things in deWP, i.e. [6] where he deleted references and substituted them with the tag references missing. I assure you that I will assist Abadonna/Gedenksteine in unifying the two accounts and politely ask you to unblock Gedenksteine. (Her IP has been blocked and she can't even use the account Abadonna any longer). Best wishes--Meister und Margarita (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information above. I have received three convincing e-mails from Abadonna on the subject. I have unblocked User:Martinvie, but he or she must be more careful not to give the impression of acting in concert with Abadonna. While they may not be the same person, two persons working in concert is also against the rules here. I first suspected the problem with the request above, where all three were involved with the two versions of the same photograph.

I have also unblocked the IP address used for Abadonna and Gedenksteine. I don't understand why she needs two accounts -- is one personal and the other for her job? That would be a good reason to have two as long as (a) she declares them on both user pages here and on any other WMF project where she works and (b) she carefully avoids ever using both accounts to edit any page or make comments of any issue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

ok, my english is bad and i tried! to wirte, why and so on. martin uploaded a picture, i do not wanted to use with the frame, so i cropped it. yes, i asked him for pictures, he uploaded it in commons. why i answered with abadonna, and not with gedenksteine, is because i want only use abadonna for discussions any more (since a few weeks). and i can't see that i used both for same discussions (but possible, that i not see it now). whatever, the account gedenksteine has the permission to upload fotos by two fotographers (otrs tickets), abadonna do not have the permissions and it is very very difficult in commons with permissions. so i need gedenksteine for uploading the pictures. i can write on both accounts, that abadonna is gedenksteine and gedensteine is abadonna (like in german wiki). thank you.--Abadonna (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC) i have a lot of pictures stolpersteine praha, i can upload, because of permissions (otrs ticket is running for gedenksteine).--Abadonna (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, that all makes sense -- by the way, your English is certainly entirely understandable, not a problem at all.
There is, however, a better and easier way. I can put a note in the OTRS ticket file(s) that says that gedensteine is abadonna, so that you can put that ticket on uploads by Abadonna and it will be OK. Let me have the ticket number(s), please. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
it is this one 2015051110021786 and i am waiting for the second (i sent mails for on 5 december last year and today again (i got no answer). --Abadonna (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

false attribution as own work[edit]

Hi Jim- Do you know if we have a procedure or template for dealing with uploaders who claim images as their own work when they are clearly not? I've noticed this issue enough to imagine we might have a process for addressing it, but I have trouble mining our help pages for guidance. Most recently noticed this activity on the part of a troublesome en.wp editor who claimed a BPL scan from as his own work. I should add that I have had less than collegial interactions with this person. Thanks in advance for any tips or help. --Eric my en.wp talk page 14:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

If the image is PD, or is of a work that is PD, which is the case with the book you cite, you can simply change the license and description as I have done there. One cannot claim copyright for a scan of a 16th century work, so a CC license of any kind cannot be used. I also changed the author and source in the description.
If, on the other hand, the image or the pictured work is not "own work", is under copyright, and is not covered by an OTRS license, then the appropriate thing is to nominate it for deletion. Although it is possible to do this manually, by far the best way is to click on "Nominate for deletion" under "Tools" in the left column.
If the uploader has done this more than two or three times, then please use VFC. It will save you considerable time in making the nominations and it saves the closing Admin one click per file plus having to write only one closing comment for the whole batch. You can access it easily by using
or learn more at Help:VisualFileChange.js. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi again Jim- Saw your changes to that file--thanks! Glad to learn of that easier en.wp link template. But now more questions: How does the template "know" to go to en.wp for BPL, but it.wp for ol' Cherubino?? And another: When I put BPL as the author, I assumed that parameter was looking for the author of the image, not the work portrayed in the image. Do we have parameters for specifying both? Regards, --Eric my en.wp talk page 15:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The {{W}} template assumes WP:EN as the default. So {{w|Boston Public Library}} goes to Boston Public Library at WP:EN. To use it for another language WP, you add the language tag as the third parameter {{w|Cherubino Ghirardacci || it}} (note the double pipes "||" there) going to Cherubino Ghirardacci. The second parameter is used as it is in most links to use words other than the title of the target, as {{w|Cherubino Ghirardacci|the sixteenth century Italian Cherubino Ghirardacci |it}} will give the sixteenth century Italian Cherubino Ghirardacci.
If the author of the image is significant, particularly if it is a CC-BY license for a 3D work, then you list both, as at File:View_from_Olympic_Sculpture_Park_Seattle_WA_-_panoramio.jpg. However, in cases like the book, where the scan or photograph has no creativity, then the only author that anyone cares about is the creator of the pictured work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Got it, thanks for all that info! Sorry, I thought I'd nixed one of my questions after I noticed the language tag parameter. That's a template I wish I'd discovered long ago! --Eric my en.wp talk page 15:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by El cóndor andino[edit]

Hi Jim, in my !vote there I mentioned another file with the same issue. Did you also consider to delete this one? De728631 (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The case of the VW logo is much less clear -- it certainly does not have a copyright in the USA and as mentioned in your DR, the threshold in Germany is not clear. Therefore I left it to others who might know the German ToO better than I. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually I meant File:2808 audi logo nuevo th 2.jpg which is also of German origin but was part of this DR. De728631 (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Same problem -- no USA copyright and I don't know about the German... .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I see. So I have marked that Audi file as "kept". De728631 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Does a simple sentence have copyright in the U.S.?[edit]

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:KandaMyojinZenigataHeijiSign8808.jpg (note that I am not arguing on the deletion, but your deletion comment), you said that any text on one or more sentences have copyright as a literary work in the U.S. and many other countries. I would like to ask for a clarification regarding that. If this is true, does it also include "simple" sentences, like facts (ex. Paris is located in France.)? If also true, then there are a lot of files to be deleted. Maybe a link to the copyright law of the U.S. would be useful, so I can see if this also include simple sentences (likely include, since you are a native speaker of English, while I am not). I don't think the TOO of the U.S. is high like that. Thanks, Poké95 10:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Good question. I had based my position on the following, from the USCO's Circular 1, Copyright Basics:
What Is Not Protected by Copyright?
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:
  • works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)
  • titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
  • ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
  • works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)
[emphasis added]
The fact that USCO calls out "short phrases" as not eligible said to me that a long phrase or any full sentence will have a copyright.
I find, however, that it is not so simple. I just did a search and found a scholarly summary from Stanford. The author, Mary Minow, is the executive editor of Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use website, so it carries Stanford's considerable weight.
The article and the cited cases make it very clear that there must be a measure of creativity in the words, so your "Paris is located in France" would not give rise to a successful suit for infringement. A single very creative sentence (“E.T., Phone Home” or "Euclid alone has looked on beauty bare.") will have a copyright and multiple sentences almost certainly do.
I will have to change my stock response to these situations. Thanks for the prod to add to my education. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, especially to the link to an explanation by Stanford regarding short phrases. I think this should be added to COM:TOO, for future reference and to avoid future confusions. It seems we are clear here that a phrase or a sentence needs enough creativity to be protected by copyright. Poké95 10:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Public benefit-related attitudes in Sweden.png[edit]

It seems that I misunderstood the intention with the deletion request. I thought the information would be moved to a page with wiki markup. Instead it was simply deleted. Where can I now find the information provided on the deleted page? I hope I can add it to a Wikipedia article. --Jonund (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

{{Information |Description={{en|1=Public benefit-related attitudes in Sweden. Percentage of people agreeing with the statement ‘claiming government benefits to which you are not entitled is never justifiable’. Source: Heinemann, F.: "Is the Welfare State Self-Destructive? A Study of Government Benefit Morale," ZEW Discussion Paper No. 07-029; with the latest World Value Survey data for 2005-2008 added.}} {{sv|1=Socialbidragsrelaterade attityder i Sverige. Procent av människor som håller med om påståendet "att ta emot socialbidrag som man inte är berättigad till är aldrig acceptabelt". Källa: Heinemann, F.: "Is the Welfare State Self-Destructive? A Study of Government Benefit Morale", ZEW Discussion Paper No. 07-029; kompletterat med de senaste data från World Value Survey för 2005-2008.}} |Source=[ Nima Sanandaji: The surprising ingredients of Swedish success – free markets and social cohesion] |Date=2007 |Author=F. Heineman, World Value Survey

1981-84 81.5
1989-93 74.5
1994-99 57.9
1999-2004 55.3
2005-08 61.0

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Donald Campbell Photo/s[edit]

Why have you removed these?? If you didn't like the changes, why not just undo them rather than delete the whole picture and caption.?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beltane43 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
I am not sure what you are talking about. The Donald Campbell images were clear copyright violations for which policy requires deletion on sight. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

inappropriate revert by an admin[edit]

I think I was the subject of an inappropriate revert by an admin on Commons. It began when I nominated for deletion a serious of pictures like this one whose PD in US is no longer valid. There are about 60+ of these pictures all uploaded by the same admin. All my nominations for deletion were approved on Feb 5 by you. On Feb, 6 the admin reverted the file move I requested that was approved by User:Dyolf77. I am led to believe this is in retaliation. I am hesitant to confront admin or nominate any more of his files for deletion. I just wanted advise on the matter. Am I misinterpreting the situation? Was my file rename request "Unwarranted"? —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I think you did not act as well as you might. When you see what you think is a bad file name, asking for a {{Rename}} is OK. However, when that file was uploaded by one of the very active members of Commons, it would be better to drop a note on his talk page rather than using {{Rename}}. Since he was an Admin, it has the same effect of requesting a rename and ultimately, the uploader is allowed some control over his file names.
As for the reason for the rename, as noted in the file description, it is a 1972 trading card, so the longer name is perfectly accurate and is, I think, helpful to users choosing files. If I had seen the rename request, I would have refused it for that reason. As a general rule, active editors don't have time for revenge games. While I can't read his mind, I think he might have been unhappy with your move and reverted as a knee jerk reaction, but I don't think it was revenge for the DRs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward:I hear you on the revenge aspect. However, I requested the rename to the longer name. The admin revert the rename to the shorter name. My request was to clarify the year because Abebe Bikila was paralyzed in 1969 and he is almost clearly standing in the picture. This is how the photo appeared before my involvement. Notice I investigated and added the details about the trading card. As it stands now, the name sounds like the photo was taken in 1972.
This is not a small matter either. The name had an effect on the Abebe Bikila's article on wikipedia, a very important article to several Wikiprojects. The caption in the infobox used to say "Abebe Bikila in 1972," the reason for my request in the first place.
The misleading file name continues to have an effect: french article on Abebe Bikila. I usually don't check the uploader's rights before requesting a rename. I will in the future.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Licence agreement for Oliver Harrison photo sent on 11 Feb 2017[edit]

Hi Jim Richard Townshend has signed a Wikipedia licence for the use (permissions) of this photograph (he had already given permission to me verbally on condition that he was credited). Richard sent the email on 11 February 2017 to: (Underground Art (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC))

That's good. OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks until the license is read, approved and the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, I appreciate the difficulties with understaffing and that things might take longer. I'll be patient and monitor the article.(Underground Art (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC))

Underground Art, note that if the license is satisfactory, the image will be restored to Commons eventually, that it will not be replaced anyplace else, so you would do better to keep an eye on the image page here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

PDM images & Upload wizard[edit]

Upload wizard allows PDM images to be uploaded to Commons as in this 2017 photo by user Slowking. In this case, Slowking is both the uploader and copyright owner so there is no problem but there may be a problem if one uploads other people's images through Upload wizard. This seems to be a loophole on Commons that was missed.

Admin Revent is trying to change this situation here This is just for your knowledge. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but as noted at the cited discussion, there actually is not a problem..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. No problem. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


Hi Jim, Hope you're well, When you're not busy could you close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Missed the bus ! (8139321628).jpg as Withdrawn please?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done It is perfectly legal for non-Admins to close DRs as Kept as long as they know what they are doing. That's particularly the case when you are withdrawing your own DR. You need to:

  1. Add Kept, a closing comment, and your sig to the bottom of the DR.
  2. Add {{Delh}} to the DR top and {{Delf}} to the bottom.
  3. Add the {{Kept}} template to the file's talk page.
  4. Remove the {{Delete}} template from the file.

Admins use the DelReqHandler script to do all of this with two mouse clicks plus the comment, but we used to do it all by hand. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a very bad confession .... I couldn't be bothered to find all the templates etc and then close it all Face-grin.svg, I used to close my own Drs but these days I've become lazy, I gathered you lot had some sort of tool! Face-grin.svg, Anyway thanks for your help - As always it's much appreciated. –Davey2010Talk 23:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of photos from the Berlin festival of lights[edit]

Hi Jim, I think you forgot to delete two pictures in this deletion request. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Please, on the basis of WP standard policy and practices, undo[edit]

…your deletion of the C&EN magazine cover, which was taken over one objection, and which would have had at least my tentative second Keep had you not acted peremptorily. On the same day you short shrifted the discussion and made the decision about this cover, another C&EN cover was widely supported to remain (and so does remain, here), where it was noted that there was no valid reason for deletion. Please reverse your deletion action, here—please allow the community to decide, together, about this issue. Will wait a day, and only then communicate then matter more broadly. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

PS. love the land tool and light house images, by the way. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
You may, of course, post an Undeletion Request, but threatening to do so will not get you the reaction that you want. Threats can even get you blocked.
The vast majority of Deletion Requests have no comments -- only the nominator and the closer, so I hardly "short-shrifted" the discussion or "acted premptorily" at the one you are complaining about. It was open for the full week required by policy and only one person had bothered to comment. It had two people in favor of deletion (the nom and me) and one opposed. I don't think that there can be any question that it has a copyright. All that is required in the USA is a measure of creativity. The combination of layout, graphics, logo, and two full sentences of text easily put it over the Threshold of Originality. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Your closure statement is clearly erroneous and unspecific. The sentence “I see no reason to start keeping copyrighted magazine covers.” is superfluous at best since it answers a question that hasn't been asked. The only question to be answered is, whether or not this cover actually is copyrighted. The pieces of text are not, quad paper is not, the logo is not etc. --Leyo 19:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Dr.Direk Lavansiri.jpg[edit]

Hi. I think you may have missed the file in the section header when closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dr.Direk Lavansiri.jpg. Sorry for the confusing nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Closing DRs[edit]

Hello Jim

I did use DelReqHandler. It made this edit but didn't touch the File: or File talk: pages. Maybe it's not working correctly? Sorry for the noise. Platonides (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Martadosanjos2.pdf[edit]

Hi Jim,

you commented that the file might qualify […] if the subject were important and it was cited in such an article. Well, it's pretty much safe to say there are few mosquitoes more important than en:Aedes albopictus and the file has been cited as a source in pt:Aedes albopictus since 2008 (diff). May I kindly ask you to re-think your decision? Best, --El Grafo (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read my closing comment again -- that is not what I said. Citing a dissertation as a source does not require that it be hosted on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Muebles BOOM.png[edit]

Hi Jim,

I am new in commons so I am very grateful for your help in order to learn how to manage the galeries and files. Today I uploaded some pictures of a retail business from Spain in order to include this information in the company Wikipedia entry. I tried to do it in the same way I saw in El corte ingles (another retail company from Spain) but obviously I did not done it well since you erased the gallery and the page. Could You please tell what would be the right way? I am a bit lost because I do not know what I did wrong.

Thanks in advance and best regards.

--Vbmoritz (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I have just seen one previous message. Sorry Jim, I recreate the page because I thought that it was simply not saved instead of erased.

Thanks for your help and best regards.

--Vbmoritz (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Vbmoritz. Thank you for your polite request for help' If you don't understand something, please do not hesitate to ask again.
Fundamentally, almost everything on the Web has a copyright unless it has expired. Since copyright in most countries lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator, you can't assume expiration unless the work is from the 1880s. There are also some other exceptions, particularly for government works -- more so in the USA, less so in most other countries. So, when you find something on the Web, unless the site clearly has a CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or another free license named on it, you probably cannot upload the images here. See COM:Licensing for more information.
The gallery page El Corte Inglés is all images taken by Commons contributors which are freely licensed. Your images for Meubles BOOB were all taken from the company's Web site without the company's permission -- that's the difference between what you did and what the creator of the other gallery did. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanation Jim. I will have it in mind in my next steps in Commons. --Vbmoritz (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower's copyright issue[edit]

Arch logo Eiffel tower.png

The special lighting of Eiffel Tower is copyrighted, but there were some photos (on Commons) which were not deleted, when I nominated them for deletion, with one of the closures saying something like "the tower with only red colour lacks creativity.

Here, in this photo, I am using Arch Linux's logo for representing Eiffel Tower. It is lit in French colours, which is definitely a copyright violation. On the other hand, if we crop the original photo, in a way I did (each cropped image is bordered), we can say, individual photos lacks creativity. So, individual photos can avoid deletion, and, they will be governed by CC BY-SA license. Since it allows SA, one can download those files, and stitch them together. Overall, in a way, this will account for copyright violation. What do you say about it?

I am pinging other users who participated in the discussion for their comments as well: @Asclepias, Fugitron, Yann:.--Canopus Grandiflora 18:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Canopus Grandiflora: Hi,
There is no proof that any special lighting of Eiffel Tower is copyrighted. Only a show is copyrighted, the rest is a unproven claim from SETE, the Eiffel Tower company. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. The decision of the French court which was invoked multiple times in deletion requests only applies to SETE's shows, not lightings. Some of SETE's lightings, including the French flag one, do not reach the threshold of originality (the rotated French flag is not theirs). Therefore, they are not entitled to forbid pictures of the tower at night to be published without their consent. ▸Fugitron‘‘’’, 18:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, To keep it short:
1. I'm not sure Jim (or any user) will be happy to see his talk page requisitioned for a general discussion. If you expect multiple comments and replies, you might want to move the discussion to a non-personal talk page.
2. I don't know why some people would treat the tower differently. My take is that the matter should be treated like any other, with common sense and the same principles.
3. To be copyrightable, a work must be sufficiently originally creative and "reflect the personality of its author". Juxtaposing the three colours of the French flag, or of the Belgian flag, does not pass that test, by far, IMHO. Besides, before anything else, there would be a need to show that an individual has actually claimed authorship for this.
4. I reckon that YMMV and I'm not opposed to another round of discussion of this recurrent topic somewhere if you think it can be useful, but pretty much everything has been said and there's not much new to add. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

While I don't object to having a discussion here, I agree that the Village Pump might have been a better place. I think that the question has been well covered above, so I have nothing to add. Thanks to Asclepias for a good summary. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

well, if the French flag won't be an issue, let us consider about the show. So, if photos are cropped in such w=a way that a single colour is visible, making the individual images not so creative to be copyrighted, what can we say then?--Canopus Grandiflora 19:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It sounds like you're asking us a personal tutorial about some general principles. If I understand your question, which is highly theoretical, it could be about a situation like the following example. You're the photographer who takes a photo of something that is actually copyrighted, let's say of a recent sculpture, and that sculpture is the main subject of your photo, so you can't publish freely that photo without the permission of the copyright owner of the sculpture. Then you cut your photo in several parts in such a clever way that each part of the photo shows only a part of the sculpture small enough, or away enough from the center, that you believe that it may be either de minimis, or merely incident, or unrecognizable, and for this reason you believe that you can offer each part of the photo under a free license without the permission of someone else.
  • One important point is this. Your license applies only to the creative aspects that are embodied into the photo as a result of your photographic work, created by yourself as a photographer. Your license does not apply to the creative aspects that contribute to the photo as a result of the sculptural work created by the sculptor, because you don't own the copyright on it.
  • The law may allow you to license freely a part of the photo as long as it shows the sculpture only incidentally. The law does not allow you to freely licence without permission an image where the actual result is that the sculpture is the main subject of the image. It does not matter if the resulting image was pieced back together from smaller parts.
  • This part of your question about cutting and reuniting pieces is unnecessarily complicated. The copyright principle is much the same as, for example, in the famous court case about Place des Terreaux, and it could be explained more simply with the following example. You take a photo on which a copyrighted sculpture is shown, but that sculpture is not the main subject of the photo. Let's say you take the photo of a public domain place and the copyrighted sculpture happens to be shown on the far left side of the photo. In France, you can publish your photo, without the permission of the copyright owner of the sculpture, as long as it is clear in good faith that the sculpture is not the main subject. But if you crop your photo to keep only the far left side, thus making the sculpture the main subject of this cropped version, you couldn't publish that version without permission. It is also a similar general idea that is explained in relation with Commons:De minimis. (How the sculpture may be shown may depend on the law of the country where the photo would be used).
  • It can be summed up with two very basic principles of law: 1. One can't give more rights than one has (e.g. they can't grant a license on a copyright that they don't own), and 2. one can't do indirectly what one can't do directly (they can't use a scheme to try to do what the law forbids them to do).
-- Asclepias (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with everything Asclepias has said, but I'm not sure it's on point. First, as Yann pointed out above, only the light show is copyrighted. Lighting the tower blue, or red, or white is not. Even using all three is not because there is nothing creative about it. I suspect that unless the light pattern wee very complex, that no single pattern from the show -- no still image -- would be held to infringe. The only infringement would probably be a video of the show.
Now to Canopus's question. To some extent it is moot. If the red, white and blue are not sufficiently creative to give rise to a copyright, as I suggested above, then any image of one color is also not sufficiently creative. However, the general answer to the question is that if you take a photo of a detail of a copyrighted painting, the photo will usually infringe. The only such photo you could take that would not infringe would be one of blue sky, black background, or something else so plain that the artist could not be identified. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
If cropped photo is difficult to identify, one can use CC license and upload it. So, it delete it, we can only comment about the scope of the media?--Canopus Grandiflora 00:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Analjit Singh.jpg[edit]

I think this PDM DR image was missed. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Leoboudv, I don't see why you are bringing this to my attention here. It is simply one of many February 14 DRs that I didn't close for lack of time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • OK, Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Loksa108[edit]

FYI you closed the wrong discussion section. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)