User talk:Jameslwoodward

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Jameslwoodward's
Archives

2009-2010
2011
2012
2013
1st half 2014
2nd half 2014
1st half 2015
2nd half 2015
1st half 2016

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward

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



Why keep a wrong image?[edit]

Hello Jim, I don't understand your rationale for keeping the image. Pictures get deleted for lesser reasons than that, and I've seen plenty of placeholders for such missing pictures. Why is that different for this one? It is a just botched screenshot that is wrong and unessential and that can easily be replaced with an more current one, if so desired. --SebastianHelm (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It is well established Commons policy that we do not second guess editors at WP. The subject image is in use and therefore cannot be deleted from Commons except for copyvio. And, please note, that if you were to unilaterally removing it from the place it is used, that would probably be construed as vandalism. If it's wrong, then upload a replacement that is right, or go to WP:KA and convince the editor there that it should be removed -- I know that may not be easy because I doubt you can read Georgian, but that's the way we do it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Francesc Bergos Image deletion[edit]

Hi Jim, i just saw you've deleted the image of Francesc Bergos. It's a picture of my personal file (he was my grandfather). Can you please guide me on the process of inserting his picture and how do I label it to be accepted by wikipedia? I appreciate your attention to this matter. Cristina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristina Toletti (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 April 2016‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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 actually deleted eight of your uploads at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cristina Toletti, so I am not certain which one you mean. On all of them you claimed that they were "own work" -- that is to say that your were the author of the document or the photographer. That was obviously not the case, so they were deleted.
Owning a paper or digital copy of a copyrighted photograph does not give you any right to freely license it any more than owning a copy of a recent book gives you the right to copy it and sell the copies. Similarly, owning a copy of a document gives you no rights -- they are held by the writer or his heirs.
The copyright law in Uruguay calls for the copyright to last 50 years after the death of the photographer (post mortem auctoris - PMA). It is therefore barely possible that this is free of copyright - in the public domain (PD):
In order to prove that, you must prove that the photographer died before 1966 (50 years ago).
Since this was taken in 1940, I assume its country of origin is Spain, (according to the WP article he moved from Spain in 1942) so it is still under copyright because the Spanish rule was 80 years PMA at that time.
This might be PD if the writer died before 1966:
The other images all postdate 1966 and therefore are still under copyright in Uruguay. In order for the photos and documents to be restored to Commons, the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer (or the writer) or his heirs, must send a free license to OTRS. If you cannot determine who the authors were, then the images are orphan works and cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Where to find proof of "copyleft"?[edit]

Hi Jameslwoodward. I saw that you had deleted most of the images that were uploaded by DSLR EOS with the exception of File:Nikon Coolpix L840 (B) - 2016.jpg and File:Nikon Coolpix L840 (C) - 2016.jpg. Is that because they were tagged by the uploader as "copyleft"? If so, where can I can proof that that is indeed the case? Regards, - Takeaway (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I just discovered where these images came from and the uploader was lying, they are copyrighted images taken from https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-coolpix-l840-review-27264. - Takeaway (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Admins use a script, DelReqHandler, to rapidly close DRs. Occasionally it hiccups and doesn't delete when asked. Thanks for telling me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers! - Takeaway (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by David Alves 2016[edit]

One file was not deleted. Please take a look. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Admins use a script, DelReqHandler, to rapidly close. DRs. Occasionally it hiccups and doesn't delete when asked. Thanks for telling me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Sunrise over the North Pacific.jpg[edit]

Hi Jim, could you double-check this deletion, please? Given the uploader, I don't think the deletion rationale (which was DW-related) is plausible in this instance. If you decline to restore it on scope grounds, that's one thing, but an image from a major contributor from 2006 might be given some leeway if the DR was not scope-related, I think. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It was one of 17 I deleted from Commons:Deletion requests/File:神戸の夕焼け1982、Img747.jpg. We have around 400 sunrise pictures from the USA alone -- who am I to say this particular one is out of scope? The DR was made by Stass1995 - a solid citizen who has several thousand edits in the Commons namespace -- so I checked half a dozen of the images (but not this one), all of which had Google hits, and deleted the lot. If you think that the uploader on this one is OK, then by all means restore it, or I will, if you wish. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim... and certainly no slight on Stas1995 was intended. I'd rather not restore it myself without going through COM:REFUND, so if you are satisfied that this specific one is not likely a copyright violation, I'd prefer you restore it. Let me know if you feel differently. Storkk (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim! Storkk (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Appealing a "keep" decision on three items out of a recently closed mass DR[edit]

Hello, Jim,

as this mass DR that I opened remained on my watchlist, I saw your processing. But there are three files where I was surprised by their keeping:

Your keeping rationale seems to be based on clothing related guidelines as a fallback of COM:COSTUME, I'm dissenting with that: the key point seems to me to be that „If the costume is purely utilitarian and has no distinct or original graphical features - for example, if it's the kind of clothing that an ordinary person might wear on the street or on the job - then it is permitted under #Clothing above.“ Those Metroid costumes should fail this test, I doubt that they are true clothing, but more likely fan art. Additionally, the weapon replicas that the cosplayers are holding may fall afoul of COM:TOYS while not being de minimis as integral part of the "artwork". File C ("Samus alone") got already its source speedied away.
The Mario image has the same issues: not utilitarian, as it is a full body costume including a mask. Its source was also speedied; you even deleted a mirrored version of the same image. Kind regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: Just saw that File:Star Wars video games stations.jpg has the DR note left on the file page too. Grand-Duc (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
First, it seems to have been a bad day for hiccups in DelReqHandler -- this is the third DR that was not handled correctly (see above). I have deleted the Marion file and hit the keep button for your PS.
As for the other two, it is my understanding that in the USA any clothing (except masks) falls under the "utilitarian" rule even if it is not clothing that would ordinarily be worn. As you say, the presence of distinctive graphics can change that -- a tee shirt can clearly have a copyright, but that's not the case here. That's confirmed by the 1991 policy decision on costumes and masks by the Copyright Office which says "Costumes will be treated as useful articles and will be registrable only upon finding of separable artistic authorship." Thus I think that the costumes in both of the remaining images above are free of copyright.
As for the weapons:
A) Is that a weapon? I thought it might be a coffee thermos. I think it's borderline de minimis, but if you say it's a weapon, I can delete it if you want.
C) I think this is on the far side of the borderline -- the weapon is relatively small and blends somewhat into the background. I think that if it were carefully removed from the image that most people would not notice the difference and that is my test of DM.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thermos, funny, indeed! Well, I don't how the prop was actually made, why not by using a thermos as a starting point (Geordie LaForges's VISOR was made based upon a hairring from the daughter of a staff member from Star Trek's filming IIRC). But the fashion of holding the thing looks for me clearly like the handling of a SciFi a weapon: "muzzle" pointed upwards in a "high ready" fashion, some kind of magazine, and the whole device seems to be an integral attachment to the body of the figure. If the DUCK doesn't get shot and roasted here, I'll be truly puzzled.
As for things I want: that's learning at foremost and no worries abut technical hiccups, they're more or less unavoidable.... And that could be done by discussing any subject, which is part of the fun in contributing here. I think that the next time when I encounter a cosplay image made on US soil, I'll remember your opinion about costumes and check whether the questioned clothing has copyrightable prints on it, it's just another step to memorize when assessing images in maintenance queues. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I get a check the page deletion for B-Nasty[edit]

I can provide references for the artist on https://musicbrainz.org/

There are also a few other references such as allmusic, I checked and no other artists seems to be referencing so what exactly is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officialbnasty (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 April 2016‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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.
We have more than 30 million pages on Commons. It is undoubtedly true that you can find similar pages and images that should be deleted but have not yet been. By all means feel free to list them here or tag them for deletion yourself.
In order for images of people to remain on Commons, the uploader must prove that the images serve an educational purpose, usually by proving that the individual is notable. That is usually proved by the presence of a Wikipedia article. B-Nasty does not have a WP page or any significant Google hits.
Please do not start a WP:EN article yourself without first reading WP:COI - you may not write your own article. You should also read COM:ADVERT as it applies here and there are similar rules on WP:EN. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hi Jameslwoodward. Can you help me please? Thank you. Ks [在这里找到答案]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ks-M9 19:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC).

Please use {{speedy}} .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rafaelsimao01[edit]

One file was not deleted. Please take a look. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Same problem, thank you. Feel free to clean up that kind of problem yourself, if you wish. I will always comment if I am deliberately keeping one or more files in a general deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Artes Marciales Mixtas.jpg[edit]

I think this should have been deleted too as part of the mass deletion (and I fully understand the presentation of the DR was confusing Clin). Cheers, — Racconish ☎ 19:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It probably wasn't the presentation. Admins use a script, DelReqHandler, to rapidly close DRs. Occasionally it hiccups and doesn't delete when asked. That's happened quite a bit this week, see the notes above and below this one. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by John Wooler[edit]

You closed this as delete, but kept one file. Was there an error? The kept file still has a {{delete}} template. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. DelREqHandler seems to be hiccuping more and more -- that's three or four in the last week (see above). As I said to Eugene, feel free to delete any that you see like this one. I will always make a comment if I intend to keep one or more files in a mass DR. 10:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Burp[edit]

Hi Jim: The system burped on this close, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Isatvca too. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yup. I tried three times to delete those. I should have marked them as fair game for any Admin. When you see that knid of thing, please feel free to delete them yourself -- I will always make a comment if I intend to keep one or more images in a mass delete. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)

Sure thing! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Andrei Krioukov[edit]

Hi Jim, thanks for the hint! For the files which I uploaded, the license owner (Andrei Krioukov) already sent the Wikimedia Commons licenses Attribution Share-alike 4.0 on 25 April 2016 to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (one e-mail for each image). I tried to create a "Commons"-folder with those images (if you go to Andrei Krioukov in the German Wikipedia and then click on "Commons") but didn't succeed yet. Maybe you can have a lock? Regards, Norbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by NORPpA (talk • contribs) 09:54, 26 April 2016‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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 sorry to say that the e-mails all came from an anonymous address so OTRS should not accept them. The artist has a web site which has a contact address, so the permissions must come from there. Please note also that the artist can send one e-mail for all the images -- individual e-mails are a real nuisance and will just slow things down.
You created a gallery here, not a category. I have fixed it, see Category:Andrei Krioukov. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted photo of Nihal Atsız[edit]

Hi Jim,

I saw that a file that I uploaded, File:Nihal ATSIZ.jpg, was deleted as a result of the request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nihal ATSIZ.jpg. Unfortunately I was away from Wikipedia at the time, so I could not join the discussion, but I believe the file was in public domain per Template:PD-Turkey. The user who requested deletion said "There is no proof that this picture is a public domain"; I am not sure what he/she meant by 'proof', but the photo is dated from the same time as File:Nihâl Atsız -11.jpg, ~80 years ago. The Nihal Atsız website that duplicates it cannot be the owner as it fits to the cases listed in the article 12 of the Turkish copyright law. The note at the bottom of the website state that we are free to distribute the content as long as we attribute it to the website, but in this case we don't even need to do that, as the file has already been released into public domain long ago.

COM:UNDEL suggests contacting the deleting administrator first to explain the situation. Is it possible to undelete the file, or would you advise listing it at COM:UNDEL first?--Cfsenel (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Although there are a few countries that start the clock running upon creation of a work, Turkey is not one of them. In order to apply the rule which you cite, you must show that the work was published anonymously more than seventy years ago. The fact that the author is now unknown is irrelevant -- the only thing that counts is that the work was published anonymously. As a practical matter, the only way to do this is to find a publication of the work before 1946. There is nothing in the file description or at the source that proves either that work was published anonymously or that it was even published at all until recently.

You are certainly free to post a request at UnDR, but you will get the same response there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Permission request from copyright holder for picture containing (but not only) original work[edit]

Dear Jim, I would like to upload again the image of the Bimol Seminar room where there are 2 canvases by the graphic artist. I plan to ask the artist to send a message to permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org, in which the artist states his consent. However, I wonder whether there is a way to formulate the consent to agree to license (for example under CC-BY-SA 4.0 ONLY the photograph of the seminar room that includes the 2 canvases, rather than the images of the canvases themselves. In other words, the copyright holder may allow me to upload a picture that I took (of which therefore I have some copyright), limited to the part concerning his work, without necessarily implying that the separate images of the canvases would become available for use for commercial purposes . I am not sure I explained myself, but basically what i mean is that I would like the artist to keep copyright of the two works, while at the same time allowing me to keep the copyright of the images of the works contained within the photograph i took. What would then be the text of the permission consent he would have to send to OTRS? Thanks a lotMorningbastet (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The artist could say that he or she was licensing the use of the paintings for only the subject photograph and not any other images of the paintings. That does not prevent someone from cropping your image to just one one of the paintings and putting it on tee shirts. That's probably unlikely, since both paintings are partly obscured by chairs.
Note also that you must not upload the image again. If and when the artist gives permission and that permission is accepted at OTRS, then the image will be restored to general view. Be sure that the artist refers to File:Salle de séminaire du Département de Biologie Moléculaire, Université de Genève.jpg in the permission e-mail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I have another comment/question regarding the suppression of the images of the canvases. These canvases are actually reproductions by a graphic artist of previously existing photographs. Notably , the canvas of Grete Kellenberger was made using as a template the photograph of Grete Kellenberger-Gujer that is currently on the Wikipedia. fr page. Now, does the artist actually own the copyright of this work? Does it not belong rather to the author of the photograph (that was copied, basically, and rendered in colour), who is the daughter of Grete Kellenberger, Elisabeth DiCapua? I am basically arguing that the canvases are themselves DERIVATIVES of photos (which they are) and as such the copyright belongs to the original author of the photo, not the author of the canvas. Morningbastet (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There are three potential copyrights here. First, the one for your photograph, which you have licensed. Second, the one for the paintings. Although they are derivative works, paintings made from photographs are sufficiently creative to have their own copyright everywhere as far as I know. So, we need a license for them. Third, as you say, there could be a copyright for the photograph, but we have concluded that the photo is PD, so no license is required. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)