User talk:Jameslwoodward

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

1st half 2011
2nd half 2011
1st half 2012
2nd half 2012
1st half 2013
2nd half 2013
1st half 2014
2nd half 2014
1st half 2015

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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"

the Jade Turtle[edit]


I am confused. I made a graphic of the jade turtle mandala, and submitted the graphic as my original. It was deleted on the idea that it is not public domain. Did I violate or not meet some guideline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshea19 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 4 April 2015‎ (UTC)

It was deleted because there was a question of whether the turtle is actually PD or not. If you actually drew it yourself without copying or looking at a previous work, then that is probably all right.
However, tt also has a NC-ND license, neither of which are permitted on Commons. You can solve that by changing the license,if you wish. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


Dear Jim, You discus the copyright of images I posted on Wikipedia. You should know that the image is not a work of art. It is applied art, made in multiple versions. Van Woerkom, who made the design, did this as a paid job for the firm Stadelmaier, who for that reason is the rightful copyright owner of the image. It has been made in the fifties, those designs are not part of the copyright struggle between Stadelmaier and the new owners after the bankruptcy in 2010. The former director of Stadelmaier, and owner of the Stadelmaier archive gave me the permission to take the photographs and post them on Wikipedia. I hope this gives you enough information to accept these images on Wikipedia. If not, please help me to solve this problem. Thanks anyway, best wishes, René — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugtigheid (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 April 2015‎ (UTC)

  • Although in some countries the FOP rules make a distinction between art and applied art, that distinction is not important here -- whichever you call the works, they still have a copyright, and unless you can show evidence of a written agreement between the artist and the Stadelmaier firm, we must assume that the copyright remained with the artist. Simply being paid for a design does not transfer copyright, there must be a written agreement.
Given the circumstances, even if you can show that the artist transferred copyright to the Stadelmaier firm in the fifties, as you say, that firm went bankrupt in 2010. The copyright would have been an asset that was transferred as part of the bankruptcy proceeding and would not belong to a former director of the firm or the owner of the archives. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


I was asked to email you my identity, so what kind of identity you want and what is your email? (Raafat (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC))

I don't think so. You were probably referred to OTRS. If you told me where you think this request happened, I could help better. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Raafat: You can ask Jim in the deletion request what kind of statement he is asking for. Sending to some documents proving that you are the heir would be definitive, but I suppose a lot less would be enough, too.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

thai actress pics[edit]

you've deleted File:Sonia Couling.jpg ( & File:Chermarn_Boonyasak_20071120.jpg ( Do you compare date of uploads & file size? I'm the owner of File:Sonia Couling.jpg (uploaded since 2006) / compare to webarchive*/ that website leech from my file at Commons.--Sry85 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(tps) File:Sonia Couling.jpg was uploaded 15 August 2007. How do you reconcile that it appeared here on 10 May 2016, without the man cropped out (i.e., a more complete version of the photo that thus could not have come from the Commons version) and where it was explicitly credited to An even more complete version is here, also from 2006 and credited to MTV Asia Award. Эlcobbola talk 16:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nicky pimp.jpg --Sry85 (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
? An old DR that was probably not closed correctly -- you admitted there that you did not actually take many of the images, but I don;t know what it has to do with this -- elcobbola's comment seems to be right on point. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


Dear Jim, Thanks for your efforts looking at the copyright of the Barbie image, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Klaus Barbie (1913 - 1991) - SS-Führer - Bundesarchiv.jpg. I would like to respond to your remark "The e-mail from the Bundesarchiv, which Vysotky chose not to share with us here, says that it is not a Bundesarchiv image." I dislike public displaying (on whatever forum) of emails sent to me personally; that's why I sent the email to OTRS. Copyright of war images is an interesting issue, also because copyright of Nazi-material was taken-over by the German states after the war, and this copyright is now -in many cases- expiring. I will try to find the publication date of the Barbie image and report back if I find anything interesting. Vysotsky (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that showing all of an OTRS e-mail is usually a bad thing -- one of the reasons for OTRS is that we do not disclose the e-mail addresses of those who write to it -- in this case, the writer is a public institution, with no expectation of privacy, However, all that I really would have liked to see in the DR was a comment that the Bundesarchiv said that it was not one of their images. If you had put that in the DR, then any Admin could have closed it and it would not have been open for a full month. Without that, it took an Admin who is also an OTRS member. We are struggling to catch up with a long backlog. The problem will get worse since INC, who has historically done about 7% of all deletions on Commons, has just resigned. Anything you can do to help your colleagues with DRs is appreciated. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Carlisle Military School[edit]

Jim, I fully admit as a novice user on Wikipedia I am not well versed in all the technical notations required to address copyright "licensing". I have only used what I have personnally obtained from public sources, third parties, or pre-1923 (as I assume there is some sort of rule about that year). I sincerely want to make this page fully legitimate that follows all of wikipedia protocols. I would like for any editor who points out a violation to please offer some suggestions or workaround to help - as, again, I would be stumbling in the dark to figure it out on my own. Just as if someone edited the content, or objected to some inaccuracy, I would be more than happy to accept correction or fix it based upon making the article better. In the case of all the photos you have nominated for deletion I am at a loss for what the error is or how to correct it. Again, on all the photos I posted I know of none that have a copyright license - sort of like defending a negative - so please provide me some advice on the proper coding in order to keep these photos as they add much to the overall relevance of the article. Thanks for your interest and efforts in maintaining the integrity of wikipedia submissions - and again, I would appreciate any assistance you can provide. SandHills (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

First, a general apology for the impersonality of the DRs. Commons gets around 10,000 new images every day and deletes around 1,500. 15 Admins do 90% of that work and we have a long backlog. We just lost our most productive Admin to burnout, so I expect the problem will get much worse. As a result, we work quickly, using scripts to deal with problems and don't give much individual attention unless the uploader requests it, as you have, and very politely to boot.
File:PD-US_table.svg is a good, clear, summary of US copyright law. As you will see, 1923 is, indeed a magic date, and you will note that I did not include any of your uploads that were obviously published before that date -- and note, by the way, that in the US before 1989 "publication" (as that is defined in the law) is the important point, not creation. Files as old as 1895 may still be under copyright if they were not published until recently.
As I said in the DRs, I simply do not believe that all of your uploads are actually photographs that you yourself took -- indeed your comment on your talk page suggests none of them are except for the road marker.
One DR at a time:
First the road marker. That's easy, because it apparently has a date on the bottom -- it's just not legible in the file here. If the date is before 1989 then it is OK, because I don't see a copyright notice on it. Notice was not required after March 1, 1989, so if the date is later than that it is still under copyright. The burden of proof is on you. If it's still under copyright it can still be restored if you get the organization that created it to send a license to OTRS.
As for the rest of the photographs, if you can prove that they were published (a) before 1923 or (b) before 1989 without copyright notice, then they can stay because they are PD -- see the chart I cited above. You must provide a source for each. The author can be "unknown" if that is the case.
Note that photos from institutions that no longer exist are often orphan works and, therefore, cannot be kept on Commons, because we do not keep works that are still under copyright even if orphaned, see COM:PRP #4. Also note that the standard of proof, "significant doubt", is also set out at COM:PRP.
Finally, as I said in the DR, both the text and the logo on the poem had or have copyrights. The same rules apply -- if published before 1923 or before 1989 without notice, then the work is PD. It is up to you to prove that.
I note that our colleague Ellin has offered her help. Feel free to pick one or the other us -- we both have pretty good records of helping newbies -- indeed, if you look way back in my archives you will find Ellin stumbling much as you have as a newbie and my helping her along. She is now the seventh most productive Admin. All I ask, and I am sure she would agree, is don't ask us both, as that just wastes the time of one of us. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet[edit]

Hi Jim,

Around a couple of weeks ago I nominated a file for deletion, and INeverCry deleted it (by the way, I am very saddened by his departure). I found the file uploaded again today by a different user, but I suspect it's the same person. To make matters worse, the subject is a politician running for office, and I think the Wikipedia page in Spanish is just there to promote him, so we can expect anything foul to happen. Please read this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Juan Manuel Carreras López.png and compare it with this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Juan Manuel Carreras López.jpg. To save you a second, here are the two talk pages: User talk:Caldou223 and User talk:BiografiaPolitica. Perhaps you have a different theory, but to me it looks like sock puppetry. I wonder what can be done. Many thanks in advance for your reply, as always. Dontreader (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Off subject query -- should I read your username as Don Treader, Dawn Treader, or Don't Read Her? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
As you surely know, Checkuser can't find socks that are carefully deceptive, but the two you cite use two different operating systems, both of which are unusual, and are 500km apart. So it seems unlikely. However, as you say, the file is an out of process reload of the previously deleted file, so I closed the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Haha. I should make it clear on my user page that I'm a big fan of The Chronicles of Narnia, and that as your first guess indicated, my name should be read as Don Treader (if I were a woman, I would have used Dawntreader). I think that's such a cool name for a ship, and The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is my favorite book of the series.
Many thanks for swiftly checking the IP addresses and for deleting the image. I have no idea how you detected two different operating systems, but that's awesome! I will keep the article about the subject on my Spanish Wikipedia watchlist and I'll inform you if I see that the picture has been uploaded again using yet another user name. Thanks again for your very kind help, Jim, and have a great day! Dontreader (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi, I have gone back to review all the documents in the HAER album, but though a book by Bernhardt is mentioned in the bibliography, this does not appear as a source for the plan the DR was about. If Bernhardt did publish the drawing, there would be little doubt this was a re-publication of the PGE plan for the pre-1930 works. Could you explain your DR closure comment a bit more?

The typewritten HAER OR-12 report appears to have been created in 1985 based on the interview mentioned <>.

User:Fae [copied from an e-mail written April 12, 2015 8:38UTC]

The source site explicitly says both:

" No known restrictions on images made by the U.S. Government; images copied from other sources may be restricted."


(in red) "Rights assessment is your responsibility"

Please reread the title of the item,

"Photocopy of diagram (from Station 'L' office files, Portland Oregon) General Electric Company pamphlet...".

It seems clear to me that this drawing was not made by HABS/HAER. It was simply copied out of a GE pamphlet. My best guess is that it came out of the operator's manual or maintenance manual for the generator. That then raises the question of whether the pamphlet is still under copyright. On that subject I would argue

a) The pamphlet almost certainly had a copyright notice. We don't know whether it was renewed or not. Companies like GE tend to be careful with their IP, so I think our "significant doubt" standard requires that we assume that it was renewed.
b) The pamphlet may never have been published within the meaning of the 1909 law -- the generator was unique and there may well have been only one such pamphlet.
c) Since the pamphlet was created in 1930, it was still under copyright in 1958 when the Skrotzki book used drawings from it. That new publication, by McGraw-Hill, with notice and renewal (A00000222451 & RE0000219001) started the clock running again, so, even if (a) and (b) are not correct, and most of the pamphlet is PD, the drawings that Skrotzki used are not.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

French Hospital (La Providence) and David R. Russell[edit]

Dear Jim: I have this evening received notification on my talk page of "planned deletion" of the main image on French Hospital (La Providence) and David R. Russell, both of which are pages set up by me. To my astonishment I see that the images have been deleted forthwith and that discussion of the matter is closed. No warning was given to me of this deletion and therefore no time for me to comment on what is now an unfortunate foregone conclusion. In both instances permission was given to me by the copyright holders for the pictures to be used within Commons. In the various tags made available to editors at the time of uploading images the procedure for giving ocular proof of permission is not made very clear and you will readily see that I am rather new as a contributor to Wikipedia and therefore was not aware at that time of the email template for copyright holders to confirm their permission. I can of course readily obtain this permission by having the copyright holders write the appropriate email. I hope that steps will be taken by administrators to reinstate the two images removed so precipitately. Looking again at my talk page the notification messages have mysteriously vanished and without trace on the view history page; yet looking again at the two pages affected the pictures have definitely vanished from their respective pages. There seems to be something awry here and the procedural progress is definitely demotivating.Sedicesimo (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Jim: Further to the above, I now see that there is a separate talk page for Wikimedia Commons and that your messages about the deletions are shown there. The fact remains nevertheless that I only saw the message this evening. Things may be set up so that Wikimedia Commons messages do not show up in Wikipedia and may therefore be missed.Sedicesimo (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sedicesimo, Commons is not Wikipedia, these are separate wikis (even though linked in certain ways). I will advise you on your Talk page. I do not yet have any opinion on the deletion, but I can assure you that "discussion is not closed." It never is, and what is "deleted" can easily be recovered if needed, it is not actually deleted, it is merely hidden. One step at a time. Yes, this can be discouraging, and I understand that, and I'm sure Jim does, too. So simmer down, and we will see what can be done. --Abd (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Abd: Thank you for your reassurance. I sure you will agree that there is a finality about the comment "This deletion debate is now closed" at! Kindly let me know the most expedient procedure to have the pictures reinstated. Many thanks. Sedicesimo (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I am writing a detailed coverage of all the issues I see, on your Talk page. That takes some time. That particular debate is closed. Period. You don't yet understand Commons process. There is further process possible. You have no clue how to do that, right? I'm going to tell you. It may be premature, etc. So, one step at a time. I will say one more thing here, Jim did not delete your file. I will explain what happened on your talk page. Yes, be reassured. --Abd (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sedicesimo, please accept my apologies on behalf of the Commons community for the rude introduction you had to working here. Unfortunately, such things are inevitable. Commons gets more than 10,000 new images every day and must delete about 1,400 of them for various reasons. 90% of that work is done by 15 Administrators, so it is inevitable that we must work fast and rather impersonally. As you have found out after the fact, the DR process lasts a week and you could have commented during that period.

You can, by the way, set an option which will send you an e-mail whenever your Commons talk page changes. That will save your having to check here several times a week. Simply go to the upper right corner of any page and click Preferences > Notifications > and fill in your e-mail address and check the appropriate box or boxes. Note also that putting a request on your talk page to leave messages at WP:EN or elsewhere will not work. Many of the messages that come to your talk page are placed there by scripts and the initiator never sees your talk page at all.

The good news is that nothing is final here. WMF never actually deletes anything -- images that are "deleted" are actually simply specially marked so that they cannot be seen by anyone except Administrators. Since your images were taken by photographers other than yourself, policy requires that the actual photographers each send a free license using the procedure set forth at OTRS. Once that is done and the e-mails are processed by an OTRS volunteer, the images will be restored. While OTRS, like Commons, is badly understaffed and ordinarily runs a backlog of more than a month, in cases such as this where newbies have been bitten badly I will short circuit the process. Please let me know here when the e-mails have been sent and I will read and act on them appropriately.

If you have any more questions, please feel very free to come here and ask them. Commons can be a very steep learning curve, but most of the active Admins, including me, try very hard to make it as easy as possible for new editors. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Jim: Thank you for your helpful message explaining the situation. I have now been in touch with both the copyright holders of the recently deleted pictures (Tim Rawle for the image of the French Hospital (La Providence) File:Frenchhospitalrochestermain.jpg and that portraying David R. Russell File:David R. Russell.jpg. Mr Rawle tells me that he has sent an email based on the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International template to I await a similar confirmation from Mr Russell. Thank you for your kind offer to short circuit the process to reinstate the images on the abovementioned pages. That would be greatly appreciated.Sedicesimo (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done As you see from the blue link above, the hospital image has been restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


[1] Apparently the word "just" was interpreted to be demeaning what you did. I did not mean it that way at all, and it did not occur to me that you would read it that way, so I'm sorry that I allowed that appearance. This was simply time sequence. I.e., you "frosted the cake," that is, made it perfect. I was congratulating you for going the extra mile, for your support for the user, both in explaining the situation, and then in promising to expedite OTRS, and undeleting pending that, as you just did, is fulfilling on that. So, once again, thanks. --Abd (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Jim: Thank for doing that so speedily.Sedicesimo (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Jim: Mr. David R. Russell tells me that he sent an email to yesterday (April 15th) based on the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International template granting permission to use the image File:David R. Russell.jpg. Your kind offer to short circuit the process to reinstate the image on the abovementioned page will again be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Sedicesimo (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Jim: Thank you very much! Sedicesimo (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see[edit]

As closing admin of at least one of the prior requests, please see: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celeblawyersnyc. I believe you or INC might have been involved in the CU which related to this but I don't have link to that. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


Dear Jim, thanks for the answer. Thats indead the second request for this image of the physician Egbert Braatz. I am sure, that it is a mistake of myself, not to be able, to give this from Japanese colleagues requested immage into wikipedia: The newspaper "Ostpreußische Artzfamilie" doesn´t exist since 1995. The "Franz-Neumann-Stiftung" in the "Stiftung Königsberg", in which I am a chairman and a curator, has got all the rights, to publish out of the wonderful simple newspaper with its unknown articles and pictures. This newspaper is a rich sorce for the history of the old University of Königsberg (1544 - 1945). Look at my Benutzer: Neumann-Meding - I have given very much biographies and pictures of the old University of Koenigsberg, todays Kaliningrad/ Russia in wikipedia. Therefore it is really frustrating, if wikipedia refuse to publish the photos, which are normaly much more than 70 years old. In my case the photo of Egbert Braatz is more than hundred years old (Braatz is born 1849 and he was perhaps 50 years old...) Well what is to do? You write: "It can be restored to Commons only if the actual photographer (or his heirs) sends a free license to OTRS or if the magazine sends a free license." Well the lastest I will do: Our "Stiftung" (foundation) is the successor of the "Ostpreußische Arztfamilie". That will mean, we have the licence, to give our knowledge out of this newpaper to the whole world. Look at See point seven. Well, dear Jim, if I have you in the line, please tell me, what I should do. The last year, I gave up (resigned) to work for wikipedia. I can´t tell the whole story as above, when I will present a picture to an article in wikipedia. Thanks for your help, yours Eberhard Neumann-Meding --Neumann-Meding (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I have been not paying enough attention, but this is the first time that I have understood that you are associated with an organization that owns the rights to the magazine in which the image was published. As I said before, if that organization sends a free license to OTRS including a summary of the situation such as the one you give above, I think it will be restored.
Please understand the 70 years is recent in copyright law. As a rule of thumb, I assume that anything published after 1885 -- almost twice 70 -- is under copyright unless it can be shown that the photographer died before 1945. 1885 allows for a photographer born in 1865, taking the image when he was 20, with immediate publication, and living to age 80. Those are reasonable assumptions. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Battle for Wesnoth logo.png[edit]

Hello Jameslwoodward, You decided the deletion request to delete because "logos are usually treated different from code". I think this does not apply in this case, as the line quoted by User:Natuur12 explictly includes "content", i.e. artwork like logos. Also the README in the project's repository explictly includes artwork. There is no further statement about an exlusion of the logo, so it is obviously licensed under GPLv2+ as well. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no "obviously" in copyright law. A logo is neither content nor artwork, it is a separate and distinct thing and in order for it to be covered by the free license, it would have to be named. As I said,. the Wikipedia logos are a good example of this -- everything on all WMF projects -- art, text, content, images, etc. -- are freely licensed, but not the logos. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually the Wikipedia-Logo is under a free license, only trademark stuff is also applied. And tradmarked logos are possible on Commons, as per COM:Trademarks. Would be a problem for all logos otherwise… --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I found the discussion after the logo was delinked from en:The Battle for Wesnoth. As User:Nenntmichruhigip pointed out, the license found in the source repository (which I checked this week) specifically includes image files, and the image file uploaded appears to be no exception. RJaguar3 (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I forgot to mention here: I moved the discussion to Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Battle for Wesnoth logo.png, and now transfered your comment as well. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

copyright symbol[edit]

Just to clarify (re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Albro lithograph.jpg‎), any art produced in the United States before 1978 that doesn't include the copyright symbol is in the public domain? Sculptures included? I'm not arguing, I'm just amazed. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

1909 Copyright Act, Section 18:
"That the notice of copyright required by section nine of this Act shall consist either of the word " Copyright" or the abbreviation "Copr .", accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor, and if the work be a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work, the notice shall include also the year in which the copyright was secured by publication . In the case, however, of copies of works specified in subsections (f) to (k), inclusive, of section five of this Act, the notice may consist of the letter C inclosed within a circle, thus © accompanied by the initials, monogram, mark, or symbol of the copyright proprietor: Provided, That on some accessible portion of such copies or of the margin, back, permanent base, or pedestal, or of the substance on which such copies shall be mounted, his name shall appear."
Subsections (f) to (k) are:
"(f) Maps ;
(g) Works of art ; models or designs for works of art ;
(h) Reproductions of a work of art ; .
(i) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character ;
(j) Photographs ;
(k) Prints and pictorial illustrations"
Sculpture is included in (g) and therefore needs either "Copyright" or "Copr" with the copyright holder's name, or "©". together with the copyright holder's mark, and the name somewhere else on the work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a little misleading by virtue of omission. A dual system existed prior to the 1976 Act wherein state law governed unpublished works and federal law (the 1909 Act) governed published works, for which proper notice was indeed required as per above. But if the question is "any art produced in the United States before 1978 that doesn't include the copyright symbol is in the public domain," the answer is no. Published art produced (if produced also means "first published") in the United States before 1978 that doesn't include the copyright symbol is in the public domain. In the case of a sculpture, for example, it would generally not be considered published unless copies were distributed to the public or it were installed in a public location without measures to prevent copying, and thus it would not require a notice to enjoy copyright protection. Thus the "never published, never registered works" section of Hirtle. Эlcobbola talk 19:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right, of course. When I first started to reply to this, my first sentence drew the distinction between "produced" and "published", but I lost that when I decided to quote the act -- thanks for picking up on it. Now I'll pick you up on one: "that doesn't include the copyright symbol is in the public domain" is not quite right. "Copyright" or "Copr" also work -- in fact, strictly reading the law, the symbol is good only in the limited case where the makers initials or mark appear. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Touché! Эlcobbola talk 23:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


I see you removed the picture of Camille Dow Baker that I had added to Commons. It is indeed on the site, but it originates from CAWST, the organisation she co-founded. I have email correspondance that I think demonstrates the picture has a suitable licence. How do I use this to convince you or anyone of this? EleriWall (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Since the image has appeared on a site with an explicit copyright notice, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer, must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. Unfortunately there are many bad actors who attempt to get images kept on Commons by forging e-mails, so only e-mails directly from the copyright holder will generally be accepted. Also please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and is badly understaffed -- the backlog there is often a month or more. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Vysotsky portrait by Papa Jan.jpg[edit] Also: File:Papa jan at home.jpg File:Portrait of papa jan junior.jpg File:Vanga-the sight of the prophetess.jpg File:The death of titanic.jpg[edit]

Hello Jim! Many thanks for your kind answer. I got your point that you can not undelete the files, cuse I'm certainly not the autorq but however we got OTRS written at the link bellow Is says, all the images can be published. How even the author by him self can upload here, when the Wikimedia recognizes the images as already uploaded and deleted and basicly doesn't permit any re-upload. What can be done in this situation? I hope your advice. Best regards Ivan