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

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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


Hallo, what can be done in order to keep the pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunde1 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 19 October 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.
Questions about open Deletion Requests should be made at the DR. I have copied your question there and responded. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Notice about Samsung Galaxy Note 7 devices (29986812710).jpg[edit]

Because I didn't expect outright deletion so soon, but moving it to Wikipedia instead. Would it then be more feasible to reupload the file to Wikipedia under the fair use provision? -Mardus /talk 11:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The DR was open for a week, which is the prescribed time. Very few DRs stay open longer now that we have our backlog under control. I hope it stays that way.
I don't know the WP:EN rules on Fair Use well enough to know for sure. If you choose to go that way, then you should upload directly from Flickr, not from Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia is about the only Wikipedia that permits screenshots of proprietary software and websites, and I've successfully uploaded a few images there. The original notice image been deleted from Commons already, and the Flickr2Commons tool only uploads to Commons (AFAIK), and not Wikipedia proper. Uploading to Wikipedia would require a manual upload. I'll see if I can find alternative photos of notices that are more public (as in Public Domain) and less original in their layout and communication. -Mardus /talk 17:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
As I said in the DR closing, the problem is not the software or icons, the problem is that the text is copyrighted. In the USA a single sentence or more of text has a copyright, so the only notices of this sort that could be kept on Commons are ones that were clearly written by Federal employees in the course of their work or were otherwise PD or licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Jail / Prison[edit]

Every time I discover something fascinating. What's the correct - formal - name for a correction institute? Either jail, prison or penitentiary? To give you an example, we use the Italian equivalent of "jail" as vernacular, "prison" as colloquial in polite company, and "penitentiary" in formal - official speech. Are there any difference, at least in the U.S., between a "Jail", a "Prison" and a "Penitentiary"? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Essentially, you go to jail until your trial, then you go to prison. and would give a more nuanced take on the US difference between Jail and Prison, and "penitentiary" is North American for "serious prison". Beware of the UK alternative spelling of gaol for jail. Storkk (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I mostly agree, thanks, Storkk. I think it may be a little more subtle, and I suspect there are regional differences across the fifty states and, of course, across the Atlantic. Here in Boston, jails are one of the few functions of the counties and are run by Sheriffs. They are typically used for pre-trial detention and short sentences after conviction. Prisons serve for longer detentions after trial.
If you were awaiting trial for a federal crime I'm not sure the word "jail" applies. After conviction in Federal Court, the criminal goes to a United States Penitentiary (serious crime, high security), a Federal Correctional Institution (medium security), or a Federal Prison Camp (minimal security, white collar crime. All three could be called "prisons" although the latter are often referred to as "country clubs". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hm. Interesting. And couldn't we just find a neutral definition like i.e. "Correctional institutions" as mother category for any type of detention centre (Or even "detention centre" itself)? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding FOP[edit]

Hello Jim! I reread the FoP rules for Spain and I am not sure about your assessment that the rule stipulates outdoor only. Might be lost in translation tho. As you probably know, not a complaint. Can you help me out pretty please? Cheers! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know much Spanish, so I can only comment on what others have told me.
The law reads:
"Las obras situadas permanentemente en parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas pueden ser reproducidas, distribuidas y comunicadas libremente por medio de pinturas, dibujos, fotografías y procedimientos audiovisuales"
Both at our general copyright by territory page and at our FOP guidance page, the Spanish is rendered as:
"The pieces of work situated permanently in parks, streets, squares and other public ways can be reproduced, distributed and communicated freely..."
The translation at WIPO reads:
"Work permanently located in parks or on streets, squares and other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated...
The only word that has raised issues is "vias", but in A DR may six months ago where the issue was raised, Spanish speakers said that "ways" was good. Although a "way" might be covered, there's nothing there that can be read as including museums. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "vías públicas" in spain is the exact translation of "Voie publique" in french, which means literally in french "Espace public" and in english Public Space. A "voie" in french can indeed mean a "way" in english, however in the same way as "Voie publique" in french is not translated by "public way" in englich, I don't think it is the case for the spain version. Therefore I think "parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas" is "parks, streets, squares and other public spaces". Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Then why does WIPO, which is the international body responsible for coordinating IP for the world, translate it as "thoroughfares"? I think it is very problematic to read a lot more into the word than WIPO does.
By the way, I think you should use EN-3, not EN-2. I have never seen an problems with your English. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The issue is words and expressions are not the same thing...two single words can be translated in a way, and then associated mean an other thing...but I'm going to attenuate my comment above, after a little research, if in french "Voie publique" is generaly used in the sense "public space", it seems the plural "voies publiques" can indeed refer to all the "public ways" (road, streets...). Furthermore I have just a few notion of spannish and I'm no more than a ES-1 therefore my transposition of the use of the french into the spannish is maybe a bit too presumptuous though french and spanish are quite similar. So I maybe was a little fast, but in all cases I agree that this sentence, if it is not about the entire public space, is about all ways (situed in public space) allowing passage, travel and transport of goods and people. And indeed this refers not to interiors of public buildings (included museums). Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The article in Spanish about vía pública reads: Una vía pública es cualquier espacio de dominio común por donde transitan los peatones o circulan los vehículos (A public way is every common space of passage for either pedestrians or vehicles). Thus vía pública encompasses generally streets, roads, squares, pedestrian routes, and so on. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
SERGIO, "way of passage" says to me that it might include the hallways in an indoor mall. Is that correct? What about museums? Or is it just outdoor streets, alleys, pedestrian paths, and the like? What about subway platforms? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
espacio de dominio común means a public way of passage (in Latin languages public means of public property: roughly said, things paid with our taxes). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This may be helpul, at the begining of the page 108, the text is copyrightable and I don't want to copy it, but in summary, with the help of google tranlation, I understand "...only... its exterior facade, ....not reaching inside...." Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
What on earth have I started here? So, before posting anything from the inside of any building in Spain we have to research who paid for it? That can't be it. Maybe we can dig a little deeper with a RfC instead of filling this talk page? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


File:HMS_Perfection_1902.svg Why?????

  • Preliminary design of Invinsible class described in:
    • 1) Roberts, John. Battlecruisers. — London: Chatham Publishing, 1997. — ISBN 1-86176-006-X
    • 2) British Battleships: Warrior, 1860 to Vanguard, 1950. A History of Design, Construction and Armament, by Oscar Parkes, 1966
  • In both books the chain of projects is:
    • 1) 1902 - HMS Perfection
    • 2) 1904 - Unapproachable
    • 3) 1905 - design A/B/C/D/E
    • 4) 1906 - HMS Invinsible
  • What else is needed to prove that it was not my idea, but actually relates to the subject of the article? --Sas1975kr (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't doubt that there was thought of a ship similar to your drawing, but unless you can cite an actual drawing of the design, your drawing has no basis other than your knowledge of warships of the time and a vague description. We don't host speculative images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not "my knowledge of warships of the time". This is from that source --Sas1975kr (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, fair enough, but that brings up the obvious question -- what is the book? When did its illustrator die or why do you think the book is PD? The two books you cite above have English titles, so it probably isn't one of them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
1)In response for request you wrote: "we would need some evidence that this looks like the actual preliminary design". I gave back links to Roberts&Parkes.
2) "what is the book" - this book was shown in the description of the file. Паркс, Оскар. Линкоры Британской империи. Том 6. Огневая мощь и скорость. — СПб. : Галея Принт, 2007. — 110 с. — ISBN 978-5-8172-0112-3. This is translation of Oscar Parkes books. Original source image - British Battleships by Oscar Parkes, p. 487
3) "When did its illustrator die" -why? Yes, they based on this book. But this is image of non-copy­righted works of industrial design. I drew this image. I am autor. --Sas1975kr (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No, actually industrial design drawings -- and almost all other drawings -- have copyrights. Unless the illustrator died before 1946, the drawing that formed the basis of your SVG was under copyright and your SVG infringes. The UK law at Chapter 1, paragraph 4, includes:

"(1)(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality
(2) “graphic work” includes—
(a)any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan,"

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

51 Design documents and models.
(1)It is not an infringement of any copyright in a design document or model recording or embodying a design for anything other than an artistic work or a typeface to make an article to the design or to copy an article made to the design.
(2)Nor is it an infringement of the copyright to issue to the public, or include in a film [F122or communicate to the public], anything the making of which was, by virtue of subsection (1), not an infringement of that copyright.
(3)In this section—
“design” means the design of any aspect of the shape or configuration (whether internal or external) of the whole or part of an article, other than surface decoration; and
design document” means any record of a design, whether in the form of a drawing, a written description, a photograph, data stored in a computer or otherwise.--Sas1975kr (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Chapter 1, paragraph 4 is for "Artistic works." Even if this image is "Artistic works":
52 Effect of exploitation of design derived from artistic work.
(1)This section applies where an artistic work has been exploited, by or with the licence of the copyright owner, by—
(a)making by an industrial process articles falling to be treated for the purposes of this Part as copies of the work, and
(b)marketing such articles, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
(2)After the end of the period of 25 years from the end of the calendar year in which such articles are first marketed, the work may be copied by ::making articles of any description, or doing anything for the purpose of making articles of any description, and anything may be done in relation to ::articles so made, without infringing copyright in the work.
(3)Where only part of an artistic work is exploited as mentioned in subsection (1), subsection (2) applies only in relation to that part.
(4)The Secretary of State may by order make provision—
(a)as to the circumstances in which an article, or any description of article, is to be regarded for the purposes of this section as made by an ::industrial process;
(b)excluding from the operation of this section such articles of a primarily literary or artistic character as he thinks fit.
(5)An order shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6)In this section—
(a)references to articles do not include films; and
(b)references to the marketing of an article are to its being sold or let for hire or offered or exposed for sale or hire.
Parkes book published in 1966... --Sas1975kr (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, paragraphs 51 and 52 which you quote above are irrelevant, as they deal with making articles from the design. You can, therefore, under UK law (but not US law) make a ship from the drawing in the book without infringing on the drawing's copyright, but you can't make a copy of the drawing.
We're not getting anywhere here. I suggest you post a Commons:Undeletion request and let our colleagues decide whether you can copy a drawing out of a book without it infringing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
you forgot to add to request my files:
from this category Category:Invincible class battlecruiser
File:BL 15 inch Mk I naval gun in section.svg
and many other...Sas1975kr (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Jim, I would support an undeletion, perhaps you could reconsider your position here rather than UNDEL? The closure "In order to restore this, we would need some evidence that this looks like the actual preliminary design." does not sit well with my understanding of project scope, as we often host original educational illustrations without a quality assessment of sources or requirement for citations. No copyright basis was used for deletion and the illustration as described seems reasonably based on factual descriptions by other researchers, so could easily be okay for use in Wikipedia articles or by the general public. Commons' scope does not put a requirement on administrators to delete all original content, so long as the educational value is clear, and certainly we do not want to get into a position where we might be deleting material based on qualitative judgments relating to context. By the way, I can see than Sas1975kr is not putting the case particularly well in terms of Commons policies, hopefully that does not make much difference on outcome. Thanks -- (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@:Situation more difficult Sas1975kr (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added a comment in the DR. -- (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
, I would not object to keeping files that a user made up from his or her own knowledge, provided that they were clearly marked as speculative. For example, simplifying this case greatly, if a potential design for a ship was described as having twelve guns and there was no other description, the ship could have twelve turrets, six turrets of two, four turrets of three, or, less likely, three turrets of four. The likelihood of each would change from era to era. Any drawing of the ship might be useful, but it would be pure speculation as to which arrangement was intended and where the turrets were placed and should be so marked. As it turns out, the subject drawing is not speculative because it was copied from a book that is still under copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I accept these points. The DR could do with having the different types of files separated. It would be great if Sas1975kr could help out by marking those that are claimed as original creations rather than close versions of diagrams from a book. -- (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Running in circles... Jim, your deleted this file as "speculation"... --Sas1975kr (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I said above,
"We're not getting anywhere here. I suggest you post a Commons:Undeletion request and let our colleagues decide whether you can copy a drawing out of a book without it infringing."
That seems an even better idea now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
At this moment you placed the request to delete all of my work. It does not make sense to write a separate post. --Sas1975kr (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
This you will delete also?? --Sas1975kr (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


Hello, is this work of mine okay? It is a derivative work of a picture I found posted on a Korean board website, but it's only made of two circles and Hangul characters. Oppashi Traditional Chinese character Sheng.svg talk 13:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It might not be OK in the UK, which has a special copyright for typesetting, but I think it would be OK anyplace else that I know of. OF course I'm guessing at North Korea, but you have to draw the line somewhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Same goes for this right? Oppashi Traditional Chinese character Sheng.svg talk 18:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes -- as long as the words don't form a full sentence, anything like this should be OK anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


"Fırın sütlaç" (rice pudding) from Turkey

H, Jim. Can you please delete the last image I uploaded. It was a group of three pics, I did not notice and one can be copyrighted. I will load again after cutting it. Thank you very much. --E4024 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done E4024, it looks to me like all three are copyvios -- or at least will require sources and evidence of why they are PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  • The image of a delicious Turkish dessert that you can't even taste on-line, :( would not change your mind to save the food and drinks pricelist pic, right? Oh my... --E4024 (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
All three clearly had a copyright at one time. You need to show if and why any of them are now PD. The menu will, I guess, be almost impossible, because the copyright was probably owned by the restaurant (I assume it is a restaurant menu, but it doesn't matter), which is probably long out of business, so it is an Orphan copyright.
While rice pudding is one of my favorites, bribery is against the rules here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)