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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

Copied from e-mail[edit]

Hello Jim,

i'm novice on Wiki. I've created an article about my farther Кравченко Володимир Григорович. He is creator of medical preparation Cidipol and I added scans of his patent in Russian Federation and trade sign certificate for Cidipol. Yes, sure, they are not mine but I want to show it for others. If I broked wiki rules in some way would you say what should I do in such case. Thank you. My regards

Andriy (Avkpol)

First, except for matters that require confidentiality, communication on Wiki matters should take place here, rather than by e-mail.
As for the two documents, since you did not actually create them, in order to keep them on Commons, you must show that they are free of copyright, (a) because they are old, (b) because the creator has freely licensed them, or (c) because the law of the country where they were created make them automatically copyright free (that is, in the Public Domain). Also, you cannot license them as CC-BY-SA -- scanning a document created by someone else gives you no rights which you can license.
I don't know if Russian patents are PD or not. The first bullet at {{PD-RU-exempt}} suggests that they may be, but "may be" is not sufficient here. If the "trade sign certificate" (is that what we would call a trademark registration?) is a government issued document, it may also be PD under the same clause.
I suspect that one of our colleagues will answer the question at each of the DRs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

[Copied from e-mail]
Hi, excuse my writing here but I didn’t find on the page where could I reply. Should I edit page? Anyway, you didn’t make clear the situation for me. I understand I must wait for your colleagues decision? From other side these documents belongs my father as patent/trademark owner, what the problem with it? e.g. you are not issuer of you driver license but you are owner of it. Does it mean you can not scan it and show in internet? Please say me exactly what and how should I do.Avkpol (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

In order to add comments on a Wiki talk page, you can click on "Edit", either at the top of the page or at the top of the section.
I am sure that you understand that if you buy a book, that you cannot make copies of it to sell -- that is the whole point of copyright. What is true of a book is true of any created work -- art, writing, architecture, and so forth. Owning the original (or a copy) of a created work gives you no right to make copies -- that right is almost always retained by the creator.
In your driver's license example, in most countries (and 47 USA states) the copyright to a driver's license remains with the issuer, so you do not have the right to make copies of it. That is particularly true if there is a photograph, as the photograph definitely has a copyright while the printing on a driver's license may be too simple to have one.
It is up to you to prove that these documents are not subject to copyright in Russia. As I said in my earlier reply, that proof may come from one of our colleagues who is more familiar with Russian copyright law. If that does not happen, they will probably be deleted.
For reference, these are Commons:Deletion requests/File:QScan08302016 200819.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Цидіпол товарний знак.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Above you say "Russian Federation", but Кравченко Володимир Григорович says that he is Ukrainian. Were the documents created in Russia or in Ukraine? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Кравченко Володимир is for sure Ukrainian and lives in Ukraine. The documents were created: one in the USSR yet ( Trademark registration issue year 1987) and another one in Russian Federation(Patent, 1993). The term of patent and trademark was expired already and they have rather historical sense.
So, ok, let`s wait for your experts decision. How long it may be? Avkpol (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
DRs must stay open for a week. Usually others will comment during that time, but there is no requirement. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Role accounts on English Wikipedia[edit]

There are two experienced English Wikipedia editors, user:FastLizard4 and user:Mlpearc, who are at the beginning of advocating for a new role account function on English Wikipedia.

The role account would be so that people with organizations and projects could get "account creator" rights to register many people for new accounts at in-person events. On English Wikipedia, there is a limit of 6 account registrations per IP address, so if people meet in one place, then one way to register a group is to have someone use this userright to register all attendees after the first 6.

I thought that you might care about this because it is another path by means of which the Wiki community is getting advocates for role accounts. I am not sure if Commons has a registration cap of 6, but if it does, then I can imagine the precedent of English Wikipedia pouring into Commons as more people organize photo walks. I live in New York, and we only occasionally have hosted photo walks in the past, but we have a big one coming up in October at en:Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/CommonsLab and there is some talk of doing these much more often.

Since you care about policy around role accounts I thought I would let you know.

As I have said before, my preference is for clear policy. I get pressure from both sides to both use and avoid using role accounts. There are organizations which are beginning to have a financial stake in this issue, and Wiki contributors who are investing in the outcome on either side of the issue. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry , thank you for the note. I have enough to do on Commons without getting into battles on other projects. I also have much less problem with the concept on WP:EN because the copyright issues are very different.
On Commons, I firmly believe that an account should have only one user.There are two reasons for this.
First, users come in all qualities. We have honest, careful, knowledgeable users, some who are none of those, and users in every combination of them. Having three major roles (Admin, Bureaucrat, and Checkuser), I get to know that pretty well. Since active Admins, in particular, are in short supply -- 90% of Admin work is done by fewer than 25 people -- it is important to Commons that we be able to work fast and accurately. Over time we get to know most of the active users -- who can be trusted to be honest, knowledgeable, and careful, and who cannot. If accounts have more than one user, then Admins lose that important help to their work.
Second, I don't think that a responsible and careful institution would want a Commons account that had more than one user. Since the point of institutional accounts is to allow institutions to upload and freely license some of their archive, the Commons user must be given permission to do this. In most jurisdictions, for an institution to give away its property, the governing body (Board of Directors or Trustees) must approve. Suppose an institution has ten people using one account and one of them is fired for cause? At the very least, the institution will have to change the password on the account. At worst, the fired person will have uploaded images that were not authorized and the institution must request their removal (this has actually happened). If ten people have been uploading images, how do we figure out which images are problems? Damage control is a real issue.
I see no reason why an institution cannot simply use separate accounts with similar names -- "User:National Institute of Geology User Smith" and "User:National Institute of Geology User Jones", for example. That solves both problems while maintaining the ability to know the users and keep track of their individual work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Your arguments are entirely sound. I support you in everything you are saying. I am not one who needs to be convinced.
If you wish, please change the existing policies to forbid role accounts. You have respect of other Commons users and can unilaterally delete and change policy. You already know the issue at the username policy - just delete everything that says role accounts are allowed and explicitly state that they are not allowed. If it helps, I will help identify all the policy that needs to be changed to forbid the practice, and I will list all the Commons accounts that are role accounts for institutions so that they can be blocked until the name changes.
I am behind you on this. The thing that I am not ready to do is deny that there are two sides doing two different things and ignoring that the other side exists. Until the issue is resolve, or someone wants to force things one way or the other, I am comfortable pointing out that there are two sides doing two contradictory things and that both sides refuse to have a discussion with each other to resolve the issue. Here is how I rank the current options in my own order of preference:
  1. Either side dictates that the other has to be eliminated. Either role accounts are clearly allowed or clearly forbidden.
  2. Both sides exist in direct opposition to each other, clearly contradicting each other and giving contrary guidance on what to do, and this conflict is openly acknowledged. Various users create role accounts or advise to avoid creating role accounts, and everyone acknowledges that one side or the other is doing something wrong without clarifying the issue.
  3. Both sides exist in direct opposition to each other, clearly contradicting each other and giving contrary guidance on what to do, but everyone lies and says that they see no conflict and that the rules are clear. One faction creates role accounts, the other forbids it, and both sides refuse to acknolwedge that the other side is creating Commons policy that either says to create role accounts or forbid them.
Right now I think the Commons community is somewhere between 2 and 3 on this list. I would prefer the situation to be more strongly 2, and even more prefer that some dictator force the issue to number 1. If you are ready to change policy and start blocking established role accounts then say the word and I will join in, but I wish for someone else to take the lead on this and actually be ready to block role accounts when they are identified. As soon as some established Commons contributors with sensitive relationships with organizations are pressured out of their accounts I think that could settle the issue. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Now could be a time to speak up and post a comment, if you wish to start a conversation. I really do not know what to do except regret that so much precedent is being set on both sides without any conversation or agreement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Suzuki motorcycles[edit]

I spent a lot of time making the structure. I wanted to continue today. Clear the gallery 12 hours after its creation, it's really not cool. Can you put it back , Thanks Camulogene77 (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done
It may not be cool, but we get 10,000 new pages ever day and delete 1,700 of them, so if you create a new page that is out of scope, it is inevitable that it will be deleted (single image galleries are not allowed).
In the future, either populate the gallery immediately or add the {{Under construction}} tag, as I have done in this case. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Falastin newspaper[edit]

How does copyright laws apply to uncopyrighted material? The book features an image of members of the newspaper and in the caption it says something around "after writing to the Jordan Press Association, it turned out that all pictures, drawings and articles published on Falastin (1911-1967) was published under public domain, including this picture." --Makeandtoss (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

With very limited exceptions, and none that might apply here, all created works have a copyright from the moment of their creation. While it is possible to put copyrighted works in the public domain with an appropriate license (for example see there is no such thing as "published under public domain". In order to restore this image, we would need to know what such license was actually used and whether it actually applied to all of the work shown on the page.
Also note that the statement you quote is very unlikely to be accurate -- there were, as I said at the UnDR, three different sets of rules in place from 1911 to 1967 and different licenses would be required for the latter two. As I also said there, work done under the Ottoman Empire is PD, and I suspect that the statement applies only to that period. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
What if it was published under CC0 1.0 or any 1930s equivalent? This newspaper is seriously old and I have been storming archives in Jordan trying to find what license it was published under, I managed to find a really old library with a book about Journalism in Jaffa, the newspaper's hometown. The book is in Arabic and the "published under public domain" is a rough translation of "تم نشرها تحت الملكية العامة". --Makeandtoss (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
First, since the book speaks of something that cannot be, it is suspect as a source of accurate information. Second, even if the book is roughly accurate -- that the newspaper did, in fact, explicitly put its content in the PD throughout its life under three legal regimes -- we would have to see the actual license to ensure that it is valid, irrevocable, and applies to everything in the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I have contacts with the descendants of the newspapers' founders, potential copyrights holders of potentially copyrighted material. What kind of document are we looking for? Governmental? Company-wise? Press association? --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Since the book that makes you think the paper is PD is not accurate, I can't tell you what sort of document it might be -- whatever supports the book's assertion that the paper was PD through three very different legal regimes.
As for the descendants of the founders, it is unlikely that they own any copyrights. It is much more likely that the copyrights belong to whoever bought the assets of the company when the newspaper closed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Since the book mentioned the Jordan Press Association, is it possible that Jordan became responsible for the copyrighted material since it was a Jordanian law that closed the newspaper (Falastinː 1917-1948 British Mandate Jaffa, 1948-1967 Jordanian occupation Jerusalem, never under Israel) ? --Makeandtoss (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Nvm, I have located the publishing company. --Makeandtoss (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Kwame Nkrumah mausoleum11.jpg[edit]

Hello Jim,

I Trust you're fine. What do you think about the above file? Wikicology (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be added to my DR of all the files in the mausoleum's category -- the wall clearly has artwork on it and it is far far from de minimis.

OTRS verification[edit]

A user has uploaded a film poster and mentioned that the mail has been sent to OTRS for proof, but the user does not seem to be associated with the film. As an administrator, can you verify this? File:HAN Official Poster.jpg Coderzombie (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no recent (last five months) OTRS message with the words "HAN Official Poster". I tagged it for {{|delete}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


Please take a look at this discussion. It's related to one you were involved in in the past., and your expertise would be appreciated. Thanks. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

File:San Francisco medical cannabis program ID card.jpg[edit]

Hi Jim. Is there any reason this would be PD? It's an upload from a globally locked sockmaster. INeverCry 22:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Works of the State of California and its subdivisions are PD, with only a few exceptions. I think {{PD-CAGov}} applies to this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. I've fixed the license. INeverCry 22:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Google Art Project works in Museo Reina Sofia[edit]

Hi, could you undelete all photos in the list taken before 1937? As the files are deleted, I cannot tell you which these are. -- (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be before 1936, as 1936 images don't go out of Spanish copyright until next January. Since the Spanish Civil War ran from 1936, I don't think any of them are out of copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I've added the undelete category for 2017, on the basis that quite a few are about to have expired copyright under Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Spain. Thanks -- (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, now removed without any explanation. It's the sort of rudeness I expect these days, you'd think this was a primary school playground. diff. -- (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jim, could you please make as statement whether 'on the fence' means you agree or you disagree? People start interpreting to their advantage. Jcb (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Jcb, stop creating personal argument please. I have no "advantage" to gain here. I neither uploaded these files, nor do I profit by them. My interest is correctly to preserve Commons' collections of high quality public domain images. This is not a role playing game where you must win something or defeat others. -- (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

My "on the fence" means just that -- in the absence of additional information, I think it is an even money bet. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

So no reason to start undeleting criticless in 2017 then. Jcb (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The claim that the addition of the undelete category was disruptive and the subsequent use of sysop rights to indefinitely protect the deletion request were highly inappropriate. I have raised the matter for review at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Review_of_a_protection_action. Using sysop rights to "win" personal arguments is not why they are granted by the Commons community. -- (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I have emailed the Google Cultural Institute for a clarification. I would have tried the Museum, but the photographs are not on their website as far as I can tell. Should that get any results I may forward for the record to OTRS. -- (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Malaysian copyright[edit]

I posed these questions to another editor about a month ago but never got any response even though they have been active. Anyway, your answers to copyright questions always seen good, so I would like your opinion on this one. My concern stems from a question about their stamps. I did some research and wrote up an initial summary at Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Malaysia. I also found a working link for the copyright act which is dead on the general copyright page section but I've fixed that. I'd like your opinion on my concern with the fact that since 1992 the post office is now a corporation, so is there any real difference from the government work 50 year rule and the corporate rules, or post-1992 is the copyright period determined by the life of the author. However, I have not seen any records of the authors or engravers, like we do for France where the stamps often have the name of the engraver and designer on the stamp. This WIPO page may be of help and this does not mention corporate works.

While I'm on the subject of stamps, no one ever responded to my question on Libyan stamps now archived at: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/07#Stamps of Libya. If you have input on that I'd also appreciate it. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I think your reading of Malaysia is probably correct. It's clear that government works are covered for fifty years and I think it likely that once the postal service was privatized, its works would follow the pma rule, unless the anonymous rule applies. However, I think this introduces an unnecessary question and complication into the case book. The issue is moot until 2042, since any post-1992 work must be under copyright until then no matter how the rules are applied. While we often take a very long view here, I trhink we can safely not worry about this question.
I also agree that Libyan stamps are under copyright for thirty years from first publication. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles and diagrams are original[edit]

Articles and diagrams are original and self made, not copied.Each article of Wikipedia having its own educational purpose .I do not know higher label English.Dear sir I have done a mistake to create a page of "Solid geometry" that was to using of Autopetrol button.This was blunder and wanted to undone but suddenly electric discontinued due to storm.Please excuse me for this.Thanks.Nagric 05:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)--Nagric 05:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The deletions can be discussed at the various DRs. Discussing them here does little good. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Some open/some closed[edit]

Hi Jim: Did you mean to do a partial close on ? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the confusion and thank you for a good catch. I added a note to that effect. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Quacks like a duck[edit]

Before asking for an undeletion, please enlighten me: Are you going to argue that the puny area the painting takes on the total photo is however not de minimis, or you’re going to admit that you closed the DR as you did based on bad faith against me and ? Did you even look at the photo? Couldn’t it be that it would retain most of its useability if the painting was blurred or blanked? Will you be consequent and file analogous DRs for photos (e.g.) of similar events? Or did you consider (easy to do, after I categrorized it) that if this other file (and 265 others) can show in toto Federal Duck Stamp competition entries (based on the Flickr stream blanket license, but accepting that the contest org. had the right to licensing), then a de minimis inclusion of one such paiting in an otherwise properly licensed photo should never be deleted on copyvio concerns?…

I personally find “funny” (*) that you added in the closing remarks that this photo is «Maybe in scope, maybe not». Yeah, sure: Not in scope a jury sitting to chose images for a widely known US postage stamp emission, a subject that turned out to have a some coverage in Commons — almost 600 items for 2012, 34 for 2011, and yet only a handful for other years (now a handful minus one). *(Actually, I find it deplorable, not funny, but this kind of downplaying helps me keep some sanity when dealing with these cases of… lets go with «casual negligence», to keep me off admin bullying.)

Ever mentioned how deeply disappointed I am with some of your actions here? Oh, I did: Long ago. And I still am.

-- Tuválkin 16:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you and I have totally different interpretations of de minimis. The area that a work occupies is never relevant if it is the focus of the photograph. The title of the image is "Female shows her paintings". I can't believe that you are arguing that the painting is de minimis -- it's the whole point of the photograph, that the painter is showing off her work. In order for something to be de minimis, it must be completely incidental to the purpose of the image -- in this case, the painting and other things on the wall to the right are de minimis, because the image would have the same effect if it were a blank wall.
I did look at the image. I did not know or consider the fact that the painting is a Federal Duck Stamp entry -- clearly, knowing that, I wouldn't think it is out of scope. The whole point of my remark is that I didn't have to consider the scope issue, which is more subjective, when I saw a clear infringement of the painter's copyright.
As for bad faith against you and Fæ, yes I occasionally find you both annoying, but you also champion unpopular causes and are right more often than wrong, so I take you both seriously. In this case, as I now understand it, you were entirely right on the scope issue, but you both missed the fact that it's a copyvio. Since copyvio trumps scope, I ignored your comments. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Since «copyvio trumps scope», I suppose you will now procede to have deleted as copyvios around half a thousand photos and illustration scans from Category:Federal Duck Stamps and foll., based on the notion espoused by you that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has no right relicensing competition entries. Or you may find out that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does indeed have the that right, and all these images are safe from deletion — but you’ll have to undelete File:Female shows her paintings.jpg based on that same finding. So sorry for the annoyance caused. -- Tuválkin 00:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Are you enjoying making me the bad guy by giving me only limited information, in dribs and drabs. Did this painting in fact become a Federal Duck Stamp? Why didn't you say that above? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I’m not enjoying, at all. Why do you think I took a long break from Commons? Not because I was bored with categorization, let me tell you, but because I was nearing being burned by the hostility and negativity of so many people, many of them (indeed, all of them but two) being admins, like yourself. You and Jee read Fæ’s defense of a photo and immediately saw an opportunity for scoring points by favouring its deletion; I saw a photo under threat of deletion (because Taivo, an admin, has no clue about what scope is — incompetence is also something I don’t enjoy witnessing) and did what nobody thus far wanted to do: 10 min. of “research”, to find out what that photo might be about (as the info in the filepage is, as mentioned in UDEL, ridiculously useless): I did google the slogan visible in the background to find an obscure e-mail concerning the U.S. duck stamp competition, and from there I found we have already some 600 images about it in Commons. That’s what you call “unpopular causes”, I gather: Fighting the combined tides of deletionism of some (omg so many files we need to keep these numbers down!!) and the cronyism and vanity of others (repository shrepository!, Commons be a fancy portfolio of my very cool photography, and my buddies’ — up untill I get all huffy and decide to leave, that is). No, I’m not feeding you partial information to make you look bad: I stated my case as clearly and completely as I could; you guys (in UDEL and in the DR) are just not paying enough attention. This is a case about of the validity of relicensing rights over competition enties by the Wildlife Service. -- Tuválkin 11:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In this case as the locus of discussion in the DR was not DM, it would have been helpful if you had mentioned you were thinking of closing as a DM failure. If I had seen this raised in the DR, I would have added my view that it easily matches the case book of images which fall within DM. The argument that the painting is the 'focus' of the painting is not the whole truth of what is going on in that painting as the judging, the woman and the other paintings in the competition are also part of the composition.
The artworks appear to be displayed at, which use an ARR default, but it's worth noting that the FWS require entrants to the Duck Stamp competition to agree to "I grant exclusive rights to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its designees to use, alter, copy, publish, and display my artwork for reproduction and promotional purposes as they see fit without compensation to me".[1] Though this may not be the identical competition, it's quite normal for Federal department competition entrants to waive rights this way, which may explain why photographs taken at this competition were shared as public domain by the FWS. -- (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Interesting, but not definitive -- your cite is from the Junior Duck Stamp contest, which is not the same thing at all. Also note that while your cite gives the USF&WS the right to do what it wants with images, it does not put them in the public domain. The claim of ARR on the Flickr site is entirely analogous to the Sacejawea dollar - the government owns and enforces the copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The reason I said "Though this may not be the identical competition" was because I was aware that this was not the same competition. You have said you think I'm irritating, but please presume good faith, thanks. -- (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I said "annoying", not "irritating", which is very different. I assumed that your remark meant to say it was a different year, not a different competition. Bad assumption on my part. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Dictionaries disagree with you. -- (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You can find the 2015 regulations at (hard to find as it's not indexed). The FWS has significant rights, which extends to photographs that they publish that were taken at competitions and the artist then has no claim over publication of those photographs (so the DR closure was incorrect with the statement you made of "in order to restore it we will need a license from the woman pictured"). We can say for certain that any winners that get turned into stamps are public domain. They have been published at -- (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not correct. See my comments at the UnDR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Now the file has been successfully undeleted, this category may be useful to retain here if you need to search your archive, Category:Photographs by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region. I'm in the process of populating it. -- (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You made the following comment at the UnDR:

"In which case the website terms are incorrect or misleading. FWS website terms (implicitly contract law) do not override Federal law as it applies to property of the USPS, and stamps of artworks dating before 1978 are by default public domain."

I don't understand your reference to the US Postal Service -- these are not postal stamps -- they are sold by the USF&WS and are required purchases for anyone who hunts waterfowl. My understanding is

(A) The USF&WS gets an exclusive license to the copyright of every duck stamp contest entry allowing it to use the works in any way it wishes.
(B) The USF&WS web site terms cannot, of course, override Federal law, but they do not contradict it. Federal agencies can and do own and enforce copyrights for works created by third parties. Notable examples are US Postal Service stamps after 1978 and the Sacajawea dollar obverse.
(C) The USF&WS can choose to freely license none, some, or all duck stamps. It has chosen to put CC licenses on some duck stamps and duck stamp art as shown at Flickr. Again, that does not mean they are all free.

I think perhaps we need a new template for images showing duck stamps or duck stamp art. We're using Flickrreview to show a free license, but that covers only the reproduction and not the copyright for the original art. Perhaps something like:

"This is an image of a USF&WS Duck Stamp, or of art that was submitted to the annual contest for selecting art to be used on stamps. Its copyright was licensed to the USF&WS by the artist as a condition of entering the contest. The USF&WS has chosen to license this image as shown above, but it is not PD and requires credit to the artist."

A fast look at the category you cite tells me that at least a few of the images in it do not conform to the license -- they do not name the actual author of the art work -- the author is not USF&WS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

With regard to stamps, thanks for the correction. I had presumed these were postage stamps rather than license payments. This part of American culture is alien to my experience.
I'm letting my script run through the collection which may take a while. I'd rather avoid having another template created, but it may be sensible to mass add some advisory text if that helps reusers and take a later view on correct attribution where this is missing. Note that I am automatically rejecting files that use the Flickr PD-Mark and am not using the special Commons PD F&WS template, so I believe the only uploads will be those with a justifiable CC-BY release purely based on the official flickrstream license. -- (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I defer to your judgement on all of the above -- I do think it would be helpful to have some indication of the unusual license status of the paintings, but whether it is a template or added text is your call. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Comic mural Olivier Rameau, Dany (Daniel Henrotin), Brussels.jpg and more[edit]

Hi Jameslwoodward,

This is for the topic which I opened on the 25th September, which I see that has already been closed. Regarding your answer : "FOP only works on the copyright belonging to the artist who created the public work. It does not allow use of works that themselves infringe on other copyrights. We cannot keep an image of Charlie Brown just because someone has painted it on a wall in an FOP country without a license from Charles Schultz's estate. Unless the mural shown in File:Comic wall Le jeune Albert, Yves Chaland, Brussels.jpg has a license from Yves Chaland's heirs, we cannot keep it, either", I did not think about it and I did not know that FOP does not work in such cases. But if it is true, all the murals in Brussels are of course derivative works. And unfortunately this means that in fact, all the pictures in the category Category:Parcours BD should be deleted. It is really a pity. Is it possible to open a request for deleting all content inside a category? Thanks. --Ferran Cornellà (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

To answer your technical question first, yes, you can request the deletion of all (or some) images in a category or uploaded by a specific user with the tool Visual File Change. I will do that shortly with the category you mentioned.
As for the broader question, unless you or someone else can show that the mural painter had a license from the creators of the comics, then the murals infringe on the comic author's rights and cannot be kept on Commons. The only way we can keep these is if that can be shown or if the comic author (or his heirs) sends a free license for the mural photographs to OTRS. It would be up to you or any other uploaders to make that happen. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer and thanks for your help! --Ferran Cornellà (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

FOP in Mozambique[edit]

Hi Jim. You were prevously a big help in clarifying things at en:File talk:Peachoid-gaffney.png#Copyright discussion, so I am wondering if you might also have any comments about en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 28#File:Zimpeto-stadium.jpg. I am not sure if this is a case of "replaceable fair use" and think it would be helpful to hear from others with a little more experience in this kind of thing. Anyway, if you have some spare time and can take a peek, then any clarification you can add would be most appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Jim. Thank you for your comments at the above-mentioned FFD discussion. My I eyesight must be getting worse because I actually didn't notice it was a drawing and not a photograph of the stadium until after reading your comment. Anyway, thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Scope comment[edit]

Having just now added a lot of requests for CommonsDelinker, I decided to see whether it were active (I really should have done that before leaving the requests) and noticed that it was enforcing a DR that you'd just closed, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vestavia Hills High School logo.png. No complaints about the deletion or the "in this case" rationale: I'm simply questioning the first sentence in the close rationale. If I nominate a file for deletion purely on SCOPE grounds, without identifying any other problems, and you find a WMF page where it could reasonably be used and you add it to that page, why should the file still be deleted? Assuming that you're doing it in good faith, that there aren't reasons (such as here) to dispute that it belongs there, of course. By adding it to such a page, you've actively demonstrated that it meets COM:INUSE; the general rule appears to be that you can fix scope problems by adding the image to another WMF page after a DR is posted. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

By that reasoning the uploader could prevent any image from being deleted on scope grounds, so we generally don't allow it. If we did allow it, then savvy uploaders could easily add their out of scope images to WP pages on the sixth day of a DR and claim that they were in scope. That wouldn't work if the target page were very active, but I'd guess that for 99% of the WP pages even an image that was really blatantly wrong might not be caught for a few days or even weeks.
This case is a perfect example. According to the uploader, the image had been placed on the page and subsequently deleted at some time in the past, so the page's community of editors had already decided that it was out of scope.
We've even seen pages created in difficult languages, sometimes by people that don't read the language, to host images that had DRs on them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Understood, but all the items you mention are good reasons to dispute that the image in question belongs on the page(s) to which it's been added, reasons to dispute the good faith of the editor adding the image. Imagine that I'm going through the DR log and I notice a discussion for a file with the name of a person whose en:wp article I recently edited, an article with no image, so I add the photo to the article and then vote *{{vk}} Now in use at [[:en:wp:pagename]]; clearly in scope. ~~~~ The whole point of a DR is to debate issues related to the image: if other DR participants or the closing admin should think that the addition was done in bad faith or in cluelessness, they can always say "That's just an attempt to keep the image, not a good use". If nobody sees any problem with the addition, why should the image be deleted? It would be enough of a bother at en:wp, since we'd have to do a local upload there, but outright harmful for places like es:wp with no local uploads. Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
In your example, you're not the uploader. That's fine -- if a third party adds it to a page. The problem with "If nobody sees any problem with the addition, why should the image be deleted?" is that in the cases we're talking about, nobody has had a chance to see anything wrong with the image. The uploader has added it to the page at the last minute. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
In the DR rationale, you didn't specifically distinguish between an addition by the uploader and an addition by someone else; if your words above, mentioning the uploader's actions, were meant to make this distinction, I missed it. I'm significantly less concerned than I was before. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

VOA files[edit]

Can the VOA files related to after June 2013 be uploaded to our Commons? --Mhhossein talk 17:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know where that long battle finally came out. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It resulted in massive undeletion. Jcb (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Does it mean that I have to withdraw my RDs? --Mhhossein talk 06:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
That would be great. Otherwise we would have to keep-close them. Jcb (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


You deleted this image (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vestavia Hills High School logo.png) with the rationale that there is no evidence that the logo is real. If you just scroll down on the home page that you linked to you would have seen it. Also this news report also shows it. Could you please undelete the image? --Majora (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

And if that isn't enough there is also this from the school itself that shows that this is the logo. --Majora (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done I'm not sure what's is going on at the school's home page -- the version that I saw this morning did not have the new logo. With that said, though, the news story is fairly definitive. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)