User talk:Jameslwoodward

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

2009
2010
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
2nd half 2015
1st half 2016

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself. The original talk page is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward

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




Max Mosley interview photo nominated for deleting[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Max_Mosley_during_a_interview.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by F1almanah.mk (talk • contribs) 00:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I have left comment on the page where request has been made but I want to raise your awareness as I am prepared to fight this bureaucracy started by Nyttend. His comment how hard is to enter office of famous people is insult for journalist and in this occasion Mr. Mosley entered mine as he was in Skopje.

As I have explained that F1almanah.mk has grown up into complete sport dedicated portal, now the archive is available on new location: http://derbi.mk/fajterstvoto-e-nuzhno-za-rakovodenjeto/

Please advise me if I need to make more moves in order to stop destructive behavior of that admin.F1almanah.mk (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that Nyttend's comment was not accurate, I am troubled by the fact that you cannot explain the absence of EXIF data on only this one of your uploads. We get a great many people who try to claim images as their own work here in order to get them onto Commons, so we are naturally suspicious. We must work from impressions and experience and without an explanation of the EXIF, I am inclined to close the DR as deleted .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad, Stoops Ferry, Pennsylvania, 1907.jpg[edit]

Hi Jim,

Just wondering where you found the information that led to this rational. I would like to create a PD template based on the image archive publication with other images from HistoricPitt. Thanks again. Seattle (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

From my perspective, this is fairly straightforward -- at least as far as US Copyright law goes, so I may not answer your question on the first try because I don;t understand which aspect of it you don't understand. Also forgive me if I cover you ground that you thoroughly understand already.
My rationale was based on the fact that the work was "published" within the meaning of the 1909 Copyright Law by adding it to the archive. I think there's case law on that, but I don't think anyone will argue the point -- by putting them in a public archive they were mde available to the public.
It was also based on the fact that they were published without notice. Under the 1909 Act, anything published had to have a copyright notice affixed to it. That changed, first slightly and then completely under the 1976 Act. Until 1977 notice was required, period. Then from 1/1/1978 until 3/1/1989 works had to have notice or be registered within five years. Therefore, unless registered, any photographic negative made available to the public in the 1970s has to be no-notice. See File:PD-US table.svg for a useful summary of the law.
You won't, however, be able to apply this reasoning to all images at the archive -- the key is the date they were added to the archive and in what form. Negatives plainly don't have a copyright notice. Photographic prints might, although I think you could assume not. Anything in printed form -- newspaper clippings, for example -- would be a problem, because you'd have to assume they were copyrighted.
If I haven't covered your question, please try again. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Canadian (22263483230).jpg[edit]

I'm afraid I don't understand why File:Canadian (22263483230).jpg was deleted. I see no discussion, and the poster has made it clear elsewhere (cf {{RogerPuta}}), that the images are in the public domain via PD-heirs, not simply the Flickr public domain mark. I see no ambiguity here. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

See the fourth bullet point under Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses:
"In particular, the license must meet the following conditions:
  • Republication and distribution must be allowed.
  • Publication of derivative work must be allowed.
  • Commercial use of the work must be allowed.
  • The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable." [emphasis added]
The heirs may have said that the images are PD, but there is absolutely nothing to prevent them from changing that to All Rights Reserved. While they could not recover damages for the period when they had said the images were PD, they could certainly force all users to stop using them immediately. If they, or anyone else, truly wants to put an image into the Public Domain without the possibility of change, they should use CC-0 which says, among other things:
"To the greatest extent permitted by, but not in contravention of, applicable law, Affirmer hereby overtly, fully, permanently, irrevocably and unconditionally waives, abandons, and surrenders all of Affirmer's Copyright...." [emphasis added]
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The point seems unwontedly technical and grounded on undisclosed facts. The specific declaration, 'They were scanned and posted by Marty Bernard, are in the Public Domain, and may be used with attribution to "Roger Puta"', has no suggestion of anything other than a full release (emphasis added). I don't see how that declaration could be revoked, nor how such a revocation would affect images already transferred in good faith with a verified license. Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
As I quoted above, a full irrevocable release needs to say just that. If that were not the case, then the CC-0 license would not need such explicit wording. There are no words anywhere here which suggest that the heirs intend the license to be irrevocable. While I agree that it is unlikely that they will actually revoke it, heirs sometimes do funny things. These are nice images and could easily be used in a book or in other profitable ways. The heirs, seeing that, could easily decide to cash in. Commons policy is very clear and there is nothing technical about the difference between irrevocable and not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
If Commons is so clear on that why was I given no warning, no indication of any kind, before the images were deleted? I had no reason to suspect that the licensing situation was faulty. If I'd known there was a problem I could have started on the OTRS process, which I've done before. Surely the situation wasn't so urgent as to require immediate deletion with no recourse? Mackensen (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I've decided I'm going to go through the OTRS process for these. In the interest of avoiding future heartache and bitterness, could you please clarify the exact question I should ask of the uploader? I was planning to inquire with the public domain declaration was made irrevocably, but is even more required? Mackensen (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that we get around 10,000 new images every day. Around 2,000 of them must be deleted, mostly for copyvio or inadequate licenses. Ten Admins do half of that work (and 25 do 90%) so we work quite fast. That is why images that are not properly licensed qualify for {{speedy}} treatment -- we do not want to add several hundred DRs every day to an already out of control list.

You need to get one of the heirs to declare that he or she is an heir, owns the copyright and wishes to license it as any one of CC-0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA. Note that the template {{RogerPuta}} contradicts itself in that it calls for attribution of a PD image. An image that is truly PD does not need attribution. So if the heir wants the images to be truly PD, then use CC-0, but no attribution can be required. On the other hand, if they want the images to be credited, then they must use CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Full instructions, the form of the document, and the e-mail address are at OTRS. If you notify me here after the heir has sent the e-mail, I will expedite the process through OTRS -- otherwise it will take several weeks because OTRS is also badly backlogged from lack of volunteers. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you, I'll see what I can do. I realize that Commons administrators face a significant workload, but given the real confusion over Flickr's public domain mark at least a template, or a tag, or something, would seem preferable to simple deletion. This is particularly the case given that when transferring from Flickr you're warned to replace PD-mark with something more appropriate, which one does, at which point the warning goes away. To have the image suddenly deleted later is jarring, at best. Mackensen (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Sigh... There are many aspects of Commons that I wish we could do better -- but we simply don't have enough volunteers. As a result, it can be a fairly difficult environment.
I just dropped a note on Commons talk:Flickr files announcing my intention to clarify the instructions there. Maybe that will help, although I suspect many (most?) editors who upload from Flickr never read it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ping. I received a reply from Marty Bernard which confirms the status of the images and forwarded it to permissions-commons (ref 2016020210001676). Thanks again for your assistance. Mackensen (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

OTRS appears to be down and I have a stomach bug, so this may not happen immediately. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry to hear that and I hope you feel better soon. There's certainly no rush at present. All the best, Mackensen (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Scientists_montage.jpg[edit]

Hi Jim! I'm sorry but I don't frequent the Commons and so I'm less familiar with the rules on this side. I noticed this deletion because the "Scientist" page is on my watchlist at English Wikipedia. The justification for the deletion seems to be that it contained a copy of w:File:Rosalind Franklin.jpg which is under copyright. However the page for w:File:Rosalind Franklin.jpg has a copyright tag which seems to indicate that using the image "on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation" or "to provide visual identification of one or more specific individual(s), or an identifiable gathering of them", "qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law". To the uneducated eye (like mine), this makes it sound like it might be usable on the Scientist page? There's a very real chance I'm misunderstanding something here. If you've got a minute, a brief explanation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair use is permitted on WP:EN, because it is possible to create a legal rationale for why the particular use there is "fair". On the other hand, Fair Use is not permitted on Commons. Commons is a repository and that is not a Fair Use. see Commons:Fair use for the full policy statement. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. Sorry I hadn't put together that distinction on my own. Thanks for your time Jim! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Jim, I do not understand why you have deleted the images off of the Athlete page "Chris Gudzowsky". The images on the athlete profile are of myself, who I own the rights too. Some pf the images can be found on my Facebook because I have also uploaded them to my Facebook.Others, being 2 others were from photographers who gave the images to me, with permission to use. Specifically because I know the sports photographers who take photos for our sport.

Thanks for your time,

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportguru (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 February 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.

Since we do not know who Sportguru actually is, policy requires that when an image has appeared without a free license elsewhere on the Web, that the actual copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. In the case of images taken by others. the actual photographer must send the license or you must provide a copy of the written license which meets Commons requirements. Note that casual oral permissions to use an image on WP is not sufficient -- both WP and Commons require that images be free for use anywhere by anyone for any use. Note also that in most, maybe all jurisdictions, copyrights must be licensed or transferred in writing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Postcards by Aspiotis[edit]

Dear Jim,

I understand that you did not yet see my user talk page Actia Nicopolis. I also understand that you found the page Postcards by Aspiotis following the rules of Commons pages.

If so, I will expand it in the same way.

Many thanks for your assistance.

Nikos Actia Nicopolis (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had a stomach bug and just got back to Commons. I think it's good -- see my comment on your talk page and thanks for your effort. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much Jim. All the best with your stomach! Nikos Actia Nicopolis (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

ticket:2016012510014041[edit]

Hi Jim, I just merged this into another ticket you own. Just wanted to give you a heads up, because the ticket isn't the most straightforward. You've already accepted the permission regarding the specific image referenced, so I haven't replied to it. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

OTRS appears to be down and I have a stomach bug, so this may not happen immediately. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Not much you need to do after the upgrade... just thought I'd let you know so it doesn't blindside you. Feel better soon! Storkk (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's a glass of fennel tea for your stomach. Get better soon! De728631 (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)