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
1st half 2017

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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


Hey, you just closed my deletion request on Bmbslogo.png in favor of keeping the file. As reason you cited "per WP:PL" - WP:PL does not exist; and COM:PL links to the polish version of Village pump. As reason you cited that it is used on Polish Wikipedia, and that might be true, but the logo is of a streamer "gang" that plays the game in question, making Commons a personal gallery for that group of people. Hence, the image is out-of-scope for Commons and should be deleted. Could you depthen your reasoning? All my other requests (about 8) were deleted for being out of project scope, which is a valid reason, however, you decided to go against that. Why is that? Lordtobi () 14:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)
Lordtobi, "WP:PL" not a link, it is shorthand for "the Polish Wikipedia". As shown in the file's "File usage on other wikis", the file is in use at Grand Theft Auto Online. Commons rules do not permit deletion of any file that is in use on another WMF project unless it is a copyright violation. Therefore, if the reason for deletion is not copyvio, you must always check file usage before nominating a file for deletion..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I see, I have removed it from the page in question, the caption literally stated that it is "the logo of a team". Could you remove the image now? Thanks! Lordtobi () 14:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
No. Since you are not a regular editor of WP:PL (you have made only 3 edits there), your removal does not allow deletion of the file from Commons. After a reasonable time -- a week or two -- you may renominate the file for deletion if no one restores it to the WP:PL article in the interim. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
How exactly does my edit count on a different project impact the handling of an invalid, out-of-scope file on this project? Makes no sense to me. My primary project is the English Wikipedia, I only perform edits on other Wikipedias to aid their usage of the Commons files, as such also on the Polish. Now that the image is removed, we are back to zero, and your closing rationale from only a few minutes ago is now invalid and improperly checked, as you could have seen the file's invalidity as well. It would be nice if you could link me to the guideline that says that no in-use image may be deleted unless it is copyvio. Lordtobi () 15:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
For the cite, see COM:INUSE.
As for the other, when the validity of a file comes up, most often with reference to ethnic maps, but also other cases such as this one, Commons has no good way of assessing whether your claim that file is useless is correct or not. You assert that it should be deleted, but an editor on WP:PL has chosen to use it. That suggests that you are wrong and that the file is, in fact, useful, but it is not definitive. By removing the file from the WP:PL article, you have not changed anything -- there still exists the fact that an editor on WP:PL chose to use it to illustrate an article there. As I said above, if the file is not returned to the WP:PL article within a reasonable period, then we can conclude that your DR was valid.
As for the particulars here, since team play is an important part of the game, I see no reason why the logo of a team is not a perfectly natural addition to the article. I also note that your removal has already been reversed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

delete delete delete[edit]

Hi. I answered you there : Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jean-no... But I take this personaly, I won't upload anything ever to this place. Jean-no (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Jean-no -- you shouldn't take it personally -- copyright is a very complicated subject and new users often make the same mistake. But, frankly, since your comment suggests that you do not respect copyright, perhaps it is just as well that don't do any more here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I've just been feeding wikipedia twelve years long. I respect copyright, but I know it enough to be aware that there are many blury lines : a picture of an artist obviously showing his own work during a public event is not a reproduction of this work. A person performing a painting is not a reproduction of this painting. When the line is blury, each one has to chose. You chose to despise other's people's work, or at least, my work. Yes I do take it personnaly Jean-no (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Although I don't like your attitude much, I don't for a moment "despise" your work. I recognize that copyright is a difficult subject and that inexperienced users often make mistakes. However your argument is entirely wrong -- there is no blurry line here. It is black letter law that we cannot keep images of created works without consent of the artist unless they are out of copyright or there is an appropriate FOP exception. The fact that the image has the artist in it, that it is at a public event (again, assuming FOP does not apply), or that artist is actually working on the creation is entirely irrelevant.
In french right (usualy quite straighter, as we don't have freedom of panorama or fair use), there is a strong exception for public events - how could there be a press if there was not ? But anyhow, you convinced me I'm definitly not Wikimedia Commons compatible. It's quite hard for me to speak english, and therefore to discuss that matters in a peaceful way. Jean-no (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Jean-no, There may be an exclusion for public events, but if there is, I am unaware of it. If there is , it probably allows use in the press, but Commons requires that images be free for any use by anybody anywhere. As I said above, it is black letter law that we cannot keep images of art from living artists without their consent unless FOP applies.
As for your language difficulty, you English is a great deal better than my French. However, Google translate is now so good that you can write your comments in French and expect most Google users to use Google to translate. OR, if you prefer, you can write in French, have Google do the translation to English, touch up the results, and then post the English. I do both in the other direction from time to time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Isabella, Countess of Vertus.jpg[edit]

Hi Jim- Thanks for your attention to the above deletion request. That uploader is an uncommunicative maintenance-generator I've been trying to rein in of late. A question as I continue to struggle with our deletion/retention policy: Wouldn't any license that Getty claims be on the jpg file itself, not the work?

Note: My first instinct was to post this on the talkpage of the deletion request and ping you, but a notice there prompted me to start here. Feel free to move it to a more appropriate place. Side-note to my note: I think that template could be tweaked to read something like "If you would like to comment on this deletion request while it is still open..." --Eric my en.wp talk page 18:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Eric. I'm more flexible than some of my colleagues about asking questions post DR closure. Putting a comment here has the advantage that it doesn't require a ping and that it becomes a part of my archive, which may be useful for future reference. It is also somewhat more public than the DR talk page, which wouldn't be seen by anyone other than you and me. On the other hand, the DR talk page will be there for reference in case the subject comes up again there.
WMF has adopted Bridgeman as policy for all 2D works that are in the public domain. Therefore we ignore Getty's copyright claim in cases like this on the grounds that there is no creative effort in scanning or photographing a 2D work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jim- Thanks for your reply and the Bridgeman ref, that makes sense. And we're ok with watermarked images? --Eric my en.wp talk page 00:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, in a limited way (unlike WP:EN, which prohibits them). See Commons:Watermarks. I wouldn't have kept this if we had another version without the watermark, but we use what we can get. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, Jim! --Eric my en.wp talk page 19:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

My note here on a possible flickrwashing account[edit]

Dear Admin James Woodward,

Would you consider deleting all images from the noted flickr account or would you prefer to take no action. It appears to be a flickrwashing account from the examples I cited...but I am not an expert here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

As I noted at the cited discussion, I would delete them all. They are licensed ARR or PMD on Flickr, which are not acceptable, and are copyright violations to boot. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, Thank you for your reply here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zlatnik HQ.jpg[edit]

Hi, you deleted this. However, Ukrainian currency is not copyrighted. -- 14:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

That is correct, but is not the problem. There is no license from the photographer, so it is a copyright violation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Caprice dydasco.jpg[edit]

Hello Jameslwoodward, please recheck today's deletion of File:Caprice dydasco.jpg. IIRC it was simply a crop of File:III MEF Band performs at exhibition soccer match between Kobe Leonessa, UCLA 140323-M-PJ295-002.jpg, wasn't it? Headlocker (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be correct. I have to wonder why you did not tell us this at the DR and save this trouble? The file, as it existed during the DR, did not have any reference to its actual source. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, how would I have known about the DR in the first place? I'm neither the original uploader of the source image nor the cropped one... Headlocker (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair question -- but how did you jump on it so fast? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
My personal watchlist on dewiki alerted me of the deletion because of the CommonsDelinker bot's edit in de:Caprice Dydasco and prompted me to investigate. --Headlocker (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hajdu.orsolya.judit[edit]

Thanks for closing that discussion and deleting the images; however, I notice that one is still there (File:Indienne-fabric.jpg).

Since you don't specifically mention it, I'm going to guess that this was an oversight or a glitch with one of the deletion tools? Ubcule (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Admins use a script, DelReqHandler, to rapidly close DRs. Occasionally it hiccups and doesn't delete when asked. Thanks for telling me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes; I recall that happening once before, which was why I suspected it might be the case here. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Pan-STARRS images[edit]

Hi Jim, I'm writing to you because you started deletion request for 2MASS survey images. That topic is already explained and closed but I noticed someone is adding images from Pan-STARRS survey released last year, for example here. Here is a site of this survey: I'm not sure if these images can be posted on Commons since they are not in public domain and their copyright policy doesn't look clear to me. Could you please check it and start deletion request if necessary? I would like these images to be available for us because they cover most of the sky and could be used in thousands of astronomical articles but rules are rules. They have contact e-mail posted on their site so if any doubt it would be good to contact them. Greetings Pikador (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I can find nothing that speaks to copyright on the web site. I have sent a message from OTRS strongly suggesting that they add a license to the web site or at least reply with a statement of their copyright position. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Pikador, unfortunately, I got a quick response to my inquiry -- the files are licensed NC by the University of Hawaii, see OTRS:2017011310011108. They are reconsidering that position, so maybe it will change. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, let's hope they will change their policy. Pikador (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Quite unpleasant treatment[edit]

What do you mean precisely by the term "offender"? L'honorable (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
PS. do you really think I am some sort of offender, or somebody, who is painstakingly trying to help Wiki Commons in its purpose? Please advise. Many thanks.

L'honorable, you offend because

- you waste a great deal of editor time on issues that are cut and dried
- you haven't bothered to learn the most fundamental aspects of what we do:
"and a photo which I own could be deleted so willy-nilly" -- the fact that you own a book, a painting, a sculpture, or a photo does not give you the right to freely license it. That right is held by the creator and must be licensed in writing. There is no evidence of such a license in the "photo which I own".
" I can also assure you that those Wiki Commons uploads which I have made will not result in Wiki being sued by any party." -- that line of reasoning is explicitly prohibited by our most basic principle, see Precautionary Principle #1.
-you waste editor time by carrying on lengthy discussion on the same topic (e.g. the current DR) in multiple places. Without looking very hard, I have found 6,000 words of discussion instigated by you, much of it either irrelevant or duplicate.
-you are now demanding to correspond with WMF's General Counsel, which is silly. WMF counsel does not write policy or directly interfere with matters here. You say you have issues to discuss with WMF counsel, but you have never raised them, or, if you have, they have been shown to be wrong.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: : clearly you are more important than me, and I get it "put up & shut up". Again this discussion gets hushed up & goes nowhere. However, this still does not solve the issue whereby images that I own have been systematically deleted as if part of a process. I am afraid now to say anything for fear of being told that I am silly. This really scrapes the bottom of an intelligent discussion about correct licensing. Anyway, let's leave it for now, but I should still very much like to liaise with Wiki's counsel whenever convenient. Much appreciate your consideration. Best, L'honorable (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
PS. for the avoidance of doubt, this concerns Heraldry
L'honorable, you don't need to ping me on my own talk page. I have removed your ping for Carl so as not to waste his time. I am not more important than you, but I am far more experienced and I have learned from my mistakes, while you have refused to admit to any mistakes.
You are being silly. You still don't seem to accept that owning a copyrighted work -- whether that is a book or a photograph -- does not give you the right to freely license the work. That is black letter law and is not subject to debate, yet you continue to debate it in several places, wasting a lot of editor time.
In order to have a copyrighted image on Commons, the uploader either must have been the photographer or must provide satisfactory evidence that he has a written license agreement with the photographer that gives him the right to freely license the image. The latter is almost always accomplished using OTRS. In addition, if the image shows a copyrighted work, then the creator of that work must also provide a free lciense for his or her work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
You are now lecturing me on matters which are self-evident. What I simply do not understand is that when an intelligent point of view (sorry to big myself up like this!) is brought to the table, and where it does not seem to be understood, one gets shouted down. It has been readily accepted by at least three others on Commons Discussion pages that there is a flaw in the licensing of Heraldry & COAs; but astonishingly you carry on like a steam roller bullying , accusing & generally making the small guy feel like a fool. One of your cohorts even mentioned the word trolling ! This type of behaviour is guaranteed never to get to the crux of the matter, hence I should like very much indeed to liaise directly with counsel. Thank you very much in advance. Best, L'honorable (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
PS. & just so we are all in the know, it is not these exchanges that bother me - so not to worry about that - it is to do with a fundamental principle of law (this is why I should like to liaise with counsel - ie. I can give them advice).


Not that I'm particularly upset about that photo going away (I was mainly debating the point because of the interesting legal info) but I think the actual issues there would be that a coin, though utilitarian, also serves a separable function as 'art' in an of itself.

Also, the judge in that case (and lawyers, several places where it was written about) seemed to be coming to the conclusion that the embodiment of a work as a 'perishable food item' did not meet the fixation requirement.

I can't really contest the decision to delete it, though.... even after 'making the case' myself, I really can't say I don't have significant doubt, if nothing else than because a conclusion that it was uncopyrightable just seems weird. We probably do need to form a better consensus about 'food selfies' in general, however. - Reventtalk 08:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the close, I didn't read the cited case that way. The important point was that the one party was claiming that a bowl of cereal was a sculpture, and that failed the test of creativity. We know that transient works -- sand, ice, and butter sculptures -- have copyrights, and, with lives in hours or days rather than years, all of them are far more perishable than an Oreo . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
{nods) I think it was a bowl of vegetables, actually, but same point. Really, what I found from reading articles about the 'copyright in food as art' is that due to somewhat recent legal cases (that one, and ones about the 'plating' of gourmet foods) is that there seems to be an understanding in the legal profession that some works, which would be copyrightable in another medium, are not if created as 'food', with a couple of different rationales. Applying that to Oreos, though, was indeed probably a stretch, but seemed worth discussing a bit to 'expose' the consensus. - Reventtalk 22:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Providing link, just in case: File:Halloween Oreos, Fall 2013.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Thanks. I think what we can get from this, if anything, is at least that the 'local' consensus was that the 'weak' legal precedent about 'food as art' not being copyrightable is not considered (by us, PRP and all that) to extend to mass-produced food items with a standard design. Sound fair? - Reventtalk 02:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, for now, a case-by-case basis would do until the amount of such cases is tremendous enough for central discussion. However, are there any contradicting deletion cases about this? --George Ho (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:J. Samuel White portrait.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted long ago ! User:Tfitzp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfitzp (talk • contribs) 10:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on 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 a timestamp will then automatically be added 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.

Yes, almost two years ago. What do you want me to do? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Data talk:Neighbourhoods/New York[edit]

Could you elaborate on your reasons for choosing to close this as keep, please? What RolandUnger said would have been right if the data in question was coordinates of legally defined areas, which NYC neighbourhoods aren't ("community districts" are, but they're different from the neighbourhoods depicted). On the contrary, the coordinates of that dataset are most probably based solely on the author's personal perception of where one neighbourhood ends and another one begins and as such clearly are works involving copyrightable activities. (Pinging Revent with whom I further discussed this on IRC.)    FDMS  4    22:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

My impression would be that the main arguments raised (that it's uncopyrightable) are probably wrong, though we can't know without knowing how the author decided where to put the lines. If it is copyrightable, my concern would be with the verbal grant of license permission to a third party (not that he's likely to be lying, but we typically want evidence of such grants in OTRS). - Reventtalk 22:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Raw data -- a list of coordinates -- is not copyrightable in the USA. If I say, "The best part of Central Park is bounded by East Drive, the 65th Street Traverse, and 5th Avenue", the sentence has a copyright. But if you then say, "Woodward likes Central Park from the East Drive to 5th Avenue and the 65th Street Traverse", or if you draw a map of those borders, you have not infringed. The facts, even if they are opinions, have no copyright. Only the presentation does. Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. is the most relevant case. Note that in other countries, data sets can have a copyright, but for this case US law is the only law that can possibly apply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

These 25-27 Copyvios[edit]

Dear Admin Woodward, These copyvios could be deleted. I don't have VFC unfortunately. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Leoboudv, you don't need to install VFC -- just run it by clicking here:

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by George R Gutlich[edit]

Second file was not deleted. Please take a look. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Eugene. As you surely know sometimes DelReqHandler fails to do all the images. Feel free to simply delete any of mine when that happens. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Mexican copyright[edit]

Hi Jim, since you participated in the recent undeletion discussion about that old image of a tramway network, I thought you might also be interested in Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

De728631, thanks for the heads-up, but I don't read Spanish and, despite the good quality of most Google translations, this sort of research is probably best left to people who do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why I also poked Amitie 10g and Discasto. Let's wait and see how this proceeds. De728631 (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giuliano Nicolini.jpg[edit]

was murdered on 6. April 1945, i do not understand the deletion??--Gedenksteine (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It is polite, when asking about a DR, to link to the file or the DR page, so I don;t have to look it up.

The same applies to this as your file below. Please remember that copyrights can last 150 years. 1945 is recent. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Eugenio Lipschitz[edit]

have You seen this? publihed after 1947??? not believable. do you know, what this card is??--Gedenksteine (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

In order to show that this image is PD, you must prove that either (a) the photographer died before 1947 or (b) that the photographer is unknown and the image was published (in the technical, copyright meaning of the word) before 1947.
It is unlikely that the photographer of a circa 1944 image died before 1947 and he is unknown anyway. It is, as I said in the closing comment, also unlikely that the image was published before 1947. It was certainly published after 1947 -- that is proven by the web page you cite -- but you must prove that it was published before 1947. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Hi Jameslwoodward. Something went wrong. Could you please fix it? --Leyo 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Leyo. I had never seen the {{Milim}} template before, so its special parameter upset the regular template. ✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)