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

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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


Hi, Jim, thank you for finding some time to look at our contributions at NeuroMat. You have raised some relevant questions, and I will answer them specifically below.

  1. We have disputed the deletion of Projeto Pesquisa Midia Ciencia.pdf, and without answer to our complaint this file was deleted. I apologize for not knowing we were not allowed to publish this file again. Yet, this file is of true relevance: it is the actual project that a research funding agency in Brazil has granted us to hire the very first Wikipedian-in-Residence in Brazil. This belongs to the Commons, since it is a relevant document for Wikiversity and anyone who is interested in researching WMF projects and scientific dissemination. What should we do about this?
  2. Let me say that username MGromov is by no means inappropriate, according to the username policy. It is not a promotional username, it is not disruptive, it is not misleading and it is not offensive. It is just a pseudonym, that has no connection to the name of our research institute, that is called NeuroMat. Could you please explain more specifically why you have blocked our group user name, so I can dispute it with proper arguments? So far, I see no valid reason for this block, considering Commons rules.
  3. Thank you for your concern about Template:MAV-FMVZ USP-license, and let me say I need your help. We were able to secure a very interesting partnership with the Museum of Veterinary Anatomy, at the University of São Paulo, that has decided to offer hundreds of images to the Commons. We published the template and the four first pictures with good faith, assuming we were granting appropriate credit (to the museum and the photographer), but I understand there is a specific procedure, that you have called "OTRS license". Could you please direct me to further instructions about what this license is?
  4. I see you have mentioned again this "OTRS license" to justify the deletion of a lot of material we have uploaded. I looked up the page Commons:OTRS and was unable to find the place where the rule that files that are uploaded by collective users are not considered "own work". Could you please help me to get this specific understanding right, so I can see how to deal with this issue?

I appreciate your help, and please let me just reinforce that, though we might have made some mistakes, our activity in the Commons --as in any other WMF project-- has been done with good faith and hoping to contribute the best we can to the projects. Joalpe (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite and speedy request for clarification. My colleagues and I know that there is a great deal to learn here about copyright and, in particular, Commons handling of it, so we try to be helpful to new users who are polite and who ask rather than just blundering ahead. If anything I say below is not clear, please feel free to ask for clarification. Let me also say that the issues you raise are not new -- they have arisen many times with museums and with groups working together, so the answers I give you are, for the most part, well established.
1) The appropriate procedure is to post a Commons:Undeletion request where the issues will be discussed. I will oppose such a request, not on the grounds of scope, but on the grounds that the document has a copyright, which is almost certainly held by all persons who negotiated it, and therefore in order to post it here you will need to obtain licenses from all of the copyright holders.
2) The issue with the username is that usernames are personal -- there can be only one person using a username. The reason is that we deal with people on Commons as individuals. We rely heavily on knowledge of individuals, knowing that if User:X says something it can be trusted, but that User:Y often makes mistakes. Usernames used by more than one person blur that, so they are forbidden. Also, as I explain more fully below, a group can never claim "own work", so anything posted by a group username must have its copyright verified independently which is a nuisance.
You may, if you wish, create user names such as User:MGromov-Joalpe, with the second half of the name identifying the individual who is doing the work for the organization. If you do that, you should declare on both User:Joalpe and on User:MGromov-Joalpe that they are the same person and never use both names to edit or comment on the same page -- keep your personal work (if any) completely separate from work for the organization.
3) As I said in the DR, I looked at the English version of the museum's web site and I found no evidence that it has allowed its works to be licensed CC-BY-SA. Perhaps I missed it, or it appears only on the Portuguese version, in which case you can cite it at the DR and the DR will be closed. If it does not appear on the web site, then an authorized official of the museum must send a free license to OTRS, using the procedure and license form found there. That is the way that we receive and verify licenses from third parties. A volunteer at OTRS will examine the license, make a decision, and take appropriate action. The message and license sent to OTRS can be in Portuguese or English.
4) Copyrights are personal. At the time of creation of a work (taking a photo, creating a painting, etc.) they are usually owned by the creator. The only exception is the case of a work for hire, when the copyright is owned by an employer. MGromov is not your employer, so that cannot be the case here. MGomov is not the author of any works -- individuals are -- and since it is not a legal entity (a corporation or formal partnership) it cannot be the copyright holder for any of the works. If it were a legal entity, then the individuals involved could have transferred their copyrights to it and it could license them, but, as I understand it, that is not the case. Even if that were the case, since all copyright transfers and licenses must be in writing, we would require written evidence of the transfer, again using OTRS.
Again, please feel free to ask questions. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarifications, Jim. I will follow the trend and answer point by point.
1) I understand that differently from the original reason for deletion --that considered the document to be out of scope, which seems to me unjustified-- there is a justified copyright concern. In order to address this concern, I should emphasize our research institute's website is licensed under a CC-BY license, that appears to be recognized as in accordance to the Commons. So, would it be according to the Commons rules if: (a) I uploaded the document on our CC-BY website; (b) I disputed the deletion based on scope in the proper space you have aforementioned; and (c) I mentioned that once I upload the document again I would make sure not to claim authorship and attest that the coypright holder has published it with the appropriate license?
2) I looked up the information that shared user names are prohibited, and you are right. Sorry for not paying attention to this earlier. As we say in Portuguese, "vivendo e aprendendo," or "We learn by living." Yet, because of the concern I address in (4), I would like to see the possibility of redefining the role of the MGromov account --instead of considering everything that was done under this account to be invalid. I hope the solution I suggest in (4) may be considered valid.
3) You are right that there is no mention of the release of images by the MAV (FMVZ USP) on the English version of their website. There is actually no mention on the Portuguese version, either. There is a mention of this work here, in Portuguese. We have just started the process of uploading pictures from their very rich collection, and we are handling the upload of the pictures we have included on the Commons as a pilot project. And I am glad we did, because we now have the opportunity to understand the appropriate procedure before the "grand upload" comes --as I said, we are expecting hundreds of pictures to be included on the Commons as a result of this partnership. I will shecdule a meeting with the director of the museum, so we can work on the OTRS license. Just to make sure we get things right: (a) The museum is the legal owner --though they hired a professional photographer to take pictures of their exhibit, and the photographer is mentioned as the author of the image--, so is it enough if the director of the museum sends the OTRS license?; (b) We are about to upload hundreds of images, is there a way to submit an OTRS license without having to discriminate each of these hundreds files?
4) Instead of blocking Mgromov, would it be OK if this account became an alternative user name for Horadrim? This is a former student of mine, who has been granted a fellowship to become our very first Wikipedian-in-residence. We would of course make the necessary profile change. And from now on, he would make all uploads as Horadrim. This might seem a tortuous process, but I found no evidence that this role-changing would be against the Commons rules and it would be a way to avoid having to upload all images that were already uploaded once again. What do you think?
Again, thank you for your help and for caring for this project. Joalpe (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

1) That won't do it. As I said above, the copyright to a document is held by all of the authors, so the copyright holders must license its use. Commons is careful when looking at material on a CC-BY web site to make sure that the person posting it with a free license actually has the right to post it. If he does not, we call it License laundering|. I think the only solution is for one of the writers to send a license to OTRS. If you tell me when that has been done, I can speed the process. Make certain that he or she refers to the file name Projeto Pesquisa Midia Ciencia.pdf.

2) see (4)

3) First, an extra complication. An image of a created work such as this wonderful cow actually has two copyrights, both of which must be licensed or otherwise free. The photographer has a copyright, and the creator of the cow has a copyright. Fortunately, Brazil is one of six countries with the very broadest of freedom of panorama laws (see COM:FOP which you should read), so if the cow is on permanent exhibit in a public place there is no problem. The museum is certainly a public place as required by the broad Brazilian FOP, so no problem. However, any images of works that are not on permanent display in a public place would probably require a license from the creator.

With that understood, if the museum hired the photographer and was careful to get a work for hire agreement from him or her, then an authorized official of the museum can license works for Commons. This can be done by naming particular files (not what you want), stating that all uploads by User:X of museum images are covered by the license (this requires trusting User:X to never upload an image that the museum does not want to freely license), or by saying that all museum images are covered by the license. The museum should remember that a CC-0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA license is irrevocable and allows commercial use, so that if the museum makes money by selling its image, it may certainly continue to do that after licensing them, but they will be available for free on Commons and someone could take them, make postcards or tee shirts, and sell them on the street outside the museum.

Note that if the museum does, in fact, have a work for hire agreement with the photographer, it is entirely the museum's choice as to whether the author line says "Author=John Doe" or "Author = MAV". If the license is CC-BY or CC-BY-SA they may specify exactly how they want the attribution to read -- the license sent to OTRS should say what they want.

4)Since Horadrim has made no edits on Commons to date, I can delete his account and change the name of the MGromov account to Horadrim. That does not answer the question of who holds the copyrights to the various images uploaded as the "own work" of MGromov unless that is Horadrim in every case. If some were made by others, they must send a license to OTRS.

Minor point -- Capitalization is important in user names -- you mentioned User:Mgromov above -- that is actually a different, inactive account. The one we are discussing is MGromov.

More important point -- I will be going on vacation, with limited or no Internet access, beginning July 3. While many of my colleagues would be happy to deal with this, you have me up to speed, so it would be easier if you keep things moving along so we can hopefully get it all put to bed by then. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Jim, thank you again for your prompt and helpful reply.
(1) Got it! I am one of the authors, so I will submit a license to OTRS today to solve the issue of our research project on wiki-scientific dissemination.
(2) See (4).
(3) I have just checked with the Museum, and the legal owner of the images is the museum. The photographer was hired under a temporary contract called in Portuguese "Contrato de prestação de serviços, em caráter eventual, sem vínculo empregatício, para criação determinada de imagens," which according to the Brazilian law guarantees that the legal owner of the images is the entity that has hired the service. As a model to submit to OTRS, would this be OK?:

I hereby affirm that I, Maurício Cândido da Silva, head of the University of São Paulo Museum of Veterinary Anatomy (MAV FMVZ USP), represent the University of São Paulo Museum of Veterinary Anatomy, who is the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of all museum images.

I agree to publish all museum images under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International, according to the following template: .

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

(4) Horadrim is the copyright holder of all pictures we have uploaded. I agree with your suggestion to change the name of the MGromov account to Horadrim. What should we do to make this happen?
Thanks a lot! And thanks for directing me to the document on Freedom of panorama; this is fascinating! Joalpe (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The form of license you give above is good. Make sure the Director sends the message from an address that obviously belongs to the museum. If you tell me here after he has done it, I will deal with it.
As for the name change. I have made a request at You should watch that page, because the Steward who does the change will probably have questions for you or Horadrim. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion on FoP[edit]

Hi Jim. Can you take a look at the images in Category:Naghsh-e-Jahan Stadium? This is a 2003 stadium in Iran, but looks utilitarian to me, with no architectural elements that could be considered above COM:TOO. I just wanted to get your opinion on whether these are OK regarding Iran FoP? INeverCry 18:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that line of reasoning won't work. Article 2, #7 of the Iranian copyright law specifically calls out "Architectural works, designs, sketches and buildings". I am not familiar with the case law in Iran, but in the United States similar wording means that all buildings, even the simplest, are covered by copyright. A building, even a very simple one, is a very complex thing and requires thousands of creative decisions. This one has a complex and innovative roof structure, so even if the ToO could be applied to some architecture (which it cannot), this stadium would certainly be far above it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I had my doubts on these. There's a few more in the parent cat that may require DRs as well. Here's the DR for these: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Naghsh-e-Jahan Stadium. I left out two that showed a man and seats and grass and seats. INeverCry 20:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I've put together a couple more mass DRs for new stadiums in Iran: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Imam Reza Stadium, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ghods City Martyrs Stadium. INeverCry 20:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)