User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive6

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page archive.

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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


Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive covers the second half of 2012


Contents

Thanks

Thanks for renaming my user page to correct namespace. Idk how I created it with Ukrainian namespace prefix... --BaseSat (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nuvola copyrighted?!?

I don’t get Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nuvola filesystems www.png at all. First of all, the request is a complete gibberish to me. Then, your explanation “Source site has explicit (c). There is no reason to believe that we have permission for this.” is quite surprising. Maybe we should delete everything from Category:Nuvola icons, then? IIANM, the Nuvola package by David Vignoni is an open-source package released under a free license (LGPL). See http://www.icon-king.com/projects/nuvola/. What reasons did you have for this hasty removal of such a massively used file? --Mormegil (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

First, please calm down a little. Commons Users upload about 8,000 files every day, Admins delete about 1,200 files per day and our backlog is growing, perhaps even out of control. Therefore we work fairly fast and don't spend a lot of time on research. Our rules call for a DR to be open for seven days, which this was, so there was nothing "hasty" about the removal.
The file lists its source as http://www.icon-king.com/. That page has nothing on it about license except an explicit (c). There is no link to a page with licensing information of any kind. When the source site has an explicit copyright notice and no license information, it looks like a copyvio.
It is unreasonable of you to expect busy Admins to read your mind or search a website for licensing information beyond what is shown on the file and the DR.
Now, as you have pointed out, the file is licensed under the GNU LGPL. While that license is, apparently, permitted for use on Commons, it is not, in my view, actually usable. In particular, since it is designed for use with software, not images, it requires that a copy of the LGPL license be provided with every use of the licensed material (section 4b). It also requires that where you use the licensed material with other works, that you provide a copy of the licensed material separately (5b). I can't imagine anyone printing a 1,200 word license next to the use of an image.
Therefore, I am not going to undelete this myself. I suggest that you file a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. I will oppose undeletion on the grounds that the LGPL is, as a practical matter, unusable for images and therefore does not conform to our requirements. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
You made a mistake, which is understandable given the amount of the work you do, no problem. I undeleted the file and amended the template so that, hopefully, such error would not happen in the future. Your concerns about LGPL might be understandable, but since LGPL has always been an acceptable license on Commons, and is explicitly listed at COM:L#Well-known licenses, you’d need to raise the issue at Commons talk:Licensing or other proper venue, should you want to make a change to our policy (note that I would be against it, LGPL is a perfectly valid free culture license). --Mormegil (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough -- we could quibble all day over whether I made a mistake or not.
As for this file -- I am tempted to simply put a new DR on it on the grounds that it violates its license because there is not a complete copy of the LGPL license agreement on the page with the file (as required by section 1). As you say, though, this is not the place to discuss this.
I suggest you read the license in its entirety. It is intended for software libraries and only software libraries. Derivative works are permitted only if they are software libraries (section 2a). It really surprises me that we permit it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Photo of Reynold Philipsek performing at Hell's Kitchen in Minneapolis, MN.jpg

Hi, Jim. My apologies for not being aware of the discussion around Reynold's photo until now. I am with you that the wording of the photographers release is ambiguous, though he did mean a full release for all. I am working to get an updated statement from the photographer that will remove any ambiguity, and I will repost the photo and link to the new CC BY release from photographer. Thank you! Rene Reneeri6 and Reneeri6Media — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reneeri6media (talk • contribs) 17:50, 2 July 2012‎ (UTC)

That's fine, thank you for your efforts. I suggest you ask him to use the form and instructions at Commons:OTRS as that is the easiest way to describe our needs. If you give me a note here when he has sent the message, I will check OTRS and restore the image. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

<-- DISREGARD THIS NOTE---Hi, Jim. You should see an email from Thomas Tremel to permissions [at] commonswikimedia [dot] org. He went through the OTRS. Thanks for the help, and all the work you put in for Wiki. Fantastic resource! If you need anything else to make the existing photo live, let me know, or I can reload. Thanks much. Rene - DISREGARD --!>

Thomas is having trouble getting the note to permission [at] to go through -- keeps getting kicked back. I'll let you know when it goes through. Thanks, Jim

OK -- we got it cleared up. You should see an email from Thomas Tremel to permissions-commons [at} wikimedia [dot] org. He went through the OTRS. Thanks for the help. If you need anything else to make the existing photo live, let me know, or I can reload. Thanks much. Rene --Reneeri6media (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks again for your effort in getting this licensed. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Have a great week. --Reneeri6media (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Jim. How are you ? I have a question on this DR. User:Yerevanci claims that he should be the same person as User:Hovik95. If so (if he/she tells the truth), he/she have to be blocked with an expiry time of indefinite and images that were uploaded by User:Yerevanci have to be deleted because of User:Hovik95 had been blocked with with an expiry time of indefinite (22:28, 17 July 2011 Martin H. (talk | contribs) blocked Hovik95 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Copyright violations only.)). On the other hand, he/she is not User:Hovik95, File:Armenians in historical Armenian homeland HY .png have to be deleted because of copyright violation. What do you think of this interesting case ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't look at the IP addresses of Hovik95 because his/her edits are more than three months ago. However, I note that Yerevanci's first edits were about a month after Hovik95 was blocked, so there is a certain logic -- not proof, of course -- but a possibility that they are the same person.
Even if we knew for certain that they are the same person, I don't think we have to block Yerevanci and delete uploads. People can change, so each image should be considered on its own merits -- of course, if a lot of them are copyvios, it casts suspicion on all of them.
As for this image, the real question is where the base map came from. The data can't be copyrighted, so if the base map is OK, then I'd be inclined to keep it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

check File:Caleb.jpg

Should this image have been deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caleb.jpg? Chesdovi (talk)

✓ Done Thank you for pointing it out. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the picture of my father in law

Hi James/Jim,

I became a wikipedia-member to make a page about my father in law. I didn't check it for a while and now I found out that you deleted the picture of him from the newspaper (Algemeen Dagblad) from the 2th of april 1993.

I don't know why and I would appreciate if you would let me know what I have to do to get it back on this page: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Hoogendoorn

Would you be so kind to let me know on my emailaddress: r.g.c.segers@me.com ?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgcsegers (talk • contribs) 17:12, 23 July 2012‎ (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Piet Hoogendoorn - AD - 020493.jpg which points out, as you also do above, that this is an image from a newspaper, and therefore has a copyright. We will need a license from the newspaper using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. This is true even if you were the photographer, as you claimed when uploading it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

CU

Hi Jim. It's already archived, but perhaps you could take a look at this and the associated DRs? Thanks! Kind regards, Trijnsteltalk 12:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Both Orionandhsu and Orionwebmuseum are blocked -- their last edits on Commons were in September 2010, so there is nothing for a CU to compare to. All of the images in the DRs have been deleted and the DRs are closed. For what it's worth, I agree with the closures. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Mislabeled poison ivy

Dear Jameslwoodward: Regarding your closure of the deletion request of the misidentified poison ivy image: File:Young Poison Ivy,.jpg. If “a bad name is not a reason to delete a very nice image” then the file name needs to be renamed from “Young Poison Ivy,.jpg” to “unidentified plant.jpg”. Otherwise, the battle will be fought again and again on the use of the picture on Wikipedia, where technical accuracy matters. Will you do that? [[1]] Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not an Admin's job to change names in cases like this. Plainly you know far more about plants than I do, why don't you do it - I know you are new here and, therefore, cannot do a rename yourself, but you can use {{rename}}? And please suggest a better name than the one above. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:France FOP cases/deleted

When you close a France FoP-related DR, please include it in Category:France FOP cases/deleted.

Thank you to help to better tag FoP DRs. --Dereckson (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry. While you are certainly free to add the category, it is not part of an Admin's job to do so. We have an increasing backlog and not enough active Admins -- we simply cannot afford to add extra work. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
thanks, you description help'd work out where my page went, the other guy should not be allow'd to admin till he explains to english people in english TheWraith517 (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Give him a break -- we see more than 100 new pages every day that are out of scope or otherwise not acceptable for Commons -- sometimes it is hard to guess what the editor was trying to do. On Commons, when someone does something you don't like or don't understand, it is always best to go to his talk page and ask for help. Simply doing the same thing over or reverting his edits is a violation of policy. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Recipients of the Order of St. Andrew the Apostle the First-Called (ongoing stamp series)

Dear Jim,

I want to contest your decision to delete the page Recipients of the Order of St. Andrew the Apostle the First-Called (ongoing stamp series)

The page was not an article, it was a gallery of images with explanatory text.

Commons:Project scope says:

“Allowable content includes:

  • Educationally useful (this was - D.I.), classified (this was) collections of images (these were images) or other files, along with small (small? how many characters? bytes?) amounts of explanatory text (there was the explanatory text).”

I suppose (I can be mistaken, though, you delete the page because “it had too many letters”, because the explanatory text was not small. But, again, whan “small” means? Is there a norm? Yes, the explanatory was rather extensive. But it was not too extensive, just enough to understand who depicted on a stamp and to make a decision to use an image in a Wikimedia-project or somewhere else.

I created this page because I hate file description providing no information: have you ever seen views of a city with a “description”: “Street”. I have. It can be useful photo, but since it has not a description you can found it only by accident, especially if it was badly categorised (and as a rule, it is badly categorised).

And I create the page because I hate galleries like this:

What do you think, would this gallery be useful for a user writing an article in a Wikipedia? I am sure, it will not.

But such ugly galleries, giving no information, fragmentary, made “slam bang - and it's done”, forgotten by their creators, they exist, this shame of Commons exists! And at the same time you have deleted a potentially useful gallery that in prospect can help a user. I am sorry, but this looks like doctrinalism: wow, a whole paragraph of text - must be deleted. And here? “Qwerty”. What it means?.. Hm... But the text is small, so, let it live.

Commons is not an encyclopedia, but it is the auxiliary tool of the encyclopedia and it have to provide some encyclopedic information, it have to help to create new articles in national wikipedias, and I think my page did not contradict these aims of Commons.

If we had not galleries with detailed information about images before why we cannot try to create such galleries now? What a dogma puts obstacles in our way? May be it would be a new good tradition of Commons, why not?

“If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.” I suppose, these can be applied not only to Wikipedia, but also to Commons.

I ask you to undelete the page Recipients of the Order of St. Andrew the Apostle the First-Called (ongoing stamp series) or do not impede its re-creation.

Have a nice day, dear Jim.

Yours respectful, Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

First, let me say that your images of the stamps are beautiful. Thank you for bringing them to Commons.
Most Commons galleries have a sentence or two of text. A few have captions on each image. The border between a Commons gallery and a WP article is certainly a gray area, but your proposed gallery was, in my opinion, a long way over it. I see that you have almost 2,000 edits on Commons -- surely you must know that your proposed gallery had much more text than any other gallery. If you want to change established policy, you must do it by discussion before the fact, not after.
I suggest that you create the article within WP:EN -- it would be perfectly fine there and that is where it belongs. I would create it there myself, but you deserve the credit for the new article. You (or I) might even nominate it for the main page feature Did You Know? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). One of the images would be eye-catching there.
If you chose not to create it on WP:EN, you may of course, post a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. I will probably oppose such a request. Do not simply recreate the page -- that would be a serious violation of policy.
If you don't have a copy of it, I would be happy to put a copy on a user subpage for you..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Jim,
Of course, I know the gallery was untypical for Commons and, and, yes... may be I had to discuss the gallery before the publication.
As of the publication of the gallery in English WP... In the terms of WP the gallery like mine is a list, and the lists have right to life in Wikipedia. But I think the list of an ongoing series of contemporary stamps does not satisfy the requirements of WP: neither the ongoing stamp series Recipients of the Order of St. Andrew nor the separate stamps have enough notability; only sources you can find for these modern stamps are the catalogues and short news publications, like “Russian Post issued ... etc.” and these sources hardly can be considered as reliable. So, I doubt the gallery Recipients... is for Wikipedia. May be I am mistaken, I am not well aware about rules and traditions of English WP, but, again, most probably, the list (gallery) of stamps is not for Wikipedia.
Will I dispute the deletion of my page or propose a new format of galleries? M-m-m, may be yes, may be, not, probably – not.
But I want to create the deleted page again - as a traditional gallery. At the top will be a brief: “Recipients... is an ongoing series issued by …” etc., 2-3, max. 4 sentences and then reproductions of stamps with short comments under pictures, something like this:
I hope, the recreation of the page in the traditional format will not be considered as the violation of the policy.
Yours respectful, Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Thank you for the warm words about my contribution to Commons.
Recreation is not only OK, I started it for you -- you might want to add a brief caption to each image. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Jim. I, in my turn, added the captions to the images. Best wishes, Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Explanation needed

Why did you delete File:Samsung Galaxy S III unveiling, No.1 .jpg even as the person who called for its deletion later agreed that the photo was not taken by Samsung Electronics? Sp33dyphil 04:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my closing comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Samsung Galaxy S III unveiling, No.1 .jpg, the problem is not the image itself, but the fact that it infringes on the copyright of the three images on the screen. When you take a photograph of any creative work (a building, painting, sculpture, photograph, text, etc.) that was created by another person, your photograph is a derivative work and in order to license it freely, you must first have a license from the creator of the original work.
There are several exceptions to the very general rule I stated above (de minimis, FOP), but they do not apply in this case. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The "discussions" here are bogus. You're going to delete what you want to, regardless of any other input. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
You've certainly been around long enough to know that this image infringed on several copyrights -- there was not much room for discussion, as it was a very plain derivative work. It was perfectly clear that Sp33dyphil did not understand the issue -- not that the subject image was itself a problem, but that the three images on the screen have a copyright and the subject image infringed on those copyrights.
As for my being able to do anything I please -- Commons has around 25,000 active users who watch over everything, because everything here is public. I have made well over 100,000 edits and Admin actions and my actions have been reversed very few times -- less than 100 -- so while I certainly make mistakes, I don't make very many of them. If you really think I was wrong on this decision, you, or Sp33dyphil can certainly file an Undeletion request. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you've not convinced me that a plain block letter sign is an "art work" or anything else copyrightable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you are talking about a different image? I agree that a "plain block letter sign" could easily be ineligible for copyright, but that's not this image. File:Samsung Galaxy S III unveiling, No.1 .jpg shows a large hall or arena, mostly dark, with a huge video screen at the front of a large audience. The video screen has an image of a woman on either side and an oblique image of the product filling the whole center of the screen. The screen fills around half the height of the image and is the only thing really discernible -- the audience is just dark blobs -- so that de minimis not a possible argument. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm talking about the Urquhart Castle sign that you clobbered a few days ago for no valid reason. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Aha. It would have saved some time if you had mentioned that earlier -- this section started as a discussion of a very different issue. I assume you mean Commons:Deletion requests/File:Urquhart Castle Entrance Passage sign.jpg. As I said in my closing comment,

"We tend to forget that text was the first subject of copyright when the concept was introduced hundreds of years ago. This text is certainly long enough and original enough to have its own copyright."

Your question,

"How can a plain sign consisting solely of plain text words possibly qualify as an "art work"?"

misses the point. It doesn't qualify as an "art work", but it clearly has enough text to qualify for copyright as a "literary work". Please remember that "literary work" is very broadly construed in copyright law -- computer programs are copyrighted as literary works. Although Wknight94 would put a {{PD-text}} tag on it, he's the uploader and has a natural bias in its favor. I don't know of any jurisdiction in which a 72 word descriptive text would not qualify for copyright -- we usually think of the boundary at 10-15 words. I'd be interested to hear of any case law to the contrary.

As you know, ff you think my decision was wrong, you can always post a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Violet Alva.jpg

Jim, I had also nominated File:Joachim Alva.jpg as part of the same DR. Can you take care of that too? Also, there are a couple more DRs from the same series here and here. These were all done before a mass DR that resulted in deletion of all other such images. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for missing File:Joachim Alva.jpg.
I had looked at both Commons:Deletion requests/File:George Fernandes.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ananta Pai.jpg and passed them by -- I was not sure (and am not sure) that they are DWs of the images shown. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks. The uploader's response was at AN here and at the mass DR here. The mass DR included images that I hadn't been able to find sources for though. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
And unrelated to the above, but do images such as those under Category:Bikini car wash at Twin Peaks, Round Rock fall within our scope? I can't seem to find the value of such images in an encyclopaedia, but in addition to this category there's far more from the same editor. And I'm also concerned about personality rights with some of the photos, especially since when friends upload drunk images of friends on Flickr, Flickr automatically puts them under CC-BY licenses unless the uploader sets a different default. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I agree -- one or two car wash images might be good to have -- they do illustrate a common way of raising money for various school projects, sports teams, and the like -- but we don't need 92 of them.
There are two parts to personality rights -- privacy and commercial use. These would require permission from the subject even to be here if they were German, but that's not a problem in the USA as they are clearly taken in a public place. They cannot be used for advertising without permission of the subject, but that is true of any image of an identifiable person anywhere. Even that might be OK in some countries if the identifiable persons were in a large crowd at a public place.
Drunk images of friends falls in a special case -- even in the USA, even in public, you probably need permission from the subject if he or she looks ridiculous. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
File:A girl in party.jpg is one that I've nominated for deletion already, and File:A girl taking a sip (2).jpg I haven't nominated yet, but I will do so. However, what about images like File:A girl walking in Times Square 7th Ave.jpg. Clearly, a person walking in NYC has the right to not have her butt image plastered all over the internet? At least not in encyclopaedias? And File:A girl lying in bed with mobile (1).jpg appears to be a photoshare with friends by a private person, so even if we aren't asked, shouldn't we respect their privacy? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The first, second, and fourth are taken in private places, so we need evidence that the subject has consented to their inclusion here. I don't think there are any privacy issues with the third one -- the subject and a few people very close to her might recognize the clothes and shoes, but she is not identifiable. I would vote for deletion on the grounds that it is out of scope, though. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll nominate the more straight-forward ones soon and handle the "only out of scope" issues later. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Billboards at Leeds Bradford International Airport (24th July 2010) 001.jpg

Hi, you recently deleted File:Billboards at Leeds Bradford International Airport (24th July 2010) 001.jpg. I believed this to be very much a case of de minimus and cannot see any justification for your deletion. Such deletions are frankly a slap in the face for contributors who give up time and resources to help build this database. I am going to re-upload the file in question and would appreciate it if any further reviews were conducted only by other parties. Regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You are a very experienced Commons editor -- you surely know that if you upload the file again, you will be flatly in violation of our rules and will be subject to sanction. The proper procedure is to file a request at Commons:Undeletion requests and see if you can convince the community that Mattbuck and I were wrong.
As for the de minimis claim, an image that has nothing in it of interest but four copyrighted billboards and that is titled accordingly cannot be kept on the grounds that the billboards are de minimis -- they are the only reason the image is of interest. Your argument that they take only a small amount of the image space is irrelevant -- they are the only subjects of the image. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I cannot request its unblocking without first uploading the said image, else it cannot be judged. I find such deletions an act of malice on the part of the administrators who seem to think they have a monopoly on judging falls within the rules and their unconstructive efforts undermine a lot of diligent hard work. Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
To the contrary, it is perfectly possible (and required) that you request undeletion while the image remains as it is.
As far as your rant against Admins goes, I need only point out that we have approximately 25,000 editors who do more than five edits per month. We have only about 250 Admins -- 1% of the number of editors -- of whom only about a quarter are active and of whom 5 make half of all Admin actions. If any Admin did not follow Commons policy and consensus he or she would be promptly voted out of office -- something that happens several times each year.
I also point out that fewer than 1/10 of 1% of our approximately 1,200 daily deletions draw an Undeletion Request. The whole community, 25,000 strong, has the opportunity to comment on them, but fewer than half or the Requests succeed. Thus Admins are judged to have acted incorrectly on the order of half a dozen times out of each thousand and most of those are simple errors, not controversies.
Finally, I have no reason to have any malice toward you and cannot imagine why you would accuse me of it -- as far as I can remember we have never interacted before. I am somewhat frustrated by spending so much time on an image that has nothing in it except four copyrighted billboards and which is titled accordingly, but malice? No way. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Spider-Man panel. Commons:Deletion requests/File:AmazingSpider-Manpanel.jpg

You completely ignored consensus to support you're opinion. With you're logic there should have never been IFD. Just because you are a deleting administrator doesn't mean you have the freedom do that. I can even think of another administrator that said it was ok to bring the pointed source on Commons that didn't weigh in. You can put in all the guidelines you want to but still know that consensus is a important part of it. That wasn't fair at all. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement on Commons that the closing Admin follow the consensus when he or she believes it to be wrong. DR discussions are not votes -- they are discussions to raise relevant issues so that the closing Admin can do his or her job correctly and ensure that all points of view are heard.
"The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' precautionary principle." [emphasis added]
In this case, TriiipleThreat raised the relevant issue
"The question then becomes if that closed-circuit feed is copy-protected"
and then came to the wrong conclusion -- "(I doubt it)". In fact, as I said in my closing comment, closed circuit feeds are protected if and only of they recorded ("fixed" is the technical copyright term). Since we don't know that in this case, the precautionary principle requires deletion because the images infringed on the probable copyright of the screen images.
If you still think my decision was incorrect, you may file a request for reconsideration at Commons:Undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
No harm done really. I will get over it. But I feel that this logic is more from a deletionist more than from a inclusionist which I am neither. If what you say is true though you might need to inspect TriiipleThreat's images as well. Jhenderson777 (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
In this case, as I said, the issue hinges on whether the feed was recorded. If we knew that it was, then it would be an obvious copyvio, much the same as photographing any television image. Since we don't know for sure, the Precautionary Principle requires deletion. I suppose you could argue that the Precautionary Principle is, itself, deletionist, but since Commons consensus is that we want to be a safe source of free images, we do require proof that the image is free, rather than the other way around.
As for me, I try very hard to be neutral -- generally, unless I feel quite sure of a DR, I will comment on it but not close it. The community seems to think I am usually right -- I have deleted over 44,000 pages and have been reversed on appeal fewer than 100 times.
Anyway, welcome to Commons. I see that you have been a very active contributor on WP:EN. You'll find that Commons is a much smaller and much more cosmopolitan community -- we have active contributors all over the world.
You might want to read the page on Derivative Works very carefully. I think that File:Spider-manhardrock.jpg is a very close call -- I wouldn't be surprised if someone hangs a {{delete}} on it. On the other hand, I really like File:Wavesoversunset.jpg and since God puts all His work into the Public Domain, it is a DW, but it doesn't infringe. You got the shutter speed just right to show the waves a little frothy. How did you happen to be on the shores of the Malacca Strait? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
(drive-by comment) That is a really nice picture. Smile --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Some images like this flower are of my own but as you can see the waves one is got the Flickr license. Or at least it had it. I am going to get in touch with the author because it looks like the licensing has changed. So I am not the picture taker. Besides the wave ones and the ones you deleted of course a lot of them I asked permission from the author to make it in here into a free license so it would fit in Commons Quite a few enjoyed the idea. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Unfortunately that image doesn't have the creative commons when it was obvious (because of the bot) that it originally did. I want time to see if the author will reply back on Flickr. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

? There's no problem there -- the FlickreviewR Bot confirmed that it was licensed CC-BY when uploaded, so the fact that it is now All Rights Reserved is not a problem -- CC-BY licenses may not be revoked retroactively. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh good. I didn't know that. That's a relief. :) Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

OTRS : Jean Linard

Thank you for your work, but now, can you recreate the gallery Jean Linard you have deleted? Thanks. Thomas Linard (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

BTW thank you for the welcome. I want to like Commons but that it has so many rules that make it hard to ever contribute to bringing a new image. I wish I had the ability to take my own pictures with my cameras more often. But I haven't had any of those moments yet. Even then without doing that it's hard to put any other good images on here. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Even still it's great to be a nice, civil and welcomed community. :) Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It can be hard to begin -- we deal with the copyright rules of many countries -- perhaps thirty that are really significant and all the rest occasionally. The rules vary widely from place to place, in length of copyright (10 years to 120), in point of commencement (publication or creation), in how original something must be to have a copyright (from almost everything has a copyright to higher requirements), and in when you can photograph a copyrighted work and have it be OK (from never in 43 countries to anything permanently in a public place, with a very broad definition of "public place" in 3). Pre 1989 USA works have there own special set of rules.
My best advice is to either ask first -- I'm always happy to help and others will also -- or to upload just one image and see what happens. You can even hang a {{delete}} on your own upload to get a solid community opinion. You can also ask at Commons:Village pump.
If you want to make yourself a local hero with your camera, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Alabama#Coffee_County. One of the blanks is in your home town. NRHP sites are almost always safe from a copyright point of view because they're all relatively old and most are architecture, which is OK in the USA. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Kapara relief Gilgamesh winged sun.jpg

You recently deleted this image -- that's alright, I suppose, as proper procedure was followed, even if I disagree with the outcome. But could you do me the favour of restoring the text from the deleted image page to my user space? I spent some time researching this artefact, and I would hate to have to do this again if I discover a free image of the artefact. Just the "description" portion from the deleted page, please. Thank you. --Dbachmann (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done see User:Dbachmann/text .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 08:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Radisson Blu

80px Hi Jim, where is here copyright, You said? --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Парень, я не понял, а ты зачем удалил эту фотографию. Где ты увидел Copyright? Where?--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Junge, verstehst Du wenigstens Deutsch? Wo ist hier Copyright, in welcher Ecke? Ich sehe es gar nicht. --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The architecture of the building is copyrighted and therefore any image of the building infringes the copyright which is owned by the architect. Although some countries, including the USA, would allow such images, Estonia does not. Therefore, unless you can get permission from the architect using the procedure at Commons:OTRS, the images of the hotel cannot be kept on Commons.
For more information see Commons:FOP. If, after reading that, you still think my action was incorrect, you may post a request at Commons:Undeletion requests.

Where you see the architecture of the building, I don't see the building here, I see only cars at the door or glass windows and steel as construction material, I request Undeletion and quickly, dali, dali, junger Mann, поторопись, --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC) --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly like arguing that you can photograph part of a copyrighted painting or sculpture but not the whole thing. The fact is that under the law, all parts of a building fall under "architecture" and are covered by copyright. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


  • User Jameslwoodward has deleted my Image "Taxi at Radisson Blu 25 July 2012.JPG" from today without discussion, --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. It was identical in all essential respects to File:Taxi at Radisson Blu 25 July 2012.JPG which was deleted following its DR. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Template

{{help me}} Please don't remove this template, junger Mann, the image was not identical, the first image was from the year 2011, and this photo is from July 2012. Auf dem ersten Bild war nur ein Taxi (one car), hier sehen wir schon zwei (two cars), aber ich würde gerne hören, wo hast du da the Building (where did have You seen the architecturial building, junger Mann) gefunden? The Building ist hier: 80px. Wie würdest du es mir erklären, Junge? This image must be deleted if you speak about architecture in Estonia. What are You waiting for ... Christmas? I have written it was a non-commercial use, for all people worldwide, this is the last image of this hotel, fass, remove det, --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC) --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have twice removed the {{helpme}} because it is used to say that I need help. You may put it on your own talk page, but not mine.
Please understand that Commons requires that all images be free for commercial use, so the Estonian FOP provisions do not help us, as they allow only non-commercial use. It is too bad that people and countries that specify "non-commercial only" do not understand that that forbids use on almost all webs sites and almost printed materials -- "commercial use" includes any book or magazine that is sold (including textbooks) and any website run by a for profit company, any website that has advertising on it, and any website run by a not for profit organization if it solicits money or sells things to raise money. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I have understood You (the problem of capitalist system is money). I think You must delete these images, too, that the people in Estonia can make money using my images.

--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

To be deleted

Please delete: 40px 40px The Church of Our Lady of Kazan Tallinn 16 07 2009.jpg 40px 40px 40px 40px , thanks PjotrMahh1 (signature don't work) --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC) --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

About a deletion request

I started a thread here about a deletion request which you closed. You might wish to comment. I decided to take the matter to COM:VPC instead of trying to settle it here because the situation seems to be a bit complicated. It is better to try to get an opinion from different people too. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said there, you may well be correct. Certainly this is not the place for the discussion, but I wish we had a better place than COM:VPC which is, after all, the meeting place of only one of our many languages, albeit the largest. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Not your fault, of course; your closure was just based on the current wording of the {{PD-1996}} template. The first thing we need to do is to make sure that the wording of that template matches United States copyright law, but that's for COM:VPC. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:AcampadaEnSol-16-5-11-IMG 1105.jpg

Hi. Can you please restore that photo? It is about 15-M demonstrations in Spain. Very notable. emijrp (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

All I see is a hand with an e-mail address -- but I know nothing about the demonstrations other than what I read in The Economist. I suggest you post a request at Commons:Undeletion requests -- I will not oppose it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read this

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/File:Avineri71.jpg --79.179.223.186 10:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Commented there. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

About deletion of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Painting_under_V%C3%A9lodrome_Stadium.JPG

The french law says (art Article L122-5 du Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle) : "Lorsque l'oeuvre a été divulguée, l'auteur ne peut interdire : 3° Sous réserve que soient indiqués clairement le nom de l'auteur et la source : a) Les analyses et courtes citations justifiées par le caractère critique, polémique, pédagogique, scientifique ou d'information de l'oeuvre à laquelle elles sont incorporées" We're not talking about doing business with this photograph. It's only here with a purpose of information. The only thing to do was maybe to put a legend "painting made by the South Winners under the Velodrom Stadium". Nothing more. You can aswer to me in my page. Rgds Matieu Castel (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say we are talking about doing business with this photograph -- Commons requires that all its images are free for commercial use.
It is too bad that people and countries that specify "non-commercial only" do not understand that that forbids use on almost all webs sites and almost printed materials -- "commercial use" includes any book or magazine that is sold (including textbooks) and any website run by a for profit company, any website that has advertising on it, and any website run by a not for profit organization if it solicits money or sells things to raise money. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. I don't know if you read french but http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006069414&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006278917

This is the entire law. I'm pretty sure that the use of this photograph is totally legal and fit perfectly with the terms of the law ( for example : La diffusion, même intégrale, par la voie de presse ou de télédiffusion, à titre d'information d'actualité, des discours destinés au public prononcés dans les assemblées politiques, administratives, judiciaires ou académiques, ainsi que dans les réunions publiques d'ordre politique et les cérémonies officielles ). Matieu Castel (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I can struggle through French -- and what you cite does not help. Commons requires that works be free for all uses, commercial and non-commercial. Pédagogique, scientifique ou d'information is not broad enough to meet our requirements.
If you will forgive me for saying it so bluntly -- you have 24 edits on Commons, while I have over 100,000 edits and Administrative actions. If this painting were in Madagascar, I might not be sure, but we deal with French law every day and I can say with complete assurance that we cannot keep it here without permission from the artist(s). .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
OK I quit. I don't want to argue on this point. I'm working in French administration in the legacy control but you may be right, althought I'm quite sure of the contrary. Wonderful demonstration of submission to the market rules anyway. WK is indeed a briliant "product" of the Anglosphere, the culture where everything is copyrighted, even a street painting on a distroyed wall in southern France that nobody will come to claims his rigth of property. Too bad that the paleolithic painters of Lascaux didn't knew that wonderful culture. They'll be the richest men on earth if they had Matieu Castel (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure why you blame the Anglosphere for this -- it is the French law and its lack of FOP that precludes our keeping this copyrighted painting on Commons. If the painting were in Germany, Spain, or Portugal, it would not be a problem. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Particle viitable.jpg

Hello! I beg completely close this nomination. Thanks! --Art-top (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done, sorry. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aziz_Aliyev.jpg

Unfair. The 50-year copyright applies only to post-Soviet Azerbaijan where the copyright law was first passed in 1996 (see the corresponding law). It does not apply to works created in Azerbaijan SSR, where a work became copyright-free 10 years after its publication. Parishan (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The current Azerbaijan law does not speak directly to the question of whether it applies to works made before passage of the act. The USA rules on construction would have it apply to all works from all times. See also Commons:Licensing#Azerbaijan which does not make the distinction that you raise.
However, that is not the most important thing here. Since we do not know when the image was first published, we do not know when the ten year period began. So, even if your interpretation of the law is correct, we cannot keep the image. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Almada

Dear Jim: I uploaded 4 images of old magazines (1915 and 1917) and a book cover, but once again I don't know how to deal with the copyright issue (and I don't know how to categorize the book cover). I need these images for the portuguese Almada Negreiros page on pt wikipedia. Can you help? Thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Manuel -- I'm happy to see that you are finding Commons a good place to contribute.
I put {{PD-Text}} on three files:
I think that will be OK.

has both an image and enough text to have a literary copyright, so it is more of a problem. You will need to prove either that the author died before 1942 or that the original work (both text and image) was anonymous -- and please note carefully that "anonymous" is not the same thing as "unknown to Commons" -- it has to have been intentionally anonymous, not merely lost information. You mentioned four magazines and a book -- I found only the four images, so I missed one. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. File:1 Conferência Futurista, Portugal Futurista, 1917.jpg will have to be deleted because the author died in 1970. A million thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done It's a pleasure to be helpful to colleagues who understand the rules and easily accept that one of their uploads must be deleted. It is not always so easy (see several discussions above). .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MaHue

Hi Jameslwoodward, I guess that you deleted these files because there are at times surviving leftovers of closed DRs. This was, however, not the case. We had meanwhile an OTRS permission for the whole set and the photographs were all restored by Neozoon and correctly tagged with reference to the OTRS ticket. I've now restored the set and added a notice to the DR. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the extra work. It was as you said. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Missed one

[2] It appears that the deletion request was for two images and only the one in the title was deleted. FYI. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Thanks, that's an old one. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Photographer Barnstar.png The Photographer's Barnstar
why did you delete my Alexandra Underwood page i worked really hard on it just tell me what i did wrong and how to fix it Toxic Envy (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
As my edit comment said, Commons galleries are for collections of images, see the official guideline at Commons:Galleries. Your page was a biography, which does not belong at all on Commons. It might belong on the English Wikipedia. The two images which you uploaded were obviously taken from the web and were copyright violations. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Radisson BLU in Tallinn 6 June 2012.JPG

Hello! This file was tagged as {{move to et.wiki}}. Why wasn't it tagged for a bot move using {{fair use delete}} before deleting? 88.196.241.249 07:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Admins delete approximately 1,200 files a day -- half a dozen of us do half of those and the backlog is growing. It is not part of our job to move files or retag them -- that should have been done before the seven days were up on the DR. In this case, the uploader, User:PjotrMahh1, asked for rapid deletion. He is active on Commons and can certainly upload the file to WP:ET if it is permitted there. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, apparently Dcoetzee has set up his bot in a way that it functions only if an admin uses {{fair use delete}} tag. (Others can only propose fair use uploads for admins to review.) I'm not saying that you have to be the reviewer, but some admin could to this, especially if the fair use upload was requested. Indeed PjotrMahh1 is an active user, but generally this isn't the case, isn't it? (Pjotr counted on bot here.) Your work on reducing the backlogs in much appreciated. And yet, you could you please just undelete, retag and then let Dcoetzee's bot to tag this file as a speedy? 88.196.241.249 11:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done -- This one time. Note that in many, perhaps most, cases, the closing Admin will not do even see the template. Files should be moved once it becomes obvious that the DR will be closed as delete. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. But how comes than an admin doesn't see the template? I'm fairly sure that admin should even check the history to see if any important tags haven't gone missing, accidentally or not so accidentally (at least that's what serveral problem tags suggest). This fair use upload schema is set up by another admin and several other users and as far as it is not rejected as such and seems like a legit schema, people do rely on (and let the bot do the move properly despite doing it themselves) and don't expect that another admin just ignores it. 88.196.241.249 16:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
When the deletion is routine -- such as an image of modern architecture in a non-FOP country -- the closing admin will typically not even look at the image -- it takes too long. That is particularly true when a well known editor, Stefan4 in this case, has called for deletion.
It would certainly be better if we could spend more time on each file, doing as you suggest. The fact is that the volume of work is overwhelming. In the last month we deleted almost 71,000 files -- 2360 per day. Ten admins did 88% of that total. Our backlog is growing rapidly -- last time I counted, there were more than 5,000 open DRs, most of which call for the deletion of multiple files. There simply is not time for the active admins to do more than make a quick decision of how to close each DR, usually based only on the information on the DR page. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests for fotos of Bert Hubbard

Dear Jameslwoodward, You nominated four fotos of Bert Hubbard for deletion. I wrote some additional information on the nomination pages and hope that the pictures will be accepted now. Could you please tell me your opinion?

Regards,--Culturawiki (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have consolidated the four DRs into one at
I took the liberty of changing your comment accordingly since the circumstances of the four are not quite the same. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your informations. Do I understand you correctly that Bert Hubbard should write an email to permissions-commons at wikimedia.org with the detailed informations and license? --Culturawiki (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. If you'll let me know here when he has sent it, I'll take a fast look at it. The usual backlog for OTRS is around a month. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I will try to reach Bert Hubbard as soon as possible and let him know what we need. Regards,--Culturawiki (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim, Bert Hubbard has sent a message to permissions-commons at wikimedia.org with informations about the photos. Please have a look at his email. --Culturawiki (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


Sorry for the delay with this -- I had to discuss it with User:King of Hearts, who was the OTRS volunteer. I appreciate very much that Mr. Hubbard has been very straightforward in his description of events. Unfortunately, it appears that he does not have the rights to any of the images, so that he cannot license them here. This hinges on the fact that there was no written transfer of copyright.

In the other three cases, the photographer is known, and there was no written transfer of copyright, so the copyrights belong to the three photographers. The images will be PD on the later of 70 years after the death of the photographers or 1/1/2048. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim, Thank you nevertheless...--Culturawiki (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Phare de Berck

Hi Jim,

Sorry to tell you, but your decision is completely wrong. All other members have expressed their support for keeping the files, and AFAIK all decisions about this kind of buildings have been that they do not get a copyright. Could you please reconsider your decision and restore the files? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is perfectly clear to me that a lighthouse is a building, therefore "architecture", and therefore covered by copyright in France. While lighthouses are utilitarian, all buildings are utilitarian, which is why copyright laws specifically call out architecture for protection. "L112-2 7 Les oeuvres de dessin, de peinture, d'architecture, de sculpture, de gravure, de lithographie."
Note, also, that Category:Lighthouses is in Category:Maritime buildings and Category:Lighthouses in France is in Category:Buildings in France. Obviously I am not alone in thinking that lighthouses are buildings.
And, by the way, "All other members have expressed their support" is incorrect -- three of the six -- cmadler, Paris 16, and I -- agree with the deletion. Archaeodontosaurus did not give a reason and Wuyouyuan's reason is largely incorrect -- lighthouse colors have nothing whatever to do with any "international seamark system".
Since you have considerable experience here -- about the same as mine -- I certainly respect your point of view, but ultimately I must call them as I see them. I suggest we continue this at Commons:Undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It is a building, but obviously, not all buildings get a copyright. Commons decisions have been, AFAIK, that industrial buildings do not get a copyright. Your links contradict your decision. We have 1000s of pictures of industrial and modern buildings in France which are kept because these buildings do not have a copyright. Do you have a previous DR and/or a court case to support your PoV? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I know that there have been some decisions that some buildings do not have a copyright, they are wrong. The law says simply "d'architecture", without any modifier that suggests that some architecture does not get a copyright. I have not seen any French statute or case law that says that there is no copyright for certain buildings. I also know that it is completely clear that all architecture in the USA has a copyright, even the simplest of buildings. While the USA is not directly relevant to France, it illustrates my point. Also, of course, COM:PRP puts the burden of proof on you to show that this lighthouse does not have a copyright, not the other way around.

I should add that I don't like the law any more than you. I have spent a lot of time on lighthouses -- see

so I don't much like leaving an article on an important light without a picture, but that is the law as I see it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. See Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright on industrial buildings. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

undeletion request of: File:Pcmcia_smart_4mb_linear_flash.jpg

Hey. I have placed a undeletion req. on one of your deleted files. see here. Also I have removed copyrighted parts of images of this closed deletion request and have thus undeleted them and I am planing to do more. Just for info. Cheers, Amada44  talk to me 08:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I've just undeleted Talk:Main Page/Archive 1, which you deleted in May because someone overwrote most of it... Oops! Just letting you know. Rd232 (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Denniss deleted it in July -- I don't know what happened here. I agree that it seems weird that it has been deleted twice by the two of us -- a rollback would have made sense, but not a delete??? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Denniss deleted it again, because it was recreated as spam. Neither of you noticed what was going on (I noticed from seeing the redlink in the Archives box on the Talk page). Not a big deal, these things happen, I just wanted to mention it. Rd232 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks -- we're always learning, and fortunately (or, actually, by good design), all of our mistakes can be fixed.
BTW, why "Rd232" -- all it brings to my mind is the Read Data line on an RS-232 port. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

batch change to category name

Hi Jim - here's my first question:

I'll need to change Category:Collections of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum to Category:Collections of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library/Museum as I begin to categorize "our" photographs already in Commons.

Can someone do a batch change for me, or will I need to update all the already uploaded images one by one?

my second question is about licensing - the one I'm using (the Federal one) does not accurately reflect that we own the materials but that we DID NOT create the materials .. any movement on refining the federal licensing language? Bdcousineau (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would encourage the longer name. I note that while I think the formal name is "Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library & Museum", WP:EN calls it "Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library" which is, I think, the way that most people will think of it -- I see that you referred to "the 12 other Presidential Libraries" in your recent e-mail.
Ultimately, though, it's your call. It is easy to move images from one cat to another with a tool called Cat-A-Lot. You must enable it at (My Preferences > Gadgets > Tools for categories). It's described in detail at MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js. It can be a little tricky, and I'd be happy to do it for you if you have trouble. You do need to create the new cat first, and then put {{speedydelete}} on the old one after the transfer is done.
On the licensing issue, there are subtleties which you must be careful with. Any work that was created by a Federal employee in the course of his duties is PD and you can use {{PD-USGov}} or one of its more specific variations. Be careful, though -- the creator have been an actual employee on the Federal payroll, not a consultant, contractor, or vendor. This assumes that the image is not a picture of a work that itself has a copyright -- that is reason that President Ford's official White House portrait by E.R. Kinstler does not appear on Commons, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerald R. Ford - portrait.jpg.
For images which a library employee did not create, you must ensure that they are PD or freely licensed. Often {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}} will be applicable. If that's not the case, then it's your responsibility to get a CC-BY or other acceptable license from the photographer or other copyright holder, see Commons:Licensing. Although I can't speak for Commons, I think it is safe to say that if the Ford Library says that a particular image is PD, or CC-BY, we will accept that -- we do so with a number of other major institutions. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! please keep an eye on me - I want/need to do this corectly. Bdcousineau (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no good mechanism for watching all the work of a particular contributor (one can go to your contributions page, but that's a little unwieldy) and no particular need to if the contributor is working in good faith, so that won't happen. Feel completely free to ask me or any other active editor any question -- there are no dumb questions, only unasked ones. If you ever start to do a lot of a new thing, post one or two and then ask -- saves rework if you misstep. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Raoli

Instead of deleting these files could you drink something at a pub? raul (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that this cancellation has made ​​with little head and very slightly. Have you verified that the files were not used in some page? No, I think not. Have you considered which damage have you caused? These simple files are a part of a project for it.wikiquote. Nothing changes if they are in my personal page or in another namespace. It was in a vote among the users of Wikiquote. Restore images, thank you. raul (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It is well established policy that we do not keep personal artwork. These were in use only on a user page, which does not make them in scope. I also note that these files were uploaded four months ago, so it is hard to understand any need for them in any project space.
If you want to take this further, please post a request at Commons:Undeletion requests, which I will oppose. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not true that there were only in my personal page. It is not true. them You concerns. Many of them were also present in the project pages, or rather all are present in the project pages. After you have reviewed them then, I'll do the reporting. Thank you, in the meanwhile, of valuable time that you make me lose. raul (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MFZBCN

I think you removed the DR notice from the file descriptions, but failed to actually close the discussion. -- King of ♠ 07:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion request for File:Queen's Park stn additional signage.JPG

Noticed you deleted one of my files today. I am not sure why this file File:Queen's Park stn additional signage.JPG is not OK, but all these files are good:

File:Queen's_Park_stn_roundel_2012.JPG

And all these listed here (Commons internal link): [3]

best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that at any given moment around 1% of all Commons files should be deleted for copyvio or other reasons. That's over 135,000 files that are probably not OK. It follows that for any given file, one can usually find similar examples that ought to be deleted, but the fact that a particular file is not the only example of its kind is not a reason to close a DR as kept.
The three posters shown in the subject file certainly have copyrights. There is no FOP in the UK for posters, so it was an easy decision. On the other hand, File:Queen's_Park_stn_roundel_2012.JPG shows nothing but the London Underground symbol and the station name. I don't know the copyright status of the symbol -- it might be past Crown Copyright and it might also not meet the relatively low UK threshold of originality -- but, in any case, it was not the DR I was working on. so its status was not relevant to my decision. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim! I see, it was the posters - OK, I can see the problem now! And not to worry about the "Roundel" file. The latter was actually not subject to DR - which was my quibble!
OK, so if I were to crop the "Signage" picture (which you DR'ed) to just show "Queen's Park" would that be acceptable? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Well... It would no longer be a copyvio. I'd be OK with it, but some of our colleagues might think it then served no educational purpose -- was out of scope. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The posters were the reason I DRed it in the first place, if they were made de minimis the photo would be fine, but as is they're not incidental to the photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I have cropped and uploaded a new version:
File:Queen's_Park_stn_additional_signage2.JPG
Hopefully COM:DM is applicable to this version? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Phare_de_Berck

Hi Jim, hope you're well. A deletion of yours was recently brought up at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Phare_de_Berck. Just thought you'd like to know. Best, FASTILY (TALK) 09:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Paintings

Hi, Jim. When you have a time, could you control images in this category ? I'll prepare for DR. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want from me -- it looks like they need a mass DR because the copyright belongs to the painter's heirs, but you can do that. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Like this :) Takabeg (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I still don't understand -- you are free to add {{nouploads}} yourself where it is appropriate. It doesn't take an Admin. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Freudentalunterführung.JPG

Hello!

Can you please provide a rationale which can make your decission to keep the image more transparent. Thank you and greetings, High Contrast (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry -- I tend to work very fast when I'm closing ancient DRs. I'm curious -- you spent some time protecting this DR from Afalok, but didn't comment?
Aside from Pill's comments, I saw a number of sheets that would certainly be there for their entire life, hence permanent within the meaning of German FOP rules. They're all small, at an angle, and partially obscured by blue paint, therefore probably de minimis as well..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a deletion rationale. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Patung Sura dan Buaya.JPG

Hello, This is not about FOP in Indonesia. This is about Local Government Properties. You delete the files without reading my explanation until the end. The situation in Indonesia is different from the one in the USA. In Indonesia, the sculptor need not to be a government employee. Once the works is finished, the works and the copyright becomes government property.

The statue in question belongs to the local government (City of Surabaya). There shall be no infringement of Copyright for publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government.

Regulation of the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 Year 2007 Regarding Technical Guidelines on Local Government Properties[6] Appendix 5 Local government properties categorization a. Local government properties are categorized into 6 (six) groups, as follows: 1) Land [...] 2) Equipments and Machineries [...] 3) Buildings and structures a) [...] b) monument structures Candi, Nature-made Monuments, Historical Monuments, Commemoration Statues, others and that sort of thing. [...]

Per your rationale, this files File:Merdeka_Square_Monas_02.jpg, File:Monas view from Gambir Bus Terminal.JPG and others have to be deleted from Commons. This structure was completed in 1975. Per your rationale, the sculptor stills owns the copyright. I believe you are the one who is misinterpret the Indonesian copyright law. Can you read bahasa Indonesia? Please answer in my talk page. Midori (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I cannot read Bahasa Indonesia, but I can read the translation referenced at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Indonesia. I see nothing there about the government owning the copyright in works that it owns unless the creator was an employee or some special arrangement was made. Perhaps you would be kind enough to cite the section of the law that you believe supports your point of view?
Above you quote Part Five, Article 14 (b)
"There shall be no infringement of Copyright for publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government...."
That does not apply herebe cause publication on Commons, within WMF, or by third parties is not by or on behalf of any Government.
Also, you omitted the rest of the sentence:
"except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published..."
Plainly since the sculptor still owns the copyright, it is "protected by law" within the meaning of the exception.
Note also, please, that your point of view differ from Commons well established reading of the law, so that this discussion will have to be taken elsewhere before it is concluded. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for replying. I believe you have skipped the most important statement in Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Indonesia
"In Indonesia, monuments and landmarks in public spaces are owned by the government."
As read in Indonesian Copyright Law, Part Five, Article 14 (b) There shall be no infringement of Copyright for:
b. publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government, except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published; or
The statue in question has no statement on the work itself about it is being copyrighted. In Indonesian cities, there are many statues in public spaces, big and small. They are all owned by the local government according to Appendix 5 item b) Regulation of the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 Year 2007 Regarding Technical Guidelines on Local Government Properties.
Regulation of the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 Year 2007 Regarding Technical Guidelines on Local Government Properties[4]
Appendix 5 Local government properties categorization
a. Local government properties are categorized into 6 (six) groups, as follows:
1) Land
[...]
2) Equipments and Machineries
[...]
3) Buildings and structures
a) [...]
b) monument structures
Candi, Nature-made Monuments, Historical Monuments, Commemoration Statues, others and that sort of thing.
The monuments and landmarks are all owned by the government because they are "published by or on behalf of the Government," so that there shall be no infringement of Copyright for "publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government".
As for the exception: "except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published; or"
I remember some time ago the official presidential portrait of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was deleted from Commons because there was a copyright statement on the source page.
However, The statue in question belongs to the local government (City of Surabaya). There is no sculptor's name or copyright information engraved on a plaque on or near the statue in question.
Your statement/question: "I see nothing there about the government owning the copyright in works that it owns unless the creator was an employee or some special arrangement was made. Perhaps you would be kind enough to cite the section of the law that you believe supports your point of view?"
As read in Part Five, Article 14 (b).
There shall be no infringement of Copyright for publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government, except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published; or"
The following are your own words: "unless the creator was an employee or some special arrangement was made".
Your statement only applies to works created by U.S. Government employees. The situation in Indonesia is different. The sculptors and the architects are hired by government-appointed contractors, and their works was released as government-owned properties. Therefore, monuments and landmarks in public spaces in Indonesia are in public domain since the Indonesian government owns them.
You wrote: "That does not apply herebe (sic) cause publication on Commons, within WMF, or by third parties is not by or on behalf of any Government."
It is obvious that either you have misinterpret the law or the translation from bahasa Indonesia was not clear enough.
According to the original text in bahasa Indonesia: "Perbanyakan segala sesuatu yang diumumkan dan/atau diperbanyak oleh atau atas nama Pemerintah"
The law is not about reproduction by the government but,
The law is about reproduction (by anyone) of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government.
Therefore, works released by anyone (third parties) in Commons is covered by the following statement "reproduction (by anyone) of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government".
Pardon me for adding the word "by anyone" for the sake of clarity.
That is why my first question was whether you can read bahasa Indonesia.
You also did not answer my question. Why didn't you make deletion request for the following files: File:Merdeka_Square_Monas_02.jpg, File:Monas view from Gambir Bus Terminal.JPG? The structure (en:National Monument (Indonesia)) was completed in 1975. Frederich Silaban (died in 1984) was the architect. Per your rationale, there should be no pictures of this monument whatsoever in Commons. What about the other structures from the same architect File:COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_De_Istiqlal_moskee_en_de_kathedraal_TMnr_20018358.jpg? The structure was completed in 1978. Per your rationale, those pictures and others have to be deleted from Commons. Midori (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
To your last paragraph first: We have about 13,000,000 images on Commons. My best guess, based on numbers I have run, is that at least one percent of those -- more than 130,000 -- have copyright or other problems. Therefore, when looking at a DR, one can always cite other images on Commons that are similar cases. As one of the ten Admins who handle 90% of the 2,500+ images we deal with every day, I have little interest in starting new DRs -- I am too busy closing old ones.
I may not read bahasa Indonesia, but my quote from the law was from a translation done by a Jakarta law firm that specializes in copyright. Unless you yourself are a copyright lawyer, I would tend to trust their translation rather than yours.
You assert in several places that the government owns the copyright. You have not given any evidence to support that assertion. Remember that in most countries, not just the USA, copyright remains with the creator when the work is transferred, even if the government is the transferee.
In any event, keeping this image would represent a significant change in Commons understanding of the law in Indonesia. Feel free to file a request at Commons:Undeletion requests for a public discussion of the issues. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
You said: I have little interest in starting new DRs -- I am too busy closing old ones.
Your statement can be interpreted by others as "I have made a hasty decision and deleted the wrong files."
Unless you yourself are a copyright lawyer, I would tend to trust their translation rather than yours.
Are you saying that you do not trust the following template?
The following template is also based on the Article 14 (b) of the Indonesian Copyright Law:

{{PD-IDGov}}

Translated in any languages: "There shall be no infringement of Copyright for publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government" will have the same meaning. It is not about "reproduction by or on behalf of the Government" but "reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government".
You said "You assert in several places that the government owns the copyright. You have not given any evidence to support that assertion."
I have cited Appendix 5 item b) Regulation of the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 Year 2007 Regarding Technical Guidelines on Local Government Properties, and you totally ignored that part. By ignoring that part, you also have ignored the fact that the statue in question is also the landmark of the city of Surabaya. It is owned by the people of Surabaya (the local government) not by the sculptor.
You said, "Remember that in most countries, not just the USA, copyright remains with the creator when the work is transferred, even if the government is the transferee."
The law cited above is the evidence that Indonesia is one of the exception. You ignored Appendix 5 item b) Regulation of the Minister of the Interior since it does not have the exact wording as the way you wanted to.
In any event, keeping this image would represent a significant change in Commons understanding of the law in Indonesia. Feel free to file a request at Commons:Undeletion requests for a public discussion of the issues
Is that your way of saying that you are not interested in continuing this conversation? If that is the case, I don't think that you have any interest in helping changing Commons understanding of the law. I believe that significant change in Commons understanding of the law in Indonesia will not be achieved by just keeping those two images, but by keeping other images of similar status. Midori (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
No. I am saying two things:
First, continuing this conversation between the two of us is not profitable because both of us believe that the other is very wrong and neither is going to change his opinion. Each of us is repeating the same points over and over. In order to get anywhere we require outside input. This discussion on my talk page, while open for all to read, is essentially a private discussion between the two of us.
Second, I cannot, by myself, change Commons policy. It requires a public discussion among members of the community. Such a discussion can take place at Commons:Undeletion requests. It cannot take place here. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Archita78 sock

User:Romeparis seems to be related to User:Archita78 (who was blocked in March for POV pushing and use of multiple accounts). The image File:Ben Bulben from n16 by Paride.jpg has been pushed in all the Wikipedia articles about Ben Bulben, see for instance the history of the French Wikipedia article: The image was added by User:Romeparis. When it was removed various IPs was used to reinsert it, and when the article was semi protected User:Archita78 came along and reinserted the image. --89.8.148.209 06:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

He has now started exchanging the images in other wikipedia articles too, not only the Ben Bulben articles. [5] --89.8.24.175 08:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the question of which image of Ben Bulben to use is up to the various WPs, not Commons -- they are both good images -- the old one is more striking photographically, while the new one shows the mountain's shape better. I don't see that Romeparis has committed any offense here -- arguably he has been a good contributor. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

File talk:Logo black veil brides.jpg

Regarding your close of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo black veil brides.jpg‎: I have to disagree. This is not merely a flipping of letters. The lettering has been stylized to the point of not being mere simple text or font, then flipped, then arranged specifically to form a new construction that is more than mere lettering. I have been involved in several discussions of logos very similar in nature to this one that were determined not to be pd-text and deleted. I strongly believe that this passes the "threshold of originality" to not be assumed to be public domain. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The USA rule on fonts is very broad -- fundamentally, anything that looks like a letter is part of a font, even if it is far more

"artistic" than this case. Even calligraphy (both Latin and non-Latin alphabets -- Chinese, Thai, etc.) is not covered by copyright. Actually, I suspect that this is a commercial font -- it is not exactly Viking, but it's not far from it. I'd guess that a font expert could name it at once.

Remember, also, that the USA Threshold of Originality is very high. I can't think of anything consisting solely of two or three letters, even with one of them flipped, that has gotten a copyright in the USA -- other countries, particularly the UK, are very different cases.
You are, under our rules, welcome to put another DR on it, but given that the one I just closed was open for five months, it's likely to be Christmas before a second gets action. I will not close a second DR disputing one of my closures, but I certainly will comment in favor of keeping the image. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Architecture copyright

Your closing comment to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dreilini abandoned.jpg "Architecture is architecture -- it does not have to be great architecture to have a copyright." puzzles me. I see nothing mentioned about architecture in Commons:Licensing#Latvia. Usually copyright requires a creative element, which I think may be absent in a "generic apartment box building", as it was called in one of the comments. There is not even always an architect involved in those. --LPfi (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

WIPO translation of the Latvian Copyright Law (as last amended on December 6, 2007), Chapter I, Section 4
"The objects of copyright, regardless of the manner or form of expression, shall comprise the following works of authors:
(1-9 omitted)
(10) sketches, drafts and plans for buildings, structures and architectural works, models of buildings and structures, other architectural designs, city construction works and garden and park plans and models, as well as fully or partly constructed buildings and implemented city construction or landscape objects;..."
That is a much more comprehensive and inclusive description than most countries. Both the USA and France simply say "architecture" with no modifying words at all. It includes "city construction works" -- civil engineering works that are not architecture and not covered in the USA and "gardens", also not covered in the USA.
We tend to think of "creative element" in terms of the fine arts (painting, sculpture, etc.), but copyright does not require art, simply creativity. Remember, for example, that software is copyrighted everywhere as a literary work. There is no fine art in any software, but there is certainly creativity. The same is true of the architecture you describe.
Different countries have different thresholds of originality -- for example, the USA is notably high, rejecting copyright on simple designs, and the UK notably low. However architecture almost always crosses that threshold. In the USA, a high threshold country, companies sell books of plans for very simple houses of the sort that are built by the tens of thousands all over. Those companies enforce their copyrights in those very simple houses because the Copyright Office and the judiciary recognize that even a very simple building requires hundreds of creative decisions about layout, structure, and specifications.
You may be sure that even a "generic apartment box building" was designed by someone who trained as an architect or in a closely related field. Every site is different and, as I said, requires many creative decisions. The broad inclusiveness of the Latvian statute suggests that it is at least as inclusive as that in the USA, which, as I have noted, includes almost everything except, perhaps, doghouses. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. I won't argue, as your expertise is bigger than mine, and you have thought about the issue more thoroughly than your comment revealed. Of course blocks of flats are also planned, but I've understood the planning is sometimes mostly by engineers instead of architects. There is a lot of creativity involved, but in technical solutions, not necessarily in what can be seen in a photo, and if the creative parts are excluded from a derived work, then it should not be dependent on the original copyright. --LPfi (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
"Architecture" is defined by the result. Whether done by architects, engineers, or people with no training at all, all buildings are "architecture". As I said, in the USA, a country with a high TOO, all architecture has a copyright. The number of creative decisions that affect the exterior of even a simple apartment block is in the hundreds. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim,
I think that's one of the reason of our disagreement. Certainly not all buildings are "architecture", but it may depend of the definition of "building", i.e. see Category:Huts. Yann (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
OED:Architecture:"The art or science of constructing edifices for human use."
Note "edifices", a broader term than "buildings". It would include huts.
American Heritage Dictionary:Architecture:"The art and science of erecting buildings."
That pretty well covers English usage on both sides of the Atlantic. It is clear to me, as it has been all along, that architecture includes all buildings. Dog houses might be excluded because they're not for human use.
My reading of the law is simple, perhaps too simple. While, as a general rule, almost all paintings or sculpture are copyrighted, it is possible to have a painting so simple that it could not have a copyright. (Michelangelo is said to have been able to draw a perfect circle freehand. Would one of his circles had a copyright during his life?) A building, however, has many creative decisions -- how deep to set the windows, choice of window frames, window size versus wall size, window color, drapery color*, surface finish, door placement, size, and framing, and many others. Thus it is automatically over the TOO.
.*Drapery color is not usually specified by the architect, but I mention it because Mies specified it at 860–880 Lake Shore Drive, Chicago.
.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Then you think that all huts have a copyright? And that we are not allowed to upload a picture of a hut when there is no FOP? I don't know how to explain that in a strict legal wording, but I hope you see that somewhere something is wrong in your reasoning. A 26-floors tower is not a good example of simple building, especially if it was created with a new design. For me, it is quite obvious that there is a limit on what a copyright can be claimed. Although I don't have a case to back up this, I think that a very simple hut can't get a copyright. Well, IANAL, otherwise it would be easy... Yann (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. It is clear to me that in the USA, all buildings -- even beach huts -- have a copyright. There are a wide variety of companies that sell books of plans with a license to build one -- and only one -- building from them. They actively enforce their copyright. These books include buildings that are nothing more than four walls, a shed roof, a door, and perhaps one window. Fortunately, the USA has FOP for buildings, so we don't have to argue about them here.

As far as other countries go, I can't claim to be expert on the case law. I certainly wouldn't push the issue to include beach huts or other four walls and a roof structures. I also wouldn't assume a copyright on very simple industrial buildings with limited fenestration and painted steel walls. But, in the absence of case law, our rules require us to assume the worst -- I see no reason why a building as complex as a lighthouse or any apartment structure would not have a copyright in most countries.

You're a native French speaker -- my French is six years of classes 50 years ago. I'd be interested in your reading of the French definition of architecture -- Larousse, perhaps? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary has a complete and detailed definition: fr:wikt:architecture, as well as Wikipedia. Larousse says: Art de construire les bâtiments. and Caractère, ordonnance, style d'une construction. Of these definitions, I deduce that the result is a work of art. I certainly agree that any important building where the architect applies his creativity is a work of art. I would not say that a hut is a work of art. Would you delete these: File:Euronat chalet.jpg, File:Cayeux-sur-Mer cabines de plage 1.jpg, File:Leisse03.jpg, File:Refuge des Aiguilles d'Arves, Savoie.jpg? Yann (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
If they were in the USA and there were no FOP here, I would tag all of them with {{delete}}, since they all clearly have a copyright here. As they are all in France, I would take more care. I think I am all right with the second. The first and the third are more of a problem -- but, probably OK. The last, except for the fact that it is your image, I would probably tag. It is, for me, an unusual building, built to serve a specific purpose, and certainly required creativity in its design.
I think the difference in our viewpoint is that you believe that copyright requires art. I believe it requires only creativity -- if good art is the result, fine, but even bad art or no art gets a copyright if it is creative. Remember that computer software -- creative, but certainly not art -- gets a copyright. So do maps and other things that require creativity, but not necessarily beauty. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
A quick remark: computer programs are defined as literary works by the law, by a political decision - not by a court or by mere human reasoning. They are thus a bad example when discussing how copyright should be understood in other cases. --LPfi (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes and no. Computer programs are an example of the fact that often copyright law uses words in ways that are subtly different from ordinary language..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
In the last case, there are certainly many mountain huts built in this style. This one may be original as a house, but not as a mountain hut.
I found a detailed explanation which justify my point [6]. Are protected edifices when they have an original character. And are not protected works without a particular or original character, which are a trivial reproduction of edifice types largely found accross the country. (Ne sont pas protégées par la loi les œuvres architecturales sans caractère particulier ou original, qui sont la reproduction banale des types d'édifices largement répandus à travers le territoire.)
This page [7] says that works are protected if the creation is original, but not if the realization is purely technical. This clearly validates my point about the Berck lighthouse: this building is purely technical. It is a straight tower without any decoration whatsoever. The red-and-white painting is for that it could be seen from far away.
Last, in File:Le phare de berck.JPG, the building is accessory to the whole picture, and it is therefore allowed.
Now, could you please restore these pictures? Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Jastrow, who is the most knowledgeable person on French law here, says that the Beck lighthouse isn't protected under French law [8]. Yann (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I concede. It is a simple cylinder -- albeit one of a very few prestressed concrete lighthouses in the world. I hope you will agree that this is not a precedent for any except similar, very simple, structures. I don't think it will be much of a precedent anyway, because very few new lighthouses have been built in the last 100 years. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Any such case should be decided individually, as every picture has its own particularity. Yann (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Pollution at Ganga banks.jpg

I kindly request that you to restore this file. --Ne0Freedom (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The file had a license which prevented its use in certain applications. Commons does not permit any limitation on the use of its files. Therefore it was deleted. I see no reason, and you give no reason, for that to change. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Re Commons:Deletion requests/File:USS Nevada modernization1929.jpg

Hi. I wasn't aware of this deletion request until the image was delinked from an article on my en.wp watchlist, but I wasn't aware Commons required 'proof' beyond the source's assertion. If Navsource, which is a well-respected site in the military history world, asserts that it is a U.S. Navy image, that should be enough to prove it is PD, imho. Can I ask that the image be undeleted? Thanks, Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 00:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is a close call. The credit line says to me that NavSource got a copy of the image, either on paper or digitally, from Ric Hedman, whose name means nothing to me. If it was a paper copy, then it is possible that it had a Navy stamp on the back -- case proven. If it was digital, presumably scanned by Hedman, then I think NavSource simply assumed that it was a Navy photograph. Since our rules require us to be skeptical, I thought it was a delete.
I suggest you ask NavSource to provide a little more information by sending a message to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org -- why do they think that this image provided by Ric Hedman is a Navy image? Make sure that the message refers to File:USS Nevada modernization1929.jpg. Once the message has been sent, drop me a note here and I'll bypass the OTRS queue, which can run up to thirty days. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The description at Navsource unequivocally identifies it as a US Navy photo: "US Navy Photograph courtesy of Ric Hedman. Partial text courtesy of DANFS." What I suspect happened is Ric Hedman scanned the image on a visit to the Navy archives, or something similar. Such attribution has been used in other Commons uploads... if we have to go through this process every time an image is not taken from an official source, you'd be deleting a lot of images. ;-) Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 05:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Not if NavSource is willing to confirm what you are guessing. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Might want to see [9]. I have no plans for further involvement in that, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't reply to him on my talk page. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sven, for the heads up. I think that Herby's and my actions are completely justified -- we've seen at least two socks and numerous problems. As an example, there's this license, on File:Pollution at Ganga banks.jpg for which he requests undeletion above:
"License: Knowledge (Vidya) http://collectiveconciousness.info/Knowledge_License.html
Not to be used for purposes of Lust(eg. Sadistic pleasure), Wrath(eg. Terrorism), Pride(eg. Bragging), etc."
He has frequently uploaded files with author and source unclear, including the ones I tagged two days ago. We've had problems with him before, so that when he posted on my talk page two days ago, I went looking for new problems and, as you saw, found them. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
He came back to my page and said that my comments there justified him editing around the block. I told him that's not what I said, but considering your above post, I suppose you ought to be ready for more socks. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
...Interesting, but let's leave the IP block circumvention issue for later. The more Important Issue at hand is if "Ownership of Intellectual property by God" is valid in the Commons. I would like to call for a Request for comment to see what the community thinks about "giving credit for a work to unexplained Forces" or "working in the employment of unexplained Forces", for example, God, Spirit/Ghost, ET Aliens, etc. And, the License for the file File:Pollution at Ganga banks.jpg can be changed to Kopimi if needed. ps. if you wanted to know more about me, just ask me or visit my Wikipedia user page. --W:User:Ne0Freedom 17:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind, maybe we can come to an agreement without having to ask the community... by using a template (Inspired by the OTRS template). Could you please unban User Ne0Freedom, and undelete the file File:Pollution at Ganga banks.jpg? it's "Permission" can be changed to the new template. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
"Ownership of Intellectual property by God" is not valid for any WMF project because God cannot give us the necessary license.
For Commons, permission must basically be either public domain or CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA. Other licenses are permitted, but they must be free in all respects. I see little reason for a new license template, but if you would put the text here, I will consider it.
The account named Ne0Freedom is banned because, as noted on its talk page, the account is a sock. Socks are a serious violation of our rules. The account will not be reinstated. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok then, Could you please restore User:Eternal-Entropy(preferably the 2nd version) ? --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated the template for deletion, see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Gods Work. Within the limits described at Commons:Project scope, you may write anything you want on your user page. I will not restore what you wrote before because it is out of scope as COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
So what exactly was it advertising ? --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Two aspects -- the quote is, essentially, proselytizing -- in effect, advertising for God. The link is to a domain that is for sale. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Bert Hubbard: new photos

Dear Jim, Bert Hubbard sent an email to permissions-commons at wikimedia.org with two other photos which were taken by his mother. Bert inherited the copyright and gave the permission to use these photos on Wikimedia. Could you please have a look at his email and tell me if his declaration is ok and where I can find the files? Or shall I upload them? Regards,--Culturawiki (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC).

I found the OTRS e-mail. The two images he lists are:
In the permission text, he describes them as follows:
"1) Hubbard Bert - left - Joan Hinderstein middle - Richard Proctor right - in Othello 1960.jpg
This photo was made by Marie M. Hubbard in 1960 and shows Bert Hubbard (left), Joan Hinderstein (middle) and Richard Proctor (right) in the Bert Hubbard’s choreography “Othello” for a synchronized swimming trio after Giuseppe Verdi’s opera."
"2) Hubbard Bert - Viking's Prayer before battle - US junior national solo synchro championship 1954.jpg
This photo shows Bert Hubbard and was by his mother Marie M. Hubbard in 1954 during the US Junior National Synchro Championships in the swim dress for his solo program “Viking's prayer before battle”."
I couldn't find them under any of the names given. Given that they were taken by his mother, and he therefore owns the copyright, we could keep them, if we had them. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim, I guess that Bert made a mistake, he doesn't know well how to work with computers. I will upload the photos and let you know. Many thanks for your help, --Culturawiki (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim, I uploaded the fotos under following names:

  • File:Hubbard Bert - left - Joan Hinderstein middle - Richard Proctor right - in Othello 1960.jpeg
  • File:Hubbard Bert - Viking's Prayer Before Battle - US Junior National Solo Synchro Championship 1954.jpeg

I hope, that the files are ok and that we can keep them. Please let me know. Best regards,--Culturawiki (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Added {{OTRS permission|2012082710007585}} to both. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Great! Many thanks and best regards also from Bert Hubbard, --Culturawiki (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

uploading pdfs from the web

Hi Jim - is it possible to upload pdfs from the web? We have many materials already on our Museum and Library website that I'd like to upload into Commons. So far I've had to download, convert to jpg, and then upload. I'm hoping there is an easier way that I have just not found, because this will take me until I retire!! thanks Bdcousineau (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, PDF is a permitted file type for use only in appropriate cases. As a general rule we reserve it for text documents. A PDF image is much harder to reuse than a jpg, so we discourage it for images. See Commons:Scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats. In any event, you will have to download the file to your computer. If the PDF is an image, I would strongly encourage you to find the original image from which the PDF was made, and use that, rather than either uploading the PDF or converting the PDF to a JPG. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
yes, these are all text documents. I'll see what format the orig files are in, I'm afraid they might be pdf. appreciate your time! Bdcousineau (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
If they're texts, then PDF is fine. Our scope does not extend to most text documents, but presidential documents should be within scope. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_LittleFrog

Several of those that were deleted are also PD due to their age. the SS France (1912) pics are all PD cause that ship was scrapped in 1936, which is 76 years old, over the 75 year limit. The only ones that are unclear are the RMS Berengaria, they're likely PD but the scrapping date is in the 40s so it's not 100% certain. Fry1989 eh? 20:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As Carl pointed out, we have no proof that the images were anonymous and some evidence that they were not. The fact that we may not know the photographer does not mean that they were anonymous when published. Therefore the rule is 70 years after the death of the photographer. A 1912 image could easily have been taken by a person thirty years old, born in 1882. If he lived to be only sixty, they would still be in copyright.
I think you will find that Carl is nearly always right -- I can't remember a case where I disagreed with him and I often learn from him. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Not carl always right..Evidence is taking precedence over visual of old photographs--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Expert Advice

Commons:Village_pump#Image_Copyrighted is running based on the images

  1. File:Marthoma_I.jpg
  2. File:Erzdiakon_Thomas.jpg

-Your opinion is really required--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Sorry, but I think you're wasting time on this one. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Not waste of time, Its has opened a new channel..Yes the image may/can stay upon a belief of AGF only, As always..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Nothing like AGF -- it was that a group of experienced editors looked at the situation and decided that the image was almost certainly old. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Teatralnaya (Moscow Metro)

Why you deleted the porcelain sculptures? Тhe sculptor Natalia Danko died at 18 march 1942, it is more then 70 years. 19:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's actually January 1 of the next year following seventy years. See section 1281 (1) of the Russian law 230-FL of 2006: Part IV of the Civil Code at http://www.consultant.ru/popular/gkrf4/79_2.html#p576. The sculptures will be undeleted on January 1, 2013..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Then it is {{PD-Russia-2008}}. --Andreykor (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the date January 1, 1943 in {{PD-Russia}} -- the law (as cited above) clearly calls for the usual PMA 70 -- that is, January 1 after seventy years after the creator's death. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not quite that -- see en:Copyright law of the Russian Federation#2008 - Present: Part IV of the Civil Code. The 2008 Russian law wasn't quite fully retroactive -- for works by individuals, it restored works only if the old 50 pma term was still active on January 1, 1993. For works which were PD per that old term on that date, the 2008 law did not restore them and they remained PD. This was, I think, due to there being a 1993 law change; the 2008 law basically restored all works by individuals that were ever protected by that 1993 law but no more. Basically, about 10 years of works were restored -- those which expired Jan 1 1994 through Jan 1 2003. That is (partly) why there is a PD-Russia tag separate from PD-old-70. I think in January the distinction will be gone though, at least for that clause. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Carl -- I've restored the affected images. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
And now you should get rid of th DR templates within the description files :-) thx --JuTa 09:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Any editor can do that... ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I should have done that -- but it is a major holiday weekend and I was off to catch a plane yesterday -- I just did what an Admin had to do.... .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Finished the removal of the {{delete}} tags and added {{|kept}} to talk pages. Apologies for the delay. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

?

Can you provide your reason for keeping this image Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ursa Minor Dwarf.jpg? Bulwersator (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I commented on it in March -- since I haven't changed my position, I thought that would be clear enough. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

I created thread about your recent edit - Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Conflict of interest Bulwersator (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

new IAAA photos

Dear Jim, On August 28 Bert Hubbard wrote an email to permissions-commons at wikimedia.org with the declaration for following photos by Walter Wengel which I uploaded today. Please tell me if the declaration is fine and if we can keep the photos.

--Culturawiki (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay -- I must have missed this.
On August 28, Bert Hubbard sent three identical messages to OTRS, with a credible license from Wengel (ticket #2012082810012095).
The images licensed by Wengel are:
1) Bert Hubbard in Glitz 1987 during the International Academy of Aquatic ArtFestival.
2) Diane Tulley – left Bert Hubbard – right in His and Her Limelights 1997 during the International Academy of Aquatic Art Festival.
3) Bert Hubbard in Juxtaposed 1996 during the International Academy of Aquatic Art Festival.
4) Bert Hubbard in fossilus aquaticus 1994 during the International Academy of Aquatic Art Festival.
5) Bert Hubbard in Concerto for the Right Hand 1992 during the International Academy of Aquatic Art Festival.
6) Bert Hubbard in Delusions of Grandeur 2008 during the International Academy of Aquatic Art Festival.
I have added {{OTRS permission|2012082810012095}} to the four images above. If you upload the other two, you may add the tag to them. Note, please, that this tag can be applied only to the six images listed above -- no others -- as Wengel's license is specific, not general. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim, Many thanks for everything! --Culturawiki (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Anchorage Whaling Wall deletion

Unfortunately, a little too late. I had pretty much forgotten all about this because the discussion took place six months ago. I was in Anchorage last week. A badly bruised ankle meant getting around rather slowly, and I had more photos needing taken than time to take them to begin with before I injured myself. I would have been more than happy to take a replacement photo without the mural. Maybe next time.RadioKAOS (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Vidya Daan

Why did you delete Category:Vidya Daan ? --User:Ne0Freedom

As I said in my edit comment, our rules require that category names be in English. Also, the category is far too broad. Millions of images could be put in it. Such a category has no utility at all. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
if you deleted it for bieng non english, neither is Category:Yoga. As for utility, all licenses have their own category, and there are thousands of images in them. --User:Ne0Freedom
The English language has adopted many words -- "Yoga" is one of them. It even appears in the 1928 OED. That is, however, beside the point -- I am sure there are many incorrect categories in Commons -- that does not mean that we tolerate new ones.
There are certainly categories that have tens of thousands of images, but "Sharing of Knowledge" is not useful because it does not categorize -- it is not a grouping that would be helpful to anyone searching for an image, because it could include almost anything..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mali_Village_Dance.ogv

Hi Jim,

I just noticed your deletion of this file. Could you please consider re-instating this at least until we get a more informed opinion from someone who speaks French and has a legal background? (There is a fairly extensive discussion on the request page.) Unfortunately, with the coup in Mali, it has been impossible for me to contact anyone there. But, regardless, I really would appreciate it if you would re-instate the file until we get a more informed opinion. My reading of the legislation suggests that there is no problem with copyright for this clip under Malian law. --MichiHenning (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure it is Malian law that counts. As I said in my closing comment,
"Ironically, that copyright would not exist except for this recording -- works that are not fixed (written down or recorded) do not have a copyright."
I think it very likely that the drummers have a copyright in their work, but because that work was first published in a fixed form (in the technical, copyright sense of "published") here on Commons in the form of your OGV, then their copyright is a US copyright, not a Malian one. I'll see if I can get Carl Lindberg to comment. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I appreciate it! What is the situation under US copyright? Seems weird that the US could claim copyright on something that involves people from Mali and was created by someone from Australia. (I'm not trying to argue, just surprised by that.) --MichiHenning (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind (but read Carl's comments carefully) that the country of copyright is where it is first published. If you had made tapes of the video and sold them in Oz, then the country of copyright would be Oz. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I can't see that video... is it of a known composition, or is it just a traditional Malian performance? Performer's rights could be a contentious issue, but if you had permission to record, that goes away. I don't think I'd delete a video under that published-in-the-US copyright theory, unless it's a known musical composition where we can identify an author. In reading the registration requirements, it seems to be either a written composition or a phonorecord -- and a video is technically not a phonorecord per the Copyright Act. Though I guess you could make one. Things like 17 USC § 115 also come into play, which really muddy the waters. You could argue the same thing with a video or recording of somebody just talking -- do they get a copyright on impromptu speech just because that video records it? I'm not at all convinced that would be true, and the musical composition may need to have been written down beforehand (or explicitly recorded as such) before really being considered a valid copyright. It's a hard situation. But, something like a FoP photograph of an artwork, which does not give you rights to make a derivative of the sculpture itself, the photo itself can still be "free" -- so the video may be good enough, even if may be no permission to create derivative musical works. While the theory is not impossible... it's probably setting the bar too high for uploads here, because you could argue copyrightable composition or arrangement on virtually any performance if you don't know the background of the music (how much does it differ from traditional compositions, etc.). It's too easy to create doubt, and deletion based on such theories basically prevents us from ever documenting traditional performances, which is very harmful to the educational mission here. I don't think I'd delete stuff unless we can identify a particular musical composition which we know is copyrighted, or perhaps if the copyright owner of the potential musical composition actually makes a complaint. I don't think there is a court precedent to base such deletions off of, and I usually prefer to be able to point to such a case to show there is a real issue. When we start going into untested copyright areas, there could be legal aspects at play that we haven't considered which would apply in a real-life case -- judges will typically try to balance the copyright interests of the videographer and the composition author, and I'm not at all convinced that distribution of such a video would be considered infringement (particularly when made with permission). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
OK. Sounds like you (Carl) are leaning toward restore. My guess is that it is a more or less traditional dance form, but the drummers are playing their own version of it -- the base work would probably not have a copyright, but their variation might. With that in mind, unless Carl objects, I'll restore it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Carl, thanks heaps for the extensive comments! Man, I'm glad I'm a software engineer, not a copyright lawyer! Software engineering is easy by comparison! :) As I said earlier, the music in the video is traditional and has been played for hundreds of years at least. (We are not sure exactly for how many centuries. The rhythm could potentially date back as far as 13th century.) There is no original composer—the music is folklore. Malinke traditional rhythms are never written down (except by westerners). They are passed down orally from generation to generation. The event I recorded wasn't a performance. Rather, it captured they daily lives of the villagers. (Gatherings such as this are frequent and nothing special. It's basically a bunch of people getting together and having a party.) I definitely was invited (and encouraged) to take recordings. It wasn't like sneaking a camera into a performance.
James, if you could restore the video, I would be much obliged. I honestly believe that it adds value to the Djembe article and it would be a shame to lose it. --MichiHenning (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
James, would it be OK to restore the file again? If not, is there anything I can do to help this along? --MichiHenning (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks heaps for your help Jim! --MichiHenning (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Heilbronn, Gotisches Steinhaus, Kaiserstraße 18 a, Hinterhaus (UKP Nr. 357 a) Steingiebelfront nach Osten (Archäolog. Stadtkataster BW, Bd 8, HN. Landesdenkmalamt BW, Stuttgart 2001, S. 104-105, Nr. 49) Ausschnitt.JPG

Kannst du es kurz wiederherstellen, dass ich es auf deutscher Wikipedia hochladen kann ? Oder kannst du es selbst auf deutscher Wikipedia verschieben oder hochladen ? Danke --Messina (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done For 24 hours -- until 10:30 UTC 9 September 2012. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Ich hatte jetzt soviel um die Ohren, dass ich gar nicht mehr dazu kam bei Dir nachzuschauen!!! Magst Du es nochmal hochladen und mir auf meiner Deutschsprachigen Disk auf De:Wikipedia kurz bescheid geben, dass Du hochlädst... und diesmal etwas länger. Das Bild ist mir schon sehr wichtig, weil ich es mühsam zugeschnitte etc habe, außerdem zählt es zu den ältesten Steinhäusern inmitten einer reinen Fachwerkstadt. Wer diese gebaut hat ist nicht ganz sicher aber der Ursprung ist auf jedenfall staufisch. Und zur Zeit der Staufer gab es in Heilbronn die sog. "palatio regio" ein sog. Kaiserpfalz... bitte schön :-) mfG --Messina (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)>
Sorry, I don't read German myself and the Google translation does not make sense. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Fabric

You deleted the gallery Fabric, which i had asked for some months ago, but with no action taken, decided to expand it with the items from the Fabrics section of Textile. I dont think you knew i had done this when you deleted it. I have restored the fabric section in the textile gallery (using the article history of course), and im not bothered, but i thought you should know, as i am sure you didnt intend to do so. I still think its better to have one large gallery for all textile images, rather than a separate fabric gallery, so thanks to you for noticing and finally doing it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in closing the DR. Commons had a serious technical problem with deletions in the first part of the year and our backlog of open DRs increased to over 10,000. We have been whittling those down over the last few months, but we still have a ways to go before DRs are closed promptly -- within a month or two at the most.
While "textile" is a slightly broader term than "fabric", I think that most people use them as synonyms. Having two virtually parallel galleries is asking for maintenance headaches, hence my deletion of the one. If it is helpful, I can restore the deleted page as a User subpage for your reference -- User:Mercurywoodrose/Fabric. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kappa Kappa Psi Coat of Arms.svg

Why was File:Kappa Kappa Psi Coat of Arms.svg deleted? You admitted yourself that you found no copyright registration or notice for the coat of arms after a search. It seems like that would be a reason to keep a file rather than delete it. Sycamore (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Right you are, sorry. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

OneTax_Flyer.jpg

Jim, please reinstate this photograph. As a co-organizer I authored the text *and* took the photograph (I looked for the doc file as supporting documentation but can't find it -- could still be on another computer if you need it). In any case I placed it in the public domain.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:OneTax_Flyer.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.249.20 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 11 September 2012‎ (UTC)

The image was uploaded by User:JerryVandelay, whose upload comment and file description was "Photograph of a flyer explaining the OneTax, handed to me at Occupy Oakland."
Whether or not you, User:24.177.249.20, are User:JerryVandelay, that description is inconsistent with your claim above, as Vandelay states explicitly that he was not the writer but was the photographer. You claim to be both. Commons relies heavily on assuming good faith in our editors. Inconsistent stories make that difficult.
I am also not sure whether it is in scope for Commons. If you wish to pursue this, I suggest you take your claim to Commons:Undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright of text layouts

Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fcw.png.

According to the above decision, can we upload images like this one to Commons? At present we are using them as Fair use. Regards --Vssun (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

For copyright, I see nothing wrong from a US point of view. There are countries, including the UK, where text layout can have a copyright, but even there I think this would be OK. There is not enough text for it to have a literary copyright.
I might, however, think about deleting it for being out of scope. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Vssun (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bucur_Gheorghe_-_Director_al_scolii_din_Racovita,_Sibiu.jpg

James, you are mistaken here. Ticket 2007100310004441 exists and is in the info-ro queue. If you don't have access to that queue then please contact an OTRS admin, then recover those pages. Thanks.--Strainu (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. When I go to OTRS and search for ticket number 2007100310004441, the search comes up empty. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
That happens when you don't have access to the respective queue. I assure the ticket exists, I checked right before sending that message. If you want to confirm, just contact an administrator and I'm sure he will help.--Strainu (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
As you can confirm at User:Jameslwoodward, I am both an OTRS Volunteer and a Commons Administrator. This is the first time in roughly two years and over 100,000 actions on Commons that I have not been able to look at an OTRS message. Perhaps you could explain a little more fully what is happening here. Thank you. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
As a non-admin user on OTRS, you only have access to some designated queues (the ones you see at [10]). AFAIK, you cannot see the messages from other queues. Here are some other OTRS ticket numbers from the same queue: 2012090610006248, 2012090610005991. Can you see any of those? Again, you don't have to believe me, just ask an admin to help you.--Strainu (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I still don't understand why there are any OTRS tickets that I can't see, but I'll restore the file based on your assurance. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you!--Strainu (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ford Museum

Hey Jim, I'm looking for an administrator to help me do batch-uploading and map out a plan for the FordLib+Museum presence in Commons. I've put in a request to Commons:Batch uploading, written an email to the people at Commons:Partnerships and gotten ... bupkis! do you know of any admins who might be interested in working with me? I was told I could post to Commons:Help desk but that seems like an admin-to-admin page and I didn't want to interrupt. I'm about to strike off on my own, and duplicate the page I like -- Commons:Walters Art Museum -- but am curious if that's ethical or not... love to hear your thoughts. thanks a bunch Bdcousineau (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. At the moment the active Commons Admins are still cleaning up a backlog left after a technical problem with deletions early this year -- we're deleting upwards of 4,500 images per day. So, let's see what we can accomplish together. I've never done a partnership, but it seems fairly straightforward, see Commons:Guide_to_content_partnerships. How many images are we talking about here?
As suggested there, why don't you create a partnership page at User:Bdcousineau/Partnership page and a partnership template at User:Bdcousineau/Partnership template and subpages of that. When you think they're ready we can move them to the appropriate pages -- I'd be happy to help with both, if you like. As suggested, it's always easiest to copy an existing document and change it as needed rather than starting from scratch.
Then there's the prep work.
First, and most important, is getting images into useful categories. If you're going to upload thousands of images, you need to figure out a series of appropriate categories, all subcats of Category:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum. I see you have a few of those already, but for ease of search, I'd suggest not more than a few hundred images in any one subcat -- in fact, if you get over 200 -- one pageful -- those over the 200 will be viewed much less than the first pageful. So the first step is to map out a category tree for the whole collection with Category:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum at its root. Then, think a little about secondary cats. For example, I've just put File:First Lady Betty Ford and her son Steve.jpg into Category:Betty Ford and Category:Steven Ford. Most images will require two or three cats. Again, I'd be happy to help with this.
Then the uploading. You'll want to use Commons:Tools/Commonist. Although I've never used it, I have downloaded it and tried it without actually uploading. It allows you to upload all the files in one of your directories and apply both constant descriptions and categories to all files and individual cats and descriptions as required to each file. This suggests that you ought to organize files on your machine according to the primary subcat you want on them -- then you could upload a whole folder into the same subcat.
Start small -- perhaps five files, just to see that you have it right. After a little learning, I'm sure you'll be able to upload them as fast as you can click.
.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

oh thanks! So excited to work with you! of course whatever we come up with will become the model for other Presidential Libraries to follow ... so I'll take lots of notes. I think whatever NARA is doing is great, but seemingly random. Plus I can't get NARA wikipedian to communicate with me.

Batch upload - I've been reading about Commonist and I'm a lot scared: our file names are non-specific (for example, A2090-19.jpg or 19740912me.pdf) so I'd have to type in a new descriptive file name by hand - am I wrong in thinking this defeats the purpose of the batch-upload? I'll do a small batch and report back.

how many images? We have more documents digitized than artifacts at this point. I'm not interested in uploading 10's of thousands of docs at once, I'm more interested in doing more manageable + systematic groups by category, using the broad topics on our website as a starting point. I'll let you know a more exact figure soon. also see my fears vis-a-vis file names above!

I've created Commons:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum and my [[Category: Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum]] shows up underneath, could you tell me how to link the two more elegantly - so I guess get rid of the category and have just Commons:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum with the subcats right there.

can you clarify what you mean by creating User:Bdcousineau/Partnership page and the template one? not sure what goes in there.

so excited to move this forward somewhat faster... Bdcousineau (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)



"can you clarify what you mean by creating User:Bdcousineau/Partnership page and the template one? not sure what goes in there." Generally, when you create complex new pages, you do it in your own space (e.g. User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox2) and then transfer them to the appropriate place when done. You got ahead of this with Commons:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum, which is fine. Now, you need to flesh that out with some information on the museum -- take a look at others on the list at Commons:Partnerships -- the Commons:Brooklyn Museum is a simple page for a large collection -- you might start with something like that.

We need to create a template for the Ford that will go on each page. I can start this for you -- it's fairly complex, because it has to be a multi-lingual template, but I need to know what name you want to use. "Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum" is fairly long for a template name -- what name do you use for the Library in second reference?

I sense a little confusion over the various pages this project needs or might have:

  1. Commons:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum
  2. Category:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum and subcats
  3. Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum
  4. Template:Ford Library and Museum
  5. Institution:Ford Library and Museum
  1. The Partnership Page -- a descriptive page about the museum and its Commons partnership. This is one of the few places where Commons actually has articles similar to those in Wikipedia. see Commons:Brooklyn Museum. It should be categorized in Category:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum, as well as Category:Commons partnerships.
  2. The root category for all of the subcats which are needed. There will probably be no images in this category, only the subcats, the Partnership Page, and any galleries.
  3. A gallery of the finest / most striking / most interesting images from the Library. There could be several of these.
  4. As described above, a template to go on every page uploaded by you. I note that your website is fordlibrarymuseum.gov -- shorter is better here.
  5. An Institution tag can be useful for images taken by visitors to the museum, see Institution:Brooklyn Museum, which is used that way. (as above).

As for file names, yes, we very much prefer descriptive names. A concerted effort to change file names to useful ones -- or add a useful name onto the number as atFile:Downtown Cleveland, Ohio, in winter, from the air, 12-1937 - NARA - 512842.tif would be a good thing. You could make a copy of a batch of files, use one of the mass file renamers available, and then upload them as a batch. Of course, we'd rather have the file with an unhelpful name than not have it at all.

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

--------------

ok, I think I did some of what you asked kinda by accident. Can you look at Commons:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum? I copied the coding from the NARA/tab header + spacer pages and modified it, also copied the coding from the Walters Art Museum main area and modified it too - the only thing that stymied me was the left justification. Couldn't find a template for that! I put you in the protag list - hope that's ok, please remove if not! I will refer to the pages you mentioned for more things to copy/modify.

At this point, under "Related categories" I've got: Category:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum and then the subs: Category:Collections of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Category:Collections of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum - this makes sense to me because in the COLLECTIONS area we would only have things from the Fed gov, whereas the other page could have images donated by the public (as is happening naturally now).

Perhaps in the long run, the cats should be "Artifacts" "Photographs" "Documents" "A/V" etc. The "photographs" is going to get REALLY confusing, since there are photos prior to presidency, presidency, post-presidency, family, donated by the public, and funeral. It would be great to have them all under our umbrella, but they are not all federal. I think this might take time to figure out.

I will work on the Partnership Page - thanks for clarifying.

The Root Category: would that be Category:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum? - where do all the other media that have migrated there go?

The template name: Yes, I'm totally confused about templates. Are you asking me for a nick-name? no one but users will see the template name, is that right? how about FordLibMuseum

ah! an institution tag - very cool. I will read about this. Thanks.

I found where a bunch of NARA uploaded images of Ford were hiding out, so I linked to them and will start to divide and subdivide those next week into subcats. I can put off the batch uploading issues for a time. I finally connected with user:Dominic the-NARA-wikipedian and he and I will work on batch uploads when he/I have the time. He has a bot written.

WHEW!! Bdcousineau (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


In no particular order.

Templates are just chunks of text and formatting that get copied EXACTLY onto a page. They can be simple shortcuts to save a lot of typing, or, with parameters, can provide fairly complex formatting of structured data. Simple templates, in one language, are easy to do, see {{drfop}}. Others, are harder, including those that are available in multiple languages, so that if {{Walters Art Museum license}} appears in a file, you and I will see it in English, but User:Túrelio will see it in German and User:Trijnstel will see it in Dutch. The most basic one for the Ford will be a license template, similar to the Walters one above. And yes, what I am looking for is a short name, so that people using the template don't have to type {{Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum License}}. I'd be inclined to go a little longer than "FordLibMuseum" as then we all have to remember that it's not FordLibMus and other things you can imagine -- I like Template:Ford Library and Museum License unless you object.

Don't overcategorize. I just removed Category:Collections of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum from File:Piece of Lynette "Sqeaky" Fromme's apartment.jpg because it also had the more specific cat Category:Miscellaneous objects in the collection of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum. In general, don't put something in both Cat:A and Cat:B if Cat:B reports to Cat:A.

"The Root Category: would that be Category:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum? - where do all the other media that have migrated there go?" See the new cats I added for photos of the two buildings. As you say, figuring out the tree for images is going to be hard. Let me come back to you with thoughts.

And, yes, of course, having me listed as a protagonist is great. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on Cats

Although I do understand that there is one institution, but two buildings, in Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids, I'm not sure that having two separate cat trees that come together only at the top is a good idea. Cats are meant to help people find things and most people won't know whether to look for a particular image under the museum or the library.

Perhaps the thing to do -- I'm feeling my way here -- you're the archivist, after all -- is to use relatively large cats in the tree that begins at Category:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum and then expect that most images will also have a cat out of the regular tree that begins at Category:Gerald Ford. This will allow for the fact that there will be images of Ford and his family as well as of artifacts that could be any of

  • Housed at and imaged by the Ford Library and Museum (FLM) (These will also have the FLM PD license template)
  • Housed at the FLM, but imaged by visitors (These will have the FLM Institution tag, but license from photographer)
  • Neither

That suggests a tree something like this:

Thus all images of Susan Ford will have Category:Susan Ford. Those that are in the FLM will have Category:Ford Library and Museum - Images of the Ford Family as well.

An image of President Ford in the Oval Office from your files might have:

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


Templates: I showed my boss what I've done so far and showed him Template:NARA-cooperation - he would like ours like that except with our logo and replace all references to NARA with Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum, and of course as you say, translatable. I like your template name - please go with it. Is that something you could do? although we may want to include that FLM is an agency of NARA just to make'em happy

I will rely on you for the FLM PD license template - a better logo has been uploaded for your use. Now the BIG question - will we be able to replace the NARA PD license template with the new FLM PD lic template in the Ford image files that NARA has already uploaded? there's fewer than 300 that I've found so far.

Overcat-ing: thanks for cleaning up things like that - I'm actually the exhibits/web designer, not an archivist so some of the cat-ing nuances I will learn. let me know what else I can adjust.

Thoughts on Cats: you are right about not pushing the distinction between the Library and the Museum - I'm thinking like a web designer.

I like your tree. In general, the word "images" could be replaced with "artifacts" or "documents" or "whatever" as we go. How specific can we get? - could the "during presidency" area get specific enough to include photos around a certain event - say Ford's involvement with the last days of the Vietnamese evacs? Those event specific groupings is what I'd like to see, but is that useful for wikimedia?

what about:

so: "An image of President Ford in the Oval Office from your files might have:

might also have:

as a third cat - won't that help wikimedia editors use the media in articles?

let me read about Institution tags as I said and also the Brooklyn Museum Partnershp page. and next week I'll start making those cats you've suggested and moving materials into them. My time over the next 2 weeks is spotty, so progress may be slow.

Thanks Bdcousineau (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirect speedy deletion

Just curious — do you consider File:Girls Generation 2012.jpg worthy of speedy deletion, or should I just wait for the DR to run its course? The passage that I quote in the DR is the reason I'm thinking speedy, since it's a perfect example of what is explicitly prohibited by the quote. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not on the list of reasons for speedy -- generally those are only things that require immediate attention -- copyvios and other immediate problems. Policy violations require discussion. On this one, I'm inclined to sympathize with WP:EN -- it's not a useful file name for most of our users. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Still protected

Hi Jim, the file Flag of France.svg is protected against re-upload ("This filename is currently protected from (re)uploading and can be used solely by administrators."). I cannot replace the invalid version against a valid one. When you unprotect it, give me a note, and I let you know when it is done. sarang사랑 18:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a good SVG guy. Why don't you ask ZScout370 -- he's an Admin, SVG person, and the last contributor to the subject flag. I see that his last edit was this morning. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do so. Thank you. sarang사랑 20:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

Commons:Village_pump#Deletion --151.75.10.39 20:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Detalle palacio de NL.jpg

Can you give a reason why you delete this file from Monterrey, Mexico? The IP said, it was a copyright violation, but not of what. Here it was marked as kept. Best regards, -- JCIV (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's what happened here. On June 13, I hit the deleted button for closing the DR, and the keep button on the file. That was a mistake. Then Fastily apparently noticed that the file was still here and deleted it yesterday.
In any event, I have restored the file. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! :) Best regards, -- JCIV (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

OTRS 2011121610016821

I didnt added false ticket numbers, i made mistake, since on Wikipedia in Serbian there is a page with numbers for all sites that allowed use of their pictures, but looks like i put wrong numbers. Theres permission for all pics i uploaded. Can you give me one of this pics where i put wrong number to correct it.--Marko235 (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I used stronger words than I should have -- it looked to me like you were trying to do something wrong, but I see now that you simply used the wrong number. I see that Trijnstel has corrected the OTRS number on all of these:

You might want to see if there are others that need correction. Again, my apologies for my too strong words. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, i'm glad this is resolved, i see now where i made mistakes with numbers. Thanks!--Marko235 (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

DR closure

Hello Jim!

Can you provide a rational for the "keep"-decision in this DR, please? I find the keep-arguments which were brought quite strange. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I added, "Looks to me like a German government publication. "By German law documents are in the public domain ... if they have been released ... for public information."". I don't feel strongly about this -- I'm just slogging through all the ancient DRs and trying to get some of them closed. If you have a better idea of this, please tell me. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a rationale. But there is a difference between US governmental works which are in the public domain (at least most of them) and works of some German official administration are generally not in the public domain. Documents are so called Amtliche Werke (official work could be comparable) and such things are mainly laws and court decisions. Sorry for bothering again. --High Contrast (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Germany needs an update. I thought that the German rules were not as broad as the USA, but:
"By German law, documents are in the public domain (gemeinfrei) if they have been published as part of a law or official decree or edict, or if they have been released as an official announcement or for public information. [emphasis added]
is quite broad. In English, "Documents" can be almost any original thing on paper, or, by extension, in digital form that might be printed on paper. Reading our interpretation, I could say that anything the German Government publishes is PD.
BTW, at User:High Contrast, you show en-2 and de-2 -- I don't mean to pry, but that doesn't make sense to me. Your English is clearly better than that. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Open request for CU

Hello, could you have a look into this CU request?. It looks like some CUs are not really active. Thanks and regards, Poco a poco (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed it -- I usually clear all CU requests every day. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sir Christopher Bullock's Memorial Service Address.pdf

I dont understand why you deleted his service sheet when it is a public document? Huguº (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no evidence given at the DR that it was, in fact, a public document. While the family apparently distributed copies of the speech to others, there is no evidence that Lloyd or his heirs transferred the copyright or gave the Bullock family or anyone else the right to license it as freely as Commons requires. Simply publishing a document or giving away copies does not transfer copyright -- if that were the case there could be no copyright on anything. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Ernesto Barba Image

Dear Jim, on 4th June of this year I inserted a photo of the late Ernesto Barba (1935-1994) a very famous italian hotel promoter and general manager (see en-Wp for more detailed info). This image was taken out from me using the software Gimp image editor from a bigger photo of the year 1992 (with other people inside). The photo was personally sent from Barba as a postcard photo to his friend and collegue Giovanni Bravin (Conegliano, Italy) email: gianbra335@tiscali.it (with a personal dedication and signature). Yesterday Bravin sended to me via e-mail an attached image-file of the back-card with dedication, greetings postal-stamp, date (1992) and Eugenio Barba's signature. THis photo was deleted from Wikimedia (and from en-Wp) on the same month of June. This photo is an old one made in Lhasa (Tibet) in 1992 without copyright because was personally donaed from a person that now is dead to a friend. Bravin asked to me if can rensert the photo because: 1)There is not any copyright violation and the photo anyway it's about 20 years old 2)I didn't publish the original because I was thinking was not correct towards the other people appearing in the photo with Barba but I can produce the original with the back with postal-stamp, date and Barba's signature. How can I do to reinsert it 'couse I'm sure that there are no copyright violation? Thank you for the help--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: of course I can send you the copy of the original photo wit the back--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry to say that the facts you have given do not make it possible to keep the image on Commons. Virtually every created work has a copyright, including this photograph. Owning a copy of the photograph does not mean that you (or Bravin) have the right to license it any more than owning a copy of a book gives you the right to make more copies or license the book. The copyright belongs to the photographer's heirs and will for many years to come. We would need their permission to keep it here.
I should add that while 1992 may seem like a long time ago, copyrights generally run for 70 years after the death of the creator. If the photograph were from 1882, we might accept it on the grounds that the photographer must have been dead for 70 years, but even 1900 is too recent to make that assumption. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. Anyway Bravin said to me that he's sure that Barba was the owner of the rights 'couse he was the director of the hotel in Lahsa: he have called and paid a local photographer to thake the group photo (from which I extrapolated his face). Do you really think that there isn't any possibility to insert this photo anyway?--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. You might have Bravin send a license using the form and procedure at Commons:OTRS. Make certain that he refers specifically to File:Ernesto Barba 01.jpg. I can't say for sure what the OTRS volunteer handling it will do, but I suspect it will be restored. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the help Jim. I will send a mail to Bravin explaining the procedure.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Tupac graffiti New York.jpg o.k. or not?

Hi Jim, while this photo is compatibly licensed by the photographer, I wonder whether it doesn't violate the copyright of the "painter". FOP cannot be claimed due to the location (US, non-building). --Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I also wonder whether the images of this 1995-erected monument Category:New England Holocaust Memorial in the U.S. were ever evaluated for violating or not the copyright of the artist or whether such a monument is actually copyrighted in the U.S.. --Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As you certainly know, Commons:Image_casebook#Graffiti says that because Graffiti is illegal, we allow it to stay on Commons. The argument made there has always seemed to me be in direct violation of COM:PRP points 1 and 4, so I am uneasy with it. I generally avoid closing DRs on the issue. So, I would neither hang a {{delete}} tag on this nor close the DR if someone else opened one.
As for the Holocaust Memorial, I think that most of the images infringe on the creator's copyright and should be tagged {{delete}}. It seems clear to me that the towers fall under the USA definition:
"“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article. [emphasis added]
There don't appear to be any talk pages with blue links -- no {{kept}} on any of them, so these images have not had a DR. I don't find any prior DR on any earlier images, but our search engine is not very good at finding such things.
You surely know it will be a heated DR. People will argue that they are buildings, or that they are not sculpture, or that the images are really of the trees and the towers are de minimis, and so forth.

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

O.k., thanks. I'll then open a DR for the monument. I am not totally sure about the "Graffiti is illegal" mantra. While generally I would agree, in my city I see more and more high-quality murals/graffiti which are actually signed and likely painted with the consent of the wall/door/whatever owner, such as File:StarWarsGraffitiViktoriaalleeAachen 8254.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, exactly why I'm uneasy about our rule. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Photography in Saudi Arabia

Hi, I admit taking photos in Saudi Arabia can get quite exciting and over the years I have come to know a lot of nice police men trying to do their duty in an area with somewhat unclear regulations. Yet by 2009/10 I got arrested a lot less and have even had police men showing me the best photo points to take pictures of special buildings. Of course coming back some hours later on the same day to take photos from a different angle and changed sun light still got me arrested because I hadn't noticed a raised flag in the background indicating the region was now of limits because some royal had arrived in a nearby palace. I have found at last the documents that got me out of most of the trouble and put them on the web. Sadly I have not documented where I got them in 2008 or can't relocate the site. The Saudi Tourism Authority has changed its web page several times and seems to discourage deeplinking to the archives. So please have a look at these documents and copy them to a place where Wikipedia can use them. I am not sure how official they are but they are cited by several newspaper articles and at an Aramco site. As I understand the regulations they clearly allow taking pictures from public places to promote the image of the country. If there is no sign it is principally allowed to take photos, providing you do not violate security or privacy issues.

I don't know who translated the document so it may be good to have somebody fluent in arabic check the text and maybe find better sources. Maybe someone from here could help [11] If yoo know someone else that is better suited for this issue please direct the information there as I am only very infrequently on the Wikipedia site. --T.woelk (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. I'm putting a copy of your note on Commons:Village pump where it will get wider attention. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Europe by satellite 2010-07-14 B&W lite.gif

"It is Commons policy that satellite images do have a copyright." : Please, where is that policy documented ? Biem (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "Policy" was too strong a word. However this discussion brings together a consensus from a number of very experienced editors: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ursa Minor Dwarf.jpg. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can read it, the discussion on File:Ursa Minor Dwarf.jpg has not discussed the main issue, that (a) according to international conventions, an author's right is intended to protect an author's intervention (obviously lacking with a satellite image), and (b) a "copyright" in US law is intended to protect an author's right, not a private ownership of something (or whatever).
It seems to me that (a) The US law has evolved to adhere to the Berne convention, according to which the protection is given to an author's production (not to a machine's one). (b) Under Berne's convention, a photograph taken automatically by a satellite conveys no "authorship", hence no "author's right", hence no copyright.
Biem (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you read the discussion again, particularly the "thought experiment" of the time lapse photography of a flower. This would be an entirely automatic process, but we would all agree that the photographer would deserve a copyright. Similarly, the consensus at Ursa Minor Dwarf was that simply adding the coordinates of the Dwarf to the list of images to be taken by the automated telescope was enough to gain a copyright. Also note that there are jurisdictions, including the UK, where images taken by fixed surveillance cameras have a copyright, see Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices. As far as I know, no one has challenged Google's copyright claim on its satellite images.
You may, of course, post a request for reconsideration at Commons:Undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that - thanks for the advice. Entered at Commons:Undeletion requests#File:Europe by satellite 2010-07-14 B&W lite.gif - see you there ? Biem (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

more Ford Museum

Hiya - I've noted that other museums are categorizing like this "blah blah at the XYZ Museum" or "blah blah in the XYZ Museum" - (location is last) so I'm gonna rename some of the new cats I made - so

will become

so this will create some empty cats ... will a bot clean them out? Bdcousineau (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Either give me a list and I'll knock them off, or tag them with {{speedy|renamed category}} and someone else will do it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

ok, will do most likely tomorrow Friday THANKS Bdcousineau (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

got the cats tagged {{speedy|renamed category}} thanks for the info. user:Smallman12q has made some templates ... see my talk page for our conversation. Bdcousineau (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Admin status hiatus

Hello again, Jim. I am very busy with my study now and I won't be active until mid 2013. I will only come here to upload images when I have time. So I think Im will have y adminship removed during that time. Can I get it back after that. Thank you--Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's written down, but generally if the removal is voluntary, it can be restored without another vote. Why bother, though? You've already got enough actions this month to pass the February 2013 activity test and the next test after that is August 2013, so you even if you did nothing until next July you would remain an Admin. If you have a clear intention to return, I see no reason to resign as an Admin.
Of course, you'll be missed. Good luck with your schoolwork. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I have reason for this. I share my computer with my family members so leaving my account inactive may not be safe. Moreover, staying away of adminship will enable me to concentrate on my study. I 'm usually distracted :-). Anyway, hope to see you again--Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Image deletion

On the deletion decision linked in the headline you wrote:

“Unfortunately, you can enforce US law on an image kept on servers in the United States, so Commons rules require that we respect the copyright status in the country of origin and the USA. . ”

I would be much obliged if you could refer me to the policy decision determining that images that do not comply with USA copyright laws, while complying with copyright statues in their country of origin, must be deleted from Commons.
On the same note, are all commons images kept only on servers situated on USA territory? Aren't there any images kept on Dutch or South Korean territory? In that case must every image comply with at least three legal systems? Thank you for your time. Oyoyoy (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

From the lead section of the official policy at Commons:Licensing:
"Wikimedia Commons accepts only media
  • that are explicitly freely licensed, or
  • that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."
This is more fully set forth at Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_non-US_copyright_law
As far as I know, all Commons servers are in the state of Florida, USA. There may be mirrors in other places, but they are not owned by Commons. However, in some cases, as noted at the above cited reference, three countries' law may apply.
.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. It's about time to move Wiki servers to a territory that fully recognizes the Bern Convention. Oyoyoy (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I have thought about that from time to time. The USA has several advantages -- Bridgeman versus Corel, a very high Threshold of Originality, a lot of case law on copyright, and the cheapest server farms in the world -- and a disadvantage -- the URAA. On balance, I can't think of a better place for Commons servers. What we lose in having the URAA, we gain in having all the old masters without worrying about the photographers' copyright. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Janko Kersnik plaque

The object depicted in File:Janko_Kersnik_plaque.jpg, which you have deleted, was put on place in 1940 by the Bistrica Student Society.[12] As a collective work, even if it was still copyrighted in 1995, when the new act on copyright was passed in Slovenia, it became public domain in 2010, i.e. 70 years after it was publicly displayed for the first time. I think it should be undeleted. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In most countries, collective works are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the last author or creator, not 70 years after creation. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Slovenia confuses me:
"The copyright runs:
  • for the life of the author and for 70 years after his death, unless otherwise provided by the aforementioned Act
  • in the case of coauthors, for 70 years from the death of the last coauthor;
  • (omitted)
  • in the case of collective works, for 70 years after the lawful disclosure;"
I don't understand the difference between "in the case of coauthors" and "in the case of collective works" -- perhaps there is a subtlety in the original language that did not translate well. If you can explain it, I'd be happy to change the closure. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The translation is ok. This probably has to do with Article 100 of the Slovenian copyright and related rights act.[13] If I understand correctly, this plaque would be a collective work only in the case that its creators have signed a contract; therefore, undeletion based on Article 62 is actually possible only if I demonstrate there was such a contract. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading from your cite:
"(1) If the work, created in collaboration of two or more persons, constitutes an inseparable whole, all co-authors of such work shall have a joint copyright in it.
(2) Deciding on the use of such work belongs jointly to all co-authors, however, an individual co-author may not oppose to it unreasonably or in bad faith.
(3) Co-authors' shares shall be determined in proportion to the extent of their respective contributions to the creation of the work, unless they are set otherwise by their agreement."
If the translation is good, then I would say that the Encyclopedia Britannica, with its individual signed articles is a "collective work", but that most jointly authored books, papers, and so forth fall under the co-author provision. Since the question is whether each contribution is separable, I would say that this plaque is a co-authored work, no matter what contract there was. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The third item states "razen če niso razmerja s pogodbo drugače določena". I'm not sure why the translator used two terms (contract and agreement) for "pogodba", meaning, as far as I understand, a signed understanding of two parties about the management of copyright. In this case it seems that if there was such a contract, authors could determine their share otherwise, to constitute a collective work, as allowed by Article 100. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I might say that that describes only the authors' ability to agree to a split of the royalties other than 50/50 (or pro rata, if more than two). I don't think it necessarily affects the work's status as collective or co-authored. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

SmilingEffect - File deletion

Hello James, I just notice that you have deleted all the files I uploaded for SmilingEffect.

The reason of deletion is: "source site has explicit copyright notice and there is no evidence of permission."

I am Marco Tsitselis, the founder of SmilingEffect, this brand is registred under my name. The images objects of this discussion have been created from us (me and my team) so there is no copyright abuse here. If you need a verification, I will be happy to send you a copy of the brand registration, in order for you to verify my talking.

Please let me know how we should proceed, in order to re-upload my images.

Thank you in advance, MT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao-Kao (talk • contribs) 12:46, 20 September 2012‎ (UTC)


I suggest you read Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tao-Kao. Although brief, it gives all of the reasons that the files were deleted. While the speedy delete was based on the fact that there was no permission, they are also out of scope as personal art and violate COM:ADVERT. The fact that your only contribution to Commons are images whose descriptions all advertise your web site is also a negative factor.
You are free to request restoration at Commons:Undeletion requests. I will oppose such a request on the grounds noted above.
Please do not under any circumstance upload the files again. That would be a serious violation of our rules. If an Undeletion request is successful the files will be restored to public view by an Administrator. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Catbanshee.jpg and File:Bonaventure16.jpg

Hello Jameslwoodward,

since you decided to keep the two images mentioned above, could you please adjust their description/licensing? The CC-license is still wrong: the Flickr-user does obviously not hold the copyright. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I do change descriptions from time to time, as a general rule that is not the closing Admin's job -- it can be done by any editor. Please remember that we deal with more than 2,000 deletions every day and are struggling to keep ahead. 11:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
So, it's customary to close deletion requests even though the issue (here: plainly wrong CC-license) is still not resolved? I know that you have a huge amount of DRs to check, but honestly this doesn't seem to be a good idea to me: What if noone else cares to correct the errors?
However, I tried to fix it myself – could you please at least have a look at that? I usually do make changes like that on my own, when I'm sure that I know what I'm doing, but this case seemed a bit more tricky to me and I didn't want to mess it up even more, so I thought it would be best to ask you to do it. To be honest, I'm still not fully convinced that we can keep those files: I thought PD-files had to be in the PD in the source country and the US? Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Apologies -- I had a bad moment above. It is true, though, that most Admins leave that sort of cleanup to others -- there is just too much for us to do. In this case, since I did a fair amount of research, I probably should have changed the licenses -- your fix is just right, thanks.
I agree that it is not a sure thing. Note that I passed on closing the third of these images, because we could not prove that it was a CF image. In these two cases, though, we have good evidence that it was a CF image and a high likelihood it was published before 1962, the year the Banshee went out of service. Fifty years covers the Canadian copyright. As for any possible US copyright, for that to be in force would require that it was published with notice and that the copyright was renewed. I did a quick search of the USCO database (which is on-line for entries after 1977) and found nothing -- it is hard to imagine that Canada would have paid to renew an American copyright on a 28 year old image. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, in most cases leaving the cleanup to "orinary" editors probably really isn't very much a problem – for example, adding a {{PD-textlogo}} to a file after an admin decided that it's really simple enough → no big deal.
Just a thought: If your statement at the closure of the DR had contained something like "kept, but please clean up the license" it might have been easier for me to be bold and do it ;-)
Anyways: Thanks for double-checking my edits and the database search. I guess we'll have to live with that kind of remaining uncertainty. Have a nice weekend, --El Grafo (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Always "be bold" -- it is usually the right thing and if it isn't, someone will fix it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

I just wanted to let you know that I responded to your message to Erico on his talkpage. INeverCry 19:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns in regard to those out of scope DRs, so I'll let them go the full 7 days from now on. Speaking of DRs, I've been archiving the older closed ones along with Denniss. So far January thru July are all archived, leaving only a few open DRs for each of these months. Perhaps you could take a look at these, if you have time? These are usually the most complicated ones, so I felt they could use the attention of a more experienced admin than myself. INeverCry 21:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I have taken several passes through the six months' DRs and most of the remaining ones require either national expertise or someone who reads another language (Google is not clear). I will be going through them again and will do any that I feel qualified for. It would certainly be helpful if you commented on any that you had thoughts about -- I often do that when there are serious issues but I'm not sure which way to go. As you will learn, it's really helpful when another known colleague has commented -- it helps sort through all the people who don't know what they're talking about.
And thanks for the archiving -- it really helps. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama in India

Hello.

I'd like to request you to contribute to w:Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Freedom_of_Panorama_in_India (a thread which I just started). I saw that you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Painting of Arjuna's chariot at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi.jpeg with the rationale that 2d works aren't covered by FOP in India. I personally find this interpretation (as currently stated at Commons:FOP#India) to be incorrect. However, to get a better perspective on this, I've started this thread. Feel free to contribute to this, and/or start a similar thread on commons if you wish. Regards--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Although I object to discussions of Commons matters on WP:EN, I have commented there. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi, thanks! I understand and I'll do what you said. Thanks for warning.Érico Wouters msg 21:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Socks

Hello James, you may want to see this thread on my Wiki talk page and the SPI case that is linked within as there are checkuser-confirmed results concerning socks which are also active here. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Although they have very little activity here, they are very likely socks. I have blocked all four for abuse of multiple accounts and copyvios. Thanks. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi Jim. I came upon this strange file: File:Louis Rego.jpg; it looks like the uploader was confused about renaming, and so they uploaded over it. The image was re-uploaded with the right name File:Luis Rego .jpg, but the copyright details don't seem sufficient to me. Should these files be CSDed? INeverCry 00:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If we assume good faith, it looks to me like they're OK -- he claims "own work", which feels OK to me. Maybe a DR, but not a {{speedy}}.
I very rarely use {{speedy}} or {{copyvio}}. If I'm sure that it qualifies for one of them, I just blow it away, as the rules allow. If I'm not sure, then I'd like a discussion, not just one other Admin making a decision, so I put a {{delete}} on it. You may grow into a different way of working, but that's mine. Remember that while we do sometimes get into multi-thousand word debates over individual files, this is mostly a numbers game -- deleting several thousand files every day to stay ahead of the backlog.
I left a message on his talk page User_talk:P.Durel#Renaming_and_deleting_files.
There are four file names here:
1) File:Louis Rego.jpg -- I deleted this, because it's a duplicate of (2) and (3)
2) File:Luis Rego .jpg -- I moved this to (3) because the trailing space is confusing
3) File:Luis Rego 2.jpg -- new name for (2)
4) File:Luis Rego.jpg -- also uploaded by P.Durel, different image of same man.
.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
OOPs. I just noticed "This photo of Mr Rego belongs to the personal archives of Mr Luis Rego himself, and has been given to me in order to be posted on his Wikipedia Page." You are completely correct. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luis Rego 2.jpg .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this. That first pic gave me a good 15 minutes of confusion, as you can see in your talkpage history, and I see it didn't leave you completely unscathed either, which is perhaps a bit comforting. Face-wink.svg INeverCry 19:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samuraiantiqueworld

Hello Jameslwoodward, just to clarify, User:174.251.243.11 is/was me, I was not being a sock puppet, I just did not log in, that happens from time to time with no attempt made to fool anyone, as for User:74.223.167.126, this is not me, probably someone with an interest in the subject. User:Takabeg has been trying to control all Turkish/Ottoman armour/weapons categories and has been making unfounded personal attacks on me, this is just another attempt to keep me from editing these categories.samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I was actually surprised when I saw a respectable member of the community acting like a sockpuppet by editing the same three files both as User:174.251.243.11 and as User:Samuraiantiqueworld. I take no position on your dispute with Takabeg, but while we all make mistakes from time to time, under the circumstances you should be especially careful not to make edits when not logged in and particularly not to make edits on the same file. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

COM:BIBLE

Hi, Jim, can you clarify about Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Bible Illustrations (Sweet Publishing)-license (bottom of the page)? Thanks. Bennylin (yes?) 17:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I' sorry to say that I don't understand the problem. We have OTRS ticket 2012051610007039, which I referred to in my closing comment, which is a straightforward statement that some 3,000 Sweet Publishing images are CC-BY-SA. What needs clarification? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Macedonian Museums-102-FolkAndHistory Drosopigi-453.jpg

I am not sure why you restored this file. I do not see a free license at source ([14]) like what you said in the restoration comment. --Sreejith K (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The image is at: http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Museums/Folklore/FolkAndHistory_Drosopigi.html
with a CC-BY-SA license here: http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Museums/credits.html -- which is linked to the "Credits" tab on the first page.
I think that's OK -- or am I missing something?
I note that the Credits page says that the photographs were taken by Prof. Vlasis Vlasidis and that our uploader is User:Vlas2000, which suggests that our uploader is Professor Vlasidis, but proving that through OTRS is not necessary because of the CC-BY-SA license. I need to add that to the image description. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

COM:GFPLM

Hi Jim - can you tell me a simple and quick way to insert {{Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum-cooperation}} into all the images I've already uploaded? I can't quite figure out how HotCat or Cat-a-lot would do this. If I need to do it by hand, that's fine. Thanks Bdcousineau (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be possible using COM:AWB. You'd have to be a little careful, though, because while it can make a list of your Contributions and filter them by namespace, it'll grab any File: page that you've edited, not just the ones you uploaded. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Philosopher is correct. Take a look at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser. It's a very powerful tool that you will surely find helpful from time to time. Its power, however, can be dangerous, so you must be authorized to use it -- which I would be happy to do if you are interested.
On the other hand, if you'd rather not take on a new learning curve right now, I'd be happy to do it for you. Just put a list of the images someplace convenient -- say User:Bdcousineau/Sandbox1. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. Jim, I will put the list into User:Bdcousineau/Sandbox1 in the next day or so - it's all the .jpgs in Category:Artifacts at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum. I'd like to learn that other tool but not today! Bdcousineau (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

List is now complete on User:Bdcousineau/Sandbox1 also included are the institution and templates for your use. Thanks so much! Bdcousineau (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks! I have a question for you later.. let me play in a sandbox first. Bdcousineau (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Uyghur_Adam_Tomak.png

Hi, what should have done with image File:Uyghur Adam Tomak.png not to be deleted? I should have been more clear about the thing that there was OTRS permit pending and add the missing {{subst:OP}} or {{OTRS pending}} to image description page? It somehow sux that i try to advise people (b.kurbanjan@yahoo.com) how to give permission to use pictures in commons and it fails because there is nobody who would do advise or fix the broken OTRS requests. --Zache (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem here. I deleted an image that had been previously deleted and was uploaded again by a user who has uploaded multiple copyvios, claiming "own work" and has created multiple socks. It is plain that he cannot be trusted. I have just blocked five new socks of this user.
The image was a clear copyright violation -- it should not have even had a DR, but under our rules should have been tagged as {{speedy}}.
There is an OTRS e-mail relating to this image, but it came from an anonymous e-mail account which is different from both the one called out on the source page and the one you cite above. I therefore suspect that it actually came from Aparhan/Baratk. Unfortunately, sometimes when a thoroughly bad actor gets involved with an image, it may become impossible to rescue. Much of what we do depends on trust and truth telling, and when a frequent liar is involved, the ability to trust disappears. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Teamwork!

Thanks for helping with deleting the out of scope/test/vandalism pages. :) Trijnsteltalk 11:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

DR of 700+ images

Hi Jim. Can you take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aeou? I have no experience with something this massive. The uploader had CSDed a few of the images that are involved, and objected to my removing the speedy tags, which I did because the images were already part of a DR. I figured I'd ask you before I get more confused with the whole thing. ;) INeverCry 19:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Massive is not a problem -- just a reason to get it right, because an UnDR would be a real pain. It's an interesting question, thanks for calling it to my attention. I've opined there, and asked Carl Lindberg for comment. He's the clearest thinker we have on complex issues. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. INeverCry 00:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Works used at sisters

Gday Jim. At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alice in Wonderland (1903).ogv you made a decision about a work hosted at one of the sisters without notifying the sister sites, and without use {{Fair use delete}}. Can I ask that you check the global use before you delete. As Commons is a global repository, Commons admins need to have the awareness of these other sites when undertaking the deletions, not just thinking about local wiki. I will be organising the undeletion of the work, its moving to enWS and subsequent deletion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That is not my understanding of the way things work. It is up to the uploader and other interested parties to migrate files, as needed, before the DR is closed. The fact that a file is used elsewhere is not relevant to Commons decisions or actions when the reason for deletion is copyright violation.
Commons Administrators delete around 2,000 files a day and are struggling to keep ahead of the backlog. Extra steps in our process will not help that. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, and I am one of the administrators that does that.

Commons administrators should not be shirking their responsibility to notify appropriate sister wikis just because it is busy here. Such an approach seemingly puts Commons on a plane above these other wikis. Commons is not an isolated island of images, it is clearly identified as the repository for the WMF foundation, and the attitude of all care but no responsibility will have the wikis housing their files locally, which is the antithesis of the global approach.

The argument about interested parties to watch to be able to migrate the file is optimistic and somewhat flawed. How would any party know that the file had even been listed for discussion, let alone a decision to delete the file, and within a specific timeframe? A file deleted for a WP article is probably an annoyance, but for the Wikisources where such a file is an intrinsic part of the transcription process, it is totally problematic. For a file uploaded in 2009 for use at a site like enWS your expectation of it being followed and captured at a random time is beyond wildly optimistic, and that you so casually suggest that as being functional is fanciful. I know that I have personally uploaded hundreds of files, and easily double that using Magnus' bot either direct uploads, or migrations from other sites. I am not doing blame, I am looking for solutions, and for an agreed means to go forward. If the administrators here cannot accept that their responsibility is broader than the deletion of a file, and the preservation of the wider concept, then it will cause fractures, as ultimately for the WS the only means to preserve the integrity of the files is to review how and where the file hosting occurs. Can I also reflect against your proposed administrator business and the whacking that some stewards got this paste week for deletion. I support the retention and training of administrators for deletion as it needs that local knowledge, but if local admins cannot do the right things, then why do we restrain the right?  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is a problem. I'm not sure it is a big problem -- I've deleted almost 50,000 files and I think this is the first time the problem has been raised with me. While that doesn't mean that there have been no similar problems in my past, there probably haven't been many.
As I said above, I think we have a much larger problem. I am seriously concerned that Commons will soon be overwhelmed by the volume of work. Fastily deleted over 250,000 files (some of them incorrectly), zeroed out a huge backlog, and then burned out. I don't see any replacement for that capacity, so I will continue to resist any suggestion that Admins do any cleanup while closing a DR. I wish it were otherwise.
I have two thoughts on the problem with stewards -- yes, we can certainly use more active help here, but stewards are highly trusted users -- both Admin and CU powers on all sites. It concerns me when a person who is highly trusted to use special powers breaks the rules while using them. It suggests to me that they should not have been trusted in the first place. Note I say "suggests", not "proves", but the problem is there. I would oppose a change in the rules allowing Stewards to do routine deletions here, just as I opposed Rock drums's RfA -- no one with no knowledge or experience of copyright issues should be an Admin here, however well intentioned, careful, and smart he or she may be. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirección

Hola, yo puse la redirección para que todos los mensajes de traducción me lleguen a mi página de discusión de Wikipedia en español. Lo que pasa es que nunca entro a otros proyectos que no sean Wikipedia por falta de tiempo. ¿Existe alguna manera de que los mensajes que me lleguen a este y otros proyectos sean trasladados a mi página de discusión de Wikipedia en español?.--Ansemolu (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I put the redirect so that all messages reach me my translation discussion page for Wikipedia in Spanish. What happens is that never went to other projects other than Wikipedia because of time. Is there any way that messages reach me this and other projects are transferred to my Wikipedia talk page in Spanish?
translator: Google


No. It is essential that your Commons messages are on your Commons talk page so that other Commons users can see them if necessary. You can use Google translate as necessary -- it is not perfect, but it is OK for most things.
No. Es esencial que los mensajes Commons son en su página de discusión Commons de modo que otros usuarios puedan ver Commons si es necesario. Usted puede utilizar Google traducirá si es necesario - no es perfecta, pero está bien para la mayoría de las cosas.
translator: Google
.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

more COM:GFPLM

Hi Jim -

I found a page User:Dominic did that included some context to the docs he uploaded. The I found this: Commons:Deletion requests/Record Group 233/Petitions and Memorials, compiled 1813 - 1968 (Judiciary). I totally agree with you that the images in a "gallery" were not a great idea.

What about if the images where at the file level? See: User:Bdcousineau/Sandbox2 for my handling of his idea. (For whatever reason, the cat title is not in big letters). I think we do need to include some optional context for document collections.... and uploading documents as primary source material is really a gray area in Commons as far as I can tell. It makes sense to me to include this context at the head of the category as opposed to in each file. But I'm curious about your thoughts. I keep wanting to group with all the information from the top, while I see that in Commons the file level carries the bulk of the information. I keep having to remind myself that Commons is not a website and material is organized differently than a basic website. How do you think it will work in terms of SEO? At the end, I want our stuff found and used.

Please disregard the disorganized file summary information in the photo files - User:Smallman12q and I are hashing out what should be there. And using the NARA formats as a place to start from.

The cats for this group will be: Presidential papers, Gerald Ford, US Vice-Presidents, Foreign Leaders, Documents at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.

Thanks Bdcousineau (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand -- perhaps I am having a dumb moment. You say, "I totally agree with you that the images in a "gallery" were not a great idea", but it appears that your Sandbox2 is a gallery.
As you read at Commons:Deletion requests/Record Group 233/Petitions and Memorials, compiled 1813 - 1968 (Judiciary), I think that the major, perhaps only, reason for galleries is to organize selected images so that a user can browse through them. A good example is Lighthouses_in_Maine, which takes the best image of each lighthouse from the ten or fifteen categories in which they appear. I don't see a similar rationale for a gallery of documents -- one doesn't browse them visually -- one will get to them through the category tree and the related ones will be in the same category or categories.
What am I missing here? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No it's me. I didn't make myself clear. Is it possible and/or advisable to put collapsible content-blocks on a category page, above a table with links to the files? see again User:Bdcousineau/Sandbox2. What do you think? User:Smallman12q suggested a Description column, but that will be the same across all the files in this category, hence the collapsible-content blocks. Bdcousineau (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Aha -- your sandbox is a prototype category.
It is certainly possible. I would be inclined to not use the collapsible boxes, but simply write it out -- these isn't that much. However, I hasten to say that I have no experience of this sort of complex category. The material is definitely in Commons scope, but I'm not sure how much similar material we have to draw experience from. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim! User:Smallman12q also recommended writing everything out (see my talk page). It IS a grey area, all these documents on Commons; nice to know COM:GFPLM may be setting a standard. In our project, we will write the text out. Bdcousineau (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Return of Deletion

File:Pride of Performance.jpeg has been deleted by. I have talked about it to User:VernoWhitney. A friend of mine won this medal some years back and for wikipedia it was sent to a jewler for polish and luster as u can see . This has been deleted, I dont know excactly its fault as there are pictures of many medals on WikiCommons. It is requested to restore it.--Khalid Mahmood (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As it says at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pride of Performance.jpeg, most medals have a copyright, which in Pakistan lasts for fifty years after the death of the creator. Therefore, unless the creator of this medal died before 1962, it is still covered by copyright. Since the medal was first awarded in 1958, that seems unlikely, but not impossible.
A photograph of a copyrighted work is a derivative work and must have the permission of the copyright holder in order to keep it on Commons.
Therefore there are two ways this might be restored to Commons -- you must either prove that the creator of the medal died before 1962 or get a license from the copyright holder, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. I would guess that the copyright holder is the Pakistani government, but it might be the creator of the medal or his heirs. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Jim. Can you take a look at this: User talk:INeverCry#Another rename request? I wonder if these images are even in scope, seeing that the subject was found to be not-notable on en.wiki? If you could weigh in, I would really appreciate it. INeverCry 16:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. INeverCry 22:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

DR question

Hi Jim. I noticed this mass DR, in which the uploader supports deletion, and where the reasoning seems to be inaccuracy. I just wanted to see what you thought of those deletion votes? INeverCry 23:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I had reached the wrong conclusion earlier. Sometimes it takes several tries to get ideas into my thick skull ;-) .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:PCMCIA Dimesiones.jpg

Hi Jim, hope you're well. Just thought I'd let you know that a few files you deleted were listed up at COM:UD, if you're interested. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 08:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw them. I think it's a close call, so I am content to let the UD discussion rule. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Frozen Synapse video still

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Frozen Synapse.png

Since commons obviously lacks the spirit of free discourse that Wikipedia does and closes down discussions based on single assertions, I suppose I'll have to bring this here:

At no point did I suggest the software was free, so your justification is a total straw man. The video from which the still is taken is licensed. If you care to make an informed judgement acquire a copy of the game and see what license the game automatically applies to the videos it creates and uploads for you. Or, y'know, just be wrong. I just won't use commons again, since due diligence or consensus don't appear to be a 'thing' here. -Rushyo (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Deletion Requests always stay open for at least a week -- this one was open for almost four months. It was closed based on two opinions, the nominator's and mine, not, as you say, a single assertion. It would have been nice to have more discussion, but no one else was interested. As you can see at the DR logs, some images get thousands of words of discussion. I do not see how you can say that the issue did not receive a fair airing. In addition, in cases where the uploader feels that the decision was incorrect, you can ask the uploader to reconsider, as you have done here. If that fails, you can ask for reconsideration at Commons:Undeletion requests.
I have looked again at the Frozen Synapse web site and again find nothing to suggest that any aspect of it is freely licensed. The fact that a video from it appears on YouTube does not mean that it is freely licensed -- YouTube does not police its uploads well and it is possible that the license allows such uploads. That would not necessarily mean that it is freely licensed as required here.
You suggest that Commons acquire a copy of the game to read the license. That is not how we work. You, the uploader, are required to prove that the file is freely licensed. You could easily do that by providing a link to the license that you want us to read. Without being able to read a copy of that license, there is no way to keep the image.
As I noted above, you are free to post a request for reconsideration at Commons:Undeletion requests. Although I can't speak for my colleagues, I think that will be a waste of time unless the people commenting there can read a copy of the license..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion of File:Virtualbox logo.png

Hello, James

I am writing in reference to the undeletion request of File:Virtualbox logo.png in Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. If possible, I would like to ask you to review the recent discussion and reconsider your oppose. I genuinely believe that the image is free and previous classification as non-free (and subsequent deletion) was a result of a misunderstanding. Wikipedia was quick to acknowledge the misunderstanding but somehow my message seems not to go through on Commons. In fact, I feel nobody is reading it.

Before you mention it, I am aware of the differences and similarities between Commons and Wikipedia. What concerns us most here is the fact that when it comes to deciding the license of an image published in U.S., there is significant compatibility between Commons and Wikipedia practices.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

In that discussion, I asked that you post either the complete text of the license on which you are relying, or a link to a complete text of the license. As far as I can see, you have not done so. Without that, I'm not going to change my mind. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, James. I had done so earlier. Here is the link again: [15]. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, again. Don't bother. The discussion is closed. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The cited license speaks only of code, not icons. Even if you argue that the icons are produced by code and therefore are themselves essentially code, there is this:
"You may copy and distribute such a combination provided that you adhere to the terms and conditions of all of the GPL and the licenses of the third-party code; in particular, you must include the source code of the entire combination insofar as the GPL requires distribution of source code."
As I read that, if you are going to distribute the image of the icon, you must distribute the source code with it -- that's silly for an icon, of course, but is the consequence of trying to stretch a code license to include non-code things. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, James.
The license reads: "This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License." The section that you cited, however, comes from preliminary notes section and pertains third-party codes included with VirtualBox; yes, you are right that icon is not third-party code, but that means you read the wrong section!
Here is an example of files with the same type of license uploaded to Commons: Avidemux-logo.png, Avidemux.png, Audacity.png, Audacity.svg, Adblockplus icon.png, Celestia.png, Flock icon.jpg, GIMP icon.png, ΜTorrent 2.2 icon.PNG, SMPlayer icon.png, VLC icon.png, Wsicon.svg, Wireshark Icon.png. If these are allowed, how come VirtualBox logo is not allowed?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ljubljana Central Market

I think there was perhaps a misunderstanding regarding the image File:Ljubljana Central Market 2010 bird eye.jpg. What was created by Plečnik was only the white building (visible as the elongated series of arcades just above the centre of the image), not the entire market which was not arranged by him. Can you confirm please whether the deletion is still warranted? --Eleassar (t/p) 14:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I just tried to look again at the image and could not, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Errors_in_files. When I can look at it again, I'll make sure, but I think my decision was correct. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Please also consider this image. The low elongated building with arcades is work of Plečnik, but it seemed to me like 'de minimis'. What do you think? Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that one is probably OK -- other editors may disagree. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I've posted a request for undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

For this. I had a very frustration chat with an otrs member yesterday who always insisted that the case was open and he was not going to comment on it, blablabla.... So, I think I'll apply for otrs. I often get people to write orts and then I get frustrated with the reaction from there :-/ So thanks for beeing uncomplicated! Amada44  talk to me 07:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for my delayed reply -- I seem to have missed your note.
That's why I applied. Also, it's helpful when you tell someone to use OTRS, because you can then follow up and do whatever is called for, rather than having to rely on the OTRS volunteers, who sometimes have a backlog. Let me know when you do and I'll support it, for whatever that is worth. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
np. Okay I will. Just a little busy right now I'll do it when I have time. Thanks and cheers, Amada44  talk to me 12:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright and Work for Hire

You are correct that it is possible to own a creative work, but not own its copyright. However, that wasn't the issue with the Owen Roberts portrait. If I am an artist, and you commission a work from me, I essentially become your employee, and the copyright of the work belongs entirely to YOU, the employer. The law is very clear in that regard. See here. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No. From your cite:
"A work created by an independent contractor can be a work made for hire only if (a) it falls within one of the nine categories of works listed in part 2 above and (b) there is a written agreement between parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire." [emphasis added]
In US law, "employee" has a special meaning, and a portrait commission does not create an employee relationship. An employee is regularly employed by the employer, has taxes withheld from his paycheck, and receives a W2 at the end of the year. A contractor is hired for a job, does not have taxes withheld, and receives a 1099 at the end of the year. Unless actually on the Federal payroll -- as were various artists during the Depression, working for the WPA -- a portrait painter is an independent contractor and, therefore, there must be an explicit written agreement that the work is made for hire.
In my closing comment, I cited the best recent Commons case on the issue, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerald R. Ford - portrait.jpg which, in turn, cites two others.
Note also {{money-US}} -- the obverse of the Sacagawea dollar is under copyright held by the artist despite the fact that the work was, of course, commissioned by the Federal Government.
.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Огнев Николай Васильевич.png

Hello. I uploaded this file and now I was change lisense on PD-RusEmpire. --Тотемский (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The Administrator that closes Commons:Deletion requests/File:Огнев Николай Васильевич.png will take that into account. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios of printed materials

Are you willing to consider deleting images as copyvios of printed materials upon a single user's claim? Bwsmith84 has uploaded several images as own works that are actually scans from County Courthouses of Ohio; we have after-the-fact OTRS permissions for File:Coshocton County Courthouse.jpg and File:Jefferson courthouse ohio.jpg, but after borrowing the book from the library and looking at every image in Category:County courthouses in Ohio, I've identified several other images that are plainly taken from it. I'd like to tag them as copyvios, since they're plainly identical (e.g. the clouds are perfectly the same, as are leaves on trees and piles of snow), but I'm not 100% sure that such an idea would be accepted because admins obviously can't check the book with just a few clicks of the mouse. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if I linked the images —
Like the Coshocton and Jefferson County Courthouses, you can see that they're all plainly scans uploaded by Bwsmith and quite different from his apparent own-work photos, like File:Monroe Courthouse OH.jpg. I asked him about them when he was uploading them several years ago, since I was surprised that he could get so many images (these counties are located all over the state) in just a few days, but he claimed that they were old images from his own family trips. I saw no reason to disbelieve that idea until finding what he'd done with the Coshocton and Jefferson images. FYI, there aren't any Smiths credited as photographers on the title page of the book in question; it's not a case of him publishing his own photos both in the book and online. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done I'm certainly happy to accept your word for this problem -- we've known each other here and on WP:EN for more than three years and you're an upstanding citizen. In addition, at high magnification they're obviously scans of pages that came off an offset press, which is not the story he told you and highly unlikely for legitimate "own work". .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I just got a note from HJ Mitchell regarding the OTRS (2011092910022206) for these images and for the Adams County photo that I forgot to link, and he says that there's something of an interest in giving similar permission for the other images. Could you check the ticket and restore any images for which there's a solid permission? Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
My reading of ticket #2011092910022206 is that it is very informal, does not mention any of our standard licenses, and gives permission only for use on WP:EN, provided that attribution is given to Thomas Patterson, the photographer. There is not mention of any use outside of Wikipedia, of commercial use, or of derivative works. Therefore I think that our use of File:Adams County Ohio Courthouse.jpg is inappropriate. There seems to be a problem loading images right now, and it's dinner time, so I'll take a look at it in the morning. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmm; interesting. Do they all need to be deleted, then? Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I have started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adams County Ohio Courthouse.jpg. I don't understand "all" -- the OTRS mentions only the one. Are there more? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
"All" referred to the Cochocton and Jefferson County Courthouses that I mentioned at the top of this section. Nyttend (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Aha. I've added them to the DR. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion_requests/File:Roma_Kenga.png

Hello, Jim. I works as Roma Kenga's manager for Universal Music company. We added this photo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Roma_Kenga.png. Last year we hired photographer to make this photo, He signed contract with Universal Music Company (Russia). Now we have exclusive rights to this photo around the world. Svetlana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sset (talk • contribs) 12:37, 29 October 2012‎ (UTC)

  • As I said in our e-mail exchange:
In any case, you must respond at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Roma_Kenga.png.
Since an ordinary license to use is different from a free license for commercial use anywhere, it is likely that you will need to have the photographer provide a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't view deleted files

Hi Jim. I think I saw you and maybe Denniss talking about this "file has errors" problem that's been preventing us from viewing alot of deleted files. Is there any word on this or when it will be resolved? I haven't been able to deal with quite a few undel reqs because of this. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 19:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no update -- I think it has been reported to the technical gurus -- it is apparently related to a major change in the software supporting the whole project.
If you need to look at a file, you can always restore it temporarily and then delete it again -- I was an Admin for at least six months before I realized that there was an easier way. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I was thinking of doing. I hope the issue gets fixed soon. INeverCry 21:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Hi again. I hope you don't mind another question. Can you look at File:Michal Horacek2.jpg? The uploader has shown me this: http://www.michalhoracek.cz/wiki, which releases the image under {{cc-by-sa-3.0-cz}}. Upon first upload the file was sourced to facebook and said to be own work. The above website names the photographer as Martin Malý. Should this be restored, and how should it be tagged if restored? Thanks again for your time. INeverCry 20:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Add a note that you have looked at the source on (date) and that it was licensed as shown -- like Flickrreview.

By the way, it's faster to show a template in either of these ways rather than using nowiki:

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help. INeverCry 21:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please review

Hi Jim: I'm not 100% sure why, but this image [16] seems problemattic. Would you take a moment and a look? Thanks ! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume you came across this because of your interest in Humboldt County. I'm not sure why you say it seems problematic, so I'll just give you the whole nine yards.
It's a radio station logo. The "K-LOVE" name apparently was begun in 1988. That's important because 1989 is a magic date in US copyright. Until March 1, 1989, a copyright notice was required or the work became PD upon publication (after 1978 registration could be substituted for notice). After 3/1/89 everything has a copyright upon publication. This logo has no notice, so if it predates 3/1/89, it is PD, unless it was always used in a larger context that had a notice.
Some of our colleagues will argue that it is too simple to have a copyright, see COM:TOO. If I had to decide, I probably would agree, but it's a close call.
It needs a description and a source. And that's all that comes to mind here.
BTW, I once again suggest you look at HotCat. It makes the kind of category removal you did at the subject a one-click action with a very fast page reload afterwards. Saves a lot of time and it would be very hard to get in trouble with it -- one at a time actions, just much faster. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Bug problem in file restore

Hi Jim. I restored this file: File:Ljubljana Central Market 2010 bird eye.jpg per the undel req, but there's a problem. The initial upload revision isn't showing along with the image info, permission, etc. Do you know how this would be fixed? INeverCry 21:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea, sorry. I suggest you ask at ANB or Village Pump. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
That's ok. Turelio has posted this at ANB and the Village Pump. INeverCry 00:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zeno Colò.jpg

Hello Jim,

I guess you somehow overlooked to close this DR after your decision. It'd be best if you were the one to close it (rather than me). Regards --Rosenzweig τ 19:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes DelReqHandler doesn't follow through. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Your decision Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karte Traisen (Fluss).svg

Hi Jim! I still think that merging free information (ie the outlines of districts are free information, facts are not copyrightable) from several sources canot be a problem. I drew all maps by myself, I didn't just copy them form anywhere.

Anyway, May you delete all my maps, all of them suddenly became to have the same "problem"... These are (at least, maybe there are more):

  • May you additionally have a look through my Uploads, perhaps you'll find some more problems.

With your decision you gave me back a huge amount of spare time (just started to draw maps for 400+ federal roads in Austria), so thank you ;) Best --AleXXw 07:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You certainly may put {{delete}} tags on your work if you think it appropriate.
For your future work, there are plenty of base maps which are either out of copyright or freely licensed (including Open Street Map) which can be used for such maps.
As for as you belief that maps do not have copyrights, aside from the clear fact that they do, think about history books. All of the facts in a history book are not copyrightable, but the expression, the words, are. Or a photograph of a landscape. The landscape itself has no copyright, but the photograph -- the particular expression -- does. A map has many creative choices -- what symbols and colors to use, how wide to draw roads and other linear features at a particular scale, where to put names of features for best legibility and minimal interference, how many names to use and, on linear features, how frequently. If you look at half a dozen different maps of the same area, they will look very different through their creative choices. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The points wich are copyrighted are exactly the points with are my own work. I just got the information in wich relation the outlines are to each other and with the pointfeatures. I decided wich point and linear elements I use and in what frequency I repeat them, what color, with, saturation the lines and areas have, I decided wich symbols I use and created them, I selected positon and usage of sub maps and where to put labels... May you take any dozend of maps of the area you deleted and compare it to my map? You'll see huge differences in all of these points. I could get the facts from OSM, because they must have the same facts. Because: a town is on every map at the same position, the course of an river goes the same way on each map,...
Do you really think I take my time to add deletion tags to all of my work or to create new one? I'm pretty sure this discussion will be the last thing I do on commons for a long time ;) Best --AleXXw 17:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
We are sorry to lose you, but if you insist on making derivative works of copyrighted maps, you are not a help to Commons. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you missunderstood me: I do not derivate copyrighted maps, I use facts to create own maps. What do you think OSM get their information of district outlines from? Best --AleXXw 18:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC) PS: Could you specify what exactly was copyrighted at the file you deleted?

Perhaps we do have a misunderstanding. At Eleassar's talk page, you said:

"I don't know the source anymore, most of the time I use different maps, showing all the same facts."

Is that a correct summary? That sentence describes making a derivative work from a map. If the source map is not freely licensed, then we cannot keep your work here. Since you cannot remember the source, Commons rules require that we delete your work. I should add that I very much appreciate your honesty in this. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That is true. But, as I wrote before, _every_ map shows the same outlines for the districts and for the course of the river and both facts are not copyrightable. So, no matter what map I used 2008, it would be the same, am I right? If I uploaded exactly the same map with source Niederösterreich Atlas (or every other map in the whole world showing austrian district borders) it would be OK? It would be really nice if you could tell me what exactly was the problem... Best --AleXXw 22:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said above, a history book is all facts, but the words used make it copyrightable. A coat of arms is drawn from a blazon that does not have a copyright, but each graphic representation of the blazon does. A map is all facts, but its representation has a copyright. So, if you trace over a map, on paper or digitally, you have copied that map and infringed on its copyright -- it does not matter if you would get the same result by copying a different map -- it is the act of copying that is the infringement. And, of course, they would not be identical because almost all commercial maps have deliberate mistakes in order to catch exactly this.
I think I am running out of words. Why don't you take File:Karte Traisen (Fluss).svg to Commons:Undeletion requests. One of our colleagues might do a better job of explaining it, or possibly, they might agree with you. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
My problem is not that single map. My problem is that I uploaded hundreds of maps over the last 6 years of contribtion, no one ever saw any problem. Now I am pretty unsure if all of my beliefs are wrong and if I should rethink my work at OTRS, Mentorenprogramm and in organizing WLM, perhaps I told everybody wrong things for years. Before I think about to go to UR I want to hear your opinion: It would be very nice if you could specify what part of the map is the copyright violation:
  • The outline of the districts? So every map in Maps of Lower Austria has to be deleted, as well as the district polygons at OSM.
  • The name of the citys or their place? I placed them out of my head, because I live here.
  • The course of the Traisen or the Danube?
Best --AleXXw 11:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not any one thing -- it is the fact that you used a copyrighted map as your base map. There is no fair use on Commons, so using someone else's map as a base is a copyvio. Really, I've run out of ways to say it -- please try UnDR. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
That is the thing: I didn't use a copyrighted map as base map. It is like, to stay at your example, I wrote an article under usage of an historical book. I just used the information within the map, wich contains exactly the same informations you find ie at OSM, and created my own map. The facts I used are not copyightable! Would it be OK if I'd say I used OSM, it would cause exactly the same map... Best --AleXXw 17:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand "I just used the information within the map". If you took off the lat/lon or grid points of every important point on the map you were working with and then made a new map from those numbers, that's OK. But if you took a map and traced over it -- either with tracing paper and pencil or digitally, then that's not OK. The problem I'm having is that the first is so much work that I can't imagine actually doing it. I have actually constructed a map from raw data -- see File:Eritrean Railway Map of March, 1998.svg -- it took days of work. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The outline of the districts are defined by law - austrian laws are PD - so it dosn't matter where the outline come from, it is still PD. The only thing copyrightable on maps based on free data (what facts are) is the representation and selection of the viewed data - in this case this is my own work. Btw: same is written as 'official guideline' at Commons:Derivative_works#Maps... Best --AleXXw 21:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
No, again. How you got there is the crux of the matter. You have not spoken directly to the question I posed above. And, by the way, your cite points out that in Germany, at least, and possibly the rest of the EU, a map is protected as a database, so that even my first method above would be a copyvio in Germany. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Good to live not in Germany ;) But if I got the exactly same date from OSM it would be OK? So I just redraw the map using OSM & add it as source ;) Best --AleXXw 21:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, OSM is certainly OK provided you give them credit as a source. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Great to have a solution, even if the map will be exactly the same... What about the several thousand other maps of austrian districts and municipialitys in Maps of Austria (and many other regions)? Do you want to delete them all? 90% got the same problem... Best --AleXXw 21:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem is not what I would do, but what our colleagues might do a week, a month, a year from now. This is why I suggested that you get a broader audience for this discussion at UnDR. With a broad consensus, that would not be a problem. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I think its a good idea to get a 'policy decision', I just started a UnDR. Could you explain your point of view? Best --AleXXw 22:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately my UnDR got closed while I was at work, so now I'm back here. @Your last question: Normaly I do copy the outlines point by point into a GIS-program, export it to svg and start editing at Inkscape. May you help me: what is the difference between the map you deleted and files like this, this, this or that, that, that, that or that? Do I need to be afraid they all will be deleted over the time? Best --AleXXw 21:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What a lot of work! Given your method, I would be comfortable with saying that you do not infringe the base map copyright under USA law. It appears, though, that you are probably infringing under German law and, even, perhaps, elsewhere in the EU, including Austria.

I do not see that your UnDR is closed -- or was closed and reopened. I think you are mistaken. I added a note asking that it be left open for a thorough review. Please add to it what you told me above. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, misinterpreted the header of next section, if I edit the section there stands 'This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.' at bottom ;) Best --AleXXw 22:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
It's a bug -- the {{udelh}} is included with the wrong edit. Be sure to add your comment above it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Just got it ;) Sorry to annoy you so in this case, but I think it is very important, not just for me. Best --AleXXw 22:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
You're not an annoyance at all -- I have seen many of them and you do not even come close. I'm happy to try to work toward an understanding and resolution of this that allows us to keep your work while still obeying our rules and the law. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeanette from the estate

I find the block here a bit unhelpful - the user is now unable to ask for help where she was getting help before. We could have given her some time to ask for an account rename. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I find that it is always better to do something now rather than delaying, because in the course of events, things that are delayed are often forgotten. The user can easily open a new account, or make comments on her talk page. You will note, I hope, that I was careful to encourage her with a positive (and truthful) comment about her images and to tell her to feel free to open an account in a different name. However, if you want to unblock her, go ahead. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Vijayanagara flag deletion rationale

I'm just curious about the rationale for deleting File:Vijayanagara flag.png. (I've never seen the file but it was linked from a Wikipedia article I edited.) The discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vijayanagara flag.png is quite cryptic with only three words of total argument on either side. Reply at en:User talk:AjaxSmack if you could. Thanks. AjaxSmack (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I looks like it was an error. Since it is in use in several places, the reason given for deletion, "unencyclopedic", was not valid. I have restored it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It is, at a minimum, unsourced. I wouldn't oppose a future deletion attempt although I think the {{fictional}} tag is enough pending sourcing. AjaxSmack (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Spam or not

As a reply to this and this, you probably missed my wink (Face-wink.svg) and I do find your page useful otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it! Trijnsteltalk 11:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should be more careful of inter-cultural attempts at humor. You gave me a little jab and I gave you a little jab back. All meant in good fun -- or at least intended that way. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Ciudad Quesada - Mercado 3.jpg

Hello, Jameslwoodward. About File:Ciudad Quesada - Mercado 3.jpg, the explicit copyright note states its free license. Could you please restore the picture? Thank you. --Ralgistalk 17:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Right you are, sorry. However, that applies only to the image, but there is still a copyright in the art, for which we need permission from the artist. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're right. Anyway, thank you Face-smile.svg --Ralgistalk 01:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Jackie Robinson plaque memorial Montreal.jpg

Hi Jim, Unfortunately, I missed the debate on the proposed deletion on my photo [17] of the Montreal plaque commemorating Jackie Robinson, and I can't retrieve the discussion. Can you provide a link to it, or tell me why the picture had been deleted? There might be a copyright policy I'm not aware of. I just want to make sure the photo had not been deleted because somebody thought I did not have the right to upload it. Was it deleted because photos of plaque, memorials or sculptures are not allowed, or because somebody thought I did not take it myself? Might help me to avoid this situation in the future. Thanks in advance. Gates of Ale (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason for deletion has nothing to do with you. The text on the plaque has a copyright which, in Canada, lasts for fifty years after the death of the author, or, if it is a Crown Copyright, fifty years after publication. I don't know which it is in the case of this plaque placed by the city, but it is a moot question for many years from now. Any copy of copyrighted text is a derivative work and requires permission from the copyright holder.
This means that any photograph of a recent plaque in Canada will almost certainly infringe a copyright unless it is very simple -- "John Doe Lived Here 1833 - 1856" would probably be OK, but anything more complicated than simple facts is a problem. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

deletion of my last 6 uploads

Haytap Logo.jpg) Federasyon dayanisma 2011.jpg Haytap dont abondon me.jpg Haytap - Do Not Buy Pets.jpg Haytap No Fur.jpg Haytap Logo.jpg


Hi Jim,

Google translate rough as you said but in fact the most impotant word in Turkish page which is ("gerek" yoktur) means no need approval for use of pictures was written there as ("gereky·yoktur") which google cannot know the word "gereky" because there is not such a word in Turkish and correct typing is "gerek". In this basis please check the key sentence in the web link as below, word "gereky" corrected as "gerek" only.

"Kampanya Görsellerinin gerek internet ortamında, gerek basılı afiş, poster vb. çalışmalarda kullanımları için ayrıca Haytap Federasyonundan izin alınmasına gerek·yoktur"

awaiting.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VikiPicture (talk • contribs) 01:07, 8 November 2012‎ (UTC)

It doesn't change the Google translation in any meaningful way -- there is still no permission for commercial use or derivative works. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  Hi Jim again, thank you for your fast response. Could you please check this issue with one of your Turkish colleague if possible, because in the web page it is clearly mentioned that "pictures can be used on the internet means without any permission from them", it seems google translate is not clear.awaiting yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VikiPicture (talkcontribs) 14:24, 8 November 2012‎ (UTC)
First Please sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion 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.
Second, you really need to discuss this at the UnDR, not on my talk page.
Third, "permission for the internet" is very limited. Commons images must be free for commercial use, including print, as well as for derivative works. I see no sign of any of that in the Google translation.
Finally, I asked Takabeg to look at it, several hours ago -- but it may be a day or two before he is here. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Boston Naval Hospital Chelsea MA 01

File:Boston Naval Hospital Chelsea MA 01.jpg is misnamed/categorized. The Commanding Officer's quarters can be seen here, the lowest image alternating with the brick Marine hospital. The quarters have a wrap-around porch/veranda; the image in question, although red like the quarters, is lacking the porch. Viewing the Google satellite map 42°23′19″N 71°02′45″W / 42.388611°N 71.045833°W / 42.388611; -71.045833 shows another red house/building abutting Adamski Memorial Highway to the southeast of the Marine hospital on Captain's Row. The historic quarters, currently occupied by Architectural Team, are southwest of the Marine hospital on Commandant's Way. (AT link has another image of the quarters under "1985".) While the imaged building may have been part of Naval Hospital Chelsea, it is not one of the five buildings listed in the Naval Hospital Boston Historic District, which are listed at the bottom of the NPS article. Thundersnow (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in your identification of the building -- my photograph is of the building that is just between the 90 degree bend in Captain's Row and the Tobin Bridge, aka Mystic River Bridge (I've lived here for 45 years, commuted over the bridge for 10 of them, and never seen the term "Adamski Highway"). It is barely visible under the trees in the Google image linked above.
I have changed the cats and removed {{NRHP}}. I think the name of the file remains accurate -- the building is on the grounds of the former naval hospital and the filename does not mention the NRHP. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Grobisce muzej talcev.JPG

Hi, what's up with this image: File:Grobisce muzej talcev.JPG? It was not deleted in this request, but it also has not been marked as kept at its talk page. Can you please rectify this? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting -- looks like a bug that I haven't seen before-- DelReqHandler removed the {{delete}} from the file page, but, as you say, failed to put the {{kept}} on the talk page.
Anyway, ✓ Done now. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by GosGroc

MOst PDFs of text, including these, are out of scope. This is absolutely not true. What about Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats? A PDF or DjVu file of a published and peer-reviewed work would be in scope on Wikisource and is therefore also in scope on Commons. And Remember that Wikisource may use PDF or DjVu files in order to proofread or create source texts: Therefore, scans of suitable editions of notable public domain works are almost always within scope for this reason. I ask for the undeletion of those files, please. -Aleator (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I said, "Most PDFs of text..." [emphasis added]. That is certainly true. Almost all PDFs of text that exist in the world are from non-notable authors, are on non-notable subjects, or both. I would venture a guess that 99.99% of everything that exists in PDF format is out of scope for any WMF project.
"scans of suitable editions of notable public domain works". These are not notable works in any sense.
"A PDF or DjVu file of a published and peer-reviewed work would be in scope on Wikisource and is therefore also in scope on Commons." That tells me that any Masters or PhD thesis by any person is in scope, which is plainly not the case.
In order to get restoration of these you will need to show both that we have a suitable license -- which is not at all clear -- and that they are actually in scope for Wikisource. I think these fail on both counts. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I've opened Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Files_uploaded_by_GosGroc without reading the answers here (I didn't realized the undeletion system is not a direct petition to who deleted the file). I suggest to continue there, please. -Aleator (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Military Exercise.png

Hello. I am pleased that the DR for this file ended in deletion overlooking other precedences quoted there as I've seen precedences rarely matter in decision making - but was surprised that YOU TOOK THIS STEP. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC).

I must admit that I do not have a clue what you intend to tell me -- do you agree with the deletion, or not?
Bad precedents do not make good law. We have many precedents which exist because no one has gotten around to deleting them. My best guess is that more than 1% of our images -- more than 100,000 -- are probably copyvios or otherwise a problem. Certainly more than 1% of all our images should be deleted for poor quality.
We do keep poor quality images of notable subjects -- works of art, buildings, and so forth, but keeping a very poor quality image of a soldier exercising is not good stewardship -- I cannot imagine anyone actually using it for anything. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

GosGroc's files

You deleted the files I posted of my regional gouvernement, and as I wrote on the file comments, there is no copyright problems about these files. They are free because are public on the web and the law in my country says the gouvernamental laws are free of copy and distribution. Where is the problem? Why my contributions have been deleted? --GosGroc (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Files_uploaded_by_GosGroc. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Pigeon Breeds (EE)

Hallo Jameslwoodward,

now I am also questioning you as suggestet by INeverCry. I take it as a given that the page was badly named. It should have been List of EE-pigeon-breeds.
I am here because I just can't get it: why was the list out of scope? I mean no harm. I just want to get it right. I don't want to repeat the reasons why I believe said list was in scope. They are listed in detail at the linked talkpage owned by INeverCry.
Nether Túrelio nor INeverCry could tell me why it was out of scope by their likes.
I just want to know: What have I done wrong? What can I do better? How can I get said list right for WMC?

Thanks, 79.197.114.16 20:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised that neither Túrelio nor INeverCry quoted Commons:Galleries to you:
"Galleries without media are not galleries at all. They are considered out of the project scope and meet the criteria for speedy deletion."
Commons Galleries are used only to show off collections of images or other media. List of dog breeds, or my own Lighthouses in Maine are examples of lists that are in scope because they are primarily galleries of images, albeit the lighthouses more so than the dogs. Your gallery had no images, but was, as I understand it, to be used for maintenance. That would be fine in your own user space -- I have several such myself -- but in order to do that you will need to create an account. There is no place in our system, however, for personal pages that are not in your own user space.
If you presented us with a real need that had no solution, I suspect that we could develop a consensus to bend the rules over this. However this is a case where your problem has a simple solution -- create an account and I can restore the page as a user subpage. Accounts are free, much more private than using your IP address, and easy to set up. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The claim above that I didn't tell this user why the deleted gallery is out of scope is untrue, unless they posted here before finishing the discussion on my talk. I actually did tell this person on my talk that the gallery was out of scope because it didn't incorporate images, as can be seen at the linked discussion above. INeverCry 00:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
@INeverCry: I posted before the discussion started/finished. It took me a while to write, cause I had to insert spaces with c+p. So maybe you answered me before I even saved this above. --79.197.114.65 10:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said before I did not intend to create a Gallery, I was more thinking with the lines of General Pages (whatever that is). As a guide through the Categories that are hosting files of pigeon breeds, standardized in Europe (within the EE).
I did not want to hide it in the userspace, cause there it would be useless as a guide.
The reason I did not want to build a gallery and went for linking Categories was: there are about 500 breeds on that list (at the moment, 2013 may be more). A general List of pigeon breeds may grow to 800 breeds and more. So is this still manageable in a gallery? There were massive problems on Wikipedia with lists getting unwieldy. I thought of smaller lists, of seperate group-lists, too. But there are differences within the international associations, too. So someone not familiar with the European System may not find the breed he or she is looking for. Plus the Tumbler-and-Highflier-list would still be massive with more than 200 breeds (and it would still be small, cause the Americans and British know two types of them, the Show-type and the Flying on, who are both known there as seperate breeds). Plus there is the problem with two utility-breed-groups (in German Huhntauben and Formentauben) and out there is a third definition of Utility Pigeons that defines them as breeds originally developed as meat (squab) producers. That may cause a lot of confusion and I'd like to avoid that beforehand.
To provide an overview linked Categories should be ok, I solemly hope so. As I said before I am thinking in the lines of (general) pages not galleries that may also be allowed in the projectscope. I know it may be bending the rules, but I do not know of a better way.
The Pigeon Task Force is suspended and so I asked for advise in WikiProject Birds, too. Till today there is no answer. People I know seam to be no more active or only sporadicly. With the German WP it is the same.
So do I have to merge the list into a Gallery that may not work good enough or may we stretch the rules a little bit?
Sorry for the troubles I may cause, --79.197.114.65 10:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Again, Galleries are for images, not maintenance. There is no such thing on Commons as a "general page" -- pages without prefixes are Galleries and must contain images. Since, as I have said several times before, a user subpage is the solution to your problem, I offer nothing else. Subpages are not hidden in user space -- at least one of my subpages is used by most Admins. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. For mentioned pages or general pages see Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories#General pages, galleries and categories. That's where I got with the pure reference of COM:SCOPE. Thank you for reading this. --79.197.126.187 17:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I was not looking for it, but I found one by default Verwaltungsgliederung Deutschlands. --84.181.57.191 18:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Should I assume that 79.197.126.187 and 84.181.57.191 are not the same person because you come from different parts of Germany. Is that correct?
"General pages", other than Galleries, are Categories, User pages, Institutions, Creators, Templates,

and Commons administrative pages. I see no provision for using Gallery space for maintenance tools.

Verwaltungsgliederung Deutschlands appears also to be out of scope -- I have tagged it with {{delete}} and we will see if the community agrees. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kong_Harald_og_Dronning_Sonja_-_Kino_2012.JPG

I have admitted that the image is a copyright violation, is not that good enough reason to delete the photo? --84.209.19.176 13:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Since User:84.209.19.176 cannot be the uploader -- IP users are not allowed to upload images -- your "admission" is of no value.
If, indeed, the image were not taken by the uploader as claimed in the image file, then it might be deleted. However, I do not believe that. Aanoskaan is a sophisticated user with many uploads, only two of which have been problems. This image is 3,270 x 2,331px, which is large enough so that it is very unlikely to have come from the web or other illegitimate source. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Gibpedia images

Hi James, I was surprised by your 1880 cut off date, but if that is the accepted date then I guess thats the way it is. However you deleted a set beginning with "File:1842 - Calpe Hunt and HRH.JPG," I think which are clearly outside this rule. Can you advise Victuallers (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably a mistake -- I don't see now why I deleted it, so I have restored it.
Why does the 1880 date surprise you? As I said, it covers the very possible case of a creator born in 1860, working at age 20, and dying at age 82. If we wanted to be absolutely sure, we might use a date as early as 1845 -- a person born in 1830 who creates the work at age 15 and dies at age 112 -- not the world record, but close. Commons is required by policy to be cautious, so the 1880 date seems to me a reasonable compromise. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"political differences of opinion"

Hello! Re this and your closing statement: how about deliberate, POV-driven falsification and invention of data? Is that OK? Because I can acknowledge "differences of opinion" and don't give a damn about the nationalist sensibilities of many of my countrymen, but this guy's data are drawn out of the blue or completely and obviously misinterpreted. To quote from the deletion policy, this is not "Pre-existing designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence.", but newly created material specifically meant to promote a particular POV, and, what is probably more important, completely inaccurate. I would not and could not oppose a serious study on the ethnological composition of the region or even a mere listing of numbers from the relevant censuses, but this goes way beyond that to propaganda. This is an indication of ethnological data done right, i.e. sourced to a reliable publication and without editorializing by the uploader. Compare please with DraganKitanovski's files and you'll see the difference. Constantine 07:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This subject comes up several times a month. Consider a hypothetical case -- we have two groups of users, one of which tells us that a map of the English presence in Antarctica in 1810 is a good representation of facts, and the other group which tells us that the map is nonsense, just British propaganda. How do I choose between them? I am not expert on early 19th century Antarctica. We have an Admin who is expert on the subject, but she is English and therefore the anti-map group claims she is prejudiced for the map. There is lengthy, heated, discussion, but nothing can be proven either way.
Since it is impossible for Commons Admins to be knowledgeable on most such subjects and those who might be knowledgeable are likely to be accused of bias one way or the other, our policy is that we simply keep all such maps. The editors of the various WPs and those out in the wider world can then decide which maps they will use and which they will leave unused. We have the {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} tag (which I see on several of these) so that your side of the dispute can warn potential users that they think there is a problem.
Obviously there is a limit to this. A map showing the United States with 51 states in 2012 will be deleted, as will a map with a new border between Germany and France. But, except for such obvious cases, the policy is firm and has served us well. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I see your point, and am aware that Commons does not in general play the arbitrator in such cases. However here we have a user who has a clear history of polemical contributions, including now-deleted maps with suggested "new" borders for the Balkans based on 1910 ethnographics, who takes ethnographic data from a 1913 census and applies it to 2001 (ignoring post-WWI population exchanges, World War II, the Greek Civil War and forced relocation of rural populations, post-war migrations, you name it), and who simply colours provinces and villages in various shades giving data without explaining where he got his numbers from. This is not a matter where there are possible POV-driven interpretations of ambiguous data, but, respectfully, a clear case of a nationalist hack job. If you distrust my opinion because I am Greek and therefore bound not to be objective about this, fine, that's your right. All I am saying is, take a look at his files, as the other editor in the deletion discussion did. If you would trust these files for researching the issue of 20th-century ethnographic distributions in Greek Macedonia (i.e. as encyclopedic material, which is what this site is meant to host after all), then by all means keep them. Constantine 21:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It is not that I mistrust you in this. In fact, I will admit that if I was absolutely required to make a decision, I would probably agree with you. But, since our rules do not require it, I am very reluctant to take sides in this argument because there have been, and doubtless will be, many similar cases. I have no desire to create a precedent here. The potential damage from such a precedent in time wasted far exceeds any damage that these files might cause, particularly since they are marked as disputed.
One of the reasons that we don't get into the middle of these dogfights is that there is a large risk of getting bitten. With that in mind, I very much appreciate your balanced and polite argument here. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Very well, I see your point. Best regards, Constantine 14:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Georgian Problem

Hello Jim,

It is not Georgian, probably Mingrelian- xmf.wiki (Mingrelian wiki). It written in georgian leters. I can read it but can't understand. Geagea (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. That explains why Google also made a mess of it. In the interim, Martin figured out that one of the templates was imported from WP Fair Use, so we made a little progress. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Macedonia ethnological files by DraganKitanoski

Hello! The background map of File:Map of national composition of Eastern Macedonia(Greece) after the colonisation 1920-28 - Po kolonizacijata 1920-28.jpg is a copyrighted map published in 1966. This file cannot be kept. Regards, NNW (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a map from Vojnogeografski Institut - Beograd , 1966, which, on its English language web site says:
"Military Geographical Institute (MGI) is an institution of the Serbian Armed Forces, which ...."
Serbian Copyright Law at Article 6, Section 2, says:
"2. The following shall not be deemed works of authorship:
1) Laws, decrees and other regulations;
2) Official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions;
I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that a map published by the armed forces falls under #2 -- the armed forces are certainly a "state body" and what is more official to an army than a map?
Of course, the map was produced while the Institute was part of the Yugoslav government, but I would be surprised if that affects its current copyright status..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
You're right. I missed the line about Geospatial material, which covers territory of states formed after disintegration of SFRY which is free, too. NNW (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

COM:Deletion requests/Gibraltarpedia images

Hi Jim, I think you did a great job evaluating that DR and I think you made a genuine effort not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, I do have one quick query, which relates to my sixth bullet point on the DR—Ditto File:1842 - Calpe Hunt and HRH.JPG, File:1830 General George Don.jpg, File:1834 - Commercial Square - Mackintosh Square.jpg, File:1800 Line Wall King's Bastion with Connaught House.jpg. You stated that the cut-off date for assuming the author died before 1942 was 1880, and you seem to have retained the first of those four as they pre-date that cut-off point. But you deleted the other three, which date from 1830, 1834, and 1800 (50, 46, and 80 years respectively before the 1880 cut off). Could you double check those, and let me know what I've missed if they can't be restored? Cheers, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Two different responses on the same DR (see above)and no one is yelling at me. Both of you are to be commended for your unusual politeness.
File:1834 - Commercial Square - Mackintosh Square.jpg is a duplicate of File:Commercial Square, Dibdin.png. I've restored the other two. Thanks for catching the mistake. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Well it seemed a sensible close to me—I discussed the DR with Roger (Victuallers) over a pint and explained to him that I thought many of the images were questionable, but tried to salvage those that could be kept. Thanks for restoring those. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
If there are any others that you think might deserve a little more attention -- just let me know. Commons Admins delete around 2,000 images every day, so we tend to work fast and occasionally a second look is useful. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I had a quick look earlier and nothing else jumped out at me as needing to be restored. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jim, I might have missed it, but publishing this 1880 rule of thumb might cut down that 2,000 by a bit. Victuallers (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed close

Hi Jim. Can you take a look at this when you get a chance: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by FishyPhotos? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 19:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I glanced at it, but a good look will have to wait, probably until the morning. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It's really much more simple than it looks. Alot of what's there are keep votes from new users who look to be connected with the uploader, etc. INeverCry 00:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done BTW, I don't think you should put a {{DR proposed close}} tag on your own nom -- it's up to a different Admin to close it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't quite sure how to use that, as this was the first time I had need of it. It's good to see that one finally put out of its misery, so thanks again. INeverCry 16:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen it used on a DR before -- I've never used it there. I've seen it on long UnDRs and long discussions at ANB.
Generally, if the DR is seven days old, I agree with the consensus, and I'm not the nom, I'll close the DR. Otherwise, I'll use Symbol keep vote.svg Keep or Symbol delete vote.svg Delete with a comment, and leave it for someone else. If I am the nom and have made my point, I'll just leave it..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I haven't had any call to use it besides this one time so far. The use of it in limited cases was recommended to me by RD232 when I first became an admin. If I remember rightly, he was concerned about a few DRs I may have closed too quickly, or something along those lines. I guess it would be better to vote as you say, and maybe contact another admin or two if the DR sits around a long time. INeverCry 22:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
As I think you know by now, I don't pretend to have the revealed truth about how to do things -- "different ships, different long splices". I've sort of evolved a way of working -- others of our colleagues do things differently. Since many of the ways we use are more custom than written down, that's fine, within broad limits. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Converted CSD/DR question

Hi Jim. Hope you don't mind another quick question. When I convert a Speedy to DR, and I don't vote in the DR, can I close it based on the votes of other users? I'm thinking of something like this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Логотип МММ-2012.jpeg. Some of these seem to sit around a bit. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 22:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

My reading of the rules is that in most cases a DR may be closed after at least two people look at it -- the original nom and the closing Admin. If there was a speedy, then the person who placed the speedy is, for all intents and purposes, the nom. It might be better in the case you cite if you had identified the original tagger when you did the conversion, so I closed it for you. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. If I remember right, I think I accidentally closed the window in the middle of coverting to DR, and then forgot to include the username of the CSDer. I just can't win today with these examples and questions I'm giving you. ;) INeverCry 00:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Given the volume of work you're doing -- well and away the most productive Admin for the last month -- there will be a few mistakes. I'm happy with a few mistakes from a colleague that does 10,000 deletes a month. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Travel maps from Wikivoyage WTS to check

Hi there. That page was my mistake, and should have been created in the category-space. Could you please post the contents I had, just so I can move them to Category:Travel maps from Wikivoyage WTS to check? Thanks. JamesA (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done See User:JamesA/Sandbox 1 .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Cheers. JamesA (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Jože Plečnik

Hi! I think the files in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jože Plečnik (1943), Zbirka upodobitev znanih Slovencev NUK.jpg should be undeleted, for the same reason that Files in Category:Franc Pribošek has been kept. Otherwise these have to be deleted too. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't read Slovenian, so can't do the necessary research. I suggest you do an UnDR to reconcile these two conflicting DRs. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for your help. Best regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 12:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Category scheme astronomy

Hello James, you forgot to close the above RfD once deleted the file. I want an extra pay for extra-work :) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I will order the WMF Payroll Department to give you a 10% increase for your good works. Thanks for cleaning up. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Suraj yadav2005

Hi Jim,

I suppose you mean Kept? Yann (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Architecture in Slovenia: threshold of originality

James, hi again! If you don't know whether there is any threshold of originality regarding architectural works in Slovenia, you should ask first before you delete despite the consensus not to delete (like you would want to ask first before you undelete in the case two sections above). From this court case (citing summary): "Architectural author's works are buildings and similar constructions, if they contain individual creative elements [emphasis mine] regarding form, shape or ornaments. In accordance with Article 6 of ZASP [the copyright act] also the composing parts of architectural works are protected if they meet the conditions of an individual intelectual creation (e.g. interior equipment)." It is apparent that all images in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Črni Kal viaduct do not show elements that would qualify as an individual intellectual creation. I've posted a request for undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests#Files in Category:Črni Kal viaduct. Best regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 13:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Your cite only confirms what I already knew from reading the statute (in English, to be sure -- there may be subtleties that the translation missed). The whole work is covered, as are individual details, provided, of course, they are not copies. The TOO is low. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The reason for deletion was: "there does not appear to be a TOO elsewhere". The case proves there is such a TOO at least in Slovenia. These two photos that we agreed should not be deleted were made in Slovenia, they're therefore free and should be undeleted. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
See my comment at the UnDR. You're splitting hairs -- of course a minimum of creativity is required -- that is taken as a given everywhere. A blank canvas or blank sheet of paper do not have a copyright. That does not mean that there is any meaningful TOO. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I've read your comment at the deletion request and agree. It's just unclear what is this essential creativity that makes an architectural work copyrightable. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Designing a work of architecture requires many creative decisions. Things that look simple, like placing the windows, have serious esthetic implications -- if they are the wrong size, too big or too small, too many or too few, the building will not look as good as if they are just right. If the building is more than two or three stories high, what spacing to use between the floors is important to the look. Thus a building that appears very simple, may actually have required considerable thought.
We accept that any photograph taken by a human has a copyright even though it may have taken no thought at all to point and shoot. Why do we argue about architectural works when even the simplest of them requires far more thought than almost all photographs? By the way, the US Copyright Office agrees with my point of view -- any architectural work in the USA has an enforceable copyright and companies that publish books of plans of very simple houses enforce their right all the time..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. In regard to this, do you think Category:Rogaška Slatina train station should be renominated for deletion per "no evidence for a TOO in Slovenia" or should be kept as "much too simple to be copyrighted."[18]? --Eleassar (t/p) 10:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that the train station is way past any TOO in any country, even France. The uncertainty about the architect is problematic, but 1903 is too late to assume that he died before 1942.
However, with that said, Yann and I have disagreed over many DRs on FOP. I'm not sure I want to get into a battle with him over this 1903 train station with an architect about whom we know little. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'll renominate these files due to this reason. I think my re-proposal will be completely valid, because it will be done in good faith (to maintain a free collection of images related to Slovenia) and with an argument about which at least two users agree. I have no problem keeping them as soon as any information indicating that he died before 1945 is provided. It would be unprincipled to do otherwise. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

File:1937 Wieża spadochronowa Poznań.jpg

Please don't delete it. Source, date and licence was OK (PD-Polish). There was no proof that file is copyvio. Jakubtr (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Our rules require that you prove that it is not a copyvio, not the other way around. Since Poland is now 70 years pma, for it to be free the photographer would have had to die within five years after the photo was made. We cannot assume that actually happened. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
See licence: {{PD-Polish}}: "fotografie polskich autorów (lub fotografie, które ukazały się po raz pierwszy w Polsce lub równocześnie w Polsce i za granicą) opublikowane bez wyraźnego zastrzeżenia praw autorskich przed uchwaleniem ustawy z dnia 23 maja 1994". There is not mentioned about 70 years - it is different licence (PD-old). My file 1) was publicated before 1994 (in 1937) and 2) there was not noticed in newspaper that is (C). This 2 points are proof thet file is legal PD-Polish. Jakubtr (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Newspapers almost always have a copyright notice on their masthead, whether that is required by their national law or not. I find it difficult to understand that for some reason, this one did not. Do you have the whole newspaper -- or just this image? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
This newspaper have not (C) notice. Whole newspaper: [19] in GreatPoland Digital Library (need djvu plugin). I always check it. Jakubtr (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your taking such care and your persistence in convincing me here. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Jakubtr (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ibiblio Vietnam

Hi, thanks for closing Commons:Deletion requests/Ibiblio Vietnam, but there are more files affected than those individually listed in the DR: [20]. I'd only listed those I thought might be exceptions. cheers, Rd232 (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Shall I just delete those others pointing to your DR closure? Rd232 (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Feel free, thanks -- I just haven't gotten around to it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, done. I'm hoping to empty Category:PD tag needs updating by the end of the year, and the low-hanging fruit is disappearing... :) Rd232 (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
While we're on the subject of old stuff, our oldest DR requires the attention of a German speaker, see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-GermanGov-currency. Closing it will reduce our DR backlog from 18 weeks to 12. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I know I should go back to it, but every time I do it does my head in... but I can't close it anyway since I launched it. Rd232 (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disneyland June 2008-1.jpg

Hi Jim,

I am surprised that this was kept twice. Comparing with the current DRs, this seems wrong. What's your opinion? Yann (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I confess that I don't completely understand the TOO in France, but it is a unique building and seems to me original, so I would vote for deletion.
I'm surprised at your asking, because Eleassar and I have just discussed your closure of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Rogaška Slatina train station (see the section two above this). I think that is a far more complex and original building than Sequoia Lodge.
As I said above:
"Designing a work of architecture requires many creative decisions. Things that look simple, like placing the windows, have serious esthetic implications -- if they are the wrong size, too big or too small, too many or too few, the building will not look as good as if they are just right. If the building is more than two or three stories high, what spacing to use between the floors is important to the look. Thus a building that appears very simple, may actually have required considerable thought.
We accept that any photograph taken by a human has a copyright even though it may have taken no thought at all to point and shoot. Why do we argue about architectural works when even the simplest of them requires far more creativity than almost all photographs? By the way, the US Copyright Office agrees with my point of view -- any architectural work in the USA has an enforceable copyright and companies that publish books of plans of very simple houses enforce their right all the time."

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer.
Is the Rogaška Slatina train station more complex than the Sequoia Hotel, at Eurodisney? Certainly not. The first is a small building on 2 levels with a traditional architecture. The second is a very big 6-floor building with a square design. The second has 10 times more floor space than the first. Are you looking at the right images?
If a building requires a plan, I can accept that it gets a copyright, but many buildings are built without plans. It is quite dubious that these get a copyright, even in USA. I just came accross such an image a few days back. Yann (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
A plan is not the requirement for copyright, because the author's work is created "in spirit" (or in mind, if you wish); the plan is only its reproduction. This may be read e.g. in this scholarly article (unfortunately in Slovene, but you may Google translate if you wish). --Eleassar (t/p) 16:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


Agreed. A plan is not required for architecture to have copyright any more than a drawing is required for a sculpture or a painting, although some sculptors and many painters sketch a work before executing it.
Of course the Sequoia Lodge is much larger, but it is a relatively simple design, although still requiring all the careful decisions I mentioned above. The railroad station is in some respects a more complex design -- it has a great variety of fenestration and the roof line is also fairly complex. Why is that in your view the building does not qualify for copyright, but the four simple point and shoot photographs of it do? That seems backwards to me. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I really can't follow you in this comparison. I studied a bit of architecture, and I know what's needed to build something. For an example of simple design, see e.g. File:Car garage -House Detached- July 4th 2008.JPG. If you have a documentation that a simple garage like this gets a copyright, I am interested. Yann (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I asked more input on Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

See, for example:

This is a long and detailed piece on architectural copyright in the USA. Particularly notable is the following, at page 1863

"First and foremost, the AWCPA extends copyright protection to physical buildings. These include both habitable structures, such as homes and office buildings, as well as non-inhabited structures, such as “churches, pergolas, gazebos, and garden pavilions.”

Certainly pergolas, gazebos, and garden pavilions are very simple structures.

Also see, the following

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks a lot for all this. But the situation is very different in France, where courts have said that buildings need to have some complexity to get a copyright. Since there is no FOP, the complexity requirement is needed. Otherwise no images, or TV or movie shooting could ever be published. Yann (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, in Slovenia they haven't. No court case demonstrating a TOO has been found. Why therefore such a TOO for the railway station? --Eleassar (t/p) 18:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I wonder how anything can be published in Slovenia without a minimum of tolerance. Yann (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this station a creative work or not? If it is, then it qualifies as an individual intellectual creation (a copyrightable work). The media have a special permission in the copyright act to depict these works freely. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said at the top of this, I don't really understand the French case law -- it seems to be inconsistent. However, both de minimis and fair use play a part in the ability of movie makers and others to take general views in cities in most countries. Certainly the specifics of FOP laws and TOO seem to have little to do with it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Files from cpgeosystems

See Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Files from cpgeosystems.com for latest development of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pretesm. Apparently Dr Blakey is willing to let his files be uploaded. Can you please check ? Michelet-密是力 (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well done -- finally we have unambiguous permission for some of his maps. Since we do not have permission for all of them, or for high resolution versions, I think that we need to be careful to ensure that the Commons file names are directly traceable to the source site http://cpgeosystems.com/mollglobe.html. I suggest names
  • File:Blakey 600moll.jpg
  • File:Balkey 560moll.jpg
etc.
We also need to ensure that we have only the 27 files which appear on that site and no others of his work. I trust that since you spearheaded this project that you will care of that.
Thanks again for your effort here. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been trying to work with OTRS to maintain these files, such as File:Paleogene-EoceneGlobal.jpg, since I have just secured a release for the images a few days ago. No one notified me of the deletion requests, so they had already been closed and I was unable to comment. I emailed Dr. Blakey and explained the nature of the licenses (which no one had done previously), and that convinced him to release these lower-resolution images under CC-BY-SA and GFDL. The release has been submitted to OTRS, and unfortunately this deletion affects a FAC on enWiki. Anyway, please reply to the discussion here. – Maky « talk » 22:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
To reply to your question in the closing comments, I'm waiting for OTRS to add the email I sent them to the ticket. The reason is that Dr. Blakey told me that no one had explained the licenses to him prior to our email conversation, which could mean that the previous releases are invalid. The email I sent documents quite clearly that I followed proper process and obtained very clear permission for use of the files. Sorry... I'm just trying to cover all bases to make sure this doesn't happen again. – Maky « talk » 17:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket I cited has a clear statement of license from Dr. Blakey. Since he is an adult and presumably legally competent, there is no need for anything more. As a general rule, third party e-mails add little to the process because their origin can be suspect. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
In that case, you are welcome to replace the OTRS pending templates with PermissionOTRS templates. I'm not an OTRS volunteer, so I can't see the tickets or previous emails. I'm just following the procedure I'm used to following since I regularly secure rights for images and work through OTRS. Best, – Maky « talk » 18:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:SR Montenegro coa.png

I want to question the following: "Since it was apparently made for WMF projects, it seems to me we can keep it." What about people reusing this coat of arms? Will they be liable? Where's the proof that the author wanted to publish it under the CC or GFDL license that the file currently cites? What if he wanted it non-commercial? --Eleassar (t/p) 14:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, all of the WMF projects require that a contribution have a CC-BY or similar license, without NC or ND. Therefore, I assume that someone who explicitly creates a work for contribution to any WMF project knows the implications of that contribution. Note that this is different from a creator of something created for another purpose who says "it's OK if you use it on Wikipedia" -- that says that he is restricting its use to Wikipedia. A subtle distinction, to be sure, but a real one. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I see, but think that many people don't know much about Wikipedia; e.g. they don't know the licensing conditions that it uses. If we demand that OTRS received permissions explicitly cite the license, why therefore less stringent standard here? Additionally, the uploader originally used the GFDL license. Why does the file therefore have the CC licence? --Eleassar (t/p) 14:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you are splitting hairs. Remember that our standard is significant doubt, not absolute certainty. As I said above, I think there is a clear distinction between a work created elsewhere for which we are seeking permission and a work explicitly created for us. On the former, we need a clear license for precisely the reason you suggest. On the latter, without clear instructions from the creator, we can use any of the standard licenses, as WMF policy appears above every "save" button within the project (that's a very positive statement from me -- I'm sure you recognize that I have not actually looked at all 500+ projects, nor could I read most of them). I therefore think it is fair to assume that the creator knew our rules. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Phallus indusiatus 96871 ed2.jpg

Hi James. Could you please take another look at this file? It is featured on en.wiki which makes it hard to believe that it was originally released under a non-commercial licence, as someone would have noticed. You said you deleted it as a derivative of another file, but I can't see which other file that was - can you please link to it? If you are certain this should have been deleted, you will also want to take a look at File:Phallus_indusiatus_96871_ed3.jpg. Thanks Smartse (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It was a retouched version of File:Phallus indusiatus 96871 ed.jpg which was deleted for the same reason. The source of that file was, as noted in the DR, http://mushroomobserver.org/image/show_image/96871 which has a clear NC license. I think it is entirely possible that the license was originally CC-BY (without the NC) which was changed after our upload. Unfortunately no one did the equivalent of a FlickrReview on it so we can't prove that and must delete it..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

More Antarctic deletions

Hi, just letting you know that I've deleted another four of the photos listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:US Antarctic Program photo library images. They were all taken by Nathan Hoople, who turns out to be a Raytheon employee. --Avenue (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of my files

Hi, As discussed in the page, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wasifwasif the 2 images which i took have also been deleted. I dont see any reason for file File:Sheikha Hatoon Fassi.jpg being deleted without any explanation. Pls let me know, if a free image is copied from WP and published in some other website without claiming any copyright, then is it mandatory for WP to delete that image?. I am not so well aware of WP Policy regarding this. Pls explain. Wasifwasif (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Martin's comment at the DR answers the question -- it is an image that has a watermark that shows that it belongs to someone else. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"personal image rights"

with respect, i think your rationale as stated in the close, was faulty:

"Deleted: Aside from the fact that we don't generally keep personal images, personal rights issues raise their ugly head here. The subject is a minor and the image is from a private setting, which give us problems in most jurisdictions. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)"

THE SUBJECT UPLOADED A SELF-PORTRAIT OF THEMSELVES; busing an open-source license.

q.e.d.

that inherently resolves any privacy/personality rights "issues" in this case, specifically BECAUSE it was a self-portrait, being uploaded by the person whose self-portrait it was. that the subject was (presumably) a minor, would only be relevant if the image was age-prohibited on other grounds (such as being pornographic).

continuing the arguement, if we are going to establish a "rule" that contributions from minors cannot be accepted (because a minor cannot authorize open-source licensing of their creations?), then we are going to have a very SERIOUS problem with the quantity of material @ wikimedia that will need to be removed...

(having been contributed by minors and/or persons of unknown age)

& if you cross out both of those points, then with all due respect, there is nothing left of your rationale for deletion.

which is the long way of saying "you are setting a bad precedent, based on an invalid premise"

i note that you offered no opinion on the question of "scope"; where i demonstrated at least 3 categories in which the image "fit" on commons?

or the desirability of not discouraging new contributors unnecessarily?

Lx 121 (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't shout at me. I do my best; sometimes I'm not as clear as I might be; sometimes I make mistakes. I'm always willing to discuss a closure, but shouting doesn't help.
The subject was a child. The first thing to remember is that we do not know who uploaded the image. You assume it was the subject, but we don't actually know that. The uploader could easily have been a sibling or friend. Even given that your assumption is true, the subject is a minor and therefore does not have the legal capacity to do any of the things you are shouting about. He cannot give a license to the image. He cannot give permission for the use of his own image, particularly in commercial contexts.
You correctly point out that it would be troubling to have to refuse images from minors. I started a discussion on the subject a while ago. The discussion ended with WMF counsel acknowledging the problem, but the decision was that we would go ahead as in the past. We did not, however, discuss minors uploading images of themselves with their name attached for commercial use without permission from their parents. I think that's problematic, and I'm an American, one of those who take personal rights much less seriously than many of our European colleagues.
I discounted your three possibilities entirely -- there is always a reason to keep any image -- even if it is Category:Terrible images -- but I don't think we should encourage personal images. We are not Facebook or Flickr.
You may, as you well know, ask for reconsideration at Commons:Undeletion requests.
.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Stozice3.jpg

Hi, regarding Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stožice Arena, you've evidently forgot to delete File:Stozice3.jpg. Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 17:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes DelReqHandler -- the script that Admins use to close DRs -- acts up and forgets one. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

File:F.W. Zeylmans van Emmichoven.jpg ask te be my advocate User:Deklamat

Hello Jim is it possible that I ask you to be the advocate that the Photo of F.W. Z.v.E. becames a positive decision and can still stay on commons? --Deklamat (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. It look like a studio portrait. Although the name of the photographer has been lost over the years, the photographer was not anonymous, so there is a copyright that will last until 70 years after the photographer's death. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chongra and Karakoram DOeAV Journal.jpg

Hi James. You left the DR template in the file description page. I think it is better if you remove it since I participated in the DR discussion. --Leyo 08:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I remember that DelReqHandler was acting up on that one. I should have double checked. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim, thank you for making this one clear. I was the original uploader. But (at least the german version of) the PD-Old-template asks for precise information for the USA. I didnt't know how to handle that, so I asked for deletion after uploading the file to the German Wikipedia (where PD-Old 70 is Ok). Could you please fix that template? Or is it OK the way it is?
Same applies to File:Nanga Parbat Route 1934 crop.jpg
best regards --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Jože Plečnik UDR

Hi Jim. Can you give your opinion on Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Jože Plečnik? I didn't want to restore these files without asking you since you closed the original DR. INeverCry 17:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant, because we're relying on a museum's work, which is often not accurate (museams in general -- I have no opinion about this one), but I think it's all right. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I've restored them and closed the UDR. INeverCry 17:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

File:UEFA Cup the Trophy.jpg

Can you re-look at this, because according to the link to the relevant UK law given here, the FOP only applies if the sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship are permanently situated in a public place or in premises how is this the case surely it can only have been on show temporarily before being handed to the next winner ? Mtking (edits) 20:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Your understanding of the law is correct. My assumption was that the cup is kept at a secure location and is removed only temporarily when it is awarded and engraved with the current winner's name, then returned to the same place. If the cup actually is handed over to the winner for a year, and, therefore, kept at a new place every year, FOP does not apply. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
According to UEFA (page 8) The original trophy, which is used for the official presentation ceremony at the final, remains in UEFA's keeping at all times and since UEFA are (according to there website) based in Nyon, Switzerland, it is not possible to conclude the trophy is permanently situated in a public place or in premises in London so therefore I don't see how FOP can apply. Mtking (edits) 22:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not what you said at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:UEFA_Cup the Trophy.jpg which is where all of this discussion should take place. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome)

I've forgotten this file because it was uncategorised. Please delete it for the same reasons File:Santa cecilia 2800.jpg. Thanks :) Raoli ✉ (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks --Raoli ✉ (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of East Kalimantan.svg

This appears to be a recreation of File:Coat of Arms of Kaltim.svg, which you deleted. Regards, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks. This file seems to be OK now, but the uploader was a sock of an editor who has repeatedly broken the rules. The sock is now blocked indefinitely. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Oblaznytsia

Hello! Why do you want to delete all this photos? They all belongs to my or my parents (they allow me) so I post them (there's my relatives on them). I use them in article about my village. How can I left them?--Шиманський Василь (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to delete anything, but I am required by our rules to ask questions about these. Owning a print of a photo does not make you the owner of the copyright. That almost always belongs to the photographer or his heirs. The general rule is that copyright last for 70 years after the death of the photographer, so that for these to be available for Commons either you would have to get permission from the photographer or he would have to have died before 1942.
However, as AnonMoos reminds me at one of the Deletion Requests, there was a special rule in Poland which may make it possible to keep these. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate if this photos will remain, under {{PD-Poland}} license. All photos were done before the war and I really don't know the author.--Шиманський Василь (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a question of the law, no more, no less. It needs to be discussed at the Deletion Requests, not here. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"blocked for vandalism"

I don't check the commons that often but really? My good faith attempts to deal with an unused file and it has a bad title will get me blocked because it seems that no one ever does anything to get rid of files on the commons unless they're a blatant copyright infringement. Something should be done with it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

When you have nominated a file twice for deletion and it has been kept both times for reasons which were explained at length, nominating it a third time without giving a new reason for deletion just wastes the time of all involved. A fourth time without new reasons would be vandalism.
The {{rename}} which you put on it was the correct move, thank you.
A good look at a daily DR log will show you that
"no one ever does anything to get rid of files..."
is not correct. Perhaps half of all DRs have nothing to do with copyvio. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
To me it seems that if the there's the vaguest reason for some sort of educational use, despite there being no prior need for an image of its type and particularly if there are other similar and better constructed files out there, the commons won't delete it. I found this to be true when I discovered the slew of "vegetables in someone's anus" photos previously.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
To some extent you are preaching to the converted -- I agree that we tend to keep files that have no real practical use. But perhaps it is not quite as bad as you think. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

please can you help me? this user is committing vandalism.

please can you help me? an user is committing vandalism and limit my work on commons. haunts haunts me :(, lo fa qui [21] (is one of only two images of commons showing the headlights to the reverse and he clears, ditto for the shield of the Netherlands) but this is just one of the things he does, several times I set aside this change [22], or this [23] and uses two completely different behavior depending on whether the car is German or another nationality. Please can you help me? ( I also noticed that the user is autopatroller but given his past actions, it seems to me that his real interest in the commons has failed, and he more interested in personal things that the community ) --Pava (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously Pava has some funny thoughts about what vandalism is. This file showas a car with a license plate from the Netherlands, but unforntunately the letters and numbers are erased, hence the "Category:Automobiles with license plates of the Netherlands" makes no sense, same goes for the reverse lights which are an irrelevan minor part of the image. So basically, in his opinion vandalism means that you stop him from idiotic categorisation. And just for the record: This user was blocked in the past for his edit-warring and the amount of nationalistic PV-influenced vandalism, including racist quotes about the french people he made by using a sockpuppet etc. Best regards.--FAEP (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
excuse the invasion, I will not answer further provocations on your page Denigrate me to take advantage is not a good behavior, you must comply with the operations of all users if they are correct, of commons does not do what "you think" is right, but it does what "is right for commons" stop to attack me always --Pava (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I am always sorry to get involved in these small arguments. We have more than 13 million images on Commons. Most of them need better categories, so the two of you could spend your whole lives on Commons, eight hours a day, and never edit the same image. I say to both of you -- these subtle changes aren't important -- if it becomes clear to you that the other editor really cares about something, then just move on to something else.
With that said, I have looked at each of the images cited above and I think FAEP has the better of it. The rear quarter shot may show backup lights, but they are not on and are only a minor part of the image. The number plate is blank. The image that shows the whole rear of the concept car should not be in any category that includes lights and certainly we don't know if rear lights, brake lights, neither, or both are on. And so forth. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Closing COM:UNDEL requests

You might find User:King of Hearts/closeudel.js useful. Cheers, King of ♠ 23:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that I will find it useful, but I have to confess that I don't know how to add a script like this one to my browser. Help? Thanks, .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you want me to do it for you? -- King of ♠ 11:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
That's tempting, but I'd rather learn to do it myself. I have a long record as a programmer, starting on a Burroughs 220 -- vacuum tubes -- in the early 60s and have done a wide variety of things since, including some fairly complex templates on WP:EN, but I don't even know where a script goes. So, if it's not too much trouble, point me at instructions or write them, please.
Reading the script, I know that my first request will be to allow entering "N" or "D" instead of "not done" or "done". Also, while I understand that you're not releasing it generally, doesn't it need error handling for the user entering "Nit done" and other similar things? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Go to User:Jameslwoodward/monobook.js, User:Jameslwoodward/vector.js, or whatever skin you use and paste in importScript('User:King of Hearts/closeudel.js'); Also, you're right about the feature request, this was something I hacked together in 5 minutes, so I'll try to put it in. -- King of ♠ 12:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've modified it so that if the first letter is d/D/y/Y, then it becomes "done," and if the first letter is n/N, then it becomes "not done." -- King of ♠ 12:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, thanks. I've added it to User:Jameslwoodward/vector.js. I went to one of the UnDRs as required by

if (document.title.indexOf("Editing Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests (section)") != -1)

and don't see anything different -- of course all are closed right now -- is that the reason I'm not seeing anything? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You must refresh your browser's cache. Your vector.js should contain instructions for each browser. -- King of ♠ 12:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Duh. It does say that in bold letters on the js page. It's early here and I haven't had my coffee. Found it -- under "Delete" "Move" "Change Protection". Thanks. And also thanks for your blocks at Pava and FAEP. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Used it successfully on Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Station_Nouveau_Bassin_Tramway_Mulhouse.jpg. It certainly speeds up the process, thanks.
Now, the other tool on my wish list is an easier way to close a DR when there is a previous DR on the same file. DelReqHandler still handles the image keep or delete, but cannot close the DR, so you have to do it by hand. (I'm certainly spoiled -- DelReqHandler came in after I became an Admin -- so I've closed a lot of DRs the old way.) My wish is for a tool that will insert {{delh}} and {{delf}} in the right place, along with the required four dashes for a separator, a comment, and sig. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:LASCO20011001.gif

Hi Jim. Given your closing argument on this DR, I think you mistakenly deleted File:Solar storm 2003-10-26 (SOHO-EIT, Ultraviolet 195 Å).png (which is part of a series BTW, so it doesn't make much sense deleting this one alone). As I stated in the DR, this image doesn't come from the SOHO website but from the SVS, which has a clear copyright statement: "Some SVS images produced in collaboration with other labs have distinct copyrights. For those instances, the copyright notices are noted on the page with the image. For all other images obtained from this site, please give credit to: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio." [24] This and all the others images from this series do not have an extra copyright notice, so they are free according to the above quote. –Tryphon 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Right you are. ✓ Done .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! –Tryphon 13:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Help: no-FoP Italy

Hi James. When you have a moment, could you do me a favor. I decided to occupy my time to list the no-FoP files in Italy. It has been a long and difficult work that needs to be reviewed by administrators. Could you check if everything is correct on User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy? Thanks! Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. What a lot of work. I glanced through them and I would probably delete all of them, except that I think there was a bridge included. I do not know if bridges are "architecture" in Italy -- they are not in the USA -- so I do not know if they have an Italian copyright. I am sure that some of our colleagues will disagree with us -- some of the images might be de minimis for the buildings while others have only minimal architecture visible, particularly in the interior.
If I were you, I would start new mass DRs slowly -- perhaps two or three categories each day. Be sure to notify the uploaders and to tag each image -- I use AWB fro such things. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
To avoid any problem I wanted to know the views of most administrators. I'm contacting a little of them. In Italy the bridges like any other construction are considered works of art only if they are made from an author. Idem for installations, sculptures and art objects. I would use "VisualFileChange." However, I intend to complete the list before starting to delete. I sent a request to the Wikimedia Italy and would like to open a discussion about it.wikipedia or another to explain why and to illustrate what the images violate and the possible problems for WMF. Within a week I will contact a lawyer in order to better understand. We also created a logos to replace the images on it.wikipedia if there is consensus. In cases of "De minimis" I have worked for example in this manner. Thank you for support. Raoli ✉ (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I've added the whole discussion in the Administrators' noticeboard. Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Slovene FOP cases

Just as a general remark to your reasnoning when closing FOP deletion requests. From "This would clearly be copyrighted in the USA" and "Slovene copyright law is very broad (broader than the US one)" it doesn't follow that the object is copyrighted in Slovenia. The definition can be broader but this doesn't mean that the two sets of copyrightable items completely interset. --Miha (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of formal logic, what you say is, of course, true. However, since we have no case law from Slovenia and the statute -- albeit in translation -- is broader than the US statute, it is fair to assume that the Slovene breadth of copyright is a perfect superset of that in the US. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It is not that simple. Although it's a different topic, take the exmple of software patents (i.e. in the USA very basic ideas can be copyrighted, whereas that is not the case in Slovenia). Or "kozolec" (en:hayrack); no doubt its structure as such could easily be coyrighted (and I am pretty sure it would be in the USA), but from historical reasons it can be. Hayrack building is centuries long tradition, where every participant made some contribution to it - so normal copyright fails here. Even if there was just one builder (it is known that there were always more poeple involved in the building process; it was kind of social gathering), we couldnt call him author. He might made some modifications to traditional "template", but even then the final work can't be copyrighted, as it fals to meet the threshold of originality. What I am trying to say is that law unfortunately is not just a matter of pure formal logic, but also some common sense. And common sense needs cultural background. Just as courts don't just copy verdicts, it is unjustified to refer to US copyright when closing Slovene FOP cases. It is not your problem, but chances are that many similar images were deleted, but I cannot open undeletion request, as I can not judge what exactly was in the picture before deletion... There are just too many new DR to follow them. And precisely because there is no precedent case, a special amount of care should be put when closing Slovene FOP cases - we are (so to say) creating one. Best regards, --Miha (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it is that simple. Without any case law, there is nothing to say that your hayracks* would not be copyrighted. Any very simple house in the USA has a copyright, even though its general design may be several hundred years old. The idea is that an architectural work is complex enough so that even something that appears to be a copy has original work in it. This is similar to the fact that a painted copy of an old master has its own copyright. Even in painting a very good copy, the copyist makes enough creative decisions so that the work merits a copyright. In the UK (but not the USA
Without any Slovene case law to tell us otherwise, we must assume that all architectural works are copyrighted, even very simple ones and ones that are indistinguishable from others much older.
*Note that a hayrack would not have a copyright in the USA because it is not "architecture", as that word is applied by the USCO. The Slovene statute is broader, so that it might in Slovenia. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Again you make the same mistake in formal reasoning. Houses are not copyrighted in Slovenia as their design is too common. Apple lawsuit against Samsung because of similarity in shapes would also fail in Slovenia. Anyhow, I directly addressed this question to governmental office entitled for copyright and we shall see. --Miha (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

What evidence do you have the houses are not copyrighted in Slovenia? There is no information on that at Commons:Copyright_rules by territory - full#Slovenia. If you can show that houses are not copyrighted, then we need to add that to our information base..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disneyland June 2008-1.jpg

I see that you closed this as a delete; is there any reason it wasn't deleted?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks -- sometimes DelReqHandler -- the script we use to close DRs -- hiccups and things don't get done. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Keil do Amaral / José Rafael Botelho

Dear Jim. Here I am again! This time on behalf of Francisco Pires Keil do Amaral (known as Pitum Keil do Amaral, born in 1935). He is an architect and close friend. In fact my family and his family have been friends since 1936! He is the only son (and sole heir) of the Portuguese architect Fancisco Keil do Amaral (1910-1975) and the artist Maria Keil. He is willing to upload to Commons some drawings and photographs of buildings by his father but he knows nothing about the Internet. Can I do it for him? All I believe he is able to do is to send you an e-mail with the permission (but I’m not sure he has a personal e-mail; the only e-mails he ever sent me were from his wife Lira Keil’s e-mail address). Is this feasible? Many thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That's easy. Have him send an e-mail with a license -- it should read
"all drawings and photographs of work of Fancisco Keil do Amaral uploaded by Manuelvbotelho as to both the rights of the photographer and the rights of the architect".
This assumes that either his father was the photographer or that his father owned the copyrights on the photos. If neither of these is true, then we cannot use the photographs without permission from the photographer.

If Portuguese is easier for him, that's fine.

The license should use the form at COM:OTRS. The e-mail can come from his wife's account. Let me know when it has been sent. I will find it, approve it (if appropriate), and give you the template to put on the images after you upload them. Regards, .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll be in touch. Best wishes.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim. I'm still waiting to hear from Pitum Keil do Amaral. Meanwhile I spoke with my father, José Rafael Botelho (as I already told you, although in good health, he is 89 years old and knows nothing about the internet); he agreed to upload some of his old photographs, some taken with his very first camera (I'm trying my best to improve them). For this purpose I sent an e-mail in his name to Wikimedia Commons. Please let me know when I can start uploading the images (can I do it as my own work, to make things easier?). Many thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to claim "own work", and it's against the rules because they aren't. Go ahead and upload them with your father as author and source, CC-BY-SA for license and then drop me a note here with a list of the file names as links and I'll add the permission. The OTRS ticket is #2012121410013601. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the list:

A million thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done

I need to alert you to a possible problem with

Am I correct in my guess that the pavilion is in Paris? If so, then freedom of panorama does not apply and the images are derivative works of the architect's copyright. I assume this is the man you mention above, so the license from his son will make it OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The pavilion was in Paris, in 1937; it was demolished that very same year right after the International Exhibition ended. If there was no freedom of panorama in France then please delete the files. I´m still waiting to hear from Pitum Keil do Amaral; he may have given up the whole idea, in which case it seems wiser to me to do what is right at this precise moment. Thanks once more.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleting them can certainly wait if you think he will come through with a license. I'd rather wait until you are sure one way or the other. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim. Please check the permissions-commons e-mails because Pitum Keil do Amaral says he has sent one with the license (I don't know the exact date, but it was in the past couple of weeks). Please let me know if everything is alright and I´ll upload Keil do Amaral's photos. Thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

He sent it December 3. The ticket number is 2012120310009566. It covers all works uploaded by you that were made by Francisco Keil do Amaral both as to the photograph and as to the rights of the architect. The license is CC-BY-SA. Go ahead and upload them and I'll tag them when you're done.
I have added the new OTRS ticket to both of the images of Paris pavilion discussed above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. Here is the list:

Thanks! Thanks! Thanks!Manuelvbotelho (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Beulah Gundling and IAAA photos

Dear Jim, Today Cathy Goodwin sent a permission declaratin to permissions-commons @ wikimedia.org for six photos which I uploaded recently. Could you please tell me if the permission declaration is fine? Can I use the photos in the articles about Beulah Gundling and the International Academy of Aquatic Art?

You find the files here:

Best regards, --Culturawiki (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done OTRS permission ticket #2012120610009444. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Boart Sepp - La Paloma - (1965).ogg

Hi Jim, you deleted the page with comment: "Out of project scope -- Commons galleries are for collections of images, not text: content was: ...". The linked Commons:PS states in the very first sentence "(images, sound and video clips)". So, what was the problem with this sound file (if it was one anyway)? --Gerold Broser (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a sound file. It was a gallery page that contained only one sound file, with the same name, see File:Boart Sepp - La Paloma - (1965).ogg. We don't have many galleries of sound files, and they follow the same rules as galleries of images -- there must be at least two media files in the gallery.
I'm sorry that the message wasn't clearer -- we delete around 100 gallery pages every day and one tends to get in a rut working through them..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Now I understand. Thank you. --Gerold Broser (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a 17 seconds cut from a tape. It was recorded by my father in the year 1965. I have the original mastertape. The song "La Paloma" is an old song from about 1860. Look at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Paloma (german).--Bacht

Deletion

Hi there, I'm new to posting on Wiki, and last night I accidentally posted an article about "The Borderline Saints" on Wikimedia commons, whilst it was meant for the Wikipedia page. I noticed this morning that it had been deleted without a trace or notice. I worked for many hours on this (newbie..) and was finished very late - forgot to save a backup :( I would really appreciate if you would be able to send me a copy of the content/code so I can publish it on the correct page. [deleted private e-mail address] Thanks in advance! Denniz81 (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC) |}

✓ DoneI have copied it to User:Denniz81/Sandbox which is where you should have created it in the first place. Commons galleries are not for Wikipedia articles and a beginner should not be creating an article from scratch in either Commons or WP:EN mainspace anyway -- that's what we have user subpage sandboxes for.
The WP:EN spam filter forced me to remove the reference to the web site containing the word "reverbnation" because links to it are banned as spam.
I am sorry for the rather abrupt deletion -- we delete around 100 new gallery pages every day, almost all of which are vandalism or out of scope, and we tend to work through them very fast. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Jim!

I understand the deletion, although you gave me quite a scare there. I did actually use the sandbox, but copied it over to another window. As I said, I'm still learning this stuff, but I'm glad you were able to copy the stuff. Btw Reverbnation is a huge band/fans site and a great community for us music lovers, so it's a pity it's been marked as spam... Thanks again, brgds Denniz81 (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Mavsar chapel

It seems that you've forgotten to delete File:St-Rupert-martyrs Mavsar 03.jpg in this deletion request. Thanks. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Where

where in wikipedia comons says we must use orginal logos with copy rigth--EEIM (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

First, I am happy to answer civil questions that are placed correctly and not repeated twelve times. If you repeat your long series of comments made at the top of my page, one of my colleagues will block you for vandalism. Don't do it again.
As for your question. It is fairly simple.
If you upload a genuine copyrighted logo, then we cannot keep it because it violates the copyright.
If you make a small change to the genuine logo and upload it, then we still cannot keep it because it is a Derivative Work of the original logo and still violates the copyright. It is also not the correct logo and therefore is actually misleading -- it not only has no educational purpose, but it teaches the wrong thing.
If you make a large enough change so that it no longer violates the copyright on the genuine logo, then the result has no educational purpose because it will look nothing like the original.
So no matter what you do, Commons cannot keep a copyrighted logo or anything that looks like a copyrighted logo. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There is any problem with the present image of Beatrice of Portugal?

From your point of view? Jorge alo (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Esfinge da Rainha Beatriz de Portugal que se encontra no Mosteiro de Sancti Spiritus , em Toro, Espanha.jpg .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Files in Category:Bridges over the Drava in Slovenia

Hi, Jim! Probably it would be good if you explained to User:Josef Moser why we can't keep the images deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bridges over the Drava in Slovenia (he has left some comments there after the discussion had been closed). --Eleassar (t/p) 21:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Order of the Sacred Treasure photos

Hello. I see that you recently deleted these files and others that are similar, but I'm not sure why. Only one person nominated them for deletion, no one else supported the nomination, and he did not provide evidence for his assertions that these files violate the license granted for the originals. In fact, many of them were the originals and their use here falls within the license granted by the Japanese government. CanadianJudoka (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We have around 200 Deletion Requests every day. As a general rule, those that get discussion are those that pose significant issues -- that are controversial. I suspect that our colleagues did not bother to comment on this one because it seemed very straightforward and obvious. So, the fact that there was little discussion is not an indication that the nomination was incorrect, but rather that it was obvious. Many DRs, perhaps 75%, are closed with no discussion other than the nomination.
You say:
"... their use here falls within the license granted by the Japanese government."
Unfortunately, that is not important to the decision. Our images are used in many places for many purposes. Commons requires that all images be free for modification. At Commons:L#Acceptable_licenses, our official guideline says:
"All copyrighted material on Commons must be licensed under a free license that specifically and irrevocably allows anyone to use the material for any purpose; simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient. 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.
  • etc." [emphasis added]
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Many of the photos deleted are straight from the original website and are not modified in any way. It seems to me that you just took the nominator's word for it. CanadianJudoka (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand, so please forgive me if I this does not address your concern.
I think you miss the point. The images as they were on Commons may well have been completely unmodified. That is not the issue. The problem is that Commons requires that all images must be free for any modification. That might be something as simple as a crop or a color correction, or something more complex, such as merging two or three side by side, or even their use in a completely unrelated context.
The license on the source site prohibited any modification, so that even cropping the images -- some of which have a lot of blank background -- would have violated the terms of the license. That is why we cannot keep them here.
As for taking the nom's word for it, I frequently do that, if I am familiar with the nom's work. In this case, however, I did check the license information at http://www.cao.go.jp/en/notice-e.html. Since that clearly made it impossible for us to keep the images, I did not check anything else. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Could you please take a look to COM:ANV#Pianochanging? Regards --Ezarateesteban 11:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Gallery Space

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your answer!

Please help me with the next step.

I have created a gallery with images in my sandbox User:Kontoreg/Sandbox 1 but how can I copy it into the gallery space?

Best Regards,

Kontoreg

  • ✓ Done -- I have fix it now - private -- Thanks anyway!      Best regards, Kontoreg

EE-Pigeon-Breeds-List

Hallo Jim, the DR of the Verwaltungsgliederung Deutschlands is some weeks closed now and the page is still around with the status quo. How does this effect the EE-Pigeon-Breed-List (when not a gallery)? Something like a category scheme would be ok with me, too.
INeverCry refered me back to you. Should I inform Túrelio, too?
History:

--PigeonIP (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the consensus was at Verwaltungsgliederung Deutschlands, but I've copied your list to User:PigeonIP/EE-Pigeon-Breeds-List. That's not ideal, but I have a couple of subpages that are similar, mostly personal, but also used by others. We don't really have a better place for such things. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not what I wanted. I'd like to have this list integrated in the categories like a gallery or a category scheme. I'd like to link to this list from breed categories rather to the pdf I used as reference that may get outdated, and so on. I did not want this list in a user space back then and I don't want it there now. I do want a (new, not English-speaking) user uploading images of a special breed to be able to find the right category. Personal subpages are off-limits for most users (with good reasons), especially for new ones. --PigeonIP (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info a better version with possible gallery names and it's categories is at: Category talk:Unknown pigeon breeds. Before starting on the Tumblers, creating categories and correcting mixed up wp-article-names, I'd like to get this page somewhere useful to prevent double work. --PigeonIP (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, the consensus was clear that this kind of list cannot be in Gallery space. I don't understand:
"Personal subpages are off-limits for most users (with good reasons), especially for new ones."
There is nothing in our rules or practice that precludes anyone using, or, with your permission, editing the list in your user sub space.
You might try it as Commons:EE-Pigeon-Breeds-List. I wouldn't oppose that, although others might.
Part of the problem here is that there are many parts of Commons that deal with many constituent subgroups -- ships, historic sites, lighthouses, to pick just three that I am familiar with. Why do pigeons need something that none of the others require? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if I do understand constituent in the right way. But the multilingual problem is well known on commons. Multilingual tags are well introduced and have no other purpose (or its lists like Template:Technique/list).
I try to tell you why I am working on this:
  • When I (native German) started my work here (or on German WP) I was looking for pics of a special breed, that I could not find. Specially German breeds that have a very different English name. I felt so lost!
  • People creating categories with pigeons are not longer active and I am at a loss on what grounding they introduced Category:Fancy pigeon breeds, Category:Homer and Racer Pigeons and Category:Utility pigeon breeds. It is all mixed up. So I try to create a system that others may be able to understand and work with.
To give you a specific example: There is a pic of the Gimpeltaube, the Cesky volác sivy or the Balgarska schtschnitna tschajka --> try to find the English named category or create one. To complicate: imagine you are not an experienced user. Or try to find the English name of a Colour pigeon when Australian, American and Europeen Breeding Associations use different names for the same breed. And normally as a non-englisch-speeking-person you do not know these names.
(q) The en:Bohemian Fairy Swallow: is it the Böhmische Flügelschecke, the Bohemian Tiger Swallow?
Let met tell you, this list helped me a lot so far. Specially with the lack of co-workers.
  • "Personal subpages are off-limits for most users (with good reasons), especially for new ones": Most users have a native inhibition threshold to edit in other user spaces. First you have to be on a friendly basis, you have to know each other. Editing in other user spaces is like writing in a foreign diary ore notebook. You feel more secure with an invitation, but where to get it, when the "owner" is inactive?
I will try something like Commons:EE-Pigeon-Breeds-List and let you know, if you want. I got an other idea with the Template:Technique/list, but something like Category talk:Pigeon breeds by EE Breed Groups/ELRT may get more opposition than Commons:EE-Pigeon-Breeds-List. Best regards --PigeonIP (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Good explanation, thank you. You might look and see what system is used for dogs or cats, as I suspect they have similar problems.
As for using it as a subpage, yes there is a certain inhibition. But you might find that is an advantage. As a subpage, you own the list and can say what changes are OK and what are not -- there are no edit wars, because it is yours. If the page is in general space, then you no longer own it and can no longer control it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Dogs do have active portals/projects and the Category:FCI, a world wide association. Pigeons don't have one. The EE is still integrating national breeds. Onorio wrote 2008 I believe I heard something about some discussion of the NPA adopting the European groupings but I don't know if that ever got anywhere. As with any large organization, there's a lot of organizational inertia.. So I am let to believe that the EE established a practical grouping that also works for its 29 national associations (more than the EU) and may do so for others. Only disadvantage: there are two groupings named utility pigeons (Formentauben und Huhntauben) who are not to be mixed up with the American NPA grouping of Utility pigeons.
for subpages: I can't see it as an advantage, as I am interested in co-work, but at a loosing end:
Anyway, I don't fear a vulnerability to edit wars with the EE-list because of the reference to the (official) ELRT, for naming galleries in the language of origin: Commons:Galleries#Naming conventions. --PigeonIP (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Commons:List of Entente Européenne Pigeon Breeds Best regards, PigeonIP (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Mercè 2012 - Nebula - B.JPG

Hi Jameslwoodward!

Thank you for closing the deletion request for file Mercè 2012 - Nebula - B.JPG.

I've requested permission to the original autor of figure, she granted permission and finally I've forwarded this permission to OTRS. But still waiting for answer.

It's the first time I try to register permission on OTRS, please, could you tell me if everything is ok? Your template says 'This image is missing verification of permission'. What I have to do now?

Thank you. Vcarceler (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Sorry, I thought I had added {{OTRS permission}} to the file when I closed the DR. It's done now. Thanks for your effort to keep this -- it is a fun image, I'm glad we have it. Images of more of her work would be good -- see http://www.dolorssans.com. If you can get her permission to take images off her web site, be careful -- you will need both her permission and the permission of the photographer, unless she owns the copyright.

Naive English speaker's question -- is she properly referred to as "Dolors Sans" (as in the name of her web site and her signature on the OTRS e-mail) or "Dolors Sans Osete" (as shown on the contact page of her web site)? If it is the latter, please fix the author name in the file description. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Красимира.jpg

I don't what this is but it has no source or description. Just a typed in license. This hints at a derivative work. It ought to be deleted for this reason. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Why don't you start the process by clicking on "Nominate for deletion". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: OK. I would do so. I just noticed that you deleted another image on this uploader's talkpage. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Billao.jpg

Hello, can you tell me the reasons for your decission? Do you really think the uploader has the permission of the copyrighthholder?--Avron (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I kept it based on Commons:Grandfathered old files.I don't think there can be a significant doubt that he does not have permission, which is the standard we apply to such old things..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Like i've writen: This file has been uploaded in 2010 so Grandfathered old files musn't apply. --Avron (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no assertion of permission. Why did anyone mention Commons:Grandfathered old files? It's completely irrelevant. Also it's the uploader's only upload, so there's no other info. Looks a million other cases of "X took a file off the web". Rd232 (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I was mistaken -- the 2005-12-02 date was the upload to vikingsword.com. which is a (c) site. Is that correct? If so, I'll delete it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
To my knowledge 2005-12-02 is the date of upload to vikingsword.com.--Avron (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I revised my close to a delete. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:Animations of professional wrestling moves

I was waiting for (an impossible) move of the page Animations of professional wrestling moves to Category:Animations of professional wrestling moves. I have posted a section at Commons:Help_desk#Renaming_to_category_namespace, could you please check whether you are able to do such a move?Vanischenu mTalk 16:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You cannot move a gallery page to a Category. Since the Gallery page was empty, there would be little point in it even if you could. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so muchVanischenu mTalk 17:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Fangusu

James, if you see my user page, I have been blocked indefinitely on the English Wikipedia. Can you please go there and unblock me? Be sure to ignore my block log, okay? Fangusu (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You have made the same request of several users here on Commons. Even if I could -- I am not an Admin on WP:EN -- I see no reason to go act for you based on a simple request. If you continue to make such requests here on Commons for matters which belong on WP:EN, you will find yourself blocked here as well. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:A_blacksmith_at_work.jpg

I have received permission from the paper to release this image under a CC BY SA license. Can send it to you. Image is here [25] James Heilman, MD (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Please fill in the name of "the sister of my aunt" (any sister of your aunt is also your aunt, so I don't understand that, but it doesn't matter) as the author. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    Aunt by marriage. Thus here sister is not really my aunt :-) Many thanks. Will do so. James Heilman, MD (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Right you are, now that I think about it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

CU help/advice

Hi Jim. Can you take a look at User talk:INeverCry#Long-term egregious vandalism? It looks like this user is a long time sockmaster with a CU in 2008 who is still active now: see User:Hiyahkick. Another question I have regarding the earlier CU case is that the acct all the sock tags link to, User:Jvolkblum, seems to have been the original acct on en.wiki, but not used here. It seems confusing at best to link all these socks to a non-existent Commons acct. Could we atleast redirect the User:Jvolkblum page to the 2008 CU case page? Or perhaps soft redirects to the 2008 CU and the CU on en.wiki? I need the advice of someone more experienced in this area. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 20:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I just looked thru the contribs of this known sock (this acct is blocked on en.wiki as a sock of Jvolkblum) and the user gives sources as "Historical image collection" and other questionable sources. I noticed one that says "unsure". These all look pretty flimsy. This is just one related acct. I think we've got a big time problem with ongoing copyvio socking here. INeverCry 21:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be helpful to have a link to the archive of sockpuppetry and CU cases from EN: [26] --Orlady (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Current status of the names listed on INC's talk page, and one new name:

  • User:Grabbybagg -- last edit 9/12/12
  • User:Tuscanice -- last edit 6/9/12
  • User:Frankiesay22 -- last edit 6/9/12
  • User:NataFallon1 -- last edit 7/25/2012
  • User:MotortodaParty -- last edit 8/17/2012
  • User:DuckieMoMo -- last edit 8/3/2012
  • User:ChanceTears -- last edit 6/1/2012
  • User:28Shimms -- last edit 6/2/2012
  • User:Octogoggles -- last edit 7/25/2012
  • User:Kepclm -- last edit 6/9/2012
  • User:ElykSenoj -- last edit 6/7/2012
  • User:Hiyahkick -- now blocked -- mass DR on uploads
  • User:Midnitesweeps -- now blocked -- added the rest of his uploads to Orlady's existing DR on one of them
  • User:TruthWhole1 -- now blocked -- no edits on Commons, but clearly a sock of Jvolkblum -- blocked on WP:EN.

I have also created User:Jvolkblum for information -- I wasn't sure I could create a user page for a non-existent account, but it worked. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with this. INeverCry 00:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Help, please?

Might you be able to delete the category Category:Wikipedia meetup Seattle, which is a duplicate (and inconsistently-named) category of Category:Wikimedia meetups in Seattle? Also, could you move the category Category:Wikipedia meetups in Texas to Category:Wikimedia meetups in Texas for the sake of consistency with all other U.S. state categories? Are these the type of changes I could make if I had admin tools? I have lots of categorization to do... --Another Believer (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at Category:Wikipedia meetups in Texas and follow my lead in Seattle. As for moving the files, once you have created the new category, Cat-a-lot will do it for you in seconds. If you do any cat work at all, you should get to know Hotcat and Cat-a-lot, both of which can be turned on at Preferences > Gadgets > Tools for categories -- there is documentation there. Any questions -- come back here, but I'm done until tomorrow morning. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Personality rights

Dear Admin Woodward,

If you are comfortable with this, please feel free to submit these 3 images to a {{flickrreview}} or just flickrmark them. Personally, I am not comfortable marking images of small children as 1. my sister has a small toddler and 2. there may be personality rights involved. Perhaps these images have to be tagged with the personality rights tag? Here are the 3 images:

I Never understand why people license images of their own children freely on flickr. That is personal...and family. Best Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done I share your concern over children. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I have marked images of children taken by visiting tourists in a foreign country...but when it comes to family, its different sadly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
With thanks for your role in getting control over the "New Rochelle sockpuppet" content. Orlady (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. You remind me that I might do a little giving, too. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Maintient d'une demande de supression.

Bonjour,
je maintiens la demande de suppression [du fichier Dalayrac dessin de Quenedey].
Pour compléter la discussion :

  • Le portrait se trouve avec un profil droit dans l’ouvrage de Félix Clément édité pour la première fois en 1868 (p. 210-211).

Une simple inversion ne suffit pas car :

  • Félix Clément indique : "...l’autre a été fait par Quenedey au moyen du physionotrace. On s’est servi de ce dernier à cause de son exactitude (p.219)".
  • Le portrait réalisé en 1809 par Quenedey lui-même se trouve ici.
  • "Servi" indique qu’un nouveau portrait a été dessiné pour le livre. De fait il est précisé en titre : "Ouvrage illustré de 44 portraits gravés à l’eau-forte par Masson, Deblois et Massard et de 3 reproductions héliographiques d’anciennes gravures [27]" (dont ne fait pas partie celle de Dalayrac).

En résumé,

  • le fichier figurant sur Wikimédia Commons est la résultante d’une « inversion » de l’illustration figurant sur l’ouvrage cité,
  • porte une erreur de titre qui devrait être "d'après" Quenedey,
  • porte une erreur d'auteur qui devrait être "Masson, Deblois et Massard".

Cordialement. --Fguinard 00:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This should be discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dalayrac dessin de Quenedey.jpg, not here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour, veuillez m'excuser ; je ne suis pas habitué aux demandes de suppression. Joyeux Noel à tous. --Fguinard 17:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blonde 5.jpg

Jim, would you mind deleting the rest of the images identified in the deletion request as part of the same series? Thanks. Also, how does one go about getting a Flickr account added to the blacklist? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

LSE NC claim

Re Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Gays Against Fascism" - First Gay Pride March (7486040932).jpg: To obtain high quality digital copies, or to find out more about copyright terms for the reproduction of specific works in our collection, please contact the Library's Archives and Rare Books Division. Please note that it is our policy to charge licensing fees for commercial use. - read it again. The licensing fees for commercial use apply to the "high quality digital copies". Rd232 (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Please read the whole paragraph again:
"The images on our photostream are meant to be used for personal, educational or research purposes. To obtain high quality digital copies, or to find out more about copyright terms for the reproduction of specific works in our collection, please contact the Library's Archives and Rare Books Division. Please note that it is our policy to charge licensing fees for commercial use."[emphasis added]
I read the first sentence to say that the images are available only for personal, educational or research, and, by implication, not commercial use. By the rules of construction, the third sentence is not restricted to high quality digital images because it makes no reference to them, but the question is moot, because nowhere is there any expression of intention that the images may be used commercially. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
nowhere is there any expression of intention that the images may be used commercially Sure there is. Go to the Flickr source [28] and look at the License. It says "no known copyright restrictions". The only way to resolve the contradiction with the quoted paragraph is the same way as the 1849 Annie Darwin photo - LSE reckons the original photo is copyright-free and doesn't claim copyright on the digital Flickr version. But LSE digitised the photo and can claim copyright on digitisation in the UK, and will charge commercial fees for higher-quality versions it does not make public (but may supply high-quality versions for free for other purposes). Rd232 (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the rules of construction would allow a court to resolve the ambiguity between "no known copyright restrictions" and the final paragraph in favor of our keeping the image, but I am reluctant to do that because it violates at least the spirit of COM:PRP. Besides, in all of this, there is no discussion of why there are no copyright restrictions on a 1972 image. I think this could well be another case like the one Russavia cited, where an archive said that something was PD without any real knowledge of its status or the law.
Annie Dawson is not really on point. I closed that as a keep because I couldn't imagine a court putting a copyright on an 1849 image. As I said, this is a different kettle of fish, being from 1972.
Perhaps someone should point out to the LSE that their statement is ambiguous and ask what they really intend, but absent that, I am reluctant to keep this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't imagine a court putting a copyright on an 1849 image - well maybe you should read up on en:publication right. I concluded "weak keep" after Fae pointed out prior public exhibition (before 1988) would prevent claiming that as well as prior publication, and although neither is documented I think it likely it was published or exhibited long ago. As to the LSE issue - I still think you're wrong but Fae is pursuing the matter so I'll leave it with him. Rd232 (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware of publication rights. Fortunately they would be a violation of the US Constitution, but I know they exist in other places, including the UK. I don't think there is any case law yet on really early images, so it will be interesting to see what actually comes of them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Fortunately they would be a violation of the US Constitution - not that it matters (since we're not talking about US law), but given the URAA being ruled constitutional, I find that unlikely. And there may or may not be case law in the UK (there is in Germany, which has had it much longer), but the principle is clear enough. Rd232 (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." [emphasis added]

If that has any meaning at all, it does not allow 163 year old images to have copyrights. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the URAA was ruled constitutional, I'm not sure what point there is quoting the Constitution - it seems far more problematic than any publication right for never-published works. But in any case, "limited times" is a (presumably deliberately) flexible term which merely rules out indefinite copyright. Rd232 (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think there is a constitutional problem with URAA -- common sense problem maybe, but why the Constitution? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Golan v. Holder -> COM:URAA. Rd232 (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Ford Museum artifacts

Hi Jim - There's a discussion about the licensing of the Ford Museum artifacts I've uploaded.

I've always chosen the PD-US because I have been told that the gifts to the Presidents/First Families are in the public domain, once they pass into the custody of NARA. Several Wikipeidans have protested - see COM:VPC#Category:United States Bicentennial materials in the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum and here

I'm in touch with the US National Archives (NARA) lawyers to see what they think. I've looked at the Presidential "Deed of Gift" and read the United States Code Title 44 Chapters 21 and 22 and the Copyright Law and its variants til I'm cross-eyed. It's clear to me that we have pretty deep rights to these items. This question actually has implications BEYOND Wikimedia and Wikipedia, as we put our materials into more open source web spaces.

I would still like to see our atifacts - and the artifacts of all 13 Presidential Libraries (300k artifacts? Maybe even 1/2 a mil) - on Commons in the most useful way possible.

I even have the audacity to wonder if we can create a particular license structure for these items - I noticed that even though there are many govert PD's licenses, NARA does not have a specific one.

I've contacted Morgankevinj - he was listed as an OTRS direct contact - haven't heard anything. So far no one has speedy deleted any uploads I've done. And I understand it may happen, I'm just trying to get as many informed opinions as I can and buy some time til the lawyers do their thing.. any thoughts? Thanks and Merry Chrtismas!! Bdcousineau (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Photographs of copyrighted objects are problematic. As mentioned in your cite, most utilitarian objects are fine, as are those that are too simple for copyright, but art objects (very broadly defined -- toys are sculpture), plaques with complex texts, and utilitarian objects with decorations complex enough to attract copyrights are going to be problems.
During Ford's time in office, the copyright rules required that there had to be notice -- usually words like "(c) 1975 James L. Woodward" or "Copyright 1975 James L. Woodward" -- on the work. Many sculptures and paintings do not have notice and therefore are PD. We use the tag {{PD-US-no notice}} on those. That rule changed in 1978 to allow registration or notice and then again in 1989 to require neither. See File:PD-US table.svg for a summary.
As a general rule sale or gift of a copyrighted object does not transfer the copyright. You certainly understand that when you buy a book or CD, you do not buy the right to reproduce it, except as may be allowed by Fair use. The same applies to works of art and all other copyrighted works.
The fact that an object is owned by the government, or even was commissioned by the government, does not change this, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerald R. Ford - portrait.jpg. Unless the donor is the creator, or the copyright holder for other reasons, and the deed of gift explicitly transfers the copyright, then the museum cannot publish images of the object, except as permitted by fair use, without infringing on the object's copyright.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
That is the most helpful response yet. I will check with the Collections Registrar about the items already uploaded, and adjust the tag. I will use {{PD-US-no notice}} when possible. Everything else I'll take down for now. I will also let all the participants in that long long confusing discussion know where we ended up.
I am far enough into this project to have gotten my own WiR at the Ford Library. He starts in Jan. I may send him your way if we have questions.
I just now ran across old discussions about {{PD-USGov-NARA}}; I will get that discussion restarted and see where it goes. I will most likely check in with you at some point to make sure I am staying on track.
Have a wonderful holiday! Bdcousineau (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Since you're not an Admin, you cannot delete files yourself. You could, of course, ask me or another Admin to do it for you, but if I were you, I would simply hang a DR on each of them (use "Nominate for deletion" in your left tool bar) with a reason such as
"It has been suggested that this image may infringe on a copyright."
and let the community decide for you.
As a taxpayer, I should be glad that our public servants are working on Christmas Eve, but I hope that you get off early -- have a great holiday. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

2013!

Juletræet.jpg * * * 2013 !!! * * *
Hi Jim! Merry Christmas! Happy New Year!

Yours faithfully, George -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

More Presidential Libraries questions

I've read a slew of discussions from '06 about copyright and Presidential Portraits - and began to wonder if I was in a position to help figure it out, once and for all. While copyright laws haven't changed, things at NARA have - we have a pro-Wikipedia AOTUS. This means that as an agency, we are allowed to be more receptive to Wiki-issues...since I'm already in touch with the NARA lawyers about copyright on our gifts - I'll ask them about this, too, unless you think it's just beating a poor dead horse. I know several of the living artists have weighed in on this.

Secondly, I came across Template:PD-USGov-NARA, no longer in use. Since Dominic is no longer WiR at NARA, I'd like to develop a "PD-USGov-PresLib" (or maybe "sometimesPD-USGov-PresLib"!) How stupid is this endeavor? This will help my project on NUMEROUS levels internally - and my wiki-team really wants to continue our work BEYOND the Ford materials. How would/should I even get started?

And yes, thanks, I'm in here beyond the 9-5 - my team is doing the heavy-lifting (uploads, categorizing, conceptualizing) so I spread wiki-love to them, irritate the heck out of my NARA co-workers, and provide comic relief, I think. Thanks for your thoughts. Bdcousineau (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Do you know about {{NARA-image}}? Whether {{PD-USGov-PresLib}} is a good idea would depend on its purpose - if the purpose is to simply mark the images as part of the library, it's probably best to have a tag that's separate from the copyright tag. If all images covered by the tag are PD-USGov, however, it could be quite useful. According to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-NARA, the reason that tag was deprecated was that it only covered some – but not all – of the NARA images. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, my goal would be to have {{PD-USGov-PresLib}} work as a copyright tag. However, I'm beginning to think (after hearing from the NARA lawyers, who echo Jim's thoughts about looking for a (c) notation) that finding the correct language might be a little impossible. But that was a conversation about the artifacts - perhaps a {{PD-USGov-PresLib}} might still be appropriate for the documents and photographs.
yes, too, we have a new/NARA approved version of {{NARA-image}} for this level of the project; also we have a Commons partnership tag.
At the Pres Libs, we sometimes make assumptions about what public domain includes - you are teaching us that copyright is a separate animal. Painful, but who says that transformation is always pleasant? Bdcousineau (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Portraits -- yes, we would certainly welcome help. I think the situation is:
  • Everett Kinstler claims copyright in Ford and Reagan, so we did not keep them.
  • All of the others pre-Reagan are {{PD-US-no notice}} and therefore not a problem.
  • Bush, Clinton, and Bush are a problem -- and I have just hung a {{delete}} on them, because there is no evidence that the artists have licensed them.
  • AFAIK the Obama portrait does not yet exist, but will be a problem once it does.
I agree with Philosopher. We have several tags like {{PD-USCG}}, which are unambiguous in telling us that the image is PD because the photographer is active duty Coast Guard personnel. The question of whether the subject has a copyright is not addressed.
We also have tags such as {{Brooklyn Museum location}} which tell us that an object is in the Brooklyn Museum and where, but say nothing about either the image's copyright or the subject's.
Since we already have categories that are more specific than PD-USGov-PresLib, I think that the best use of {{PD-USGov-PresLib}} would be to tag images of artifacts where the image was made by a Library employee and therefore the image was PD. The easiest thing would be to write it so that, like the Coast Guard tag, the copyright status of the subject was not addressed. You could take it one step further and add an optional parameter to the tag that would address the copyright status of the subject. In this version, the tag would not be used for images that were not made by library staff. Thus, an image made by the White House photographer would use {{PD-USGov-POTUS}}, not {{PD-USGov-PresLib}}, even though it was in the collection of one of the Libraries. That's consistent with our general use of {{PD-USGov-XXX}}, which is that the image is PD because it was created by an employee of the XXX branch of the government.
Although I am by no means a template expert, I have enough experience so I could create either of the versions I describe above, if you need help. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
My first goal is get/keep as many artifact images from throughout the Pres. Lib. holdings as possible onto Commons in a way that respects Commons rules and copyright holders' rights. My second goal is to use the creation of these tags/licenses as an excuse to involve all the players - the Wikimedia Admin. geniuses, the NARA lawyers and the Pres. Lib. digitization bosses - this way, we are all legitimizing this project six ways to Sunday. Hehe.
I would like a tag that A.) designates Pres. Lib. "involvement" (Pres Lib/federal employee taking the photo is great, making it PD), and B.) designates copyright status in the photo's underlying object, if known. I love your idea of the optional parameter to the tag that would address the copyright status of the subject.
Would something like this keep the speedy deleters happy? I realize there will always be a complainer, but if I get buy-in from most the participants, AND we are respecting copyright issues to the best of our collective abilities, I feel like that's a win. Do you agree?
Yes, please, Jim, do you want to start the tag? When my NARA lawyer contact is back next week (and if we're not all furloughed) I'll take it to her and invite her to weight in. I'll also ask about the portraits in question.
BTW, the NARA lawyer said the exact same thing as you about looking for a (c) or TM symbol on the pieces. I can include her email if you'd like it. Bdcousineau (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll take a shot at a new tag. I think it should keep the speedys away.
BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by "about looking for a (c) or TM symbol on the pieces." As I said above, until 1978, a (c) or "copyright" together with the year and name was essential to giving the required notice. "TM", designating a claim of trademark status, does not give the required notice to establish a copyright. As a general rule something can be a trademark, have a copyright, or both. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

ESSE and rock-opera

Hello! I apologize for the mistakes in the categorization. I ask you to help with the categorization of my files. I think you need to create a Category Road_without_return_(fantasy-musikal) and put it in the category - Rock-opera_from_Russia. This will enable a more logical categorization and avoid cluttering the main category Rock-opera_from_Russia. More please, category - ESSE (group) of two-move as a subcategory of the main category - Rock music groups from Russia. Thank you in advance. Evgeny Pronin. --Doktor Pronin (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It is also not enough categories symphonic rock in the category Rock_music_genres- and already in it - subcategory ESSE (group). Thank you! --Doktor Pronin (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it would be good for me to help you with this. First, I do not read any of the Cyrillic languages, so it would take me much longer than one of our Russian speakers to do anything with them. Second, I am not at all sure that any of your images belong on Commons -- I question both their copyright status and whether they are out of scope. However, I do not intend to act on those questions, so please don't bother to try to convince me here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ford Museum

Here's my first attempt at {{PD-USGov-PresLib}}

This photograph/scan/photocopy is a work of an employee or sub-contractor of the Presidential Libraries, a branch of NARA (National Archives andRecords Administration, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain (17 U.S.C. § 101 and § 105).

The subject of the photograph (artifact, document or other media) has no known copyright restrictions, and NARA and Wikipedia are not liable for any rights infringements (44 U.S.C. Chapter 21 § 2117)*

  • (44 U.S.C. Chapter 21) § 2117. Limitation on liability

When letters and other intellectual productions (exclusive of patented material, published works under copyright protection, and unpublished works for which copyright registration has been made) come into the custody or possession of the Archivist, the United States or its agents are not liable for infringement of copyright or analogous rights arising out of use of the materials for display, inspection, research, reproduction, or other purposes.

I'll run this by the NARA Lawyers when we get far enough. Thoughts? Bdcousineau (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


I've started on the actual template at User:Jameslwoodward/PD-USGoc-PresLib, though I haven't gotten very far.
I'm not certain about everything following your "The subject of the photograph (artifact, document or other media) has no known copyright restrictions..." 44 USC 21 §2117 looks to me like a sort of a "fair use" clause, which we don't allow on Commons. It does not say that the artifact is PD, but simply that the Archivist and his agents cannot be prosecuted for using images of it. Although that might reach to WMF as an agent of the USA, it does not reach to third party users of the image or to commercial use, so it is not helpful here.
I would change your first sentence to read "contractor", and add something. Contractors are tricky. In order for an image made by a Federal contractor to be acceptable here, the contract must have specifically called for the copyright to be held by the government and the government must have decided to make the image PD.
As I said a couple of days ago, and as implied by my first try at words like yours, I think that we first want the template to say that the image is PD. Then we might go on with words such as
"Whether or not the subject of this image was eligible for copyright, it was created before 1978 and does not have a copyright notice on it, so it is in the public domain in the United States."
That will cover most of the items that Commons will be able to host. It answers the big question we have with a lot of pre-1978 works -- was there notice?
There are two other cases:
First, the artifact is eligible for copyright and has a copyright notice -- you will need to get a license from the copyright holder for the image to be kept on Commons.
Second, the artifact is not eligible for copyright, but has a notice. Since I don't think you want to be judging eligibility very often -- it can be a very fine line -- I hope these are few. If there turn out to be enough to be a problem, then we make a new tag, or add an option to this one, that says:
"Although this artifact has a copyright notice, it was not eligible for copyright because it is below the threshold of originality, is utilitarian, or otherwise."
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
OK, thank you. This gives me a direction. I will continue onwards this week, time permitting. I'll work on it at User:Jameslwoodward/PD-USGoc-PresLib to take it off this page and prevent clutter! Happy New Year! Bdcousineau (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
With thanks for your support and the pleasant co-operation in the past year, I wish you all the best in the new year! --Túrelio (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed images

Hello Jim...

Could you explain me why FOP can't be applied for these photos: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nawagłówna+Gnaszyn+kościół.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tabernakulum Gnaszyn.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ołtarzglowny+Gnaszyn.JPG? (I'm just asking, I don't know what was on these photos.) Paweł 'pbm' Szubert (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

FOP varies widely from country to country. I use a quick summary at User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox2 which you may find helpful. Polish law, like that of many countries, gives FOP to:
"...works that are permanently exhibited on publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens...".
Only a few countries, notably Britain and its former colonies, give FOP to indoor works. The three you cite are all church interiors. It's too bad, they're all nice images and one is beautiful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I thought that it would be a problem. What do you think if it would be photo of whole church interior like in this photo: [29] and painting and the other things would be visible only as small parts of photo not as the main topic of it? Paweł 'pbm' Szubert (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that it is right at the edge. I would probably keep it, but I respect those who would delete it. I'd be happier if the two posters on either side of the doors were cropped out. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for explaining me this. Paweł 'pbm' Szubert (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)