User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive7

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

<c

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

Contents

File:Tramvaj_Ljubljana.JPG

I'm done with transferring. --Miha (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Gobierno de España Files

Hello Jameslwoodward,

I`ve seen that you recently closed some file deletion requests from "lamoncloa.gob.es". On September 2012 some "lamoncloa.gob.es" files were Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Gobierno de España deleted, based on the same principle stated on the December deletion requests. It's not an easy decision, but we must keep the same standard for these files.

Happy new year.--Dura-Ace (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. What we must do is make decisions honestly and straightforwardly on each case when it presents itself. While all of us on Commons must consider precedent when we make our decisions, we are not bound by it. Even Supreme Courts can act against precedent. If the Ministry's legal page is the same now as it was then -- and that is something that we don't know -- then my comment in August was incorrect, as was the deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

File:AEF flag.png‎

I did the work of CommonsDelinker and replaced this file by the correct one in every WP. Is it now possible to delete it?--Antemister (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. While I am tempted to just delete it and change the edit summary in the DR log archive, that offends my sense that transparency is always good. I think you had better hang another {{Delete}} on it to keep the action public, instead of hidden in an archive. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for deleting my bad page, I just re-submitted the correct page. It went through as "Disneytree/Nancy temple rodrigue". I hope I did this correctly so the page will be named "Nancy Temple Rodrigue" Disneytree (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

re: Robert Kehlmann

Hi Jim, I created a page for glass artist Robert Kehlmann as an artist I admire and believe should be represented on Wikipedia. This is the first time I've contributed to Wikipedia, so I'm figuring it out as I go along. When I got to posting images, I found it confusing and complicated and so I contacted Robert Kehlmann to see if he'd upload his own photos -- the ones he owns -- so I could use them in the article. He did, but then all the photos were requested to submit OTRS forms or be removed, by GeorgHH. Robert submitted the OTRS, but now his account has been blocked, I think because the OTRS forms weren't received or clear? I guess I need some guidance on what's the best way to proceed? thanks, Tuna4tina (talk)

Please forgive our institutional skepticism and understand that we have it because we get a great many people trying to upload copyrighted work without permission or with fake permission. We delete around 2,000 files every day, many of them for that reason. We are simply trying to keep from being an enabler of copyvios and protect the rights of the copyright holders.
The main problem with this situation is that the license sent to OTRS was from a g-mail account, not from Kehlmann's own domain www.RobertKehlmann.com. We frequently get fans who upload artist's work without permission and then, when asked for OTRS permission from the artist, get a g-mail or yahoo account with the artist's name and send a bogus "permission". A secondary problem is that, in order to protect famous people from being impersonated on Commons, we require them to confirm their identity through OTRS if they want to use their actual name as a username here. This is why I blocked User:Rkehlmann.
Although I am inclined to believe your explanation above, I'm afraid I have seen too many sincere looking lies so that I must ask for further confirmation. Please have Mr. Kehlmann send a message to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from an e-mail address at RobertKehlmann.com or from the public contact address shown on his web site, rkehlmann@sbcglobal.net. The message can be very simple:
"I confirm that I am Wikimedia Commons User:Rkehlmann, the artist profiled at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kehlmann, and the person who sent the permissions from rkehlmann@gmail.com which are listed on OTRS ticket 2012122710010947."
Once that is done, please drop me a note here and I will see that the DRs are closed as keep and his account is unblocked. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tech-logo-2010.jpg

I am always horrible when it comes to our TOO policies, but the main purpose for the request was someone claimed it to be CC, when it is wasn't. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood -- but if it were under the TOO, then there's no copyright and Tech can claim a copyright all it wants. If I had kept it, I would have changed the license/permission to PD-textlogo. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
And I would have told Tech to stuff if they emailed us. I used to be the public relations chair for the Alpha Tau Omega chapter there until I graduated and they had so many external (and even more internal) restrictions on the use of the Tech logos and names and it was just a headache that I refused to deal with. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I wonder

Should we make an attempt to amend the admin requirements? They were set up in the days when a man and his dog could happily look after the rare copyvios (no one checked them much anyway). The sheer volume of DR/speedies does require some commitment to Commons at least. It might be worth tackling the "admin is the same everywhere" one at the same time. 'pedias do deal with copyvios but at a far more basic level than here and it is not the major part of the role elsewhere that it is here either. Just thinking is all :) --Herby talk thyme 17:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

(replied as Herby pinged me) Yes, agreed. I had to learn a lot about copyright violation in general before I could delete my first copyvio file. But is there somewhere a "list" of all admin requirements? Or do you mean pages like Commons:Administrators/Howto and Commons:Guide to adminship? Regards, Trijnsteltalk 22:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that before one becomes an Admin here, he or she should demonstrate
1) a basic knowledge of US, UK, French, and German copyright law, and the understanding that the other countries we deal with are all different, but generally have rules that are similar to the big four.
2) a basic understanding of our copyright policy, including COM:PRP
3) understanding that we deal in a multilingual environment and that while English is our basic lingua franca, we respect all languages and do our best to accommodate those who can't write English.
4) the ability to be firm with problem editors, welcoming to newbies, and mellow with colleagues.
5) a willingness to average an hour or more a day on Commons.
That's a big list, but it reasonably describes all of our productive Admins. I think that our requirement that candidates have spent time in the Commons namespace gives us some assurance that these requirements will be met, but I do see a number of RfAs where the candidate clearly meets #4 and gets voted in as a result, without any of the remaining four skill sets. People do not seem to understand that a WP Admin acts mostly as a moderator and judge, with very little specific knowledge required, while a Commons Admin is very rarely a moderator (although often acting as one of a group of moderators), but is mostly applying very technical rules to the keep/delete question. I'm not sure this is fixable, except possibly by having even tighter rules over who can vote in an RfA.
It worries me a little that while I often point out that a small percentage of all Admins do almost all of the work, in fact over the last year we have had two people doing the vast bulk of the work -- first Fastily and now INeverCry. I am not sure that when INC burns out we will find the capacity to keep up with the flood. Fastily deleted a quarter of a million images in his brief rise to the top of the Admin actions list.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hum - not quite sure if this is "consensus" :) - either way changing policies here tend to be massively draining :(
I'd favour improvement however I'd find it hard to subscribe to anything very rigid - I spent the first year as an admin deleted out of scope stuff and dealing with vandals - over that time I learnt a bit but there are some aspects of copyright I am still not fully au fait with. The logic then as now is that if I dealt with something others who knew more than me didn't need to and could get with something else useful.
Point taken on what might be seen as "over activity" though. The ones that do (by our standards) sod all are an issue as well. --Herby talk thyme 09:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I think a familiarity with basic principles of copyright is essential - I wouldn't require as much as Jameslwoodward would, though. Knowing the right questions to ask (and where to look) is more important than knowing the right answers. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we disagree -- you can't keep it all in your head. I do think that any Admin should understand the no-notice rules in the USA (and that notice is a USA-only concept and only until the new rules), the difference between 70 years pma and 50 years after publication, and the major differences in FOP rules (which the four I named cover very well, from none to everything including text, and from outdoors to Mme Tussaud's). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Employnomics

Hi Jim

Sorry about the acticle that I left on the site, I am a student and was to publish on Wikipedia however it directed me to this site. again sorry for any confusion.

2013

Hey Jim, happy new Year! -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 02:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Malone Hoard

Jim One or two of my photos have been deleted (fop issues in Italy) and I did not protest. But this case is different. The isssue is whether or not the Malone Hoard display is a work of art.It seems as though because Vera and no-one else decided that it is the file has to be deleted.In fact the dropped out of a bag or contrived layout has been so commonplace in museum design that only a straight line or other arrangement (or in Vera's terms non-artistic) would be considered even a novelty. This file was in use on three pages which now lack it. Please reconsider this and also it's implication for all museum photos. Notafly (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC) as Robert Nash (formerly Curator of Entomology, Ulster Museum)

It's not correct to say
"because Vera and no-one else decided"
because I also have the same opinion. Part of being a Commons contributor must be understanding that there are some things that we cannot have on Commons. This is one of them. Museum exhibits beyond simple straight line arrangements clearly have creative input and, therefore, have a copyright. I suggest that you approach the museum for a license, asking them to use the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
If the three articles you mention are on WP:EN, then the image could be uploaded there with a fair use rationale. You may also ask for reconsideration at Commons:Undeletion requests, but I will oppose it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

European Court of Justice

Hello Jim,

My picture of the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg has been deleted. I was not given time to do what it takes, i.e. get the green light from the architect. As I am going to Luxemburg next week, I will try to find out what to do.

Has this picture received the authorisation of the architect? File:European Court of Justice 01.jpg

If so, I will ask the author if said picture how and where he got it.

Honestly, I find this quite ridiculous. It is a public building, anyone can see it and anyone can take pictures of it.

--BiiJii (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid I have little sympathy for this point of view:
"It is a public building, anyone can see it and anyone can take pictures of it."
The same is true of all copyrighted works. Anyone can buy a book and make copies of it, or take a recent painting and print it on t-shirts. I hope that you would agree that both of those would be copyright infringements. If you agree that books and paintings have copyright, then why do you object to buildings having a copyright?
If you can get the architect to send a license using the method at Commons:OTRS, then we will be happy to restore the image. If not, it will stay as it is. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello Jim,

I'll try and do that and will try to know how to proceed... ;-)

Just a stupid question while I'm at it: has this picture received the authorization of the architect?

File:European Court of Justice 01.jpg

If so, how can I see it? It might help me find said architect, although my good friend google might give me a few hints.

Or this one: File:European Court of Justice in Luxembourg - Construction site (2) - May 2012.JPG

--BiiJii (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies -- I did not understand the question the first time you asked. As far as I know, we have no authorization from the architect for photographs of the ECJ. I have put {{Delete}} tags on both of the images you listed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


OK, thanks, that's only fair.

I found the architect on google, I also found people who sell pictures of said building and who claim copyright on THEIR pictures of the architect's building. So...

Anyway, I can't really see people copying skyscrapers. It would take a lot of money, a suitable plot of land + all necessary authorizations. An architect who would like to draw the same building can very easily find pictures on the internet, elsewhere than Commons, that is.

I'll keep you posted as soon as (if...) I get an answer.

Have a lovely week-end

--BiiJii (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

File:MaloneHoard.JPG

Please see Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:MaloneHoard.JPG. BabelStone (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. BabelStone (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Montreuil - Salon du livre jeunesse 2011 - Lilidoll - 001.jpg

You deleted this. Just in case you're interested, there's a discussion about your closure at COM:BI#Petite question sur les usages en vigueur. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Merci. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk page

Hello Jim, maybe I'm not good at explaining things, can you please tell this user that emptying his archived talk page and hiding it is not exactly a co-operative behaviour? I'm kind of fed up of repeating the same thing countless times. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

@Jim: Please read my objections to BlackCats allegations careful. Despite my request, he could not name any official policy. Thank you in advance!--FAEP (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, FAEP is correct, there is no official policy that requires a user to archive his or her talk page rather than blanking it.
With that said, though, much of what happens on Commons is done by custom and unwritten agreement rather than by official policy. This is one of those things. Almost all of us much prefer to have all users keep their talk pages easily accessible. A user who regularly blanks his or her talk page is going to make colleagues unhappy with him and will find it more difficult to work with others. I strongly recommend that you (FAEP) do as almost all serious editors on Commons do, and archive everything, both good and bad, from your talk page. If you need help setting that up, I would be happy to do it, or you can just look at the markup for it at the top of this page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This too doesn't sound much cooperative to me. I've always been respectful when addressing other users, but this doesn't look much respectful towards me, Jim. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Sergio, I'm sorry, but I don't understand. I made a comment to Peteforsyth about his wanting to become an Admin. He answered me politely, in a perfectly straightforward and good way. Then you started a new topic as shown here http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peteforsyth&diff=next&oldid=86929649. What I don't understand is where that came from. It is, I think, your first post on his talk page and there's no history of his posting on yours. I don't see that he has been blanking his talk page, at least for a year or so. So, why did you post the comment? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Because of this, Jim. I was replying to what Pete wrote on FAEP's talk page, explaining him why an user shouldn't blank their talk page (because of the same unwritten rules you were reminding FAEP, in short). But Pete thought better blanking my entry in his talk page. Which is like hanging abruptly the phone while speaking with someone. Not a good way to cooperate and interact with other users for being one who ran for admiship, especially if you consider that I addressed him in the most polite way. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, I understand. Probably he did also, but perhaps he was as confused as I was. Among other things, your comment says, "As Jim pointed out, no need to write a rule when common sense should be enough." but he had no reason to know where that came from, since he presumably had not read my comment above.

Your comment might have an included a little introduction -- something like "Following up on our discussion at User talk:FAEP....". I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, maybe you're right. Of course nothing I said meant to be unrespectful or aggressive, I simply pointed out that such behaviour is not good for a cooperative environment like this. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Questions

Hello Jim, I remember your help, that allows me to ask you questions :) I am writing an article in French on Thomas Edwards (heresiographer). The best image I found about his Gangræna is located here, on the Folger Shakespeare Library. The problem is that this page tells us that the work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. Bizarre, his work has been written on 1646, so it is on public domain ! So I wonder if I can upload this cover on commons. What do you think ? I have another stupid question :) I found an image on Google Books last week, about an older French book, I downloaded it on my computer, but I can't retrieve it on the net, and I can't remember its title, nor the name of its author... I would love to use this image to illustrate my userpage, here and on wikibooks. so do you think I could upload this image even if I miss informations like its source, etc... ? Regards, (genium ) 20:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

First question -- the official policy of the WMF follows the US case Bridgeman v. Corel which takes the position that simple copies of PD paintings are PD -- no new copyright comes when copying a flat work. That certainly extends to copies of books. Therefore, go ahead and upload the image and tag it {{PD-Art}}.
Thankyou !
Second question. I don't completely understand -- it's an image of a book, but you don't know it's title or author? I would say that if it is obviously old -- 18th century or earlier, then you're probably all right with a PD-old tag, but it would really be better if you had more information. Have you tried using Google search to search for the image? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes I tried, but without any success. I saved it at first in order to send it by email. It's an image of a monk reading a book. I feel sometimes like a monk copyist on Wikisource, I would love to use this image on my userpage because wikisource seems to drive my other activities on wikimedia. But I understand the need on having more information. Perhaps I could add a note asking people to let me know if they find the needed information ? Anyway, no urgency here, Thankyou again... (genium ) 23:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
There's always Rembrandt: File:61014Monk Reading.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Or Corot: File:Corot Monk Reading Book 1.jpg .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
No, mine looks like black-and-white engravings. He's standing, reading the hood closed, in front of an architecture… I'll let you know if I find anything ;) (genium ) 13:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

IP-block-exempt request

Hi. Could you grant my bot, User:Smallbot, the IP block exempt) right? I've moved it to a VPS and and am getting the following response when I try to edit:

{"servedby":"mw62","error":{"code":"unknownerror","info":"Unknown error: \"globalblocking-ipblocked\""}}

Thanks.Smallman12q (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg ResolvedUser:EugeneZelenko granted the right.Smallman12q (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


Djamel Bouchaffra

Es: Hola veo que transformaste este archivo que para mi era un claro ejemplo de algo que no esta de acorde a las normas de common, con el propósito de aprender me gustaría saber cual su la razón en este caso para convertirlo en una pagina de usuario. Gracias de ante mano.

En: Hello I see you transformed this file for me was a clear example of something that is not in line with common standards, in order to learn which I would like to know your reason in this case to make it a user page. Thank you in advance.--Veronidae (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I found a biography of a user in gallery space, so I looked to see if he had a user page. He did not, so I moved the page there.
This is a bad example to learn from. While we allow serious users to create fairly complex user pages (such as yours and mine), this one is perhaps too much for a beginner and I am sure that some of our colleagues would have simply deleted it. I like to try to be welcoming to new users, instead of simply deleting their first effort on Commons. Perhaps I am too soft.
All of that is a long way of saying that I am not sure your decision was wrong -- it was a close call..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok no problem :) --Veronidae (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lord Rama's Birth Details.JPG

The above file is deleted without taking in to account the explanation given by me. This picture does not involve any copyright issues. The painting of Lord Rama is owned by 'Rashtriya Yodha Smarak Samiti', of which Mr. Darshan Lal Jain, is the President and undersigned is the Vice-President. Our organisation got paintings by professionals, of several national heros and warriors for use in calenders and our own publications. So please reconsider its deletion and let it remain on Wiki. I may add here that I have uploaded dozens of pictures on Wikipedia during last several months and follow the rules of wiki judiciously.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my closing comment:
"Owning a painting does not give one ownership of the copyright to it and our uploader does not even own the painting."
There are two issues here.
First, the owner of a painting rarely owns the copyright to the painting. That almost always remains with the artist. We recently deleted photographs of several official White House portraits of US presidents because the copyrights are still owned by the artists. In order to overcome this issue, you will need to prove that you own the copyright, either my having the artist send a message to give permission, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS or by sending a copy of the contract transferring copyright, using the same procedure.
Second, you say that the painting is owned by an organization. We do not know anything about User:Sudhirkbhargava other than his or her name and we certainly do not know that he or she is authorized to license works owned by the organization. In order to restore this we will also need a license from the organization, again using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
In both cases the necessary e-mails must come from domains clearly identifiable to the source -- no anonymous accounts such as g-mail, please. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
As I explained earlier our organisation 'Rashtriya Yodha Smarak Samiti' gets paintings made on payment and hold all the rights to use them on our calenders or printed matter. Even this Combo of Lord Rama's picture, the shalokas,and Planets positioning is in public domain released by RYSS. We have several such paintings of national heros/warriors etc., whom we remember/perpetuate. I find procedure on Commons:OTRS very lengthy and discouraging.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Can I vouch on our letter-head regarding ownership of all rights with us and release them for wiki. Alternatively, if the picture of Lord Rama is that big an issue, I can download one from Wiki and prepare another Combo to upload as my own work, to expedite.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Just do what Jameslwoodward suggested above. It's quite simple and just requires sending an email to us (you can find the address at COM:OTRS) with the requisite information. This doesn't need to be complicated... – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would bother. Aside from the copyright issue we discussed above, there is the issue of copyright over the star map and the overriding question of whether the image is in scope. I don't think this image is going to be kept even if you overcome the issues with the one image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of creating a new mail Id (we are already on gmail, which you won't accept), documentations of copyrights of painting/photograph of Lord Rama and now copyrights of celestial positioning globe issue,if I use a photograph of Lord Rama from wiki which is in public domain, draw a map of positioning of Planets my self and prepare a Combo with Sanskrit shaloks as they are, will it be acceptable or some more issues can come up?Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, it is not clear to me whether this creation is within the scope of Commons. It seems to me more or less equivalent to my producing a star map as of the date of the first day of Genesis - a personal creation without widespread support. Therefore, if you recreate it as you have described, I will tag it with {{Delete}} and see what the community says. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
File is within the scope of Commons and has great educational value as one look at this compilation gives you Birth Date as mentioned in Sanskrit Shaloks. Globe you find on the picture depicts the Janampatri or the birth horoscope of Lord Rama. The three shaloks written in Sanskrit language describe the positioning of Planets at the time of Birth of Lord Rama. The Globe depicts those exact positions of Planets in pictorial form. I can describe for you the exact meanings of shaloks if you need. However, these Janmpatris or Horoscopes are common in India and are prepared at the time of birth of a child. When the positions of planets are analysed through Planetarium software, the date of birth of Lord Rama is calculated as shown. I do not think any issues are involved and the picture will only enhance the understanding of any related page where it is put.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

Jim, I'm curious about this closure. While I tend to agree with you that the image isn't particularly valuable, doesn't the fact that it was in use at several Wikimedia projects indicate that there are other editors who disagree with us, who have perhaps put more thought into how to best illustrate an article about this software topic? -Pete F (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I was working a little too fast. Thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks! -Pete F (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gb-ltmd-1938ts Emergency Equipment.jpg

Would you care to elaborate on your closure here? No one mentioned Crown Copyright, and you have stated no justification as to why the diagram should be under that jurisdiction. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

From Crown copyright#United Kingdom:
Crown copyright applies "[w]here a work is made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties".
Since the subject work was made for the London Underground, it seems clear to me that it falls within the scope of that definition. I'm not an expert on Crown Copyright, though, so if you can give me a reason why it wouldn't apply, I'm all ears. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Castroville Japanese Language Schoolhouse, Castroville CA and Castroville Japanese Language Schoolhouse

Es: Hola me encontre con estos dos archivos cual se deja y cual se elimina son artículos duplicados. Lo dejo a tu criterio. :)

En: Hello I found these two files which is left and which is removed, are duplicate items. I leave it to your judgment. :) --Veronidae (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Theo van Doesburg Composition 1923-1924.jpg

Hi James, File:Theo van Doesburg Composition 1923-1924.jpg (painting by Theo van Doesburg in the Kunstmuseum Basel) was recently deleted following the URAA. On closer inspection however I found out that this file might be licensed as {{PD-US-unpublished}}. The reason for that is that this painting has never been published in the United States, nor has it ever been exhibited there (see nl:Compositie_(XXVI)#Tentoonstellingen). Maybe this file could be re-uploaded under a different license? What do you think? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That might work, but you need to do a little more work -- proving a negative is very difficult, but I have to ask:
  • It has never been shown in a book?
  • It has never been sold at auction and therefore appeared in a catalog?
  • There were no copies on the Internet before 2003?
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
ok, I can provide the folowing list of previous publications with place of publication in bold:
  • Exhibition catalog Sammlung Marguerite Arp-Hagenbach, Basel 1967 with image.
  • Exhibition catalog Theo van Doesburg, Eindhoven\The Hague 1968.
  • Exhibition catalog Theo van Doesburg 1883-1931/Konstruktive Kunst, Nuremberg/Basel 1969.
  • Exhibition catalog Verzameling Marguerite Arp-Hagenbach, Otterlo, the Netherlands 1970.
  • Polano, Sergio (1979) Theo van Doesburg. Scritti di arte e di architettura, Roma: Officina Edizione, with image in black and white.
  • C. Blotkamp (1996) De vervolgjaren van De Stijl, 1922-1932, Amsterdam/Antwerpen: L.J. Veen, with image.
  • Hoek, Els (redactie; 2000) Theo van Doesburg. Oeuvrecatalogus, Bussum: Uitgeverij Thot, ISBN 9068682555, with image in color.
It was never sold in a public auction. Also this copy of the painting (uploaded in 2008) was the first and only copy ever to be found online. See google. So I think it's safe to say that it hasn't been published in the US before 2003. The same, BTW, goes for the other two paintings by Van Doesburg recently deleted. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that you have proved the opposite of what you wished. For the purposes of {{PD-US-unpublished}}, it must have been unpublished in any country with which the USA has a copyright agreement -- essentially everywhere. Since van Doesburg died in 1931, his work was in copyright in Holland on the URAA date.
The following is from USCO circular 38b:
"To be eligible [for restoration of copyright under URAA], a work must meet all of the following requirements.
1. At the time the work was created, at least one author (or rightholder in the case of a sound recording) must have been a national or domiciliary of an eligible source country. An eligible source country is a country, other than the United States, that is a member of the WTO, a member of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, or subject to a presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of that country on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries. [yes, Holland]
2. The work is not in the public domain in the eligible source country through expiration of the term of protection. [as of the URAA date, 1/1/1996 -- van Doesburg died in 1931, his work was in copyright in Holland until 1/1/2002]
3. The work is in the public domain in the United States because it did not comply with formalities imposed at any time by U. S. law, lacked subject matter protection in the United States in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, or lacked national eligibility in the United States. [PD-No notice]
4. If published, the work must have been first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following its first publication in the eligible country." [as shown above]
I think these works meet all four requirements.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
You're right. {{PD-US-unpublished}} just says "never published", not "Never published in the U.S." That brings us back to the URAA. But what about the Hirtle chart? We've seen that this painting was first bublished in 1967. According to the URAA it enters the PD in 2062. That's an aweful long time for an artist who has died over 80 years ago. However, if the image in the 1967 publication does not contain a copyright notice that particular image could be licensed as {{PD-US-no notice}}. I will try and do that instead. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's not correct. In order for PD-no-notice or PD-no-renewal to apply, the work had to be first published in the USA, or within 30 days of publication elsewhere. These fall into the Hirtle Chart box that reads

"1923 through 1977 -- Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date."

which gives us 95 years after publication if we accept 1967 as the publication date. I'm not sure that's correct -- it may be that the publication date is when the paintings were first sold -- but that still doesn't make them PD now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Bla bla bla: no-fop in Italy

Hi, the discussion on Pedia is finished and we have concluded with complete assurance that in Italy there is no concept of freedom of panorama; so all the files User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy that will be considered protected by copyright will be deleted in different PDC. If you have any tips I thank you for them. Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that I would advise is that you make separate DRs for each category -- try to make the DRs small enough so that they can be addressed as a whole. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. :) Raoli ✉ (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Photos of Italy

Es: Hola vi en tu página que estas fotos de Italia serán borradas por no haber lo que ustedes llaman libertad panorama, yo he subido fotos de Italia las mías también serán borradas porque estoy por subir un lote nuevo de la ciudad de Roma.

En: Hello I saw on your site that these pictures of Italy will be deleted for not having what you call freedom picture, I've uploaded photos of Italy will also be deleted mine because I'm by uploading a new batch of the city of Rome. --Veronidae (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The following is taken from Commons:FOP with edits to suit Italy:
In Italy, art, architecture, and other works are copyrighted for 70 years after the death of the creator. That means any photograph taken of such a work during that period is a derivative work.
A derivative work usually requires a license from the creator of the work. However, in many (but not all) countries there is an exception in copyright law which eliminates the need for a license. We call this exception freedom of panorama (FOP), after the term used in German copyright law, Panoramafreiheit.
There is no FOP exemption in Italy.
Note that in Italy, as in every country, once a work goes out of copyright it may be freely photographed. Also, the exception does not eliminate the need for a license from the photographer.
Does that answer your question? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

deletions of some photos

Why did you delete some of my photos. You should have confer with me before doing that.--Ezzex (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


@James, FYI: User talk:Túrelio#deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you did not give me a link to the photos, I do not know which ones you mean. However, please remember that we delete between 1,500 and 2,000 images every day. Although we notify users when their images are up for discussion, we cannot have individual discussions with them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Old open DRs

Hi Jim. Can you please take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/2012/11/17? It looks like 10 or so of my old DRs got overlooked and a couple were partially done. I don't do complex DRs, so I'm sure these can be easily closed. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 20:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Closed out the day. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. INeverCry 18:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bkchem Taxol Holton C ring part II.svg

Hi Jim. The SVG bug has disappeared with the new version of MediaWiki. But do you really think that we do need five files that are virtually duplicates?

Only the last one is in use. --Leyo 14:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we need only one -- and I would be happy to delete the other four if you -- or someone else that I trust -- tells me that he has examined them carefully and has determined that they are functionally identical. I have neither the expertise nor the patience to do that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The first one misses some stereochemistry (just discovered) and should get deleted as incorrect.
The second also contains text as such (smaller file size), but has some incorrect stereochemistry at the bottom. It may be kept or deleted.
3–5 all have the text converted to paths. No. 3 has the same incorrect stereochemistry and should get deleted. No. 4 has one line too bold and should also get deleted. No. 5 is correct and needs to be kept.
--Leyo 14:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --Leyo 14:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Las monjas de Bendito Paladar.png

Hi Jim, this may need a bit more of a tidy up. As I mentioned in the DR, the other uploads from the same person need attention. For example, File:Monjitas-13tv.jpg is blatantly taken from the promotional Facebook collection, it even includes the TV channel logo. My intention was for this DR to act as a bundle, let me know if you would prefer a more explicit DR where I enumerate the questionable files remaining. Cheers -- (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the one -- I think you may be right about the other four, but I'm reluctant to blow them away since they were not in the DR list and the uploader has not been notified. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look at creating a bundle DR to be clearer. -- (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wappen Freinsheim.svg

Hi Jim, this may need a bit more of a tidy up. As I mentioned in the DR, at [the end]. Or should someone make a new DR (I have sworn to do this never again any more on Commons) with the lion as copyvio? I mean only the last version of this file. I know you're doing a difficult job, sometimes good sometimes not so good, in my opinion. But I respect that. Cheers -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 14:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the lion is probably taken from File:Small coat of arms of the Czech Republic.svg. Except for colors, direction, and the double tail, he is identical. Note, however, that that file is PD, so it is perfectly OK to take the lion from it to create a new COA. Although it would have been polite for Bayemraute to credit the source, attribution is not required with a PD image. Also, we have 745 files in Category:Crowned lions in heraldry and there are many very similar lions there, so I think that a copyvio claim against any rampant lion would probably fail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok that sounds plausible and there could be a generally rule. That would also imply for example PD-CoA (in the meaning of the author can't have copyright) from http://vector-images.com are completely free to use here? But there is also a sentence against this (COM:COA): “Both the definition and the representation of a Coat of Arms are intellectual creation, and their legal protection may be considered as such.-- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 00:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response -- I was in the middle of writing it nine hours ago when our Internet went down from a storm.
Images from vector-images.com are royalty free only with certain limits -- nowhere near free enough for use on Commons, see [[1]]. Commons requires a free license for any use, anywhere, in any quantity.
As a general rule, blazons (descriptions of COAs) are old enough to be free from copyright, and even if under copyright, only the actual words are copyrighted, not the substance of the description. If "lion passsant d'or" were copyrighted, I could write "gold panthera leo walking" without infringing. I could also draw an example without infringing, but my drawing would have its own copyright. In general, each individual representation of a COA is copyrighted like any other creative work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ferdousi-square-tehran.jpg

Hello, Jim. Could please you help me with the case. I don't know whether this image are available in PD at the link on it. Thank you very much--Morning (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I commented at the DR -- you need a Farsi reader, not me. Try User:Mardetanha or User:Mmxx..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Eur Court of Justice

Hello James,

Have you received my message - also sent to permissions@-etc. - with the authorization of the architect for my picture CJE.JPG ?

The picture has been deleted, I have received and forwarded the authorization.... and nothing happens.

However, this picture still remains.

Double standards???

Thanks for your help

--BiiJii (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Not at all a double standard. Deletion Requests take at least a week and sometimes as much as a month. Coincidentally the image you cite above was deleted about an hour after you left the message above. As for OTRS, it typically has a backlog of several weeks -- we do not have enough volunteers to keep it completely up to date.
However, I found the permission from DOMINIQUE PERRAULT ARCHITECTURE on OTRS. Unfortunately, it is not sufficient permission. As is explained at Commons:OTRS, which I referred you to earlier, Commons and other WMF sites require a free license for all uses. The permission from DPA is only for use on Wikipedia.
When its turn comes up on OTRS, an OTRS volunteer should send a message to the architects asking for the proper license. You could speed that up by asking the architect directly. Please copy permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on that request, referring to ticket #2013010710009345. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello Jim, thank you for your answer.

The architect probably mentionned his authorization for wikipedia because I mentioned Commons etc... Being myself a beginner around here, I was not aware of the exact way a permission must be sought.

I can of course write to them again and ask them to rephrase their authorization, but I'm afraid these people have more urgent things to to. I prefer to give up, too bad for the wiki-community.

Thanks for spending your time on this

Bye

--BiiJii (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, an OTRS volunteer will probably follow up. If I were an architect, I would want photos of my best known works available on Commons, so we will see what happens. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Slovenian war map.jpg

Hi, in this request, my argument was not that the map is not a work by the CIA because there are names written in two languages. The argument was that it is not the work by the CIA because the local names are written so that they're barely visible and partially obscured. Don't you think that if the CIA would have created this map, they could have easily fixed this? I think it's fair to say at least that there is significant doubt about the copyrights here. I'm bringing this up here because it was not addressed in the conclusion of the nomination. Thank you for your opinion. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am basically depending on the Library of Congress to get it right -- my experience is that they understand copyright and are careful with it -- they are, after all, the copyright repository for the US. Although I believe in and often refer people to COM:PRP, I think this is a case where we are safe because an major authority on copyright says it is OK. We rarely actually know anything for certain on Commons -- we are almost always relying on a source for details. What better source to rely on than the LOC?
I think the problem you see here is that the CIA created the base map and then later added the overprint. Since the overprint was not designed for close reference, they ignored the question of whether the overprint obscured some of the base map. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, there are still some unresolved questions at this proposal's discussion page. A comment would be welcome. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I have ignored the post closure comments, rather than simply deleting them. If people don't like the closure, then they should post an UnDR, not continue a closed discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Why an UnDR? It's for images that have been already deleted. I've contacted you because I would like to hear your opinion on what has been said there before reopening the deletion request. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was headed out the door and went the wrong way on this. I meant, of course, reopen the request. Objections to deletes beat objections to keeps 10 to 1.
I've explained my reasoning several times -- I don't see why another time would be helpful. The reasoning in the post closure comments is not persuasive for me. It is US policy to use place names in the local language on maps and charts. The fact that the location is in Austria does not change the fact that it is a map of Slovenia and will, therefore, use place names in Slovenian. Unless you find a different source, I'll stick with the LOC assertion that it is the CIA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion request

In this deletion request, you forgot to delete the first file. Thank you.--Dega180 (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
And in this deletion request, you forgot to delete the first file.--Dega180 (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Sometimes DelReqHandler, the script we use for closing DRs, hiccups and misses a file or two. Thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jim, similar request: File:Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie by Philip Alexius de László.jpg and File:George Bell 1931.jpg. Hekerui (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't update image

Hello sir... trying to upload a new version of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Delta747jtsarkis.jpg but it won't let me. Help? NawIinWikiSucks (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why it won't let you -- try asking at Commons:Village pump. However, since you are neither the uploader nor the author of the image, you should read Commons:Overwriting existing files before continuing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

See CU list posting :) --Herby talk thyme 18:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I was going to ask about the name -- both because it is offensive and because I have to wonder why we want a contributor who, with every contribution, says that he doesn't like us. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stara Cerkev Gefallene des Ersten Weltkrieges Pfarrgemeinde Mitterdorf.jpg

Hi, I'd ask you to close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stara Cerkev Gefallene des Ersten Weltkrieges Pfarrgemeinde Mitterdorf.jpg. Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No you should wait (and undelete it). We are awaiting reply from the Slovene intelectual property office regarding the memorial plates. There are several articles in other laws, acording to which it is possible to conclude that the plates should be PD. --Miha (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you be a bit more specific and state which articles are you discussing? The copyright act is only one in Slovenia, so I don't see how they could be relevant for the copyrights. An explanation would be welcome. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done -- There was a read only period yesterday and this must have just caught it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Slovenia in World War I

There were multiple files and not all of them were from problematic Europeana.

A lot of them were from the museums on their own. If you can trust LOC for claims that something is in PD, why can't you trust European museums that something is in PD?

I just ask myself when we will start deleting pictures of prehistoric arhitecture since there is no claim that they have been build by an arhitect who has died more than 70 years ago (<sarcasm>One could easily live for centuries, the Bible says.</sarcasm>) Furthermore, the pictures were taken in a country that doesn't exist anymore and to my best knowledge (I'll try to find a source) it did not even had a copyright law which which would prohibit the freedom of panorama.

Again, closing such DRs should be taken with a greater amount of carefullness. Juts like I can not simply nominate the entire category for undeletion since there are some images that are problematic (I can not check which ones are not, since I can not see the deleted content.) --Miha (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Although the architecture (and therefore FOP) may be an additional issue, the principal issue on all of these is that we do not know when the photographers died. An image taken during World War One is nowhere near early enough to assume that the photographer was dead before 1943 -- I generally use a date around 1880 for that. Others will argue for an earlier cutoff. An image taken in 1860 by a person born in 1842 could conceivably still be in copyright if he lived to age 100.
As for my trust in the LOC in the discussion above, it is two-fold. First, as the repository for copyrighted material in the USA, the LOC has an institutional knowledge of copyright that I have not seen in other museums, both in the USA and elsewhere. Second, as I noted there, it was a CIA map -- the LOC was simply confirming what was already fairly obvious. In the subject case, the museums are saying, without explanation, that images that appear to be still under their photographers' copyrights, are PD. So, in the case above, the LOC was simply confirming something that was entirely plausible, while the museums in the subject DR are claiming, without any explanation, something that is very unlikely.
Finally, as for "Again, closing such DRs should be taken with a greater amount of carefullness", I completely agree that a mass DR of a heterogeneous list requires more care than a DR of a single image. I take such care, within the broad limits imposed by the great volume of work for Commons Admins. We delete around 1,800 pages every day; ten of us do most of that work. Fewer than one of our actions per thousand are reversed by UnDR (that number excludes cases where the reversal came from evidence not available during the DR), so the evidence is that we do a pretty good job. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Your comments about my recent query were very useful. Thank you. Bdcousineau (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steiner Alpen.png

Can you please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steiner Alpen.png, i.e. merge it with Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Alps_-_Regions_(Eastern_Alps).png and the other files I listed there. Thank you. --Miha (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't close them -- it's very much too early -- but I redirected the one to the other, something you could have done. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Bian

Hi Jim. Is there any way to make it so that the category connected to {{bian}} is updated automatically from month to month? I just updated it manually after noticing it was still on April 2012. Face-wink.svg INeverCry 22:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I have made some templates, including {{Bian}}, I've never gotten deep into complex template and toolserver programming, so I don't have a clue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Me either. Maybe I'll post a question on VP. INeverCry 17:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
You may want to take a look at COM:VP #{{bian}} where someone is disputing the policy behind the template. INeverCry 20:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done, thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salida.svg

Would you mind explaining why you deleted my file which came directly from a Chilean government PDF, was in use, and had the proper sign designation, when the user wanted his own file gone? Just because the government file had jagged edges is not sufficient, the file you kept may have rounded ones but they too are distorted, and you have disrupted two articles that used the file. Fry1989 eh? 20:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, Fry, give me a break -- "you have disrupted two articles that used the file" -- just how long will it take to swap the file names in the two articles -- two minutes? Much less time than the two of us will spend here. The long term quality of Commons images is overwhelmingly more important than a couple of minutes to fix two links.
As I said in my closing comment, the one file appeared to render the letters better at high resolution. Even if the official Chilean PDF shows the letters as polygons, you can bet that the actual signs are smooth curves, so the one I kept is a better representation of what is actually used. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't "give me a break" me. I'm not being combative, I'm asking a relevant question. Never have I seen an admin ignore an uploader's request to delete their own file, and delete the other one in use and officially sourced. Fry1989 eh? 20:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The question was fine -- and I think I answered it. I bridled at "... disrupted...".
We're both very active editors. While I respect your opinion and usually just take your recommendation in DR closes, occasionally we're going to differ. I've found that the best way to disagree with colleagues is to be as polite as possible. "Disrupted" doesn't fit that mold for a two minute cleanup.
Please take the opportunity to teach me why you think the image I deleted was actually the better choice to keep -- I've told you the reason I deleted it. Was that wrong? Why? I try learn a little every day and to fix my mistakes when I make them.
I have no experience with SVG files, but I've been doing 2D and 3D AutoCAD work for more than 25 years, so I have a thorough understanding of the difference between raster and vector files. And, BTW, is there an easy way to convert a DWG into an SVG? Does SVG do 3D? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hello Jim ! You deleted several pictures but one of them (ClickScript.png) is a screenshot of an open source tool (the diagram is homemade). it's possible to recover it ?

Regards. --Stephane.Cadoret (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If the diagram was homemade, it is probably out of scope as personal work, see COM:SCOPE. Most open source tools copy right their icons (eg Wikimedia, Mozilla, etc.), so it would require a careful search of the source licenses to determine if the images were free. You're welcome to do that, but it will require actual citations, not just your statement.
I have deleted your File:Smart gateway.png for a second time. It is a violation of our rules to upload a deleted file again. You may, as you did above, ask for reconsideration from the deleting Admin, and, if that does not succeed, post it at Commons:Undeletion requests. You may not upload it again. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, for ClickScript, I'll ask the author if there is a license on his images.
Sorry for the file "Smart Gateway" , I changed the images used. I used personal images and images under GPL.
I don't want to recover my file, because one of the image can be used for non-commercial use. I have to modify all my files : before uploading them again. It's possible ?
Stephane.Cadoret (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
First, when you add a comment, please don't put it above an old signature -- that makes it hard to notice.
I'm not sure I understand, so please explain if this doesn't help you. There are two cases:
  • An image was deleted because of problems with the license or lack of permission which are now OK -- the image can be restored by any Admin or by making a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. Asking the deleting Admin to do the restoration is a good idea because most Admins are reluctant to undo a colleague's deletion without consultation.
  • An image was deleted because of problems with the image itself and you have a new image which serves the same purpose and is freely licensed. This can simply be uploaded with the same name. Since the upload will show up on several watchlists (the deleting Admin, the DR nominator, perhaps others), it is a good idea to tell at least the deleting Admin what you are going to do and why.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
OK.
For the files ClickScript.png, i send a request to the developper to know if all images are under free license.
For the other files, i'm going to modify them with free license images (GPL, LGPL) [Can i re-use in my diagram, some modified images of commons ?] and after i upload them again.
Stephane.Cadoret (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello ! I re-upload 2 images :
I didn't manage to re-upload the file Smart_gateway.png, i have the following message :
Smart_gateway.png. Il y avait déjà un autre fichier présent sur le site avec le même contenu, mais il a été supprimé.
Can you help me ?
Thanks.
This time, i didn't use "free for non commercial licence", just GPL or personnal images :).
I think that should be just an informative message -- I don't think it should prevent your uploading a new file with that name. If I am not correct, just use a slightly different name. Even "File:Smart gateway.PNG" is a different name. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, it's good with a different name File:Smart_gateway.PNG
Stephane.Cadoret (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

help on copy right

Hi, Could you please help me with these questions:

  1. Someone told me that such pictures: [file:Forouzan on the cover of magazine 1974.jpg] may have copyright for the magazine logo, but I argue that based on “• In cases where the work belongs to a legal personality or rights are transferred to a legal personality.” in {PD-Iran}, as the magazine is a legal personality instead of a person/persons, there is no copyright for the logo and ultimately whole picture after more than 30 years...am I right?
  2. If I capture a photo of a grave, is there any copyright for the text, calligraphy, any graphic or design of the grave stone which would deter me uploading it as “copyright holder” of the photo?

Thanks. یوشیچی تویوهارا (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

1) This is a complicated question. If the magazine cover is pure text -- it does not matter whether it is a latin alphabet, a different alphabet, or a pictograph language such as Chinese -- then the cover itself probably does not have a copyright unless there is enough text on any one subject for the text itself to have a copyright as a literary work. A typical magazine cover, with a few words about several articles will not have a literary copyright. The UK is an exception, as there is a special copyright there for typesetting. If the magazine has an image, then the copyright on the image usually runs for the life of the photographer or artist plus 70 years, although there are many exceptions in different countries. I am not expert on Iranian rules, but at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory_-_full#Iran I read that in cases where the rights were transferred to a legal entity, such as this magazine, the author's rights are over after 30 years (both our translation and the WIPO translation are rough, but I think this is the intent of the law). So I think that you are correct, the copyright on the magazine has expired.

2) Also complicated. If the text is long enough to have a copyright as a literary work -- more than one sentence or so -- then your image would infringe on that copyright unless it had expired. In most countries, including the USA, but not the UK (I don't know about Iran), there is no copyright in typesetting or calligraphy. If the stone is a simple rectangular slab, with nothing but a few words -- "John Jones 1914-1994 Rest in Peace" -- there would be no copyright. A simple cross, crescent, or star of David would not have a copyright. If the stone were more complicated though, it might have a copyright as sculpture. All of the examples below are PD-old, which is why we can have them on Commons.

These both would have copyrights for their art:

This would have a copyright for its literary work:

This would not -- although there are many words, they are all just bare facts, names and dates, and cannot have a copyright. The shape of the stone is too simple.

Finally, although you are completely free to have a username in any language and any alphabet, it is helpful to those of us who cannot read Persian if you would provide a latin alphabet version of your in your signature. You can do this easily -- go to Preferences (at the top of each page) at the bottom of the User Profile page. Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate your thorough explanation. I got what I wanted to. But about my signature, I might follow your advice in future, however I prefer to sign in our own script as I love it. But if you want to read my alias here, it is a forged Japanese name (for a non-Japanese as me) read as: Yushichi Toyohara  :-) --یوشیچی تویوهارا (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
A last word on the subject -- perhaps I wasn't clear -- you can have both -- your sig could be

یوشیچی تویوهارا (Yushici) or almost anything else you wanted. I'd be happy to help with the HTML if you need it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Ete Buecker 1953.jpg and File:Ete Buecker 1959.jpg

Dear Jim, there are no DRs on the photos you suggested for deletion. As Erich Bücker was my father, I know that these photographs had been taken from his very own photo album. My brother, now residing in the US, digitally refurbished them. The pictures might have been taken by a professional in the 50s being a friend of my father's. Regards from Germany. Yours Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmteaWiki (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 January 2013‎ (UTC)

Michael, I have copied your note to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ete Buecker 1953.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ete Buecker 1959.jpg. You may comment further there if you wish.
Briefly, though, you have claimed that you were the photographer. As you say above, that's not correct. The fact that you or your brother own copies of the images does not give you the right to freely license them here -- the copyright belongs to the photographer. The rule in Germany is that copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the photographer, so even if the photographer died the day after he took the 1959 image, it will be under copyright until January 1, 2030. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


User:Yurinokuni

hello, Jim. what was a reason for deletion of personal page linking to CC0 works? Yurinokuni (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As a general rule, while a user is free to put what he wants on his or her user page, that freedom is broader for contributors who have done a reasonable amount of work on Commons and less broad for new users.
Specifically, while users are permitted to link to off-WMF pages which they control, for example, a personal web site, even experienced users may not link to off-WMF pages which are not theirs. The simple reason for this is that the Commons community controls what is on Commons, both content and licensing. We have no control over either on Flickr.
If you think that some of the images on the linked page belong on Commons, then please upload them -- they all appear to be licensed CC-BY. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


that is true, there is no CC0 license on flickr. i agree with problem of having control over images, however what's releavant here is that i myself declare them as being CC0/WTFPL so i dont care much. it's a big problem to carefully sort and arrange even that small piece of material, you know. i am not aware of any alternative to flickr and doing personal website means writing it from zero, otherwise i get all sorts of server and security problems i neither want nor have time to resolve for. this is going OT, but i'd be happy to hear about alternatives, supporting tagging, geotagging and organising it to sets, with a community that will see these photos. not sure such thing exists, and driving all community on own, unknown site is a pain, you might even have idea where exactly in. i want to contribute to wikipedia but arranging stuff here is even a bigger trouble. how about a copy of my page from en.wiki, explicitly stating CC0 before link? basically, i don't get the idea of userpage linking to something non-WMF and not under control of linking user. while i always try to make my own sites, there are cases, when it's not possible for me to do it at the time. Yurinokuni (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so -- basically, your user page on Commons is supposed to be about your activity on Commons. Images that are not on Commons are not part of that activity. You can certainly chose to upload your images to Flickr, but please don't expect to be able to simply link all of those images from there to here. We want good images on Commons because our users, both on WMF and elsewhere, can be sure that an image that is licensed CC-BY here will continue to be licensed CC-BY the years from now. On Flickr, the images could be taken down tomorrow or relicensed ARR and no one would object.
I think that some of your images would be a valuable addition to Commons. I'd certainly like to see you upload them here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing a tough DR

Hi Jim,
I am looking for a third opinion on a DR I closed yesterday, and which was reopened a couple of minutes afterwards. Could you please have a look at it and write down your opinion? Obviously, I believe that my closing comment was a good summary of the arguments brought before (also including the previous DR), but I wouldn't want to single-handedly decide on this subject, especially not when there is still some disagreement about the copyright status of these images. Thanks, odder (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Panorama photo of Baku

Hello. You've deleted this photo. But according this general views was kept. I think this file must be restored. --Interfase (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is not an easy decision, but the flame towers are such an important part of this view that I don't think we can keep the image. Feel free to file an Undeletion Request. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Warning/notification templates

Hi James,

Why there are no warning/notification templates? Like we have on English Wikipedia for vandalism, test pages, patent nonsense, etc.—Bill william comptonTalk 18:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. We have a wide variety of templates for warning users to stop bad behavior -- click on "Notify this user" in the left tool bar while you are looking at any user page or user talk page and you will see them. Vandalism, test pages, patent nonsense themselves don't get warnings, they are delete on sight by any Admin -- non-admins can put {{Speedy}} on them to see that they will be acted on promptly. If I've missed your question, please give me an example of the sort of WP:EN template you have in mind. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear. We're supposed to notify users when we tag their pages for speedy deletion. I know "Notify this user" has a wide variety of templates but which one would fit if I tag a page for "empty gallery", "pure vandalism", "test page", etc? Shouldn't we warn users so that they don't repeat the same mistakes? English Wiki templates like this.—Bill william comptonTalk 22:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Go to the speedy template and click on the "Click here for further instructions" link. It has 4 different user notification templates, depending on the reason for the speedy deletion. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm using the Slovene interface and don't see the link "Notify this user". Where can this be edited? --Eleassar (t/p) 08:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Philosopher, I know about them, but if you have noticed, none of them apply to what I'm talking about here. They are just for copyvio, derivative work, out of scope and fair use. Besides {{Project scope}}, rest don't come in much use when I patrol new pages. At the Special:NewPages, most of the unpatrolled pages are galleries, e.g. Древнерусская книга, what template should I use for this?.—Bill william comptonTalk 08:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

@Eleassar. Help:Gadget-UserMessages. Note that I've never done this -- but that's where to start if you are going to do it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

@Bill. First, I'd suggest you direct your energies elsewhere. Half a dozen Admins do New Page Patrol on a regular basis, so nothing stays unpatrolled for very long. Empty galleries (including pages that are all text), vandalism, tests, and mistakes all get deleted promptly with an appropriate edit comment that links to the necessary information.

Second, in most cases, the scope or vandalism templates under "notify this user" will apply. Since Древнерусская книга is nonsense (at least Google translate thinks so), I'd call it vandalism. Note that most of the new galleries that should be deleted are created by IP users, so that messages are pointless. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks James for your suggestion. It's just that old habits die hard :-)—Bill william comptonTalk 13:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Museum figures in Slovenia

Hi, Jim, could you please review this closure? The administrator simply did not put any attention to the fact that faces may be copyrighted, despite the fact that the clothing was not mentioned in the nomination rationale at all. Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yann and I frequently disagree -- I defer somewhat to him because he is our longest serving Admin, but I agree with you that he is probably wrong on most of these. I might keep the plain dummy with the dead white face, but the others are clearly sculptures. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't care for how long he is here or whatever. Comments like [2] or [3] are hostile and uncivil, therefore not an acceptable behaviour. I'll reopen the deletion request and post a request for the review of his comments and actions at the Administrators' noticeboard. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

File:A white sandy beach on a small island, near Ile-Vache.jpg

The images are from www.facebook.com/haititourisminc page not a copyrighted website. I made a mistake to use the www.haititourisminc.com website as the owner/author of the images while there isn't any downloadable image on the website. All the images are from the facebook page www.facebook.com/haititourisminc whereby the page mission statement clearly states that these images are free-to-use pictures. (unsigned2| 17:08, 7 February 2013‎|Charlypedia04}}

As noted in the deletions and at UnDR, the images have appeared on a copyrighted web site. In addition to that, the mission statement of the Facebook page says:
"Mission is to show & expose HAITI's beauty and your help is unconditional to contribute in spreading a positive image Of Haiti."
That says nothing about copyright. It goes on at greater length, but copyright is not mentioned. Note also, please, that all Facebook pages are copyrighted by Facebook itself.
Therefore, as it says at the UnDR, you must get a written license from an authorized officer of Haiti Tourism Inc, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Images in Category:License review needed

Could you have a look at US-Army images uploaded by Serdechny. Are all of them valid. I have reviewed some pages and it sounds good to me but I'm not very sure. Thank you for your help--Morning (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they got into that Category -- I looked at half a dozen of them and don't see any problem. INSS and the other sources are all US DoD sites..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

José Rafael Botelho

Dear Jim. I just sent an e-mail to permissions commons with a license to upload my father's drawings and architectural drawings; I had sent another one, a few months ago, with a license for his photographs, and I'll use that OTRS to upload the new images. Is this the right thing to do? If not, please let me know what I must do. Many thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Manuel: That's fine, thank you. The ticket number is #2013020910002677. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jim. I replaced the old ticket number (#2012121410013601) for the new one (#2013020910002677) in the 3 most recent uploads. I suppose that's what I was expected to do. Many thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Undel req

Hi Jim. Can you take a look at the very top undel req about the AIDS poster? I voted support on it, but I could be wrong. FoP Vietnam isn't something I'm very familiar with of course. Thanks. INeverCry 20:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I struck my support vote. INeverCry 23:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Look2See1

Would you mind implementing a block on Look2See1? His long talk page is almost completely messages from people who object to his categorisation practices, much of which arises from his numerous errors in judgement and frequent placement of parent categories on pages that are already in child categories. Yann warned him some few months ago for a short while and he stopped, but he resumed despite a block from Yann in mid-January; I asked Yann on 31 January to intervene again, but he doesn't seem to have noticed, since he gave me no reply (not even "blocking not needed here") and neither did nor said anything to Look2See1. My objections on Look2See1's talk have been met by almost-TLDR allegations that I'm doing this to spite him, which are demonstrably false; I simply notice when my watchlist lights up with tons of pages whose categories are changed around and whose description pages are turned into a list of bullet points. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I've known you for four or five years and very much respect your judgement, I don't have any background on this situation. I'm therefore reluctant to block a user without a more public discussion. This request really belongs at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections which was implemented for exactly this kind of situation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alix, Duchess regnant of Brittany.jpg

Hi Jim. Some of the images of this deletion request are re-uploaded by the author in high resolution (for example File:BerengariaNavarre.jpg). FYI. Trijnsteltalk 17:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletion. :) And what about File:BerenguelaBarcelona.jpg (was it used before?) and File:BerengáriaNavarra.jpg (never nominated). See also Special:ListFiles/Mhmrodrigues for all files uploaded by this user ... No idea what to do with them. There are quite a lot and I don't know if he uploaded them earlier. Kind regards, Trijnsteltalk 17:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. I think I've gotten all of those covered by the original DR you cited above. As for the rest, I think that some of them look modern, like caricatures, and should probably be deleted, but others look OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

False claim?

Hi James,

User:MackenzieChristineFoy uploaded File:Audition.JPG. And, judging by the description, it appears that x/he is trying to make a claim that x/he is Mackenzie Foy. File's resolution, quality and metadata raise my suspicious and I believe that it's not an original work. What should be done with the file?—Bill william comptonTalk 15:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bill (and by the way, as it says at the top, I much prefer "Jim" from friends and colleagues).
I agree that image looks suspicious -- it's unlikely that a 12 year old professional model, who has all sorts of handlers, agents, and reps, would be posting a very low res image here. Also, Commons policy requires that accounts using the name of famous people must verify that they are actually that person (or at least share the famous person's name) using OTRS. I have deleted the image and blocked the user. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Dumb me (ignarus), never noticed beyond the big yellow tag. Well, thanks for the guidance!—Bill william comptonTalk 18:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright India

Hi Jim. Some of the images I have uploaded have now been deleted by you. To my knowledge (of course, I am not a copyright lawyer) they were correctly licensed in copyright terms. I did not agree with the reasoning of the person who launched the deletion nomination. And I strongly feel that this person was not sure about the copyright issues either. So what I would like to ask you: Are you a declared expert in copyright matters? If you are or even if you are not, I would request you to please define precisely the reasoning why you have deleted the images. I saw your statement "Unknown original publication. We cannot assume that it was published before 2013", but that does not show clear relevance to the copyright question at hand. Please put the deletion grounds in clear words that I can then verify through the copyright laws of the US and of India. As a matter of fact, I have brought to the attention of the concerned deletion nominator another image, which I suppose would need deletion too - if the arguments exchanged so far were justified. It is this image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MKGandhi.jpg Thanks for your help. – Thanjavoor (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please forgive all Admins for sometimes being cryptic -- or for not giving any reason at all. We delete almost 2,000 pages every day and ten of us do 90% of that work, so we must work fast or Commons would be overwhelmed with problematic contributions.
Most of us try to judge how much comment will be required by both the experience of those involved in the discussion and the subtleties (or lack of them) presented in the case. In the very few cases where someone doesn't understand a closure, we try to answer any questions here or at Commons:Undeletion requests.
As it says at User:Jameslwoodward, I have been involved with copyright for more than thirty years, as one who was responsible for the protection of various copyrighted material in the USA and abroad. I am not a lawyer, and I would certainly not hold myself out as an expert on copyright anywhere. On the other hand, I am a Commons Administrator with around 130,000 contributions to WMF projects. I have deleted almost 55,000 pages and am rarely reversed on appeal -- less than one tenth of one percent of my deletions are subsequently restored.
Since you quote my closing comment, I assume that you are asking about Commons:Deletion requests/File:V A Sundaram, late 1930s.jpg -- it is polite to provide specific links so that the person you are writing to does not have to look up the references. While looking up the DR, I also note that you have also left messages for Stefan and Yann. It is rude and a waste of Admin time to ask the same question in three places at once. The standard procedure is to ask about the closure here, on the talk page of the closing Admin, and then at Commons:Undeletion requests, but not in several places.
This case appears to be fairly simple. There are several issues. First, if the image has never been published before its 2013 publication here, then it is under copyright in the USA and will be until 2133. Since the first publication was in the USA, Indian law does not apply. The image description says:
"The picture has, to my knowledge (and after extensive research) never been published before."
That appears to be definitive.
Second, the fact that the photographer is unknown does not mean that the rule for anonymous works applies. That is a very common mistake here. Anonymous means just that -- that when the work was published the photographer's actual name was deliberately withheld. If the photographer is simply unknown, then the work may be an orphan -- the copyright belongs to an unknown photographer or heirs, but that does not mean that the work is in the public domain.
Third, please note that is our firm policy that the burden of proof lies with those who want to keep an image -- it is up to you to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image was published in India before 1941 (to avoid the URAA rule). It is not up to those who believe that the image is still under copyright to prove anything. Since there is no evidence that it has been published and your own description says that it has not, then there is no good reason to believe that it is somehow free anyway.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

suppression photo du Musée Granet

SUPRESSION ABUSIVE ! IL NE S'AGIT PAS D'UNE OEUVRE MAIS D'UN PANNEAU DE PUBLICITÉ !! ET UNE RÉPONSE EN FRANÇAIS M'OBLIGERAIT !!! PAS GLOP DEFINITVEMENT !!!! [[Utilisateur:Arcane17|Arcane17]] (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I answered in French on his talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Merci. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Two Files

This file and that one were deleted after this request. But according to this discussion, it's valid to upload an artwork photograph if it's settled in a public place (Although the artist of the statue is still alive). Sait Faik statue is also settled in a public place in Burgazada, Turkey. So can you kindly bring back these two files? Thanks. --Guzelonlu (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You may be correct, but maybe not. Not all public places are subject to the rule, only "public streets, avenues or squares". Although it's hard to tell from the photographs, these do not appear to meet that requirement. If you can give me a link to Google maps for the place where they are, I could make a decision easily. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it is a bit harsh and disputable to delete this kind of images. The distinction is very arbitrary, and not verifiable. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I take them as they come. Certainly our German colleagues take the identical provision in the German FOP literally and would delete these if they were in Germany and are not actually in a street, avenue, or square. Maybe Guzelonlu can tell us where they actually are. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

FOP of sculptures by non-US sculptors

Jim, I have raised a matter with Dcoetzee here referring to an earlier discussion I found that you had had with him. Can you help? Thincat (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Although we have had a number of discussions about it, at the moment we are using the rule that the only FOP law that matters is where the sculpture is located. Thus an Alexander Calder sculpture, made in the USA, is OK for Commons if in a public place in the UK, but a Henry Moore sculpture, made in the UK, is not OK if it is in the USA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't realise that at present Commons only regards location FOP law (but that seems very reasonable to me). This particular sculpture is out of copyright in the US and is physically in the US so FOP doesn't arise anyway. Presuming the sculpture was located in the UK, Dcoetzee's bot placed a tag saying "this file must be usable under freedom of panorama in its source country or it will be deleted". Even in the UK this seems to be wrong. The file would be OK either if the sculpture was out of copyright (in the UK) or if the photo was in accordance with FOP in UK law. The same would apply if it was the nationality of the sculptor or the place where it was made or first "published". Thincat (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Why do you assume that the bot thought that the sculpture was in the UK? As you say, it would be covered by UK FOP, so the bot would be wrong to place the tag under those circumstances. We have many images of sculpture in countries other than the home of the creator. I would assume that either
A. the bot knew that the sculpture is in the USA and placed the tag accordingly or
B. the bot is tagging all sculpture.
The first is a bit of a stretch, because the Cats (as they sit right now) don't tell you where it is, but the description does and certainly some of our bots are sophisticated enough to reach the correct conclusion when seeing "Princeton, NJ". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It was because of the discussion at User_talk:Dcoetzee#.7B.7BNot-free-US-FOP.7D.7D_on_sculpture_in_the_USA. Dcoetzee said the bot had made a mistake and it had been corrected ("I incorrectly assumed all of Moore's works were located in England"). I came across some other files that had been likewise wrongly tagged previously and which had not been corrected. I have removed those other tags and everything I know about has been sorted. Thank you again. Thincat (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Pic of [4] deleted - ??

Hi, I follow Alannah on Facebook and today she complained, with exasperation, that she could not add this one great photo of her because of all the complicated wiki-legalese to get its donated-public-domain intent passed through Wikipedia's cumbersome licensing.....I've been faced with this, deletion attempts, against my own many donated photos and maps; Wikipedia is supposed to be user-friendly... I've asked her to send me the image and photog info etc. so we can try and re-add it. This was her donating a personal/commercial photo of herself for her page; surely there's better ways to deal with this kind of thing than having them have to face the complicated technicalities of GDFL/public domain donations....I mean, really. Please reply on my wikipedia talkpage; if you know another editor who could nurse-maid this donation so the deletionists don't attack it again, please refer me in that direction....Skookum1 (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You haven't given me much information here. The name of the deleted image would be helpful since you, apparently, are not the person who uploaded the image.
Please remember that we get around 8,000 new uploads every day. About 2,000 of those are problems for one reason or another. Some of the problems are accidents or misunderstanding, but others are deliberate attempts to upload images that infringe a copyright. We try very hard to ensure that every image on Commons is, in fact, free for all to use for any purpose, subject only to the requirements of a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license. That means that we are fairly tough images that we suspect are problems.
Celebrity images are particularly problematic for several reasons. Fans upload them, falsely claiming that they are authorized to do so. Agents and PR reps upload them, completely ignoring the fact that the celebrity doesn't own the copyright. Images get uploaded that have already appeared on the Web "(C) All Rights Reserved". And so forth. While we generally Assume Good Faith -- that the uploader is telling the truth -- that often goes out the window with celebrity images.
For almost all celebrity images we will require confirmation of a license, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. The confirmation will have to come from the copyright holder, usually the photographer. It must come from a domain that is obviously associated with the sender -- not Gmail or another anonymous e-mail source -- anyone can be Alannah@gmail.com.
Finally, I have to reject your comment that the process is complicated. Obviously I understand it -- I've been here a while -- but so do 25,000 users in the average month who upload around a quarter of million images. If you're the photographer, you pick a license. If you're not the photographer, you tell us who is and, usually, have him or her confirm the license with OTRS. As you will see, the required e-mail is right there, so all the copyright holder has to do is copy, paste, fill in the name of the image, and sign.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Rainville's Garten Reinhardt 1856.pdf

File:Rainville's Garten Reinhardt 1856.pdf File:009 rainvilles garten.jpg

You rejected my request for delition of the pdf-version: "There is more data in this image than the new one -- it looks better at high magnification." But that isn't so. The 75 KB "addional data" in the pdf are nothing but the white rim cut away for the jpg-version. The full resolution pdf looks the same as a magnification of the jpg-version with Ctrl +. --Vsop.de (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree and disagree. At very high magnification -- 16x -- it becomes clear that while there are the same number of pixels in the two images, the PDF rendering, mostly the anti-aliasing -- looks better. :
But that is beside the point -- why are you so anxious to delete the PDF? It costs nothing to keep it -- we actually keep everything, the only thing that "deleting" it does is make it invisible to Users who are not Admins. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hum

Could you maybe look at this. Another view on what may be going on would be helpful maybe. --Herby talk thyme 13:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Statue of George C. Marshall

Hi, Jim,

I am doing some editing of the article for Dodona Manor, and I noticed that the picture of the statue of General George C. Marshall was removed on Jan. 1, 2013, because of copyright concerns about the statue. Can you tell me if that was done because of a complaint or because of a general policy? Thanks. Tom Bowers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbowers1942 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 February 2013‎ (UTC)

Tom:
An infinitesimal percentage of our deletions arise from takedown notices -- we delete around 2,000 images every day and I don't think we get more than a few dozen formal complaints per year.
As shown in the edit summary from the delinker, it was deleted on the closing of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Statue of George C. Marshall at Dodona Manor.jpg. As noted there, the problem is that the sculpture is probably still under copyright and, therefore, the image infringed on the sculptor's rights.
If it was installed between 1923 and 1989 and does not have a copyright notice ("sculptor's name (C) 19xx") then it is PD and the image could be restored. If it does have notice or it is later than that, then the only way to restore it here is to get permission from the sculptor or his heirs using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, 1980 sculpture per SIRIS [5], higher hurdle than pre-1978, needs published pic in newspaper. Slowking4†@1₭ 23:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
First, my reading of the 1978-89 law is that the making of copies must have been prohibited and actively prevented, so that "no publication solely by exhibition" actually has very limited application. It is hard to imagine that the unveiling of a statue of an important figure was not photographed and published. Since SIRIS has published photographs, obviously they are not prohibited. Second, as far as I know, there has been no case law on that clause. Since its effect is to give a perpetual copyright if you comply with the "no copies" rule, it appears to violate the Copyright Clause of the Constitution, which calls for copyrights and patents to last "for limited Times". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
i agree about the publication, but try explaining it to a deletionist. i've given up, hard enough to defend the pre-1978 from the "no fop-us" automatically mentally. Slowking4†@1₭ 17:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Recreating a gallery deleted because it was not a collection of images

Hi Jim ! Would you please, allow me to recreate a gallery now that I have got a dozen of pictures concerning the subject of Angélique Bègue Re : "Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted....14:36, 20 January 2011 Jameslwoodward deleted page Angélique bègue (Page is out of project scope: Commons galleries are for collections of images, not single images)". How to proceed ? Thanks a lot --Cquoi 19:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I can do better than that -- I've restored it with an {{Underconstruction}} tag so that it will not be rapidly deleted. Please remove the tag after you have put more than one image in it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Jim. Regards Cquoi 12:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Portorose-hotels.PNG

Hi, File:Portorose-hotels.PNG has been nominated for deletion in this deletion request that you have closed, but not deleted. Can you please review it and delete if not suitable for Commons? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it was tagged with {{Delete}} but it was not in the list in the DR. Since it has not been discussed, it cannot be deleted without a new DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. I think it is de minimis in any case (comparable to [6]). --Eleassar (t/p) 10:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Biber - Medaille RS.jpg

Hi, Jim. I'm the owner of a copy of the shown medal. The photo is taken by myself. Just some minutes ago I added {{PD-self}} at the site of the photo. Best regards, F.punkt — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.punkt (talk • contribs) 10:28, 28 February 2013‎ (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I have closed the DR as a keep.
As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to 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.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Your hint was very helpful for me. Of course, progress will only develope step by step. But I try to learn as much as possible.Thank you, Jim. F.punkt (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a lot to learn here and step by step is fine. If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask them here. There are no dumb questions, only those those that are not asked. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

!

Please do not delete Maisons identiques.webm. This is appropriated to Wikimeddia Commons. --Robby2-Ozonehays (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You may comment at the Deletion Request. You may not delete DRs or log entries as you have done. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Jim. Can you take a quick look at Commons:Deletion requests/Photos by Henryk Gąsiorowski? The author died Jan 16 1947. Is this restorable in 2017 or 2018? I added the 2017 undelete cat, but I haven't had much experience with these. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 00:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

in Germany it is 70 years+ (not less than 70 years). The undelete date is . If someone died in it is as well, but nearly a year earlier. --PigeonIP (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, PigeonIP, that's correct. In many, but not all, countries, the rule is to add 70 years to the date of death, then go to the following January 1. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi James, I just wanted to delet my 1st file of a regular DR (after I helped with the speedys the last months) but when i clicked with your tool on kept then there was no changing of the page but the script changed the file. What went wrong?--Sanandros (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I assume we're talking about DelReqHandler? It's not actually my tool, but no matter.
There are two steps, keeping or deleting the file(s) and closing the DR.
You must, separately, click the 'keep' or 'delete' link on every file. The script does no checking, so it is perfectly possible to keep the file and close the DR as a 'delete' or vice versa.
Then you must click 'Close Kept' or 'Close Deleted' and leave a comment. When closing the DR with DelReqHandler, you must leave an edit comment in the box -- if you don't, nothing will happen. If you really don't need a comment -- if it is an obvious delete for the reasons given by the nominator, you can put a single period (.) in the box.
It looks like you clicked the 'keep' link after the file. File talk:DM-SD-06-06300.JPEG has a {{Kept}} template on it that you (or DelReqHandler acting on your orders) put there. The history of Commons:Deletion requests/File:DM-SD-06-06300.JPEG shows nothing from you, so perhaps you did not click on the 'Close Deleted' link. Or, perhaps you didn't leave an edit comment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't c close deleted/close kept, after i click keep there appears that window which is asking me what is the reason to keep it and then the page appears again but without the [keep] or [delete] buttons.--Sanandros (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Right. After you click on the 'keep' or 'delete' link next to the image, you get a box asking for the reason, with the name of the DR filled in as a default. When you close that, you get the DR again, but, as you say, without the links for the file. If there is more than one file, you must deal with every one individually.
Then you must close the DR by clicking on either [Close:Kept] or [Close:Deleted] in the left upper corner of the DR. As I said above, you must give a reason in the box, even if it is just a dot.
If you don't see
[edit][Close Kept][Close Deleted]
as links in the left upper corner of every open DR, then there's a problem that I don't understand.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
No just tried it again, I'm linking the disc on the talk page and let's c what we'll get.--Sanandros (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Katepanomegas

Hi Jim. Can you take a look at this user's userpage and talkpage history? I've blocked several vandal accounts both registered and IPs over the past couple months for posting accusations on Katepanomegas's talk and uploads, and for overwriting Katepanomegas's attribution image with an attack image. The main vandal account is User:Burn the thief, but I also blocked a creative imitation account User:Katɵpanomeɡas (the 1st e isn't an actual e). Tonight Katepanomegas himself/herself replaced both their userpage and talkpage content with the exact same vandalism that I've been reverting. I've posted about this on Katepanomegas's talk.

My concern is that Katepanomegas is related or in control of the vandal accounts, and playing a game. This user has uploaded some widely used COAs, and so I don't want to see any vandal overwrites or CSDs, etc. I guess I could see this as being a frustrated reaction or something like that, but that would be weird seeing that everything had been quiet for a while before these two edits tonight. Let me know what you think of this strange case. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 05:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Good morning.
I ran the usual CU checks and it is very unlikely that Katepanomegas is related to the vandals. I did find a total of five related vandal accounts, all blocked by you, Denniss, or Trijnstel:
  • Katɵpanomeɡas
  • Thief cleaner
  • Buurn the thief
  • Burn the thief
  • Thief cleaner
  • Kathiefanomegass
I'm not sure what is going on -- three of the names imply that they are a vigilante, taking care of a thief? Is there any possibility that the problem files did not actually belong to Katepanomegas? I'll drop a note on Trijnstel and Denniss's talk page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
No idea what's going on with this user, either he/she is tired of these accusations or the account is compromised. --Denniss (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
According to an IP claiming to be Katepanomegas on my talk, the account has indeed been compromised by vandals. See User talk:INeverCry#vandalism. I didn't want to block the account right away without checking if the IP is really Katepanomegas if possible.

The underlying issue seems to have been a copyrighted COA element used in the past by Katepanomegas. Because of this, quite a few images were deleted. My impression is that Katepanomegas acted in good faith to identify and have these images deleted. INeverCry 17:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC) INeverCry 17:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

As you known CU is not an exact science, but I would say that 86.217.110.117 is probably Katepanomegas and certainly has nothing in common with any of the vandals above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. I've blocked the account. INeverCry 01:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

temp undeletion of pictures

Hello Jim, I temp undeleted the pictures that you deleted in this DR

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/No_Freedom_of_Panorama_in_New_Caledonia_2012-11-29

for 5 days. The images will be used on other projects without Freedom of Panorama limtiations. After the Export I will take care that the images will be deleted again.

I added as reason for undeletion the following text on all undeletes :"temporary undeletion for 5 days (till 7.03.2013) for check on possible usage on unrestricted projects (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administratoren/Anfragen#Auf_Commons_gel.C3.B6schte_Fotos_wegen_fehlender_Panoramafreiheit_in_Neukaledonien)"

Best regards --Neozoon (talk)

OK, thanks for the note. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
pictures are deleted again. case closed Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Embersland images

Hi Jim

How are you? I'm Jimmy the guitar player of Embersland, I try to edit the page of my band (Embersland) and you delete two images.

Embersland Band.jpg Where is the copyright? the photo has no copyright, you can find image on section Band > Biography from the site www.embersland.com and this image has no copyright. I uploaded the picture to enter the contest Telecogresca in 2012.

The image Embersland Luana.jpg Ok, the copyright is from Ramon Hortoneda and he's my friend on facebook... https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/281292_10200178212768197_1936552616_n.jpg If Ramon Hortoneda wasn't my friend I wouldn't have access to his facebook.

Before deleting images, please contact with the person that edit a page, so the person will not waste her/his time.

Thank you, ;)

Jimmy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmythepooh (talk • contribs) 02:15, 3 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Jimmy:
We delete approximately 2,000 images a day. Ten of us do half of that and neither time nor policy allows a discussion. When we see a clear copyright violation, we are required to delete it on sight.
Both of the images which I deleted appeared on websites, noted in the edit summary, which had explicit copyright notices. But, please remember that absolutely everything (except some government works) has a copyright from the moment of creation until it has expired, usually seventy years after the death of the author. No notice or other special action of any sort is required.
Note also that the site you mention, www.embersland.com, has a clear copyright notice at the bottom of the home page. We have no way of knowing that User:Jimmythepooh is connected with embersland in any way. We have many fans who try to upload images without any authorization.
Commons standard procedure for images that have appeared on copyrighted sites is to require the site to send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Make certain that the message comes from the site, not gmail or another anonymous account and refers to the Commons file names of the images. Once you have done that, please post a note here and I will restore the images promptly.
Also please note that Commons prefers the largest possible file in every case. Your uploads of smaller versions of some of your files will be reverted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Cobblers Reef

Hello Jim a string of my images for Cobblers Reef have been proposed for deletion. Some of them were similar to but not copies of images in my gallery on viovio.com (John Davies). The images on Viovio.com were shrunk for the purpose. I am the author of the drawings and the photographer. For Wikicommons I used the larger size originals that I retained for my own use. The WikiVoyage Article which uses them has already been categorised as useable. I am a novice at this game but these are all my original pictures. Johnmartindavies (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Please give me a link to the DR(s) -- I see many nice images uploaded by you, some striking, a few not so good. I see that Jonud has nominated a few for deletion on the grounds that we have better images. (That's true, but probably not a reason to delete). I see one drawing, but no DRs on drawings. It's always helpful if you give a link to the DR, but if you have many uploads, it is essential.
The situation you describe is fairly common -- a user uploads an image that he has used previously elsewhere on the Web. Since we don't know that User:Johnmartindavies is Viovio user John Davies, we ask for a license, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for work on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Anizotropia

Probably brought to mind why the administrator emblem is a mop... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I think it should be a Pooper-scooper. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files from the Polish Senat website

Jim, would you mind taking another look at the permission we received from the Senate? As far as I see and understand both the Polish and the English version (translated by a professional, by the way) of the permission from the talk page, it is very stricting in concerning only the pictures of the Senators ("Encyclopaedias are an important and useful source of information, all the more we do permit the use and redistribution of the Senator's pictures from the Senate website"). odder (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's where I see the permission:
"The Chancellary of the Senate is the copyright holder for the Senators' photographs published on the website www.senat.gov.pl. We do not object to our pictures or information being used on other websites (we would appreciate quoting the source as required by the law and the good custom). Encyclopaedias are an important and useful source of information, all the more we do permit the use and redistribution of the Senator's pictures from the Senate website." emphasis added
It seems pretty clear to me that he is not speaking of just the images of Senators, but of all the pictures and information on the site. That seems logical to me, as why would they give permission for the Senators, but not the rest. I think the reference to the Senators' photographs is simply because that is the way the request was phrased.
Your BabelBox does not say that you speak Polish, but I assume that is an oversight. If I am correct, why don't you ask senat.gov.pl to clarify. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Jim, this is a matter of COM:PRP. I have had permissions for only specific things because that is how the request by myself may have been formulated/come across. Because we can only go by what is explicit, we shouldn't be leaving it up to our own interpretations of what was given permission for. In this instance, I think we can all agree that the use of Senator's images is explicit; anything more than that is in that grey PRP area. Of course, someone could send something to the Senate to clarifying, but it appears no-one has done so in the last 5 years; until we get a permission that allows for use of everything explicitly, we really shouldn't be hosting those photos from that DR. russavia (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, but I won't oppose a new DR. However, please consider the rule of law that ambiguity is construed against drafter (the person who writes the words). In this case the writer said "'We do not object to our pictures..." -- that is ambiguous in the context of a discussion of images of Senators, and can easily be construed to mean "'We do not object to any of our pictures...". Furthermore, it seems clear to me that free use of everything on the site is the policy of the Chancellery. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

May I just pop in. I read that permission exactly like you did. They quite clearly stated "We do not object to our pictures or information being used on other websites" without any restrictions. Their comments about senator photos are just about their wish to be included in Encyclopaedias that "are an important and useful source of information". But I can't read in that message a spirit that would suggest that they intended to restrict their permission in any way. If anyone is seriously concerned about this, why so much reluctance in recontacting an obviously open for discussion Senate internet department? I guess because the answer would be that we can use the photos and why is this an issue to anyone is beyond me. But either way, I think we should solve this issue that way exactly, people who think those images should be deleted, should not contest your correct decision to keep them but should be instead directed at Andrzej Andruszkiewicz for further clarification. If it turns out the Senate indeed forbids sharing of any other photos but the photos of senators, so be it, we will delete them, but with the current permission text I don't think there is any grounds to delete the images. Emphasis on a certain type of content is certainly not something that could warrant their removal.--Avala (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Avala -- although I agree with your reading of the permission, I don't agree with the strength of it. Both odder and Russavia are very experienced colleagues with whom I have several years experience. Although we certainly don't always agree, the fact that both of them disagree with me is the reason that I said above that I would not oppose a new DR on the subject images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Jim maybe I sound harsh because English is not my native language but here is what I meant - the Senate office seems more than open and transparent. There is no point in discussing this here on several pages when there is a far simpler and obviously completely conclusive way to know for certain - communicate with the Senate office. But it's not even seen as an option and that's what bothers me. Deleting these files would harm the project greatly, and for what?--Avala (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:University of Notre Dame's Hesburgh Library.JPG

Fair enough call. Just to be clear, the OTRS 5542595 applies to the underlying work by Sheets. Should that ticket be applied to File:University of Notre Dame's Hesburgh Library.JPG as well? And maybe to Category:Word of Life? Not sure how to proceed.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a bad idea, although the {{Kept}} on the talk pages will lead a user to the DR and thence the OTRS ticket. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but I added a few other images to the category, so there's no direct line to the DR. Thanks.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The Louvre case

Hi, regarding your recent closure (Commons:Deletion requests/File:1960s postcard of Ljubljana.jpg), it has been mentioned and criticised as unreasonable at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Postcard of Ljubljana Castle from Ljubljana.jpg. Perhaps you would wish to comment about it. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate your opinion regarding these two closures ([7], [8]). I've asked Yann to comment on the latter one,[9] but until now he has not responded. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, as you have not responded, I presume everything is ok or the case is not so important. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this. These were uploaded before OTRS and have what appears to be permission from the municipality. I think this is a case of AGF -- we take bigger risks under that policy all the time.
As for the Louvre case, I think that citing a strange case in France that none of us really understand, and that has no similar case law, in France or elsewhere, is poor practice. There is absolutely no evidence of a TOO higher than zero anywhere for architecture and de minimis can't apply when the the copyrighted building is the center of the image -- the only important thing in it. However, our inclusionist colleagues disagree. For the most part, I've stopped fighting those battles -- we have more than 16,000,000 images on Commons and my usual guess is that 1% of them -- 160,000 -- are problems. I can't get excited about a single complex case any more. Perhaps that's a mistake, or perhaps it's just realistic. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should comment at the cited proposal page; however, I understand your stance even if you don't. I'm afraid people care mostly about collection, whereas the free part is ignored per the reasoning that if there are no or a low number of court cases, we don't have to care about free. However, the number of court cases is irrelevant, what counts is the principle of respect towards people and their rights as well as to help Wikimedia projects spread free content rather than illegal material. Unfortunately, it will always be so that the number of inclusionists will be greater than the number of the ones who do care about this. The imperative is to build an encyclopedia that looks good and is rich with information no matter what. Besides, people are often emotionally attached to the images they upload, so they take it personally, or think they have to fight for as rich as possible representation of their nation and the cultural monuments because this is patriotic or helps preserve cultural heritage or sth ... However, this is not the proper venue for doing so and the intent of Commons. It is to help prepare material that is free and may be freely used by other wikiprojects as well as anyone who needs it. I'd rather see an encyclopedia and other wikiprojects that promote freedom and respect of the law and the rights of creative individuals and which anyone can use for any purpose, even if they're not so illustrative. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this case has been proposed for undeletion. See [10]. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Models

Hi Jim, I’ve been concerned by the inconsistent handling of deletion requests related to models on the Commons, so I've attempted to gather support for what I believe to be “the right answer” here: User:Elcobbola/Models. In researching the issue, I noticed that you've participated in related deletion requests in the past – and even held what appear to be conflicting stances (e.g. here and here) — so I’m wondering whether you’d be willing to offer feedback on my essay; for example, whether you think it makes the case; whether you think it doesn't; any other thoughts/comments/etc. Эlcobbola talk 23:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. I commented on its talk page, but to answer your question here, I think it makes a good case. The case seems so clear that I wonder at the inclusionists keeping so many, but I wonder that with FOP cases as well. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, I've responded there as well. The keep discussions I found were actually largely closed by one admin, so I hope the "inclusionists keeping so many" are not too numerous. In a previous version I had a rather lengthy background section explaining why I think people were tending to get the wrong answer. Essentially, I'm seeing an over-reliance on colloquial language and Commons' summaries instead of actual statutes and case law. Эlcobbola talk 17:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been considering your comment ‎and I almost wonder whether you might have missed (or I failed to make explicit) an important distinction: a model is, by definition, a representation of something else. A block of wood might be carved into a generic plane; it’s a model because it’s a sculptural depiction of what it is not. An RC plane might be styled to look like an F-14; it’s a model because it’s a sculptural depiction of what it is not. A UAV not based on an existing aircraft, however, is not a model; it looks like a generic plane because it actually is a generic plane (i.e., there’s no separability; the sculptural elements are there for reasons of aerodynamics – utility – not portrayal of appearance). That UAV, therefore, is not within the purview of the essay. That UAV -- with or without camera -- may still be a copyrightable toy, but that is separate from being a model and indeed a topic for a different essay. The line, then, for this essay, is perhaps described as whether the object is a representation of something else. Is that distinction clear? Эlcobbola talk 18:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand the distinction. But that doesn't eliminate the problem. I've seen photographs of a beautifully done large (six foot wingspan, maybe more) RC model of a C5A, complete with jet engines. Without a camera in it, it is clearly a model, for fun, no utility, and therefore copyrightable. But if you put a camera in it and started using it to take real estate photos, does it lose its copyright?
Or, a couple of years ago I saw a team from a startup present a business plan for a company that was going to make RC planes that could fly fairly slowly, with a camera, to take photographs of cruise ship passengers while they were looking over the rail at the plane. In order to better attract attention and get more people looking at the camera, they were going to make the planes good models of well known aircraft. I don't know if they ever got going, but would their planes have a copyright? The fact that they would be models says yes, but the fact that they would be utilitarian says no.
This may seem like little more than an artificial debate, but I guarantee that the subject will come up as more UAVs are built, some of them as scale models. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we might be talking past each other a bit. I made the above comment regarding the distinction here on your talk page merely because there seemed to be some conflation of "RC plane" with "model RC plane"--or, alternatively, "UAV" with "model UAV". I also responded on the essay talk regarding the addition of cameras to sculptural works. I think my comment there at least begins to address the C5A and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the start up. In any case, it's certainly a good debate to have, even if artificial, and we can indeed continue there. Again, the comment above was just to ensure a focus on genuine models. Эlcobbola talk 21:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:BlackJack2.jpg

You closed this as "delete", yet the file hasn't been deleted. Could you check this? --Stefan4 (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I did delete it. User:BuickCenturyDriver uploaded it again. I have deleted it a second time and warned him with {{Dont recreate}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not see any previous deletion at Special:Log, although it says that a new file was uploaded today. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Aha -- right you are. I saw the new upload and assumed he was uploading over the deleted file. Sorry. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Another thing: Maybe you could delete User:BuickCenturyDriver's revision of File:Hal Steinbrenner 2009.jpg? That file appears to be a copyright violation. It appeared on Commons in 2011 but it was already here in higher resolution in 2008 with EXIF telling that it is a photo taken by the Associated Press ("AP Photo/ Louis Lanzano"). --Stefan4 (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I readed....

the Commons:Image_casebook#Trademarks like you asked. --Starship9000 (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Atdheu

Hi, I have left a response re. your deletion of User:Atdheu's uploads on Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Atdheu. Thanks -- KTC (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Archaeology of Kosovo picture deletion

Greetings, I would like to understand why the pictures of the article - Archaeology of Kosovo were deleted and why they constitute a violation of the copyrights when they were released upon the public domain by the Government of the Republic of Kosovo. They were part of a guide called Archaeological Guide of Kosovo and it was released as a pdf file on the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports website: [[11]] and also on the website of the Museum of Kosovo: [[12]] . According to the website of the Prime Minister of Kosovo: [[13]], all documents published on the government websites are part of the public domain and can be used freely. Both of the abovementioned institutions are components of the Government of Kosovo and therefore should be able to be used freely. It is also stated under law No.04/L-065, [Article 53], approved by the Kosovo Parliament on October 21,2011, that:

Article 53
Works placed on public places 
1. Works placed on public spaces/places and other places where general access is allowed (the web being one), can be used freely.

or specifically [Article 12] where it states that:

Article 12

Creations without protection
1. Judicial protection of the author does not include:
 1.3. Official materials, and publishing of parliamentary, governmental, and other organizations that provide public functions.
 1.6. Official materials published for informing the public.

According to these articles I have not performed anything illegal, or subjugated anyone's copyrights, but just used resources readily available on the government websites, which is allowed by the Kosovo government. I could not have cited these works as part of the {{PD-KosovoGov}}, because I did not know such a Public Domain category did exist at that time. Could you please inform me on how to act because I am in a dilemma, since without the deleted pictures the article is a bit dull with too much writing and not much interactive pictures. Is there a way that the pictures could be reverted, or do I have to upload them again? Thank you for you time --Atdheu (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to note, I had already created the relevant category and licensing tag. See {{PD-KosovoGov}}, which automatically places any files using it in Category:PD Kosovo official. -- KTC (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you KTC for everything that you have done for the young wikipedians of Kosovo. Your help is priceless and much appreciated. It is true that you have created the category but in the rush of things, I had not noticed. Humble apologies. --Atdheu (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I have responded at ANB. Debating an issue at two places is not useful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
What happened to the pictures? Isn't the law stated clear enough? I have gotten no answer and the discussion has been archived from the administrators notice board. Can you give me an answer? I have been waiting for almost two weeks--Atdheu (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it is a dead issue, since none of our colleagues have chosen to restore the images. Note, please, by the way, that it would be a serious violation of our rules to upload them again. You may, if you wish post a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Blackjack image

I uploaded a new version of the image: File:BlackJack2.jpg. No ace of spades and no face cards. Let me know if this verson is okay. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I added you as author and source and removed the redirect, which is unnecessary. Since no copyright is possible in the cards, it's fine. Much better quality, too. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Palestinian infobox v2.jpg

Jim, could you close this deletion discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Palestinian infobox v2.jpg? The image has been modified and no longer includes the picture with the bad license. I think the version of the image dated November 29, 2012, needs to be deleted, as it includes the picture with the bad license. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

See my comment at the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tastic_Film_Logo.png

If I am reading the second discussion correctly I think you closed it as deleted, but the file remains. Please help my confusion? Timtrent (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes -- maybe 1 in 500 -- DelReqHandler, the script that Admins use to close DRs, hiccups and doesn't do its job. That probably happened here. Or, I may have just missed it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Revert

You always revert people without discussion? I gave a sound valid reason for my decision. That you disagree is no excuse for your action. PumpkinSky talk 18:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Per your stated rational of "we do not keep personal art works of any sort that are from non-notable artists", you need to delete: File:Child's drawing.jpg and god knows how many other such media on commons. Your reasoning is flawed and such a revert when you are a admin+CU is appalling. I realize I'm a persona non grata here, but that is no excuse. PumpkinSky talk 18:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
When a closer of a deletion debate makes a decision, they are required by policy to weigh the arguments given in the debate to reach their conclusion - i.e. act as an independent arbiter of the issues. You have not only overruled another admin who closed the debate, but you have substituted your own arguments - previously unmentioned in the debate - as the reason for your decision. That is well out of process and I would have expected you to know better. This might be understandable if your reasoning was clearly supported by the deletion policy, but "we do not keep personal art works of any sort that are from non-notable artists" is your new invention from fresh cloth. If you wish to make a point about notability of the artist, the place for the argument is in the debate. It is discourteous to the participants in the debate to substitute your own reasoning after the debate has finished. Should you feel that the deletion policy is deficient, then you should seek a consensus to have it amended at that page. I expect you to reflect carefully on this issue and the sensible action to take thereafter would be to revert yourself at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hole Russia.PNG. I can see that you do a lot of work at Deletion requests, for which we are grateful, but please try to ensure that you don't lose sight of the principles that we have agreed to govern the work you do. --RexxS (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
My humble apologies. I certainly did not intend to overrule or revert PumpkinSky's closure of this DR. I suspect what happened was that I was working my way down through the deletion log for March 2, took a break to do some other work, and then resumed working on the DR log without refreshing the page. In the interim, PumpkinSky had closed the DR, but my screen did not show it. It was certainly careless on my part to let the screen get that old without refreshing it. This sort of thing happens much more often shortly after 0000UTC when several Admins are working on the log -- we often see double closures with times in the first couple of hours of the day.
If I had objected strenuously to the closure, I might either have reopened the DR or promptly opened a new one. I don't think I have ever simply reverted another Admin's DR. You will see that even on UnDRs, if I think that the deletion should be reverted, I usually drop a note on the deleting Admin's talk page -- or by email -- and request that he or she do the undelete. We must respect each other's decisions as much as possible.
With that said, I think you were wrong on this one -- my closing comment sets out my opinion. We are not a repository for personal art from non-notable artists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, but I think your call was in the wrong here. I have to point out two things 1) you not refreshing the page would have caused an edit conflict as I'd edited that page in the meantime and 2) why haven't you deleted File:Child's drawing.jpg and a bunch of other "personal" art? PumpkinSky talk 23:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you do not understand the way DelReqHandler works and that you are, in effect, calling me a liar. I have offered my apologies, which I mean sincerely as it was a stupid mistake -- but I won't be called a liar.
It was not the DR that I had not refreshed, it was the log page. I never opened the actual DR page -- using DelReqHandler you never see the actual DR page, only the transclusion in the log, which, in this case, predated your closure. I told DelReqHandler to close the DR as a delete and leave my comment. There was no edit conflict because DelReqHandler opened the DR page (without showing it to me)after I told it to delete it, which was after your closure. As I said above, this sort of double closure happens several times every week, but usually at the beginning of the UTC day when several Admins are working down through the log. None of us refresh after every action because, with 150 or 200 transclusions on the log page, it takes a while to reload.
As for File:Child's drawing.jpg, it is in use and therefore cannot be deleted except for copyvio. There is probably other personal art which ought to be deleted, but we delete about 2,000 images every day. Ten of us do 80% of that, so there is plenty to do without looking for new things. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the del req issues, sorry. But your answer on Child's drawing question is a cop out. You said "we do not keep personal art works of ANY SORT that are from non-notable artists" (your words, my all caps). PumpkinSky talk 00:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
No cop-out. Policy is clear that "in use" trumps everything except copyvio. I'll throw the cop-out back at you. "Other stuff exists" is not an excuse for keeping anything. My best guess is that at least 1% of our images should be deleted for one reason or another. That's 160,000 images. If either of us cared to do it, we could certainly find among them an example of every kind of image in today's DR log, but that doesn't mean we will keep them.
Why do you say "I'm a persona non grata here"? You may not be quite as mellow as we hope for, but I provoked you pretty hard with my mistake. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful responses, Jim. I'm happy to agree to disagree about notability of the artist being a deletion criterion, but you've far more experience than I, and it's certainly not worth falling out over. I hadn't imagined that the business over the DelReqHandler could cause such problems, and I expect that somebody will have to look at that issue eventually. I do appreciate your self revert at that debate, and I'm pleasantly encouraged by the collegial atmosphere here - it's my own fault I spend far too much time elsewhere. Best regards, --RexxS (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, Jameslwoodward was absolutely correct, when he deleted the image. It's just common sense. Where would you use this personal artwork on the WM projects? In respect of the aforementioned child's drawing, well, in my mind, it can actually be used (as an example of child art on various language sections of Wikipedia). --glossologist (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's ok to disagree, and quite helpful at times. May I point out to you the the purpose of Commons is not to simply act as an media repository for the other WM projects. The reason Commons outlaws "fair use" is that all of its content should be available to any re-user without restriction. Of course we have to have inclusion criteria or we'd become host to everybody's holiday snaps, but we try to keep media that may have educational value to somebody. I can certainly see that notability of the artist may be a useful criterion to be applied, but my point is the word "notability" does not appear on the Commons:Deletion policy page, so I don't think there's any consensus to apply it without a debate. Just my humble opinion of course (and thanks to Jim for hosting this meta-debate on his talk page - I'll shut up now). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, the PumpkinSky's rationale for keeping the image ("There is educational content as it shows Russia without borders") is just so embarrassingly flawed. --glossologist (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The comments on the DR itself were a 50/50 split and this thread is a 50/50 split. There's clearly a fundamental disagreement on this. I'm dropping the issue and moving on. Everyone one else do as you wish with the DR and image. Thank you to all for participating. PumpkinSky talk 11:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Images from the Museo de la Memoria

Hi James! I'm Osmar, current Executive Director of Wikimedia Argentina and former president of Wikimedia Chile at the time of the agreement with the Museo de la Memoria in Santiago. Yesterday I received the notice that most of the images uploaded as part of this agreement were in a deletion request and now I see that have been speedy deleted before I was able to comment about it.

I agree that most of the files have been tagged erroneous and that is something that should be corrected, but a lot of the deleted files were licensed by the Museum or the authors. Also, the posters are in public domain (take a look at Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_from_'El_Rodriguista') where we have agreed that publications made colectivelly by illegal organizations (at the time) are under public domain. This is different than the "anonymous publication" that has 70 years after its release before entering PD.

I would like to correct the erroneous tags marking those that are under public domain, those with the author's permission and those that are incorrectly uploaded and should be deleted, but the images were already deleted. Can you restore them temporarily so I can assess which one should be kept and which one should be deleted? Thanks a lot for your help. --B1mbo (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Since your are working with the museum, wouldn't it be much easier to go to the person who calls himself User:Museo de la Memoria Chile and ask what they are?
Also, I think that the reasoning in Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_from_'El_Rodriguista' is badly flawed. The usual reason for anonymous works is because the author fears being known. On the one hand you have John le Carré and others who worked anonymously because they were afraid that their employers would object to their work. On the other side, you have revolutionaries like Thomas Paine who actually feared prosecution or even death. Their works are almost certainly illegal under their country's then current law and they may well have been branded as terrorists. Almost all countries, including Chile, have copyright laws which recognize the need for copyright protection for such works. It seems to me clear that the posters all fall directly into that group -- anonymous because signing them certainly would have meant imprisonment, and likely death. To say that they are somehow PD because it is hard to find out who they are denies the courage of their makers. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
We are doing already that in any case. For us, would be much easier to correct the tags instead of uploading all the pictures again, but we are doing that anyway. At least, those images taken by Kena Lorenzini were licensed by the author after it was contacted by the Museum.
About the PD clause, IANAL but the Chilean law explicitly says that are under PD those "images by unknown author". The problem in this case is not that the author remained anonymous or used a pseudonym (as in the Thomas Paine case); here the works were produced collectively by a group so nobody can claim ownership nor as an individual nor as an organization (because it was illegal) and certainly the "unknown" clause applies, or at least is what the Chilean lawyers have said. And I think nobody is denying their courage; in fact, totally the opposite, because they made those works to be disseminated as possible and that is what are we doing. --B1mbo (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I apologize if I was unclear. There is no need to upload the images again -- in fact, it is a bad thing as it wastes both your time and Commons resources. If you could give me a list here of the images that you think are OK -- just take the list from the DR and add "OK" or "NO" to each line, I will restore those that you think are all right. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll probably do that next week. I'm travelling back to Chile for a week and I'll try to talk personally with the people of the Museum to have everything clear. --B1mbo (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it can be undone but could you restore the October 2011 version of the proposed Ontario green ensing flag

Thanks for removing that thing on File:Flag of Ontario (Green Ensign).svg. I was a bit frustrated with the copyright attribution I selected, but have settled with this. However you deleted the original version which verifies that I was the original author of the file. I don't know if you could restore the original version of 2011 which is the same as the one the other user reverted to. Sorry for all the trouble.--R-41 (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything -- I just hid the one image that had your rant about flamingos. Fastily did the rest -- you should make your request of him. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Kim-Long07

Hey Jim, hope you're well. When you have a moment, could you take a look at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Kim-Long07? I suspect we may be dealing with an underlying sockfarm. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 10:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"if a work created by a UK government employee is not under Crown Copyright, then what is?"

I don't really know. But, to provide you a comparison, {{PD-USGov}} crearly talks about a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties. What I was questioning in this specific case is not whether Cunningham is a government employee, but whether Cunningham made his paintings as part of his official duties. I assume that everything done by Cunningham as part of his official duties is Crown Copyright, but not the rest. And that's the reason to question, again, whether "war artists" were official posts in the British navy or just nicknames. And such a question remains unanswered. Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Aha, thank you for clarifying that -- perhaps I was just being dumb, but that wasn't clear to me. What confused me was
"Unlike the {{PD-US-Gov}}, where makes all the works from any federal employee be in the public domain, the Crown Copyright seems to work in a different way."
It seems to me that they are exactly parallel, although stated a little differently. In the US, it is stated as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". It seems to be less clearly stated in the case of a Crown Copyright, but obviously the "Crown" cannot create anything, the actual work has to be done by a person and that's got to be a government employee, also in the course of his or her official duties. Of course, Crown Copyright runs for fifty years and the US is PD immediately. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Koons Portrait Deletion OTRS Assistance Request

Hi Jim, Chris Fanning sent a letter to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) on 3.7.13/11:56:40 AM EST to confirm that he is the copyright holder of his portrait of Jeff Koons as per the advice Lymantria (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lymantria)on 2/15/13. I hope that you can be of assistance in reviewing the letter since you are an OTRS volunteer and participated in the original discussion. I appreciate your time and efforts with this request. If there is anything else I can provide, please let me know. Please note that Jeff Koons and Chris Fanning are in support of this usage. Here's the original deletion debate link for your reference: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jeff_Koons_Portrait.jpg Thank you, Lauranrothstein

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks for reviewing. much appreciated. lauranrothstein

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gabriel Silva Lujan Signature.svg

Hi Jim,

I saw that you have decided to keep the signature of Gabriel Silva Lujan citing the 'when to use Signature Tab rules'. These state that the file can be kept if it follows US and local law and mentions that the US does not protect personal signatures but that if local law does protect them then it would be a candidate for deletion. In Colombian law personal signatures can be protected by law, and that is why I solicited that it be deleted. Can you advise me as to next steps to nominate the signature once again for deletion given the Colombian law?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisse Yanovich (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 March 2013‎ (UTC)

I do not read Spanish, but my closing the DR as kept was based on the fact that there is nothing in the sentence you quoted from the law that would cover signatures. All countries copyright rules have a threshold of originality, below which a work is not eligible for copyright. Ordinary scrawled signatures such as this one very rarely reach above it anywhere. Such a scrawl is neither "expression manifested in a perceptible way" nor "original", both of which are required for Colombian copyright to apply.
It is possible that there is a subtlety in the Spanish that neither the translation you gave nor Google has correct. If that is the case, I would be happy to consider it here.
You are also within your rights to open a new Deletion Request on the subject image, but Commons editors are not particularly tolerant when a DR is opened a second time without any new reason or information. The previous one was open for ten days, three days beyond our minimum, so it had good exposure. I doubt that a repeat will change the outcome.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Returning sockmaster

Help, please: The "New Rochelle sockmaster" (aka ChucksBike-O-Rama) is back. User:Jerrybase21 was blocked here a little while back. User:Nassauforce is showing the characteristic behavior; I think some of this user's uploads may be recent photos that were previously deleted and are now converted to monochrome to make them look old. I've re-opened the Jvolkblum SPI at EN Wikipedia, where the only sock I've seen recently is User:Tourjourslamour (not active here). --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done I have blocked Nassauforce as a likely sock of Jerrybase21. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sock problem

Hi Jim. Can you please take a look at this: User talk:INeverCry#Deleted images restored? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 19:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Elaniqa and Texasprofessionalpowerlifting (and four other accounts listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Todd25/Archive with no edits on Commons) are very likely the same person. I'm going to block Texasprofessionalpowerlifting as a sock -- I'll leave Elaniqa to you, as you know more about the case. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on this. Seeing that Elaniqa uploaded the same copyvio images that Texasprofessionalpowerlifting uploaded, I've blocked that acct as well. INeverCry 22:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for your close on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Werner Erhard.jpg, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

DR question

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:KS_Egnatia_Rrogozhinë.svg - you don't think this qualified for PD-textlogo? —Mono 15:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't think we have any evidence what the threshold of originality is in Albania. It would certainly have a copyright in the UK and might have one in the USA (50/50 I think). Unless someone can show that Albania's TOO is high, COM:PRP says we cannot keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Leachim 1

Dear James, thankes for your comment concerning the images from the article ISA Internationales Stadtbauatelier. How can I prove that all the uploaded files are from the office ISA Internationales Stadtbauatelier? Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leachim 1 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 25 March 2013‎ (UTC)

I do not understand. The problem is that the images are from http://www.stadtbauatelier.de and there is no evidence there that they are freely licensed. So you do not need to prove that the files are from ISA Internationales Stadtbauatelier -- you must prove that ISA Internationales Stadtbauatelier wants to freely license them. If that is the case, then ISA Internationales Stadtbauatelier must send permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. The e-mail must come from an address at stadtbauatelier.de. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your fast respond. Your answer is a great support.

Hi Jim, I'm a little curious as to why you struck [14] File:Rahmenplan zur Stadtgestaltung Leonberg.jpg as PD-textlogo. Do you think the white building/city outlines are too simple, or was this a mistake? I deliberately didn't nominate images in the uploader's stream that appeared to be PD-textlogo (e.g., File:ISA Logo vektoren schwarz.jpg) -- the Rahmenplan image seems quite different to my eyes. Эlcobbola talk 16:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks -- I'm embarrassed to say that I did not look closely enough at the book cover. You are correct about it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted image?

Hello Jim. Have you noticed that you have not deleted this image? Regards. Trasamundo (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks. Occasionally DelReqHandler, the script which Admins use to close DRs, doesn't do what it is supposed to do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of image

re: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Back_from_Samoa_-_thumb.jpg

Somehow or other this image wound up being transferred from Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons, where I have no account set up, and was never informed about the deletion "debate". This image has seen no use in Wikipedia; however, it was part of a userbox design (see [15]), and might potentially be used as such.

Just to note: Wikimedia Commons does not allow me to log in using my Wikipedia account ID and password, since supposedly there is no account associated with my Wikipedia Username.  ???

Sincerely, bonze blayk 28 March 2013

… Thank you for restoring the image, James!
And have a great day…
Sincerely,
bonze blayk 28 March 2013
(edit conflict)
I have restored the image since, as you say, it was in use and apparently some effort was made to get OTRS permission for this tiny version of the image.
All new account have been created globally for several years, but your 2007 account predated that. To create a global account, read and follow the instructions at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login.
Since your name is not in use anywhere except WP:EN, that should be straightforward.
Since you are rarely on Commons to check your Watchlist, I would suggest that you check two items under Preferences > User profile on Commons:
  • Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed
  • Email me when my user talk page is changed
That will give you notice of any changes, provided of course, that all of the files you are interested in are on your Commons Watchlist. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Birgit Õigemeel, 2007.jpg

Hi, please restore this image File:Birgit Õigemeel, 2007.jpg. See also my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Birgit Õigemeel, 2007.jpg. --WikedKentaur (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I read your comment before I deleted the image. As I said in my closing comment, the site nagi.ee has an explicit copyright. There's no evidence that the image has appeared anywhere with a free license. If you can find such evidence, I'd be happy to restore it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like the author has changed his username in nagi.ee. Anyway new source url is http://nagi.ee/photos/Keskuskasutaja/1028230/in-set/20522/ --WikedKentaur (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thank you for your persistence in saving this image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

DR for 12 or 14 of 15 files of Category:Port-Grimaud ...

Hi there. You deleted the pics I asked for. Thanks. But can you explain what means your sentence "moskept the aerial shots, as DM applies". As a Frenchy, I'm not very good with some american words. "moskept" ? "DM applies" ? Strange ... Some explanations will be good for my future in Commons. Have a nice end of week. --Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 00:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Your English is much better than my French, which I haven't really used in the last fifty years. My apologies -- it is a typing error. I meant to write "Deleted most, but kept the aerial shots as DM applies." For DM, see COM:DM -- the copyrighted architecture is not a significant part of the photographs from the airplanes, so we can safely ignore it in those images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I undesrtand now, thanks. For DM I know that and I wrote it for the two last files as I'm not sure. But I may give you more details for File:Port-Grimaud Luftaufnahme.jpg and File:Port-Grimaud - Vue aérienne.jpg. As I said ALL the town was crated by François Spoerry and now the copyrights of this town are owned by some real estate companies. It is a private town with postguards. Where he did that there was nothing except a swamp area and he built it with making his islands in the best way using the natural existing islands. I don't know if you read the links so I translate for you the sentence of the Court : "The companies promoting the real estate transaction had been grant the rights of this urban complex. They had asked the capture of leaflets reproducing two aerial photographs of the city. For their Defence, advertisers have said that "it is argued that intellectual work could invest in a site, otherwise go unheeded the principle that nature belongs to all." But the Draguignan Court rejected this objection for a reason quite surprising: "The establishment in the Gulf of Saint-Tropez, where there was nothing, combining the sun and the sea, a lakeside including water bodies and irregular masses less built, volumes and colors contrasting and varied, causes surprise and maintain curiosity and expectation, constitutes in its entirety by the harmonious combination of its elements, original personal creation in this case, it is the totality of Port-Grimaud considered as a work of art that enjoys the protection of the law and not as or as determined building ... "... / ... Copyright supports the dream of the artist: "imagine" nature so that it is absorbed in the whole work." (I helped myself with Google Translator for some terms ...). The second link : "New jurisprudence recognize that there may infringe the rights of ownership. This is a city, but a private city, Port-Grimaud is a pure promoter's invention. Therefore it has no right to film in, or reproduce photograph of this city. When it has been trial, the Port-Grimaud promoter said: "I ​​have an absolute property right, and I forbid reproducing an aerial photo of the city." The Court agreed with him."
So no DM here. Draguignan Court said. DM could be OK for the two files but I'm not sure (File:Port-Grimaud - Vue aérienne (2).jpg, File:France Port-Grimaud.JPG.
Thanks for your time. Have a nice week-end. --Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 16:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. If I understand correctly, you are saying that a French Court has found a copyright in the arrangement of the land and water? As far as I know, the only country that has an explicit copyright for landscape architecture is Slovenia. France certainly does not, but I suppose one could find it in

"7° Les oeuvres de dessin, de peinture, d'architecture, de sculpture, de gravure, de lithographie ;
8° Les oeuvres graphiques et typographiques ;
9° Les oeuvres photographiques et celles réalisées à l'aide de techniques analogues à la photographie ;
10° Les oeuvres des arts appliqués ;"

Perhaps it is sculpture on a large scale, perhaps applied art. If I understand you correctly, then I think we must delete them.

On the other hand if the court simply found that it was OK for the promoter to forbid photography, then we have a different situation -- the same sort of case that is described at Commons:Image_casebook#Museum_and_interior_photography. The promoter may have a cause of action (a reason to bring a lawsuit in court) against the photographer, but that is not a copyright, so that the images are usable anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't say nothing, I've just translated what is written in the links. You do what you think is the best, with aknowledge of this jurisprudence. I was really surprised too when I read that the town and the place where it's located are considered as a sculpture, a 3D artwork. I made 150 pictures of Port-Grimaud under a wide blue sky and a high shadowless sun and 100 with urban night lights last summer and wanted to upload some on Commons but ...
Now, because of some (stupid) laws I only shoot old buildings, lanscapes, flowers and bees for Commons !!! --Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 00:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, you could always go across the border to Switzerland, Germany, or Spain.....     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Switz and Germany are as far as Spain from me. I go there next week. I can go to Spain twice a year : I have two flats in a ski village at 20 km of the border but when there's snow the tunnel to Spain is closed. When it's open I just go through to fill the car because gas is cheaper there ... Easter was fine ? I hope so. See you Face-smile.svg. --Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 21:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

About my Paint brush versions of these images

Some of my images have been deleted here:

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Marcric

Specifically about these files: Zenit satellite platform shapes-01.jpg, Dnepropetrovsk Sputnik satellite platform-DS-1 DS-2.jpg, Kosmos 8 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos 6 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos 4-7 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos 3-5 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos 2 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos 1 satellite shape.jpg, Kosmos failed satellites shape.jpg. I have decided not to discuss about it, and waste my time in weekend creating and uploading my Paint Brush versions of each one, I have used the same names with _PB_ in the middle (Dnepropetrovsk_Sputnik_satellite_PB_platform-DS-1_DS-2.png for instance). just to realize today they were all deleted with no warnings. What happens??? in fact all the paint brush files I have uploaded simply disappear. --Marcric (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You were certainly warned that these were going to be deleted. In fact, you deleted the warning from your talk page shortly before you posted the message above. I have reverted that action because we generally much prefer that warnings remain on your talk page for future reference, or in an archive. BTW, I have reverted your reversion, because I prefer all that warnings archived in a specific place: User:Marcric/Pending Files. --Marcric (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
All of the files were deleted because the images appear in many places on the web and there is no evidence that you actually created them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jim. Sorry but I need to disagree. We are talking about two different set of files: the first one which I have been warned still listed in my user page. Only grouped in a specific place for my "pending / deleted files User:Marcric/Pending Files. After receiving the warning I spent the entire weekend creating Paint Brush versions of these files with the "_PB_" in the names. But yesterday I have realized that all my paint brush versions of that shape images have been deleted also. And I have put in the description a warning that each new version was created by me with paint brush. If there is any doubt, you just need to compare the versions. --Marcric (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
If I understand what you are saying correctly, the fact that you created these particular files with PaintBrush is irrelevant. They are copies of copyrighted works, and while your files may have a copyright of their own, they are derivative works of the original files and cannot be kept on Commons without the permission of the creators of the original files. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I have gone through some of your contributions and deleted almost all of the ones I have seen because they are either blatant copyright violations or lack any sort of evidence of permission from their creators. Everything on the Web has a copyright. Commons can accept only the small portion of the images on the Web that are freely licensed. Please stop uploading copyright violations. If you do not stop, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
OK I'm getting out. sorry for so much inconvenience. Best regards. --Marcric (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem user

Hi Jim. Can you take a look at User talk:INeverCry#Panoramio? This user has uploaded copyvios from Panoramio, and even placed fake OTRS tags on some that were cleary marked ARR, and were from atleast 2 different Panoramio accounts. I've blocked him for a week, but the fake tagging and volume of copyvios may justify a long block, and if he's a sock of User:Sefer ibrahim, as Takabeg thinks, the week block should probably be changed to indef. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 19:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Left a question for Takabeg on your talk page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
His answer makes me think he's probably right on this, amongst other quacking from the suspect (there are very similiar images from both accts). Here's another suspicious file from this user, (taken from an ARR Pano acct) with an OTRS ticket: File:Palace of Happiness.jpg. Is this ticket valid? INeverCry 23:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi! I can't really wrap my head around the source of this photo. The source information points to a now-removed *.gif file as the source, but without being clear on the creator of the image. I have to defer to your expertise here because I am not sure if this image should be here or not. Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. We sometimes do not handle transfers from WP:EN as well as we might. I see two things here. The description says that the author is Ben Manski, an early WP:EN user with 201 edits there and none elsewhere. It is certainly possible that he is the photographer and that the CC-BY-SA is legitimate.
On the other hand, it appears on the subject's web site, with an explicit (c). That means that if it is Manski's image, Cobb is violating Manski's copyright by using the image without attribution.
It is possible that there is more information in the now-deleted description on WP:EN. An Admin there could look and see for you. Failing any help there, I would be inclined to hang a {{Delete}} on it and see what the community thinks. I'll leave that choice to you, but I were to tag it, I might include almost all of my first two paragraphs above in the nomination -- it is perfectly legitimate to use {{Delete}} to start a discussion when you aren't sure.
Have you thought about becoming an Admin? I see you are doing a lot of routine category maintenance -- essential, but it eventually gets a little stale. Admins are also maintainers, but the work has a lot more variety. If you wanted to do that, you might spend some time reading and commenting on DRs. Comments are not make work -- the closing Admin can work much faster when he or she has thoughtful comments from known colleagues. I hope that having been burned by my fast work when we first met, you might like to support a gentler approach. The need for more active Admins is great -- we are now seeing about 8,000 new images a day, of which about 2,000 are deleted. Staying ahead of the avalanche are about ten Admins who do 80% of the work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
It would be great if someone could look at the old description and see what it says. And after that, depending on what it says, I think your suggestion of {{Delete}} is a good one and yes, I would use your comment above for clarity.
For admin work, I would be most honored, my only fear is that I do not know enough. But if you would point me in a way to get started, I would be delighted to do my best at it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
As for the first, if you don't know any WP Admins, try User:Nyttend and tell him I suggested it.
For the second -- as I said, start going through deletion request logs -- see Commons:Deletion requests/2013/03/27. I'd suggest going through the one that is six days old, so that you will see the maximum number of comments before they are closed on the seventh day, but can still be helpful to the closing Admin. Those that you understand, comment one way or the other. Those that you don't understand, ask a question. Much of the time someone will give you an intelligent answer. After you've done that for a couple of months, you'll feel more confident and unless I miss my guess, I'll be happy to nominate you. Here are some helpful templates:
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I poked through a few questions while waiting for class to start. I'll do more later. Amazing process. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Erasing the flipped classroom

Hi James! As I understand, one may have portals on Commons. I chose to not call this page a portal as I want it to be Supereasy for teachers in Sweden, Denmark and Norway to find it by searching for Flipped Classroom. There is a great interest from teachers here in Scandinavia to use Commons as their place for flipped classroom movies so I suggest that we embrace this by making it easy for them to use Commons. Something that they suggested is a page on Commons with information on how to upload, why to use Commons as a teacher and what other flipped material they may find on here. I would be very happy if you would find this project to be worthwhile and therefore accept the page 'Flipped Classroom' here on Commons. I understand that Commons is primarily for files and filepages but if this may help support teachers and others to contribute with their videos, don't you think it's worth it by having this page? Sophie Österberg (WMSE) (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't judge its merits, but I'm not sure we have a place for it. However, I am always willing to learn.
"Namespace" is the technical term for the leading word that tells the user the purpose of the page. "User", "User talk", "Commons", "Category" and "Template" are the most common namespaces on Commons, see Help:Namespaces. There is also the "Gallery" namespace, which is the only namespace without a prefix. There is a "Portal" namespace in WP:EN and probably in other language Wikipedias ("Projekt" on WP:SE?). If you were to create this page on one of them, it would have to begin with the designator "Portal:". There is no "Portal" namespace in Commons.
Information on how to upload and why a person might find Commons useful is already available, linked directly from the main page. It is by no means perfect, and if you were to help improving it, in either Swedish or English, that would be a good thing.
Although I see that "Flipped Classroom" is a term of art, it certainly has not yet reached general use. If you wanted to improve the short WP:EN article Flip teaching on this mode of teaching, you certainly could do that. I don't see any reference to the Commons resources there. You might also create an article on WP:SE if one does not already exist. You are also free to create a page in your own namespace, perhaps User:Sophie Österberg (WMSE)/Flipped classrooms. But I don't think there is a place for it in Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear Jim, thank you for providing me this information. I do however, question a few things, but primarily I question why this would be so bothersome. I understand that my last message must have been of a rather confusing kind, but the point here is that plenty of Swedish teachers want to upload their flipped classroom videos and we have suggested Commons as a place for them to put them. They do, however, suggest a page with specific information for them about this. This would be a page about why they, in their role as teachers, would and should upload their flipped classroom files as to let more teachers use them. To expand an article about flipped-classroom has nothing to do with this in any way. I do not understand your issues with this. My belief and hope of the Wikimedia sphere is that we are happy and willing to provide space for these teachers as they are excited and enthusiastic to provide their videos on mathematics, biology, astronomy, English etc to many other teachers who may use them in their classrooms. I would suggest that this is in great accordance with what the Wikimedia sphere stands for, and something which should be encouraged rather than restricted. To have a page under my username is to create unessecary issues for these teachers who have never before used Commons nor Wikipedia. Why would you want to give them such difficulties to contribute? If their will is to have one single page on Commons which is called Flipped Classroom with information directed to them as teachers for them to provide films for their pupils so many more pupils can see these flipped classroom videos, wouldn't that be fine? I do not understand your issue with this and would hope that you would find this interesting enough to accept one single page on Commons called Flipped Classroom. I would also be happy to hear more about this not being a general term of usage. According to whom?

--Sophie Österberg (WMSE) (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sophie, the problem is that fundamentally a Commons gallery is for a gallery of images, not articles of any sort, including articles on how to use Commons. The "Commons:" namespace does have such articles, and I did suggest above that you could work on improving them. I am afraid that I do not at all understand why a Flipped Classroom video is fundamentally different from any other video and requires different instruction from that given at Commons:Contributing your own work.
Also, please remember that we have thousands of different constituencies, including teachers at all levels and all types of teaching, in 42 main languages and about 230 additional languages. We have 16,000,000+ files on Commons and are receiving about 8,000 new files every day, although about 2,000 of those are deleted, usually for copyright violation. I am afraid that I find it difficult to understand why it is a good idea to make a significant exception to our rules to accommodate the special needs of a constituency that, at the moment, has 13 images on Commons.
I would not oppose it if you created a page in the Commons namespace with a name such as Commons:Flipped classrooms, but I make no guarantee that it would succeed. You might also raise the question at Commons:Bybrunnen or Commons:Village pump. Somebody there might have a better idea -- or, you may find that the community disagrees with me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

GFDL 1.2 license

If you ever decide to propose the GFDL 1.2-only license for deprecation on Commons (as has been done on en.wiki and de.wiki) let me know. Kaldari (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Krugovanje

Dear Jim, the file File:Krugovanje 1978-1987 by Dejan Stojanovic.jpg already exists at sr Wikipedia. It was created on September 5, 2010 and there is no problem with it. To clarify the things, you can incorporate the information from that source. The file is at [16] The same thing is with the file File:Krugovanje by Dejan Stojanović (Second Edition).jpg, although this file doesn’t exist on the mentioned Wikipedia. You can be sure that there are no problems with these files since they are properly sourced and licensed and, in my opinion, the tags should be removed. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please make your comments at the DRs, not here. The tags will be removed after seven days when the DRs are closed. I note, however, that the image you reference at WP:SR is there under Fair Use, which is not permitted on Commons. There is no evidence there of a free license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BatumVelo.JPG

Dear Jim,


Julien Cabardi made connections with the sculptor, Jean Dupuy, through his agent in Batumi. The sculptor agreed to have his sculpture been pictured and distributed under a (pretty restrictive) CC BY SA ND NC license. Shall I upload once again the picture taken by Julien Cabardi? Thanks. Christian.Mercat (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

First, please never upload an image that has already been uploaded once. We never actually delete anything -- the process we call "deletion" simply hides it from view of all users except Admins, so if we do get a license for a "deleted" image, we can easily just restore it. Uploading it a second time is against Commons rules and wastes both your time and Commons resources.
Second, Commons does not permit either NC or ND, so the image will have to remain hidden unless someone can get a license from the sculptor that is CC, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

DelReqHandler issue

Hi Jim. Any idea on how to get some attention on this issue? I don't want the DRs to pile up, but this problem has been going on for about 6 weeks now. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 19:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No -- I have no contact at all with the people who actually do coding. We had a similar problem about this time last year -- maybe it has something to do with the equinox or April Fools' Day..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
It looks like we're in the same boat...and there's no paddles. Face-wink.svg I've asked a few tech savvy guys, including Dschwen and 99of9. Hopefully someone can get the Bugzilla people moving. INeverCry 20:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


MicahJohnson.jpg

Hi Jim: Thank you for at least being kind. Many other editors are actually quite 'rude'. I'm not sure why that photo was deleted? It's been in use for years on Wiki. It's my property and I have the ownership. Is there something I'm missing? Thank you. Jackryan733 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The immediate problem is that you reloaded a file that had been deleted. That is not permitted. The correct procedure is to file a request at Commons:Undeletion requests where the community can consider whether the deletion was correct.
However, now that we're talking, perhaps we can solve this here. You say, "It's my property and I have the ownership." Were you the photographer? If not, who was the photographer and why do you believe you have the right to license it on Commons? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jim. The photograph was taken 13 years ago. I rounded up the photographer, Tom Story, that took the photo - which I purchased - and have email documentation that I am legally entitled to use them. I will send the email. Thanks again. Jackryan733 (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-DHS-CGAUX

Please see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Template:PD-USGov-DHS-CGAUX. --Jarekt (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Lenin Mausoleum

Hi Jim. I just saw this on my talk page (I obviously don't check it often enough:

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask
a question at the  Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may
re-nominate this file or ask for it to be  undeleted.
[edit] File:Lenin_Mausoleum.jpg

The comment on the request to delete is this:

No FOP in Russia 79.237.182.28 23:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem. What is FOP?

The file in question is Lenin Mausoleum.jpg. I can't say for sure (because the image is not there now) but I believe this is my own photograph.

--CaritasUbi (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with the image is that the mausoleum itself has a copyright, which will expire on 1/1/2020, which is seventy years rounded up to the following January 1 after the death of Alexey Shchusev, the architect. Any photograph of the mausoleum is a derivative work and, until the copyright expires, such photographs infringe on the copyright. So, even though we have the photographer's permission to keep the image on Commons, we would also need the permission of Shchusev's heirs.
Freedom of Panorama (FOP) is a special exception to the copyright rules which is available in some countries, but not Russia. Although the exact provisions vary widely from country to country, generally the exception permits copyrighted works that are installed permanently to be freely photographed. Unfortunately we have gotten into the habit of saying "no FOP in X" as shorthand for "this image is derivative of the copyrighted work portrayed, there is no FOP in X, and therefore the image cannot be kept on Commons". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

I wasn't clear on how to add more pages and while I was surprised to see my other page gone - I totally understand -

"22:13, 28 April 2013 Jameslwoodward (talk | contribs) moved page Pia jensen Photography to User:PJ2013/Pia jensen Photography without leaving a redirect (User galleries must be sub pages of their user page.)"

Thanks for moving it and leaving a note as to what that was about. :) time for me to study! One question for you: at my primary page - how do I locate a link to the next page which you moved? I see no access point... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJ2013 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 28 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Yes, you may certainly put a link to your gallery sub page on your user page. You may also create User:Categories to organize your images. Take a look at User:Jameslwoodward -- I use both. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

RevDel own IP address

Hi Jim. I've deleted the two connected revision texts that showed your IP: [17]. INeverCry 20:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Berne Convention and scale models

Hello James!

It is always the scale models problem ;-)
Today, this DR has been started which follows a known COM:DW-argumentation of the copyright protection of scale models. Since this image depicts an US aircraft model from the 1970s, another participant on the discussion brings the Berne Convent in this debate. What do you think about this? Regards, High Contrast (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not really the Berne Convention, but rather the lack of it in the USA then. In order to have a copyright, it had to have notice, which would have been very much automatic for someone creating it at that time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Enfant Jean-Paul Bélanger par Charles Gill 1911 (detail visage)/(detail mains)/(details pré et ore de boisé)

Hello Jim! You are right, these files are crops. Nevertheless these details of the paint allow a small focused description, which seems usually accepted on Commons.I hope this explanation to be usefull to the discussion. Thanks! Laurent Bélanger (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Cropping for detail is very useful in a book or magazine because it allows the reader to examine an enlarged section very closely. It is much less useful on screen because it is far easier to download the whole painting and then pan over it as required. Descriptions can say, for example, "Look closely at the hands".... .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand and agree. Thank you! Laurent Bélanger (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

FSPS street pages and gallery columns

Thanks for helping with the Fremantle Society Photographic Survey pages! :-) I'm just wondering about the removal of the columns parameter, because we're printing these pages for use in the physical archives of these photos. Would it be possible to make an exception to the rules in this case? (e.g. Fremantle Society Photographic Survey — Silver Street‎). Thanks! — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 10:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. The problem is that it doesn't work. I use two screens -- 1280x1024 and 1680x1050. On the smaller screen, the page came up with three images per row, not four. On the larger one, it set the way you wanted it, but wasted screen space to the right. The whole point of allowing gallery image sizes and per row to default is that the user (or the user's software) will set the size and per row to most efficiently use the available screen space on anything from a mobile phone to a screen 2,000, 3,000, even 5,000 pixels wide. Even more in the future....
I'm not sure I understand the need for printing. Is this a one time thing? If so, go ahead, change the pages to 4 per row, do your printing, and change it back. There's software (which you may be using) to create a PDF of WMF pages -- you could use that. If it's not a one time thing -- if you want to be able to print a 4 per row page on demand -- I'm inclined to suggest that you don't try to do it from Commons. I don't like creating precedent for breaking rules that have a sound basis. However, it strikes me that since you would have a very good reason that it won't sink the project to make an exception. Just be aware, though, that you would be making your pages less accessible to most users. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
You're quite right, it's easy to just set it to four columns, print the required index sheets, and then change it back to the default (unspecified) number of columns. :-) The printing requirement exists because all of these photos (there's another couple of thousand of them to come) are being moved into proper long-term storage folders, and I'm using the streets pages as index sheets and dividers (printing on archival paper etc.). Thank you for helping think about this stuff. I shall carry on with the slow, slow task of uploading... :-) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 11:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Are you familiar with Commons:Commonist -- I haven't used it much, but it allows for repetitive uploads of the sort you are doing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I've used it a bit. It's good, but sometimes I've only got a couple of photos to do at one time, so just use special:upload. I've also had a couple of occasions of Commonist crashing on me just after I've entered the details of ~50 photos! — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoax creations by the same user

Hi Jameslwoodward.

After a year of you deleting fakes dominican flags create by user Cvkfekjf238, he reuploading the hoax flags and coat of arms. Please verify that and excuse my english.--Inefable001 (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You delete and he upload them again using this puppet user Dfjfedfub
Tú las borra y él las vuelve a subir utilizando este usuario títere Dfjfedfub--Inefable001 (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I have deleted the new uploads, blocked the puppet indefinitely, and blocked Cvkfekjf238 for a week. I will continue to delete Cvkfekjf238's January uploads when I get time. Thank you for your help on this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, but this case needs more attention. The person has created another puppet CMMM34 and uploads many others hoax flags.--Inefable001 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done Thank you for your attention to this. I have mass-deleted the new uploads and blocked the puppet indefinitely. I hope that sooner or later he gets tired of this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I see that, but left many files to delete. Also remember the uploads from the others puppets. I think you may need some help from other administrators to delete all.--Inefable001 (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
? I see no remaining flags uploaded by any of CMMM34, Cvkfekjf238, Dfjfedfub. I don't think I need help from other Admins, but I do need help from you -- please do not say things like "I see that, but left many files to delete" without giving examples. We have more than 16 million files on Commons and more than 25,000 editors each month -- I cannot read your mind as to where to look for more problems. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You can see all the remaining flags in their each contributions. If you don't delete quickly and stop this person then it becomes annoying because the user include all these flags and coat of arms in many Wikipedia articles.--Inefable001 (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, you must provide examples. Broad statements are not at all helpful -- I cannot delete what I do not see. What I do see is thatnone of the three users we are discussing have any files containing flags that have not been deleted:

  • User:Cvkfekjf238 -- no undeleted contributions after June 26, 2012. He contributed a number of Coats of Arms in 2012, but they have never had a DR and remain as active files.
  • User:Dfjfedfub -- except for one map, no undeleted contributions after 2012
  • User:CMMM34 -- no undeleted contributions at all

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now i understand you. You only are deleting the flags and coats of arms that were previously deleted. But it must delete all their remaining flags and coats of arms because all that are hoax creations too. There' no reference to indicate these files are real or belong to Dominican Republic. I hope you understand me this time.--Inefable001 (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
That is correct. Files that have been deleted before may be deleted on sight, which I have done. Those that have not been deleted before must go through our standard Deletion Request process. I suggest that you start a Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request on those that you believe are a problem. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I've created the first deletion request for user Cvkfekjf238. Do i need to create another request deletion for the others puppets?
I hope you can help me in this because is my first time and i don't know if i'm doing right.--Inefable001 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
It looks like you did a perfect Mass DR on your first try -- well done! I'm not sure I understand your question. There's nothing left to delete for CMMM34. For User:Dfjfedfub, the only files remaining are maps -- if those are OK, then there's nothing there. If they are not OK, they should have a separate DR. On Cvkfekjf238, if you have listed everything that is bad, then that's done. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jameslwoodward. This person continues uploading the files you deleted by using another puppet. This person don't get tired.--Inefable001 (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I deleted the files and blocked the user. Do you know there are still lots of inclusions of these files? / He borrado los archivos y bloqueado el usuario. ¿Sabes que todavía hay muchas inclusiones de esos archivos? Jcb (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
No right now but i'll be alert.--Inefable001 (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh wait, i still found these [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].--Inefable001 (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
For inclusions see e.g. here: Special:GlobalUsage/Bandera_Provincial_de_El_Seibo.PNG. Jcb (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I nominated File:Flag of La Romana Province, Dominican Republic.svg for deletion, but to get it deleted, you will have to remove the usage within a few day. I'm pretty sure you are right these are fake flags. I've never seen them in the Dominican Republic. Such a flag would e.g. be present in front of a gobernación, but the governor's offices I have seen, only had the national flag. Jcb (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Maybe two or three of them are real but is hard to find out what is really true and what not. I'm sure that Dominican Republic municipalities don't use these flags and coats of arms officialy, so they're irrelevant. Only Santiago de los Caballeros use a Coats of Arms officialy.--Inefable001 (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I've found another ones [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31].--Inefable001 (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hatero27 appears to be a sock of Cvkfekjf238. I have blocked him and removed his contributions on this subject. However, Metrónomo is probably not a sock of Cvkfekjf238. Please use a DR on those of his contributions that you think are hoaxes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've asked Metrónomo an explication why he uploaded those flags, but i didn't get a response yet.--Inefable001 (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks like he made SVG versions in good faith. He couldn't know the original was actually fake. Jcb (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, probably.--Inefable001 (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

a heads-up

In 2011 you participated in Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship 2). That discussion ended with User:Jcb losing his administrator privileges.

This note is to inform you that User:Odder proposed Jcb have unconconditional access to administrator privileges restored.

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (readmin) is scheduled to close on May 20th.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Books by Dejan Stojanović

Dear James,

Please restore Books by Dejan Stojanović. The permission has been received, OTRS ticket 2013050810010397. Best regards, --Mountlovcen8

✓ Done.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:

Mmmmm, I've got no idea of such template. Thanks! --Ganímedes (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Care to comment?

Hi Jim, User:Jcb recently advised me to not to appeal for blocks against group usernames here. Since I have invoked a block action by you in the discussion, will you please comment in the discussion? TIA Rahul Bott (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Jim, I initiated discussion related to User:Deutz-Fahr at COM:AN/U. Will you please provide your views on the matter there? Regards, Rahul Bott (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry -- I try to avoid discussions in which Penyulap is an active player. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg I understand. Thanks anyway Rahul Bott (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment

Jim, if you have some time, will you please have a look at the second discussion thread on File talk:'Schloss' in Uster, Ansicht von der Talackerstrasse 2012-11-14 13-28-32.JPG. I removed,with this edit, a gallery of photos which were not other versions of the file but simply different photographs from the other_versions entry of the file description. User:Roland zh reverted it soon enough with edit summary "potentially vandalism reverted, next one will be handled as 'Commons User Problems'". I tried to start a discussion with him on the file talk page, since he has made clear on his talk page that he does not like the messages to be posted there and erases any such message zealously saying he is too busy. He replied saying that "forced discussion" is a "personal attack" and frankly, it might also be a bit about language problem as English is not the mother tongue for either of us!

I know it is not a big deal but for future purposes, I would just like to know

  1. Whether putting all of these files as the gallery on the file page was correct? Please evaluate each individual file entry if you can.
  2. Is there some limit to what can be put in the other_versions entry in file description?
  3. Was I so wrong in removing them that it should be called "potentially vandalism"?

You may please consider commenting on the File talk page or my talk page. TIA. Rahul Bott (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the other versions from the file. I have never seen "other versions" used for anything except
  • different versions of the same image -- crops, tilts (or removals), the original from which this crop was made, color corrections, and so forth.
  • occasionally different images of the same painting or other flat work.
Showing different angles and lighting of the same subject can easily be done in a gallery. Putting such files into one or more of the related files seems silly and a maintenance nightmare.
His suggestion that your actions were vandalism and his threat are both inappropriate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jim for the timely intervention. I've copied your comments above to the related file talk page hoping that you won't mind. Admins like you are reassuring about the value of this endeavour to people like me. Cheers, Rahul Bott (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
You deserve it! Rahul Bott (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Goddess of Democracy DC defy censorship.JPG

Jim,

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington

The OTRS ticket on File:Goddess of Democracy DC defy censorship.JPG has been received and accepted (by User:Jcb)

This ticket, which the sculptor Thomas Marsh submitted with my encouragement, covers the right to photograph the statue and several related copies, by anybody as long as he is acknowledged as the sculptor CC-BY.

I am just horrified by the multiple attempts to delete pictures of this sculpture and its daughters - which was violently censored in Tianamen Square in 1989 as a symbol of freedom, and continues to be censored in China.

Could you help to put this to rest?

Sincerely,

Smallbones (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

After your message above, while I was sleeping (it is now 06:00 local time), MichaelMaggs closed the subject discussion as a keep. That's probably for the best, as I am not sure that I agree with the closure -- it seems to me that Marsh's work is clearly derivative of the original sculpture and therefore infringes on that copyright. Since the question is moot, I haven't read anything like all of the 2,200+ words of argument there, but I am troubled by the tone of the argument that seems to rely more on the fact that we deplore the Chinese government's actions and less on the question of whether that government both can and actually has eliminated the original sculptor's copyright.
It also troubles me that only the Washington, DC version is actually entirely Thomas Marsh's work. As he sets forth carefully in his OTRS letter, all of the other versions had one or more other people doing part of the work -- enough probably so that there is a joint copyright, even in San Francisco where Marsh believes that he did 95% of the work.
Both of these concerns would probably have led me to close this as a delete, particularly with respect to the sculptures other than the DC one, based on the fact that there are significant questions about the copyright.
However, we have a huge backlog at the moment and very few really active Admins (a group that I am barely part of), so I tend not to spend a lot of time on any one issue -- and a renomination of this would surely take a great deal of time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

OTRS ticket check

Hi Jim. I've had a question from a fellow admin on en.wiki concerning an OTRS ticket and image. Here's the diff from en.wiki. The image is File:Tricia Walsh-Smith.jpg, and the ticket # the person is giving is 2013041310011781. The image isn't tagged with the ticket, so we don't know if it's valid or not, etc. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 01:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's see -- in what order do I take this?

  • The ticket 2013041310011781 is an e-mail from a hotmail account which does not give an explicit license, but merely asks that the image be put on the WP page for Tricia Walsh-Smith. I am not inclined to accept hotmail as a good source for OTRS, as it is obviously possible to fake. I also would not accept this one because it does not contain a license, but merely claims that Tricia Walsh-Smith "own[s] the copyright to the above image to be uploaded onto my wiki page". That's not a general license of the kind we require.
  • There is only one OTRS queue -- the same OTRS covers all WMF projects.
  • As a serious and very active Commons Admin, you ought to apply for OTRS permission. The OTRS people are reluctant to give it to people who are not going to active help with OTRS, but they will do it -- I was very honest when I applied, saying that I did not expect to do much, if any, OTRS work that was not directly related to my Admin work.

I have hung a {{Delete}} on the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure about the difference between permissions-en, permissions-commons, info-en, etc. I had the OTRS flag for all of 2 or 3 days. I resigned it when they started talking about releasing personal info on a list. In the end, I'm so busy with deletions here and on en.wiki that I really don't have time for OTRS. INeverCry 17:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tricia Walsh-Smith.jpg

This is tricia walsh smith. here are links to my my website and twitter account where the image is used. http://www.triciawalshsmith.com/gallery3/gallery3.htm https://twitter.com/tricia_dlicious If you still have a problem you can email me personally through my website and I will reply. Wiki is incredibly important as a lot of people come onto my site from Wiki so after having a page for 5 years I felt it was time for a pic. Whew! It's complicated! Thanks, Tricia Whiterabbitinuk (talk)

The fact that it appears in several places on the Web does not mean that Tricia Walsh-Smith owns the rights to license the image freely and, in fact, she has not done so. Commons gets about 8,000 new images every day. About 2,000 of those must be deleted, for various reasons, including lack of a license from the copyright owner. 75% of that work is done by 10 Administrators. We have procedures in place to try to deal with the great volume of work in an orderly fashion. As it says at the Deletion Request, the problem with this image can be solved only if we get a license from the photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Jameslwoodward/Translate test

Hi. Have you done it? --BaseSat (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? I created the page to see if I could delete a page with the translate tag on it -- I found that I could. See my comment at Commons:Village_pump#Allow_admins_to_assign_this_right .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I mean that its now in Special:PageTranslation as proposed for marking. If you have done - remove translate tags, please. Thank you :) --BaseSat (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you please explain the sequence here?
  • I created the page with <translate> tags.
  • I could, immediately after creation, delete it.
  • It appeared later on Special:PageTranslation.
  • I could not delete it this morning.
  • I blanked the page this morning.
  • Even though blank, and my own subpage, I still cannot delete it.
Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Crystal the Monkey

Thanks for deleting the wrong site, but could you please copy the content from the deleteed page to Category:Crystal the Monkey? Thanks.--CennoxX (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Triple Bridge

Please don't forget to delete File:Postcard of Ljubljana, Prešeren Square at night (6).jpg. Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1985-079-31, Verhaftung von Dönitz, Speer und Jodl.jpg

Hello. You deleted the file, but didn't unified as it was requested (categories, inclusions in Wikipedia articles, e.g. w:Flensburg_government#Dissolution, German subscription etc.) Could you please make a redirect and copy the useful information as it would be if the file had been considiered a dupe? Ain92 (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the request. Nothing was requested in the DR. You put a {{Speedy}} on the file -- which means that you wanted it deleted immediately by an Admin who was going through speedies. Even after a DR, the closing Admin does not generally do any cleanup with a dupe -- that is the nominator's job. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I'll say in other words. When I'm requesting duplicates to be deleted, I'm used to merging details, but you did nothing like this, just deleted the file from BA, even without a redirect (see lower). And I can't recover lost information because I'm not a sysop so I can't see the description of deleted file. So please merge details just as in example. Thank you in advance. Ain92 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
No. sorry -- when you put a {{Speedy}} on a file, you should expect that it will be deleted, nothing more. There is nothing in the file description that is not already in the file description of the remaining file. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually there's not nothing. I distinctly remember that there were some other personal categories than in the remaining file (Speer, Jodl and probably something else, I'm not sure) and also there was description in German. Ain92 (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have e-mailed you the whole file description. As you will see, my statement was correct. The only cats were

all of whose names appeared in the title of the file. The description is essentially the same, using the word "Verhaftung" rather than "in the custody" -- since it was not the moment of the arrest, "in the custody" is more accurate than "Verhaftung" .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I copied categories, description (I don't know German so couldn't translate it from English to German; also I haven't changed "Verhaftung") and {{PND-link}}s. Regards, Ain92 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know German either, but Google Translate seems to do a pretty good job, at least for German > English. I don't know about German > Russian. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

OTRS ticket 2013050410007827

Please see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Robert_Joseph_Greene_Press_Phto.jpg. The uploader has forwarded an appropriate statement of permission from the copyright holder (as of about an hour ago). --UserB (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Aviso sobre pedido de restauro

[32] Leandro Rocha (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Europa1234.png

Dear Jameslwoordward, I have a remark about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Europa1234.png. I understand the reason why you kept this file, but maybe it's useful to give you some more information. Firstly, I wasn't trying to insult the creator, but I know this person and he said himself that he can't make proper SVG-files. His own words, but again: I can understand that you thought that I was not polite (well, English is not my mother language, so I'm also not always very capable to say the things in the way I want). But the file: the user created this copy of the file because he wanted to update this map. Indeed: it's different than the original one, which is being changed at least every week. The intention of the user was to give an update, but he uploaded the file as a new one (reason: see above). His intention was right, but the file itself is now completely obsolete and the original one has now been updated several times again. I don't blame you, I should have given this information earlier. Stupid of me to think the person that deletes the file would and could (many things happen outside the Commons project) check the full background. Kind regards, --MichielDMN (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I too am sorry -- I probably should not have made the remark about your not being able to see that they were not the same. We must all be very careful in this multilingual project, as it is possible to give offense through misunderstanding even tough none is intended.
Please remember that Commons gets around 8,000 new files every day and must delete around 2,000 of them. Ten Admins do 75% of that and we work very fast. When closing a DR, if the reason is that the file is a duplicate, then it must, in fact, be a duplicate, or we will usually keep it.
Your explanation is helpful -- I will now delete the file. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Apologies accepted. I understand why you've made the remark, and honestly, maybe I would have done the same. Things are said and misunderstood quickly. Thanks for the extra feedback, it emphasises that I should give a better description than "duplicate". Also thanks to remove the file. Kind regards, --MichielDMN (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1985-079-31, Verhaftung von Dönitz, Speer und Jodl.jpg

Hi, wy do you delete this file with more than 30 Global Usages. The other File:The Second World War 1939 - 1945- Germany- Personalities BU6711.jpg (duplicate ) has no usage. The Delinker is broken! Now all Aticels are in Categorys like en:Category:Pages_with_missing_files. Cheers --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  18:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made a redirect --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  18:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BvdH_Sinclairhaus_Infotafel_EVA_8530.jpg

You should delete the following images, too, as they were taken at the same location and therefore are not under FOP.

Bye - Eva

This email was sent by User:Eva Kröcher to Jameslwoodward by the "Email user" function at Wikimedia Commons

You are probably correct. However, since they involve FOP questions and were not included in the original DR, they must have their own DR. We do not do speedy deletes on FOP cases.
Feel free to nominate them.
And, by the way, e-mail should be reserved for conversations that must be private. This should be on my talk page, where I will copy it (with appropriate links).
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Igorjanev.JPG

Permission letter has been send to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org relating to File:Igorjanev.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Republika.Makedonija (talk • contribs) 12:45, 4 June 2013‎ (UTC)

This image and the permission you sent has three problems:

  • Igor Janev is the subject of the image, not the copyright holder.
  • The OTRS e-mail comes from an anonymous e-mail account.
  • You have made at least three different claims as to the source and copyright of this image.

You are very close to being blocked from editing on Commons. That will happen if you take any further action on this or similar images unless you can prove who the photographer was and that you have his or her permission to license this freely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

OK to undelete

Regarding the closed discussions Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atcace and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atcace - 2:

I'm an OTRS volunteer handling ticket #2013060410008066, which is an email message from Austin Calhoon, from an email address bearing a similar name, stating "I am confirming I am the owner of the images posted to commons under the user name ATCACE."

I have asked him how he wants the license, although CC by SA would be safe to assume unless he specifies public domain. Amatulic (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: OTRS permission confirmed. He agrees to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License.
The images are OK to undelete. Amatulic (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Undeletion request

File:PENGUIN LIFECYCLE H.JPG was deleted following Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:US Antarctic Program photo library images. However, it appears the image author was an NSF employee,[33] so the image's PD status should have been valid. Several derivative works of the image have also been deleted. Can you take care of those as well, or should I ask the closing admin? Thank you.--Paul_012 (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

✓ All done. Although we don't usually undo other Admin's work, this one is pretty obvious. Thank you for your research on this. It's always a pleasure to restore interesting images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Bridge or artwork

Hi Jim, some doubts were raised at IRC about this bridge: File:Bridge of Glass (Tacoma, Washington).jpg. As far as I understand COM:FOP, a picture of a bridge should be OK in the USA. But I'm not sure if we can apply this to this specific bridge of parts of this bridge. What's your opinion on this? Jcb (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I sent a message via OTRS to the artist whose work is reproduced in the images asking for permission to use these images or for better-quality images to be provided. LFaraone (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not a question of FOP at all. In the USA, bridges do not have copyrights -- "architecture" does not include them, so the bridge itself does not have a copyright. (That's not true in some foreign countries that specifically include bridges in the copyright law.)
There is, of course, the question of any copyrights on the works in the compartments. Some are utilitarian, but I suspect that some have copyrights. I think that they are de minimis to this particular image, but it would be an issue for other views. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Marcric flickr images

Marcric (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Hi. I found where you had interacted with Marcric before and so I wanted to check with you. Since getting a ticket at OTRS saying that one of his uploads was a copyright violation, I have looked through them and found several that were incorrectly claimed to be PD works of government or incorrectly (but in good faith) attributed to flickr users, but obviously not the work of that flickr user. There are a whole slew of drawings from his own flickr page. In your previous discussions with him, were these images where he is claiming that he actually authored them? Because he has colorized them, google image search is mostly not helpful in identifying other copies ... but the rightmost rocket at File:UR-100 200 700 900 shapes.png, for example, I found at http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur900.htm crediting (c) Mark Wade. So I have very little confidence that he actually drew these rockets.

Can you take a look? Were these previously resolved in your discussion with him? --UserB (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

None of the ones above are obvious matches for anything deleted before, but they are all done in the same style and are clearly related. For example, the lower 3/4 of his File:Soyuz-L rocket shape.png. is identical to all four of the rockets in File:Soyuz rocket family shapes BW.jpg -- not just similar, but pixel for pixel identical. These certainly need a DR and are close to meriting a {{Copyvio}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Images from MarcRic's flickr. Note that there's a whole slew of them ... I have only gone through the first page (150) of his uploads and nominated a whole bunch of them ... but there's a lot more to do. In addition to the flickrwashed ones, there are a lot of them where something depicted is a NASA rocket and he assumes that it's therefore PD-USGov, but just because it's a photo of a NASA rocket doesn't mean that NASA actually took the photo. It could be a news media photo or just some guy with a camera. --UserB (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Or even more likely, an image made by the manufacturer. Go to it. And, thank you for your effort. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Kategorie Völkersbach

Du schießt schnell! Ich habe die Seite nicht umsonst angelegt, ich bin gerade dabei die Bilder fürs Hochladen mit Koordinaten zu versehen. Etwas mehr Geduld bitte. Danke. --Martin (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. We get about 100 new gallery pages every day, almost all of which are empty, out of scope, or errors. Since it is a favorite area for vandals, we patrol them frequently and delete on sight.
It is best to either build new galleries on a user subpage such as User:Martin-D/Sandbox 1 or at least put a note at the top of the new gallery that it is under construction.
Also note that "Kategorie Völkersbach" is not a good name. If you intend to create a Category, you must use that word, in English. If you intend to create a Gallery, then "Kategorie" will simply confuse people. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Der Name der Kategorie war "Völkersbach" nicht "Kategorie Völkersbach". Der Inhalt war "Category:Malsch (Landkreis Karlsruhe)". Wenn das falsch war, dann weiß ich es nicht besser und lasse die Finger davon. --Martin (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry -- you said "Kategorie Völkersbach" in the section heading above. I see now that you created (and I deleted) a Gallery named Völkersbach. Either that or Category:Völkersbach is OK. They have different purposes, as explained at Commons:Galleries and Commons:Categories. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

My photos

Hello. You have deleted several of my photos:

File:Absheron Hotel.jpg
File:Eurovision 2012 billboard.jpg
File:Fikret Amirov monument in Baku.jpg
File:Khojaly genocide poster in Baku.jpg
File:Kamil Aliyev home-museum.jpg

But I have lost them. Could you restore them so that I can get a copy? Then you'll delete them again. --Interfase (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Please let me know here when you are done with them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And this one please:

File:Monument of Bakikhanov.jpg

--Interfase (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Thalassia testudinum.jpg

English: Hello Jameslwoodward just put this image but not this safe with the issue of the license. You can see if it fits our parameters, but please delete it. Gracais for your help, greetings

Español: Hola Jameslwoodward acabo de cargar esta imagen pero no esto sugura con el asunto de la licencia. Puedes ver si se ajusta a nuestro parametros, sino por favor borrala. Gracais por tu ayuda, saludos --Veronidae (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion request

Hi Jim --

I'm teaching an editing class after work, and uploaded a sample picture as class demo; could you please delete? File:A sunfish from Michigan.JPG. (Disclaimer:not part of my work duties). The class says hello! Thank you, Bdcousineau (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Looks like Mono beat me to it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

PD-Japan-oldphoto

Hi, Jim. Nice to meet you again :) What do you think of {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} ? I think that this tag cannot be suitable to Wikimedia Commons. Probably it can be used in Japanese Wikipedia. Formerly I've nominated this DR. According to the Japanese copyright law, his photographs seems to be public domain in Japan. But his heir claims his copyright, and normally others accept it outside Japan. I want to use many photographs as possible as we can. However can Wikimedia Commons claim that they are public domain ? See you. Takabeg (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the template's reference to 1946 -- there does not appear to be any reference to 1946 at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory_-_full#Japan. However, the rest of the template is OK and I don't see a problem. It is true that many works made before 1956 will have copyrights in other countries -- particularly those made by people who died after 1942 in 70 year countries. However that problem exists for many countries that have rules that are not pma 70.
Since (in the case of this template) the only countries we are concerned about are Japan and the USA, I think that it is all right. The only exception would be for images that were published in the USA with notice and renewed, so it would be good if a file with this template also had a no-notice or no-renewal template, but I don't think it is essential in most cases. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Question from Alphablondy 2007

Hello Jim,

I'm a beginner on Wikipeda / Wikimedia so if I write something stupid please be patient :-). About ten days ago I've uploaded the following files:

which were put into "To delete" discussion. I've missed the discussion and files are now deleted. Could you point me what i'm doing wrong and what is best way to put those files on Wikimedia (Re-upload or re-open the delete discussion in some way). Those graphics are given my by theirs author to publish it on wiki and i think there is no legal / license issues. I'll be indebted for any help.

Best regards Andrzej Alphablondy 2007 (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons, like all WMF projects, never actually deletes anything. "Deletion" simply makes an image unavailable for general viewing. It is therefore never necessary or appropriate to upload an image a second time. If the license issues with these images are resolved, they will be restored to general view as part of the review process.

As I noted in the DRs, the first four are derivative works of paintings by Paweł Trybalski. I suggest you read the article on derivative works linked at both the DR and above. To restore these on Commons will require permission directly from Trybalski using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.

The photograph of Trybalski was apparently taken by Robert Kutkowski. As I noted at its DR, there is no evidence of permission from Kutkowski, who is almost certainly the copyright holder. In order to restore the image to Commons, we will require a license from Kutkowski, also using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.

If you have further questions, feel free to ask, but, as I have noted in the orange box above, it may be a while before I can respond. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Image

Can you speedy delete this image? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Copa_del_mundo.jpg --Badefa (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Flickr Human Review

Wow! I did now know that trusted user MyCanon was actually part of a 77 sockpuppet account and has now been indefintely banned. He always seemed to know about the right image licenses. I was going to ask him for help marking flickr images in the above category.

Anyway, I am reducing the number of time that I spend marking flickr images that need human review (I have to concentrate on my studies and work this summer...and so this backlog will quickly grow) and unfortunately I don't see anyone else carrying the load in this category. I hope that you can you can find some active trusted user or Admin who can mark flickr images in this category? Its not a major task. I managed to mark 20-25 images today but I have to stop now and the backlog is still big...and it will grow as you likely know sadly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Mühlbergkellerg.-Kataster (1).jpg

Hello!

What do you think about this image? Do you think such an image is copyrightable? PD-ineligible or PD-shape do not apply in my view. Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted files

Hello Jim, I do not agree with your suggestions to delete the images that I have posted in Projeto del Rei link. All the images were made by me, all of the works belong to me and in Brazil, all of the artists I am working in this project are in public domain, because the laws here establish the period of 70 years of death of the painter as the condition to the work can be in public domain. Please, note that I am a visual artist and History of Art teacher in Federal University of São João del Rei, Minas Gerais State, Brazil. The iconographic material about the Brazilian history of art is rare and my project as an artist and as a teacher tries to change this situation by giving to the public the opportunity to see works of art that belongs to my private collection. I hope that you can make the considerations about your suggestions to delete the pictures I have posted. If the Wikimedia is going to delete the images of my project, I prefer to delete the entire project and I will look for another way to put my works available to the public. Kind regards from Brazil. Gedley Belchior Braga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Projetodelrei (talk • contribs) 14:01, 29 July 2013‎ (UTC)

All images on Commons must be free of copyright in both the country of origin (Brazil, for these) and in the USA. Images of works of art are derivative works of the subject. For images of paintings, there is no copyright in the photograph, so the only thing that matters is the status of the painting. All of what you say is correct for Brazil, but it does not cover the USA situation. I suggest that you read COM:URAA. Although it is a little hard to understand and hard for many of us to believe, US law provides that a work that was under copyright in its home country in 1996 will be under copyright in the USA until 95 years after first publication unless it was first published before 1923.

You will note that I have put DRs only on those works that are post 1923 -- the others I simply corrected the license information. The fact that you own the works is probably not important -- the copyright almost always rests with the artist's heirs, not with the owner of the work. Of course if you can show that you own the copyrights or can get the artists' heirs to license the works, that would be good, but without that, we cannot keep them here.

I know that the URAA is very frustrating -- it certainly frustrates me -- but it is the law of the land and we are required to enforce it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jim, I understand that this site is under the USA laws and I do not want to break your laws. But this is really very frustrating, because, according to Brazilian laws, this kind of use of image is allowed, mainly if you have the photo copyright. There is no heirs that could claim these rights in the case of the painters you have marked. That is reason that I have chosen them for my project. But as an artist, there are complicated conceptual issues like works on the border of this discussion, as the american artist Sherrie Levine(born April 17, 1947 in Hazleton, Pennsylvania - she is an American photographer and appropriation artist). I think that my work is on this kind of reasoning. I am still learning how to work here. But if my work becomes a trouble, I can host my images outside USA, as my public and objective are to help Brazilian people to know better their artists and their untold history of art. User talk:Projetodelrei — Preceding unsigned comment added by Projetodelrei (talk • contribs) 16:51, 29 July 2013‎ (UTC)

I don't understand the reference to Sherrie Levine, but the USA law is clear here -- if a foreign work was under copyright in its home country on the URAA date, it will be under copyright in the USA for 95 years after publication.
As for "There is no heirs that could claim these rights", that is incorrect. The copyrights all have owners -- probably distant heirs. The fact that the heirs are unknown and may be very difficult to determine is not important. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested undeletion of Karsh photos

I've submitted a request for undeletion of seven Karsh photos you deleted. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on my response to your request, why are you unwilling to restore any of these? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see my response at the UnDR. Quite the contrary -- I applaud your suggestion of uploading scans from Wisdom, but that still does not allow undeleting images from a still unknown source. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for categorizing those library images by country

Just a note to say thanks for getting those library images categorize by country. I was adding the Exteriors category en-masse, so it wasn't simple for me to do, so thanks for coming along afterward and fixing them up. JesseW (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

File:BSF Logo.svg

Hi

No problem at all with the file being kept, but just on a point of information:

It's not a coat of arms, it's a logo, as I understand it, and as far as I'm aware there is no blazon for this image. I could be wrong, but that would be my impression - maybe I misunderstand. I redrew it from a very poor quality bitmap, not any form of description. I wish there had been a written description, because it was a pig to draw from that original. Cheers. Begoon - talk 14:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Zenos Frudakis sculptures

Could you take a look at w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 July 26#File:Zenos Frudakis Reaching Indianapolis.JPG and the next few discussions on that page? You nominated files with the same names for deletion on Commons, claiming that the OTRS permission only covers the photographer's copyright. On English Wikipedia, the files have "author" tags suggesting that the sculptor and the photographer are the same person. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The OTRS permission speaks only to the photos and not to the sculptures. As I said at WP:EN, this is probably an oversight and Nytend argues that since Frudakis is the sculptor, his permission for the image automatically covers the sculpture too. However, as we generally take OTRS permissions literally, without explicit permission for the sculptures, I don't think we can keep the images. I'm not going to take it any further, though..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now I see that you participated in a similar discussion at w:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 8. This one was at w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 July 26 about some other files with the same problem. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


Aircalin image

James,

Is it alright if you e-mail me the image and info of File:Aircalin head office.JPG, deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/No Freedom of Panorama in New Caledonia 2012-11-29? I want to upload it to the French Wikipedia

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to do that, but I need an actual e-mail address -- I cannot attach a file to an e-mail sent from your talk page. You can send your address to me privately using an e-mail from the link in the left column. However, as I note at the top of this page, I may not get your message until Sunday. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you al lot! I need your help

Dear Jim,

this is Giuseppe, and I am struggling with putting some picture of my father Pasquale Vitiello on Commons Wiki categories. Fortunately you have noticed that and already helped me.

The problem I do not know how to solve is the following:

On the page of "20th-century paintings in Italy" in the Media of that category the three pictures I put do they appear.

But in their captions the name of the author *Pasquale Vitiello* does not appear (however it does appear if one looks at them inside the subcategory "20th-century paintings in Naples"). What I have to do? Can you, please, help me in fixing it? It is indeed not good that the pictures do not carry the name of the author in that gallery.

The same pictures appear in the it.Wikipedia in the voice of Pasquale Vitiello, and there all is right (you might look at that voice for the CV of my father, he has been recognized to be not a bad Italian painter).

Thank you again and...sorry for my broken English. My best

Giuseppe--Giuseppe Vitiello (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


Giuseppe: There is no reason to apologize for your English -- it is certainly much better than my French and I have no other languages at all. I think perhaps you are confused about the difference between categories and galleries. Compare:

Categories are primarily for finding media files -- they show all of the files which have the category tag. They are in alphabetic order by the name of the file. All they show is the file name (no captions), abbreviated if it is long. Because they list all the files, with no selection, they can be difficult to use if they are large. Note that category names must be in English.

Galleries, on the other hand, are a selection of files made by interested editors. They can have captions. Their names can be in any language. If there are more than a few files, they can be organized in sections and sub-sections.

Compare, for example, Category:Rome and the gallery Roma. The one has many subcategories, while the other has many sections. The category should lead you to all the files that are connected in any way to Rome. The gallery should show you a selection of the best files concerning Rome. The gallery will generally be easier to use, but may not show you all of the files.

In the case of your father, with only three images on Commons, a gallery is not really necessary, but it is certainly permitted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

AirCalin_Head_Office.jpg now on French Wikipedia

Jim,

The image is now on the French Wikipedia: fr:Fichier:AirCalin_Head_Office.jpg

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barros Basto10.jpg

Deleted: For someone who says "I don't know much about copyright and all that" and has 24 edits on Commons, Bricking claims a lot of expertise. In fact, BrightRaven is correct. The copyright belongs to the photographer's heirs. And, perhaps more important, "the family permission to put this photo on Wikipedia" would not be sufficient even if they do own the copyright. Commons and Wikipedia require permission for all use, not just WP. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

With regards to this, you are wrong. I don't know much about copyright in general it is true but I do know this. This photo belongs legally to the family and their heirs, it's common sense, but I even talked with a person who knows the law and concluded the same exact thing. IT's the law and it belongs to the family. Your judgment was wrong.--Bricking (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

First, in most countries, transfer of copyright requires an explicit written agreement. Simply paying for the photograph does not transfer the copyright any more than buying a painting transfers its copyright. Portuguese law is very clear on this point,
"Aquele que subsidie ou financie por qualquer forma, total ou parcialmente, a preparação, conclusão, divulgação de uma obra não adquire, por esse facto, sobre esta, salvo convenção escrita em contrário, qualquer dos poderes incluídos no direito de autor".
He who subsidize or finance in any form, in whole or in part, the preparation, completion and dissemination of a work does not assume, therefore, on this, unless otherwise agreed in writing, any of the powers included in the copyright.
translator: Google
(Article 13, which BrightRaven quoted in the DR and you have consistently ignored).
You are just guessing both that that this photograph was done professionally and that such an agreement was executed. . Common sense has very little to do with copyright law -- in fact much of the time you could apply the opposite of common sense and come out correct.
Second, even if you were correct that the family owns the copyright, you said "I have the family permission to put this photo on Wikipedia" -- that is far from sufficient -- Commons and Wikipedia require that an image be free for all use, including commercial use and making derivative works.
Third, we have no evidence of any family permission -- getting all of the heirs who own a share in the copyright to agree to a free license often is very difficult, but that is what is required.
So, I think that my judgement was correct for the three different reasons above. You are, of course, free to file an Undeletion Request, but I think you will find that our colleagues agree with me and BrightRaven. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I stand corrected as I said before I took legal advice. First this photo was taken in the early 1900. Secondly your biggest mistake is assuming this part "Aquele que subsidie ou financie por qualquer forma..." it was neither of those! It was bought. The photographer was paid in to do that job, to photograph Barros Basto. So in both cases it was paid, for the job and the content.
Regardless of what you think or your colleagues was right is being right which you aren't. By your logic almost any historical photograph is impossible to upload to wikipedia.--Bricking (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
There's very little more to say here. As I pointed out above, there are three different reasons this photograph does not qualify for Commons. You have focused on one of them and have asserted, but not proven, that there was a written agreement transferring the copyright to the subject. It is well established that in almost all countries, including Portugal, having a portrait made does not automatically transfer the copyright -- that is how most portrait and wedding photographers made money -- by selling additional copies. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

File:BLACKHOLE_SUN.jpg

About this: I’m not going to loose my cool (I guess I did. -- Tuválkin 01:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)) about one photo among 17 million, but the respect I had gathered for you based on the comments and contributions of yours I had seen this far just vanished in smoke. -- Tuválkin 14:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to have repeatedly seen the argument that we should keep a badly blurred picture because it illustrates blurry pictures and so forth. I see this as a simple variation on that, but obviously we disagree. I won't oppose an UnDR -- it would be interesting to see what more than the two of us think. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Allow me to mix metaphors: After the smoke cloud, this. -- Tuválkin 22:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
This
"I tersely explained why — hoping it should be enough to at least delay the outcome of the DR till someone knowledgeable about the matter could weight in. I’m however shocked that files can be deleted on a whim when there is no time or patience/willingness to explore the matter further."
is disappointing. My decisions may be done rapidly, but they are hardly "whims". No one has any control over how many people comment on a DR -- in this case the call was 2 (the nom and me) to 1 (you) -- apparently none of our colleagues were interested. The DR was up for a week, as required. That is plenty of time for extended discussion if the interest is there.
Perhaps you need to think a little bit about the implications of more than 8,000 new images every day, of which about 2,000 must be deleted. Ten Admins do more than half the work. We work fast, and occasionally make mistakes. I think your argument at the UnDR is much stronger than in the DR. I'm going to wait and see what our colleagues think, but I may change my mind about it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I see you keep digging. (Meanwhile another of those overworked ten admins choses to use his time with this kind of clueless sophistry.) All told, consider me unimpressed. -- Tuválkin 06:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

3rd opinion request

Hi there, we're having a discussion at User talk:Fastily#Re Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Australian rules football jumpers about Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Australian rules football jumpers. I've seen in the past you've deemed some sponsors logos on soccer kits to be OK under de minimis. Could you have a look at the few remaining designs in Category:Australian rules football jumpers and deem whether or not the decision to delete them all, whether it was simple stripes/shapes or a monogram or a picture, was correct. The basis for their decision seems to be an assumption that if a 3 colour flag is copyright in Australia, then every shape is copyright. My argument is that we (WP:AFL on en) weren't notified to allow us to do any moves to enWP under Fair Use, and many of the designs would not be copyright, either due to age, or simplicity of design. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:DAMC05-OldtimerFestival-Jan-Wellem-Pokal-2010.JPG

Hi!

A classic DW issue of models. Can you please have a look on it. Two admins do have contrary opinions on it. Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Family Guy Logo SVG.svg

Hello Mr. James, the reason I am contacting you is because that I really want to know why the file that I uploaded was a copyright violation. I did have a non-copyright and trademark license on that file. There is no reason for it to be deleted without discuss. Also, how come the logos of The Cleveland Show and American Dad is not deleted here? If there still here without deletion, the logo that I uploaded should still be here under no circumstances. --Blurred Lines (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I explained it fairly well at the UnDR:
"In the USA and almost all other countries, all created works have a copyright for many years after creation. Logos may, in addition, be trademarks, which may or may not be registered, but the fact that the logo is a trademark does not affect its copyright status. In order to keep this we would need explicit permission from the show's producers."
In other words -- the fact that it is a trademark is completely irrelevant to the copyright question. All logos created after 1989 in the USA have both a copyright and a common law trademark. The trademark may also be registered.
Commons is not concerned with trademark, except to the extent that we warn users that while an image may be free of copyright problems, it may be a problem if used in a way that infringes on the trademark.
We do take copyright seriously. The subject logo has a copyright. You have offered absolutely no evidence that the owner of the copyright is willing to license it freely, as Commons requires, so it was deleted and your UnDR was turned down.
As for the other files you mention, the fact they may need deletion does not affect this decision. We have more than 18 million files on Commons. Users upload about 8,000 every day. We delete around a quarter of those, 2,000 file every day. I would not be at all surprised if 1% of our 18 million files -- 180,000 -- should be deleted for copvio or other reasons. We do our best to be consistent in our decisions and as an editor one of the ways you can help is to nominate questionable files for deletion by clicking on the "Nominate for deletion" link in the column to the left. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
When you mentioned about all Logos after 1989 are copyrighted, most logo images I've seen have this: {{PD-textlogo}}
That's what the license status was on the image that I uploaded. Also, if you really think that all Logos after 1989 should be deleted because of "copyright problems", that should of been done a long time ago. --Blurred Lines (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The Family Guy logo is copyrightable because of the little TV icon on the "I" in "FAMILY." The Cleveland show does not have a similar thing, so it is not copyrightable. American Dad does have a stylized US flag at the end, which may or may not make it copyrightable; nominate it for DR if you want to find out. -- King of ♠ 01:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
King of Hearts has it exactly right. I left out the fact that if something is too simple, it is ineligible for copyright. This is discussed at Commons:Threshold of originality. The threshold of originality (TOO) varies from country to country. It's probably lowest in Australia, somewhat higher in the UK and higher still in the USA, but the little TV set in this case puts this logo over it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Just curious, do you have any evidence for your claim that the Australian threshold is lower than the British one? COM:TOO#Australia and COM:TOO#United Kingdom only list copyrighted examples but no examples which are below the threshold of originality. The court rulings do not state that the examples are the least complex of all copyrightable things; there may be less complicated things which are copyrightable in both countries. We do not know how much further down we need to go before reaching below the threshold of originality. Compare with for example Germany where we only have examples of logos which are not protected by copyright, without any indication of how much further up you need to go to reach above the threshold of originality. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't, but the Australian Aboriginal Flag is a seriously low bar, so it would be hard to image the UK finding something simpler to copyright. --99of9 (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I carefully said, "it's probably lowest in Australia" -- making no claim, just expressing a guess. I had in mind the Aboriginal flag. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:LilioukalaniGardens Hilo Hawaii panorama.jpg

If the decision is that the image is keepable because the license actually is free, could you please update the image-description page to reflect that licensing decision? It still says it's -NC. DMacks (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

  • No, the license says CC-BY-SA. There is an additional comment, "The copyright owner of this image file originally intended Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND)", which is true. If you think it is appropriate to remove it, you certainly may. Doing that kind of housekeeping is one way you can contribute to Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Mylo Steamwitz and File:Mylo Steamwitz.jpg

Sorry, I don't know how to send messages on this I am fairly new to this, but i would like to know, why did you delete the page Mylo Steamwitz? I created that page for a description of the Character that belonged to the Game Crystal Caves? and the image, I screen capped it, can i still use it here? from Nazza97. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazza97 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 15 September 2013‎ (UTC)

First -- communication. To add a message, click on the "Add topic" or "+" link in the row at the top right that begins "View Edit". Always add your message to the bottom. Sign your message by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end -- that will add both your name and a time stamp. It is helpful if you provide a link to the file or pages under discussion.
Now for your question. I deleted both the File:Mylo Steamwitz.jpg and the gallery page Mylo Steamwitz. The problem with the file is that the game is copyrighted. A screen capture is a derivative work of the copyrighted material and infringes on the game's copyright. We cannot keep images of copyrighted characters on Commons -- you will not find Donald Duck here, for example. You may be able to use the image on WP:EN under its Fair Use Policy.
Once I deleted the file, the gallery page Mylo Steamwitz became useless. Commons gallery pages are intended for collections of two or more images. Commons is a database of media files -- except for brief descriptions on each file, descriptions of game characters belong in WP, not Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Strange new account

Hi Jim. I noticed this new account: User:Jamesawoodward. No edits yet, but maybe worth watching. INeverCry 17:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks -- it's a common name, so maybe he's a distant cousin. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I prefer paranoia over optimism. Face-wink.svg INeverCry 18:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to suggest for a minute that I'm 100% sure that he's an innocent new user. I'm simply assuming good faith unless proven otherwise. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Kitten in a helmet.jpg

Thank you for helping me out with the wikicommons, I really appreciate it.

Nazza97 (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hi Jim
I'm working with a local history group on a GLAM project. "Town A" will be uploading images to Commons from their collection that date before 1923. They own the negatives to these images. "Town B" also has negs of some of these images, and has slapped a copyright on them, on their (Town B's) website. The locations and objects depicted are all located within the current and historic boundaries of Town A. For Commons purposes, are these images still considered pd, even though a copyright (a not legal copyright IMHO) has been placed on them? Thanks Bdcousineau (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Be careful. While 1923 is a key date, it is the date of publication that counts, not the date of creation. Therefore, either or both towns' images may not be out of copyright if they were not previously published. You have to go back to 1893 to have an image by an unknown photographer that is guaranteed PD in the USA. You may find File:PD-US table.svg helpful.
Also remember that owning the negatives does not mean that either town owns any copyrights that might exist. In the USA, transfer of copyright requires an explicit written agreement, although if the negatives were donated to the town long after their creation, I'd be inclined to assume that the copyright was donated with them.
You say
"Town B" also has negs of some of these images...".
I'm not sure I understand. There can be only one original negative of an image. If both towns have negatives of the same image, one or both are copies of the original.
Assuming that you can show that Town B's images were published prior to 1923, or between 1923 and 1989 without notice, registration, renewal as required, then they are PD. Under those circumstances, any claim to copyright is Copyfraud. Someone might point out to those in charge in Town B that it is criminal to falsely claim copyright. Assuming you can show beyond a significant doubt that they are PD, Commons should (and probably will) ignore Town B's copyright notice. You should probably explicitly mention Town B's claim and the reason it is bogus in the image descriptions. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. This is exactly what I was hoping for ... we will begin the long discovery process as to which Town owns the original negs - if either does, or if we can "prove" it one way or another. This project will most likely move slowly and with much external advice! And we probably won't sue the next town over, either ... (*_*)
Over on the OpenKnowledge Foundation's email list here we've been debating a term "content trafficking" (which happens as a result of copyfraud) - pls join if it is an area of interest to you! This link is the first page of a passionate debate that is ongoing. The conversation (we're up to Issue 28) has been collated into a more easily readable format, available if it is an area of interest to you.
Have a wonderful day! Bdcousineau (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Macedonian museum

Hi, Jim. You closed Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Macedonian_Museums-71-Pinakothiki_EMS-308.jpg as deleted, but file was not deleted and Fastily removed deletion template. What happened? Taivo (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

apparently, it was undeleted Lx 121 (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, undeleted. When you see a file that was closed as deleted in a DR, but shows up as present, the first thing to do is to click on "View History" (upper right) and then "View logs for this page" (upper left corner). One of three things is possible:

  • The closing Admin didn't actually delete it -- we had a lot of trouble with our DR script 18 months ago, but less of this recently. Notify the closing Admin.
  • Someone uploaded it again -- it's a {{Speedy}} if it's the same file, but it may just be coincidence. Check the file history at the bottom of the file page. If it's the same file, add a {{Speedy}}, if not deal with it as a new file.
  • It was undeleted by an UnDR. Clean up the author / source / license if it hasn't already been done.

I've changed the author/source/license information to match the information turned up in the UnDR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Karl Völker

Dear Jim, I just saw that files File:Karl Völker Deckenbilder in der Kirche zu Schmirma Gesamtansicht.jpg, File:Karl Völker Deckenbilder in der Kirche zu Schmirma Auferstehung.jpg, File:Karl Völker Glasfenster Thomaskirche Erfurt Adam Eva.jpg and File:Karl Völker Bahnhof.jpg are deleted or requested to be deleted. I just can confirm you that I have the permissions of the artist´s heirs. I will upload everything again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringelreigen (talk • contribs) 22:05, 18 September 2013‎ (UTC)

Hello, Ringelreigen. Please do not upload the files again -- that is a violation of policy. Please send a license (or have a representative of the heirs send a license) using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. When you have done that, please put another message here telling me so and I will undelete the files and mark them correctly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello

hello how are you, i'm really sorry i'm just notice now the a massege about the "File:Arab Christian.jpg" which is a collage picture can you make it back I think I can replace the "one source image that has been deleted". most of the collags pictures in the file are found in Wikimedia commons and the source image that has been deleted I can replaced with anther picture that is in the project. Thank you so much and sorry that I noticed just now.--Jobas1 (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  • No problem. Just replace the bad image with a good one and upload it with the same name. Give my a note here, and I'll change the DR to show that it was kept after the change. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I replaced the bad picture if you can change the DR. --Jobas1 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the DR, but you need to check to see that the file list is correct, both for content and for order. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

yes the file list is correct. Thank you for your help :) but can you change the DR of this file File:Arab Christians.jpg instid of the File:Arab Christian.jpg.--Jobas1 (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not understand. The file name is File:Arab Christian.jpg and the DR is for that name. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help 2

I have links to some images on my user page if you think any of those are notable could you publish them here for me? Since obviously i can't or i will get banned.

thanks. Xiornik (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  • We do not host the work of non notable artists. You may like your work, but unless it can be shown that the world also likes it, it will not be hosted here. You also cannot link to images that would not be permitted on Commons, so I have removed the links on your user page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert

the images deleted from my account and i'll give the proper atribuition (Thepalerider2012 (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

Commons:Deletion requests/Luxembourg-Findel International Airport

Hi Jameslwoodward, sorry, but I do not understand why do you deleted File:Sandweiler Radar an Hangar.jpg. The law of Luxembourg says that A copyright holder may not prevent the reproduction and communication of [his or her] works located in a publicly accessible place, when such works do not constitute the primary subject of the reproduction or communication. And there isn't any primary subject in the image. Regards, --VT98Fan (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the image but two copyrighted works of architecture. Although some English scholars might argue that there can be only one "principal subject", the fact is that the two buildings are equally important to the image so that I see both as principal. (Note that the French uses "sujet principal" rather than "sujet primaire").
As a secondary factor, in this age of protecting airports from terrorism, I doubt very much that the radar and hanger are accessible to the public. Note that the law requires that the subject be accessible, not merely that the photograph was taken from an accessible place, so taking the picture through a fence from a public road would not qualify.
Feel free to file an Undeletion Request. If you do, I will oppose it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Martyrs' Lane Mosque Baku.jpg

Hello. Please, could you restore this file for me? I'll make a copy and then you can delete it again. --Interfase (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Please let me know here when you are done. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, if the purpose was to help clarify a situation on en-wp, that's been cleared up now, thanks. – Fut.Perf. 23:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim. I uploaded it into en-wp. Now you can delete it again. --Interfase (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi, as a member of the Dutch OTRS-team I am trying to arrange permission for some pictures of those large rubber ducks. A employe of the company which took the picture gave his permission. Is this enough? --Natuur12 (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two copyrights for each image -- the copyright of the photograph and the copyright of the duck itself, which qualifies as a sculpture under the law everywhere (as far as I know -- there may be an obscure exception somewhere). Even with a license from the photographer, we would also need a license from the creator of the duck(s). Both licenses would have to come through OTRS..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try to get the permission. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Image copyright problem

Image uploaded here[34] claims it first came to the German edition of Wikipedia in April, 2006; the image here is listed as authorized via Creative Commons. However, the same image posted here [35] in Flickr at roughly the same date claims a full copyright status with no Creative Commons license; this is further complicated by an individual claiming ownership of the image in Flickr who is apparently not the same individual as the one who uploaded it into Wikipedia. Bmac49 (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

One of three things is possible:

  • It was, in fact, actually taken by our user and the Flickr user took it from us.
  • It was taken by the Flickr user and our user took it from Flickr.
  • The two users are the same person.

We generally give not only Assume Good Faith but the benefit of the doubt to images that have been here since the early days. Although this line of reasoning is explicitly prohibited by COM:PRP, I am inclined to say that since it has been here for seven years and is widely used on WP, it is probably OK. Since this is the only photograph of Cyanopsitta spixii that we have, I would not like to give it up without further evidence. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, it took me less than five minutes to establish that the original uploader of the image in Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia was a German national. The individual who uploaded it into Flickr and claimed full copyright is a Spaniard. Two different languages, two different people. Bmac49 (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
You asked for my personal opinion, and I gave it to you, without any investigation on my part. If you don't agree, put a {{Delete}} on the image and discuss it with the whole community. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi James. With all due respect, I think you should reconsider your personal opinion. The facts that we have no convenient replacement image, and that a copyright violation has gone on for a long time, are neither valid reasons in the least for not deleting the image. As an admin, you should either delete it immediately or nominate it for deletion immediately. That's what admins should be doing - working to improve the site by adhering to the highest possible ethical rules.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
While the Flickr version indeed says "Taken on April 15, 2006," this date is merely populated by information pulled from the metadata (indeed, see the "Date and time of data generation" metadata field of the image uploaded to the Commons). However, if you hover your mouse over the that date on Flickr, you will see the actual date of upload to Flickr: July 2, 2010. This image was uploaded to de.wiki on August 5, 2006, nearly 4 years before being uploaded to Flickr. What is the problem here? Эlcobbola talk 17:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
You don't even have to mouseover - the page says clearly that the uploader has only been a Flicker member since 2009. --Avenue (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
And other images uploaded by that de.wiki user (Robert01) were taken with the same camera model (Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL - see Hoehlensalmler.jpg, for example). Эlcobbola talk 17:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@Jimbo. I would like to think that I do adhere to the highest ethical standards, both here and in my real life. As my colleagues have pointed out, the image has been here much longer than on Flickr. We must constantly balance Assuming Good Faith on the part of our users with conflicting information from elsewhere. In this case, I would rather believe a long term user (2006 - 2013) in good standing than a Flickr account -- I have seen too much copyfraud on Flickr.

As for my not acting on it, Bmac49 chose to ask for my opinion rather than simply nominating it him or herself. As someone who does not read German or Spanish, I am not the ideal person to investigate an image that is either German or Spanish, so I chose to give my opinion and let Bmac49 do with it what he or she might. While I certainly start my share of DRs, I tend to try to leave that to non-Admins and save my time for work that requires an Admin. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, Bmac49 did create a malformed deletion request on the file's talk page. I've converted that to a proper request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spixara.jpg. If Bmac49 is able to rebut the information Avenue and I have presented, s/he is welcome to do so there. More importantly, though, if there is an editor more ethical than Jim, I've yet to encounter them. Эlcobbola talk 19:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I've stumbled on that case only now. Jim, what you had done was fully correct in that situation. Besides, the keep-result of the DR has confirmed that a posteriori. I wonder why Jimbo chimed in with that specific image. --Túrelio (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I, too, wonder. It certainly doesn't help the project when the Founder calls the ethics of an active member into question over a close decision on a single image. There are certainly moments when I wonder whether this work is worth all the baloney that comes our way. Only the support of colleagues like Эlcobbola, Avenue, you, and others not involved in this case keeps me going. Thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Chin up Jim, keep up the good work, I think I might drop a note on Jimmy's talk page asking him to chill out in future. russavia (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I contacted Celisa B.M.Serra and the reply is "I posted this picture a long time ago, taken from Wikipedia, by the time I posted photos to explain certain subjects. I apologize if used wrongly, already retired from my gallery." JKadavoor Jee 06:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for proving what all the experienced editors who commented above suspected from the start. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi James; I appreciate your works here, in Commons. You are one of the good admins in my list. I remember when you apologised to Yathin on behalf of the admins for his image being deleted without proper research. I have no doubt on your ethical standards.
But unfortunately many of the admins (not all) here are on the opposite side. They are rude to our contributors; not willing to say a word of apology when corrected. And their main interest is to wait for a chance; and use it for their benefits. Here also it happened.
I don’t think Jimmy attacked you. His comment "The facts that we have no convenient replacement image, and that a copyright violation has gone on for a long time, are neither valid reasons in the least for not deleting the image." is against your comment “We generally give not only Assume Good Faith but the benefit of the doubt to images that have been here since the early days. Although this line of reasoning is explicitly prohibited by COM:PRP, I am inclined to say that since it has been here for seven years and is widely used on WP, it is probably OK.” That is only truth; we have to delete any important work if proved a copyvio. And it is our responsibility to investigate if got a complaint. But unfortunately none of us even try to contact the Flickr user. Instead we prefer to attack the person who supports the claim. Do we swallow our words if the reply of the Flickr user was different?
This is not the first time I contacted a Flickr user for clarification; did it several times. And it is worthier than tons of meaningless arguments. I wish if “we” people are willing to accept some degree of criticism and willing to take and convert it to improve the credibility of Commons than force out anybody who come here with an unpleasing comment. Thanks James for your understanding; I’m happy to help you whenever possible, without part with any sides. :) JKadavoor Jee 06:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Do photos need to be exclusive to Wikimedia Commons?

Dear Jim, First of all, thank you for taking copyright issues seriously. I’m a writer who’s trying to make a living from copyrighted material, so I appreciate what you do.

I’ve added the photo “Christian Jungersen.jpg” to Wikimedia Commons, and yesterday you chose to delete it because it can be found other places on the internet. Could I please ask you to send me a few words about the problem?

The photo is a picture of me. I have commissioned it, I have paid the photographer to have full copyright and be able to use it in whatever form I want, wherever I want. The photo is available for free on this page on my website. www.christianjungersen.com/contact/ (Under “Author photos” you click “Download”. The image in question is a detail from the photo on the top left on the page.)

You are right to mention that the photo already appears on the site www.artebooking.dk. This is because Artebooking is one of my agents for lectures and readings. I have supplied them with the photo. The photos from www.christianjungersen.com also appear on numerous other websites of libraries, literary festivals etc. This is because I, being the copyright owner, have given the copyright free for everybody to use in whatever way they want.

I’m sorry to bother you, but in order to proceed it seems I have to know: Does your deletion of the photo mean that Wikipedia can’t illustrate articles about me with any of the photos that I have bought and own the copyright to? Do I need to have a new photo taken exclusively for Wikimedia?

Thank you in advance, Christian Jungersen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris4321 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 23 September 2013‎ (UTC)

If a photo is uploaded first (or only) to Wikimedia Commons, then generally we automatically assume the uploader is the creator and copyright holder of the image. However, if it already exists elsewhere, then the uploader could very well be an imposter who downloaded the image from the other site and then uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons pretending to be the copyright holder. In this cases, you have to send an email to COM:OTRS (the address needs to be one of those listed on your contact page) to prove that you are Christian Jungersen. -- King of ♠ 18:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
KoH has it exactly right -- we are happy to have images which appear elsewhere, but when they have appeared on a site that is not freely licensed, such as www.artebooking.dk, then we require the additional step of having the copyright holder send a license to OTRS. This is for the protection of the copyright holder -- you might be surprised at the number of fans who claim that they are X, the famous writer, and submit a copyrighted image for use on his WP page.
And, by the way, please sign your postings. As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to 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). For further information, read Commons:Talk page guidelines. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

--Chris4321 (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Okay. Thanks. --Chris4321 (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

WMF-VE-reference-steps

This is a page you deleted this morning (log). FYI I've requested undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#WMF-VE-reference-steps. No need to reply, I'm not watching this page. - Pointillist (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jim

I'm sorry that I have to bother you again, but User:Pava has just recently made disruptive edits, specifically license changes despite warnings, asking an dadmin for out of process undeletion and after that request was unanswered, he reuploaded the deleted files on his own. And he also edited as an IP-Adress to remove deletion requests from, but unfortunately, I can't offer you no difflink to prove that, cause the file was deleted in the meantime. Best regards.--FAEP (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Permission=CC-BY-SA-2.0-DE.
and {{self|Cc-by-sa-2.0}}
You and Pava seem to be arguing about which of the two versions the license should be. There should be no legal difference between the German and the English versions of the CC-BY-SA license, so it should not matter. Since the original uploader was German, I would be inclined to use the German version, but I don't think it really matters.
  • On the second point, I don't read Italian, and the Google translation is essentially unintelligible, so I don't think I can help.
  • As for the reuploads, I looked at the first three files on the list and they are all names that have not been used before. Since it's clear that Fastily's closure kept a lot of files that should have been deleted, I will go through the cat again and do a new nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
the deletion procedure was done partially and marginally and there was no response from Fastly in the discussion and argument deletion, without consent and without any real attention to the points and things that I had said. If you want to delete a file again, you have to discuss it well and carefully before deleting, and decisions must be applied to all files in the same position, in the countryside of cancellation more than half the file was kept arbitrarily. also FAEP (but you ignore what is behind: haunting me for months for no reason and I reported several times) had to come and write to me do not try to discredit me with other body 4 users without my knowledge. But now I know how it is done, the collaboration between users and the good of the commons are not his interests. these behaviors should be punished I'm sorry that put you in the middle also to his personal issues, without any real interest in the commons, and even finding excuses surface each time to open questions.--Pava (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

LdP aka FoP in Italy

Do you agree with the content of this file File:Freedom of panorama and Wikimedia Commons.pdf ? Please, reply in my it.wiki talk page. Thank you :) (A few month ago I quoted you here. You can find you with your nickname "Jim". :-) ) Raoli ✉ (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is generally OK, although it covers some complex topics very rapidly. I think the "Problems: section is one person's opinion and while strictly accurate, puts a different emphasis on things than I would. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
In general, therefore, apart from the section "Problems", would you subscribe this file as a propedeutic guide for new users? Raoli ✉ (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
"propedeutic" -- a word I've never seen before -- good word, thank you.
Not really. I think it is a good slide deck for a talk -- with extra comments from the speaker and questions from the audience -- but it is too simplistic for a written guide. It's also very slow to page through it. I think that the lead to COM:FOP does a better job of introduction (I should add that I was a significant contributor to it, so it is natural that I should like it). The rest of COM:FOP then provides backup to the lead. Also, COM:FOP is available in eight languages, which will certainly helpful to many, including, I guess, Italians that you might be introducing to Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the implicit advice. In my spare time I'm translating the slides into Italian, but I go at a snail's pace because an example is not always well-fitting for the Italian or a law is not often clear to Italian people. I find your commitment to the project very useful (it.giovevole). (Usually, when the page is too long it's not read by most.) Howsoever, as soon as I find time, I'll translate the page which you like so much. :) I promise you. ++Raoli ✉ (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry -- when I saw "Italiano" in the header, I assumed that it was translated, but I see now that it is just a link. It would certainly be a good thing if you translated at least the lead section and put it in place before the two links. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Jim, not to make you waste time, but the above user has been using for months the Wikimedia projects for its crusade against the so called "Freedom of Panorama", creating mass deletions of Italian photographs about which was not possible a discussion (having little time for deciding on a lot of photos). Plus the user was desysopped on it.wikivoyage and banned on it.wikiquote for not collaborating behaviour and insults and personal attacks, and on it.wiki has been warned not to propose mass deletions when in matter of a controversial matter like FoP in Italy, which is a matter not at all clear: in fact the no-FoP has never been enforced in Italy and that user's source are just the opinion of a laywer, not a judge's pronouncement. The only official pronouncement about the FoP in Italy is about a vice-minister in 2008 that said that 'there is no prohibition of panorama in Italy apart from the artworks exposed in museums and such, which are subject to the law of protection of artwoks'. I have warned him to drop this matter until there will be clear legal cases to write down a guide line (even on the ground that the Italian laws have nuances that only an Italian can deal with). My advice is that no-FoP must be valued case by case, because a guideline in this moment is not proposable, and Raoli was well warned about that. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. At the moment it is Commons policy that there is no FOP in Italy. Your remarks seem to suggest that there is some uncertainty about this -- OK, I value that - but the fact is that unless the law specifically grants FOP, the general rule applies, which is that an image of a building is a DW. The fact that there have been no cases challenging the lack of FOP in Italy is specifically addressed by COM:PRP at point #1. In most cases, architects would be happy to have images of their work out there, so they are unlikely to spend the large amounts necessary to sue, but that, too, is addressed by COM:PRP, at point #3. Until someone can show that the law actually has an ambiguity, no Italian FOP will remain Commons policy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Well Jim, often for the foreigners is not easy to deal with the Italian laws (no offence meant of course: simply one must be Italian in order to understand - and not even always - the peculiarity of the Italian way to approach laws) because they reason according to: «If the law says X, then X». The problem is that there are laws in Italy that are not enforced at all for several reasons, and the praxis in Italy is that when a right is not enforced for long it is implicitly lost (i.e.: if you use a real estate for 20+ years and its owner doesn't claim it back, the owner losts their right of property). As for the FoP, provided that there is no law in Italy that explicitly forbids FoP, there is not at all a history of lawsuits for trading images of architectures which creators haven't died for 70+ years. The reasons are several but the strongest of them is that usually the architect is not the owner of the work and in Italy who is not owner of a work has no title to enforce any rights. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
In the following, I'm not trying to argue with you -- I admit that I don't understand the subtleties of the Italian legal system -- just point out that your discussion is not clear and convincing. If your point of view is correct (and I take no position on that) then it needs clear and convincing explanation so that we, at Commons, can handle the issue correctly.
I'm not sure I understand your example -- it is one thing to say that if an owner doesn't use his property for twenty years -- or allows someone else to use it (as a path, for example) then he can no longer object -- that is true in some of the United States. However, your use in this context suggests that you are saying that if an owner doesn't use his property for twenty years then all owners everywhere lose rights to their property, which is, of course, absurd. Just because owner A does not enforce his copyright cannot possibly mean that owner B loses his -- or does it?
This also suggests that an owner who fails to enforce any of his rights under copyright loses his rights -- that is, if I ignore occasional copying of my novel for twenty years, then I lose the copyright for the novel. Is that the case? If this rule applies only to the FOP aspects of copyright, how do you know this?
"there is no law in Italy that explicitly forbids FoP" has it backwards. Ordinary copyright law forbids FOP -- DWs of a copyrighted work are infringements. FOP is an exception and unless it is present in the law, you may not create DWs except for personal use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Lost of rights: in English is called "usucaption". If you own a land which is possessed by someone else - no matter whether in good or bad faith - you lose your right of property over it after 20 consecutive uninterrupted years from the moment you notice that this "someone else" is possessing it and nonetheless you don't claim your property back. I'm sorry if I was not clear. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that -- as I said above, it is true in some (but not all) of the United States, particularly with respect to the use of a right of way. It is also true that if you do not enforce trademark rights, you can lose the exclusive right to the trademark (e.g. Thermos, Zipper). However both of these are explicitly written in the law.
My problem with your statement above was that you seem to suggest that the fact that Architect A has not enforced his copyright and therefore may have lost his rights somehow directly affects Architect B's copyright in a different building. Also it is not clear to me why this should be true of FOP issues, but not of making a scan of a book. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. I'll try to be more specific. Let's apart that in Italy the work must be relevant for notability or creativity (i.e. a simple concrete stand of a stadium is not per se copyrightable, as well as a building with no particular architectural interest), but this is the minor issue. The major issue is that - unlike a book or a film - the author of an architecture work doesn't own that work and - not being the owner - has not the exclusive right to earn money (briefly said) from the work they created. Note that he has the right, but not the exclusive right. Another entity entitled to do that is, i.e., the owner itself. Especially if the owner is the State or regional subdivision (like ie the municipalities). Now, Italy stated with a specific law what are its own works that must be protected - the infamous "Legge Urbani" - (ie some artworks exposed into museums); whatever not mentioned in that law must not be intended as 'protected'. You must admit that would be bizarre if by paradox I couldn't use commercially photos of my own house if it were designed by a famous architect still living... --- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
PS I told you is a very complicate and not linear matter, I apologise for making you waste your time reading these notes.

Actually I don't find it bizarre at all. It is well established that I cannot commercially use images of works of art (paintings, sculptures) or literary works (books) that I own unless I have separately purchased the copyright to them or unless they are PD by age. I don't see why my house would be any different. I certainly can't build another house like it without a new license from the architect. If I took a photograph of my own house in the USA from a place other than a public street, I would have no right to license it to Commons unless it were pre-1990. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that a record, a dvd or a book are "copies" of the work; you don't own the work but the right to see or read it at home as much as you want. You "own" the house instead, which is generally a unique work... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 20:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Anyway the case presented by Raoli has nothing to do with FoP. It was the case of an architect who authorised the photographer to take photos of a villa from a point not publicly accessible for them to be published on a given magazine indicated in the contract, and in a second moment the photographer sold the photos to one more magazine, violating the contract. Thus the matter was about the violation of a previous agreement according to which the photos had to be published on one only magazine. No authorization would be required for taking photos from a public place....
Your comment before the PS is correct, but ignores the case of paintings and sculpture. Also, if I bought the physical manuscript for a book, I would not own the copyright. I think you can safely say that as a generally rule the right to copy a created work of any kind does not automatically go with ownership of the work, so the distinction you draw between the owner of a building and its architect is not different from other works.
Maybe that's enough on this for now -- although it's an interesting discussion, we both have other things to do here and in the real world. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure, you've been extremely kind dedicating part of your time for chatting with me, thanks. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 19:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

this is how it works Fastily:

here Commons:Deletion requests/File:" 12 - ITALY - Manichino carrozzeria Bertone per Alfa Romeo Giulietta Sprint - wood tecnical model.JPG is how it works this user:

ignored, as already imagined that you opened the discussion and comments to 5 users, and deleted to re-upload a photo that had never been loaded before, because he has not gone to see if that picture had already been charged or no. E 'with this that I'm complaining about how bad cancellations are carried out here, so I must ask you a question: who should I contact or where should I contact to report my disappointment on the work of an administrator? There will be a place where the work of those who must protect the quality of commons is discussed.

For the photo: I am requesting ORST (although it had already been explained that it was canceled for the wrong reasons and Fulvio already had explained that the copyright had expired but here no one listens to anyone, and it is a very worrying behavior.

thank you (in advance) for your understanding and cooperation --Pava (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Sophie yau carnivale 22 sept 2010.jpg

You deleted this file recently but both of the statements you made were wrong. I am the author as well as the uploader and a full Creative Commons license exists for this upload and was clearly shown on the page. Secondly, the reason I gave for deletion is perfectly valid and went unchallenged (and without comment) by administrators for the several other Images I deleted this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.121.141.129 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 28 September 2013‎ (UTC)

The author was shown as "Peter Trail" and the uploader was User:Chi2. While you, User:31.121.141.129, may certainly be one or both of them, there is no obvious connection between any of the three. When the listed author is not the uploader, we require permission, so there was, in fact, no valid license for the file.
On the other hand, the reason for deletion given by Chi2 was not valid -- if the file is redundant, then the nom must state what file it is redundant to, or it will be kept. The fact that the file is not used on Commons, WP, or anywhere else is never a reason for deletion if it might realistically be used for an educational purpose. I would not have deleted it if it had not been for the fact that there was no valid license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's still wrong on both counts. A valid licence exists and I am both the author and uploader as well as the person who made these previous comments. Of course there is an obvious link between all three, my email was used to register this account (and that uses my name) my Creative Commons license was e-mailed to the same account and here I am logged in now. The very fact that this site allows users to use a username that is not their real name, disproves your point. As for your insistence that the reason I gave not being a valid one for deletion, that's your opinion and nothing more. I have asked for deletion of several images for the same reason this week and of three administrators doing that work, you are the only one who holds that opinion. That doesn't qualify as site policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chi2 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 30 September 2013‎ (UTC)

This is getting repetitious, but I'll try one more time. I do not understand "my email was used to register this account". There is no e-mail required to register an account. You have not provided an e-mail address to enable users to send you e-mail, but even if you had, that e-mail address would not be public. It is possible for a Checkuser to connect your IP address to your Username, but Checkusers are not allowed to do that except in cases of suspected abuse. There is certainly no connection between your real name and your Username unless you choose it. Therefore my statement that there is no obvious connection between "Peter Trail", User:Chi2, and User:31.121.141.129 is precisely correct. It is fundamental WMF policy to be very careful to preserve anonymity.
You have twice said that other Admins have deleted files that were unused or said to be redundant. You have not provided links to those deletions, so it is difficult to respond to your comments. Nowhere at Commons:Deletion policy does it even hint that an unused file may be deleted. Redundant files are discussed:
"Redundant or low quality files only get deleted on a case by case basis after they are listed at Commons:Deletion requests. At deletion requests you will need to provide reasons why a particular file is inferior to the alternative version"
which is precisely what I said above.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. You wanted the file deleted, and I deleted it, albeit for a different reason than your request. If you're trying to prove that you're right and I'm wrong, that won't happen. On both issues, my comments are based not on my opinion, but on fundamental policy that I have cited above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Babak motavalli44.jpg

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Babak motavalli44.jpg you deleted two files, File:Babak motavalli44.jpg and File:Babak motavalli.jpg, but the latter was not nominated for deletion there. Did you perhaps misrecognized that? FWIW, in another DR, File:Babak motavalli.jpg is argued to be kept. --whym (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I deleted File:Babak motavalli.jpg because it is very similar to File:Babak motavalli44.jpg and the same arguments applied. I had not seen the other DR until you mentioned it above. You may certainly file an Undeletion Request if you wish. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and recommending an undeletion request. I have started it. --whym (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I was already writing a comment on the preceding UnDR, so I've commented there. You may want to sign your comment there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

historical photos

Explain me why you deleted my grandpa photo. Single person with uniform. More than 85 years old photo. You completely ruined his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarek czarek (talk • contribs) 2:21, 29 September 2013‎ (UTC)

I did not delete it, but it was deleted because there is no reason to believe that you own the copyright and have the right to license it. 85 years is far too short a time to assume that it is out of copyright -- in most countries, copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Licensing works by Rob C. Croes on the Dutch 'Nationaal Archief' website

Hi Jim, much to my surprise File:Portrait_of_Rudi_Fuchs_in_1985.jpg is deleted from Commons although, i had just checked it a few days ago, and it was explicitly licensed by the National Archive (Nationaal Archief) in the Netherlands as CC-BY-SA. which can be seen here.

There are more pictures by photographer Rob C. Croes on WikimediaCommons and all of them seem to have this CC-BY-SA license, (probably the photographer worked as a contractor for the Dutch gouvernment and agreed to release his work to the public domain).

Yes, the website has an overall copyright notice, but i think in this case the individual licensing of the particular works in the database as printed next to the images prevail. I wonder why just this file was deleted from commons and can it be made undone if it was a mistake? Decisions made here about this particular licensing sitch would have an impact on thousands of images available to Commons, so I hope we know exactly what we're doing here.

Here I even found a page on the national archive website explicitly stating the intent to coöperate "join" with wikipedia. Best regards, Pelikana (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  • My apologies -- I did actually look at the source site, but I did not see the CC-BY-SA buried in the description to the right of the image. I have restored it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Quincy Masonic Temple

I don't know if you're still in the Quincy area, but the Masonic Temple there was damaged by fire today. Is there any chance of you (or someone you know in the area) getting pictures soon (assuming what's left may be torn down). Magic♪piano 00:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know -- although I often have free time, this week is particularly complicated and we have moved -- not far, but we are now at the other end of the Southeast Distressway from Quincy. All I can say is, "Maybe." .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

COM:AN#IP block exemption

Hi Jim, could you consider the request at COM:AN#IP block exemption? I always prefer if this kind of requests are handled by CUs or stewards. Thanks in advance. -- Rillke(q?) 18:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done INC beat me to it, but I would have made the same decision. He is exempt on both WP:DE and WP:FR and looks to be a good contributor. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

How many times does this happen?

How many times do you simply blank the other person in a copyright discussion in order to win the debate? Or are you going to continue to insist that PRP means that I have to find UK case law to prove my point, while all you have to do is just make vague unsubstantiated claims about the generic case. Even though anyone can see that this is an issue that will have never ever got to a court. Other than physically mailing you a dictionary to explain the meaning of basic English words like original, literary work, novel purpose, etc etc, what more evidence is needed before you will accept what is blindingly obvious in this case, that chucking together a few common phrases onto a sign for a purpose that is neither original or unique, is not, never has, and never will be, ruled an original literary work by a UK court. The real truth it that this is is such an extraordinary claim, the burden should be on you to prove that something so totally off base from basic copyright principles has ever become part of UK case law. This is not broad TOO, this is not exercising PRP, this is just obstinance, pure and simple. All you've succeeded in doing here is deprive Commons of a perfectly legitimate image, and apparently further a myth believed by some that all images of signs are considered derivative works just because they contain text, which is obviously total nonsense (or do I have to provide case law before I can argue a basic point like that, too?). Ultra7 (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more you want here. Five experienced Administrators (Mattbuck, HJ Mitchell, Nilfanion, Fastily, and me) agree that the eight sentences and sixty plus words of text here would clearly have a copyright. Against that we have your own repeated assertions that it would not. Not one of the 25,000 active users on Commons chose to support your point of view in the three days that the UnDR was open or in your discussion at VP.
As for proof, yes, it is up to you to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is PD. Although that goes against our real world assumption of innocence until proven guilty, it is fundamental policy on Commons, see COM:PRP. We operate on the rule that when in doubt, we delete.
I would welcome a serious investigation into the TOO for text in the UK and USA -- we do, as you say, routinely delete images of signs that have more than a few words on them. In "Copyright Basics", USCO Circular 1, the US Copyright Office says
[The following are not protected ...] titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents..."
Note "short phrases" -- that suggests that even one full sentence would be copyrighted in the USA. I wouldn't push that too hard, but in this case we have eight sentences and sixty plus words. That goes far beyond "short phrases". It would be a great help to our ability to keep images of signs on Commons if you could clarify the TOO, but unless and until you can show that it is much higher than the five of us think, this image will remain deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
What I want is a 'review' process that is able to handle a little bit more than basics like the number of words below which text is definitely not copyrighted. What I want is for a review process where, if people claim to be experienced, it means that they are able to address a cogent defence made for a specific image with some cogent rebuttals of their own. What I really don't expect from such a process, is to be ignored, or to be given simply a restatement of copyright basics, or to hear the advancement of the quite unbelievable idea that being precautionary is all about not accepting any non-rudimentary point unless it is backed up by case law. The PRP refers to significant doubt - inherent in that, there is at least an expectation that the people expressing such doubt should have already investigated the specific issues that affect a specific case, such as the question here of the originality and purpose of the text, and are not simply expressing doubt because their own experience does not extend beyond rudimentary knowledge of copyright. Ultra7 (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
On one level, I can say that you have gotten the attention of five people who between them had close to a million actions on WMF projects. With 150,000 edits here, you are clearly are their equal in experience, but after an UnDR and at the VP you have not found anyone who shares your point of view. Ultimately, for better or worse, that is how WMF projects work -- the community develops a consensus and acts on it. You reject the thought that case law would be helpful and resent my quote from Copyright Basics, but don't offer a path to showing that the words "short phrases" includes eight sentences and sixty words. Without examples of texts of this length that have been rejected for copyright, how do we reconcile this?
On another level, yes, I wish we had a better process. In an ideal world, we would have formally trained copyright experts to render opinions -- but, of course, people who understand the various copyright laws worldwide are scarce and expensive. For me, the closest thing we have is Carl Lindberg, whose opinion is widely respected. Feel free to consult him. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
You reconcile it by logical deduction and reasoned argument. You accept that Copyright Basics is perhaps not the place to start from when dealing with an issue like UK TOO of literary works. You stop pretending that case law is the be all and end all of PRP and actually take on board what that principle is really about, and what role a consensus based discussion has in it when it is conducted properly - when people are being listened to and responded to, properly. I didn't fail to offer a path, you simply chose to ignore the one I outlined, which is not the same at all. There was no consensus here, you simply won by default by virtue of the majority either not noticing or caring that the aforementioned failures were all present. Simply asking Carl really doesn't fix systemic issues like this. Ultra7 (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

File:British Overseas Airways Corporation (logo).svg

Think you might have forgotten one little thing when closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Overseas Airways Corporation (logo).svg! LGA talkedits 19:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Second nominations deprive us of DelReqHandler and I get out of the rhythm. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

changed user name

changed user name and reloaded the file hope this is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliotte40 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 7 October 2013‎ (UTC)

That's good, thank you. I added the category Category:Polyplectron bicalcaratum. Categories are essential to our process -- without them it would impossible to find images relevant to a particular topic among our 18,00,000. See Commons:Categories, which is a little dense, but will give you the basics. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Rudno, Železniki

Also File:Postcard of Rudno, Železniki (4).jpg has been nominated for deletion. Thank you. Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 19:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Stanislaw Trabalski

Hello, Stanislaw Trabalski is the great-great-grandfather of my wife. Last year, here grandmother by Eleanore Trabalski Trabalski died. My wife and I have inherited their entire stock of private archives. Here are a lot of photos, books and maunskripte. The photo of Stanislaw and Lohagen is photographed on May 1, 1946 by Eleanore Trabalski. The same goes for photos of Franz and Trabalski for Richard Lipinski. Best Regards--Bernd Rieke (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

  • In that case, the images are obviously not your work, as you claimed -- they are the work of Eleanore Trabalski. You must change the image descriptions to show that. In order to keep them, Commons will need a license from your wife, as the heir of the photographer, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. You should also add the tag {{OTRS pending}} to each image after the e-mail has been sent. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, it was my mistake sorry. I did not know better. Please help me to put the licenses correctly. best regards--Bernd Rieke (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
All of the images made by Eleanore Trabalski should have descriptions that read something like this:
Author = Eleanore Trabalski
Source = Personal files of the great-great-granddaughter and heir of the author
And the license tag should be {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


Please tell me what "OTRS pending" is? For emails unfortunately I need a little time, I have to bring my wife to the hospital, she is operated at the spine. I hope the time will not be a problem?best regards--Bernd Rieke (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
OTRS is the acronym for our system of receiving e-mail licenses, see COM:OTRS. The tag {{OTRS pending}} simply means that the e-mail has been sent, but not yet processed. Since OTRS, like almost all of Commons, is a volunteer group, it can sometimes take several weeks for the e-mail to reach the head of the queue, so the tag is just an alert to all of us to expect it and not delete the image for a reasonable time.
I am sorry that your wife is not well -- my wife had spine surgery 30 years ago and it was a nervous time for us both, but all turned out very well. You can certainly take time, or, if your wife tells you to send the e-mail, it would be OK for you to send it in her name. We stretch the rules a little when the copyright owner is not able to send an e-mail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

Hello Jim, I'm sorry, I was confused between the two pages, ya I created this category Third Celebration Conference, Egypt- October 2013 and i added the photos of Cairo conference. Thanks.--لا روسا (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  • No problem -- it's a very common error -- I've done it myself half a dozen times. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Botacyclem

Hello, I saw you had a mail of Botacyclem, that's why I bring under your attention the following: after I renamed a file of User:Botacyclem, I got some foolish edits and pseudo-blocks from 24.48.6.65 (talk contribs WHOIS RBL abusefilter tools guc stalktoy block user block log) and User:ProhibitedUser200008. I suspect them to be sockpuppets of user:Botacyclem. Greetings. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

They are probably not related -- the three are on two continents and in three countries. However, the inspection turned up a couple of other names which I will follow up on, so thank you.... .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Newport SuperDragons

Could you please apply this rationale to Category:Gromit unleashed and Category:CowParade as was discussed at the DR? -mattbuck (Talk) 06:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't simply blow them all away -- our policy is that all FOP cases require a DR, even if a closely related one has been closed as deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi. I think you forgot to delete one file here. Alex (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Haus Ruhreck

Can you please provide a reason for keeping those images? When I took them I did not know that the way to the building has only private access, see here. So the images were NOT taken from public ground, which is necessary under FOP Germany. -- Smial (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Sorry for the delay -- DelReqHandler, which Admins use to close DRs failed for some reason to post my closing comment and it happened to be the moment when I went off to breakfast. As I said at the DR, because the building was built in 1878, it is safe to assume that the architect(s) died before 1943, so the building is PD. FOP is required only if the underlying work is still copyrighted. Also, copyright for architecture is relatively new in most countries -- although I have not researched it (I don't read German), I would be surprised if the building ever had a copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
    • You are right, FOP was the wrong reason for the deletion request. Actually these images are a violation of privacy, as described in [[36]], because they were accidentally taken from private area, not from public ground. -- Smial (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, I don't read German, but Google translate gave me the rough outline of your cite. I am also aware of the German reaction against Google StreetView, which is, of course, taken from public streets. It is hard for an American, even one who has traveled very widely, as I have, to completely grasp the European view of privacy. There is no question in the USA that any image taken from a public street (ala StreetView) is perfectly OK, and any general image taken from private property would be OK under the law in most (maybe all) of the fifty states unless the property were fenced or at least posted with "No Trespassing" signs. Of course that does not mean that you can walk up to a window and point your camera inside (or even look inside), but certainly none of the images of Haus Ruhreck would be a problem if the building was in, say, Massachusetts. Since this is a non-copyright issue, I think the best handling is to leave them on Commons, but, perhaps, add a note about the possible privacy rights. We have {{Personality rights}}, but I don't think we have a similar template for real estate.
By the way, I think your English is far better than the EN-1 shown at User:Smial. There is nothing in the two comments above to suggest that you are not a native speaker. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I need dict.leo.org and google translate to write understandable sentences, so I'm very slow with writing and reading. Learning english is more than 40 years ago... But in fact commons is good training. I do not have good feelings with the privacy of the people of Haus Ruhreck because of the ticket where someone claimed to blur a car on one of the images, I don't want to get in trouble. The property is in fact completely fenced and has a gate. This looked as if it was defective a long time, so I ignored it that day. Today I think, this was not a good idea. Btw: I never understood this google street view panic in Germany. Photographs taken from public places are allowed, and there are some usable images of cultural heritage monuments at commons which are blurred in streetview, no problem with that ;-) -- Smial (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong deletion

Please, you deleted File:Sulle ferrovie.djvu, the right file, while there was a deletion request for File:Sulleferroviemottura.djvu. Can you fix the issue? Thanks. Problem came probably from a double request - renaming request followed by a deleting request (since a new version had been uploaded by another user). --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 00:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

  • This resulted from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sulleferroviemottura.djvu. I kept the file that our colleague, Prosfilaes, whose opinion I respect, had modified so that it met Commons requirements. That file included the cover, albeit very hard to see. I deleted the other file as a duplicate. The deleted file did not have the cover, but otherwise they were the same. As far as I can see, the file with the cover -- the one I kept -- is the better file. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem is, that the deleted file was already in use by it:s:Indice:Sulle ferrovie.djvu! If you know something about wikisource. you know that a perfect alignment of pages is required, and that there is too a complex text layer from OCR wrapped indo pages.... please revert deletion. We will move fixed metadata into the right file, but consider that metadata is a minimal percentage of the whole information content - perhaps less that 1%. Consider too that contributions of User:Prosfilaes into it.wikisource are none: wikisource is a complex project dependent strictlyu from Commons, we expect help by you here. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 15:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Another Admin has reverted my work, so this ended up where you want it. I think, however, that it was handled backwards -- Prosfilaes eliminated the offending material from the existing file. The file that remains is a second upload of almost the same information. Although the problem is trivial for any given file, we strongly discourage users from fixing minor problems by uploading the file a second time -- it means that these two files will, for all time, take twice as much space as they need to. If volunteers at Wikisource changed their work to the second file without waiting for the Commons process to finish, they made the mistake, not Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi James, Aubrey here, from it.source. Sorry to weight in, but this seems a wonderful opportunity to clarify things between Source projects and Commons. We are not completely familiar with Commons policies, guidelines and suggestions, as you are not about Wikisource. I'd want to reiterate that for us the Commons filename is absolutely important, as we build our indexes from that one. But I'd also like to hear more from you about what is discouraged or not, regarding books djvus. Which categories are suggested? Which pages do you want us to delete from Google Books material? Thanks. --Aubrey (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Cooperation and sharing knowledge is great -- thank you very much for bothering to ask.

My understanding (which may be wrong) of the sequence is

1) File:Sulleferroviemottura.djvu was created with some copyvio pages
2) It was linked and used at Wikisource
3) It was tagged with a DR
4} While the DR was open -- the order of events is unclear:
a) User:Prosfilaes, a very experienced Commons Editor, removed the copyvio material
b) Another user removed slightly more material and uploaded the file under the name File:Sulle ferrovie.djvu
c) Wikisource changed its references to the new file
5) I deleted the new file on the grounds that by preference we keep the old file for its history and it was the file that had been in use at Wikisource.
6) User:Alex_brollo (above) asked me to swap the deletion and I explained why I would rather not
7) Someone recruited User:Jaqen to swap the deletion and he did. From my perspective this was out of process as this should have been resolved here or at an UnDR, but Jaqen was unaware that he was in the middle of a situation.
8) Although it ended up backwards to my preference, it's done and therefore moot.

There were three problems here.

First, before anyone does anything, the DR should run its course. Uploading a replacement file and linking to it while the DR was open was not smart -- the DR could have been closed as a keep.
Second, if a replacement file is needed, as it was, the correct procedure is to upload the new file over the old so that we have only one filename in the system, not two. (This is what User:Prosfilaes did.) While this is trivial in any one instance, we have almost 19,000,000 files on Commons, and that is growing at around 6,000 every day. It is good to save resources wherever we can.
Third, if one is unhappy with the results of a DR, the correct procedure is to discuss it with the closing Admin, as User:Alex_brollo was doing and if that fails -- which it had not yet done -- file an Undeletion Request. Recruiting another Admin without (I assume) telling him the history puts the new Admin in the middle of something without knowing he's there.

For your other questions. A Google scan of a PD book is PD except for any new material added by Google. This is consistent with the fact that if I publish a new print edition of Moby Dick with a new introduction, Melville's text is still PD, but the new introduction has a copyright. The copyright notice should, and usually will, reflect that. Thus all that need be removed is anything that was not in the PD book. whether it is Google material, or a new introduction to Moby Dick.

I can't really help with categories, except to say that they should follow Commons normal procedure. I assume there is a category for books in use at Wikisource to warn Commons users not to tinker with the file. If there isn't, there should be.

More questions? Feel free to ask. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Publication vs. Creation

Hi Jim -

I'm stymied by the publication vs. creation nuance. On Commons, are all pre-1923 images considered public domain, both published and unpublished? Published includes postcards, etc. and unpublished includes random family or 'snapshot' photos - and these are all protected in the US by Bridgeman v. Corel even as they enter into digital reproduction - like onto an online archives - (from here: "An unpublished work is one that has never been published in any form, or which was first published after 2003 but created before 1935.", is that right? I've not read about this in a way that makes it clear. And yes, staying out of trouble during the furlough! Thanks, Bdcousineau (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You're not the only one who has trouble with the USA rules. I keep a link to this table on my bookmarks toolbar and use it frequently.
"On Commons, are all pre-1923 images considered public domain, both published and unpublished?"
Absolutely not. Before the 1976 Act, until a work was published with notice there was no copyright and the 28 year period (renewable once) ran from publication. Note the last line on the green side of the table -- ignoring any foreign involvement, if an image has never been published in the USA until today, it will be in copyright until 70 years PMA if the author is known or 120 years after creation if he is unknown. Thus an unpublished work by an unknown author has to be older than 1893 to be PD. We regularly delete images with unknown photographers that came out of old family albums from 1893 on. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for that table – I had it bookmarked as well, and it’s gotten some use recently. Apparently I’ve had it a little upside down –and was hoping there was more pd material in the world waiting to be liberated … sadly not so!
Can I make this more complicated – let’s say a family snapshot from 1920 is in an online archive and marked “copyright” in the metadata.
  • If the “owning” archive creates and charges for a digital reproduction, it becomes published, correct?
  • If the creator is unknown, a third-party permission fee charged by the archive is not illegal (or?), but the fee is being paid to the wrong person (i.e. not the creator/heirs), correct?
  • And because of Bridgeman, the fee shouldn’t be charged by the archive at all, as they don’t own the copyright originally.
Essentially, I understand about copyfraud, just not circumstances around charging permission fees. This is beyond Commons’ scope, but I’m presenting on this topic and want to make sure the twists/turns make sense to me! Bdcousineau (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. We're assuming a photograph created in 1920 by an unknown photographer. It has not been published anywhere, but recently appeared out of a family album. The archive has legally acquired a copy (a photographic print) of the image and scanned it. If it were a snapshot and if the archive acquired it from a member of the family, one might argue that the family member had inherited the copyright from the family photographer and therefore the archive could have obtained the copyright when they obtained the image. If, on the other hand, it was a formal portrait, or had the mark of a (now long forgotten) professional photographer, that argument would not work. The copyright, which will last until 2040, belongs to someone, but not the archive.

I don't have any problem with the archive charging for copies of the image even if they don't own the copyright -- they are performing a service in hosting the file, including scanning, indexing, and so forth. After all, most museums sell copies in various forms of their PD old masters. I would have a problem if John Doe put their image up on the web for free use and they tried to stop him -- that would be a copyvio on the part of Doe, but the archive would have no right to prevent it.

The "copyright" in the metadata is a little troubling. If it's just the one word, then it's true, albeit misleading. If, however, they say "Copyright XYZ Archive" then they are committing copyfraud.

So, "yes" to your first bullet -- putting it up on the Web is publication, but since the 120 year clock (from creation) will run out before the 95 year clock that starts at publication, the timing is not really important. I think I covered your other bullets above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

hmm, v useful, thanks. As is the discussion below on signage. One of the librarians I am working with asked about the advisability uploading personal photographs of museum exhibits - for example taking a personal photo of an unpublished pre-1923 image that is on display and then uploading that copy. That is again Bridgeman, correct? Her personal image will have a creative aspect to it, because the image has not been placed on a scanner. And she would have to upload the image as {{own}} and not part of a larger Commons project, right? Thanks for the input. Bdcousineau (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The WMF ruling on PD-Art does not distinguish between images from a scanner and images from a camera -- but the subject must be 2D and must be PD -- you said "pre-1923 image" but didn't specify "published before 1923". I'm not sure why you want to do this -- since the Library can presumably do a good scan of a work it owns, why use a photograph? The work is probably under glass, so it's hard to get a good photo without a reflection of the camera. If it's your librarian doing it, there's no issue anyway -- she's going to license the photo as CC-something, so you don't need to consider Bridgeman, just the status of the original work. The source would be "own work", but the author line might read "Author=Image by Librarian, Original by John Doe" .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. The last scenario would include pre-1923 unpublished 2D works purchased and donated to the archives (often by employees) without copyright transfer.
You might want to keep an eye on my uploads later today, we're doing an edit-a-thon and uploading a few 2D works, pre-1923 and published, but with no source website to refer back to... the volunteer-curator scanned them into her laptop, as the local history collection has no dedicated work-station or even clear workflow (the physical space is owned by the library, the collection materials owned by the city (?) and has been run by one volunteer for 30 years with no oversight). It's a wonderful mess! We're planning a bigger GLAM project in the near future, pending lots of untangling and discussion. Bdcousineau (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Back again

Hi again!! My summer job is over, and I'm spending time again on the Deletion pages. Thank you for suggesting that I participate in this, I am learning more and more each day. I do have a question, perhaps one of those horrible questions that opens too many quagmires... but here goes anyway. If logos are acceptable if they don't have too much unique, then why are the metal historical signs with just words such a target for deletion? I am still totally confused, but I know that probably 50,000 images would have to be deleted if it were decided that all historical signs are copyright. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've seen you on DRs recently -- I've disagreed with you only once -- so keep up the good work. It is helpful to have more eyes on DRs.
I suggest you read USCO Circular #1, Copyright Basics. It's very dense -- every sentence can bring to mind a DR -- but most of what we need to know is there.
As to your question -- Article One, Section 8, Clause 8:
"by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
remember that the only copyright mentioned in the Constitution is for literary works -- words on a page.
One section of Copyright Basics covers both halves of your question:
"[Not covered by copyright are] ...titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents...
So, literary works beyond "short phrases and slogans" are covered. Note that "literary works" is very broadly construed -- computer software is copyrighted as a literary work, as is almost any other assembly of words in a meaningful way beyond a sentence or two. This certainly covers plaques that extend beyond a simple recital of dates.
On the other hand, a logo that consists only of a word or two certainly falls in "short phrases and slogans". Fancy typography, even if specially designed for one use won't trigger a copyright -- "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are excluded.
Your fear that many plaques should be deleted has some justification, but please remember that plaques placed by the Federal government are exempt and those placed before 1923, or before March 1, 1989 without notice, are PD. Since such plaques rarely have notice, we really have to worry only about those placed after 1989. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, I'll be reading that publication until I 'get' it! Oh and the "disagree only once", what did I miss? If I know what my mistake is, I'm less likely to repeat it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Your comment suggest that if we disagreed, you made a mistake. Please, please, put that thought in the trash. I certainly make mistakes -- not very many, I think -- but a few. More important though is to completely understand in your heart of hearts that a great deal of what we do here is a matter of judgement and opinion. As an example, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:WMMS-HD2, W256BT logo.png -- I respect Magog as a reasonable and experienced colleague. We disagree about this one. I'm not sure who is right -- how a court would rule in the unlikely event that it came to that, and, of course, appellate courts often reverse lower courts -- so you and I disagreeing says nothing about right and wrong.
There were actually two:
Both are judgement calls and some of our colleagues would have gone with you. On the first, it wouldn't really matter, one way or the other, because we have other versions of the logo, but my usual response is to deny deletion at the uploader's request unless there is a very good reason. The license is irrevocable, and I don't like giving people the impression that they can change their minds.
On the second, as I said in the close, a crop of the file is in use. I lucked into finding that, since it isn't cross linked. With a crop actually in use, policy says we should keep the original. As I said, I lucked into it -- you're not finding it is not a mark against you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, understood... Mistakes out, learning the ins-and-outs! Thank you for all the clarification! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:WMMS-HD2, W256BT logo.png

Hello. Is there any reason this file should be deleted from the Commons? I opened a discussion at WP:NFCR thinking this file likely qualified as PD-TEXT. However, the resulting consensus was that this file does not qualify as free. I would have let the issue go, but I noticed that you decided to keep several similar logos I nominated for deletion here on the Commons, such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rock Nation logo.png. Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 19:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's purely a judgement call and I can't even claim to be consistent from month to month on the subject. The quote from Copyright Basics in the DR you cited covers the official position -- typography does not qualify a work for coverage. On the subject logo, I would argue that the splotches are part of the typeface - "typographic ornamentation" in the words of Copyright Basics. I think that the WP:EN decision citing "textured typeface" is plain wrong. The official position is that nothing you do with the typeface can qualify for protection.
The only one of your recent DRs that I closed as deleted had a star in the background and even that was a decision I might have made differently.
The problem we have with this is that logos are almost always trademarks, either ordinary common law trademarks, or registered trademarks. When litigation arises, the trademark status is always more important than the copyright status, so litigation has focused on that and we have very little case law to work with. But a logo such as the subject, three letters in a special typeface with a single circle in the background wouldn't take me a heartbeat to decide -- I'm tempted to speedy close your DR but our process doesn't really allow for speedy keeps except for housekeeping. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Another Commons admin -- User:Magog the Ogre -- has requested deletion. Levdr1lp / talk 00:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A strange question

Hi again. Am I remembering right that screenshots from games are not permitted? If so...

Screenshots from ordinary copyrighted games are not permitted on Commons because the screen image is created by the copyrighted software, so everything that appears on the screen belongs to the game company. Second Life and a few others are exceptions. The images of characters are actually created by the user. Think of it as an image created by John Doe with MS Paint. Paint is copyrighted, but anything Doe creates with it belongs to Doe. That's a weak analogy to the situation with Second Life, per the SL policy quoted in {{Second Life}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I saw that, but the avatar/objects in a photo from Second Life is/are not necessarily created by the photographer, in the way that an ordinary photographer does not create his/her model nor build the street on which their photos were taken. The Second Life image may have been made by the someone other than Linden Labs, but for images such as those transferred from FLICKR, the uploader isn't the creator, so now I'm totally confused. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Aha. Very good point. I create James the Dragonslayer and take a screenshot of him fighting Susan the Monsterkiller. I created James, but not Susan, so the image is a DW of Susan and should require a license from Susan's creator. Of course, I could also take a screenshot of avatars whose creation I had nothing to do with. You've got an excellent case for deletion of all those images with two avatars and those with only one avatar that were not created by the uploader or licensor.
There's also the fact that the avatars are personal art by non-notable artists, which we would not keep. If you're game, I suggest you gird your loins and either pick an image or, perhaps, {{Second Life}}, to DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps this DR would be of any value. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, yes. It's not exactly on point, but certainly suggests that there may be something here to be addressed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

restoring image DEV035048A.jpg

Dear Jim,

thank you very much for your answer which helps us to improve our issue.

>> The source site is, in fact, licensed CC-BY-SA. However, I can't find the subject image at the cited site. It's a large site, so I am probably missing it, but I can't put the necessary {{Licensereview}} tag on it unless I can find it.

>> I also note that this image was uploaded with the uploader claiming to be the author and a {{PD-self}} tag, both of which were not correct -- CC-BY-SA is not the same as PD. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

>>>>Please restore the following pages:

   File:DEV035048A.jpg 

Reason: Image derives from bryotechnology gallery by Prof. Dr. Ralf Reski. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Source: ReskiLab, University of Freiburg [11] Dr. Esra (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:Dr. Esra (talk) 08:22, 23 October 2013


  • I am afraid I don't understand -- if you can give us a link to find the image on the source site, then I can restore it. Without that, we are stuck. Please understand that I believe what you say, but that in order to put a formal review tag on the image, a tag that must be able to stand up in court if necessary, I must actually see it on the source site. That's true of the others from the same site as well. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Dear Jim, I already contacted the owners of the images to help you identify the correct matches. I hope that they will answer soon. I had already asked one of the owners - owner of the bioreaktor_quer2.jpg - to send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to document her permission which she did on 17 Oct 2013 10:26:31 which however didn't result in a restoration (and I can't figure out the reason for this). Thank you very much for your help so far. Have a good time User:Dr. Esra (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2014
That may or may not help. What we must have is not OTRS permission -- the site already has a satisfactory permission -- but links to each of the images on the source site. If, in fact, you found the images where you said you did and they are still there, this should be easy to do.If the images are no longer on the source site, then we will need a new source. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I also note that the history says that the comment above mine was made at 16:19, 24 October 2013 by 84.190.221.146. The signature line shows User:Dr. Esra 18:20, 24 October 2014. I can only assume that 84.190.221.146 constructed the sig from the one on 23 October above. Whether or not 84.190.221.146 is also Dr. Esra, this is a violation of our rules. Please sign your posts on 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. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Jim, I now have added the concrete file locations (containing the CC-BY-SA licenses) on the restoration page. Hope that I did it right. Thank you for your help. Dr. Esra (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Jim,
I added the source of the fifth image today:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:DEV035048A.jpg Thank you for you reminding me. Dr. Esra (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for your efforts in cleaning up the licensing of these images -- they look very good to me, but biology is not my area. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monuments and memorials in Namibia

Hi, I don't quite understand why you have kept the images of the monument with the meteorites: the entire monument is an architectural work that consists of more than solely meteorites. An image of the meteorite is available at File:Gibeon-meteorite-in-Post-Street-Mall.jpg. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that the simple, square, utilitarian stands under the meteorites do not qualify for copyright protection. The stands are not an architectural work -- in order to qualify as architecture, something must be usable by humans for shelter or some other utilitarian purpose -- monuments are not architecture, that's black letter law, at least in the USA. Of course, we can argue about it for a long time and none of us really has a clue what a Namibian court would say about them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the fast reply. I'll think about this. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I was slogging through DRs, so a reply was a break -- but it's time for dinner and the World Series now -- Go Red Sox. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Who won? I hope Red Sox. :)
Otherwise, I would like to comment on your opinion above:
  • The stands (which are of different heights), the meteorites and the ground between and around the stands are part of the Gibeon Meteorite Fountain. "Mounted on steel columns and adding special interest to the Mall is the Gibeon Meteorite Fountain, where 31 of the original 77 Gibeon meteorites are displayed."[37]
  • I don't agree "something must be usable by humans for shelter or some other utilitarian purpose" to qualify as a work of architecture. Facades, for example, are works of copyright, but do not meet the definition. Per en:Copyright in architecture in the United States#Nonfunctionality, the copyright on architecture in the United States does not depend on functionality, but on originality, aesthetics and the "poetic language".
Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 07:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Red Sox 8, Cardinals 1. Second game tonight. Go Sox!
I can't provide a cite because it has disappeared from the web, but at one point I had a learned article from one of the law reviews that made it very clear that in US law, monuments were not architecture because they did not shelter or provide direct benefits to humans. We've addressed the issue here with respect to some of the larger US monuments whose images would be OK for Commons if they were architecture but are, in fact, not OK, because they have copyrights as sculpture but not architecture. See, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial.
You are, of course, correct that a facade can have a copyright, either because it is part of a building that is an architectural work, or because it contains works that fall into the class of sculptures, but these meteorites are not a facade. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
What is then your comment on [38] (pp. 16–19): "Purely nonfunctional or monumental structures would be subject to full copyright protection under the bill."? --Eleassar (t/p) 11:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The document was written in 1989, before architecture became copyrightable in the USA and describes what would have been the case under a 1976 bill that was passed by the Senate but not the House. Note "would be" in your cite. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I see. If I understand correctly, "architecture" refers only to habitable structures, whereas these images ([39], [40]) display a nonhabitable structure. Also, it is not a sculptural work. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes. In the USA, bridges and other civil engineering works are not architecture because they are not habitable. Fortunately they do not themselves have copyrights (although their construction drawings do), so FOP is not an issue.
If I had to take your side of the debate, I would argue that the supports qualify as sculpture. I would also argue that the arrangement of the pieces made the whole a sculpture even though the meteorites cannot have a copyright. I don't think those arguments are silly, but I don't think the work passes the TOO, however high that might be in Namibia. I also think that one could argue (on my side) that the supports are utilitarian. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. If I may continue from your thought: whereas individual supports are utilitarian, the whole as a sculpture is not, and here we see more than a single support, we see the arrangement of supports of different heights and of some blocks that are not a support, i.e. the sculpture. In order for an item to be registered as a sculptural work, it must embody some creative authorship in its delienation or form, which is the case here.[41] I've considered this arrangement a work of architecture, but not protectable, however it seems that it may indeed meet the definition of a sculpture. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Statues in Ukraine

Hi, can you please keep an eye at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Statues in Ukraine? The DR has been closed in less than 7 days (per Commons:Deletion, DRs should stay open at least 7 days). The closing administrator has a clear conflict of interest (born in Ukraine). Except for File:Кам'яні баби. Гора Крем'янець.jpg, no evidence has been provided that any of these files are free. I've reopened the case due to these reasons. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done I'm afraid I disagree with you -- the DR became unmanageable because there were too many different issues for people to snipe at. I also think your accusation of bias was silly. Should I recuse myself from any DR involving an American subject because I have a conflict? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. Although I don't agree with the closure in less than 7 days after the discussion has started, I'll not make a fuss and will renominate them individually. Perhaps I've been too hasty with my accusation in this case, but a closure of a country-related DR by a resident of a country in disregard of the policy certainly looks suspicious. I've seen too many users strongly defend non-free files from deletion just because they were depicting subjects from the country that they come from. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think an early closure under these circumstances is a violation of policy -- quite the contrary. If the issues are so complex and so varied from image to image that the discussion needs to be split, then it does nobody any good to continue the discussion in the one place. It's much better that any further discussion take place on smaller groups of images.
I agree that the discussion had a lot of sniping from people who didn't understand the issues, but I don't think that applies to Anatoliy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Could you please comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ostriv Zeleny Cherk-369.jpg? Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Mass deletion of pictures of Namibian buildings

Hi James, I only saw the Namibian mass deletions now. I think this is a misinterpretation of the law as cited on COM:FOP#Namibia, which does not include pictures of buildings and architecture. The COPYRIGHT AND NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT 6 OF 1994 says (relevant passages extracted):

  • Section 1: "artistic work" means, irrespective of its artistic quality [...] (b) a work of architecture, being either a building or a model of a building
  • Section 1: "copy" means a reproduction of a work, [...], but an object shall not be taken to be a copy of a work of architecture unless the object is a building or a model of a building (emphasis mine)

So, a picture of a building does not violate Namibian copyright---any chance these deletions can be undone? --Pgallert (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. In any case I think this needs to be discussed first at COM:FOP#Namibia. Your reading caused me to stop and read much of the law. It is very poorly drafted. In particular, however note that in describing the rights that a copyright brings, it does not use the word "copy" so that the particular definition of that word has no effect on FOP or lack of it.
"8 Nature of copyright in artistic works
Copyright in an artistic work vests the exclusive right to do or to authorise the doing of any of the following acts in Namibia:
(a) Reproducing the work in any manner or form;"
We also have in Definitions:
""reproduction" in relation to-
(b) an artistic work, includes a version produced by converting the work into a three-dimensional form or, if it is in three dimensions, by converting it into a two-dimensional form;
and references to "reproduce" and "reproducing" shall be construed accordingly;"
Since Architecture is defined as being an Artistic Work, this covers Architecture. "Reproducing the work in any manner or form" is very broad and certainly includes photographs, particularly since the definition of "reproducing" specifically cites 3D to 2D conversions. If this sentence had said "Copying the work in any manner or form" then we would have a serious ambiguity because of the special definition of "copy" which you cite, but it doesn't say that.
Please, if you want to take this further, do it in the wider forum of a new section at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama. Although posting an UnDR would ordinarily be your next step, I think that doing that while the question of whether COM:FOP#Namibia is correct would be unproductive and would not get the fundamental issue discussed by people who are widely knowledgeable of FOP.
Just to be clear, I think COM:FOP#Namibia is correct as it stands. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Will open a discussion on Commons talk:Freedom of panorama. Cheers, --Pgallert (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi Jim, as you say at the top of your own talk page here, "I like to keep discussions in one place". For that reason I have a notice at the top of my own talk page, along with an edit notice on that page, asking for messages to be left on my profile at Meta-Wiki. It seems despite my best efforts you have ignored both of those requests and gone ahead and posted a comment on my talk page here on Commons. Please fix this. Thanks. AugurNZ 06:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not going to happen, for two reasons:
  • First, it is absolutely standard Commons practice to do as requested above, keep a conversation in one place on Commons for all Commons users to read and follow on their Commons Watchlists. If I were to leave a message for you on your Meta talk page, it would mean that I would have to maintain and watch a Watchlist on Meta. Commons serves all 200+ WMF projects and many Commons users, like you, have their home on another WMF project. Carrying your request out for all Commons users might mean that an active Commons user would have to maintain and watch Watchlists on tens if not hundreds of WPs and other projects.
  • More practically, it simply won't happen. I didn't leave the message on your Commons talk page. I did not see your talk page until a few minutes ago. The message was left by the "Nominate for deletion" script which appears in the left column of every page. The script accepts the DR reason, creates the DR, logs it, adds the DR tag to the subject page, and adds the notification to the uploader's Commons talk page. Since it's a four step process, very few people create a DR any other way. The script, of course, doesn't read the notice you left asking for special treatment.
Please remember that Commons is a volume operation. We delete more than 1,000 files every day. 75% of that work is done by the ten most active Admins and we are, at the moment, falling seriously behind in our work. We simply do not have time to give special treatment to everyone and certainly don't have time to stop using the "Nominate for deletion" script and check every user's talk page for a place to drop the message.
You can solve this be enabling an e-mail every time your Watchlist on Commons changes. Go to Preferences>User profile from the link in the top right corner of every Commons page and page down to the bottom.
Since I'm not sure you will come back here to read this, I will copy it to your Meta talk page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent deletion -- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Origins 500A.png

Can you please clarify the deletion reason for This map: File:Origins 500A.png. The base map / template was based on a public domain NASA image site [42] and the rest was created entirely by me. There is no need for permission by TL, for they are not actually his maps. So unles my mistaken, your deletion was unjustified and premature Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The only mention of NASA at the DR is your final comment,
"So the original template is actually an amalgamation of public domain NASA satellite images."
That is not supported by anything I see at Lessman's site and is contradicted by your earlier comment,
"Here is his own webpage where he states that he apparently created the base himself. He iterates that they can be used on Wiki, with attribution."
It's also clear that the map is just that, a map, and does not contain any satellite images. The real world doesn't look like that from space -- Russia is not solid green with constant width rivers. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the base was from NASA.
Finally, even it it were an "amalgamation of public domain NASA satellite images", please remember than an amalgamation or collage of PD images has its own copyright so Lessman would still own the copyright to the assemblage.
"Premature" also cannot be applied here -- the DR was open for the required seven days and the last comment was four days before the close. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
and so what ? You provided no indication the the explanations were not satisfactory. Rather , you swooped in deleted it unilaterally. Moreover, the apparent "contradictions" are because Lessman was contacted via provate email and new information was gained. i thought he created the maps de novo, but he actually 'collaged' them. Anyhow, his website clearly states. Apparently I've been confused about correct licensing and usage of these maps. I will research proper licensing when I get a chance. In the meantime, this is may help: I have no problem with people using these maps in projects such as classroom assignments, bible studies, personal projects, etc. Any open-source or free projects (ex: Wikipedia, LiberKey, etc) may use these maps as needed. Teachers may use these maps to help with their classroom activities. THE ONLY REQUIREMENTS I have are: 1. You must include source information (Author: Thomas Lessman, Source Website: www.WorldHistoryMaps.info. 2. If you alter the maps, you must get my permission, and 3. Any use of these maps for projects that are not free or open-source (including books, games, etc.) must have my permission and may have to pay for usage. And note, he himself has uploaded virtually all his maps onto Wikimedia, anyway. Slovenski Volk (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I hardly "swooped in" -- it was, as I said, four days after the last comment.
As for the statement from Lessman, so what? His point (2) is ND, which Commons prohibits. His point (3) is NC, which we also prohibit. He says that Wikipedia may use the maps, but says nothing about other users, including commercial use, which we require.
I understand that you are angry because your file has been deleted, but unless Lessman will provide a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license, we cannot keep the file on Commons. All he says above amounts to a Wikipedia-only-NC-ND license, which is unacceptable both on Commons and on Wikipedia. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
No, fair enough; and I learned something. It was an oldish map anyway. Thanks for clarifying. If I could take a further minute of time, would this site be acceptable for adapting their base templates ? [43] Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes. "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 Licence" appears at the top of the page. If you use that site, be sure to credit them as one of the sources and authors along with yourself and use a CC-BY-SA license on the map you create. Both of these are required by the site's license.
Please feel free to post a message here whenever you have a question -- I, and most of my colleagues on Commons, see it as an important part of our job here to try to help newbies find a comfortable place here. We all know that the learning curve can be very steep -- I had very good help when I started out and I'm happy to pass that forward. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you indeed, Jim Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Samuel Rutherford.jpg

I was under the impression that images deleted for reasons of low quality would be replaced and/or redirected to the higher quality image. It seems that this image was simply delinked from several wikipedias. I do not know how to redirect a file, and I would hope there is a better way than going to every language wikipedia and adding the high quality image. Thanks. --Jfhutson (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It would have been better if you had uploaded the new image over the old one, using the "Upload a new version of this file" link in the File History section of each File page, as that would have simply replaced the file globally. Also, most Admins assume that when an editor nominates a file for routine deletion, the editor will have changed all the links, anticipating the deletion or noted the need for a redirect. I see that you did the former in two instances. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I realize for some of the files I've uploaded I should have overwritten existing files, but I'm trying to figure out what to do now. I'm not sure what you mean by "change all the links". I don't believe I have ever gone to other Wikipedias than English to use higher quality files. When I nominated File:WestminsterAssembly.jpg, the delinker replaced rather than removed the file from several non-English Wikipedias. I would now like to do the same thing with File:Calvijn.jpg and File:John Calvin by Holbein.png. --Jfhutson (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bislett.jpg

Hi Jim!

One file (File:Skjerm.jpg) that was included to this DR did not get deleted. Likely some server issue again, I guess. Best, High Contrast (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks. While I have been having trouble with DelReqHandler missing things in the last few days, I think this was simply my oversight. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thanks for getting it done so quickly. And yes, software issues do make some fun with us ;-) //High Contrast (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Konstanze Krueger.jpg

Hi Jameslwoodward,

you wrote The other one has around four times the linear resolution, so I see no need to keep this small version.. Yes of course, the deleted one was a cutout of the original one. I do not want to bother you with uploading the same one, but I am not able to get the old one to see the resolution. I did an upload with the same filename as an cutout from Konstanze Krueger1.jpg - the best resolution which is possible. I hope it is a better resolution as the deleted one. --Etron770 (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No, not "of course, the deleted one was a cutout of the original one." File:Konstanze Krueger.jpg was not a crop from File:Konstanze_Krueger1.JPG.
File:Konstanze_Krueger1.JPG has twice the linear resolution (four times was not correct) -- that is to say, it is is both much larger and has higher resolution. If you crop a head and shoulders image out of it, similar to File:Konstanze Krueger.jpg, you will get an image that has twice as many pixels in each direction. An image that is only 150 pixels high is not useful, one twice that size maybe be OK for limited use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Download_on_iTunes.svg

Jim, you closed Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Download_on_iTunes.svg as kept, which I agree with, but you left the image without a copyright tag. Because of cascading protection, this is something only an administrator can rectify. There is a similar issue with the closely related File:Get it on Google play.svg. —RP88 23:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done I added {{PD-US-no notice}} to File:Download_on_iTunes.svg. I added {{Delete}} to File:Get it on Google play.svg, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Get it on Google play.svg for my reasoning. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Some advice, please

After following your reasoning at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Historic Engineering Marker plaque next to the section of the old railway bridge in Wagga Wagga.jpeg, I am very keen to ensure I don't waste hours and hours of my time uploading photographs of historic monuments etc that - under the rather idiosyncratic intepretation of Australian copyright law used to close the above discussion - outside the scope of this project.

For example is File:Ballarat National Service Memorial 001.JPG out of scope for this project? Like many, if not most of the photographs of memorials and monuments I have taken, the text on the plaque can be clearly made out. If this sort of thing is indeed outside of the scope of Wikimedia Commons I fear I have spent much too much time travelling Australia trying to record historical markers for this project in vain.

Looking forward to your feedback. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

First, a little terminology. Commons uses the term "out-of-scope" to describe an image that may or may not be properly licensed for Commons, but that falls outside the scope of our mission, usually because it does not have an educational use. These can be personal images of people that belong on Facebook, personal artwork, images whose quality is too poor to be useful, or images which have no description and therefore have no use. We use "copyvio" to describe images that do not meet Commons licensing requirements.

There are always two potential problems with plaques. It is possible to have both a literary copyright for the words and an artistic work copyright for the shape or structure of the plaque or a logo on it.

Since we deal primarily with images, we don't see too much literary copyright on Commons and some of our members forget that it was the first subject of copyright. I don't know anything about the Australian threshold of originality (TOO) for literary works, but I suspect it is similar to the USA. The US Copyright Office's Circular #1, Copyright Basics, says that

"titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents"

are not protected, so my rule of thumb is that text more than a sentence may be covered. Your Ballarat example has three sentences, but the second and third are mere recitals of facts -- only the first might have a copyright and it would be a close call for me. The Wagga Wagga plaque has four sentences and they have more creativity in them than the Ballarat example, so it is, as I said, "clearly copyrighted as a literary work".

The supporting rock of the Ballarat plaque appears to have been cut from a boulder. Some of our colleagues might give it an artistic works copyright, but I would not. So, overall, I'm OK with Ballarat but some of our colleagues might not be.

Some examples:
I think these are OK -- short lists of dates, people, or simple facts:

I think these are not OK, as the descriptive language has creativity:

I have put a {{Delete}} tag on them.

There is a solution, of sorts, to this -- get a license. You could eliminate any question of a problem in the Ballarat case by getting a blanket national permission from the The National Servicemen's Association of Australia, which, I suspect, would be delighted to have its memorials on Commons. Similarly, I suspect that The Institution of Engineers Australia would be happy to license all of its plaques, including Wagga Wagga. To do this you would need to follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS and be sure to have the licensor mention not only the one plaque at issue, but that their intention is to cover all such plaques in Australia.

Finally, I should note that the USCO's "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring;" is not applicable to the UK, where there is an explicit copyright in typography. Case law may or may not extend that to Australia.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted your edit to my subpage for 2013 photographs of Bend, Oregon. I'm not sure why the 2013 parent category is problematic. Can you please explain? I like having my images sorted by date and location. --Another Believer (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not the cat itself, but the fact that it is a user category and therefore must not be in the main category system. All of your user categories must be subs of your main user cat -- {{user category|Another Believer}} -- and must not have main category system tags.
Put another way, the user category system and the main category system are entirely separate -- images may have tags from both, but categories must be in one system or another. This does not preclude your categorizing by date and place -- see for example Category:NRHP site pictures by User:Jameslwoodward. Each of my place cats could have a date subcat, but I don't bother.
This is all set forth in Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories_policy#Categories.
And, by the way, thank you for all the good images -- I have no doubt that your images of The Quest will be kept, as they should. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand and support the idea of keeping user categories separated from the main category system. So, did you accidentally delete the 2013 category here? I am happy to convert all of my categories to user categories, but I am still not sure I know how to do so in a way that keeps my categories sorted by year and location. Might you be able to show me using the 2013 photographs in Bend category, so I can duplicate with similar categories? --Another Believer (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done for Category:2013 photographs of Bend, Oregon by Another Believer. Basically, when you want to put an image in a user cat, you use the usual syntax in the image description
[[Category:2013 photographs of Bend, Oregon by Another Believer]]
But, when you want to make a user cat a subcat of its parent or parents, you use a template:
{{user category|cat=Photographs of Bend, Oregon by Another Believer}}
{{user category|cat=2013 photographs by Another Believer}}
puts your Category:2013 photographs of Bend, Oregon by Another Believer in both of its logical parents.
The syntax is very logical, but I must admit it confuses me -- I have to look back at my own work to keep it straight -- and, when I set mine up, I copied someone else's work.
I'm afraid you must now work through your whole tree and change the main system cats to user cats. AWB might help, if you've used it before, but I wouldn't start using AWB with a project of this complexity.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I have gone through my entire tree, so I think I am good to go...! except I am not sure how I actually get to the subcategory Category:Photographs by Another Believer from Category:User:Another Believer. --Another Believer (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

About this Undeletion request

Hello :) I gave an answer to your questions HERE (one of the seven, however, not colored), and I did as required to dissolve your concerns, if you are now convinced please change your opinion about the restoration of images. :) thank you --Pava (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Please don't bring issues from other places here -- discussions should take place in only one place. I see no reason to change my opinion on the UnDR .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I only wrote it because now the problems have been solved and that conversation seems to be ignored by users who have raised, as if they wanted to ignore that the problem is solved .. So I wonder what the real underlying reason .. Just for that I wrote, I thought I had not seen, is the only reason I can think of to justify a total lack of interest in following the discussion. I'm sorry if you felt disturbed, but my interest is only to the good of wikimedia commons. I hope it is a mutual benefit, since it is clear that no law is broken. --Pava (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Let me be very blunt, which I hoped to avoid -- I think it very likely -- certainly beyond a significant doubt (the Commons standard for proof) -- that the written, signed, licenses from the parents that would be required here simply do not exist. If they do exist, then they need to be transmitted to us using OTRS, either as PDFs, or as e-mails from each parent. While we assume good faith as matter of course from our users, we do not extend that to third parties -- they must prove what they say. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
but how do you believe the false statements directly from the official source? It 'a creative workshop of children, are colored drawings of a girl by two children. They are available to send an e-mail where they express their consent, as well give me the directions to the 'OTRS, as they wrote on their website they write it by mail, it makes no difference. What is less understandable is why you do not trust a user who works on wikipedia for 8 years, is autoconvalidato and collaborates on commons for 6 years, and you do not trust other two parties in the same discussion, and do not trust either of words of an administrator of the commons. This is really bad and inexplicable from a collaborative point of view. Give me well as data for OTRS, provider and immediately. Your skepticism is unfounded, and (forgive me) also paranoid and offensive to me and two other people who have reported all the motivation useful on the issue, and also in relation to other 3 users who have expressed their opinion. Without trust there is no collaboration, and you are an administrator, and this is "Wikimedia commons" not "Wikimedia individual" --Pava (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand the source of your outrage. I have said nothing to suggest that I distrust you or anyone else at Commons. While it is true that I think you are should be more skeptical, I have no reason to doubt your word.
As I said above, I think it likely beyond a significant doubt that the person who originally posted these images has simply added the CC licenses without bothering to actually get all of the parents to provide individual licenses. It's easier to simply do something that those silly people on Commons in America want than to actually get the licenses. This is a form of license laundering, which we see on a weekly basis. Remember that is up to those who would keep images to prove beyond a significant doubt that they ought to be kept. For me, that has not happened.
I say this in part because of long experience with human nature and partly as a parent and grandparent -- I would be very unlikely to name my child or grandchild for the world to see on a license.
So, I am not going to change my opinion on these images, but please believe that I have no concern with you except what I think is a lack of skepticism. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
but that blog where the original images are published are a web space to show the parents of the children's creations of the children, if the question was as you say: (that parents do not know that we publish things made ​​by the children) see also license , obbietterebbero avvessero if anything to the contrary. But anyway so it is not because that blog is also run by the parents, the representative of them have free access to the modifications. However, I am willing to send a letter in which they stated their explicit consent, you just tell me how to do. thank you --Pava (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, maybe I'm wrong -- maybe each and every one of the parents did get an e-mail or paper CC-BY license, in Italian, to read and sign -- but knowing as I do, parent's groups of this sort, I think it's an even money bet that that did not happen, no matter what they say. It's just too easy to shrug off the unreasonable demands of these Commons people in America. So, just leave me out of it. Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

but then what if you do not care and do not want to know, why are you speaking? I'll take available sources and concrete and you based on your insinuations, and only for your personal thoughts of the photos do not remain present here, damaging the commons. If you do not care what you did not have to intervene, once intervene on an issue that should prove relevant and discuss it with evidence and sources, not unfounded personal thoughts that do not allow a comparison with the other users. Thank goodness you're an administrator, hats --Pava (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Again -- I have said what I am going to say and am not going to say any more. I think the images should remain deleted for the reasons that I have given above, but no one image is worth all this fuss. I am willing to argue at great length when principle is at stake, but in this case the only issue is whether or not to believe a single web site source. I don't believe them. You do. I'm happy to let others decide. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

File:TT Passport.jpg

It seems that this file was moved and that you only deleted the redirect. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


File:Logo del Parque Nacional Submarino La Caleta.png

This file is in the public domain because it is Dominicano State Property and is copyright free.

Este archivo está en el dominio público, ya que es propiedad del Estado Dominicano y está libre de derechos.

--KelvisDorville (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is no information about copyright in the Dominican Republic at Commons:Copyright rules by territory, but in most countries government artistic works are copyrighted. The source page has the notice "Todos los derechos reservados" -- "All rights reserved. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • How I can add a license
Public domain I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide.
In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so:
I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

to the file File: Logo Underwater National Park Caleta.png?

--KelvisDorville (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be or ever have been a file with the name File: Logo Underwater National Park Caleta.png so I cannot answer your question.
If you are referring to File:Logo del Parque Nacional Submarino La Caleta.png , as noted at the UnDeletionRequest, and copied above, it's a government work and you cannot add a PD license to it. Any discussion of that file should continue at the UnDR and not here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion request.

File:Technetium_(43_Tc).jpg

Hi Jameswoodward,

and again ... the old diskussion. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Владивосток, кинотеатр «Океан», 2005-07-31a.jpg

Hi, Jim, you've closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Владивосток, кинотеатр «Океан», 2005-07-31.jpg, but evidently forgotten to delete File:Владивосток, кинотеатр «Океан», 2005-07-31a.jpg that was included in this DR. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Eugene City Hall

Hello,

Thanks for reviewing Eugene City Hall. The link on Wikipedia to the media on Commons, Category:Eugene City Hall, must have been wrong (I blame myself). How would you include a Wikipedia citation to the images on Wikimedia so that it doesn't violate policy on galleries? Visitor7 (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are confusing:
a gallery -- Eugene City Hall -- see Commons:Galleries
a category -- Category:Eugene City Hall -- see Commons:Categories
I deleted the gallery Eugene City Hall because it was empty. You may certainly create it, but it must contain at least two images. Since there are 33 images in the category, you might want to select half a dozen of the best and create a gallery to back up the WP:EN link.
As for the WP reference, you can link to either, but you must use the correct syntax -- see my correction at the WP:EN page Eugene City Hall. The WP:EN policy on galleries precludes including a gallery in an article there, but encourages links to Commons images.
Note also that when you refer to a category on a Commons talk page, you must use a : before the word Category -- without the colon, your post included this talk page in the cat. That is, use [[:Category:Eugene City Hall]] rather than [[Category:Eugene City Hall]] everywhere unless you actually want the page included in the category. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Russian Gravestones

You deleted two of my photos of Russian Gravestones because one our members says that there is a law in Russia that forbids publication photographs of Russian Gravestones. By the same logic you must therefore delete:

Also all of these MUST BE DLETED

and these

I suggest that you first obtain a proper legal opinion before you start deleting peoples work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harveyqs (talk • contribs) 07:32, 4 November 2013‎ (UTC)

The problem with

is not any rule that applies particularly to gravestones, but that the two gravestones are works of art and both are still under copyright. As a general rule, works of art created in Russia are copyrighted for seventy years after the death of their author. The first of these has a 1972 date on it, so even if the creator died immediately after a 1972 creation, it would be covered by copyright until the year 2042. The second has a 2010 date, so it will not be free of copyright until at least 2080 and possibly much later.

Your photographs are derivative works of the works of art and infringe on their copyrights. That is the reason we cannot keep them on Commons.

As for all of the images you list above, many of them are much older than yours and are therefore no longer under copyright. It is also possible that some of them should be deleted -- we are by no means perfect. Commons gets 8,000 new images every day and some that ought to be deleted are not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Modern Russian Graves Stones

This is a very modern Gravestone. So the photo MUST Be deleted

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Harveyqs (talk • contribs) 08:00, 4 November 2013‎ (UTC)

That appears to be correct and I have created Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monument philosopher A.A. Zinoviev, in Novodevichy Cemetery.JPG. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


So then Jim all these MUST BE DELETED BECAUSE THEY ARE PHOTOS OF GRAVES IN RUSSIA THAT ARE LESS THAN 70 YEARS OLD

Note all photos of WWII war graves from 1943 in Russia must be deleted

You are mostly correct. Some of them, such as File:Grave_of_Sergei_Sergeyevich_Prokofiev.jpg appear to be too simple for copyright -- a rectangular granite slab with only names and dates and perhaps a few words does not have a copyright.

I suggest you create deletion requests for all of them except those that are too simple. You may create one Mass Deletion Request, but that is hard for an inexperienced editor to do since you must notify all of the uploaders and tag all of the images. Alternately, you can do them individually or in small groups of images by the same uploader using the "Nominate for deletion" link in the left hand toolbar of each image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrei Tupolev

Mr Tupolev died in 1972. This is 41 years ago. So his grave cannot be considered "modern". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harveyqs (talk • contribs) 08:16, 4 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Please refer to my comment above. Any work created in the last 70 years is considered "modern" for copyright purposes, since we can be certain that it is still under copyright protection in Russia and most other countries. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Date of death doesn't mean date of creation of monument and tells nothing about life of sculptor. Anyway terms of copyrights protection in Russia is 70 years. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
In almost all cases, the date of death on the monument tells us that the creator of the monument died after the death of the person honored. The fact that we don't know the date of death of the sculptor is not a problem today, since we know that the Tupolev monument will be under copyright until at least 1/1/2043, but it means that Commons editors in the 2040s will not know when to undelete the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Aren't most gravestones simply anonymous works? I have never seen any attribution on a gravestone and I have never seen the name of a gravestone artist elsewhere either. I would assume that most gravestones were created shortly after the death of the person who was buried in the grave. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, probably not anonymous. I would expect that the name of the creator of the monuments would, at least, be in the records of the cemetery. So they might, for the most part, be unknown to us, but not anonymous. Also take a look at {{w|Mount Auburn Cemetery]], and other similar important cemeteries, where many of the monuments are by notable sculptors -- one of my favorites is File:Mount Auburn Cemetery - Nathaniel Bowditch memorial by Robert Ball Hughes.jpg because Bowditch's American Practical Navigator is the bible of my avocation. I think that many of the more elaborate monuments will have a signature somewhere.
Besides -- even anonymous works and works by unknowns have a copyright. In most countries outside of the USA, any monument less than seventy years old will definitely be under copyright and in the absence of better information, I usually assume that any work after 1885 could, beyond a significant doubt, still be copyrighted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Anonymous works have a shorter copyright term in many countries, so if it could be verified that most gravestones are anonymous, then this would save lots of them from deletion. I guess that the situation may be different in different countries, with anonymous being more common at some places than at other places. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

True, but we don't do a good job of distinguishing between "anonymous" and "unknown". I think that "anonymous" is actually very rare -- why would a monument maker want to be anonymous? Quite the contrary, he would want to be well known. I think we have to assume that "unknown" applies in almost all cases and for us to use that, someone would have to actually visit the cemetery office, or at least determine that the records were lost. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Block review

Thank you, Jim, for the support in the discussion, and your sense of justice. Now I at least know how political prisoners feel: not good at all. At times it reminded me of Kafka's Trial. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Second Life avatars

In regard to the Second Life avatars,[44] don't miss [45]. Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 14:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

[46]

Hello, thanks for performing this CU. With regard to the investigation on WP:EN [47], I don't think it is correct to say that the investigation suggests that this is a high school class. Rather, an IP user claimed this, and it was quickly dismissed by another CU [48]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is incorrect to say "suggests" under the circumstances. I really can't say more here, but since none of them are creating havoc here -- only a minor nuisance consistent with new users -- I don't anything further needs doing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:George Harrison - Ding Dong.png

Hi Jim! You closed above DR with "Deleted" (surely you meant "Kept") and "I'm not sure why Gunnex says that PD-nonotice is unlikely (...)" Well, maybe I expressed myself not properly :-). The ad is derivated from a photo which was previously published as back cover of the album en:Dark Horse (George Harrison album)#Album artwork (see details of the artwork regarding the covers), released in U.S. & UK in 1974. The Billboard source is from 1975. In other words: The ad reused a photo already published before and elsewhere. I don´t know the standards of album covers at this time, but in the DR I presumed, that an U.S./UK album cover of 1974, where the image was first published, was configured with some kind of a copyright notice. I made it better understandable now :-))? Or have I made ​​nonsense with this DR, misunderstanding the whole case? If your time permits, a few words from you which may clarify the case, would be nice (but there's no hurry). Anyway, thx for dealing with this DR. Gunnex (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I meant kept, thanks.
The question of which country's laws apply can be very complicated and I'm not pounding on the table positive I have it right, but I'm sure enough to have closed it as a keep. If you want another opinion, ask User:Clindberg -- I look to him for really complex issues. If he differs, I almost always go with him.
Basically, what I see here is an ad published in the USA before 1978, apparently without notice. I say "apparently" because I can't be positive that a bit wasn't cropped off an edge or that there isn't a fine print (c) hiding in the stuff at the bottom. But, I think it's a fair assumption -- many, perhaps most, ads from that era did not have notice. Because it's an ad, the magazine's editorial copyright notice does not cover it. Because it's in a magazine, the notice must be on its face, not on the back as was permitted with photographs. The ad effectively does not have a back, because that was an unrelated magazine page.
As I understand the law, since it lacks notice, the ad is PD in the USA. It does not reach back and make any previous UK ads PD, so the same ad could still be under copyright in the UK. It also doesn't affect any similar album cover or photograph published in either country, before or after. Because this ad was published in the USA, the image has a USA origin and therefore meets Commons requirements of being PD in both the country of origin and the USA, despite the fact that it may be under copyright elsewhere. Therefore I kept it.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
As it was published in both the UK and the US within 30 days, the source country is the country with the shortest copyright term. There was a court ruling in France (about the rule of the shorter term) which concluded that the Berne Convention forbids the use of any copyright formalities when establishing the copyright term in the source country, so when comparing copyright terms, we should probably use 95 years since publication as US term and determine whether this is shorter than the UK's life+70 year or not, and only keep if 95 years since publication is shorter. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Stefan, as I said above, this is a very technical area and I'm not at all sure either of us has it right. Several things occurs to me -- I'm not sure that a US court would pay any attention to a French decision. I think it would much more likely look at the fact that the ad had been published without notice in the USA and confirm that it was PD. Also, I have always assumed that our rule "that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work" meant the source of the actual image, which in this case is Billboard, a US publication.
Do I read you correctly that you're saying we apply the two rules and if the US rule (95 years since creation) is less, then it's PD no-notice? That seems silly, but that's not unusual in some aspects of copyright law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The term "country of origin" is defined in the Berne Convention:
“(4) The country of origin shall be considered to be:
(a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country; in the case of works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection;
(b) in the case of works published simultaneously in a country outside the Union and in a country of the Union, the latter country;”
Based on the comment below, this was first published in 1974, not 1975, but still with just a few days between the UK and the US publications. The US was not "a country of the Union" in the 1970s but has been one since 1989, so I would guess that you should follow case (a) and not case (b). If you follow case (b), then the UK is unambiguously the country of origin. If you follow case (a), then the source country is whichever of the UK and the US which has the shortest term. Based on the French court ruling, the US term should be considered to be 95 years since publication with regard to this check. As User:Gunnex identified the photographer and told that the photographer still is alive, 95 years since publication is a lot shorter than life+70 years, making USA the source country. In other cases, 70 years since the death of the author may be shorter than 95 years since publications. As USA is the source country, only USA law matters for Commons. [The rule of the shorter term is nevertheless not used within the European Union as EU law tells that the rule of the shorter term can't be used for works created by EU citizens.] --Stefan4 (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Stefan, I understand "country of origin" as defined by the Convention. The question I have is that what is meant by "source country" at COM:L -- I think that they are different and "source country" means the place where the actual image came from, in this case, the USA. If that is correct, then since it was published in the USA without notice, it is free for our purposes, even though it may be copyrighted elsewhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that the idea of the "source country" requirement at COM:L is that the file ideally should be free elsewhere thanks to the rule of the shorter term. As the rule of the shorter term uses the definition of "country of origin" in the Berne Convention, I would assume that the idea is that the "source country" should be defined in the same way as the Berne Convention defines the "country of origin". --Stefan4 (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, perhaps you have that right. But I still have trouble understanding the lack of notice. As you say below, if something was published in the USA in 1950 with notice and then again in 1960 without it, it went PD immediately. I think you're suggesting that the within-thirty-days publication in the UK trumps the lack of notice in the US. I had always understood that no-notice in the US (before 1978) meant it was PD in the US, period. Your theory says that we can't rely on that -- that in order to declare that something was PD in the USA for lack of notice, we would have to show that it was not published within thirty days in another country. That's troubling. We happen to know that that is the case here, but generally???? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
It does not invalidate {{PD-US-no notice}} with respect to the USA copyright status, but, unless I am missing something, it affects which country is the source country. The French court ruling was based on the French interpretation of Article 5 (2) in the Berne Convention. I'm not sure if other countries might interpret the article differently. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
OK -- I think we agree that it is PD in the USA. Since the version we published came from Billboard, we're back where we started from -- I think it's OK on Commons because it came from a US source and is PD in the USA. Do I misunderstand, or do you think it is not OK on Commons because the source is UK (or within 30 days of USA), and it's not PD there? For the reason I put forth above, I think that's a problematic position. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that it is OK to keep in cases such as this where life+70 years (UK term) is longer than publication+95 years (full US term). However, had life+70 years been shorter than publication+95 years, then I would have considered the UK as the source country. However, this is a complex matter, and I am not fully certain that my interpretation is correct. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Jim! Thanks a lot for your answer and sorry for my delayed response (real life issues) but - excuse me - I still have problems to understand this individual case. I have a special interest to clarify this because I have iniciated two more DR´s which are similar:

I have no problems to understand {{PD-US-no notice}}. My problem is that the ad is based on a photo which was previously published elsewhere under other copyright circumstances. I have no evidence that the photo, which was taken by Britain citizen Terry Doran (who seems to be still alive) in UK, has been published in UK (or elsewhere) before the release of the related album cover (the album was first released in U.S and some days later in UK). But fact is, that the photo was used before the 1975 Billboard ad as part of an 1974 album cover and I am presuming that album covers at this time (1974) were published with a copyright notice and are copyrighted +95 years after publication. In other words: The Billboard ad is derivated from that album cover. See http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1252327 for the full album cover. Or simplier: Why is en:File:GH Dark Horse backcover.jpg copyrighted and File:George Harrison - Ding Dong.png + File:George Harrison - Dark Horse.png not? I don´t get it. I may crop the head of George Harrison from these 3 files and I will get 3 images with the same motif = 2x in PD from 1975 but the earlier version from 1974 is copyrighted = ?

Re-reading my stuff above, it seems that I am repeating myself... :-))

In the meantime Stefan4 has offered an alternative approach (thx, see above) - but the "30-days-rule" is (following Hirtle) only applicable for works first published abroad - for which I have no evidence. All I know is, that the image was displayed in that album cover which was first released in U.S. on 9 December 1974 (20 December 1974 in UK). So I guess it is a U.S. work, published with a copyright notice in 1974 and therefore still copyrighted.

Btw, this case has some similarities (copyright notice? country of origin? 30 days?) to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heidi Brühl (1942-1991).jpg where also Clindberg and Stefan4 have participated.

Sorry to bother you again with this... Gunnex (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Under the copyright law of the United States, a copyright notice was needed each time a work was published. If a work was published with a notice in 1950 and then without a notice in 1960, then the work entered the public domain immediately upon publication in 1960. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Negrita.svg

"I am glad that I can leave the racial issue entirely aside, because it is difficult. This is personal art from a non-notable artist, which we routinely delete as out of scope."

Taking as a starting point your arguments, any of my work could be deleted. Thus, it seems excessive to the rule application. It is a icon. Could you explain why delete Negrita.svg?. I know I'm not an artist recognized, however, I have helped with some work like this or this one. I think a serious lack of respect use arguments without factual basis, the fact that you start using arguments as pearlescent objective basis, rejecting any input that anyuser could do in the future. I ask you to reconsider your decision. It is the particular case of this icon, but using that basis any icon can be deleted.

I trust in good faith, to the end, you decide not to recover that icon. I'll ask him to delete all my icons, a list below

Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said, we routinely delete personal art. The basis for that is the policy statement at Commons:Scope#Examples:
"Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use".
We do this because we receive tens, perhaps hundreds, of such images every day. Keeping images that have no realistic use simply clutters up our categories and makes it harder for users to find images that they want.
Obviously the question of educational use requires subjective judgement on the part of the closing Admin. Your map, the wonderful image of the hand, and some of the others listed above are widely used, so there can be no question of their educational use. Others, such as File:Aura body.svg are unused and probably should be deleted. Still others, such as File:Horse chess color.svg appear to be copyvios.
I note that File:Wrist_and_hand_deeper_palmar_dissection-en.svg appears to have originally been uploaded by User:Bibi Saint-Pol, but you take full credit for it as "own work". What is the actual situation? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
That user moved my SVG work, not only mine but of many users. You Could fix it.Es very easy to see in the history. Furthermore, the factor is not enciclopedico target. There are thousands of examples of this in the category of commons icons. I recommend going through the category icons and delete the thousands of images. In the case of Aura body. It would be nice you to investigate about what an Aura. Just watch the category of Aura is enough to realize that the fact that you are ignorant of an image does not mean it has no value. Now, not only accuse me of copyvio, but I threatened to wipe another of my photos for seemingly no encyclopedic use. Do not worry, I will write you back on your discussion page. It's a shame you to act that way. --The Photographer (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
My apologies -- you are completely correct about File:Wrist_and_hand_deeper_palmar_dissection-en.svg.
However, it is clear that File:Horse chess color.svg is either a copyvio or another personal artwork. If it belongs to the university, it is a copyvio, if it does not, it is personal art. Even if you created it for the university, and they are using it, policy requires permission from the university to keep it on Commons.
File:BishKitteh2.gif is widely in use, so it proves nothing in this discussion.
I know what an aura is, but that does not mean that every image of an aura has educational value. This one is unused. It is certainly true that Commons has more than one hundred thousand images that should be deleted -- maybe even half a million. That is not a reason to keep any particular image that falls outside of policy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Your way to deviate from the theme and threaten to erase other of my work is an honor for me that you think me such a special person in your life. You know what you do and you hide behind the over-application of the rules. Anyone else would have bothered, however, I do not care who the author while my works still there, as almost all my works the climb to the public domain. I still hope that I have something in good faith in you, I recommend you take a walk, water garden plants is a relaxing activity. A logo is usually a work of copyright protection. If you consider that the logo of the University will be deleted, I invite you also delete Kiwix logo.svg --The Photographer (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Further discussion here is pointless. I suggest that you take this to an undeletion request, which I will oppose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the invitation, I already had done. I invite you to translate your vote at this time and give reasons. --The Photographer (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scissor Lift 2 - Claier.jpg

dear jameslwoodward

I'm Machine Ajza's employee and work in Lifting Department. images that you have deleted were taken by myself and i am allowed to use them on internet by mentioning the company's brand (Claier). This article (بالابر) is also prepared and updated by our technical team. our official websites are : claierlift.com machineajza.com

you can send an email to info@claierlift.com to make sure of it.

thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlovesunited (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Because these appeared on a copyrighted web site, Commons rules require that a corporate officer -- not you -- send a formal license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. If that is done, they will be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Address Restricted.png

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Address Restricted.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

The Photographer (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo ENS de Lyon 2010.png

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Logo ENS de Lyon 2010.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

The Photographer (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"negrita"

Thanks for your edit comments upon deletion. that was my main concern, that we cannot have nonotable works posted here. the fact that it appeared to me as racist was sort of secondary. If this had even been an SVG file of an already existing image, just made a little easier to work with (even tweaked a bit), i wouldnt have mentioned it. I hope i didnt offend the uploader.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No offense. It has taught me to understand more what should not be in commons. Thank you very much for showing me what a good person you are both. :* --The Photographer (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Jim, as per my comments at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Negrita.svg, would you have any objection to the undeletion of the file if a description were provided? russavia (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
First, it's personal art from a non-notable artist, which we routinely delete. I don't see why we are even thinking about stepping outside of our usual boundaries for this -- except for the fact that The Photographer has given us some wonderful things and is being very difficult about this one. Many of us have done a lot of good work for Commons -- does that mean that we give major contributors a pass when they break the rules? I don't think so.
Second, I don't think many non-Americans realize how offensive this image is to us. If a child were caught drawing it in school, he would be disciplined. In some states drawing it in public as graffiti would be prosecuted as a hate crime -- the prosecution might or might not fail on first amendment (free speech) grounds, but a District Attorney looking for publicity might try it.
Third, while this case should rest on the merits of the image and not The Photographer's behavior, I can't help pointing out that after I closed the DR, he posted DRs for a variety of images uploaded by both the nom (Mercurywoodrose) and me and has repeatedly added pointy remarks to both of our talk pages as well as those of others who have opposed him. Assuming we act in good faith, we should all be free to do our work without worrying about retaliatory nuisances. I know that when I looked over his work, I saw a number of other unused personal art works and several copyvios. I would be reluctant to touch any of them because the deletion of a small group of images is not worth dealing with him. If you choose to keep this, you simply encourage him. Do you really want to do that? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Plattenbau

Hi, I think you will be interested in this discussion (in my opinion, it was the main reason for my recent block [49]). --Eleassar (t/p) 09:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

DR: "Italian" traffic sign

Hi, I'm contacting you so you had left your opinion on this DR: File:Italian traffic signs - camion corsia.svg. The nominator agreed on my proposal of withdrawing the DR and changing its name. My question is, can I close the DR myself or this procedure must be done only by an administrator? I'll be awaiting for your feedback, thanks. - Fma12 (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Non admins are permitted to close non-controversial DRs as Kept, so yes, you could close it with the agreement of the nom. Or, if you prefer, give me a new name here and I'll close it and rename it. Note that closing a DR as Kept and then renaming it is a little tricky -- you want to make sure that the {{Kept}} tag ends up on the new name's talk page with the correct link to the DR in the old name. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your reply. I would prefer you close the DR and rename the file as well. The most appropriate name for the road I found is "trucks_allowed.svg" or any similar name, as long as it does not make any reference to Italy. Thanks again. - Fma12 (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done File:Road sign - trucks permitted.svg .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted files are back

Seems like the images you deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Unbaratocha have mostly been uploaded again. Hohum (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have deleted them all again and warned him. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Is this them all over again?: Special:Contributions/JoãoPenka Hohum (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thank you -- some new copyvios, some of the old ones. JoãoPenka is a sock of Unbaratocha. I have blocked the first indef and the second for a week. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sea turtle monuments

Hi Jim, Why did you delete the Sea turtle monuments gallery? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennyMed (talk • contribs) 13:45, 13 November 2013‎ (UTC)

It was an empty gallery. Commons Admins delete about 100 new galleries every day -- mostly because they are empty, they are articles and therefore out of scope, or they are simple mistakes, usually people who intended to create a Category, but forgot the prefix. Since this is a favorite area for vandals, the New Page Patrol team acts fast -- a page in gallery space that does not qualify as a legitimate gallery will be deleted within a few minutes at most. Sorry for the inconvenience -- it happens about once every two or three weeks that a real new gallery gets deleted.
If you actually want to create a new gallery -- and not a category -- please use one of these methods:
  • create it in a sandbox, such as User:JennyMed/Sandbox 1 and copy it to mainspace when it is ready,
  • create it in mainspace and mark it prominently at the top as UNDER CONSTRUCTION, or,
  • create it in mainspace , but don't push "Save page" until it contains at least two images.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Privacy Violation in Deletion Requests

The image of this deletion request is a privacy violation. I don't know how to flag anything yet, so I am troubling you again! Page at issue: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emergency referral letter example.pdf. Thanks!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done I think that the odds are that "Mrs. Brown" is a pseudonym, but we cannot take the chance that it is not. The best way to get something taken down rapidly is to tag it with a {{Speedy}} as in {{speedy|1=The image in this deletion request is a serious privacy violation.}}.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ambassador Theatre with Enoggera Creek in flood.jpg

You closed as "deleted" but the file is still there with a {{delete}} template. Something is wrong. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright of File:University of California Berkeley seal.svg

Hi Jim,
recently you closed the deletion discussion Commons:Deletion_requests/File:University_of_California_Berkeley_seal.svg and you changed the copyright tag of this file to {{PD-CAGov}}. I think this copyright tag is incorrect for this specific file. While work of the state of California and its subdivisions usually is in the public domain, this does not apply to the material for which the University of California owns the copyright. The similar template w:Template:PD-CAGov at Wikipedia contains a special warning which mentions that there is an exception for works of colleges established by statute.
You can also confirm this interpretation by comparing the copyright statements on the web pages of the state of California to those on the University pages. For example the general state page at http://www.ca.gov/use.html#ownership , the Department of Motor Vehicle page at http://dmv.ca.gov/portal/portal/conditions.htm#ownership , the CalTrans page at http://www.dot.ca.gov/use.html#ownership , and virtually any other state-run web site says in the section about Ownership: "In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain.". However the websites of the University of California do not contain any such statement. Instead of this, at http://www.ucop.edu/ott/staff/copyr.html the official Office of Technology Transfer of the University of California publishes the University's "Policy on Copyright Ownership", which explicitly states that the University owns the copyright to the work which its employees do as part of their official work. Also the websites of each individual university campus state that their material is copyright protected. For example http://www.berkeley.edu says at its bottom "Copyright © 2013 UC Regents; all rights reserved".
All of this shows that material created by the University of California system is not in the public domain.
Therefore, could you maybe reconsider your decision about this file? --Casecrer (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Hmm. While,as you say, the WP:EN template states
"lacking an exception in statute like those for works of the Department of Toxic Substances Control or works of certain colleges established by statute",
I see nothing in the Sunshine Amendment or the Public Records Act that makes any exception for state colleges. Although I suspect you may be right, I would be more comfortable if I could see the appropriate citation.
As for the various copyright notices on web sites, we see government agencies and others overreaching on copyright all the time -- even the White House puts copyright restrictions on images that are by law PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jim,
I found several sources which strongly indicate that University material is protected.
  • In Volume 21, Number 1, page 15 of "Entertainment and Sports Law" there is an article titled "University of California sues Walt Disney". It is about a case where the University of California tries to collect more than $5 million for the usage of its sports films. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/entertainment_sports_lawyer/forums_entsports_esl_back_issues_spring2003.authcheckdam.pdf
  • On its website, the University describes the circumstances under which it is worth to register the copyright with the library of congress and to pay the respective fee. It also explains under which circumstances the University usually enforces its rights, and how much the legal fees typically are. The person who wrote this website seems to understand the details of the copyright laws, so it is unlikeley that the University pays registration and legal fees if they cannot own any copyright. http://www.ucop.edu/ott/faculty/crbasics.html#should
  • Another University website explains how the University of California shares its copyright royalty with the creators of the work. This indicates that they actually collect copyright-fees, since it's unlikely that they have a policy about the sharing of royalties, if they cannot earn any royalties due to the absence of copyright protection. http://copyright.universityofcalifornia.edu/systemwide/pcoviii.html
Unfortunately, I do not know the exact legal details under which the University of California can own the copyright on its material.--Casecrer (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
All you've really proven is that UC believes that it has a valid copyright. However, given that they have put considerable effort into that belief at what appears to be a fairly high level, I think that raises a significant doubt about the copyright status of the seal, which is our standard on Commons. I have, therefore, revised the DR. Thank you for your effort in clarifying this..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the fast response.--Casecrer (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (2 cents)

Hi, the tool you use evidently has glitches again: many files have not been deleted.[50] Additionally, why do you think this column is ok? --Eleassar (t/p) 21:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks -- we're having regular problems with DelReqHandler.
The column is very plain and probably de minimis to the building in any case. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I disagree but let it therefore be so. Thanks for having deleted the left out files. ---Eleassar (t/p) 21:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

Dear James: I have just seen that you delete this image File:ElArranque-2012.jpg, saying that it was taken from some yahoo web site. That's wrong. The image is an official photo taken during the Buenos Aires Tango Festival, by the Buenos Aires Government, and put in the public domain by the Buenos Aires Government (they have an official public domain policy for images), ataching the image at the web site that que Government of Buenos Aires have in Flickr. I took it from the Buenos Aires official Giovernment site at Flickr. I think that perhaps you don't read all this data, but it was all perfectly explained in the deleted image form. So please James, undelet it. Kind regards.--Roblespepe (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the copyright of the image itself -- which I won't bother to research because it is moot -- there is, as I said in the closing comment, the question of the photograph that forms the background of the stage set. The subject image is a derivative work of that photograph. Therefore, in order to keep this image, we need not only a license for the image (which you think we have), but also a license from the copyright holder of the photograph in the background. That cannot come from the BA government or from Vanesa Photography, but must come from the photographer of that image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok Jim. Thanks for the advice (and for the supervision)--Roblespepe (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Photos Rebekka Mueller--Tholzinger (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jim, a few minutes ago you deleted all photos of "Rebekka Mueller" from Wikimedia. We had all the rights to the photos. It was my first time loading photos up here on wikipedia and it took me two hours to figure all out. It would have been great if you could have told me what I was to add under the photos. It all was very demotivating to me. It was all well-meant and now I have to do the work all over again... --Tholzinger (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please, please understand that Commons gets about 10,000 new images every day. Of those, about 2,000 are copyright violations or otherwise not suitable for Commons. Although we have 261 Administrators, 10 of us do 75% of the work and we are falling seriously behind. When we see images that are in many places on the Web, including IMDB, they are deleted on sight. Almost all such incidents are simply fans who are grabbing Web images that they have no right to. There isn't anything like enough Administrator time to give personal service to anyone, particularly since problems like yours occur less than 1% of the time.
Since your images have appeared elsewhere, our rules require that the copyright holder send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. When that has happened, please let me know here and I will restore the images with no further effort on your part.
If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask here. Despite the appearances of your first interaction, we actually work hard at encouraging new editors..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Ljubljanica at winter with trees.jpg

Hi, Jim. I think your decision at File:Ljubljanica at winter with trees.jpg was not the correct one. In my opinion, it is not in accordance with COM:DM#Slovenia, because the apartment blocks and the bridge are not incidental to the photograph and are not inessential in the copyright sense to it. The photographer could have easily turned his camera to the left side, where he would have a nice photograph of the copyright-free Ljubljana Castle as well as the canal, but he evidently decided that the blocks and the bridge are of more interest. A comment would be appreciated. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I call them as I see them. We're trying very hard to close out DRs that have been open for six weeks and that means that Admins are going to be making close calls on controversial images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a problem, but per the above, it doesn't conform to COM:DM. Do you think it should be renominated? --Eleassar (t/p) 13:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No, although, as I said, it was a close call, I think I called it correctly. Renominations on close calls are simply a waste of everyone's time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but if I may ask, why do you think it was closed in accordance with COM:DM#Slovenia? --Eleassar (t/p) 08:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ultra7

That decision is frankly unbelievable. You have just deleted two files from Commons which are irreplaceable, for no policy based reason whatsoever. Those files were in use, and the were categorically not "failed" or "blurry" (beyond use). What kind of message do you think this sort of decision sends out to potential uploaders? Should I now not bother to upload pictures that are not 100% perfect? What are you going to say to the person who wants to illustrate what those tunnels looked like before refurbishment using free media, and now cannot do so because you decided that the images were not perfect? Ultra7 (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

They were certainly blurred. While every Commons image does not have to be tack sharp, these showed significant motion blur. In closing DRs that have been open for six weeks, I call them as I see them, knowing that they are inevitably going to raise complaints -- if this was a routine closure, it would have been done a month ago. We have a backlog of tens of thousands of images and ranting at Admins who close tough calls against your wishes does not help the project. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't care if there's a backlog, I don't care if you call them as you see them, I want you to tell me how you got from policy, ie COM:SCOPE, to that decision, which has resulted in the deletion of two images from Commons which are irreplaceable and which had no superior alternatives. I am not interested in the fact that the images are blurred, this was already known, obviously. I want you to address the actual issue at hand in that DR - the fact that the blurring was not so bad that it obscured a number of important visual details - are you denying this basic fact with this decision, or not? Policy allows for poor images to be retained if there are no alternatives - as such, backlog or no backlog, judgement call or not, you should be able to give me an explanation that actually takes account of that. Ultra7 (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Much of what a Commons Admin does is very subjective. Admins make hundreds of subjective calls every day. Is the copyrighted sculpture DM? Is the logo below the TOO? Is this a personal image? Or, in this case, does the poor quality of the image put it out of scope as usable for an educational purpose?
You say "the blurring was not so bad...". I think it was. While you may certainly disagree with my decision -- that's why we have UnDR -- arguing that a subjective decision is wrong on policy grounds is pointless. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I hope in all good conscience you can square your 'subjective' decision with the fact that well before you made it, I had already decided to use the image on Haymarket Metro station based on what it did show, and the original photographer had already decided to upload it to geograph, a site whose sole purpose is to document the visual environment, and the fact that out of the three of us, it's obviously not you who has spent any time looking at images of this unique Metro system. I hope you can square it with the fact that there is no alternative image on Commons and no replacement can ever be made - I hope you're confident enough in your own mind to be able to make that sort of decision on behalf of any and all potential re-users. Because you clearly think we're both idiots for deciding to use them. I hope you can square the decision with the fact that there was no practical benefit to this deletion for Commons at all - it doesn't help newcomers understand COM:SCOPE any better (I even linked to an example in that DR of an image that is blurred well beyond any practical use and which has numerous alternates here that is indestructable), and it sure as hell doesn't free up disk space. I hope you can square the decision with the fact that you ultimately sided with the guy who said the images were "useless garbage", who is now claiming vindication of that sort of ignorant view through your closure, and is therefore now likely to apply that to other people's hard work here. Ultimately, I hope you can square it with the demoralising message it sends to uploaders like me. I have already taken it to UnDr, but as usual, the only thing on offer there is the usual utter nonsense about how Commons only exists to illustrate Wikipedia, so obviously, that's was always going to be a waste of time, as I'm sure you already know. Ultra7 (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually they came from Flickr, not geograph, so I'll retract some of the above (although I can easily imagine this same nonsense happening to similar images I've uploaded from geograph in the past). But having realised that just reminded me of what the actual images looked like - and looking again at this one, the better of the two - it really is beyond a joke that you can even frame this as an issue of subjectivity. It is frankly not even in doubt that there are details on that image, which I will remind you are no longer replaceable, whose basic understanding is categorically not affected by the presence of blurring. And it quite obviously takes one hell of a subjective mindset to be able to claim that, for example, you don't think anyone would ever want to illustrate the specific way the rail has been mounted, or how the top and bottom are asymmetric, or what they were made of (and again, just to be absolutely sure, I'll remind you again that these are visual details are 100% categorically not present in the supposed alternatives - so if someone does want to do that using Commons imagery, it was these or nothing). Never mind the station or system article, I'll bet there is an entire Wikipedia article about that method of rail mounting - I can't be sure, but if I'm not, I guarantee you aren't either. Based on the fact that you obviously had no idea about the Tyne and Wear Metro going into this, do you really think it should be solely down to you to decide these issues on behalf of any and all potential future re-users? Because despite the existence of UnDr, the fact it is simply going down the same unseeing path of denying the obvious, responsibility for the impact of this gap in coverage on Commons will rest with you, if you don't undo it. Ultra7 (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I should just ignore you. It is certainly no wonder that we don't have enough Admins, or that a number of very active ones have resigned in the last six months.
However, I can't help rising to the bait on "that method of rail mounting". I've actually laid rail -- have you? -- and I can't tell from this image whether it is laid on concrete ties, metal ties, longitudinal concrete plates, or wood ties (the latter being unlikely in a modern subway). I can't tell what the hold-downs actually are -- bolts, head up; bolts, thread up; Pandrol clips, track screws; or spikes (both of the latter also unlikely). I can't tell if there are tie plates or rail anchors present. I don't see any joint bars, so it might be welded rail, but that's only a guess. So, I can't see what possible use this image might be to the WP:EN article on rail mounting, particularly given the quality of the images we have there already. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Well that's just it isn't it? You, a Commons admin, who just deleted a file that they have been told in no uncertain terms was irreplaceable and in no uncertain terms has no alternates on Commons, and which he knows at least three other people have deemed it to show enough detail to be usable - you think that being asked to explain yourself, is somehow being 'baited'. No, I have never laid rail, so when I say 'method of rail mounting' I say that in the context of it being clear enough to tell its laid directly onto a concrete bed. No, it's not possible to tell the specific method of fixing, but I'm really not seeing why that means that nobody on Commons should be able to see that those are at least the options in use. I'm also not seeing why that means nobody on Commons should be allowed to see the other details present - the geometry of the tunnel walls for example. Frankly, you really need to knock this whole 'poor overworked admins' attitude right on the head, because that is no excuse for you to not explain your decisions. If you don't understand that, then please, just turn in your tools now, because you won't find another Wikimedia project where admins are made to feel good about not explaining their decision making process if they feel rushed. Seriously, how the holy fucking hell do you expect me to be able to know that the reason you chose to delete this image was because, in your opinion as a railway technician, you decided that there was not enough detail in that image of the specific rail fixings to be of use? And how is that not a super-vote anyway? What makes that 'subjective' view any more valid that the two users who voted keep? The only reason you gave in the DR was 'per 199', who only gave the opinion that it was 'failed' and 'blurred', reasons you should know full well are not acceptable on their own per COM:SCOPE. And even after being asked to explain further, the only explanation you gave was 'significant motion blur'. Only after being asked repeatedly have you even come close to explaining what lies behind your decision, and the price to the enquirer to get that far is to be treated like an asshole, as usual. You've got no goddam right at all to feel hard done by here. No right at all. You're not the person who spends the time to source/upload/categorise/describe these images. You're not the person who is left with absolutely no fucking clue how to interpret COM:SCOPE in future thanks to totally opaque and totally inconsistent outcomes like this. Ultra7 (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No comment.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You have no 5th amendment rights here. You're either accountable or not. You can either explain your actions, or not. Ultra7 (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
First, I have no obligation to respond to expletive filled diatribes.
Second, my closing comment and a lot of words above have explained exactly why I deleted it.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do we sometimes keep supposed PD images with no traceable provenance?

Jim, I'm mystified.

You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:A cold mountain creek in Alaska.jpg as keep with nothing but the word of a 3rd-party website operator that he had scraped it from some unknown place that claimed it was PD. No back-links were provided. And the uploader identified one possible pseudonymous origin on the web with NO PD declaration. But for historical images we commonly require publication date and/or artist be established. For purportedly licensed images we require a verifiable chain of transmission and a clear original license. For third-party images uploaded by commons members and for previously published images we require email to OTRS.

I fail to see the difference between this case and "I found it on the web". I'd like to know your rationale. Dankarl (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I see from your talk page that you are closing a lot of DRs and getting a lot of flack for it both ways. I wouldn't squawk about this one except that it will be used a a policy precedent to prevent further deletions of bulk-uploaded images on similar grounds. Dankarl (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

We're making an effort to clean up the old stuff and get the Drs back on track, lest they get out of hand as they did a while ago. As I said above, I expect a certain amount of flack when closing old DRs -- the reason they're old is that they are hard, close calls, or controversial, or they would have been closed a month ago.
Generally when an Admin doesn't leave a closing comment, it's because he or she agrees with the position taken by the side of the debate that the closure matches, in this case Fae's comment. While adding "Per Fae" would only be seven keystrokes, we all get into the habit of working quickly -- ten Admins deleting 750 files a day will do that.
On this one, I found Fae's argument persuasive -- we have 14,000 images from this source with nary a hint of a problem. That's certainly a lot better than our record with Flickr. I would far rather believe a site such as PDI with an excellent record than the Flickr user who claims it's his image. In fact, I'd rather Assume Good Faith with PDI than I would with any given new editor on Commons who claims "own work" that we have no way to check.
Or, to put it another way, it's a matter of experience with the source. "I found it on the Web" from a new editor means it's probably a copyvio. "I found it on the Web" from an editor like you (11,000 edits and only 26 talk page entries) means it's probably OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess I'll have to think about this some more. I remain concerned that bulk uploads bypass quality control, and PDI's slapdash approach to descriptions does not inspire my confidence in their thoroughness in other matters. Dankarl (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that bulk uploads are problematic, but if I were going to raise the issue, I'd start with Flickr, not PDI. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Mrowl!

Here is the cutest possible kitten for you

This is a random act of kittenage for one of my favorite admins. Chins up, meows forward and always remember to take long naps! HUGS! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Closure question

Hello, Jim. I noticed the closure at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greg-keelor.jpg, and I wanted to ask you about it. In this case, the uploader selected a free license, and also stated "Anyone may use it for non-commercial use". You deleted the image with the comment "As a general rule of legal construction, anything added to boilerplate (the CC license in this case) controls. Therefore the NC overrides the CC license."

I just wanted to make sure you're aware here... the uploader has also made the image available on his personal website here, where he explicitly licenses all images under a cc-by-sa-3.0 license. (The website never says anything about "non-commercial use".) Ordinarily, I would think that any photos on that website could be transferred to Commons, right? (He has 700 images of Greg Keelor and his band there, all explicitly released under a free license.) Would there be anything wrong with me uploading one or more of those? All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you're correct. Consistency may not be the best of his talents. When you do upload one or more images, make sure that it gets a {{Licensereview}} tag at once, lest he change the license again -- and, as you probably know, even though you have that right, you should not license review your own uploads.
I think it would even be OK to upload the deleted image from his site onto the same file name. I know that sounds like the long way round, but I'm very reluctant to change the license on a user's own-work upload. Better to delete it, get rid of his license, and then replace it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure thing, and thanks for your feedback. – Quadell (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Discourteous commentary beginning

Hi Jim!! We have a doozy of a tempest blowing up in the deletions teapot. I'm not certain but I think I'm being accused of being an anonymous editor on a rampage and a sock puppet. Your help would be most gratefully appreciated. Commons:Deletion_requests/2013/11/19

This is at least the third time these photos have been nominated for deletion, the other two times they were removed. I don't know what is the point of the sockpuppet and anonymous accusations. I am not the anonymous editor, I don't know how they could claim they tracked someone else's IP to mine, and I have no conflict of interest regarding the lady in the photographs, I live on the opposite side of the United States from her. Thank you for your help and guidance. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

  • BTW, it's helpful if you link to DRs, not the images. The sequence number on the DRs will change from day to day as closed DRs are archived. Also, if I had seen these early in the discussions -- as you did -- I would have combined the four into one. Just add the other three file names to the one and then put a redirect in the other three. As it is, we've got four long and close to identical discussions going. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I would have loved to have combined the four to one, unfortunately I don't know how. I do know how to start a multiple deletion request, but I am not "up" on the "redirecting" and "combining" stuff yet. If you show me how to do this, I will do it for all of them; several of the really active nominators don't know either. I'm wondering if a simple tutorial page for new Deletions workers might be in order? Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
You might take a look at User:Jameslwoodward/Commons_notes_for_administrators. It is mostly, as it says, for Admins, but there may be a few useful nuggets there for you.
On combining, I took a shot at an explanation at User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox1.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the tutorial pages, I bookmarked & I will look later. One of my dear friends has had a major loss to death and we are rallying for him at present. Hugs and thank you I will look later! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bhuma Niketan at Vijayanagara Ghat in Varanasi.jpg

Dear Jim, you were right. And I tried to correct my previous imprecision. please see the correspondence with the permission @ the british library. Is it sufficient? What corrections are needed in the description? can you help me? Cheers --Rahulkepapa (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. This is difficult. The Library said:
"The Library grants permission to use the image on your website, the fees has been waived. Please credit the Library accordingly."
While "your website" presumably means Commons, it's not at all clear that the Library understands that an image on Commons is available for use by anyone for any purpose. I am sure that some of my colleagues would be OK with this. Others will not be. I'm right on the fence, but since the question will come up again, I suggest that you go back to the library and get them to provide a formal CC license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Small detail

Hi Jim, I'm not disputing your decisions re Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greg-keelor.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reigate and Banstead BC logo.png, but there is one small detail outstanding. WereSpielChequers (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

On the first, note that what you see is a new upload, from the same source, see the discussion three up from this User_talk:Jameslwoodward#Closure_question.
On the second, what's the problem? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation re the first, my cache or something seems to have caught up with me re the second. WereSpielChequers (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Carnivals and User:Eleassar

Hi, Jim, would you mind commenting here? The list of the masks proposed for deletion is available at [51]. If anything at all, I think Yann's last (yesterday's and before) DR closures of my proposals are abusive and at least some of the images he decided to keep should be deleted. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Reinhart_Medaille_2.jpg

Hi Jim,

as far as I know, Turelio has got the reply he waited for. Please talk to him, to get this issue solved. --Hofphotograph (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine -- Turelio can certainly restore the image if we get an appropriate license. Also, as pointed out in the DR, the creator needs to be credited. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Moinsen! The license is available for Turelio since Friday 02:33 p.m., I wonder why he has not submitted it. The Creator is unknown, because the medal was manufactured. Kind regards--T. E. Ryen (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

RfCUs

It would be nice if you could co-sign them. :) Trijnsteltalk 21:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done To all of those who read this page, Trijnstel and I would appreciate your consideration -- and support if you find it appropriate -- of the two Checkusers candidates we have nominated. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Vancouver 2010 Gold Medal Paralympic Games.jpg

Hi, File:Vancouver 2010 Gold Medal Paralympic Games.jpg has been left out and should be deleted. Thanks. Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 06:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Please, also delete File:DR 1938 672 Adolf Hitler.jpg. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Creating File:Stadio Irinis kai Filias.jpg

hi, can you tell me please 4 which reason the picture has been deleted? --91.18.47.8 11:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  • In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Greece. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    • but the picture was taken by myself. by this i hold the rights of the picture... right? --91.18.47.8 11:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There are two copyrights here, yours and the architect's. You hold the rights to your picture, but as it says above, your picture infringes on the rights of the architect of the stadium. You can certainly legally keep the picture for your own use, but you cannot sell copies of it, and others cannot use it at all. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Emanuel Leplin photo

Dear Jim,

I was shocked and aggrieved to see that you have deleted the signature photo for the article "Emanuel Leplin" because, according to what you wrote, you don't know who took it, and (yet) whoever took it or his or her heirs owns the copyright. In speaking of a photograph that was taken by an anonymous person approximately 69 years ago, you weren't there, and you do not know what was claimed if anything by the photographer. For all anyone knows, s/he simply gave the photo to Leplin with no strings attached. Or, Leplin bought it. Since no information about the photographer exists, one of these scenarios is the most likely circumstance. In effect, you are assigning a copyright to a nameless person who is probably now deceased (having lived past 90), and if alive, cannot be found—especially if the photo has disappeared, as it has since you removed it. I have owned this photograph for forty years. No one has ever contacted me about this photo. What you did was to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let someone relevant claim a copyright violation before making an assumption that there is one, and all you've done, while destroying the introduction to this article, is to make an assumption.

Rleplin (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid that all of your arguments are anticipated by our Precautionary Principle. It is up to you to prove that the image is free beyond a significant doubt, not the other way around.
The photographer, or his heirs, owns the copyright and under US law a photograph by an unknown photographer that was not published until after 1989 is under copyright until the earlier of 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation. In this case, the latter date, 2065, controls.
We see many orphan works -- those where it is unlikely that the copyright owner can be found -- and Commons policy is very clear -- we cannot keep them.
I should point out that simply owning a copy of the photograph, whether Leplin bought it or was given it, has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright. Transferring a copyright requires a formal agreement separate from giving or selling the photo.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Gtrunout2.jpg

Hi ! You deleted the file File:Gtrunout2.jpg. May I ask you why? File:Gtrunout2.jpg is different from File:Gtrunout.jpg. In the former (now deleted), I wiped out the plates' numbers. Kind Regards --Lametropolitana (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I deleted it per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gtrunout2.jpg. As you will see there, the nom and I thought they were essentially identical -- one has the plate number (but not the two letters) obscured, the other has the plate completely obscured. Pick whichever one you prefer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Sexy Men Forbes 2006 - S- Nick Barua (ニック - バルア) 2013-10-07 03-56.jpg

Please note my addendum as to the edit history of that discussion. Thanks -- (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I added a note there also.
With that understood, I think you might consider my comments. We have tended to shorthand "not useful for an educational purpose" into "no encyclopedic value". While they don't quite mean the same thing, they are close enough to get the point across. I myself have used "Commons is not Facebook". As I pointed out in the closing comment, policy actually points to Flickr as the right place for a certain class of images, many of which The Photographer has been targeting. I'll use "Commons is not Flickr" for those in the future.
I have mixed feelings about The Photographer. He is certainly helping us to get rid of a broad swath of personal images that are clearly out of scope, but he needs to be watched carefully. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately these homilies lead to frequent misunderstanding. "Commons is not Facebook" is of course a literally correct statement, however our community agreed policies do not support deleting of any selfies or any portrait that someone vaguely thinks might be "self promotional" in some way that they have not explained. Similarly "non encyclopedic" is demonstrably misleading, it is massively different from whether a media file has likely educational value and will mislead Wikipedians as to how they should see the world when being good Commonsists. In particular the lazy rationales that "we have enough of these" or "others are better quality" is completely different from "this photo is too poor a quality to be of likely educational use". With newcomers to the housekeeping task of Deletion requests, it is worth pointing this out until they get the idea, as seems to have happened with The Photographer's slightly better expressed recent DRs which have picked up on my links and phrasing.
I hope you also recognize the distinction between me making a comment in a DR directed at a poorly worded nomination, and expressing a keep/delete opinion, which I did not do, and yet have been criticized for in other DRs in this series. Thanks -- (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
To take your last comment first, yes I do. Others may not see that distinction and will read your comment as a Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. It may be better to take criticism of wording to the nom's talk page.
I'm not sure whether you're objecting above to sloppy noms or to the whole concept of deleting personal images. My understanding of policy is that we do not keep images of non-notable people unless they are both of reasonable quality and illustrate some aspect of the world that has an educational purpose, broadly defined. "Reasonable quality" is to be judged by the number of other images we have in the category.
With that said, I agree completely that we all need to write careful, accurate standard English (or whatever other language -- I suspect Google translate does a better job with careful wording in any language). As I said above, following your comments, I will use "Commons is not Flickr" and be more careful in my noms.
I think we could also be more careful about jargon in noms -- FOP, ToO, DW, all are clear to old hands, but will confuse the newbie. I wrote and use {{Drfop}} for use in my noms -- Stefan4 is now using it also. I might write similar templates for the others.
BTW, we need to share the credit -- see User_talk:The Photographer#Self promotion.2C low quality image.2C non encyclopedic value. Commons is not facebook .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hm, I'll have to think about expressing "this is not a !vote" more clearly.
In terms of shortcuts, I avoid them by using a neat iMacro tool I created a couple of years ago which expands shortcuts for me while I'm editing. Hence (using it here) OOS becomes scope MELLOW becomes Staying mellow and IDENT becomes Photographs of identifiable people. Perhaps one day I'll sit down and work out how to turn this into a tool for everyone to apply, it saves a lot of typing and makes rather cryptic jargon into real sentences. :-) -- (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Useful tool. I've written MSWord macros in the past to do similar things, but I don't know how to get into this editor. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Put the sourcecode at User:Fæ/code/unshortcut, just in case you can crib some ideas.
Oh, I'm not objecting to mass deletion of poor quality selfies, the problem is that some better quality selfies are actually quite nice illustrations of contemporary culture such as dress, hair-styles, types of fandom, fancy dress, etc. What we don't want is for nominators or admins to stop wondering if the middling quality photographs might actually have some educational re-use, otherwise we may as well let a bot start auto-deleting. -- (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we're pretty much on the same wavelength. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Trabalhos.jpg

"I think that once a photographer has licensed any version of an image, all resolutions have the same license. " Are you sure? Then, I think we can upload may pictures available for sale at many sites. Moreover, many people already given as a permission for using a very small resolution copy of their very famous works. So, do you think we can host a high resoulution here, depending on that license? JKadavoor Jee 12:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

My whole comment:
"Although I could understand an argument that a much higher resolution version is a different image for copyright purposes, I think that is not the case. Therefore, I think that once a photographer has licensed any version of an image, all resolutions have the same license."
is a little more nuanced than your excerpt. No, I'm not sure -- I had to close it one way or the other and I picked what seems to me to be the better way. I do understand that I was creating precedent on Commons, but before you try to apply it wholesale, you might bring it up at the Commons:Village pump/copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't understand anything you said above; so moving to Commons:Village pump/copyright. Thanks. JKadavoor Jee 13:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi James, any comments? JKadavoor Jee 13:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:WisconsinRapidsSign.jpg

You closed the discussion as delete. Using the deletion logic, almost all the images under Category:Signs in the United States be deleted since they're a graphic art. A few are just simple geometric design plus basic letters, but almost all have some type of small image / logo. I'm not bitter about having the image deleted or being a smart alex - this is a serious question. And it's a large can of worms that was opened. I'd like to know where the limit is. Guidelines / policy need to be rewritten to exclude signs in the US since they're art. Royalbroil 13:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's a serious question. We just went through all of the Pennsylvania State historical markers, see Commons:Deletion requests/PAHMC. Most could be saved as PD-no-notice, but all of the recent ones are gone.
Note that it's not just the US, it's everywhere unless the FOP rules allow. And it's not just art, as even a very plain text-only sign will have a copyright as a literary work if the text is more than a sentence. The Pennsylvania signs fell into that. You might do well to read the USCO's Copyright Basics -- it is #1 on this list http://www.copyright.gov/circs/. It is a good, official, summary of a lot of the issues that face us on Commons..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I wish we had a way to mass upload back to en:wiki for cases like this; we lose so much small county history by losing historical markers. Big places with lots of people have books and stuff for their history; out in the sticks the markers are many times the only source we have for local history. I am not complaining, merely lamenting! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Skrefsrud.jpg

Hello. The person in matter, pioneer missionary en:Lars Olsen Skrefsrud, lived from 1840 to 1910. The portrait should thus be safe from almost every angle of PD. I would therefore ask you to undelete the picture and add Template:PD-Norway50 or a similar template. Best wishes --Morten Haugen (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As it turns out, it is a portion of the same lithograph as File:Lars Olsen Skrefsrud (1840 - 1910).jpg, which we should probably use instead.
It is not clear to me that either are as safe as you think. This is a formal studio portrait, not a snapshot, so the rule in Norway is pma 70. Our general rule for pma 70 countries is that unless a work is older that 1885 or so, we cannot assume that it is out of copyright beyond a significant doubt..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I have a different view on the norwegian copyright act. The border is not drawn between studio portraits and snapshots, but between works of art (as in art gallery photography) and ordinary photographies (as in journalism, postcards, family photograhy etc). Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

comment: "Our general rule for pma 70 countries is that unless a work is older that 1885 or so, we cannot assume that it is out of copyright beyond a significant doubt" -- where exactly is this "policy"?

AND, given the dob (1840) & dod (1910) of the subject, & his apparent age in the photograph (surely not >45), i'd say that the terminus ante quem for the image is just about 1885... Lx 121 (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@Morten Haugen -- If that is the case, then please discuss it at the appropriate place and change our summary of Norwegian law, which now uses the word "snapshots".
@LX 121 -- I said "It is not clear to me that either are as safe as you think." I have not hung a DR on the image, but commented that it looked to be close to the line, which your math simply confirms. I also said "general rule", not "policy". It is my experience that 1885 is about the date used by many of our colleagues. It allows for a person born in 1860, taking a photograph at age 25, and living to be 83. If you'd like to argue for a different date, that's fine, but we have to draw the line somewhere and that seems to be comfortable. If you wanted to strictly follow "significant doubt" as a standard, you'd probably set it earlier. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The Influx of Problematic Files

Hi Jim, hope you're well. I happened to come across a nifty set of reports compiled by Magog here. I always knew the recurring issues with the copyvios/problematic uploads on Commons was bad, but I had no idea it was *this* bad. Anyways, just thought I'd share. Best, FASTILY 03:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

comment -- maybe i'm missing it, but what exactly is supposed to be so "bad" here? that we have new users & they are uploading material? o__0 Lx 121 (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

A fast look through them shows that a significant fraction are missing a licenses or otherwise problematic. Having looked hard at the number in several different ways, my best guess is that between 10 and 20% of all uploads are problematic. It stands to reason that the number would be higher for new users. As we discussed some time ago, the vast majority, perhaps 90%, of all new galleries created by people who do not have the auto-patrol bit are {{Speedy}} usually because they are articles without images, spam, or mistakes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, and that is a rather unfortunate set of statistics; these files are being uploaded faster than we can take them down, and at the rate Commons is growing, we're probably only going to continue falling behind :[ IMHO we need a better set of processes/solutions to address this issue. -FASTILY 22:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I said several times that a year ago we were uploading 8,000 images a day and deleting 2,000. We are now uploading over 10,000 and deleting around 1,400. I don't think our uploaders have gotten any better at avoiding problem images.
I have mulled over the thought of asking for a moratorium on all uploads except those intended to go directly into WP articles, or perhaps on uploads that are from Flickr and similar databases. Having said that, I know it won't fly.
Perhaps we could adopt a system something like the WP:EN system for new articles -- until a newbie had a given number of successful uploads, his or her upload would go to a holding space and would not be generally usable or visible until a patroller had signed off on it. Or, perhaps a little more radical, but more workable, all of the newbie's uploads would get a DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes; indeed. Many uploads Flickr is also very useless. So I think it is better to make a list of eligible Flickr streams than current blacklist. So any one can suggest a new stream there and a trusted reviewer can accept or reject it, after evaluating the overall contents there. It should be applicable for all third party uploads from various sites. JKadavoor Jee 09:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I think there is only one long term sustainable solution: more eyes watching, which means more good contributors, more admins, etc. Yann (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I like Jeevan's idea -- invert the Flickr process. And yes, we could use more active Admins. INC was a big loss. I've often thought that we might do well to raise the six month review numbers substantially. I can do five deletions in five minutes and what does it prove about my commitment to Commons? If there were say, only fifty Admins, we might be able to attract more. I think many users who might become Admins look at 260+ and wonder why we need any more. Fifty Admins did 97% of the deletions in the last thirty days, so the other 213 all together did about half of what Yann or I did. It flattens out some over six months, but the top fifty did 94%.
Aside from that, about all I can offer is to keep recruiting. I don't think we do well with ten of us doing 75% of the work -- or Turelio, then Fastily, then INC, now Fastily doing 25%. Much better to find ten new Admins who will do five deletions a day -- that would put them in the mid-twenties on the list, but would add 200 deletions a day, which is a good start on the increase I think we need. Fastily's exhortation on ANB certainly sped up the DR closures. Maybe a little of that would help, too -- "Admins -- how about setting a goal of five deletions for every day you're on Commons, before you do anything else?"
Of course all of this sounds like I think deletions were a good thing -- a goal in themselves. I don't -- I wish we had none, but that would require figuring out how to educate the rotating mass of 25,000 users we see every month on the complexities of copyright in -- how many countries? It would also require a way to eliminate the rule-breakers.
How about it Jeevan? You certainly have the experience, and 3,000+ edits in Commons: space says that you are interested in administrative matters. You could be the first of our ten, and you could do five deletions a day in a couple of minutes. I'll nominate you -and I'll bet Yann will join me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
A few weeks, I decided to do a recent pages patrol. Two things became immediately obvious to me: 1) Special:NewFiles is not up to the task, because it groups in the long-term uploaders (who rarely present a problem) with thew new uploaders (who often do), and 2) as you have both stated, we are understaffed like never before. That is why I created this page. Literally 10-20% of new uploads are immediately noticeable as problematic. Another 30% or so become obvious as a problem if you look at them for a few seconds e.g., if you take the time to run a Google Image search to find out they were scraped from a website, or you realize it's just a picture that a new user uploaded of himself which he clearly never intends to use, or (God forbid we police such things) it's a low quality picture that some idiot uploaded of his penis.
Particularly nefarious are the mobile uploads; I can say with certainty that at least 75% (and probably closer to 90%) of the mobile uploads by brand new users are utter and complete trash. I think we should seriously consider restricting mobile uploads to confirmed users if the software will allow it. People in the community might howl and scream, but I don't see them taking the time to mark for deletion the flood of copyvios and selfies.
However, the thing that has really tipped the balance against our favor is the new upload wizard. I think everyone, both the community and the devs, thought it would help users to figure out what is proper to upload, and they would thus upload it. Instead, it has just made it easier for people who have no understanding of the process to figure out how to mark their copyrighted images in such a way that they won't get deleted (e.g., "This logo of my favorite soccer club is self-created"). I hate to say it, but we might need to take extraordinary measures to stop this. In particular, we need to stop babycoddling users who mark as {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} third-party logos that maybe possibly per-chance might be PD-textlogo by ignoring them; {{subst:nld}} should qualify for any upload that is obviously incorrectly licensed, and any admin who removes a deletion marker from a page must make sure it's properly licensed. Simply put, because we are so short-staffed, we do not have the time to go through the maybe-possibly-per-chance-OK-as-textlogos-in-the-US-but-who-knows-about-their-home-country and evaluate them one by one and edit them to say PD-textlogo, but we do have the time to open the page, click "no license", and move on. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
If we can't somehow restrict the uploads (especially from Flickr like sites and from the newcomers), increasing the number of Admins won't help much. @Jim: I'm happy to help; but don't want to go for an admin-ship now. Let me know if you need help in OTRS or any other similar area where I can help you without the admin rights now. JKadavoor Jee 16:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I am against restricting uploads (except may be from mobile), but I would agree for more severity for copyvios, and automatic tagging of suspicious files. See 3 propositions for a start. Yann (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. a bot could tag as copyvios all images uploaded with Google/Facebook/Internet/etc. as source.
  2. This tool was useful to find problems. I don't know if it was transfered to the Labs and where. Some bot tagging of small images without EXIF would be useful.
  3. 90% of files here are copyvios: Category:Media uploaded without a license.
Hi, I'm not an admin, just a regular user who has gotten involved in the deletion process. I think Jim has a great idea higher in this thread. Get a pile of little nobodies like me, have a good tutorial page in basic deletion process, and turn us all loose to do the "easy ones." I'd offer mentor skills for the very basics; I'm thinking of writing everything I know so far into a tutorial to help other newcomers. Some of the methods are not easily visible how to do to someone just arriving; for example, I find the wonderful list by Magog to be a really helpful place to start every day looking for silly people and silly uploads. Having all the images there on the page together is a big help. If tiny thumbnails could be included on the Deletion nomination pages it would make it easier for new commentators to see at least what it looks like before they get into it. The downside to that is lazy people might just delete comment from the thumbnail. The other thing which might help is a list of deletion admins and volunteers so new people know the names of the power players. Also, coming from a games background, I'd like a "leader board" of deletions, not so that people compete to go faster, but for them to realize how much work is being done by how few. This is actually a fun process for people with a mystery or puzzle solving background. I'm not up on all the complicated details of FOPs, coins, flags, svgs, and logos yet, but I can certainly help with the gazillion copyvios, blurry self-portraits, self-promotions, product shots, utterly blank images, and 4.5 billion penors. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Jeevan -- the most important thing you can do without the Admin bit is to create {{Delete}}s and {{Speedy}}s. As Magog says, his new tool, which started this thread, is a great hunting ground.

@Ellin. For your leader board, see Commons:Database reports/Users by log action for the all time heavy hitters and http://toolserver.org/~vvv/adminstats.php?wiki=commonswiki_p&tlimit=2592000 for the last thirty days. 2592000 is the number of seconds in thirty days -- you can make the report for any time you please, although it usually times out beyond six months. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Ellin Beltz: Use MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js. Select "full page name" and type in the full page name of the gallery. I do this all of the time on Magog's galleries: choose copyvio, type "album cover" and select all that apply. Then repeat with other reasons such as "non-free logo", "movie poster" and similar. The big problem is that there are not enough people to search through all images on those pages. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Stefan. I'll try it as well. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

More help

So sorry to keep bothering you, but what does one do about uploads like from this user: Timmylam welcon ? He or she seems to have uploaded a whole pile of photographs of a commercial cleaning fluid being used to clean air conditioning or duct work filters and added it to one of the non-English wiki's complete with a gallery and pile of text. It looks to me like advertising spam, but I'm not sure does it go for normal deletion or do you have some magical bug zapper for this kind of thing? Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

comment -- commons has no policy for "magic bug zapper", especially for files that are in-use. please follow procedure. AND please try to remember to agf & don't bite the noobs. especially when you can't read the language the article is written in... Lx 121 (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr./Ms. Lx 121. You are in such a hurry to make comments that I am afraid you have failed to understand the context about which you complain. There is no "biting noobs" involved when I ask for help about someone's uploads. There is no procedure to "follow" here, merely a request for assistance from Mr. Woodward. The uploader has not been contacted and these images were not marked for deletion. Additionally you have no way to know my fluency in any language, please cease making assumptions. So far you have assumed several things about me, they have all been incorrect. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually we do have a magic zapper called Special:Nuke which allows Admins to delete all or a selection of a User's uploads from the last thirty days. We use it very carefully and sparingly. In this case, I share Ellin's thought that this is all spam, but would proceed with caution because, as Lx 121 points out, some of the images are in use. I think that some of them are not in use and could have a {{Delete}} hung on them at once, for example:
File:APSD label.png is in use in the article 全能起漬劑 which appears to be pure spam, but it is not up to us to delete it until the WP:ZH editors delete the article.
I am happy to AGF and I spend considerable time helping newbies, but I think that Lx 121 needs to remember that there are also bad guys out there. This looks like a spammer who has written at least one spam article on WP:ZH. As such, he or she no longer deserves AGF. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. Yesterday I also reverted some articles which had been entirely replaced by spam which I found through looking at the Magog uploads list. See en:Khamis Abdullah Saifeldin ([52]) and en:Central Union High School District ([53]) (numbered links are the replacement/spam articles) for some more of what these "bad guys" do for fun and profit trying to use the project. I will go hang tags on those three photos you highlighted, thank you for the advice as always, so helpful to an older editor only six months into learning the deletion ropes. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I visited the photos you listed above and over night two of them have gotten into use.
  • File:Welcon Product Overview.png is in use in an article created by the uploading user see ([54]) a registered user removed most of his advertising edits ([55]). The advertising material was returned to the article by two anonymous editors and subsequent edits were made by the uploading user.
  • File:Apsd packing.jpg is in use in another article created by the uploading user see ([56]).
  • I did tag the third one as it is not currently in use. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
There certainly are a lot of advertising images today! Here's an uploader with 25 uploads all taken from a commercial jeep rental website. Those pages say "copyright" as does the metadata of these uploads. The user name sounds like a business. Am I on the right track to think that all these should be marked for deletion? Is there any automated way to mark multiples for deletion (as there is for single images), or just the method outlined on the Deletion pages? FYI, I have not marked any of these, seeking guidance first. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Because they came from a site with an explicit (c) they are subject to speedy deletion, which I have done using Special:Nuke.
There is Visual_File_Change which many of our colleagues use for mass deletes. I have never used it -- I tend to use the more capable, but slower AWB for automating multiple file work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Inventioned maps

Hi Jameslwoodward. I would just like to ask you what can be done when a map has been invented, against reliable sources. Can it be anyhow prevented from being used in any wikipedia?--Franxo (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A map that is plainly in error -- say a map showing the United States with 60 states, different from the real ones -- will be deleted after a DR. I suspect, however, that you are referring to the several language maps by User:Fobos92. In such cases, Commons policy is to keep the maps, because we do not want to be arbitrators of disputes. You may add the {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} tag to it. The choices of editors at individual WPs are not our business and Commons has no way to prevent use. Acting within the rules of the WP in question, you may, of course, remove it from use.
This may seem strange, but please remember that Commons is simply a repository -- a place for images of all kinds to be kept. We carefully do not take sides in disputes because we want the largest possible variety of images for WP editors and outsiders to choose from. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Photos of David E.H. Jones

I asked for these not to be deleted because they're under a free licence. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

These were Flickrwashing. While they had a free license on Flickr, the Flickr user did not own the right to grant such a license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Emblem and related files

They have been undeleted, but as I stated, I do not know how to create a COM:COA template. You said that you can do it? Fry1989 eh? 02:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure -- I'll pull something together and then have you review it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 03:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Here's my attempt -- User:Jameslwoodward/Sandox3. I took the language from Commons:Coats of arms. I think it might be called {{CoA from blazon}}.
I note that we have {{Coat of arms}} and {{Insignia}}. I think they complement the new one -- they are more general, while the new one is only for the case where the CoA was drawn directly from the blazon. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
That looks great and very informative for those who may not know about such things. Thanks. Fry1989 eh? 21:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I copied it to the template and added it to the three Bangladeshi files. Templates aren't hard, as long as you stick to ones that just create text or an infobox -- no choices, no parameters. As you'll see if you look at it, I just used simple table markup to get things in the right place and stole most of the text from the article and the template cited above. It gets much harder when you add choices and parameters as the table syntax is very unforgiving. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the template should have a mandatory link to the blazon that was used. As for the Bangladeshi Emblem, the only blazon I can find is here (section 3) if that is indeed the blazon used, I find it imposable to believe that the image was created solely from that blazon as there is not enough information to get so close to the image depicted in Annexure ‘A’ of the same document without using that image to copy from which makes the file a derivative work and thus should be deleted. LGA talkedits 05:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I do not think we can require a link to the blazon -- many blazons are not on line. The blazon you quote is sufficient to draw the CoA in some form, particularly if the creator has seen other versions. Please remember that the the creator is not required to have virgin eyes -- that he has never seen the CoA before -- just that he does not use any particular version or small number of versions as a model. If you disagree, post another DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I am trying to understand what if anything makes this case different from say me viewing every plane in the Qantas fleet studying their emblem painted on every plane by countless different paint teams, also looking up a written description and drawing my own version and uploading it here as free ? Would it not get deleted as a copyvio of the logo ? LGA talkedits 22:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
You may have missed this. LGA talkedits 20:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did miss it.

Your Qantas example is difficult because the logos are almost certainly either a stencil or vinyl prints -- not painted individually. But in any event, the Qantas logos are identical, because Qantas wants them that way. They are all essentially the same representation, so you can't draw a copy from them without infringing. Different representations of a CoA drawn from the blazon can be quite different and if you took a dozen of them and drew your own version, it would be OK, I think. If you took two,probably not. Three? Four? I'm not sure there's any case law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

My point was that all the versions trace there origins back to a single image, in this case the blazon is not enough to draw this image, all versions in existence will have been copies of first published version and copies made by the government of Bangladesh, take for example the ears on the paddy, they are the same in number on both versions, yet that is not defined in the blazon, the only way that happens if someone counts them, to me these images are faithful copies of the logo of the government of Bangladesh that is still in copyright and as such should require a fair use rational to use ego needs to moved to a project that allows for fair use. LGA talkedits 23:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Velveteen Rabbit.djvu

I would have hoped that an admin of your experience and seniority could have consulted Wikisource, or at least notified Wikisource of the nomination for deletion. If you do nominate files that are hosted at Wikisource, then it would be great if you could add into the deletion discussion that any closing admin should utilise the process at {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs) 09:10, 3 December 2013‎ (UTC)

I was not aware of {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}} and I will try to remember to use it in similar circumstances in the future. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I copied this file to Wikisource. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Santiniketan 2.JPG would seem to be deleted in error

The work shown in File:Santiniketan 2.JPG is a fresco in a public place, and according to our information of FoP India that would allow for a reproduction in that circumstance as it is clearly meant to be displayed in a public place:

"(t) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture, or other artistic work failing under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2 ["any other work of artistic craftsmanship"], if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access;"

 — billinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The law reads
(2)c) "artistic work" means-
(i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality;
(ii) a 4 [work of architecture]; and
(iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship;
Since a fresco is a painting, it would be included in 2(c)(i) and therefore not in 2(c)(iii), and not in the FOP exception at 52(t).
That is consistent with the note at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#India:
"Note that this does not include copies of paintings, drawings, or photographs, as they do not fall under the referenced sub-clause (iii). They fall under sub-clause (i)."
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Astrangers_heart

I think probably you must have not gone through the mail completely. There is an attachment of identity proof of the copyright holder.So please take the statement back that "OTRS is worthless as its not from copyright holder." For 2nd point " free licensing and should not make any financial gains." If commons want to make images/content available under free licensing category and one agrees for it, its for free.Free thing is free thing.You can't make money out of something where the copyright holders are not trying to benefit.Let me give example. I make a doll and you put a clause that it should be made available free and i agreed and now you are trying to make money from it. It is unethical & ridiculous.Administrators should not be aggressive. While every other cared to put a message in the notification board you even did not bother to put message. (rock) (talk to me) 13:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

To your first point -- we do not accept OTRS messages that attach a message. The whole point of OTRS is to make it possible for the actual copyright holder to send us a license. That ensures the authenticity of the license.
To your second point. Perhaps you do not understand that Commons does not accept NC (Non-Commercial) licenses. We require that images be free for all use, including commercial use -- see COM:Licensing. The words you quoted above do not allow that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Well thanks for the reply. When i actually decided to put an end to the discussion about the objections raised to delete the media I uploaded I was directed to appeal to OTRS.I forwarded the whole email conversation where the subject gave his permission to use the content.Even in the OTRS mail I received there is disclaimer which is as follows " Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on https://www.wikimediafoundation.org/". Now can you explain me whats the authenticity of all the administrators who are removing contents at free will. You have the magical wand and everything goes just like that. Because you raise the point License, Can you please enlighten me what again is this license.Is there any specific format or any kind of form to fill. What are the documents required while submitting the license. What according to you is the authenticity?
Point 2 --So point two ; You did your job so this has nothing to do with you. The policy is just ridiculous. So wiki policy is "You do all the hard work and make me and others rich" A Policy of bureaucrats.You as administrator should also try to understand there are lots of people in the administrators itself who don't have clear understanding for policies, so its obvious there is clear confusion to the newbies. I request you to continue this thread in my discussion page as your objections are about my media.I want you to co-operate to make it easy for other wiki administrators to make their decisions. I don't want any one to waste their time for the already discussed topic. I want people to move on and help me to move on to different subjects.Thanks, (rock) (talk to me) 19:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, read COM:Licensing, which I also cited above. As for getting rich -- the problem is that there are very few actual uses of an image that are not commercial. The only two that I can think of are on a personal web site that does not carry advertising or in a school that does not charge for teaching. Anything else -- books, magazines, textbooks, schools with tuition, websites of businesses or charities that solicit money, websites that carry advertising -- are all commercial uses and prohibited for this image.
The required procedure for a license is described at Commons:OTRS. It must come directly from the copyright holder, not from you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kindly pardon my ignorance, something is beyond my logic and commonsense .If I forward any mail it is obvious that the mail will contain the detail of sender and receiver.How would it make any difference with direct mails and what's the authenticity of the e-mail. I think a video of copy right holder saying himself that he don't have any objection would be better choice. I think you should consider discussing it in administrators page to save time. Time is money and wikipedia should learn new ways to save the times.. Thanks, bro I will ask him to forward the mail if it works for you.(rock) (talk to me) 20:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
An e-mail that is forwarded to us can be forged -- faked. An e-mail directly from an e-mail address that is traceable to the copyright holder is harder to forge. I am sorry that we have to take these precautions, but fakes happen frequently. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Hope you are doing good.I just wanted to bring to your notice that that a mail has been forwarded directly from the authorized copyright holder.But haven't received any reply so far.Would really appreciate, If you can kindly check and revert back.Also would really appreciate if you can tell me if i can upload the pictures.thanks, (rock) (talk to me) 12:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do not upload the images again. When and if the copyright holder provides an appropriate free license, the images will be restored without further action on your part.

OTRS has a message from GopiChand Lagadapati dated December 10, that speaks only of a license for you to use the images in your article about him on WP. I cannot tell whether the OTRS volunteer who is handling the case will accept that -- I would not, since it is not a free license for any use anywhere by anybody. Again, the copyright holder must provide an acceptable free license. That is almost always a CC-0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA. In order to avoid misunderstandings, there is a recommended e-mail which is prominently displayed in a box at Commons:OTRS. Not using that form simply causes delays of this sort.

Also, please remember that OTRS, like all of Commons, is staffed by too-few volunteers and has a significant backlog. Once GopiChand Lagadapati provides a suitable license, it could be several weeks before his message is acted upon. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey James , I went through the mail which Mr.Gopichand have sent you .It was clearly written in the mail that he is giving wiki commons his permission to use the pictures under free license category.As the pictures uploaded by me were facing copyright he quoted that i am authorized to upload pictures of him with respect to the article created.I also want to move on and write different articles.so If I finish I will be able to move on to other things.Hope you understand.Thanks, (rock) (talk to me) 2:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a reason why there are clear instructions at Commons:OTRS to use the message contained in the box.

"Due to the large number of ambiguous answers to enquiries concerning a permission of reuse for an image, text or similar (such as "I allow Wikipedia to reuse my photos") it is advisable to use a standard declaration of consent in the e-mail..."

This message is exactly the sort of message that the instructions in the box are intended to avoid. I do not know what the OTRS volunteer will do, but, as I said above, I would not accept the license -- it appears to me to be limited to your article on WP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gopinath Bordoloi.jpg

Hi! You had deleted the subject image. But a image has again been uploaded at File:Gopinath Bordoloi.jpg. Now i don't remember if both these images are same. If they are, can you please delete this new one also? If not, i will ask for speedy deletion as Indian postal stamps of 1991 are not PD yet. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not the same -- the previous one was a photograph. As you say, Indian stamps are under copyright for sixty years, so I deleted it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Saved my few clicks! ;) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial

Hello. I'm not sure that the U.S. example is a valid reason to have deleted these images. In Canada, the presumption is the exact opposite of that under American law. Under s. 12 of the Canadian Copyright Act ([57]), copyright to all works prepared under the direction or control of Her Majesty belongs to the Crown, and this provision is retroactive. Copyright law in the former Commonwealth dominions was based on U.K. law, and the same provision existed at the time this memorial was created in both Canadian (see s. 10 of the 1921 Act at [58]) and British (see s. 11 of the 1911 Act at [59]) copyright law. I cannot located Newfoundland statutes from the period, but given my experience with pre-Confederation Newfoundland land (even from the Dominion period) in real estate and contract, Newfoundland statute law deferred to the British model even more than Canadian one. Whether the contractual relationship with the British sculptor Basil Gotto was done under British or Newfoundland law, copyright undoubtedly remained with the Crown.

I also note that you didn't address File:Beaumont-Hamel - Official Opening (7 June 1925).jpg.

Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong, here, but as I said at the UnDR, I'm not at all sure that Newfoundland, Canadian, or UK law applied at all. The monument is in France. Since there is no extra-territoriality in copyright (I can dig up cites if you want), it seems to me that French copyright law applies. As you say, Gotto was a Brit, but since the work was created in France, it seems to me that citing the law of the other three countries on issue of who owns the copyright to a work for hire is not correct. Remember, that in France, the Newfoundland government does not have a special status -- it is simply the party commissioning the work. If the work were in Newfoundland, I would agree with you -- UK, Canadian, and, probably, Newfoundland law would control -- but not in France.
And, as you probably know, the French feel very differently about such things -- the third sentence in the French copyright law reads
"L'existence ou la conclusion d'un contrat de louage d'ouvrage ou de service par l'auteur d'une oeuvre de l'esprit n'emporte pas dérogation à la jouissance du droit reconnu par le premier alinéa, sous réserve des exceptions prévues par le présent code."
"The existence or conclusion of a contract for hire or of service by the author of a work of the mind shall in no way derogate from the enjoyment of the right afforded by the first paragraph above."
That's a pretty clear statement that the copyright to a work for hire belongs to the creator and not the hiring party.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Ack. How embarassing. I didn't know (or check) that an undelete discussion had been initiated. I thought I'd raise the issue first with you. Sorry to bother you - I will continue the discussion over there. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plan regulacji Bielska 1899.jpg

Please, also delete File:Plan regulacji Bielska 1899 for Wikipedia.png. Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Viaduc Cize Bolozon HO - BB1601.JPG

By what argument do you say that bridges are not architecture? The Milau Viaduct is copyrighted, and that's a French bridge. What makes this one different? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

In English speaking countries, the word "architecture" does not include works of civil engineering -- in the USA, the word, in the copyright law, calls out only buildings used for a human purpose -- monuments, bridges, highways, aqueducts, etc. do not have a copyright. Even architecture was only added to the law in 1991. The French law calls out "architecture" without modification.
But, I see at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture, that while the emphasis is clearly on buildings, that bridges are also included. So you are probably correct. Thanks for the lesson.
Since I closed it as a delete on the other grounds, this doesn't affect the outcome. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of files

Hello Jim, today several files have been deleted. Yesterday you kept files of mine with the same age. This is related to the case with Checkuser L' empereur Charles‎. Please have a look at the other cases and consider to keep them too.

Thanks and Regards --Schängel (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is a judgement call, and I cannot override Fastily's judgement. I was willing to give the files I kept the benefit of the doubt because they were bad faith DRs, but Fastily is correct -- 1908-1914 is too late to assume that the photographer died before 1943. I generally use 1885 as a date which is probably early enough to fit -- that would be a photographer born in 1860, made photographs at age 25, and lived to be 83. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
But they are definitly in public domain and used by so many books without copyright mark. I have no doubt about that, because I really think they are from the photographer Otto Kilger, who died 1914. Noone else took photos of Koblenz in that time period. How can I convince you? --Schängel (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
You may be right, but I can't simply revert another Administrator unless it is completely obvious that he made a mistake -- even then I would more likely put a note on his talk page and ask him to change it. Why don't you try asking Fastily to change it? Drop me a note here after you've done it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I followed your advide and asked Fasily to keep these 3 files too. Thanks. --Schängel (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melbourne Evening Herald flag (red).svg

This DR may be of interest to you. Fry1989 eh? 19:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for what? I trust your judgment and impartiality better than I ever will from the other three, even if I disagree with it. Your input is welcome. Fry1989 eh? 22:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyrighted buildings in Slovenia: your voice

Hi, you probably wanted to use {{oppose}} here? Currently the template that you've used and the text that you've written are contradictory. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops -- thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ljubljanica at winter with trees.jpg

I've uploaded another version.[60] Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 20:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Munclub.jpg & Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:FIFA Club World Cup trophy

re File:Munclub.jpg there is no indication that it is permanently located in the shopping centre. LGA talkedits 22:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think it is fair to assume that it is on display in a public place in Brazil. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
But the law requires that works be permanently located to qualify - see {{FoP-Brazil}}. Also following your comment, which other counties in Europe other than the UK allow for public interiors including museums ? LGA talkedits 23:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
See User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox2 which I use as a handy reference. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plonk.png

I absolutely don't understand your closure. When was the base work ever licensed under CC-SA-1.0? Can you show that to me? Thanks darkweasel94 07:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"A DW need only carry the license of the base work that was in effect at the time the DW is created." Yes; so the DW also should be GFDL 1.2 on 2006 and can be migrated to CC BY-SA 3.0; but not to CC SA 1.0 Further, the author should be "User Kils on de.wikipedia; edit Achates"; not just "Achates". Am I right? JKadavoor Jee 08:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think you are right. darkweasel94 09:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry -- I had misunderstood the base work license changes. Are we agreed that we can change the license -- that we don't have to delete it simply because a user seven years ago put the wrong free license on it? Actually I'm not sure that the addition of the "Plonk!" and change of color gets a copyright anyway -- the original fish obviously does, but the additions aren't over the ToO..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it is acceptable as an adapter has no right to use a different license in this case. He can only demand for a deletion. JKadavoor Jee 11:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
If you think the changes aren't copyrightable, then that's a valid closure on that basis. I tend to disagree with that assessment, but ok. darkweasel94 11:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I said, "I'm not sure" -- I wouldn't want the close to hang on that. Assuming the changes do have a copyright, I still think we can change the license and keep this -- we shouldn't delete it just because an editor in 2006 made a mistake in his license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes; this is not a third party upload, so the user is bound to follow WMF ToU too. So I think we can edit a user's mistakes as we usually do in correcting attributions. My thoughts. :) JKadavoor Jee 11:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we can, because we have no evidence at all that the user ever intended to agree to license it under GFDL or CC-BY-SA, so if we just say "oh, he would certainly have agreed if he were still active", that's exactly what COM:PRP is designed to prevent. See COM:Viral licenses are not automatic. As for Jkadavoor's argument, the terms of use didn't exist yet in 2006, and even if they had existed they don't really say anything relevant to this discussion as far as I'm aware. darkweasel94 12:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I really think you're splitting hairs. He clearly intended to freely license it. Except for those who use GFDL and CC-BY-NC to evade our rule against NC licenses, I don't think there's one user in a thousand who understands the differences between GFDL and CC-BY-SA. Also, GFDL is a more restrictive license than CC-BY-SA (because it requires a copy of the license), so the change is to a more restrictive license which should be OK. Are you really proposing we delete an image that is used in several places because the creator picked an incorrect license that is only subtlety different from the correct one? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I've seen many DRs that are far more hair-splitting than this one. But well, do as you wish. darkweasel94 14:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Ddarkweasel, technically I've to agree with you; but I think Commons:General disclaimer gives us enough freedom in such case. I don't think COM:PRP applicable here; it is mostly for third party uploads or if copyright status is vague. Here it is another Wikimedian; probably did a mistake. If he is not willing to the change/correction of the license, he can make a DR or send us a DMCA takedown notice and we will delete it immediately. Otherwise we can keep it in my opinion. JKadavoor Jee 15:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem, as I see it, is that you can't publish a derivative work of a CC-BY-SA 3.0 image under CC-BY-SA 1.0; you can only publish the derivative work under CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC-BY-SA 4.0 or any other higher version of CC-BY-SA. However, I am not convinced that the changes are above the threshold of originality, so maybe we could just copy the copyright tags from the original image and claim that there is no creative modification. If we do not accept that the modifications are below the threshold of originality, then I do not see how we can keep the image as this is a clear violation of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 terms. The file obviously violates the attribution requirement, but this can easily be fixed. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Note: the derivative work isn't under CC-BY-SA-1.0 but under CC-SA-1.0. There's a difference. darkweasel94 14:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I see. That's an important difference. If a file is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0, then you can only license derivative works under licences which require attribution. You must at least use a licence which requires attribution for the initial authors I suppose; you probably don't have to require to be attributed yourself if you wish to stay anonymous. On the other hand, CC-SA 1.0 prohibits you from requiring attribution if you create a derivative work. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

To my hair-splitting point and Darkweasel's reply above. Achates has a long record here -- started before 2006 and last edited in 2011. He or she has 2,000 edits on Commons, but only 15 in the Commons: namespace. That suggests he doesn't have any experience with licensing issues and certainly not with the subtleties we're discussing here. Do any of us really believe that if Achates were around today he or she would not instantly agree to the license change? On top of that is the fact that at least two of us think his additions are right on the edge of the ToO. We're making a mountain of a molehill. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

My simple practical suggestion: Just correct the attribution and license and "keep"; if Achates come with a complaint, then delete it. :) JKadavoor Jee 15:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I boldly fixed the license and attribution; any way, we can't keep it in the other way. JKadavoor Jee 09:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eppingen Neue Synagoge543.JPG

If it's correct what the IP says, then this file must be in public domain(?) It's 113 years old. I don't know / can't see if the author is known or not: Rules in Germany Have you checked this? Thank you very much. --#Reaper (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Most experienced Admins know the rules of all the major countries by heart. Germany is 70 years pma and 70 years after publication for anonymous works. German law makes no special provision for works by unknown authors, unless it can be shown that they were actually published anonymously.
Here we have an image by an unknown -- but not anonymous as far as we know -- author from 1900. My usual rule of thumb cutoff date for countries that are 70 pma is 1885 -- a photographer born in 1860, who took the image at age 25 and lived to be 83. Some of our colleagues would place the cutoff earlier -- none that I know of would place it later -- so this image is at least 15 years too young for us to safely assume that its creator has been dead for 70 years.
Therefore this cannot be kept on Commons unless someone
  • can prove beyond a significant doubt that it was actually published anonymously (this is very rare)
  • can determine who the photographer was and show that he died before 1943, (possible) or
  • can get permission from his heirs, which, since we don't know who he was, seems unlikely.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Um, sad.. But on the Commons help page is also written "if author never disclosed" at the anonymous section. (Sorry, bad English.) But if there is no source, like a library or database, I would say that's not possible to say that the author is unknown (and not only unknown by the uploader). So.. ok, thats sad. (Bad German laws..)
Thank you anyway. Best regards, --#Reaper (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes. There are a few countries that make provision for unknown authors, usually after a reasonable investigation has been done. Most do not, so we have images that are orphans -- which, unfortunately, we cannot keep.
And please don't apologize for your English -- this is a multilingual project and we all have trouble with some languages, some of us (me, for example) more than others. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Vitra Design Museum

Hello Jameslwoodward,

nobody argued "that many museums have similar installations". The argument of my advocate was that the copyrigght protected photography is less then 5 % of the whole image and therefore we speak in Germany of "Beiwerk" which is allows to photograph buildings and other objects which come about the freedom of panorama. And I guess my advocate had more practice and more idea of German copyright laws then any of us edited there. Regards --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

We judge de minimis by the visual effect that a copyrighted work has as part of the image, not by what percentage of the image it occupies. As I said in my closing comment, the photograph is the largest single plane surface in the image and, because it has a different surface -- a photograph rather than a monochrome wall -- the eye is immediately drawn to it. The photographer carefully composed the image to emphasize the photograph.
By the way, the photograph is actually a little over 10% of the area of the image -- approximately 1,200,000 pixels out of 11,600,000. The building, excluding the area covered by the photograph, is about 40% of the image and the balance is sky and ground. So, even if you insist on doing a calculation, the photograph turns out to be 25% of the size of the other principal subject. That's hardly de minimis.
And finally, I must add that it is a wonderful photograph -- I wish we could keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are definitly wrong. You (who ever this may be) can't judge s.th. agains established jurisdiction or is Commons an independent law authority? I don't think so. German law speaks in case of de minimis of a so called "unwesentliches Beiwerk". Unwesentlich means insignificant, dispensable it doesn't mean unremarkable. The question is here: what is main object of the picture and this is indisputable the building and not the Kahn photography.
The relevant image part showing the Kahn photography is not more than 10 %, but in fact 5.98 %. (823 x 849 pixel). The black part above the photography is not element of the photography. If you had read the DR carefully you would know this. Here you can see the original photography [61] of Robert C. Lautman. And of course all the rest is non problematic. Your proportion calculation (25%) is very curious, because all of the rest is part of the image. Also the sourrounding is image part and covered bei FoP. So what's really your problem here? --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
On subjective matters no one is ever definitely wrong. It is perfectly clear to me and at least three others that the photograph is a significant part of the image. You and two others argue that it is not. Although DRs are not votes, in this case they are on my side.
We could argue details forever. The fact is that the entire "poster", as displayed, has a copyright, so my math is just fine, thank you. You used the 10% number yourself in the fourth sentence of the DR. I saw your 5% number further on in the DR and reject it. Martin Kraft quotes the characteristics of Unwesentliches Beiwerk as:
1) "Absolutely no contextual relation between the copyrighted work and the photographs main subject"
2) "Randomness and replaceability"
3) "Insignificance of the copyrighted work in relation to the photograph's main subject"
1) There is a clear relationship -- this is not an advertising board advertising spaghetti sauce, it is advertising the current exhibiti