User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive8

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

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself. The original talk page is located at

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.


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)


Can you speedy delete this image? --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


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


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


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


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)


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)
"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


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 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)


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[1] 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 [2] 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 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 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. (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 This is because Artebooking is one of my agents for lectures and readings. I have supplied them with the photo. The photos from 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, 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)


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)

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 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 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 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 28 September 2013‎ (UTC)

The author was shown as "Peter Trail" and the uploader was User:Chi2. While you, User:, 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: 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)


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)


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 (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)


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 [[3]], 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 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:


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 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 The signature line shows User:Dr. Esra 18:20, 24 October 2014. I can only assume that constructed the sig from the one on 23 October above. Whether or not 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: 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."[4]
  • 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 [5] (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 ([6], [7]) 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.[8] 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 [9] 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: 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 ? [10] 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)


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)


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.


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


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)


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,[11] don't miss [12]. Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 14:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


Hello, thanks for performing this CU. With regard to the investigation on WP:EN [14], 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 [15]. 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 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 :

you can send an email to 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 | 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 | 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)


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)


Hi, I think you will be interested in this discussion (in my opinion, it was the main reason for my recent block [16]). --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 , the Department of Motor Vehicle page at , the CalTrans page at , 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 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 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
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.[17] 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)


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)


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 [18]. 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)


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)


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? -- 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? -- 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)


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)


"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 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 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 ([19]) and en:Central Union High School District ([20]) (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 ([21]) a registered user removed most of his advertising edits ([22]). 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 ([23]).
  • 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)


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". 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 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 ([24]), 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 [25]) and British (see s. 11 of the 1911 Act at [26]) 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, 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.[27] 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 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 [28] 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 exhibition inside the museum.
2) Again -- if it were an ad for spaghetti sauce, you could replace it with another random ad and not change the effect of the image. You cannot replace this poster, except perhaps for another poster that the museum has used, without giving a flase impression of the museum and its surroundings.
3) As I have said several times, because it is the only large surface in the image that is not monochrome, the eye is immediately drawn to it. A good test of this is asking, "If it were painted red would it be distracting". It is, as I said, about 25% of the size of the image's main subject -- in fact, I could make a good argument that it is the main subject, as it is closest to the camera. Clearly the answer here is yes -- it is by no means insignificant.
You are, of course perfectly free to take this to UnDR, where I will oppose it. I see no reason to continue the discussion further here..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
It's very sad that you aren't able to argue in a factual way. And this is very easy to show: would I follow your "testing-question" it would be absolutely impossible to execute de minimis because every red painted stuff attract your attention in a non-red dominated picture. So your test is just your own weather proverb. That is for sure not the way a advocate or a court would judge. But this is how it works here: DRs is a voting-club and not a board where a decision is going line with the factual points, very regrettable. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment § 57 UrgH sounds very similar to 20 a § URL (with the main exception that the Swedish law requires both the included work and the including work to be artistic works or photographs for de minimis to apply at all, whereas the German law allows any kind of work). There was an interesting case based on 20 a § URL where [29] and [30] were found to be important elements in [31], and the third image (the very small screenshot) was therefore found to be a copyright violation of the two photographs. Since § 57 UrgH is so similar, I would assume that a German court would have come to the same conclusion. In this case, it sounds as if the image included in the deleted file was an important part of the file, so de minimis can't apply here. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

CoA and emblem copyright

Hi Jim,

Could you please explain me how you determine if a CoA or an emblem is a derivative work or not. I submitted some of Bangladesh for deletion, and they were kept. And in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of Papua New Guinea.svg, you deleted one. Since the copy of a CoA or an emblem we have on Commons should looks closely like the "original", it is by definition a DR. If it is different, them it is an original work we don't want. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You might better ask Fry, but I'll take a shot at it. And forgive me, but my reasoning is pretty obvious -- you may not learn much here.
Is there a blason? If not, then it has to be a DW.
Did the creator claim to draw it from the blazon? This is particularly applicable if it's an SVG. If so, we usually assume good faith, although that might get stretched if the thing looks exactly like others.
Did the creator say that he copied another representation? If so, it's a DW of that work.
As for your two cases, the Bangladesh Seal was drawn from a blazon -- I put {{CoA from blazon}} on it. The Papua New Guinea emblem was created by copying a long-deleted png which listed a copyrighted representation at as its source. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that answer my question. My concern comes that it necessarly looks exactly like others (your point #2), by definition. Fry may have a different opinion. Did you notice that he requested undeletion of the Papua New Guinea emblem? Best regards, Yann (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
See my cmt above, I have an issue with "it is OK to draw it from a blazon" as it is being used as a get out of copyright protection; when the versions produced are so alike as to clearly a copy and there is no proof it was created independently of other realisations then COM:PRP should apply and they should be uploaded as fair use to other projects. LGA talkedits 08:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Under those circumstances, I would try to assume good faith, which is our general rule. Of course there are limits to that and if it's a pixel for pixel copy, then it's a copyvio. I don't think we need -- nor can there be -- proof any more than we require proof when an uploader in good standing claims "own work" on a photograph. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of files

Hello Jim, you have deleted the file: EVER_ups_sinline_3000.jpg. I obtained permission from EVER Power Systems company to use their files:

"I hereby affirm that [Marek bigaj] is the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of attached files.

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

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

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

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

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

[Marek Bigaj [sole owner of the exclusive copyright, CEO EVER Sp. z o.o.] [04.12.2013]"

There were three files attached:

  • ever ups pow…50-60)-1.jpg
  • EVER ups sinline_3000.jpg

I forwarded this e-mail to,

Did I do everything properly to use files as pictures in Wikipedia? If I did something wrong, could you support me to meet all the requirements, please?

Thanks and Regards LukaszKatlewa (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As a general rule, the OTRS message should go directly from the copyright holder to OTRS and not be forwarded by you. The reason for this is simple -- OTRS is intended to be a secure way of obtaining reasonable proof that the message is real. While I have no reason at all to think badly of you, unfortunately, there are many very convincing liars who try to fabricate OTRS permissions in order to keep their favorite images. A forwarded message can easily be fabricated. It is much harder to fabricate a message and have it come from a verifiable domain belonging to the copyright holder. So, I cannot predict whether our colleagues at OTRS will accept your forwarded message or not.
In any case, because OTRS, like the rest of us, is all volunteers and is understaffed for the volume of work, it sometimes takes several weeks for them to clear an image. When they get to your case, if the permission is satisfactory, the images will be restored without further action on your part. If the OTRS volunteer decides that he or she wants the message directly from the source, you will get an e-mail asking for that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI, OTRS ticket 2013120610010574 applies. LukaszKatlewa, it is often a good idea to use the template {{OTRS pending}} on images uploaded after you have emailed OTRS, for less controversial images this normally gives them a good grace period before getting deleted. As Jim points out, the long backlog on OTRS often means that files may need to be undeleted, an unfortunate hassle. Thanks -- (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Windows 7 Start button.png

Hello Jameslwoodward, The consensus in its DR was Keep, not delete. --Rezonansowy (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No. It was three to two for deletion -- you have to count both the nom and me as delete.
More to the point, however, is Commons policy. DRs are not votes, see Commons:Deletion requests#Overview:
"The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' precautionary principle."
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You've mentioned there only Fastily, not all voters. Besides, I think file like this needs more votes and review. Could you relist this? IMO the result of this DR can't be called a consensus (too few votes). --Rezonansowy (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand, "You've mentioned there only Fastily, not all voters."
  • Fastily, the nom, and me -- three for delete
  • Fma12 and you -- two for keep
We delete around 1,600 files every day. Having five people involved is in the top 10% of all of them -- the vast majority are {{speedy}} or the nom and the closing Admin.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • To be honest, Jim, counting yourself as a "vote" makes you involved and discredits the closure. I do agree that the nom counts as a "vote" to delete, if in fact that is what the nom is asking for (which they were in this case). This leaves the "count" at two to two, and in my opinion that is a no consensus. I agree that it would be fair to reopen and relist with the image restored in the mean time. Technical 13 (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I might simply suggest that you read the first part of this thread, but I see that you have very little experience on Commons, so I'll repeat it in mostly new words:
First, please understand that the comments in a DR are intended only to inform the closing Administrator. DRs are not votes. The closing Administrator may ignore all of the comments if they are off-point or ill-informed.
"The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy." [from Commons:DR#How to close a discussion]
Second, there is nothing in policy or practice which requires the closing Admin to be neutral at the point of closing the DR. He or she certainly must approach the matter with an open mind, but having read all of the comments and made up his or her mind, the Admin makes the closure on one side or the other. This is not different from any decider, whether Supreme Court justice, football referee, or Commons Admin.
Last, on Commons, those who would keep a file must prove beyond a significant doubt that is appropriate to do so. Therefore, even if it were a vote, a two-two tie would be a delete, not a keep. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Panorama from Kollhoff-Tower 02.jpg

I kindly request you to review your decision to keep it. "Distortion is typical for panoramas" => yes, but surely not going so far. A ususal cityscape image with a horizon almost like a Gaussian curve never ever has anything to do with reality. For me, it is fake. No one will ever come to the idea to use it. This image was made from a couple of my shots which aren't determined for stitching. I place value on contributing decent quality images to Commons. I don't want to have this terrible image with my attributed authorship anywhere. As far as I can understand French, the uploader approved for deletion. Please delete. Thanks. --A.Savin 12:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a terrible image at all. As you quoted above, distortion is inevitable in panoramas -- see the one at User:Jameslwoodward, which shows a round horizon.
Since you object so strenuously, you can remove the attribution from your images, but you can't prevent the creation of this derivative work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I cannot follow your comparison, as the image mentioned by you isn't anywhere nearly distorted like that. It was in fact an uncontested DR which you should have closed as deleted. At the moment we are deleting far fewer files than we should be - so you have to remain consequent if you don't want to finally loose your credibility. Keeping obvious out-of-scope files is not what a Commons admin should do. Keeping them when there was a clear consensus to delete is untenable. --A.Savin 15:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins

Your closure should be moved up one section here, shouldn't it? It seems that you didn't do anything with the files in the second section, and they still have the {{delete}} template. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I've opened some new ones, not knowing that this will be exactly under this title. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Stefan -- DelReqHandler, which almost all Admins use for DR closures, is unpredictable in its handling of multiple DRs with the same name, and, worse, in rare cases it shows a quick summary of what it did which doesn't match what it actually did. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Eurocoins national side.jpg

Hi, I've seen you've kept this image, because it is unlikely someone would create a derivative of the coin. On the other hand, one could crop the star away and reuse the image of the coin, and there is still the copyright of the photographer/designer of the rendering: lighting etc. However, on this basis, do you think File:Eurocoins national side.jpg is ok or should be deleted? What about this one? It has to do with emotions, so in my opinion it is more probable someone would create a derivative of the coin. I would also be thankful for your comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro banknotes and coins. Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 13:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

In cases where de minimis is the reason for a keep decision, it is usually possible to create an infringing image by heavy cropping, so this is no different from many others. Since the coin has a box on it showing the area of the detail, that seems unlikely, as I said in my closing comment.
I comment or close DRs where I have a clear opinion and avoid those where I am not sure. That is particularly the case with your DRs because I know that if you don't like the result, you will come here for a discussion.
As I have said to privately before -- which you have ignored -- sooner or later you must realize that the community will not put up with your arguing every keep of one of your DRs. We have hundreds of thousands of files that need DRs and should not be spending as much time as you require on any single one. Taking half an hour of the community's time to discuss one image that you think should be deleted means that hundreds that also should be deleted will not get attended to. I have consistently defended you as a valuable set of eyes who creates many appropriate DRs, but I too have a limit to my patience and you have reached it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not come to your talk page to argue with you about the keep. It's ok. I just wanted to ask you about some comparable files, what is your opinion about them. If you don't have time to answer me or don't have an opinion, I can understand this too. Thank you in any case. Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 15:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) in dry dock view from dock 2013.JPG


Can you please reopen this DR? There is still a discussion going on and a user has sent an email to We should wait until a response has come. Thank you for your support. --High Contrast (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It had been open for a week. Although I know that you disagree, it is clear to me that the photographer works for the shipyard -- among other things, because he has many other images attributed to him with the shipyard's name on them and because the correspondent said that the image was free to use with attribution. As I said in the close, attribution cannot be required when the photographer is a Federal employee, so either
  • she is mistakenly telling us that we must attribute an image that is actually PD because it was taken by a Federal employee, or
  • she is mistakenly telling us that an image taken by a contractor is free.
In either case she is mistaken and is therefore an unreliable source of information.
If somehow we find out from a more reliable source that the image was, in fact, taken by a Federal employee, or that the contractor has licensed it freely, it is easy enough to restore it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I do not ask you in order push my point of view. Really not. But there is still a email request running in which it is asked for clarification whether the photographer is a US Navy employee - important because of contradictorily info given. I ask you to let this DR open until we have a final result of the email request. By the way why didn't you delete the other two images? --High Contrast (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
You are tough to convince. We have the following
  • Ms. Reborchick says "credit must be given to the appropriate shipyard". That's not required for a US Navy photo.
  • At we have a variety of images with John Whalen's name on them courtesy of Newport News
  • Nowhere does his name appear with a naval rank; navy images always have the rank of the photographer with the name
  • The numbers on his images are not Navy numbers.
All of the above were in the DR. Since that didn't convince you, I did a little more work on it -- there are at least four John Whalens who are professional photographers.
"John Whalen, on the other hand, takes pictures of boats - albeit large ones - for a living. As a staff photographer at the Northrop Grumman Newport News shipyard, the nation's only builder of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, he's taken many photos of huge, haze-gray ships in various stages of construction."
"John Whalen, who has worked on the photography team for 29 years. His photography has appeared in many art shows, museums, books and magazines. Whalen began his career in the nuclear pipe department, where he worked for 13 years. He began to seriously study photography in 1978 and graduated summa cum laude from Thomas Nelson Community College with a degree in photography."
  • If you are still unconvinced, do a Google search on "john whalen photographer newport news". Almost all of the first two pages of hits are our man.
Since, as I said above, anything Ms. Reborchick might say in her e-mail is suspect, I think we've covered the subject. In the very unlikely event that she comes back and says that the image is in the Public Domain and gives a credible reason, we can always undelete them.
As for the other two, pure inadvertence, done now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
So, waiting for an email reply seems not to be an option. I have understood. Thanks sir. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I truly do not understand your wanting to wait on an e-mail from a source that has already proven herself unreliable. The man has been working for the shipyard for 42 years -- what more information do you need? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mahane Yehuda police station

Hi, what just happened? I just moved 8 files from Category:Mahane Yehuda police to Category:Mahane Yehuda police station, and made a redirect page on Category:Mahane Yehuda police. You just deleted the redirect page. So where are the files? Yoninah (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the empty gallery Mahane Yehuda police station. I think perhaps you forgot to use the "Category:" prefix. We delete about 100 empty galleries a day on sight as rapidly as possible because they are prime game for vandals. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course I used the "[[Category:" prefix; I simply added the word "station" to Category:Mahane Yehuda police on each file. Where in the world are the files? Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
You will see that Category:Mahane Yehuda police station is red -- you did not create it, you created a gallery named Mahane Yehuda police station. As I said, you forgot the prefix when you tried to create the category. All you have to do is click on the red link to the non-existent category, add its parent categories, and click on "create". I would do it for you, but I suspect that would confuse you even more. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
You're right; I have no idea what happened. Now I clicked on your red link and found all the files. Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Freezing Tag"

a new "Freezing" tag or category or bot or anything (other than deletion) is needed for the many files at the following link deletion request--Ashashyou (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually that is exactly what will happen when they are "deleted". On Commons (and all of WMF projects) nothing is ever actually deleted. Files are simply marked so that no one can see them except Admins. The DR will be marked with the tag Category:Undelete in 2019 and on January 1, 2019, the files will be restored to public view. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks--Ashashyou (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
For closing the difficult DR's. Natuur12 (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Perhaps you don't know that we get paid double for the really hard ones. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
you should get whatever multiple of the base rate you want, as long as you can give an answer to the following equation: total desired/base rate. that should be an easy calculation...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Good question -- I'll have to ponder it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


Rainbow trout transparent.png

Hello, Jim

Powerful people can cause incalculable damage if they are careless.

You have a lot of power. You are careless and carefree. You are being very harmful.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Give me cases and I'll try to change my ways, but random accusations can do nothing but make me wonder why I put up with such abuse. There are other places to volunteer my time. If I'm "very harmful" you should take actual facts to ANB. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is a huge difference between trouting (a good-natured exchange of criticism between two people who believe in each other) and going to ANB (an act of defiance in which one person is totally disappointed with another). Neither of these two are meant to be any form of personal attack (specifically, not accusations).
Now, you seem to have brought your shields up, probably because of this. That means any attempt on my part to provide an example at this time ends up with us having a fight and I don't want that. So, I'll follow up when the effect of said personal attack is worn off. For now, cheers.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
If you look at the history, you will see that Yann had deleted the Javert comment before I woke up this morning, so actually, I responded to you before I had seen it. Only after I had responded to the visible comments did I look at the history and see Yann's deletion.
You said that I am both "careless" and "very harmful". I see nothing good-natured in that. Perhaps this is just a generational thing, but neither WP nor Google knows anything about "trouting" as "a good-natured exchange of criticism between two people who believe in each other".
I don't think I'm "careless" -- I certainly work fast, all of the active Admins do. We must in order to keep with the onslaught of new problems -- several thousand every day. I am reversed at UnDR less often than the average Admin -- several tenths of one percent.
So, I would honestly be interested in specifics. I won't guarantee change, but I'm open to it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Son, my entire days are spent dealing with people who start by claiming some sort of extraordinary satisfactory record as their preamble. So, please do not join the rank of them. (You, for one, don't need it.) Instead do me a favor: Next time someone gave you the author's permission for an upload, please don't hastily hit the metaphorical "reject" button when you see the word "copyright" or such. Please read the permission carefully from top to bottom. While I have nothing against working fast "to keep with the onslaught of new problems", I know too well that said onslaught is often caused by lack of proper care and attention. Haste makes waste.
There you go. You have your specifics.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, although I would still like to know the specific case. Please remember that there are a lot of bad guys out there, so I am pretty firm when I see an image or an UnDR with User:A claiming that he has the permission of Author:B. Far too often either there is no permission at all or Author:B does not understand that the permission must be for any use anywhere, including commercial use. I almost always require an OTRS message in these cases and I will continue to do so.
And, please, please, think hard before you use tough words like those that started this. Almost all of the most active Admins have taken time off because they got tired of all the personal attacks they receive. About half of them haven't come back. Even in jest, particularly on a multilingual, multi-generational project such as this, such words just add to the stress level. You made your point above only after we put them aside. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of photos depicting "street art" and public murals.

Hello, the images in questions: 14 mural files, 24 graphics files and mural artists (39 files total). Yesterday, (Fr 13th) I spent some time visiting the sites of the "FORMER" artwork depicted. All images depicted under "Deep Ellum (Dallas, Texas) Lost Street Art" are gone due to urban development or (as in only two remaining locations) were simply painted over by someone else. Many were created under direction of Frank Campagna (Deep Ellum Community Association) with whom I've had personal contact regarding an image which was considered for "COMMERCIAL" use. None of the images: Deep-Ellum-Graphics-01.jpg to Deep-Ellum-Graphics-29.jpg were specifically commissioned by applicable respective property owners (municipal or private) and were considered "temporary". Out of the many murals and other street art I have documented, only a very small percentage featured any copyright or trademark notice (necessary formality for real-property depicting art under copyright unless its their own registered logo or trademark).

After consulting with resident authorities, I have been advised that first, graffiti can not have a copyright unless someone pays to have it put here! Any possible Copyright for public images considered temporary (decorative) expires once it is removed. In regard to the files in "Dallas Murals - Past and Present", Dallas-Murals-03.jpg, 03a.jpg, 10.jpg and 11.jpg may be the exception because the artwork outside of storefronts or other public buildings still exists. After more research, the laws seem to be vague, not only for property transfer involving exterior artwork (for example, transfer of ownership of a building with pre-existing decorative artwork) unless it's specifically copyright protected but also defining the difference between graffiti and "commissioned" artwork. Like above, none of the artwork except for the files listed, still exists.

Since work at the Wikipedia Commons is devoid of commercial interests, at the very least "fair use" should be applicable because the files I have posted document "transitional" modern visuals within a defined socio-economic sphere. If the rationale for deletion prevails, so should every image of any public sculpture like "The Cattle Drive at Pioneer Park, The Mustangs of Las Colinas or any Nasher (gardens) sculpture" (all Dallas and abundant at the Commons) which ARE under registered copyright! To underscore the intent of a documentary, all images are rendered in low resolution (by modern standards) which is important and are not viable as source for commercial exploitation and therefore of no interest to any third party except for "free advertising" (since I aim to include specific artist credits as they are available to me).

In closing, if I may forward, there is a fine line between reckless disregard for intellectual property and the right to document relevant artistic expression within the public reach (meaning, its out in the open for anyone to see without compensation) as long as "common" interests prevail without commercial interest. I realize the complexity of this issue, specially in light of a rapidly changing legal environment which almost makes it necessary to pass the bar for anyone to render a qualified judgement within the Wiki realm. Reading the log here, I randomly clicked a few disputed items... File:Ljubljanica at winter with trees.jpg caught my eye (random, no specific reason). After viewing the image and reading the arguments presented, (please forgive my dark humor) I felt like "Good Grief, Charlie Brown... is that what my Mom meant when she talked about splitting hairs? I hope Charles M Schulz's estate isn't suing my socks off for mentioning "that name" in a "public environment".

I do thank you for your time and effort!

I am sorry that you have done a lot of fruitless uploads, but your understanding both of Commons rules and the law is not correct.
  • We never accept fair use arguments. Fair use can only be claimed in the context of a specific use and obviously a repository such as Commons is not a specific use.
  • Commons requires that all media be available for commercial use. The problem with Non-Commercial is that there are actually very few non-commercial uses. Any use that solicits or takes money, including Commons is commercial. The only obvious non-commercial uses are personal websites that do not carry advertising or promote the owner's interests in any way, and use in schools that do not charge tuition.
  • Copyrighted works certainly retain their copyright after destruction. I don't know of any statute or case law that suggests otherwise.
  • All creative works have a copyright -- legal, illegal, paid, or free. There is nothing in the statute or case law which gives any hint to the contrary.
  • I deleted only material that was obviously painted with the consent of the property owner -- large murals. Commons policy is that illegal graffiti can remain on Commons because the copyright is unenforceable.
  • There is nothing vague about the law on transfer of copyright -- copyright remains with the creator unless it is specifically transferred in a written document. As a general rule, the owner of a physical copy of a work, whether it is a unique work such as the murals, or a multiple such as a book, has no rights to the copyright unless it falls under the special case of a work made for hire.
  • After March 2, 1989 no copyright notice has been required. If any of these works predate that, it is possible their images can be kept on Commons.
  • The argument that that there are other copyright violations on Commons is not valid. If you see other works that should not be here, by all means hang a {{delete}} on them using the Nominate for deletion link in the left toolbar. More than 10,000 new files are uploaded every day -- it is inevitable that we do not catch all of the problem uploads. That is not a reason to keep more.
  • Finally, the burden of proof is on you to show beyond a significant doubt that any of these works fall within Commons policy.

In addition to the links above, you may wish to read Copyright Basics, the first document on this list, which is a useful summary.

Although I think this case is pretty cut and dried, by all means put forth your arguments at the DR, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dallas-Murals-Whales1a.jpg. Since I am the nominator, I will not be closing it, and comments here will not affect its closing unless, of course, you come up with a reason to keep any of them, such as a pre-1989 date with no notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to comment on additions that are not made inline, so forgive me if I miss anything. Again Commons requires everything be available for commercial use -- non commercial arguments don't much sense because, as I said above, there are very few uses that are non-commercial and Commons wouldn't make any sense if we supplied images only to personal websites and tuition free schools, particularly since the main basis for Commons is to supply images to WP, which is also a commercial use.

As for File:Ljubljanica at winter with trees.jpg, you noted, I hope that we decided to keep it. Slovenian law is even stricter than the USA -- it does not have an exception for architecture, so it was a reasonable question whether the buildings were an important enough part of the image to rule out its keeping here.

And finally, as for "the right to document relevant artistic expression within the public reach", that is possible in about half of the major countries. If, like most of us, you don't like the law in the USA and want to change it, by all means tell your representatives in Washington. If you haven't done so, you have no right to complain about its application here. We simply the apply the law. I understand that you don't like the law, but please read the cited material and understand it before you put forth more invalid reasons why we should break it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Jim for calling it fruitless. I've had time on my hands today to re-read pertinent information of The Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) and other sources at the US Copyright Office ( Also, a intellectual property rights attorney is having a (pro bono) look to help sort this. I'll be back in a few days (as soon as I can cite relevant information) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globetrotter51 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 15 December 2013‎ (UTC)
It would certainly be a pleasant surprise if your counsel turns up a way that we can keep images of this sort, but please make sure that he or she addresses all of the issues I mention above. Changing settled Commons policy is possible, but the reasoning and citations must be complete and clear.
Also, I don't think you have to go to VARA -- in fact, I'm not certain VARA is at all relevant. The problem here is fundamental copyright -- the right of the artist and his heirs to prevent his work being copied during the term of the copyright. In the United States that goes back to the Copyright Act of 1870, the first to mention paintings.      Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Jim, in order to not make your talk page too clogged up with lenghthy replies, I've started to post to my talk page... (I've had a reply and I'm developing a dialog with potentially relevant persons..) (sorry I don't know how to sign under posts yet... my name is Al) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globetrotter51 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 19 December 2013‎ (UTC)

[the following is copied from Globetrotter51's talk page in order to keep this thread intact for future reference.]

Well, there are a few issues going on here and unfortunately no clear cut answer. First, that the building is being destroyed does not take away front he artists copyright, if they have one at all. So lets assume the graffiti has a copyright. You might have a copyright in your photograph but not the underlying work. When you take a picture, your choice of film style, lighting, angle and all that stuff, make an image yours. But there is more controversy over 2D images because those aspects are not easily distinguished from a 2D piece of art the way it is for a 3D object. But since you are also taking building, you may have some copyright in the photograph.

But the graffiti is not incidental, but a focus of the work, and that work is not yours. So you wouldn't have the right to reproduce it necessarily without permission if the work has copyright.

But if the work is illegal, a defacement of property, the question is unsettled. Different courts have different ideas on this. But in many cases, copyright won't be given to illegal art. And with the building destroyed, the building owners have given up ownership. Also, most courts have required the artist identify themselves to receive a copyright. if nobody knows who they are, then copyright is generally not available. but that is not a rule.

So ultimately, the problem is that there is no guarantee. It is case specific. The real way to look at it, is to see if there is a fair use claim. There are no hard rules here, but rather guidelines. I have a bunch of articles on the four factors the court looks at, on my site. Just search for "fair use".

But one of the big points on the fair use idea is that you are taking away income from the copyright holder, that they will buy yours, rather than the artists version. Since that is not possible here, and you are not making money off it but putting it out into the public, it is really likely to be fair use. Probably, the worst that would ever happen is someone asking for it to be removed, not suing you, since there is no damage and it is extremely unlikely the works are registered with the copyright office

People wont sue you unless they can make money. That won't happen here. If you make a book and it becomes hugely popular, you might see someone come out of the woodwork and say, that is mine, i want money. They would have to prove it, and probably don't have anything to prove it with, unless it is marked somehow on the wall. And then they might risk prosecution for defacing property.

I can't tell you 100%, but the odds are nicely in your favor that you can do make them public domain.

One thing you might try is to register your photos with the copyright office. You should anyway so nobody uses your photos on shirts, products, in movies or something. Photographs can be registered for $35, and up to 750 pics if they are all taken in the same year. If the Copyright Office thinks they include someone else's art and you are copying, they will ask you to tell them what in the photo is someone else's work and then allow you to copyright the rest of the picture, disclaiming the art that is not yours. If they do that, you can try to make an argument that the work is not copyright because it is illegal or other reasons i have mentioned. See if you can get them to agree and copyright your entire photograph.

If you want them to be completely public domain, then put that in the metadata. Or, whatever limitation you want on them. If someone uses you image in a way that is against your rules, then you can stop them. But if you register with the copyright office, that process is easier and you receive guaranteed monetary rewards.

Hope that helps Steve

Steve has a website at (

The law Itself is more complex than what I remember. Wiki Commons on the other hand maybe more clear-cut. In the next few days, I will talk with Frank Campagna who, as member of the Deep Ellum Community Association has spearheaded much of the Dallas - Deep Ellum mural artwork thats now gone. He will be able to shed some light on who was involved and if releases can be obtained if applicable. I hope to know something in 4 or 5 days. I have a few connections with downtown property owners regarding the remaining murals and will ask around... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globetrotter51 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 19 December 2013‎ (UTC) [copy ends]

I think Steve's comments are entirely consistent with Commons policy and practice and my comments above.
He stretches Bridgeman v. Corel even farther than WMF policy does by suggesting that you may not have a copyright in a photograph of a mural. WMF uses Bridgeman only to justify ignoring any copyright claim in photographs of paintings. That is moot here, because you licensed your images.
He agrees with our policy that the copyright in illegal graffiti is problematic. You will remember that I deleted only your images whose size or location made it clear that they were done openly with at least the tacit consent of the property owner.
I'd like to hear more about this comment:
"Also, most courts have required the artist identify themselves to receive a copyright. if nobody knows who they are, then copyright is generally not available. but that is not a rule."
The copyright law makes specific provision for anonymous works, so this seems contrary to the intent of the law. I ask only for personal interest -- it has no application on Commons.
He spends some time discussing fair use. Fair use is not possible on Commons because constructing a fair use rationale is context specific and Commons has no context. So, while he is correct, his comments aren't helpful to this discussion. However, you might be able to claim fair use in a WP:EN article on Dallas street art. The images would have to be uploaded in accordance with the WP:EN policy on fair use.
Licenses from the artists would, of course, solve the problem. The procedure is set forth at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

:File:Didacta Stand Autostadt-by-RaBoe 01.jpg

moin Jameslwoodward, diese Bild entstand auf der Messe Didacta und hat somit nix mit der Autostadt zu tun. Es ist ein Stand auf der Messe der für die Autostadt Werbung macht. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 12:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

moin Jameslwoodward, this picture was taken at the fair Didacta and thus has nothing to do with the Autostadt. There is a booth at the fair makes advertising for the Autostadt. Bye - ~ ~ ~ ~

The image is a copyright violation. The design of the booth is clearly a creative work and it is both indoors and temporary, so FOP can not apply. It does not matter that it is not at the Autostadt..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi, could you please undelete this file. Permission is granted under ticket 2013120910014449 Natuur12 (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Please be sure to add at least one category. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks. And I wan't to get paid double for the diffucult Dr's at my homewiki as well :). Natuur12 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

File:WW1 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg

Hello Jameslwoodward, you deleted this file, what is still used by several Wikipedias. I think, a replacement of the deleted image is beter than a deletion of the whole montage. On File:WW2Montage.PNG Hohum replaced a problematic image, but nobody did that for the WWI-montage. But I don't now which of the files should be deleted, so can you please restore it and I'll ask Hohum to do the same for WWI? Best regards, -- JCIV (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for the list. I think, File:British Mark IV Tadpole tank.jpg could be a good substitute for the deleted one? Best regards, -- JCIV (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I have created an alternative at File:WWImontage.jpg, hopefully all the licensing is in order now. Hohum (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
All but one are UK government photos, so they are fine. We aren't told who the Irrestible photographer is -- it's hard to imagine that it isn't an official source, but who knows? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Coins of South Africa

You closed as "deleted", but one file is still there. Please check. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Thanks -- DelReqHandler acting up again. It's a great tool and we couldn't keep up without it, but it does miss some. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • May I respectfully draw to your attention that under Section 3.3(a) of the South African Copyright Act of 1978, text here, copyright in any anonymous or pseudonymous work subsisits for fifty years from the date when the work was first released to the public. Thus the designs of any coins dated 1962 or earlier (1963 from 1 January 2014) are not protected from copyright. Please restore all the files that you have deleted that relate to coins bearing a date 1962 or earlier. Martinvl (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The fact that the artist is unknown to us does not make these anonymous works. That provision applies only if the uploader can show that it was the intention of the creator to remain anonymous. That is very rarely the case and is hard to prove. If you can do so, please let me know. Otherwise, these are correctly deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Note that I only included the coins which were {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} in the deletion request in the first place. All coins are therefore unfree in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I checked this reference. It states that "A restored copyright vests initially in the author or initial rightholder, as determined by the law of the restored work’s source country or by the owner of an exclusive right in the United States." Since the copyright was owned by the South African Government and nobody in the United States had an exclusive right to the designs, the law of South Africa applies. Under South African law the copyright of the coins expires after 50 years. Please reinstate the files into Wikimedia Commons and also reinstate all changes that have been made to Wikipedia as a a result of the removal of these files. Martinvl (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
That's not correct. The person who holds or held the copyright to the coins in South Africa also holds the copyright to the coins in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The person who owns the copyright in also the person who published the copyright law - the South African Government. As such they relinquished their rights. Martinvl (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
So in that case, the copyright is held by the South African Government in the United States. It doesn't matter who the copyright holder is; we only need to know that someone is the copyright holder. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, and like the US Government, the South African Government have relinquished their copyright under certain circumstances - the US Government is the case of work performed by a US Government employee and the SA Government in respect of works that are more than 50 years old. Martinvl (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
You have not provided any evidence that the South African government has relinquished the copyright to the coins in the United States. Note for example that the United States government only has relinquished copyright in the United States.[32] --Stefan4 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Branhii ro.jpg

Hello. I think that this could have been closed as keep. I was about to withdraw the nomination, but I wanted to inform the uploader that s/he needs to provide better sourcing in the future. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right if File:Fish Gills Labeled.jpg is OK. I ask though, whether
"Created by my son for a class project. Author: Mathew Richardson"
in that file's description, means that the son actually did the photography, or did he use someone else's image and just add the labels? That was the uploader's only contribution and it was in 2007, so good luck answering that question. What do you think? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this page has been around since 2006. Notice a different name than the author, and the crop of the watermark to make it look like own work. I say it dies . Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Swarkestone Harold Gresley.jpg

Hi, since you closed this DR you might be interested in ticket:2013121510006571. Natuur12 (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- it's not clear whether it was painted by father (Frank) or son (Harold) -- we have one under each name and the source says it was Frank. I've responded to the e-mail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Windows logo - 2006.svg

Hello Jim, I am here as a result of User talk:Fastily#File:Windows logo - 2006.svg since apparently even though Fastily actually deleted the file according to the log, you were the closing admin. So, I'm here to ask you to please restore this image that is in the public domain as it fails to meet the threshold of originality requirements of eligibility for copyright. I'm requesting this here of you directly instead of opening a Commons:DELREQ#Appeal request as this is the first step in this process. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I said in my closing comments, I think it is over the ToO. That opinion was shared by several experienced Commons editors. You are free to open an UnDR if you wish. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Did you say several experienced Commons editor? Although I do not intend to contest your deletion at this time, I can't help but notice the lack of accuracy of this particular assessment, even if we take all deletion discussions as a whole. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Several -- three. I counted LX (from the referenced discussion), Fastily, and me. "Several" might be a stretch. The OED allows "several" for "more than one" in legal use, but "more than two or three" in ordinary use.
As for this case, I suggest you read which will, I think, help show the very low level of creativity required by the US copyright rules. LX, Fastily, and I all think that the shaded spotlight effect in the MS logo is unique and creative..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I agree with you verdict. It's a no-brainer: Spotlight placement is creative matter. (Only didn't think of it in DR. I was too concerned that the shape might not pass.) In fact, I am aware of the fact that Aero Manual of Style has strict requirements for sportlight placement. (And you are not the first person to send me to Best West case.)
It's just that you shouldn't resort to counting the number of users who agreed with you. And you don't need to because your judgment was fine and whatever that is going to happen in UnDR this time, needs to happens in spite of both of those facts.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. When I'm closing a DR, I usually read it all. Some of the very long ones, I may skim comments that seem misguided -- for example a pageful of argument why the image is fair use. I pay more attention to the editors who I know and whose opinion I respect than those I don't know. And then I make up my mind, without actually counting.
However, when someone comes and accuses me of closing a DR against the vote, as at User talk:Jameslwoodward#File:Windows 7 Start button.png above, I'll count and then point out that DRs are not votes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:ดร.ประชา ประสพดี.jpg

Hi Jim,

Why did you delete this when I specifically asked ONE HOUR ago not to do so??? :( Yann (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies -- apparently my closing comment wasn't clear. Although we disagree strongly about some aspects of FOP, I think we have a fairly good working relationship and I certainly try to go along with reasonable requests (except over FOP ;-) ).
I was going to keep it per your request, but I tried to look at the full size image and came up with the message I more or less accurately quoted -- that the image cannot be displayed because it has defects. I don't see any reason for keeping that, but if you think it should be restored, be my guest. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I have absolutely no problem viewing it at full size, either with MS Photo Viewer or with Gimp. Yann (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm -- I use Firefox 25.0.1. The deleted version comes up with the same message -- "This image cannot be displayed because it contains errors." However, in IE8, it's OK. I don't know what's going on, but I agree it should not be a reason for deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Seal of the President of Bangladesh.svg

I notice you have archived off the topic we had on this, I still feel strongly that the file is a COM:DW and I am proposing to re-open the DR with the following :

The original seal as created by the Bangladesh government is still in copyright; the blazon on its own is not sufficient to create these works and since any other graphical version of this seal is in it's self a copy of the original this must also be such a COM:DW. It is not possible for the uploader of this file to release the seal in the way they have because they have copied the original.

LGA talkedits 07:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you are wrong, and I will oppose it, but I can't object to your doing it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain why you think I am wrong, I cant see how this is any different to a re-drawn corporate logo or any other drawing for that matter. LGA talkedits 10:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Corporate logos rarely have blazons -- I say "rarely", but actually I've never seen one -- and all instances are identical since corporations work hard to make it that way. Since there is only one original, it is impossible to draw one without infringing.
A CoA, though does not have an official version. If you do a Google image search on this emblem, you come up with half a dozen different versions. The official PDF linked in the DR, [URL blocked by Commons spam filter -- it's linked in the original DR], has a different version from the one on Commons. So, you can't assume that our editor copied the official version. Note that he does not have to have virgin eyes -- he can have seen the official version -- he just can't have copied it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Corporate logos do have blazons, though not normally called that, they are detailed in corporate style guides in textual form (it is also worth pointing out the PDF you mention also does not use the word blazon but "Description"). What I still don't get is, what part of copyright law allows for what appears to be a outright copy (even down to the number of ears on the paddy or the peaks and troughs of the sea) to be acceptable just because it is a copy of multiple versions all of which are derived from the one original. LGA talkedits 20:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I won't quibble with you over whether a corporate style guide is a blazon or not -- while they often specify Pantone colors to insure that printers get the colors exactly right, I've never seen one that actually described the logo in heraldic terms -- all the style guides I've seen have showed the logo, in various sizes, but did not describe it.

The fundamental principal is the blazon cannot have a copyright because, according to the rules of heraldry, a blazon of a particular CoA can be written only one way and therefore there is no creativity in the writing of the blazon.

When I look at the image cited above and the government PDF image side by side, I see different colors and shapes -- the Commons image has four colors, yellow, white, black, and orange, while the yellow, gray, and brown of the PDF image are distributed differently. The Commons image is much more finely drawn - the PDF image is crude by comparison. The border is different. The the three jute leaves at the top have a different number of veins and are drawn more realistically in the Commons version, including the serrate edges. It's a long stretch to say that it is a mere copy.

As an analogy, take drawings of a notable person. Artists often make drawings of notable people without ever having actually seen the person in the flesh. They base their drawings on the photographs and drawings they have seen and, unless they sit down with a particular drawing in front of them, will end up with a drawing that has a strong resemblance to most of the other drawings and photos of the person, but will not be a copyvio.

I think we've gone about as far as we can with this -- why don;t you go ahead with the UnDR and see what happens? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Just as a blazon only can be written in one way, a logo can only be drawn in one way. That can't be the critical part, as logos often are found to be creative. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting point, but I think the difference is that that the blazon is a description and it is constrained by what it is describing. The object itself can be anything. It's the same theory that prevents copyright of card games or recipes. A blazon is, in effect, a recipe for a CoA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is interesting. The points should be recorded somewhere for future references. Yann (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I intend to re-nominated this later this evening so a full discussion can be had, so that a better understanding of the copyright issue can be reached, another analagy I could use is a an artist who has never set foot in France painting a picture of a statue in Paris from a series of photographs taken by a friend and a description of it in the sculptors biography, this new painting would still be a DW of the statue and would not be free to upload here. LGA talkedits 06:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that's not as clear as you think. It is not a copyright violation if you don't actually copy the work. The Phoenix Technologies BIOS is a good example. Briefly, after the initial success of IBM's PC in 1983, Phoenix took a group of "clean" programmers who had never seen the IBM BIOS code, gave them a specification for the BIOS written by a group of "dirty" programmers who had taken the IBM BIOS apart and knew exactly what it must do. The "clean" programmers wrote a new BIOS from scratch. Because of the small size of the PROM on which the BIOS resided, the code was very tightly written, so there was a substantial similarity between the IBM and the Phoenix products (over 80%, I have been told). Despite the similarity, because it could be proven that the "clean" programmers had not seen the IBM BIOS code, it was not a copyright violation. The whole of the PC industry rests on that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I can see that, and how that applies to CoA's and in that case Phoenix were at pains to make sure they could show two nearly identical works were not copies and they documented what they did to make sure they did not copy. Are you saying that's what happened here ? That a more detailed specification was produced and given to the person who drew this and s/he never got to see the original ?LGA talkedits 12:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I mentioned it to cast light on your Paris painting analogy. I don't think for a minute that the creator of the subject seal has never seen other versions of the seal. But, a blazon is a good analogy for the specifications created by the Phoenix "dirty" programmers. I think my drawing of a notable person analogy above is better -- that the seal was drawn from the blazon and having seen a number of other representations, enough so that it is not a copyvio of any one, just as a drawing of a notable person by an artist who has never seen him is not a copvio. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that there is some legal information based on Finnish law here, but it is in Finnish and not trivial to read. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
@Jim : I think the statue analogy is better because the underling subject , in the case of the seal and the statue is itself a copyright item a face or person is not. LGA talkedits 20:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. Any individual representation of the seal has a copyright, but "the seal" in the abstract does not. A copyright does not exist until the work is fixed in a copyrightable form. A photograph of a Jumbotron image does not infringe if the Jumbotron feed is not recorded. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Please let me know when you're done with it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks and I have done, I just wanted to clarify what impact these edits had on the situation, I think it is clear that the svg was not created from the discription, but from another graphical version. LGA talkedits 22:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Babette-de-Rozières-2011.JPG

Ce débat de suppression est clos. Merci de ne pas modifier cette archive. File:Babette-de-Rozières-2011.JPG

La page babette de rozieres comporte une photo à caractère publicitaire évidente, contraire aux conditions d’utilisation et aux règlements applicables de la communauté de wikipedia (voir votre règlement). On y voit clairement les titres de ses livres et on devine sa maison d'édition : orphie. Devons-nous pas rester NEUTRE dans nos textes et photos ? Apparemment tous ne sont pas égaux chez wiki. P.danseur6.2 (d) 07:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

omg, she presents one of her 13 books! LOL and Symbol keep vote.svg Conserver

Symbol keep vote.svg Conserver. Thierry Caro (d) 09:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Conserver speedily. OAlexander (d) 23:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Conserver P.danseur6.2, la neutralité s'applique à Wikipédia et non à Commons. Quant à l'aspect publicitaire, ce n'est pas non plus une règle de commons comme le prouve la catégorie Category:Advertising. Mirgolth (d) 15:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Kept Well known author. She writes books, so why not show two of them? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Réponse : Bonjour, La page sur Babette de rozières est une page sur un cuisinier et non sur un auteur ou écrivain. Si l'on veut respecter la NEUTRALITE chez wikipedia, nous devons le faire intégralement et pour tous. Wikimedia commons n'est pas obligé d'être neutre d'après certains, par contre le fait d'utiliser cette photo dans une page Wikipedia rend wikipedia non neutre. Renseignez-vous auprès d'avocats spécialiste en droit publicitaire ! Il suffisait de recadrer la photo pour ne plus voir le titre de ses livres (faisable par tous actuellement). Babette de rozieres n'est pas une écrivaine ( mais simplement la conceptrice de recettes de cuisine. Je suis très déçu par le manque de sérieux de Wikimedia ... qui n'applique pas l'intégralité des règles et principes fondamentaux à tous : Cordialement — Preceding unsigned comment added by P.danseur6.2 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 18 December 2013‎ (UTC)

  • I do not understand what your objection is. Certainly she is a writer -- the article Babette de Rozières on WP:FR lists thirteen works. There is no reason at all not to show her with two of her works, particularly since they are heavily cropped so that even the full titles do not show.
While Commons has a rule against advertising and promotion, it is entirely routine for us to have photographs of notable people with their works -- painters with paintings, sculptors with sculpture, and writers with books. I am not sure what you expect -- WP:FR does not say "Babette de Rozières has written 13 works, but we can not tell you their names because that would be advertising" -- that is silly, so it gives us a list. In fact, WP has a template which, if the ISBN number of a book is given, allows you to click through to a site such as Amazon to see the book. That is not used in her WP:FR article, but it could be. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Polismuseet konst 2012.jpg

I think that there are some things here that you are missing. In the Swedish copyright law, there are two kinds of protection. Article 49 a protects all photographic images, regardless of originality. According to page 470 of SOU 1956:25, a photograph is "an image, which has been created because of influence of light on therefore sensitive substances" (en bild, som uppkommit genom inverkan av ljus på därför känsliga ämnen). On page 471 of the document, it is suggested that full-size photographic copies of business papers, technical drawings and similar aren't images (and therefore not protected), but that microcopies of the documents are images (and therefore protected). This seems to be the difference between photocopying machines (creates full-size copies) and microfilm cameras (creates microcopies). No idea what this means for e.g. scanners as a computer scan doesn't have a size in the same sense as a paper copy. If you take a photograph of a painting, then you get this protection, which lasts for 50 years from photography. However, this protection only applies to photographs, so if you create a copy of the painting by some other means, then you won't get this protection (unless the reproduction means is "comparable to photography" in which the reproduction counts as a photograph). I don't think that forging a painting by using a brush can be considered to be "comparable to photography", so this photographic protection shouldn't apply to copies of paintings which were created using a brush.

There is also a second protection in Article 1 of the copyright act. If you create a forged painting, then I would assume that you prefer to stay anonymous, so the term under Article 1 is the one in {{Anonymous-EU}}. However, protection under Article 1 requires originality in some sense. If the forgery is identical to the original painting, then no protection is granted under Article 1. That said, I don't know whether the painting is sufficiently similar to the original painting, and we still haven't got a sufficient source for some of the forged paintings. When permission from the forgerers was discussed in the deletion request, the uploader uploaded File:Polismuseet Zorn falsk.jpg, a crop of one of the forged paintings, to compare with the real painting. If you argue that the forgery is too different, then that copy would have to be deleted as well. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. You're saying that in Sweden, if my grandson, age four, takes a photograph of a painting with a point and shoot camera, his photo has a copyright, but if a skilled copyist spends several hours making a good copy, that the copy does not have a copyright. That's contrary to common sense, but, of course, we know that copyright law is not always about common sense. A copy is, after all, not a forgery until someone tries to sell it as an original, so the same copyright law ought to apply to either.
That suggests that all the copyist has to do to get a copyright on his work is to change a detail. My father painted a reasonable copy of a Monet seascape -- he changed the color of the sail on one small boat "so that no one would mistake it for the original", which was said with a broad smile as not one would mistake it. I guess his painting would have a copyright under Swedish law.
Even if we ignore the copyright on the three copies, don't we still have the problem that we don;t know whether one of the originals is still under copyright? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if your grandson accidentally hits a button on your camera, then he holds the copyright to the image which the camera creates, even if he doesn't know what the button does or what a camera is.
You may also find the text in this document interesting. It says that the author (who holds the copyright to the photograph for life+70 years) doesn't have to be the same person as the photographer (who holds the copyright to the photograph for 50 years from creation). The author arranges light and sets up the objects that you take photos of and similar things. If you for example have lots of external lamps, those could easily be operated by someone other than the person who presses the camera button. Both of those people then hold different rights to the same photo, and both of them have to give consent if you wish to use the photo. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
And yes, one of the paintings is unidentified. One of the other ones was made by a painter with URAA problems, and we don't know how old this particular painting is. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Naima Charmiti

Here, you wrote: «One deleted by INC», refering to File:Naima Where exactly can I read INeverCry’s opinion about this file? -- Tuválkin 00:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I deleted this as a copyvio per a speedy tag by a fellow admin. The image can be found on google search with one example dated May 30 2012 [33] - (this was uploaded to Commons on December 11 2013). INeverCry 00:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your reply. Therefore COM:AGF doesn’t apply because of COM:PRP over previous publishing, regardless of the apparent geniuneity of the account holder. -- Tuválkin 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Apologies to James, I misread «per INC» instead of «by INC». -- Tuválkin 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

DR Notice

Someone, Reopen again this closed DR debate. Please give your comment. thank you --Aftab1995 (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If you look above User talk:Jameslwoodward#File:Seal of the President of Bangladesh.svg, you will see that LGA and I have discussed this at great length. The DR runs until December 25, but I'm not going to comment until I see what others editors think. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


Ok,if the changed! Leitoxx 19:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Good, thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Teatro La Fenice (Venice) - Facade.jpg.

This is false see this. The facade Pietro Antonio Novelli (1729-1804), has not been altered or extended and is not subject to any copyright. Thank you to restore the image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the building was completely destroyed in the 1996 fire, so that the facade shown in the image, although obviously a copy of the older one, is not itself old. Is that not correct?
Also, please be careful of accusations like "This is false" -- it is one thing to say "This is not correct" if you think that is the case, but "This is false" implies that you believe there was deliberate wrongdoing or lying. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Be indulgent for my English I do not speak. I go through the Google translator to make me understand. The exterior walls were not destroyed. Only the interior and roof were destroyed in the last two losses. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Aha. Thank you. I have restored it. And I am sorry for the other comment -- I should remember that not all Commons users understand subtle differences like "not correct"<>"false" .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, it was a pleasure working with you.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


Hello, how are you ?

You made a little mistake here, you deleted these files:

However these should not be deleted, because they were the files where are merged those mentioned above in the request. Can you restore these files ? Thanks.--Shadowxfox (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Aha. Sorry. Admins couldn't do our job without our tool DelReqHandler, but it marks every linked file for keep or delete and mistakes happen. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


The deletion request was not about the specs, but the images in the picture itself. You are intentionally allowing a copyright violating image to remain on Commons. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are referring to. We have an image of a group of cell phones, taken by our uploader. Then he created a table of specs in each cell phone screen. It is also possible, but much less likely, that the specs are actually on each cell phone screen. In either case, where is the copyvio?

And, BTW, I am certainly not "intentionally allowing a copyright violating image to remain on Commons" -- I call them as I see them and you have not yet demonstrated that there is any copyvio here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Userify images?

Hello, I would like to know if it's possible to userify some images for a temporary amount of time so I can transfer them to en.wikipedia, where there is a fair use rationale for them. I am specifically interested in the below 12 images but I would also like to transfer the remainder of the images from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by PierrotNC. I recognize that they are not supposed to be on Commons. Thanks!

  1. File:50 FJD reverse.jpg
  2. File:50 FJD obverse.jpg
  3. File:20 FJD reverse.jpg
  4. File:20 FJD obverse.jpg
  5. File:10 FJD reverse.jpg
  6. File:10 FJD obverse.jpg
  7. File:5 FJD reverse.jpg
  8. File:5 FJD obverse.jpg
  9. File:2 FJD reverse.jpg
  10. File:1 FJD obverse.jpg
  11. File:1 FJD reverse.jpg
  12. File:2 FJD obverse.jpg

Tucoxn (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

How are you going to use them on WP:EN? As you probably know, there is a rule there against galleries, so I don't think you can post twelve images in an article there. Also, frankly, the total is around fifty images, so you're asking for an hour of my time (undeletion is much slower than deletion) -- I see that the web is full of good images of Fijian banknotes. I'm not completely unwilling to do this, but I'd like you to think about it a little more first. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I would use the 12 FJD images on the en: Fijian dollar page to replace the external links in the "Banknotes" section. I understand the time difficulty with undeleting so many images at once. If I am able to better define where I would use the other images, I might ask for others at a later date. Thank you very much for your help. Tucoxn (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done Please let me know when you are done. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Завжди вірні.jpg

I have cropped the roof out of this so can you history delete the old version. Just out of interest why is the "card display" not copyright ? LGA talkedits 20:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I didn't really consider the card display, probably because I saw nothing there above the ToO -- a few letters can't be copyrighted anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nucleoside vs nucleotide.pdf

Hi Jim. Did you leave out the last file on purpose? --Leyo 22:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

  • No, thank you. Still another DelReqHandler hiccup. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:UP Diesel.png

I'm really disappointed with how you handled this discussion. I thought I raised important questions about how the file was improperly transwikied which you did not address. Could you please expand on your close? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Ten Admins delete more than 1,600 files a day. We work fairly fast, and depend very much on all of our non-Admin colleagues to clean-up minor problems. Since the attribution issue could have been easily fixed by any editor, including you, it was not a reason for deletion and I did not address it. It has since been fixed by Billinghurst. As I said, I decided to keep the file despite the fact that it was a png because it is a much looser crop and some people, including me, will prefer it.
I note that you subsequently added {{duplicate|UP Diesel 4453.jpg}} to the file. That was inappropriate, as the file, being a much looser crop, is not a duplicate. Please use {{duplicate}} only on files that are resamples, or files that are either identical,or so close that they cannot easily be distinguished. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually the files are the same, except that the PNG lost its EXIF data when it got transformed. Please go back and look again. They're the exact same resolution now. It still isn't properly attributed. In theory it can be "fixed", except that the file wasn't actually transferred properly from en.wp so we don't know what happened in the interim. That PNG wasn't uploaded to en.wp. That's not how you're supposed to do a transwiki. I'm not sure it's a good idea to go back and fake an upload history when the file wasn't actually transferred from the English Wikipedia. We have a copy that was properly transwikied and attributed and had its EXIF data preserved. I would expect this to be preferred. I wouldn't expect multiple administrators insisting on keeping the problematic version and frankly it's dispiriting. Mackensen (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I've asked for a third opinion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#File:UP Diesel.png. I appreciate your assistance. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] -- Grr. It's not very helpful to take a discussion to another venue while I'm writing my answer.

[the following was written prior to my seeing the comment above]
?? Hmm. I think we had a cache problem, which was causing our communication problem.

I had not realized that you had reverted the JPG to its original size yesterday and both the server cache and my Firefox cache were showing the cropped version. That's clear now.

As for the other issues:
The PNG history shows a file that was uploaded to Commons on 7 December 2004. The PNG version is in use widely, which is not surprising since it has been on Commons for nine years, versus only two years for the JPG.

If you are happy with the wider crop, which I assume you are, then I think the best solution will be to replace the PNG with a redirect and delete the PNG. I don't agree with you that Eric Guinther (Marshman) is not properly attributed in the PNG, but if we're going to delete it, the question is moot. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought that you were done with the matter (and I was increasingly frustrated as you can imagine). I figured you'd seen enough of me at that point. Yes, I'm fine with the wider crop. My preference would be to use the JPG everywhere and delete the PNG, giving us one canonical version of the file. I think given the history and the presence of the EXIF data the JPG is the preferred version. Thanks, and sorry again for the trouble, Mackensen (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Cache problems can be really insidious. I assumed that we were discussing the two crops as they were at the time of the DR. If I had looked at the history of the PNG, I would have seen your reversion. Knowing that history reversions are always caching problems, I might have understood the problem sooner, so there's plenty of egg-on-face to share. Anyway, we're done now -- I've done as we agreed above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User name, etc

Hi Jim. Can you take a look at User:Britishtoiletflag? I blocked the original account User:Britishpissflag as an inappropriate name, but I'm not sure about this new one. The single upload is a low quality illustration of the name. INeverCry 21:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the new name should also be blocked. While the new name isn't quite as bad as the first one, it suggests that he intends to use the account for only one purpose and that says to me that we don't need him on Commons. In effect, he's saying "I hate Britain" and we don't need that..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I did my usual inappropriate username block -- allow everything, and checked only the "watch this page" box, but Commons:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernames suggests that we should go farther -- preventing account creation, etc. What do you think? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I've hanged, drawn, and quartered both accounts. Face-wink.svg INeverCry 01:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Tarasova plaque, Kiev.JPG

Hi, can you please also delete File:Tarasova plaque, Kiev.JPG (part of this DR)? Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Also File:Kiev - Plaque - 019.jpg, File:Kiev - Plaque - 015.jpg, File:Kiev - Plaque - 018-1.jpg. Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Menelik II monument


The deletion performed on the 14th December concerning all images of Menelik II monument in Addis Abeba is not anecdotal. This logic that is behind this deletion threatens the content of Wikipedia for many countries around the world. This deletion was performed with a narrow-minded view of FOP legislation. Only two lines are available of the FOP age on Wikipedia concerning Ethiopia. No dedicated line concerns Wikipedia in particular. With the same logic, all images of the Eiffel Tower shall immediately be deleted.

You have no examples of Ethiopia sueing anybody for image posed on Wikipedia. We have examples of France sueing someone for panorama (see France section on FOP page).

This image should not be deleted and should be immediateley restored. I am the personnal author of one of these picture. I suppose that other people on Wikipedia are responsible for the others. This is a very important subject for many Portal on Wikipedia, and many people that are currently contributing.

Looking forward to reading your answer. Sincerely. Zheim (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not completely understand you, so please ask again if I do not speak to your concerns.
Commons and WMF policy is very clear -- we do not keep images that infringe copyrights. We do not pay any attention to whether there might be a lawsuit, see COM:PRP, we simply obey copyright law.
Sculptures such as the Menelik II statue have a copyright everywhere in the world. In fewer than half of the major countries, there is law in place that allows us to keep the images (FOP). In all others, including Ethiopia, there is no such law.
Please note that FOP is an exception to the general rule that nothing that is under copyright may be photographed for Commons. The fact that there is no FOP exception in a particular country means that the copyright controls.
The Eiffel Tower is not under copyright so your comment above is incorrect, but it is certainly true that there are many beautiful things whose images we cannot keep because they are under copyright. This applies not only to sculpture, but also to paintings and, of course, books. This is unfortunate, but copyright is necessary to encourage people to create such things. Who would write a book if it could be freely copied? Look what copyright piracy has done to the music industry.
This issue is well settled on Commons. We delete tens or hundreds of images every day because they violate the copyright of a painter, sculptor, graphic artist, or architect. Unless you can get a license from the heirs of Hartel and Spengler, the images of the monument will not be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
No, there is no FOP in France (where I live) please read the section concerning France on the FOP page you refer to. Images of the Eifel tower (at night) can still be found on all versions of Wikipedia
Concerning similar cases (horsemen statue) as the Menelik statue, you can find identical images on the french wikipedia. :: Refer to the following pages :
So please explain, how is that this kind of images is kept on Wikipedia and why you suppress those that were uploaded concerning Menelik ?
Sorry but the fact that these pictures are still on Commons is not consistent with the deletion you have performed. Zheim (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


- > 3. EXTRACT FROM ETHIOPIAN COPYRIGHT LAW : * 20. Duration of economic rights

l/ Economic rights shall belong to the author during his lifetime and to the heirs or legatees for fifty years from the dateof death ofthe author.

2/ Incase of a work ofjoint authorship, the term of fifty years shall commence to run from the death of the last surviving author.

3/ The term of 50 years of a posthumous work shall commence to run from the date of publication of the work. Zheim (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The case of the distinctive night lighting of the Eiffel Tower is complicated -- it is not all night lighting that is copyrighted, only that which is on during the special shows. The rule is widely misunderstood and I would not be surprised if people have uploaded images of the copyrighted lighting. We get more than 10,000 new images every day and we have no magic robots that look at each one and immediately determine that they are not OK -- I wish we did. If you have seen such images, I strongly suggest that you use the "Nominate for deletion" link in the left column to have them considered for deletion.
The case of the Pyramid is also complicated. There is actually French case law on the issue, holding that images of the whole courtyard do not infringe on the copyright of the Pyramid. Nonetheless, I would not be surprised if we have images that do not meet the test of the case. Please nominate them for deletion.
More generally, we have almost 20,000,000 images on Commons. My best guess is that at least 1% of all the images on Commons are problems. That is more than 200,000 images. You have listed a few of them above and I have nominated several for deletion -- something you could have done. However, the fact that there are many images on Commons that should be deleted is not relevant to the Menelik II statue. If we followed your logic we could never delete anything because in every case the uploader could say "You must delete all of the other copyvios before you delete mine!"
You have shown that Carl Haertel died in 1941. That is an important piece of information which I have just seen for the first time. If he were the sole creator of the sculpture, that would make it PD. However, the information at the DR suggests that his wife worked with him (hence "Haertel-Spengler") and we do not know when she died. If you can prove beyond a significant doubt that she died before 1963 or that she had nothing to do with the design of the scuplture, then the sculpture is PD. If not, as I said above, unless you can get the heirs to license it, it will remain deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, I agree that the argument "You must delete all of the other copyvios before you delete mine!" is not relevant, what I wanted to show is that first, this FOP requirement for images uploaded on Commons is unknown for many contributors and second, it really restricts the content of Wikipedia. A third thing is that for the detail, the FOP law for any contry is poorly known - the FOP description page on Commons stated that there is "no FOP" at all in Ethiopia, I had to read the copyright law in detail to find that it is untrue and that the restriction apply for 50 years.
Concerning the Menelik statue, I have spent hours on the internet to find the previous informations, and from what I have read the sentence "A German architect, Hartel Spengler, cast it in bronze" is copy-pasted from a website related tourism. "Hartel Spengler" is in fact the name of the couple, and please note that even this sentence says "A german" not "some". The information can be found on many other website that the name of the sculptor is Carl Haertel, Spengler is only the name of his wife who is midwife and you can find data about Spengler on page 18 of the following document.
Spengler is Hebamme (german) that is to say midwife.
The document also confirms that Carl Haertel is Baumeister i.e. architect.
PS : I have just seen that the fact that Haertel Spengler is not a name but that Anna Spengler is the name of the wife of the scupltor, was already written on the deletion page by Martin H on the 8th December.
Zheim (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Aha. Well done. I don't read German, but Google says, "the midwife Miss Spengler, who married him soon." I think we can restore them now.
As for FOP, yes, of course FOP matters for only as long as the copyright -- fifty years in Ethiopia. That is set forth in the last paragraph of the introduction at COM:FOP
"Note that in every country, even one without an FOP exception, 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."
Yes, of course it restricts us. As I said above, it means that we cannot keep images of copyrighted works in non-FOP countries. But Commons was founded on the idea that we would have only free images. If you want images that do not follow that rule, go to Flickr. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah thank you ! What a nice gift for Christmas ! PS : As a conclusion, I only hope I will never be a renowed artist, I just can't stand the idea of tens of people searching the internet and hoping that I am dead the earliest as possible to check the FOP-free for Wikipedia :-) Have nice holidays Zheim (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Stamp Svyatyi Mykolay 2002.jpg

The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who lived in a land of deep darkness— on them light has shined...

For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

-- May you all have peace and prosperity in this season and in the year to come.


2014 !

Christmasornaments.png * * * 2014! * * *
Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Happy holidays! -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays / 2

Happy holydays from me too :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2nd Atlanta Pop Festival Historic Marker.jpg

James - I am stuck using a dial-up internet connection until January 7, plus I am a relative neophyte on Wikipedia so simply "following instructions" can be extremely difficult for me.

Regarding the image of the marker. I am the original author of the entire text on the marker. I did not, nor do I ever intend to, file for copyright on that text. I want the text to be in the public domain. The Georgia Historical Society, which approved and produced the marker, has assured me that they also do not copyright either their markers or the text on the markers, and that any public use of any image of the marker is fine with them. So if we - the creators of the marker - are not able to authorize the use of an image of the marker in the public domain on Wikipedia, then I can't imagine who can.

Please clarify what you are basing your deletion of the image on. Thank you. Bill Mankin Bmankin1 (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

My apologies -- the DR was obviously a little too cryptic. Copyright is automatic -- every created work has a copyright, whether the author wants it or not. While our policy is to assume good faith when a photographer declares that he took the picture, we cannot do that with respect to the copyright on creative works contained in the image. In order to restore this, you must send a license for the text using the procedure at COM:OTRS. That procedure calls out a CC-BY-SA license, which requires any user to attribute you and share-alike. If you truly want the text to be Public Domain, you should change the license to CC-0 ("zero", not "oh"). Please be sure to make it clear in the message that you are the author of the text and it is the text that you are licensing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Cute grey kitten.jpg

Merry Christmas! And thank you for your work on Commons.

Yann (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent deletion

So based on the closure reasoning you gave, the UK Government has no right to release the photos renewed by the URAA, and all those photos should be deleted too, correct? - Floydian (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Carl Lindberg has commented on this at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Burlington Skyway 1958.png. I usually defer to his expertise, and do so here. The official UK government policy seems to cover the issue, since it formally disclaims all rights worldwide:
"Crown copyright protection in published material lasts for fifty years from the end of the year in which the material was first published. Therefore material published [fifty-one years ago], and any Crown copyright material published before that date, would now be out of copyright, and may be freely reproduced throughout the world."
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

More deletions

Hi Jim! In going thru the deletions today, I found this interesting user's upload page after I nominated 5 or 6 of his recent uploads for deletion. He seems to have a fixation on uploading band photos, but I am certain he doesn't have copyright to m/any of them. Where I got stopped, was how do you do a google images search on a whole pile of images like these without Magog's handy summary page? Best wishes to you and yours this season and hope to hear from you when you get back! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. If you've installed Google image search, you can right click on any public image and have Google search for it. If you want a list of images uploaded by a given user, you can click on "Logs" in the left column, choose the "Upload log" in the first box and type the user name in the "Performer" box. If you want to see thumbnails of all of a User's images, use Special:ListFiles/Ellin Beltz. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Lion of Judah Monument (1930)

Hi Jim ! Images from the Lion of Judah monument in Addis Abeba were deleted with the following justification : 1930 monument, no evidence that it is in the public domain

After some research, the monument is from the french Georges Gardet dead in 1939.

Informations available on the following page :

PS : by the way I have one additional question for a copyright expert :) : the Amhed Gurey monument in Mogadiscio (Somalia) was destructed by the islamists some years ago. The image was deleted from Commons in years 2000s. Do you know if copyright duration is applicable for monuments that can not be seen anymore ? Zheim (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the research -- I have restored the two files. As for your second question, generalizing about copyright in 190+ jurisdictions is dangerous, but in the USA, and, as far as I know, everywhere else, copyright continues even if the created work has been destroyed. Thus, Commons does not host images of destroyed sculptures unless FOP applies. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible vandalism attack or more sophisticated hack?

Hello, James

I am calling in regard to File:Template rehaul icon.png. English Wikipedia is currently experiencing something that I'd call a moderate hacktivism attack. This image is being injected to various pages, claiming that it is from Wikimedia Foundation and that now Wikipedia is sponsoring ads. (Frankly, I won't believe it. This is not a commercial ad; this is political propaganda.)

I see this image is currently nominated for speedy deletion. May I kindly request its speedier deletion, if not genuine?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. The question is, is it a legitimate political poster, which is something we host regularly, however much we do or don't like the content, or was it created by the uploader solely for the purpose of disruption? If the former, it is not only not a {{speedy}}, it is a keep. If the latter, it is regular delete, because we don't keep personal art by non-notable artists. I don't think it is a {{speedy}} in any case -- the poster is not the problem, but the use to which it is being put.
I'm going to remove the {{speedy}} and hang a {{delete}} on it. You might bring it up at ANB. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SOHO images

Hi Jim! Can you try again to delete this file and close related DR? Thanks St1995 19:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, but no luck. I've asked for help, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Can't delete file. I did the other..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Tarcisio merati JPG

Dear Sir I don't understand the reason of your action about my file in commons related Tarcisio Merat art cover Macchinetta_trombetta.jpg The original is mine, the canvas also. Why you have cancelled this ????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 10:23, 28 December 2013‎ (UTC)

There has never been a file named "Tarcisio merati.JPG" or anything similar to that.
Since you have not told me your actual username that you used to upload the file, I cannot find it by looking at your deleted files. I searched my last 5,000 deletions and find nothing with "tarc", "mera" or "tromb" in it.
If you give me your username, I can find it easily. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:North Thompson River.jpg

Could you please link me to the discussion in question? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Trabalhos.jpg -- there's 24,000 words there, so search on "Kat Walsh" for the opinion. I mis-wrote in the DR -- Walsh is counsel for Creative Commons, not WMF, but that's probably an even stronger opinion..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Fascinating read, thanks for the link (shows how well I keep up with things; I had no idea Kat got a law degree). That's going to be a real mess going forward. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

Jim, can you restore File:2nd Atlanta Pop Festival Historic Marker.jpg as per the deletion as Commons:Deletion requests/File:2nd Atlanta Pop Festival Historic Marker.jpg, the author of the text has submitted an OTRS ticket 2013122910000694 releasing the text under a CC-by-sa-3.0 licence. Thanks. Any problems drop me a line. Nthep (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Image deletion

No problem. Maybe it was a mistake but I am pretty diligent with reviews. Ww2censor (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes -- that was the problem I faced in the closure. I trust your judgement and care, but it didn't seem likely that the Flickr user had changed the licensing briefly at the same time you checked the license. I could understand it being changed on request, but thinking that it was a coincidence was too much of a stretch. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Would you please check the request for unblock of the user User:Masum Ibn Musa. I think he should be unblocked as I see he is a good wikipedian at English & Bangla wikipedia. Watch his edits at en wiki. He should be given an another chance while we should make him know about the copyright policy & other strict rules of commons. - Rahat (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Erm? Douglas Douglas-Hamilton.jpg?

Just wondering about the removal of the image of the Duke of Hamilton, my grandfather which I uploaded a year or two ago- That photo was taken as a private photo to give out as a press job for the Daily Mail/Express or somesuch in 1933ish following his successful mission over Everest. I have hard copy from where the image came from, and the copyright law of the United States has no inference or bearing here. Please reinstate, or I will. Brendandh (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Douglas Douglas-Hamilton.jpg

Unless there was a written contract transferring it, the copyright rests with the photographer or his heirs. Depending on when the photographer died, the image may well still be under copyright in the UK, but, because of URAA, it is certainly still under copyright in the United States and cannot be kept on Commons. US copyright law applies because it is Commons policy to require that the image be free in both the country of origin (in this case the UK) and in the USA.

If you upload it again you will be violating Commons rules and may be blocked from editing here. You may, if you wish, post an Undeletion Request. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of Category:Krugerrand and it's contents

A snarky pun calling Bitcoin "Dunning-Krugerrands" (Dunning–Kruger effect + Krugerrand) led me to take a glance at en:Wikipedia's Krugerrand article. I was a bit surprised to find it devoid of images as coin articles generally have at least an opening infobox image.

A look at the article's edit history led me to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Krugerrand which offers only a short assertion—"There is no evidence that South African coins are free for any reason"—as explanation for deletion.

I'm curious, does this mean that in fact many—if not all—modern era coin images are to be disallowed in Commons? Or is there something unique about South African coins which makes them inappropriate?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I've done a bit of web research and now think I've answered my own question. I'm a U.S. resident and as such am used to most stuff put out by the government being in the public domain. Apparently this is not the case in South Africa where state retention of copyright seems to be the norm unless specifically excepted.
I've looked at some other South African coin images used in en:Wikipedia articles (examples: A, B, C) and noticed that they're hosted on en:Wikipedia—rather than Commons—and include 'non-free use rationales'.
Is there a way in which I may get access to the deleted Category:Krugerrand files so as to produce low resolution versions of some of them to be hosted—with relevant non-free use rationales—on en:Wikipedia?
--Kevjonesin (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The US, Florida, and California are the only governments that do not claim copyright in their works -- so, yes, generally works of other governments are copyrighted. There are usually exceptions for laws and other public documents.
Polite colleagues who do their own research and answer their own questions are much appreciated. I'd be happy to temporarily restore images for you. Since the file names (shown in the DR) are not very helpful, shall I just pick the best of each denomination?
As an aside, for this kind of question, you may find Commons:Image_casebook, specifically, Commons:Currency, helpful.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)