User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive9

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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



(Sorry for bad traduction) OK, you search for the copyvio on Commons (example : my snowman) but you imported photographs of tools or boats which have also copyrights (example: File: JackPlane3.jpg). Where is coherence? PRA (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Certainly the file File:JackPlane3.jpg has a copyright, but the copyright belongs to me, as I was the photographer. I have licensed it under CC-BY-SA, so it may be kept on Commons and freely used. The tool itself does not have a copyright -- as a general rule, useful objects such as tools, cars, boats, and most furniture, cannot have copyrights.
Your snowman, on the other hand, was deleted for several reasons. First, it is your personal art, which we do not keep on Commons. Second, it appears to be a derivative work of the inflatable snowman in File:Happy new year 2007.png. The inflatable snowman, because it is not useful, certainly does have a copyright, and the image infringes on it.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. OK for my snowman.

But I am not so sure about tools and boats. What you say about the copyrigt of 'Couteau de Poche Philippe STARCK 9cm' [1], or beer bottle opener 'Kronenbourg 1664' [2] and 'Motor yacht A of 120 m, design Philippe Starck, © Roy' [3] and others like boats by Jeff Koons, Marc Newson, Xavier Veilhan [4] ?

It is true that in many, but not all, countries, utilitarian objects such as tools and boats can have a copyright if their design is very unusual -- beyond the requirements of simply being a tool or a boat. I do not think any of the four you have cited would have a copyright in the USA, although the beer bottle opener might be a close call. Note that in the case of the boats, this speaks to the boats themselves -- the naval architect has a copyright in all of the drawings and specifications necessary to construct them. So you could not legally copy the drawings and build a second boat, but you could copy the boat itself. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Too much subtle for me for me !

« While copyright does not extend protection to useful articles, it can protect the purely artistic elements of a useful article that can be identified and exist independently of the Copyright: Utilitarian Aspects vs. Artistic Elements Protecting Design Rights – copyrights be identified and exist independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article. ► Thus, copyright may protect the design elements of a useful article, e.g., a chair or lamp, that are “physically or conceptually separable” from the utilitarian aspects. » !!! [5], page 6.PRA (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but go on to look at page 8. It is, as you say, very subtle. And while the Tiffany lamp on page 6 might have had a copyright (now expired), but that does not mean you could not legally create a similar leaded glass lamp with a different pattern or colors. You could even create very similar one if you did not, in fact, copy the Tiffany lamp. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Panther: request for a third opinion

Hi, Jim. Can you please give your opinion here? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

File:The Beatles ( music ) - 2013-11-07 11-38.jpg

It looks to me like a blatant copyvio, or for the Beatles do we have special policies I don't know? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me like you have it right -- I deleted it while I was there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks and happy 2014! -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toilet Trained Cat 13 Aug 2005.jpg

I think it is not good the same admin closing a DR more than once. Further, if "the tag shows the cat's name and a registration number"; people can easily find the information about its owner; so how it is not a private information? Jee 13:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Since 75% of DRs are done by only ten people, it is inevitable that the same Admin may do it more than once. I probably would not close a highly controversial one, or one that required a significant subjective judgment a second time, but this is black letter law on Commons -- we rarely delete at the request of the uploader and never if the file is in use. I get a little impatient with uploaders who try a third time to have a good image deleted with no reason.

I don't see how registration number is a problem. I doubt very much that such records are public -- since cats go outdoors, such numbers would frequently be visible in public. Also, we are much less sensitive about such things in the US -- where an image of a car in Europe will usually have the license plate blurred, that is rare in US images, and US auto registrations are public information in many states. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

May be the author don't like to be identified. Just my opinion; happy new year, anyway. Cheers. Jee 13:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, how will he be identified -- the cat's registration is surely not public? And, by the way, the cat would now be 18 years old, likely dead. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems Fae removed the "private info". Could you mind deleting the old version in file history? Jee 04:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Be sure to clear your cache if you still see the first image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Jee 12:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Rehash of Commons:Deletion requests/PAHMC

You may wish to participate in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pennsylvania state historical markers, as it re-hashes material from Commons:Deletion requests/PAHMC, which you closed.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Spruce in Estonia

Happy new year!

Thank you for co-operation and a happy new year!

This spruce grows in Estonia. I have seen it from train window with my own eyes. Taivo (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

File:GURPS Bio-Tech Second Edition.jpg

Thanks for checking out this request - it looks like the file was deleted again? I am not sure how to move a file from Commons to en-wiki. BOZ (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have restored it again. You download it to you computer at full resolution and then upload it in the usual way to WP:EN. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I've closed the relevant UD request and am temporarily hosting the file and description page here: [6], [7]. -FASTILY 09:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've never before had this problem when doing a temporary restoration -- so it was surprise to have both you and Eugene deleting it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks guys, I think I did it right - please take a look. BOZ (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

While I'm here, could you also get File:GURPS Bio-Tech First Edition.jpg? Pretty sure those were the only two - didn't realize there was more than one, initially. BOZ (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure: [8], [9] -FASTILY 03:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks again! :) BOZ (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

ID card Saba

HE James, you deleted the identity card of Saba; as a result of the request from user:Yann] at Commons:Deletion requests/File:IdentiteitskaartSaba.png, which had as rationale "No license, no permission". Could you have a check if this was truly the case. If I remember correctly I was the uploader, and general leave licence information; I thought I copied this from the staatscourant; the official journal of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and added a rationale to that effect; but after 2.5 years I can't be sure anymore... (I would have done this earlier if I had known about the request, but I wasn't notified on my talk page in htis case and apparently did not have it watchlisted...) Thanks in advance, L.tak (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you are correct, but it doesn't matter. It was tagged as PD-NL Gov, but the Netherlands law covering government works reads:

"Article 11. No copyright subsists in laws, decrees or ordinances issued by public authorities, or in judicial or administrative decisions."

Since an identity card is none of those things, it has a copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought is was, as the image was part of the relevant decree (see here. We had this kind of situations before, where the ID-cards were part of the decree, but then the copyright of the card was explicitly mentioned. Here it wasn't... L.tak (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Right you are. I have restored it, thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of photo

Hi Jim, all the best for 2014. I saw your response to a deletion request for this photo. The background of this request was that some people attending the conference didn't want their photo taken. To communicatie this they wore a red lanyard. In two photos there were still people with a red lanyard visible in the background and we want to respect their choice. That's why my colleague at WMNL requested deletion. What would be best? To request deletion again? Best, Ter-burg (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

On this side of the pond we really don't understand such things -- if you go to a public event, even a quasi public event such as this that does not admit the general public, you can expect that your photograph may be taken for publicity and other uses. Most people enjoy it. However, this is a multi-cultural project and I honor reasonable requests from other cultural norms. I've deleted it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The case of deletion of file

The deleted File: File:Глобус Мартина Бехайма.jpg is made by myself really . But that file is deleted without any cosultation with me. Thus that action is violation of copyright of mine. So I categorically insist upon restoration of Status Quo.--Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 22:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Although you correctly noted in the file description that the globe was PD-old, you did not put any license on your photograph. Therefore it was a violation of your copyright to keep it on Commons and it was deleted. You were notified on your talk page on December 29 that file had been nominated for deletion and the DR stayed open for seven days for you to respond, which you did not do.
I would be happy to restore the image if you tell me here what license you want to put on it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For excellent clarification and assistance! Sja974 (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

US governmental image?


If we delete images with such author information, then we must delete this one. What do you think? Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, clearly, see my comment there. It is just another example of the government being vague about copyright, perhaps deliberately, perhaps because the people actually responsible for such images don't know any better. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Near Field Communication simple-explantion EN.webm

Hi Jim, I recently uploaded this video clip which was deleted because of license reasons. I just wanted to inform you that the license on the simpleshow youtube channel is "Creative Commons" now (video), the cc-by-sa-3.0 is also shown within the uploaded .webm video file. Obviously simpleshow forgot to put the license on the youtube channel from "youtube standard license" to "creative commons" in the first place. I informed them and as they changed it now, there is no legal issue anymore. Unfortunately I am not able to upload it again, so I am asking kindly for your support. I am new in the community, so sorry for bothering you with this. - Noah Colon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah Colon (talk • contribs) 09:34, 8 January 2014‎ (UTC)

  • ✓ Done -- not a bother at all, thank you for your efforts. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your quick fix, Jim! May I ask you to do this for the following video, too? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carbon Footprint simple-explanation EN.webm. It belongs to the same case, here is the proof that it is really licensed under Creative Commons: (youtube video) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah Colon (talk • contribs) 15:50, 10 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Files without images

James, Something went wrong with the edits that created the following files. --Jarekt (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oops -- when I screw up, I do it big. I put the colon in the wrong place. I'll take care of it. Thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Images of Commonwealth War Graves Commission memorials

Hi there. Would you be able to help with a couple of questions?

  • (1) Regarding: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Neuve-Chapelle Indian Memorial. You said in your deletion rationale that "the memorial may be the property of the UK government". This is incorrect. It was erected by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission which was an organisation established by Imperial Charter in 1917 (I explicitly said this in the deletion discussion, so I'm not quite sure how you got that wrong). It was not a UK organisation, but an Imperial and later Commonwealth organisation. If it helps, I could write to them and get them to clarify various points so we all have a firm basis to carry out the discussions, rather than speculating. I'm away this weekend, but would it be possible to put the mass deletion nominations by Labattblueboy on hold until we hear back from the CWGC?
  • (2) In one of the deletion discussions, I think it was the Pennsylvania memorial discussion, there was a suggestion that copyright expires in 2016. Whose responsibility is it to add deletion discussions to categories like Category:Undelete in 2016? Is there a correct way to add those deleted images to that category?
  • (3) I would also like to write to several people who (as I said in one of the discussions) have some knowledge of the French law in this area. Unfortunately, the person I wrote to didn't reply in time. Rather than open up an undeletion discussion prematurely, I would like to try and get these issues sorted and see if a template for these specific situations is possible (you may instinctively say it won't be possible, but there are several users I want to discuss this with in some detail to ensure that there isn't something being missed here).

Thanks for any answers or help you can provide on this. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I would welcome anything that might make it possible to keep these images of historically important places, I don't think there is too much hope. From a legal point of view, these are simply sculptures in France, and whoever owns them is irrelevant. We simply do not keep images of sculptures in France unless they are clearly out of copyright or we have a license from the creator. I see nothing about these that changes that. I mentioned the possibility of UK government ownership because the subject of extra-territoriality has come up in the past with respect to war graves and I wanted to put that to rest. Since, as you say, they are not owned by the government, that possibility is even farther away.
(2) Any interested party can add the appropriate tag. It is not the closing Admin's responsibility. See User:Jameslwoodward/noinclude for instructions.
(3) WMF deleted files are kept forever, so an undeletion can take place whenever new information makes it appropriate.
The best hope for restoring these images -- a small one, to be sure -- is that you can find the heirs of the creators and get an appropriate license from them. A much smaller hope, although still conceivable, is that the War Graves Commission actually owns the copyrights and would be willing to release them into the public domain worldwide. I say that that is a much smaller hope because it is so unusual for the creator to give up copyright that most Commons Admins would be very skeptical if that were claimed. I would certainly ask to see written evidence of the transfer of copyright. And then the War Graves Commission would have to decide to give up the copyright. My guess would be that that would a difficult decision.
If I can help in this process, or you have more questions, please don't hesitate to ask. While I have taken a firm line with these, it is not because I want to, but simply because that appears to me to be what the law and Commons policy requires. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this. Personally, I think Commons overdoes the 'what the law requires' and errs too far on the side of caution and not enough towards 'this is very unlikely to ever be challenged' (what I think is the situation here). Living artists, I can understand, but where the original creator is long dead, the onus should be on the owners, the estate and the heirs to enforce the copyright, rather than having Commons running scared of its own shadow because of hypotheticals... Anyway, the CWGC do have their own database of photographs of war graves, I am not sure if that extends to the memorials as well, but it probably does. I can't remember what license they publish those photographs under (I think the photograph project is mentioned at en:Commonwealth War Graves Commission). One point I think is missed in this (and why I was hoping for a more comprehensive discussion) is the employment status of the architects and sculptors. The sculptors I am not sure about, but the architects (certainly the Principal Architects and the Assistant Architects) were directly employed by the Commission and would work for them on a salary (that was the only way they were able to produce hundreds of memorials and cemeteries over a period of about ten years). This means that the copyright situation might not be as clearly weighted towards the creator (as opposed to the employer) as you think. The irony here, especially in the centenary year of the war, is that some of the junior architects had fought in the war and were relatively young, hence the copyright terms extending for a number of years yet. The Principal Architects were older, but the 70-year terms mostly still have a few years to go. Which is annoying as a lot of attention will be paid to this subject and you will get people uploading pictures and finding it hard to understand what the problem is, but then you must get that a lot. I have one more question: if I want copies of deleted photos to re-upload on a local project, is it possible to ask for that here? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Although I sympathize with the point of view that there are images that are "safe" -- both those that are orphans, with no known copyright holder, and those like these where the copyright is in the hands of heirs who may not even know that the own them nd certainly don't expect to profit from them. Nonetheless, I think the Commons PRP is correct -- if you start making decisions about who is likely to sue and who is not, where do you stop and what do you base it on?
Although you may be able to show that some of the creators were actually employed by the Commission, you would have to show that they executed agreements assigning their copyrights. While that is routine in today's IP world, I am not at all sure that it was then.
If you would like a temporary restoration, that is easy -- or, if you prefer, send me an e-mail address by e-mailing me and I will send them to you as attachments. I need your address because even if you have e-mail enabled on Commons, it does not provide for attachments. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 04:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hi Jim,

I am changing some Wikimedia Commons files, including art works by Josep Bover i Mas, Antoni Solà, Damià Campeny and many others. You have requested de deletion of them all. My question is: what am I doing wrong? I'm not sure what do you mean by saying "it's tagged as PD Art".

All of these art works are located in the Acadèmia de Belles Arts de Sant Jordi (where I work), and all of the artists were dead more than 100 years ago, so if there's any problema with the licenses, please tell to me and I will try to fix it.

Many thanks, Mavi16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavi16 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 10 January 2014‎ (UTC)

You tagged them all with PD-Art, which is reserved for 2D subjects. It is WMF policy that a photograph of a painting or other 2D work of art does not create a copyright for the photographer. This follows Bridgeman v Corel.
However, all of the works which I have tagged are 3D works -- busts, bas-reliefs, sculptures -- and the PD-Art tag cannot be used. In each case we need the permission of the copyright holder of the photograph -- the photographer or his employer if it is a work for hire. If the museum is willing to license its photographs as CC, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA, then please have an officer of the museum send a license using the form at Commons:OTRS. It would,of course, be best if the museum were to release all of its photographs, but if they are willing to do only the 22 you have uploaded, that is OK for now. In that case, please make sure they list the images with their Commons file names.
As a secondary issue, please be sure never to transclude a category as in "{{Category:Josep Bover}}". Doing that creates a variety of problems. You must transclude a Creator page, but never a cat. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case, would it be easier to untag the PD-art part from all of them? instead of deleting them all? How I'm I supposed to do that? What tag I'm I supposed to use?

Your patience is appreciated, forgive me, I'm new at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavi16 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 10 January 2014‎ (UTC)

  • I'm happy to help -- I don't like to have useful images deleted if it can be prevented. For starters, please sign your posts. 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 time stamp 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).
  • Unless we have a license from the photographers or other copyright holder(s) of the images as I described above, there is no tag you can use -- they must be deleted. If we do get a license, then they must be double tagged -- with whatever license we get from the photographer and a note that the underlying work is of such and such date. They must also show two authors, the photographer and the sculptor.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2013 Murphy sacks Brett Hundley.jpg

Happy New Year Jim, Thanks for your keen eyeballs when you noticed the lack of permission from YOCK for the Murphy sacks Brett Hundley photo posted by FactChkGal13. Indeed, Cynthia Yock uses an account named FactChkGal13. They are both me and this photo was uploaded very early in my learning curve with WikiCommons. I think I managed to get all the permissions correct in subsequent photos and I will try to figure out how to fix this one. If I fail, there is no harm done by deleting it. The learning curve for wiki posting, editing and uploading was a bit daunting and figuring out how to reply to your message has been a project also - so sincere apologies for any delay. Thanks for your interest in the Common good. CY FactChkGal13 (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Hello, Cynthia. I'm afraid you're caught in a minor nuisance here. Because we can't actually know that User:FactChkGal13 is photographer Cynthia Yock, when we see an author that is not the uploader, we require that the author send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. It's not hard, there is a form letter in a box that you just paste into an e-mail, fill in several blanks, and send off. OTRS has a backlog that can sometimes run several weeks, so once you've done that, if you drop a note here, I'll close out the DR. And thank you for donating your images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


Hello! I just saw a deletion nomination of a photo that is PD-Old (backed with sources in the article for the author) and I voted but may be it was too late? I don't know how it works really but I feel tempted to advise the nominator at least to check for the year of the death of the author. Can someebody restore the photo or it is impossible?--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It is easy to restore the image, but at the DR you said it is written in WP:BG. I can't find any reference to him in WP:BG -- -- perhaps the problem is that I am using the wrong alphabet? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the fast answer. :-) Here is the article in bg Wiki and the last sentence with ref number 7 says "Georgios Sotiriadis dies in 1942 in Athens.".--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

File:FIFA World Cup Trophy 22.jpg

Can you check, but I think that you deleted this following Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fifa world cup trophy.jpg. LGA talkedits 22:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, I deleted two images of the trophy. This is a new image, so it needs a new DR. We give everyone their time in court even if we are pretty sure what the outcome will be. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 04:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for checking and ✓ Done. LGA talkedits 06:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of a credited file

I returned to my Wikimedia commons page to check on my periodic table that was nominated for deletion today (2014-01-12) (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Periodic table with symbols.jpg) and noticed that it had been deleted. I then read the motivation you made: "As in the previous case, this fails as personal art, and does not have correct attributions for any of the images that require them." I made sure that all images allowed me to edit them (even if slightly), redistribute them and release them with an appropriate license. Alchemist-hp had a slightly different attribution that allowed me to copy and redistribute the file, but only in a non-commercial way, after which I mentioned that the imagea had to be treated the same way. Furthermore, I gave credit to the creators by mentioning them and attaching a link to the source page. I now realise that I haven't, in fact, given appropriate credit to the authors. I believed that the name, link, and differences to the preceding image was enough to make it possible for anyone to check wether or not my claims were true. This may have been your concern, so please tell me (In other words, would you have demanded extended credits?). What I know for sure is that I have wasted more than 12 hours of my life photographing, researcing, photoshopping and license searching just to please fellow chemisty lovers for nothing. I have also wasted your time by letting you read this rather lenghty coplaint on a deletion that you can't undo.User talk:Pixelmaniac pictures(signature added by Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC))

I failed to find my "talk" link anywhere, so use this instead if you'd like to react to my explanation:

Here's your link: User talk:Pixelmaniac pictures. 4 tildes (~) adds it. I wont speak for Jameslwoodward, but there is an undeletion procedure. your complaint is not for nothing, though this particular case may be irreversible (i havent checked into it yet). good luck.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I deleted two similar files, both of which you created. The comment you quote is from the second of the two.

There were several reasons for the deletions, which I set forth in the closing summaries:

  • We do not keep personal art and personal creations which are unlikely to see any use. This is in accordance with Commons formal policy that files "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". These are both too large for practical general use on Commons or elsewhere on the web. The only use I might see is a large printed wall poster, but the random selection of subjects -- some photos of the elements, some of persons associated with them -- makes even that unlikely.
  • The first of the files has a CC-NC-ND symbol in the lower right corner. NC and ND are unacceptable throughout WMF projects.
  • Neither of the files properly attributes the constituent images. For all of them that had a license requiring attribution, the authors' names must appear on your description page.
  • Several of the sources cited were redlinks. Not listing sources properly is a strong reason for deletion.
  • Combining files that do not have the same license in a montage can be tricky. I did not check this, because the two could not be kept for the other reasons above, but I would not be at all surprised if there are problems with this.
  • Similarly, it can be tricky to combine files that come from different jurisdictions, which you did.

I am sorry that you wasted so much time creating these files. One of the frequent serious mistakes that new Commons editors make is spending a lot of time on something without asking whether is is appropriate. While this is usually uploading a lot of a particular class of images that can't be kept, creating complex personal art falls in the same category.

In order for Commons to restore these, at a bare minimum you would have to spend a lot of time cleaning up the sources and attributions, putting them in a tabular form so that they could be immediately cross-checked from the images and listing the license status for each. File:Montage Columbus 1.jpg is a good example, albeit of a much simpler montage. Even if you were to do this, there is no guarantee that the files would be restored, as they remain very personal works.

Our rules permit you to file an Undeletion request. It is possible that the community will see these differently, but I don't think so. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Georgia Guidestones5.jpg

Is this image from Georgia, USA, OK to pass without FOP issues? Someone created a category for them in 2011. I assume its a building and not art. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a building -- in the USA monuments are sculpture, not architecture. Both text and sculpture have a copyright. Since the artist is anonymous, we can't even get OTRS permission. I will start a Mass Delete later today if someone doesn't beat me to it..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This image is in Russia. The monument is small. If its OK, please feel free to pass it as I have to sign off very soon. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I tagged it with a {{Delete}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have responded in their DRs. thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

الواجهة الأمامية لـ5 فرنكات جزائرية عام 1933.jpg

hi Jameslwoodward ,you remove my pictures (File:الواجهة الأمامية لـ5 فرنكات جزائرية عام 1933.jpg and File:الواجهة الخلفية لـ5 فرنكات جزائرية عام 1933.jpg,and please Retrieve the pictures because I scanning the original Billet, and you can see this picture File:Amgot french algeria 2fr.jpg, Thanks --A.Latreche (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As it says at Commons:Deletion requests/File:الواجهة الخلفية لـ5 فرنكات جزائرية عام 1933.jpg, the copyright status of pre-1958 Algerian bank notes is unknown, see Commons:Currency/Public_domain#Algeria. Since the bank was a private institution, they are probably copyrighted for 70 years after the death of the designer. Unless you can prove otherwise, they cannot be kept on Commons for many years.
File:Amgot french algeria 2fr.jpg has the same problem and I have put a {{Delete}} tag on it. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright authorization from ministry of finance kuwait

Hello Jim,

Here is a memo from the ministry authorizing my work.


Work ID confirming my affiliation with the ministry:

if your issue is with the ownership of the images, what type of licensee is accepted ?

best of regards, Omar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofkw (talk • contribs) 11:25, 15 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Although I see that I and others have deleted most of your uploads because they have appeared elsewhere on the web, I do not know specifically what images you are referring to. I cannot open the Google files above -- Google tells me that I do not have permission.
Since the problem is an apparent copyright violation, policy requires that we receive a free license directly from the copyright holder using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Unfortunately, we cannot accept other methods of communication because there is no way to show that the memo above was not written by you without any authority at all -- it is fairly common for uploaders to claim that they are someone else, and while I'm pretty sure that is not the case here, our rules protect against it.
I also note that your user name violates our policy on inappropriate user names. I won't block it while this discussion is open, but you must pick a new name because it will be blocked shortly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


Hello Jim, this shouldn't be categorised into a "biographic" category, don't you agree? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not an area I know anything about on Commons, but a quick look suggests maybe Category:Family trees or Category:Family trees of England? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice! -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial

James, was wondering if I could get you to undo the deletes from the associated delete request for a 24 hour period so that I can move them to Wikipedia en. It's far easier to copy and paste the full record rather than having to reproduce from scratch.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You can't move all of them to WP:EN under fair use -- maybe one or two -- which ones do you want? If you e-mail me your e-mail address, I'll send them to you..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
certainly no plan to do all of them. The following were previously in the article. I'd be good with those:
  • file:Beaumont hamel newfoundland memorial.jpg
  • Beaumont-Hamel_terre_neuvien_Caribou.JPG
  • File:Beaumont-Hamel statue du soldat écossais 1.jpg --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


Dear James, as i know that you follow common guidelines, i am asking for help. Can you please restore original file version, and protect the file per photo date, and COM:UPLOADWAR guideline. POV pushing map replacement is on the way, in violation of COM:OVERWRITE. Also, original version of file should be also restored in this, already protected file. After that, talk page discussion may continue. Thanks! -- 22:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, I am not going to wade into the middle of this dogfight -- people who do that get bitten. I see that several Admins have already been involved, so take it to COM:ANB and have one of them deal with it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to do that, but that same involved admin censored it, as it revealed his violation of basic common guidelines, and several reverts of new versions of old files, despite COM:UPLOADWAR. You cannot be bitten if you follow guidelines and speak up, James. Say what you can. Restore my question on admin board. Help to follow guidelines. and respond. Should we follow COM:UPLOADWAR, or not? -- 00:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Please don't hide behind open proxies (Brazil, Iraq, now UK). If you have something to tell us please use your real username. --Denniss (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Paul Zimmermann (Blacksmith)

Hello Jim,

the son Heiner Zimmermann of the German blacksmith Paul Zimmermann has added the following three picture for the media commons - it would be great to have it categorized under the name of Paul Zimmermann (Blacksmith) could you help? Or could you do it for me - Thanks Martin.--Schelmentraum (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

We have the same problem with these images that we had in December -- we need a license from Paul Zimmermann. While you say that User:Volcanos is Zimmermann's son, we don't know that as a formal matter, and, according to the WP:EN article, Paul Zimmermann is still living so any license must come from him. So, please have Paul Zimmermann and the photographer both send licenses using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
I am going to put {{Delete}} tags on these -- that can be cancelled after the OTRS arrives, or, if it takes more than seven days, the images can be restored. I will also put them in Category:Paul Zimmermann and Category:Iron sculptures. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jim, i am Heiner Zimmermann (vulcanos) i have been following your recommendation and requested licenses using the procedure emailing OTRS for the files.

Hope it will come through soon. I am sorry casing these problems and thankful for your guidence through the procedere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vulcanos (talk • contribs) 15:53, 17 January 2014‎ (UTC)

No trouble -- you father does interesting work and it is good to have the images. Please note that the license must come from him, not you. While I don't think that we actually need a license for File:Paul Zimmermann Sculpture.jpg because it is permanently in a public place in Germany, it won't hurt to have it. We definitely need the other two. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jim,

ok i did send the request to OTRS but with also a proof of being the son of Paul Zimmermann. The main problem is with my dad sending this request that he is becomming 75 this year and he does not have any knowledge of working with PC or anything realted to it. So he depends on me on all aspects of internet. All i can offer to call him personally so he can confirm this in person. Have you any ideas how i can proceed with this?

Hi Jim, maybe you are interested in the ticket ticket:2014011710009941. I was already prosessing it but you might be beter capable of dealing with this ticket. Natuur12 (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, yes -- I've closed it out. I saw you comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paul Zimmermann Key Element.jpeg and, strictly speaking, you're correct that there is no permission for the sculptures, but given that the father doesn't do PCs and the son seems OK, I think we can assume that this had the father's blessing, even though he didn't send the e-mail and the copyright for the sculptures isn't mentioned. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Okey. Thank you. Natuur12 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted image for fair-use

The deleted image (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Allemagne 6pf Saar 26081934.jpg) was being used in a stamp article on the enwiki. I can justify its use there with a non-free rationale if you can undelete it here temporarily and/or move it to the enwiki for me. Drop me a talkback in either place. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If you e-mail me your e-mail address, I'll send it to you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Image with wrong title

Hi Jim! Sorry to have been out of the loop for so long, work has been crazy and so I've only been slothfully picking at things for wiki instead of focusing on deletes. I will go back and nominate more soon; it has been nagging at me! Meanwhile, I've discovered a conundrum I can't fix and so I thought of you. I found this image "One log house in Humboldt County, California, with a Volkswagen Beetle in front, 1970.jpg"[10] with an "ok to move to Commons" tag on it. The problem is, the One Log House is in Mendocino County! I don't know how to transfer this file and fix the information. Please help! The photo had actually been attached to the Humboldt County wiki page until this morning when I said, "Wait a minute, I was there last week, that's in Mendo!" Thanks for all you do! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had mixed experience moving files from WP:EN to Commons. There are several tools to help and I've found them difficult -- but the last time I did it was maybe a year or more ago. You could try moving the file to Commons under its existing name and then having it renamed here. "Renaming" is the same thing as "Moving" -- just depends on how you look at it. See Commons:File renaming. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I've never successfully moved a file from Wiki to Commons and this one was no exception. For some reason the moving scripts don't seem to work on my computer. Do you know anyone who is really good at moving who could help? Also one other dumb question... How do you deal with the 100s of deletion requests in your watch list? Do you just leave them there and lag up the system or try to remember which ones are older and delete them? Or perhaps you do not "watch" them at all? Sorry for so many questions, but unless I ask, I'll never learn! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
For moving help, try the Village Pump. As for my Watchlist, it has 55,000 entries. Most of them don't recur, so it's not really a problem. When a talk page shows up that I posted to more than a week ago, I will remove it, but otherwise I just look through them. The only time it becomes a problem is when one of our colleagues does something to a lot of images without hitting the minor edit button and even then it is manageable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Airship SSZ17 LandingPembroke1917.jpg

Can I have you view on this I am assuming it is an English picture and as such could still be in copyright if the person who took the image did not die before the end of 1943 - if you concur I will start a DR on it . LGA talkedits 00:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. The source site has no useful information. I am inclined to think that all the Google hits came from Commons. I think we can assume that it is, in fact, a photograph of a British WWI airship taken no earlier than 1916. The only question will be whether it had a Crown Copyright -- almost everyone in the picture is in uniform, it was a military base in wartime, so I think it is at least 50/50 that the photo was taken by an RN photographer. If so, it would have been copyrighted for fifty years from publication, long expired.
The UK law on images by unknown photographers before 1957 isn't clear to me -- our summaries use "unknown" and "anonymous" as synonyms. The current law says that it must be reasonable to assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years, but that wasn't the law before 1957.
You might also look at File:Airship SSZ 37.JPG -- the image came from the collection of the pilot of the airship pictured, so the photographer is also unknown. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I had not considered the uniform issue, and that probably does indicate a crown copyright in File:Airship SSZ17 LandingPembroke1917.jpg; File:Airship SSZ 37.JPG is different, having read en:Copyright law of the United Kingdom (and understanding that WP is not a RS) the question of publication also could be an issue (see here) I do think that this might not be licensed correctly. LGA talkedits 19:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Great guitarist montage.jpg

Hi, I've replaced the images.Blofeld Dr. (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Douaumont ossuary

Am I off base base on this one?--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Right on target. You might want to add {{Vd}} to your comment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again

Hi Jameslwoodward.

This person will never stop.--Inefable001 (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Some socks never do. I have deleted all of them..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks man, i'll keep you informed anything.--Inefable001 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Minor changes

Ok Jim. I didn't do on purpose, not knowing whether such changes had to be "hidden" to patrollers or less. Anyway since you just said I should, I'm going to mark them as "minor". -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Goddess of Democracy DC defy censorship.JPG


User:Russavia is hassling me on my talk page (likely related to a dispute we have on Wikipedia) and he claims that there is something wrong with the license at File:Goddess of Democracy DC defy censorship.JPG. If there is, I'm sure it's minor. Could you look at it fix it if necessary? Any help would be appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hope ✓ Done. Jee 06:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Russavia was half right -- I commented at User talk:Smallbones. My thanks to Jee. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


My name is Ali, I am one of the Arab Writers in wikipedia, has published a topic concerning an Iraqi artist and is the first artist Iraq ... It is a good reputation .... Qusay Tariq wrote 19 books, a book is considered, from the best-selling books in Iraq. Has a book in the English language (postmodern art )proved by my words

Publications and on the Internet., But most of the articles written about in magazines very famous Arabic writing ... and this is something that made you deny sources ..

But I have to prove another .. It is located on the wikipedia Arabic.

I have a video of a festival draws twelve Baghdad neighborhood in front of the cameras taking with him the Golden Shield Award for Art and Culture.

Qusay is considered one of the most important artists we have in Iraq ... but is now a warrior by political parties because of his book about the rights of women and art exhibitions that support women and children

One of his essays task

These forms with the U.S. ambassador in our most important magazine and arts Hey Gulf

This is another one to prove that the video published by SOLITART GALLERY

AL and is not an Iraqi Today the artist Qusai Tariq patient and the campaigns against chronic diseases .. he likes people a humanitarian character And famous ... Stay the first digital art gallery in Iraq .. set up the first art gallery art book ... I hope that you realized from it .. stillness delighted

Thank you for listening to me .. I hope the amendment--Ali ali 2 (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I have read, but I do not understand. Before now, I have done nothing to either of your two contributions to Commons. The first was deleted by Fastily because it appeared on TinEye and did not appear to be your work. The second, I have just tagged for deletion, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:ثريا -قصي.jpg, because if it is your own work, as you claim, then it is out of scope as personal art and if it is not your own work, then there is no permission from the painter.
I am very willing to hear complaints and to try to fix problems, but please explain to me why you came here to complain. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Just for your information

On Commons:Administrators/Requests/Hym411#Questions_on_Uploads, you signed twice. —레비Revi 13:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but

I know that the project lets us have a userpic or two, but what do you think of this? Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. Six {{Speedy}}, two {{Delete}}, user warned. Commons is not Facebook and we have little patience with people who come here to do nothing but create a User Page..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

TekkSavvy deletion pictures from Wikimedia problem

Hello there, I've been receiving emails from TekkSavvy requesting that some images of his to be deleted from WikiMedia. I've looked at the deletion discussion pages for the files, and told him that since other users feel that they are useful, having them renominated by a different user wouldn't make a difference. He also would like if I could find someone who can delete or repost those images under his account. I have just discovered that he is banned from WikiMedia, and therefore I'm alerting you. If you would like the emails between me and TekkSavvy, I'll forward them to you. You can find me at Wikipedia under the same username. Thanks for reading. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

If I understood what he was trying to accomplish, I might help better. Tekksavvy is a pseudonym, so why does changing the name on the images accomplish anything?
We are going to keep his images -- that has been decided. We can change his username -- the details are at Commons:Changing_username#What happens when an account is renamed? As I said, since TekkSavvy is itself a pseudonym, I don't see why a new name would be any improvement, but that's it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. From reading his emails, I see that he just wants someone to delete those images from his account, or have them reposted by a different user. If renaming his account will solve it, then I guess that'll work. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand what he's trying to accomplish. If we rename his account to User:XYZ, then he goes from being anonymous user TekkSavvy to being anonymous user XYZ -- what does that prove? In any case, the name User:Tekksavvy will still appear in many places -- his sigs will not be changed, so "Tekksavvy" will still appear on all of the DRs he has filed.
Since his images are all licensed CC-BY-SA, if the images are reposted by a different user, they would still carry "Tekksavvy" as the author and source. That's not going to happen in any case, because we all have better things to do than deal with the whims of a former contributor.
I understand and appreciate that you are trying to be helpful here, but unless I can understand what he is actually trying to accomplish, there's little I can do. If he's just angy at WMF for some reason, then so be it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That's alright. I've sent a email exactly of the emails he sent me. Perhaps it'll make it clearer MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Watertown FBI raid - agent close up.jpg

Hi, Jim --

Can you tell me a bit about your rationale for deleting this image? There was no discussion in favor of deleting it, no explanation of which Wikimedia guideline it violates, and no response to my "keep" rationale, so I'm more than a little surprised to see it closed as anything more than "inconclusive." Thanks -- Tim Pierce (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry about that -- I apparently hit the wrong buttons. Your argument was entirely correct. Thank you for giving me the chance to correct my error. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
    • No problem, thanks for the prompt reply. :-) :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lake Jasna images

Hi, in regard to [11], the old non-free versions still need to be deleted. Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2012-12 Final Grand Prix 1d 007.JPG

Hi Jim, could you please be so kind and send me this file per eMail - I would like to upload it locally to the german wikipedia. Please cluld you also add the licensing details of the original upload for correct reference. Thanks & BR Georg --Xgeorg (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. However, you have to send me an e-mail first, as I need your actual e-mail address, because I can't attach a file to an e-mail sent from your talk page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done. Already done (without that I knew) by another admin. Thanks anyway.--Xgeorg (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Deacon, priest, seminarist

Hi, Jim. We closed differently

I think, that they should all be closed same way. I'd like to delete the seminarist, but if you want, then I can restore deacon and preast. Taivo (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right -- they're out of scope personal art. I deleted the one that I had closed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Culturaaborigen.jpg

You closed as "deleted" but the file is still there. Could you check? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes the script we use for closing DRs, DelReqHandler, hiccups and I don't notice it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 03:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Carla Pimentel

Why did you deleted my content ? Escudero.vinicius (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As it says at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Escudero.vinicius, they appear on copyrighted Web sites and are therefore copyright violations. If you are the actual photographer of these and own the copyrights, you must provide a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Maalavika manoj.jpg

Hi, can you check if the OTRS mail was sent by an authorized source? Vensatry (Ping me) 06:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. The e-mail is from Maalavika Manoj R_______, which is the subject's full name, I think (I don't show the last name in full because it is private information). She claims to be the copyright holder, although she is also the subject. The e-mail is from an account at gmail, so I would be inclined to not believe it, except that she gives her full mailing address, which is unusual for a fan just trying to sneak one by us.
User:Dharmadhyaksha, who put the {{OTRS received}} tag on the file, is an OTRS member. Since he did not use {{PermissionOTRS}}, I assume he is also skeptical and would answer your question as a "no". I'll defer to him on this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You may consult Sreejithk2000 too as she is basically from Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Jee 13:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why he hasn't processed the email yet. I don't see any replies in OTRS. I left a note on the talk page of User:Dharmadhyaksha --Sreejith K (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry fellows! I haven't got much time at hand to reply to the OTRS email. I saw uploader's comment on one of the discussion pages and hence simply searched for the ticket number and marked it there. I haven't locked the ticket either. So any other member can also respond to it.
And as said previously to User:Kailash29792 i will ask them again to be patient. Even if the image is deleted by some admin, it can very well be restored after the OTRS email gets confirmed. The article has stayed for long without her image and frankly and bluntly speaking there is nothing superbly great about her that our readers will miss out without her image. So please also stop dragging this throughout Commons. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Dharma, u r wrong in one sense. There is one thing "superbly great about her that our readers will miss out without her image": she looks "sexy" (no sarcasm intended), and the article looks pretty good with the image. Anyway, wat else should I do to prove that she herself emailed OTRS? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
If she herself sent the OTRS, then I must raise the question of whether she actually owns the copyright and has the right to freely license the image? That requires a written transfer between the photographer and her. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Given that the picture appeared nowhere else other than her personal FB page (as her display pic), I easily deduced that it is her own image. The photographer's job was to just take the photo and not even keep it to himself, why perceive him as the owner of the image? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I have approved this OTRS ticket. I don't see why we should put this in hold. Dharma, Wikipedia only cares about notability of the subjects and not the aesthetics. Please avoid comments like these. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@User:Kailash29792. For your future reference, under US law (which Commons must follow) and the law of most other countries, the photographer is the owner of the copyright unless there is an explicit written agreement transferring it. In places like FB, images often appear although the owner of the FB page does not own the copyright and has no strict legal right to use it. Facebook doesn't care about this, but Commons does. In this particular case, I bow to Sreejith's experience and better knowledge of the culture. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kailash & Sreejith; my point was such that even if she is the most beautiful or whatever on earth, there is no need to drag the issue everywhere. OTRS members will look at it when they want to look at it. We need not prioritize her. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Andrej Hoteev.tif

Dear Jim,


The license from the photographer is soon sent.(to:

Thank you. Best regards Alexander User:Alexander25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander25 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 February 2014‎ (UTC)

I don't read German, so I am not handling the OTRS ticket, but as best as I can see with the help of Google translate, we have a message from the photographer telling us that Andrej Hoteev owns all rights to the image. However, I think we have no license from Hoteev or anyone else, so there is still a problem. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

they want the license from Hoteev? Thank you. Alexander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander25 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 February 2014‎ (UTC)

  • As I said, because I do not read German, I may be missing something, but as it stands now there is no license. I think the photographer did not give us a license -- he simply said that it was all right if Hoteev gave a license. So, we still need a license from one or the other. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it was a misunderstanding. I inform Mr. Hoteev. I think, you will soon get a licence. Sorry for amateurism. Best regards- Alexander

Mr. Hoteev has today sent the license to Wikimedia commons.

Did you get it? 


Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peachoid water tower (Gaffney, South Carolina) 001.jpg

Hi, I found this interesting DR and I an kinda curius what you think of this DR. Could you please give your opinion on this one? Your exertise is much apriciated. Kind regards. Natuur12 (talk)

No expertise needed. The Gaffney S.C. Board of Public Works registered their copyright, so it's an easy one. See VAu000051231 / 1982-12-06. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Natuur12 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:USS Hanson (DDR-832) off Korea c1951.JPG

Hi, you deleted the above photos, the same applies to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cobatfor. I still don't understand the reason for the deletion: "COM:URAA problem. Was not public domain in Australia in 1996. Without a publication history, it is copyrighted in the U.S. until January 1, 2073 (120 years after creation). (...) Works on Commons must be free in both the source country and the U.S." According to the user then, ANY photo on Commons would have to be deleted, if it was not free in the US. This would, for example, refer to any MoD photo of the UK which were uploaded recently. ANY template for ANY country would then have to have the addition, "not matter what, it has to be free in the US". Right? I would be glad if you could help me understand. I also wonder, why all other AWM photos uploaded from the same time frame on Commons are still there. Nobody saw any problem with the dublic domain status. Thank you. Cobatfor (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your summary is correct. Because WMF is a US corporation and Commons servers are located in the USA, all images must be free in the USA. Our policy is that they also must be free in the country of origin. You will find this stated plainly at Commons:Licensing.
The URAA issue is complicated, particularly for government images, because some governments have declared that their images are PD worldwide after expiration of the government copyright -- in effect, licensing such works CC-0.
There may well be more deletions necessary -- Commons has over 20,000,000 images. My best guess is that at least one percent of those -- 200,000 images -- have problems of one sort or another. While we delete about 1,500 images every day, more than 10,000 are added and, inevitably, some problems are missed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, although it is difficult to understand that, as in the above photos, the Australian Government still has the copyright in the US while they released it into the public domain in their own country. Who should claim it? That's why I am a historian and no lawyer! :-) Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, the Australian government (or any other copyright holder) is free to solve the problem by declaring any or all such works PD worldwide. The US is not the only country which has a copyright term longer than the fifty years applicable to Australian government works in Australia -- in most countries such works would have 70 year terms and in a few up to 100. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of South African Coins

Hi James,

Last year you deleted the files File:1952 Georg VI. 1 Pfund Südafrika.JPG and File:South Africa-Penny-1951.jpg on grounds that they breached US copyright. I have recently visited the page on the Afrikaans Language version of Wikipedia which holds files that are public domain in South Africa, but no tin the United States. Since those images are out of copyright in respect of South African law, I am happy to do the relevant work at the South African end.

I will ensure that no English text appears in the files - any English text will be replaced by Afrikaans text. I will of course keep any German text that might appear - the first file appears to have been posted by a German contributor.

Do you have any views on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 15:16, 6 February 2014‎ (UTC)

From the point of view of Commons, I have no problem -- in fact, I would be happy to temporarily restore them and copy them to the page you cite.

However, I think there is a broader problem. I think that it is possible that the whole page that you cite is not valid -- the WMF servers are in the USA and therefore, I don't think that WMF hosts any material that is not either free in the USA or has an appropriate Fair Use rationale. We cannot solve a US copyright problem with a file simply by moving it from one place on the WMF servers to another. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim,
May I go back to the original removal of the files from Commons. You expressed a concern that a copyright restriction might exist within the United States. I do not see how anybody in the US could have a "copyright" on the design of the coins and not fall foul of the US laws on counterfeit coins or banknotes. On these grounds I think that the requestor was being over-zealous. It might therefore be best to restore the pages, but to add the flag PD-SAGov. If you cannot see the way to do this, I shall discuss the matter within the Afrikaans Wikipeidia community an sort out a EDP, the principal ground being that Afrikaans is not widely used in the US, but is an official language in South Africa. Martinvl (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by this, "You expressed a concern that a copyright restriction might exist within the United States."
My concern is that these coins and anything else created in South Africa after 1/1/1946 has a copyright in the United States under URAA because it was under copyright in South Africa on 1/1/1996. The US copyright is owned by the same person or entity that owned the copyright in South Africa in 1996. In the case of the coins, that is the government of South Africa. While it is possible for the copyright holder (the government) to declare that such works are PD worldwide after the fifty year period, to my knowledge the South African government has not done so.
I should point out that since most major countries have a seventy year term rather than South Africa's fifty year term, they are also still under copyright in many other countries.
Since the coins, and many other things on the page we are discussing, have a US copyright, images of them cannot be hosted on any WMF project unless we get a license from the copyright holder or a "fair use" rationale applies. Such a rationale cannot be applied at Commons or on the page we are discussing because repositories are not fair uses.
I also do not understand your last sentence -- the use of Afrikaans is not relevant to the copyright status of the coins or the ability to host images of them on a WMF site. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim

Please read the page Commons:Currency. Although South Africa is not mentioned on that page, there is sufficient information in respect of other countries to infer that Wikimedia Commons applies the country's own copyright law only. My assumption is that nobody in the US can claim copyright without exposing themselves to US counterfeiting law. In light of this, please restore the images as requested. Martinvl (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. The first rule of Commons licensing, as I said above, is that all images must be free for use, either because they are PD or because they are properly licensed in both the source country and the USA. Commons:Currency ignores the second half of the requirement because it is understood to apply to all images. I don't understand your repeated assertion that claiming copyright in the US would expose the claimant to counterfeiting laws -- the copyright holder is the South African government which obviously cannot counterfeit its own currency.
The URAA and laws in many countries that provide for longer terms than South Africa's fifty years mean that anything created in South Africa after 1/1/1946 still has an enforceable copyright in many countries even though it is PD in South Africa. That may be hard to understand, but it is the law, and unless the South African government chooses to declare that its works are PD worldwide after fifty years, we must obey the law.
Since I am obviously not able to make you understand this situation, I suggest you post an Undeletion Request so that others will weigh in on the situation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim,
In the last few minutes, I read Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. If you follow the links back, you will see that under US law the copyright of the 2-D image is separate from the copyright of the 3-D object, the rationale being that "there is likely to be sufficient creativity in the lighting arrangements for the photographer to obtain a new copyright on the image". The author of the photograph can therefore relinquish his copyright when placing the image in Wikimedia Commons regardless of the copyright status (in the US) of the object. Copies of stamps are of course different since stamps are 2-D objects. Martinvl (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The photographer can only relinquish his copyright to the photograph but not to the coin as he does not hold the copyright to the coin. See COM:DW. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, thank you, Stefan. The problem here is not the copyright for the images, it is the copyright for the coins themselves. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong contents

I fix that contents.

Hi, tell me which one is right?

Category as wrong as I entered the correct content. same as,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Huseyin.ozkilic (talk • contribs) 18:44, 6 February 2014‎ (UTC)

It is possible to have both a Category and a Gallery on a subject, as you show with Demet Evgar. The category should always come first, so that others can find the images.

It is not permitted to have a gallery with only one image. Galleries with two images are permitted, but there is not much point in a gallery until the number of the images in the category is large enough to make the selection and sorting in a gallery a good thing.

This is the reason that I deleted

You will note that in both cases the edit my summary is "Empty or single image gallery; please see Commons:Galleries" which explains this in more detail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please undone your image deletion

You just deleted this image which was uploaded by me, based on your conclusion that "there is no FOP for 2D works in Macedonia": However, I did not took that image in Macedonia, but in Serbia, and according to this page it is legal action in Serbia: So, please undelete that image. Thank you. PANONIAN (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw the nom's comments on the Macedonian language and made a bad assumption. It would be very helpful if you added some cats to the image -- it's not very useful without any. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, there are categories "EXIT 2010" and "Liberation Boulevard", which are subcategories of "EXIT (festival)" and "Streets in Novi Sad", both of which are pointing to city Novi Sad in Serbia. Anyway, I will add word "Serbia" to image description, so these kinds of issues might be avoided in the future. PANONIAN (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


You simply cannot be serious. -- Tuválkin 17:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course I'm serious. We do not keep collections of images which are intended to promote non-notable people, however well photographed. If we start allowing that, then we might as well just leave it all to Facebook -- One of the main values of Commons to the outside world is that we are selective. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes we do: Donated media items, regardless of intention, are kept if they can serve our goals: I explained in the original DR how many of these photos, argeably all of them, are in scope, even though I obviously don’t support the intention of their uploader — to promote the biography of a well-travelled and talented, but nonetheless non-notable, television camera operator. Your unflexible position against self promotion as you detail above, compounded with your prejudice against my keep-votes you so candidly expressed recently, meant that you hastily overlooked as worth of Facebook and have deleted the most recent photo we have/had of a world-wide renowned film actor and the single one have/had of an Oscar-nominated film director, not to mention other items of lesser notability and interest. -- Tuválkin 19:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
We will continue to disagree on this, I'm sure. However, I appear to be in line with almost all of my colleagues on Commons in thinking that images like these do not belong here. Your position, as I have said before, including the comment you cite above, is a long way from the Commons norm.
Because of the non-standard formatting of your extended comments, I did not see them until I had closed the DR -- I thought they belonged to the next DR. I will reconsider a few of the deletions based on them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
What was non standard and extended about my comments? -- Tuválkin 21:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Extended comments are good -- no complaint there -- it's very helpful to have a comment on each image. Usually, though, that is done on the original list, and certainly without section heads -- as I said, that made me see your comments as the beginning of the next DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I have gone through the DR and made comments. Other than the three images of notable people (which were not named in the DR and which I chose to keep), I see no reason to change my mind on any of the others. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you delete pictures?

svetit 9:51, 7 Febrary 2014 (UTC+3)

My reasons are given in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Svetit. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Cathie de Bella.jpg

Pourquoi est-ce que tu as supprimé ce fichier ? L'entreprise n'existe plus depuis les années 80. Elle a déposé le bilan et les fondateurs de la société sont morts depuis longtemps ! --Guil2027 (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if that is all correct, the copyright still exists and the deleted image clearly infringes on it. It is very likely that when the company went bankrupt, the Intellectual Property, including copyrights, was sold at the auction that wound up the company's affairs. While the buyer may be impossible to locate, the doll will be under copyright until at least 2037 and, perhaps, much longer, if the designer lived beyond 1967. We do not keep images of copyrighted works on Commons, even Orphan Works. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Quelle suffisance ! tu ne connais ni cette poupée, ni l'entreprise mais tu es certain que quelqu'un a racheté le brevet ! Mais qu'en sais-tu ? Comment expliques-tu qu'il n'y ait plus eu une seule poupée Bella depuis la destruction de l'usine en 1988 ? Même les moules sont régulièrement vendus en enchères sur ebay. C'est sûr qu'avec ce genre de raisonnements, la catégorie "dolls" va continuer à être le musée des horreurs pendant très longtemps. --Guil2027 (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The doll was created in 1967. It therefore must have a copyright which must exist until 70 years after the death of the creator. That cannot under any circumstances be before 2037 and may be much later if the creator died later or is still be alive. It does not matter who owns the copyright or if it is an orphan -- the copyright still exists. That is all we need to know. Although it is unfortunate that there are orphan copyrights, the rules of Commons are very strict -- if there is a copyright, we must have a license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
J'adore le type qui m'apprend que cette poupée a été commercialisée en 1967 alors qu'hier encore il ignorait son existence. Je pense surtout que tu n'y connais rien mais que tu as décidé d'imposer tes propres règles sur commons. Va te faire voir. --Guil2027 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Self Promotionalist?

In searching images and reading the pages images are used on, I found this one [12]. What does one do in cases like this where the only contributions are outside of Scope? Thanks for your help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

  • And then I found this one [13] later. Her only edits are on herself. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
You can tag the User Pages on WP:EN for deletion -- I generally don't bother. The images, however, we do have some control over -- I agreed with your {{Delete}} on the second and tagged the first one as not having permission. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

So, uh, you waited an entire week to hear my input on the matter? Now that I finally got the Commons alert for a new message, I fail to see how my image is any different to the one currently featured on en:Jägermeister, only that it's much better. The label is just as visible, and nobody will mistake it for anything else. Should I therefore nominate it for deletion as well?

I am able to create studio-grade photographs and willing to occasionally lend my work to everyone but stuff like this is only making me want to stop. Antti29 (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You certainly create very good images, but, unfortunately, you cannot infringe on the copyright of others. We have more than 20,000,000 images on Commons. My best guess is that 1% of them -- 200,000 images -- have problems of one sort or another, so you can almost always find an example of a similar image that ought to be deleted. When you find images that ought to be deleted, please do nominate them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Could you explain how a photo of a bottle any adult can buy is a copyright infringement? And if it really is, isn't this list full of them? Antti29 (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
A newspaper, a book, a poster showing a modern painting -- these are all things that anyone can buy, but you cannot simply photographer them and post the photo on Commons because you don't own the copyright. The bottle's label has a copyright, so your image infringes.
As I said above, you can usually find examples of similar problem images on Commons that should also be deleted. Category:Jägermeister is not an exception. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, you better get crackin' then. For me, all this is too much bother and I'll just stop contributing. Antti29 (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
If all you have to offer Commons are copyright violations, then, by all means, stop contributing. If it is too much bother to read and obey the copyright laws, then, again, stop contributing. Only if you upload good images that do not infringe on the rights of others are you welcome here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi. Thank you for deleting the page I created by mistake, because I forgot to type in "Category" first. It's actually this Category:Westwood Park (Los Angeles, California). I wanted to add a speedy deletion tag for the other one without the category: that you deleted, but I wasn't sure what the tag would be (I asked someone, but by the time they got back to me, you had deleted it already). Anyway, all good now.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a common mistake, so no problem. New Page Patrol is fairly aggressive because we see a lot of vandalism and try to delete it rapidly to discourage the vandals. That mean that mistakes like yours get the same rapid service. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Horigome Yuto, J. Youth Cup 2012.JPG

Could you please clarify what was the reason of the deletion? The original poster's comment wasn't that specific, and you gave no comment on the closure. Am I correctly understanding that it was deleted because of violation of the copyright of the depicted trophy as a sculpture? whym (talk)

A sorry, sometimes we are too cryptic for the good of the project. Chalk it up to 1,500+ deletions a day.
You have it exactly right. The trophy has a copyright as sculpture and these is nothing in Japanese law that would allow the broad use of the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I added a note there, hoping other people (especially the uploader) find it informative. whym (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, although I do note that the nom linked COM:FOP#Japan which provides a complete explanation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


I looked at this pile of photos yesterday and only got around to nominating them today. Since I looked yesterday, someone else nominated some/many of them again! Major oops, what do you suggest I do to fix it? I've never done one like this [14] before. Thank you so much for your patience! I do feel as if I'm getting more comfortable with the process. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I took the two lists into Excel, sort and compared them. Yours was a perfect subset with two fewer files, so I simply deleted your whole entry. You can now add your comment to the existing entry.
I don't create many mass DRs, so it's never happened to me. It isn't a bad idea to check a couple of the images just before creating the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I had put it on my todo list on one day, and didn't recheck it the second day. I've been trying to lump the DRs of some fairly blatent copyright violators to save us time deleting them one by one. There seems to be a pattern, they upload one photo or two and if those don't get deleted right away, in comes a whole gallery of junk. So as I go through the pages of new images uploaded, I take a second to look at the whole gallery of the uploader, whether I found *that* image dubious or not. Several of the mass deletions I've done have been prompted by only one or two images and then 1/2 hour of searching out the rest of their images and nominating them. Eventually I get tired and log off; I have no idea how you do hundreds or thousands of these a week, I'd go crosseyed at 250. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the issue?

You seem perpetually miffed with me. I have no idea what the problem is. Rather than leaving condescending notes in deletion discussions, please let me know what the issue is. You can email me if you prefer. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think there's an ongoing issue between us -- I'm certainly not aware of any. I think of you as a reasonably active colleague that agrees with me as often as most.
I could have been a little more diplomatic at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vimy2 tango7174.jpg -- for that, I'm sorry -- but, frankly, asking the community to go searching for a series of DRs before considering this one seems a little too much -- you obviously knew where they all were, so that it would have taken you much less time to list them out than for one or more of us to go searching. You might even have consolidated them yourself -- a pain in the ass to do, but certainly something that I and others have done from time to time -- the easiest way is to simply redirect all of the DRs but the one.
As for my comment about non-French law, I have not looked at the other DRs and I don't know what arguments were applied. There's no other argument that an experienced editor could use. The subject image is a fully developed sculpture of three people that occupies the whole frame, so neither de minimis nor TOO can possibly apply to it. The designer died in 1955, so under French law, it's still under copyright, but under the Canadian 50 year rule, it would be PD. I can't see any other potential argument here, so why did my mentioning that offend you? As you know, the same argument has been made, unsuccessfully, for a variety of other monuments in Europe.
I also take exception to this:
"For the reasons explained in the more than a dozen other discussions on this same memorial, which we need not repeat here for the umpteenth time."
Actually, you do need to repeat them. We delete about 1500 images every day, in around 200 DRs and a variety of other actions. Although I am a fairly active Admin, I do not see DRs every day -- perhaps every third or fourth day at best. Even Jcb, Fastily, and INC don't do DRs every day. It's almost certain that most of the people reading through the subject DR log will not have seen the "dozens of other discussions". Certainly I have seen no discussions of European memorials such as this one that ended in keep closures.
Perhaps it would be good if you consider that half of all deletions are done by four people (Jcb, Fastily, INC, and Dschwen) who average between them over 750 deletions per day. They are the ones who keep the 10,000 new images a day from overwhelming us. They need all the help they can get -- both in spelling out reasons, and in listing out other things to consider. The rest of the most active Admins, including me, appreciate such things, but for the top four, it's vital.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this reply. Very nice of you to take the time to set this out. I've started a full reply about 5 times over the course of the day, but keep getting pulled away. My response might not happen until tomorrow morning. Sorry about the delay. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry again for the delay. I have drafted a response, but it is a mess because I have been adding to it whenever I have had a spare moment today, and it is at the moment a string of unorganized thoughts. I will try to give it a read through and post it tonight. I didn't want you to think, after I raised this fuss, that I was ignoring you.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Again, I'm sorry my hasty remarks made you angry -- I'm not sure there is whole lot more to say. I'd like to see you think a little more about how we can all best aid our high-volume Admins in their work and you'd like me to be more careful in my choice of words. I'll do my best on the latter. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
It took me even longer than anticipated to reply due to real life. I’ll just post what I started.

Thank you for your apology yesterday. I apologize for over-reacting. We all make comments that are perhaps not as diplomatic as we had intended, and I am a bigger offender on that front than you ever are. I am glad to hear that you do not believe there is an ongoing issue. I think I've misinterpreted some of your past comments as curt, was then taken aback by your comment yesterday, and frankly was fed up. I have spent hours on the deletion discussions involving this memorial, researching French copyright law and in some cases crafting comments in French (I am depressed at how rusty my written French has gotten). I am not particularly trying to "save" these images (I didn't take or upload any of these photos), but as a lawyer I think there is a clear principle of law. It's a principle I first discussed on the category talk page in 2009 when I grew frustrated with the common and incorrect assertion that "Canadian FOP applies in France". I'm troubled by some more recent assertions, namely the knee-jerk "No FOP in France, so no photos of any memorials where the artist has been dead < 70 yrs", which I think is as shallow and incorrect an assertion (to the extent it is applied to everything without much thought) as "Canadian FOP applies in France".

After having put all this time into this (and given my real life schedule, it has largely precluded me from doing anything else I wanted to do on Commons these past few weeks), it was frustrating to get a message suggesting I hadn't done enough or done it correctly. (I know that wasn't your intent) As best as I can tell, no one has suggested to the nominator who created this mess that he might want to assist our admins. I can't control others, and there are a number of editors who commented in a number of different discussions (interestingly, I believe that none of the editors who advocated "keep" did so on the basis of Canadian FOP - the only people who keep mentioning that in a unintentional (but nonetheless frustrating) straw man-kind of way are the people advocating deletion). I wasn't comfortable redirecting anything, given that some people had already commented before I had even found some of the discussions.

Personally, I would never close a nomination if there were other ongoing, relevant discussions involving the same subject. I didn't see myself as making a request, although I worded it that way to be polite - frankly, I felt like I was alerting people and stating the obvious. I wasn't asking anybody to search for anything. I actually found working through the category a simple, straightforward and quick way to get a handle on all of the discussions (in which I found more than half a dozen that I'd missed). I actually referred to that approach in my comments to save people the trouble of looking. It's fine if you prefer a list, and if someone had said "this is a mess, I personally prefer a list - can you help?" I would have been pretty happy to extend that courtesy (although it might have taken me a day or two).

Having got all that off my chest, I will provide a list. You're right. It might take me a couple of days. At the end of the day, it isn't my mess to clean up, but it also isn't the mess of Jcb, Fastily, INC, Dschwen, etc. Regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank very much for your considered comments. I certainly can be curt with experienced colleagues from time to time -- while I try very hard to explain things at length in words of one syllable to newbies, I figure that people with your depth of experience don't need more than a few words to get my point. Perhaps I should recalibrate that a little.
Starting fresh, I don't understand:
"I'm troubled by some more recent assertions, namely the knee-jerk "No FOP in France, so no photos of any memorials where the artist has been dead < 70 yrs", which I think is as shallow and incorrect an assertion (to the extent it is applied to everything without much thought) as "Canadian FOP applies in France"."
While I won't admit that it's a knee jerk, I will say that my automatic reaction to the subject image is as I put it above -- it can't be DM or TOO, so the French 70 year copyright applies and there is no FOP. Why is that "shallow and incorrect"? What am I missing that you think should be considered? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough - I would never admit to knee-jerk either. (I wasn't talking about you) Some of the photos (not the one you commented on) are arguably DM or TOO. Otherwise, the main issue is collective work which is an exception under French law. We discussed the concept with respect to the Newfoundland memorial (in December?), and while I won't admit that one wasn't collective work, the statutory exception never fit that memorial (which was essentially a statue of a moose) the way it does this one (with a completely different set of facts). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I've just read your comment at Category talk:Canadian National Vimy Memorial and I have several comments. First, the monument is not "architecture" as that term is used in US law -- "architecture" includes only structures intended for human use or habitation. That is different from the use of the word in other countries, including France, where "architecture" includes structures such as bridges. It is "sculpture" under US law and so will have a US copyright. I used to have a good cite on the issue from a major university Law Review, but it disappeared.
I don't agree that it is a collective work. Sculpture, particularly monumental sculpture, always involves a number of contributors besides the designer, such as structural engineers, mold makers, and founders, just as architecture, particularly of large buildings, involves not only the architect, but also structural engineers, steel fabricators, and the workers who actually build the building. Nonetheless, the designer of a sculpture and the architect of a building is the copyright holder. In a way this is analogous to a book -- the writer gets the copyright even though the creation of the actual printed book involves editors, typesetters, printers, binders, and so forth (this ignores post 1970 technology, but the principle remains the same).
BTW if the extra-territoriality issue ever comes up again, there is good evidence that there is no such thing. Even in the case of an embassy or of the UN Headquarters in New York, local law applies -- a murder in the American embassy in Paris will be tried under French law in a French court. The only complication is that if, for some reason, the American government wishes, they can prevent the French government from arresting the murderer as long as he remains in the embassy. We have precedents in both images of the Japanese embassy in Iceland (FOP for architecture is OK in Japan, not in Iceland,so we did not keep the images) and in the case of sculptures at the UN Headquarters -- not kept. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. I came back to work after the long weekend and saw that my response from Friday was still on my screen. And frozen, so I have had to retype it. My own stupid mistake. First, U.S. law is a red herring that I mistakenly addressed back in that 2009 discussion (although given that the structure in this case includes staircases and platforms for human use, not to mention foundations containing 11,000 tonnes of concrete, I am not sure that I agree with your application of the U.S. case law in these circumstances, although at the end of the day I don't think the U.S. case law applies). The real issue is collective works, and if this is a collective work (which it is :) ) then I'm not sure we have ever applied U.S. law to photos of structures in other countries (and in this case, Canadian crown copyright would have applied, an expiration which we have now determined applies worldwide). Second, this is not the typical case involving a monument or building. Here we have a government that exerted final creative control (overruling Allward on one major component of the monument) over what was the country's major monument in Europe, a project whose scope was much different than most of the sculptures and grave markers than have been the subject of most of our other war memorial FOP discussions, involving a new type of construction which was beyond the sole expertise of Allward - circumstances well beyond the examples you gave above (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vimy memorial .jpg for more discussion on this point). In any event, we could argue these points in circles for years the reality is that this memorial meets the letter of the statute in terms of collective works, we have case law which demonstrates that the concept of collective work has been applied to architectural works, and we have a memorial involving facts and circumstances quite different the vast majority of other discussions on Commons involving war memorials. We have more than met the COM:PCP threshold. Finally, thanks for your examples. I think I might have participated in one of those embassy discussions (or another one - IIRC, the discussion in which I participated involved plaques on a U.S. embassy or consulate in France). I think the best example is the case of the couple caught having sex on the Vimy memorial - convicted under French law, not Canadian law. Regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree strongly that this is a collective work -- as I said above, that would make every architectural project or monumental sculpture a collective work and no one on Commons has never argued that before. With that said, while I often enjoy debate for its own sake, we have over twenty million images on Commons and this one has so many unusual circumstances that it is not going to be used as a precedent. I'll bow out and let one of our colleagues close the DRs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
If it is a collective work, then this would extend the copyright term a lot. Under EU law, the copyright to a collective work expires 70 years after the death of the last co-author. I'm not sure how French law defines an author, but under Swedish law, an author is anyone who makes a contribution which is above the threshold of originality. If you just follow the architect's or sculptor's instructions, then you do not yourself do anything creative - the only one who does something creative is the architect or sculptor. Canadian law is completely irrelevant as Canada isn't the source country. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
It wouldn't extend the term. This would be an "oeuvre collective" under the French statute, not an "oeuvre de collaboration". As such, copyright would have expired. I am not aware of anyone suggesting Canadian law applies. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Most architecture has creative input that is not the architect's responsibility, ranging from interior design in buildings of all sizes to structural engineering in large buildings. Similarly, most monumental sculpture requires creative design of the armature and, often, the pedestal.
You argue at Category_talk:Canadian_National_Vimy_Memorial that it is a collective work and that the Canadian Government is the principal. I think that's a big stretch -- the client often exercises considerable control over a project and always has a veto over everything, but I have not heard of a case anywhere that that kind of control gave the client the copyright. I think that it's seventy years from Allward's death.
I dismiss the case of the couple having sex -- it's so minor that it doesn't create much of a precedent. If it were a murder, then maybe it would have value, but not fornication. Fortunately we don't have to rely on it -- it's clear that even embassy's don;t have extra-territoriality in the sense that many people think they do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Good morning. I am beginning to enjoy starting off each day debating copyright law with you.  :)

I disagree that this would make every architectural project or monumental sculpture a collective work. As you say, these are unusual circumstances. In this case, we have a national project, with evidence that the principal (government) exerted final creative control over a team, where Allward required the expertise of others well beyond the inputs (notably Faber) an architect normally requires. The typical building is not subject to parliamentary debate and oversight, does not give rise to a separate commission to guide its completion and is not unveiled by the head of state (all indicia that this was a project initiated, guided and controlled by the principal, not Allward, as required by the statute and well beyond the typical architect-client relationship). It's a pretty small subset of works that would have these, or similar, characteristics. In any event, we can't ignore the statute. As explained at the links I provided above, this meets the letter of the law and there is supportive case law. Where a statute is satisfied on its face, we easily meet the COM:PCP threshold. The issue is not "no one on Commons has never argued that before" - the issue is whether we have satisfied the statute. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, we disagree. I think that most monumental projects -- most of those on the Mall in Washington DC, for example -- have the same sort of intense client oversight and involvement. But, as I said several exchanges above, while I too enjoy this, it's a very special case and we both have other things to do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but I am not aware of a similar statutory exception under U.S. law that would apply to those on the Mall in Washington DC. Thanks for your input. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to delete my images and leave Wikimedia

Hi Jim, a few days ago Im trying to delete my photograph (I did shoot the pictures) because Im not longer agreed with Wikimedia policy, and now even more when I get insult from user Tuválkin by a ortography mistake. I want to leave Wikimedia, but first I want to delet this images, because there are mine. Please, can you help me? Im sorry for my inglish, it is not my natal lenguage. Pablorosario2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablorosario2013 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 February 2014‎ (UTC)

  • There is no need to apologize for your English -- it is very much better than my Spanish -- or even my French, which I studied for eight years many years ago.
Tuválkin was unhappy with the fact that you had nominated the same image for deletion three times for the same reason, and the reason was not valid to start with. I also was unhappy with that.
I am sorry that you want to stop contributing here -- your images are good and one of them is in use in a major article on WP:ES -- it would be good if you gave us more images.
As far as deleting those you have already contributed, that will not happen. When you uploaded them you granted a license that cannot be taken back, so that they are here forever. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the process for...

Greetings Jim: A local social-service agency, headquartered in one of our National Register homes, would like me to come take photographs of their fully restored interior to add to the page about the house on Wikipedia. Is there any special forms they need to fill out to permit the pictures to be uploaded without issue? Parts of the building are open to the public at all times, but they want pictures of the non-public spaces as well. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at Commons:Image_casebook#Museum_and_interior_photography. As long as you don't upload pictures of copyrighted works, Commons doesn't care whether you have permission or not. I know that you are aware of the rules about information plaques -- that's how we first met -- but if there are any other copyrighted things in the restored interior, try to avoid them or at least make them de minimis. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Trailer photos

I notice you just deleted the McCracken photo and I understand your rationale. However, an interesting issue was just raised on Wikipedia in a parallel situation. Based on the discussion here in Commons, I just tagged two photos as "nonfree" on Wikipedia. [15] See the two "Band Wagon" trailer photos. I went ahead and used those photos, but then looked at the trailer and noticed a copyright notice ten seconds into the trailer. A user commented in the discussion that the tag was for nonrenewal not no-notice, and that the trailers may be free if the trailer itself was not renewed. If that argument holds water, then I don't see why I couldn't re-upload the Good News screenshot and use the non-renewal tag. I think the nonrenewal issue would be the same for all vintage film trailers, and could be a reason to allow pretty much all of them. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, here or on Wikipedia. Thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Housekeeping point -- when you raise a subject with a colleague, it is very helpful to add a direct link, in this case Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joan McCracken in Good News trailer.jpg -- I've deleted over 500 files in the last two days and shouldn't have to search through them to find "McCracken".
You make a very good point -- I should have picked it up in closing the DR as the movie's date (MCMXLVII) was in the DR. Unfortunately, it shows up in the Catalog of copyright entries. Ser.3 pt.12-13 v.28-30 1974-1976 Motion Pictures. p163, as renewal #R592965, so the no renewal argument fails, as it probably will for most major motion pictures.
I should add that search for pre-1978 entries is not as hard as it once was -- the catalog has been indexed, so, assuming that the index (which was scanned and created from an OCR document) doesn't misspell the title, you have only to look through four or five indexes -- they are semi-annual and the renewal of a 1947 movie could take place in 1974 or 1975 or possibly 1976. The starting place is
Finally, it is a violation of policy and a waste of resources (albeit very small) to upload an image a second time. Commons keeps everything, so when an image is "deleted" it is actually just marked as not available for public viewing. If the community decides that the image should be restored -- either through a discussion such as this one or by an Undeletion Request -- then it will be restored to public view. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much. All your points are well taken, and I'll bring that to the attention of the Wikipedia discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Second thought -- I'm not sure. Although the trailer had notice, it was neither registered nor renewed (at least it didn't show up in my search. It seems to me that any frame that appeared only in the trailer is PD from lack of renewal, and any frame that appeared only in the movie is still under copyright, but I'm not so sure about frames that appeared in both. I'll ask User:Clindberg to take a look at this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd appreciate your looking into this. I realize that there is no such thing as "precedent" in such matters, but it would be useful to find out what the general rule is concerning movie scenes appearing in trailers and movies alike. Coretheapple (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
If the trailer was published before the film, then the trailer needs its own notice and renewal, or else the entire trailer is in the public domain.
If the film was published before the trailer, then the trailer is covered by the film's copyright renewal, at least for all frames and parts of the dialogue which can be claimed to be derivative works of the film. There have been some odd court rulings about derivative works and copyright notices, so I'm not sure if a missing notice would be enough to put the entire trailer in the public domain.
I assume that most trailers were used as advertisements for upcoming films (meaning that the trailers were published first). Based on the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joan McCracken in Good News trailer.jpg, that file had a valid copyright notice, so the question is whether the trailer was renewed. For a claim of "no renewal", you would have to search the copyright renewal records here. The renewal should be approximately 28 years after publication, but it seems that some renewals were made after 27 years and that some appeared in the catalogue from the 29th year, so it may be necessary to search through a couple of extra years. For renewals made in 1978 or later, you must instead search at the Copyright Office's website. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Stefan, it would have been helpful if you had read the discussion above -- I assume you did not because your tutorial on searching for the renewal covers the same ground that I did above when I found the renewal for the full movie and described the process. The question in front of us is, as I said above, assuming the movie is under copyright (having been registered and renewed) and the trailer is PD (having had notice, but no renewal), what is the status of frames that appear in both?
I do not think that we can assume beyond a significant doubt that a trailer was published before the full movie. Often movies are released on a very limited basis (still sufficient to count as "published") long before their public release. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
As I wrote, the copyright status of the frames which appear in both appears to depend on the date of first publication: if the film was published first, then it depends on the film's renewal, and if the trailer was published first, then it depends on the trailer's renewal. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
OK -- would you agree that while it is more likely than not that the trailer was published first, "more likely than not" does not pass our "significant doubt" test? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that any decision like that should be taken at COM:VPC. Currently, there are several people who upload images from trailers under the assumption that the trailer was published first, although this often isn't proven. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Good idea -- maybe we can get a consensus. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, please do. I know nothing about copyright law and won't be participating, but I will be following the discussion with interest. Coretheapple (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Edith Cowan University

Hello again. I was wondering if you thought that this page should be deleted and the pictures moved to [16], or not. And if not, why not? If so, can you please do it? (I know how to add them to the category page, but not how to delete the other page. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly legitimate to have both a Category and a Gallery on the same subject. In this case, the gallery takes images from three different categories:

and puts them on one page. Since one purpose of a Gallery is to combine images that are correctly categorized in different places, this is a good example of one. I think it might be better named "Edith Cowan" than "Edith Cowan University" since of the three images, only one is from the university. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

OK...I fail to see the point of a gallery. Wouldn't Category:Edith Cowan University be a sub-category of Category:Edith Cowan anyway?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as you will see, it is, in fact, a subcat. A gallery is more helpful for complex subjects, but even here, images relating to Edith Cowan are scattered throughout three categories.
Consider Category:Boston. It has images in 29 subcats and more than 200 sub-subcats. Some of those are great images, others not so great. The gallery Boston makes an attempt at organizing the best of the images into an overall picture of the city.
Or, for a simpler subject, look at Lighthouses in Maine. Here we have one best image of every lighthouse taken from about fifty different cats. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


Here's a new one to me... [17] User gallery is entirely graffiti, no obvious locations. Keep or not-keep? I see tons of other images of Graffiti, including category, but does it fall under "needs artist permission" or "FOP" of whatever country it is supposed to be in? Or none of the above as it's just spray paint on walls... annoying but not art? Please advise! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

First I should say that I don't agree with Commons graffiti policy -- it may be illegal, but it is still a created work and has a copyright. It seems to me that Commons rationalization that the artist can't sue because the work is illegal is a violation of COM:PRP #1. However, the policy is broadly supported, so I stay away from illegal graffiti.
I would delete all of these -- not all graffiti is art and in any case we don't keep art from non-notable artists. The images are strange -- they look to be both contrast and color manipulated. Without a location, they aren't very useful. Since we don't know where they are from, we must assume they are in a non-FOP country. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are plenty of cases where it would be a good idea for the copyright holder to sue:
    1. If the copyright holder already has been fined for vandalism, then you can't receive more fines for vandalism, so suing for copyvio is safe.
    2. If prescription has cancelled the possibility to sue for vandalism, then suing for copyvio is safe.
    3. If a copyvio claim gives you $1000 but you only risk having to pay $500 to the propwrty owner, then suing for copyvio still gives you some money (but everyone will know that you're a vandal).
    4. If the property owner won't find out that there's a copyvio case, then he can't sue for vandalism.
    5. Only the vandal can be sued for vandalism. If the vandal is dead, then the vandal's heirs can easily sue for copyvio without risking legal problems.
I think that one idea is that it is often impossible to identify the author of unsigned graffitti. However, in some countries such as Sweden you can be fined or end up in jail as long as it can be shown that you have violated someone's copyright, even if the copyright holder is unknown and uninvolved in the case. However, the copyright holder can of course not get any compensation if the court can't figure out who he is. --Stefan4 (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I nominated all of them under COM:SCOPE. I think graffiti is art too, see "Banksy", but I am not getting into any deletions arguments if I cannot help it. Remember the Battle of the Brass Plaque! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
@User:Stefan4 It sounds like you and I agree that Commons policy is not good -- but that still only makes two of us. " is often impossible to identify the author of unsigned graffiti" is a violation of COM:PRP #4 -- so we have two violations of PRP in our graffiti policy. I'm not sure I agree with your #5 -- in the US, at least, you can sue someone's estate for damages caused by the decedent. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The idea with not being able to identify the author is that if the author doesn't have any evidence that he is the author, then a court wouldn't accept any claims that he is the author. I agree that COM:PRP §4 is a problem here: there will always be some cases where the author can prove that he is the author.
At least in Sweden, the idea is that anyone can go to the nearest police and report a copyright violator if one is found. The author has the right to "fair compensation", but apart from that, the violator can be fined and put in jail for up to two years if the violation is "intentional" or due to "gross neglect". See for example this case where a school found out that a 15-year-old student had used a computer for file sharing. For some reason, he wasn't fined in the first instance, but I think that this was appealed to a higher instance where I don't know what the outcome was. Here is another case where the German state of Bavaria sued a man for publishing Hitler's Mein Kampf. The court decided that Bavaria doesn't hold the copyright to the book in Sweden (although the state holds the copyright to the book in Germany), and the court then discussed the options to punish the publisher anyway, although in the end he wasn't punished for some reason. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


Please have a look at this user, it may be a new sock of Sridhar1000. --Denniss (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Right you are. I blocked it indefinitely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Julia Ann CES2000 11.jpg‎

That was a good catch Jim, thanks. Nicoli Maege (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Pensacola.svg

Thank you much for deleting this file. However, I wonder what more reason or rationale you could want to delete all versions of it. I do know that the image under one form or another is used on a number of wikiarticles. But the very idea of this flag is untrue - it does not exist in reality, and may well be a hoax. That's why I included the link to the Afd discussion. The original uploader has had tons of images deleted, which is highly suspicious - did you look at his talk page? I don't know what else to say or do here to put an end to this fantasy flag which has no valid reason for being on any wikipage, but I've done all I know to do about it now. Textorus (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

  • ??? I did not delete File:Flag of Pensacola.svg or any related file. As I said at the DR, the file has been in use on the WP:EN article for almost two years. Commons firm policy is that we do not make decisions on the authenticity of flags, maps, and other controversial issues -- we leave the choice of images to the individual WPs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Odeon West End - Leicester Square, London (4039996300).jpg

  • "The two billboards are the center of interest of the image" - no, the building is the centre of interest. If it was the billboards, why include the lower and upper floors too, plus the roof, and indeed all that sky? And why frame it so that a lampost is in front of one of the posters? The building was obviously the centre of interest, anyone who claims otherwise has nothing to base that on at all
  • "arguably the photo would not have been taken except to show them." - seriously? does the title and description on the Flickr page support that total speculation? It would appear not - Odeon West End - Leicester Square, London and The area of London where UK film premieres take place. With loads of cinemas. This is the Odeon West End, the second Odeon cinema in Leicester Square." makes it pretty obvious that the photographer intended to photograph the building
  • "Both billboard's categories are included in the image's cats" - so what? They were not included on the original photographers image, so again, per COM:DM, that is yet more evidence that the posters were not the intended subject.

Even though the debate was closed after less than 24 hours, I think your statements were so wrong they needed rebuttal here. Ultra7 (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The original Nom was User:Rodhullandemu. User:Fastily closed the DR. I commented at the UnDr and User:Natuur12 closed it. Only User:Mattbuck agrees with you. It's been discussed on Fastily's talk page, Natuur12's talk page, the DR, the UnDR and now here. Obviously it's a subjective decision, but when four experienced users think it should be deleted and two think it should be kept, it's going to be deleted and remain so. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Gaffney Peach.jpg

Jim, would this file be in the same situation as this discussion? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Eduardomanuel

I think you deleted all the images which were probably OK, and left the images which probably aren't :-) PD-AR-Photo means that most Argentine photos from before 1971 are OK, regardless if the uploader erroneously claimed "own work". I didn't check all of them but most looked old (some from the 1800s). I think that section was nominating pre-1971 photos which were just marked "own work" and had a bad license; the other sections were modern photos likely lifted from Panoramio and post-1971 photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that I got it backwards? There are moments when I sincerely wish we had a tool for mass undeletions and, if I understand you correctly, this is one of them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think you got it backwards. Some of the part 1 images are a problem if they were taken 1971 or later but most are probably OK. The Part 2 and 3 images are almost certainly problems. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:La Barraca 75 aniversario 00.jpg ...(perhaps a confusion)

A greeting. Excuse me, perhaps there was a misunderstanding. Just delete the corrected Edition of a file hermno other for which I requested deletion by an error in the dates of composition. The previous deletion, which I asked, as the creator of the image, is correct. But I do not understand the deletion of the new version, with correct dates 1932-2007. It will be kind enough to give me an explanation. Thank you.--Tolijote (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

When I nominated the file for deletion, I said "If this is actually "own work", as claimed, then it is out of scope personal art. If not, it is a copyvio. Either way it cannot be kept on Commons." I think that is as good an explanation as I can make--
  • The poster is someone else's work and you do not have the creator's permission to license it freely; or
  • The poster is your own work, in which case it is out of scope since Commons does not keep art created by artists who are not notable.
In either case it was correctly deleted.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear!

Please help with this? User file list [18] compared to Wikipedia article [19], with file history [20] looks like a fan page, promotion or self-promotion. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe -- certainly looks like it might be. There's a fine line, though, between self-promotion and a legitimate article on a performer. On Commons we are interested only in images, not articles on WP, so it's up to WP:EN to decide if an AFD is warranted. It's been there almost two years, so that seems unlikely.
Of course, you could put on your WP:EN hat and do just that, but for me, I've got enough to do here without worrying about WP:EN also. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, here's another one... Even more puzzling... This Wikipedia User page Is actually an article about "Sculpture in the Parklands" , mostly written by Disgracedminister, see [21] here... who also moved over photos from Wikipedia [22], [23], and [24] with a pile of other pictures in category [25] all seem to be photos of works of living artists. The conversion of a user page (with redirect) to an apparent article (without warning box) is a new one to me. I have marked for deletion four more pictures of this sculpture park which were added in early January since the artist Michael Bulfin (featured in those four uploads) is still living. I'll work with a Wikipedia admin on their side of the problem, wanted you to see the photos. Thank you for the help above! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I also left a message for that uploader apologizing in case I made a mistake on those nominations based on COM:FOP/Ireland. Again Thanks!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

File:French horn mouthpiece.jpg

Thanks for the comment regarding the UK. I didn't realize that the applied art copyright is different there, but I did look it up after you mentioned it and saw just how hard it would be to copyright. At least in the U.S., the design of the mouthpiece is considered applied/functional art (such as the design of a chair would be), and therefore is under copyright. However, parts of the mouthpiece (namely the shank) wouldn't fall under copyright. Of course, patent is the ultimate protection for these. When I submitted the deletion request I forgot Denis Wick was in the UK. The Haz talk 23:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Vocalists by language

Hello Jim, I need an opinion by a native speaker of English. I was transferring the child categories of the said one to the correct nomenclature (some were "Turkish-language singers", other "Tamil vocalists" and so on); the doubt is, should I write either "Italian-language vocalists" (with the dash) or "Italian language vocalists" (without the dash as I am doing currently)? -- Thanks for your time. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I checked the New York Times Style Book, which is my usual usage guide, and clarified my instinct. Generally, the hyphen is used to avoid confusion with two adjectives preceding a noun when the first adjective relates to the second, and not directly to the noun. You do not use the hyphen when both adjectives modify the noun -- a "small red car" is both a small car and a red car, but an "Italian-language vocalist", is not necessarily an Italian vocalist -- she could be German. "Italian vocalist" or "Tamil vocalist" describe a person who is Italian or Tamil and is also a vocalist, but not a German singing in either language. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes but in that case we have an adjective and two nouns ("Language" and "Vocalists") :-) In Latin-derived languages it would be easier, I would write Cantanti in italiano (or Cantanti in lingua italiana) or Chanteur en français. Of course, as you correctly supposed, I am not necessarily referring to Italian (or any other nationality) vocalists, but to all those that sing regularily in Italian (ie someone coming from the Italian-speaking regions of Switzerland or from San Marino, which has Italian as official language) or have occasionally done (I made the frightening discover that even David Bowie sang an - horrible - Italian cover of Space Oddity =:-(( ). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please explain

I see the word "flickrwashing" used from time to time. I suspect that means someone gathers unfree images, uploads to flickr, then uploads to here, claiming free licence from flickr? If that's the right concept, I suggest this user [26] has been up to at least some of that. Is there a reasonable way to figure this out? The entire gallery is celebrities. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This Michael J. Scofield reminds me of Chace Watson/MyCanon with the celeb crops and uploads. A 2 month old acct that works like a pro. Last time I wondered about a Chace Watson sock I was right... INeverCry 23:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Funny, but the last one is just a day or so out of CU range: User:WikiCelebs. INeverCry 23:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Ellin, Flickrwashing, or, more generally, License Laundering is exactly as you describe it.
Your best bet for figuring it out is start with a Google image search (it can be installed to come up with the context menu when you right click on an image) or Tineye (ditto) to see where else the image has appeared. You can also look for EXIF and the usual small-size signs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! (Waves at Talk Page Stalkers!) Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Please tell me more about that supposed flickr washer. You suppose that he/she is uploading files with an account then cropping them with a sock? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Please tell me what is a "CU range?" I am sorry but some of the terminology is still all new to me! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Basically, @Ellin Beltz:, a CU range is the timespan during which a check-user can be effectively done. I don't know what's this time range for Commons (on is 2 months or 60 days, don't remember exactly). If two accounts connect from the same computer within a range of 60 days a check-user is able to detect that. If i.e. you log on Commons more than 60 days after your last access with another user, the check-user cannot tell whether both accounts connected from the same computer and IP range. To make it even simpler, if you perform a check-user on two or more users suspected of coming from the same source, you cannot explore data older than two months. Thus a sockpuppetter who knows that may dodge the control simply operating, for example, two accounts from two separate sources; or operate the latter user more than 60 days after the last use of the former user. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 19:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It is longer than sixty days here on Commons. For the reason mention by Sergio, I won't say in public how long. Also, Sergio simplifies a little. A CU can tell if two edits came from the same IP address, which may or may not be the same computer. Some ISPs keep IP addresses constant for long periods while others change them frequently -- I had one sock that had over fifty IP addressed in less than a month. Also, in some organizations, more than one, even many, computers can share an IP address. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as is my case should I edit from my office -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I recall the use of "CU" during a prior deletion discussion, and as a savvy computer user I pretty much know what kinds of data can be gathered especially when logins are required. Is there some page of [[COM:ADMIN ABBREVS]]<? Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Peachoid redux

Here’s a discussion on Wikipedia on an image of the Peachoid. What do you think? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. See my comments there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag-map of Kingdom of Libya.png

Are you aware that two other identical raster flags maps were also just deleted under the same reasoning? This is one of three. Fry1989 eh? 01:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't care enough to post an UnDR, but it is too bad when our colleagues do not follow policy. I see no reason to delete a PNG when an SVG is created -- it saves nothing and takes time -- and several good reasons to keep it -- aside from the chain of creation history and attribution, most potential users of Commons don't know what an SVG is, aren't aware that they can download and use it just like a PNG, and will go away without finding the image they are looking for even though it might be available as an SVG. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sabiha_gökçen.jpg If you can check this one out for me. I hope I did everything right. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine after the discussion. As I said there, it's not a URAA problem yet , the image is not PD in Turkey. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Maidman

Hello. I note that you have deleted File:Microbiota 1.jpg, File:IndustrialObject2.jpg, and File:Hands 1.jpg because they appear to be copyright violations. However, the artist does appear to have released these images specifically under CC BY SA 3.0 on his website. Is this not sufficient for use on Commons? Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

As you will see, I found the release on his web site after having deleted them. This could have been avoided if you and User:Daniel Maidman (who I assume is actually the artist) had marked them appropriately rather than in your case just slapping a CC-BY-SA on it without any evidence of permission and in his case not simply claiming "Own Work", but actually pointing at the release on his web site. We delete more than 1,500 images every day -- images that appear to be copyvios will be deleted on sight and the half dozen Admins that do most of that work do not have time to search web sites beyond the bottom line which, in this case, read "all images © Daniel Maidman 2013 all rights reserved". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Please accept my humble apologies, it was an oversight on my part. You did the right thing by deleting them in the first place, but thank you for restoring them so quickly. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Let me apologize as well; having stumbled once, I'll be more aware in the future of the issues involved - I hope that proves sufficient reward for the time you had to waste dealing with the problem. I really am sorry to have gotten it wrong. Sincerely, Daniel Maidman 11:49, 2 March 2014
I think I was a little snarky above, my apologies as well. Daniel, thank you for contributing your four images to Commons. I hope to see more. I think you realize that all of this is in an effort to protect artists' works from being posted here without permission.
Although I am satisfied that User:Daniel Maidman is actually the artist of the same name, if you are going to be active on Commons, I think that you should follow Commons username policy and confirm your identity by sending an e-mail to from an address at .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Jim, absolutely no apology is needed, but I appreciate it. I'm glad to contribute the images, and I very much do understand the concern about posting of images without permission. I just emailed per your suggestion (and the policy, which I should probably have read beforehand), and I'll try to keep up with that kind of thing in the future. I do hope to be active here over time, and I'm grateful for the welcome the community has offered me. Have a wonderful evening, or morning - Daniel 18:48 5 March 2014

File:Cristina García.jpg

Hello Jim, before I use the delete feature I need some supplemental info. Is there any particular reason why this photograph is being kept here, in spite of the fact it's been licenced as NC? Or I can safely delete it because it doesn't fullfill the criteria for being on Commons? Which of the two licences apply? Either the less or the more restrictive one? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The uploader is exploiting a loophole in Commons licensing policy that I strongly object to, but that others of our colleagues think is OK. Basically, because it has a GFDL license, it is OK for Commons. That ignores the fact that a GFDL license requires that any use include hyperlink to or, for print use, a full copy of the license. That's fine for a software documentation distribution, for which it was intended, but more difficult for web sites and impossible for any print use. So, what the licensing does is make NC use easy under the CC license, but any commercial use hard and any print commercial use impossible. I think that violates the spirit of Commons, but, as I said, others disagree. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thus, if I understood well what you wrote:
  • You can't use commercially the photograph under CC terms;
  • You can formally use it commercially under GDFL but not de facto because a photo with the full licence printed next to it is unusable (like i.e.: you can't get for free in this private club through the main gate, but you can get in through the window, provided that you enter it with your car).
Did I resume well? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Your summary is perfect, including the thought of driving a car through a window ;-) -- can you imagine an image in a book surrounded by a fine print license? As for your question, although it's clear what you mean, it's not a correct usage. I would say "summarize", rather than "resume". The verb "resume" means "start over" or "come back to doing something". The noun "résumé" means a summary, mostly used in the sense of a summary of one's experience, a curriculum vitae. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I meant "summarize" but I wrote "resume" because (alas!) I'm still bound to my reminiscence of French which was in fact the first foreign language I studied :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 21:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sabiha Gökçen picture

What is your opinion on that one ([27])KazekageTR (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

New alert

This user.--Inefable001 (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Taken care of. Jcb (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Geography of Southwestern United States

I'm not very expert of geography of the United States, but are we sure that both Hawaii and Texas are "southwestern United States"? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Hawaii is the southwestern-most state, but no one I know would say that it is in the southwestern United States. I removed it from the cat. Most people would agree that the American Southwest is Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, plus, perhaps, California, Nevada, Utah, Oklahoma, and Colorado. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Anyway I also created Geography of the United States by state which is - at least - unquestionable :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Johnadams.jpg

Why did you keep then delete? All votes were to keep. Evrik (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure what happened here. I meant to keep it. Thanks for finding the problem..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


Hmmm.... before I move any step ahead, the correct syntax is either Faculty (or Alumni) of University of... or Faculty of the University of ...? If we assume that i.e. University of California is its proper name (University as name and not noun) should be Alumni of University..., but I'm not completely sure. Can you help please? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You want consistency? Here? LOL!
  • Faculty of the University of California, Berkeley or
  • University of California, Berkeley faculty

is correct English. I think I would tend to use the first, because we say "People of", or "Artists of" rather than the other way around. There's also a small ambiguity in the second -- you might read it as "the Berkeley faculty of the University of California", rather than as intended, with "Berkeley" modifying "University of California".

Generally there should be a "the" in there for names where "University" or "College" comes first, but not the other way around, thus:
  • Faculty of the University of California, Berkeley, but
  • Faculty of Harvard University
While you're fixing cat names, you might look at Category:Panoramics. In English, "panoramic" is an adjective, while the noun is "panorama", so using it as a cat name is like saying "photographics of Germany" rather than "photographs of Germany". You could say "panoramic photography of Germany", but why not just use the noun? Also, I don't see why it is "Panoramics in Germany" -- in English we would say "Panoramas of Germany". (I note as I write this that the spell checker is red-lining every use of "panoramics" -- while there are times to ignore the spell-checker, people should at least think about what it is saying). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose that Harvard doesn't want the "the" before because "Harvard" is precisely the name of the institute (same as writing "Players of Liverpool FC" or "Players of Arsenal FC"). BTW... What's the plural of "Stadium"? Either "Stadiums" or "Stadia" (ah, those Greek-derived names....)? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
My initial thought was "stadiums" and the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, which I use for such questions, agrees with me. As a rule, we use English style plurals for words that have become English, even if they are spelled the same as their Latin or Greek ancestors. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok Thanks :) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:None (add license tag in the box below)

I have replaced all usage using AWB. Can this be deleted? Revicomplaint? 11:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedied -FASTILY 07:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


Hello Jim, apologise for bothering you again :) The category Twins has become a bit of mess because, while its parent categories are Multiple births and Sibling couples (which suggests it's about nothing but biology and people) it's becoming the dump of every Two-of-a-kind category of anything (twin buildings, twin tunnels, two matching outfits, and so on). In an attempt to rationalize things and make them consistent (ha!) I wanted to subcategorize at least human twins, but I'm stuck in the sex categorization (males only, females only and siblings): ie for females should I write either Female human twins or Human female twins (same for males and siblings)? Thanks again! -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
PS Ah one more: either Deejays or Disc jockeys ?

Hmm. How about "Twin sisters", "Twin brothers", and "Twin siblings". Probably should be "Twin sisters (human)", etc., although for me "sisters" implies humans. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
For me too, thus "Twin sisters", "Twin brothers", and "Twin siblings" is clearly referred to humans. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Back to the Times Style Manual for Deejays -- the Times prefers either "D.J." or "disc jockey"; not "deejay". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok for disc jockeys, then. As for human twins, now it seems kind of sorted out... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Firstdukeofalbadetormes.jpg

Hola, pues entonces cambia el nombre del archivo. Sino lleva a la confusión. Gracias --Parair (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, The problem is the name. It's a false name. It say that grandfather of the duke. It isn't grandfather. He was the grandson, ok? --Parair (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don;t understand. The file name is "Firstdukeofalbadetormes". That says nothing about grandfather or grandson. Is the image not the first Duke of Albadetormes? If not, give me his correct title and I will change it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


I found typos in the COM:SCOPE page today while cut/copy/pasting sections to explain the problem with a user on my talk page. Also the list of what fails Scope is missing things we use all the time. Maybe it would be a good idea to get a committee together to work on this so that this page actually provides full support to our deletion nominators? Just a thought. I'm too new to fix anything on the scope page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You can fix typos as you find them -- that does not require any consensus. Word changes for clarity with the same meaning are also probably OK. The best way to work on other changes is to post a note with specifics on Commons talk:Project scope and see what happens. While that won't always generate a discussion on a minor subject, a page like Scope has enough watchers so that one should happen. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


hi :), Mabye deleting Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mona Lisa-gutenberg121 1.jpg too? I am not 100% sure becous it is a scan. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought that one at a time was better -- they are all controversial DRs -- perhaps better to let the two (mine and yours) settle before another. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Could you see also here. This is a related DR. Thanks. :-) --Angelus(talk) 13:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Please read what I said above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I have read, but I did not understand. Could you explain better? Thanks. --Angelus(talk) 14:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Superseded images is a difficult subject for some people -- they would like to keep everything and ignore the clutter that that causes. I prefer to keep only one really good image. However, rather than close several controversial DRs on the same subject at the same time, I prefer to close only one, plus the one that Steinsplitter closed, and then wait a while before closing the rest. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for explanation. :-) Best regards. --Angelus(talk) 15:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


Hello. Sorry for disturbed you. Please add my this edits in template language list. This language list page is security. Respect--Dağlı95 (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don;t really understand how to do this -- adding a new language to an autotranslated template is not simple and I do not understand the instructions. Please put a request on COM:ANB and someone who knows what to do will handle it. And thank you for your effort to make Commons more accessible to everyone. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I realized now ))). Thanks for your attention. Best regards--Dağlı95 (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

A billboard even an admin can love.

Arcata CA Billboard Down.jpg

Hi Jim: I took this picture with you in mind... I don't think we need worry about the copyright of the image on this billboard, it's rather de minimus. And I was stupid and named the file incorrectly, can you help me learn how to fix that? It should be "Billboard Down" not "Bilboard Down". Thanks!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL -- No worries about the copyright here. As an Admin it's easy. In the same pull-down menu as "delete", to the right of "View Edit + History *" you will find "Move and Replace". There are three parts to the process:
  • Choose a new name for the file (Move)
  • Replace all of its uses throughout all the WPs with the new name (Replace) -- not needed here
  • Leave behind a redirect - also not needed here.
Generally we leave a redirect if the file has been around more than a short while to guard against the possibility that a non-WMF user has linked to it. And, of course, we always replace all of its uses, but there aren't any here.
Although it is not Commons policy, I think it is a good idea to follow Naming conventions (capitalization), hence "File:Arcata CA billboard down.jpg".
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Edgar Andrews

About the removed picture of Edgar Andrews. I have the rights to the removed picture, which is also present on the backflap of the Dutch edition of his latest book. I own the rights to that picture since I am the publisher of the Dutch edition containing that picture. If that is not enough, please advise how to proceed in order to get the picture back up. Watch-Wiki (talk)

I see the following in the file description, "The author Edgar Andrews himself has the rights to this picture and has given me permission by e-mail to use it for wikipedia." Permission for Wikipedia is insufficient -- both Commons and WP:EN require a license for any use, including commercial use. It is unusual for a publisher to have more than a limited license to the image, but, in any case, in these circumstances Commons policy requires that the actual copyright holder (usually the photographer) send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


This is a note to let you know that I've reopened a deletion discussion that you previously participated: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:NGruev. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi Jameslwoodward, you've deleted the page Benutzer:Plasmarelais/Vorlage:Querleiste, which was mine. I've put a wrong title outside the user namespace, I'm sorry for that. It was a mistake, I intended to create it like a subpage of my userpage. May I ask you to reestablish the page and move it to the page User:Plasmarelais/Vorlage:Querleiste? Thanks a lot for your help! Best regards --Plasmarelais (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done I understood the problem -- it is not unusual for users who work on non-English WPs to use their home user name -- "Benutzer", "Kulanci". In order to clear the New Page Patrol log I had to either move it or delete it. Since I didn't know what you wanted, I deleted it.
Anyway, no harm -- I have created User:Plasmarelais/Vorlage:Querleiste. Comments on the links under the buttons:
  • Subpages -- I've never seen this special before, thank you for adding to my skills here. I have added it to my user page.
  • Pictures -- I see that you have a few user categories and are following the naming rules for them, see Commons:User categories. The link under the pictures button is wrong, though, it links to Commons:Category:Plasmarelais, not Category:Plasmarelais which is what you want.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help, I'm happy to see that there was something I could help you, too ;) Sorry for all the work I've caused. Best regards, --Plasmarelais (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Plasmarelais -- Commons can be a very difficult place, so we have to try extra hard to be good to newcomers. Feel free to come back with more questions as needed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

wrongful allegation of copyright violation

Hi, you deleted File:Gnome-icon-theme-gnome-terminal.svg File:Gnome-icon-theme-gnome-software.svg File:Gnome-icon-theme-gnome-maps.svg File:Gnome-icon-theme-gnome-music.svg]] because of "copyright violation", but the files are ALL released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GNU FDL and I also linked to the files themselves. Could you please undelete them again?

You "source" Source site,, has explicit copyright notice refers to "the site", NOT to its content in git. You do not really think, the entire git is not under some free license, do you? How can you make such mistakes? ScotXW (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The source you provided in the descriptions in each case is the URL of the image itself, not the URL of the page containing the file. Not providing the actual source page is a violation of Commons policy, see [[28]]. When I see an image that is directly linked, I simply go to the site's base page for copyright information. It is not the job of Administrators to search websites for licenses -- it is up to the uploader to properly link to the applicable license.
Please remember that a dozen Admins delete more than 1,400 images daily. We do this to stay ahead of the 10,000+ images that are uploaded every day. We do not have time to do more than the basics of our job. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
And as an SVG the file itself CONTAINS that demanded copyright information... can you restore your deletion again? ScotXW (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and you also deleted and page with the authors... please restore that again as well. ScotXW (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
GNOME-icon-theme/authors was a copy of this page: GNOME_High_contrast_icons/authors maybe you should delete that page as well ScotXW (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
As you suggested, I have deleted GNOME_High_contrast_icons/authors. Please read COM:Galleries which describes the purpose of Commons galleries. As for the others, as I pointed out above, it is the job of the uploader to provide links to the source pages that have appropriate licenses. So far you have not done that. If you do not provide the source pages, then there is no point in restoring the subject files because one of my colleagues will just delete them again for the same reason. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Nice "work". Here is the directory: and another one: But as I already stated, this is the GNOME git. I think it is safe to assume, that pretty much any project hosted there is free and open-source software. Thank you for your cooperation, you're contribution is appreciated. ScotXW (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I suspect you;re getting as frustrated by this as I, but let's take another shot. An example:
The image File:Microbiota 1.jpg is a painting and is on Commons by permission of the artist. The source shown in the file description section is not the URL of the file (, but the URL of the page on which the file appears ( Also on that page is an explicit CC license for the painting.
What we need in the case of the Gnome icons is the URL of the page(s) which contain the icons and which either have, or lead directly to a free license.
Your assumption that the icons are free is misplaced -- often icons have a special status in the free licensing of copyrighted works. Note, for example, that WMF icons are not licensed freely, although everything else here is. The same is true of Mozilla and many others.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
We are talking about GNOME here, and also, I provided the proof. It is IN the files itself. Instead of wasting my time, simply open the files, and look INSIDE. Thank you. ScotXW (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I won't do that -- as I have said several times, unless the file descriptions link to URLs that show the license status, they don't conform to policy and will simply be deleted again by another Admin. There's no point in getting mad at me -- if you don't want to follow policy, then don't try to upload to Commons because the files will simply be deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I did that as well here: and here: upon which you implied, that the license file there would somtimes not be valid for the SVG files... Thank you again, for your good work. Keep it up, sport. ScotXW (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Please look again at my example above -- policy calls for a link to the actual page which contains the image, not a directory of pages. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

As i use the template:Information daily which says the source URL has to be URL where the file was found on the web. The documentation says nothing about where the license status has to be found. Isn't that still the present valid status? --Maxxl2 - talk 12:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's calm down a little here.
@ScotXW: this was certainly not the good way to assert this situation. You fail to provide proof of license for said images, and attaquing James for that is in no way a good thing. Everyone can make mistakes, James did, by deleting those images, but you also did, by attaquing him for that.
@James: Regarding the license of those icons, Gnome being a open source project, one can assume that they are under a free license. And they indeed are distributed under the terms of either GNU LGPL v.3 or Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license. Now that this point is made clear, can you undelete those icons, and ScotXW will add the source I provide as a license proof ?
Thank you in advance, both of you.
Pleclown (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but that doesn't work. First, we cannot assume anything about the copyright status of the icons. As I pointed out above, most free license projects, including WMF and Mozilla, maintain control over their icons and do not license them freely, so any assumption would have to be that they are copyrighted, not free.
Second, the statement at does not give us a list of any sort of what is free and what is not. And we still don't have a source page for each of the icons. This is really not very hard, folks and it is clear, well established, policy.
My patience has run out with this one -- after repeated explanations of what we must have in order to restore these, we still don't have it. I suggest posting an UnDR and letting the community do what it will with them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Maxxl2: See Commons:Essential_information#Source: "For images that come from a website, you should ideally name three links: a direct link to the image, a link to the page the image is displayed on, and a link to the term of usage of the site. Links to (a page showing) the image and the terms of usage are required." Jee 13:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the enlightenment. As i read this for the first time today, its not a part of a policy or strict requirement, its just a recommendation. Commons:Project scope#Evidence says additionally: "Note that in the case of files found on the Web, this should not be the URL of the file, but the URL of the page containing the file, so that Commons editors can find background information when required." The triple sourcing is not part of the main upload form Special:Upload and not a part of the upload wizard. How should a simple user like me know that? In all instances only the link to the image is asked for. Therefore a missing link to license information cant be the reason for deletion. --Maxxl2 - talk 15:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
One link (to the page where the file and license available) is enough in most cases. But if the license information is not available there, the uploader should provide a link whwew the license is mentioned. The third link (direct link to the file) is not required in most cases. But I know some sites where images are displayed as slides; so a reviewer may fail to find the file in first look. In such cases that link is also useful. This page is linked to the beginners guide; so available for all new comers. Note that reviewers are not responsible to find the license link if not provided. Jee 15:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. While the documentation and tools may not make it easy, it is not up to the rest of the community to fix problems with an image's license. The uploader is responsible for providing evidence that the file is properly licensed. If he or she does not do so, then the file will be deleted. And please understand that, as the footnote you cited makes clear, it is not "the link to the image" that required, it is a link to the page containing the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
File:Ubuntu Software Center icon v3.svg you need to definitely delete that file as well... ScotXW (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
We have more than 20 million files on Commons. My best guess is that more than 1% of those -- 200,000+ files -- need to be deleted. The fact that other stuff exists is not a reason to keep or delete anything. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, in that case I just helped you in doing an even better job... you should thank me and go along with doing a great service to our community... ScotXW (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ayuda con categorizaciones

Hola Jameslwoodward. He notado que ha borrado esta página, Quizás usted podría ayudarme con las categorizaciones de estas Imágenes por favor. De antemano muchas gracias. Saludos sinceros. --Deucaleon (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hola Jameslwoodward. Muchas gracias por su atenta respuesta. ¿Puede usted por favor, revisar los cambios en la página?. Espero estos cambios sean los correcto. Un saludo.--Deucaleon (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
User pages and subpages are yours to do what you like within very broad limits, see Commons:User pages. I see nothing wrong with the page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Fictional flag issue

Being one of the users involved in my DsR on fictional flags, please have a look at User:Antemister/Fictional flag issue for a general discussion on that topic.--Antemister (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Copy from here:

In answer to the question, "Why Germany"", I have to say that my understanding is that this is a German version of the card -- somewhere above there is mention of contacting ATI Germany. However, if it is not a German version, then US law applies, since ATI is a subisidiary of AMD, a US company. US law, like German law, is not interested in the main subject of the image, but in the whole thing, and de minimis applies only if the problematic work can be removed without it being noticed by most users. Please remember that the "main subject" concept applies in only a few countries, and generally only in connection with FOP, not general issues of DWs.
I agree that Fastily's closure is correct -- not just because he closed it on my side, but because in order to restore an image there must be a clear consensus for it. COM:PRP is very clear -- it must be proven beyond a significant doubt that the image is OK. This was 3 to 2 in favor of not restoring -- even 3 to 2 the other way would not have passed that test..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Some corrections: There is no german version of this card - in fact I haven't noticed any country specific version of any graphics card (BTW: Why should it matter if it's a german version. A german version could be also be photographed in poland or on the high seas). I contacted Sapphire Germany (neither AMD nor ATI, since all you see on this image (cooler, artwork, fan) is made by Sapphire. Sapphire Tech. Germany is a coincidence, it just led me there from the contact page. "de minimis applies only if the problematic work can be removed without it being noticed by most users" I can only find that information ("[...]could easily be removed without even the slightest impact on the appearance of the actual object to the average viewer[...]") in this section: Commons:De_minimis#Germany - again german law, which does not apply here.
2 vs. 3 (or the other way around, it doesn't matter) is not sufficent but 3 vs. 30 would be?
Thanks for talking the time to replying to me --D-Kuru (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

OK -- as I said, I did not understand why Germany was involved. Sapphire is a Hong Kong company. We don't have a general rule for choice of law in cases where the issue is application of DM to internationally available products. I think that if the issue came to trial, it would be in the USA and the US court would apply US law, since there is no reason to apply any other. As for 3-2 or 2-3, it is not really voting, it is whether there is a significant doubt. I don't know exactly where "significant" stops, but when several experienced users see a doubt, that is significant. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess germany was involed because I contacted Sapphire Germany and have a de-M lable on my userpage - maybe hints for germany. I do think the same way that if it would be send to court US law would apply. We may do not have a general rule for such a special case (and I think there is no real need for that since it would be pretty specialised), but the already existing de minimis page is a pretty good start.
I do have to asked this again: If there is no part of the image which is prohibited by law, why not apply Common's comunity guidelines which do already exist (like Commons:De minimis)? And I just can't see any reasons (following these guidelines) to keep the file deleted. --D-Kuru (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to look again at Commons:De minimis. The copyrighted works in all of the examples there are so small that you can't see what they are at the size on the page. On the other hand, the woman on the Sapphire card is easily the most eye-catching thing in the image -- some would argue it is second to the fan, but I disagree and even if it is second, it is certainly important to the look of the card and the image. The best way to think about is -- if the image were changed to a man, would anyone notice? In the case of the examples at COM:DM, if the Dark Knight poster were changed for a different movie, or if the seat back screens were changed for a different screen, no one would notice unless it was called to their attention.

So I read de minimis yet again to see if I missed something the last time. If you scale down my original upload to the size of GT2 - Flickr - CarSpotter.jpg on the de minimis page (which is about 220px width) you can see the woman as good as you see the dark knight poster. If you look the image with a width of 200px you see that the fan is the most dominant part in the image. Even with 400px the woman is such a small part that the fan is still dominating the image. Looking at the images in a small resolution does not change anything since the full resolution is the one which is uploaded. When you open my image, display it full screen and take a step back so that you can see the whole image, the woman is not the most eye catching part of the image.
Would anyone notice if the woman was changed to a man? Good question! Let's put it to the test: I use the figure of the Sapphire Readeon Tri-X R9 290X since it's again an image by Sapphire and a man. The result can be visited here. Would anyone notice the exchange? Well, at least I know and I count as somebody, right? Let's get some more exaples: Would anybody notice if the large image on the museum front would be replaced in 17723 EscherMuseum.jpg. Since the author died in 1972 the image is not PD-old. Let's look at GT2 - Flickr - CarSpotter.jpg again. The Question must be again if anybody would notice the exchange of the Dark Knight poster, right? Do you notice any difference if you look at this image or this image? Yes? OMG, I see an incoming DR for that image since the poster can't be replaced by any image without anyone noticing it. But wait! It can't be that easy, can it? The question which should be asked is: Would somebody, who has not seen the original image, think that any of the images couldn't be that way? When you just look at the rebuild image why shouldn't all of them be that way.
Now the interesting part which seems to be some kind of bear trap that just do not want to get off this discussion: For de minimis it does NOT matter if anyone would notice if the image would be changed. That's german law. I'm going to list all the questions I can find on the de minimis page (add one if I forgot any):

  1. Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless.
  2. Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful.
  3. Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the subject, and is essential to the subject (eg blacking it out would make the file useless) but the work is shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity, so de minimis may apply.
  4. Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the image subject, but is not essential to the subject (blacking it out would not make the file useless)
  5. Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable.
  6. Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is an unwanted intrusion to the image subject which unfortunately cannot easily be removed.
  7. Copyrighted work X is visible, but not identifiable
  8. the file is in use to illustrate X
  9. the file is categorised in relation to X
  10. X is referenced in the filename
  11. X is referenced in the description
  12. X cannot be removed from the file without making the file useless
  13. from other contextual clues (eg by comparison with a series of uploads by the same uploader) X is the reason for the creation of the file.
  14. A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out.
  15. If the existence of the poster makes the image more attractive, more usable, or liable to cause more than insignificant economic damage to the copyright owner, then a de minimis defence to a copyright-infringement action will probably fail.
  16. "[...]if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement[...]"

I have answered the questions in the undelteion request and the original DR so I skip them. The only two questions which could be considered against the image are 2) and 16). Some may consider the woman as main part of the image, some not - both points are about the topic, that the copyrighted part is somewhat essential to the image. If it really is an essential part of the image than the card with a man as cover would be completely useless and would have no educational value. The woman is replacable and the image could still be used to be an image on any Wikipage about the Radeon HD 5000 series video cards. I guess the reason why some people see the woman as main part (or center) of the image is because her head is right in the top left spot of the two-thirds rule (until today I didn't know that the image is cut that way). So if some people see the woman in the center they get fooled by the two-thirds proportion.
Let's look at this from a different view. If my image is not OK why are ANA B747-400D(JA8956) (3581611620).jpg, ANA B747-400D(JA8956) (4394180017).jpg and all similar images OK (I guess they will get a DR soon). Why is Palais du Louvre 47 2012-06-29.jpg OK, if half of the image a covered by the copyrighted pyramid of the Louvre. Why is Paris Disneyland 10 2012-06-26.jpg OK when it's showing 3D artwork in Disneyland (France does not have any FOP).
For concerns that anybody would not notice the copyrighted part, the image can be tagged with {{De minimis}} to prevent further crops.
Again a long post and I would like to hear from you about it! --D-Kuru (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no question that de minimis is largely subjective, but, again, the principal test in most countries, is whether the copyrighted work can be removed without the average user noticing the difference. Not whether it is the main subject, or occupies a particular fraction of the area, but whether its absence will be missed. Since that's clearly not the case here, the woman cannot be called de minimis. As for all of the other images you cite, please remember that we have more than 20 million images on Commons. My best guess is that at least 1% of them -- 200,000 images -- should be deleted, so feel free to hang a {{Delete}} tag on the Disney mushroom, et al. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If the text is about the image's "essential part" then it is subjective, because different users see different things as essential to the image. Maybe not largely subjective but important parts are. "the principal test in most countries, is whether the copyrighted work can be removed without the average user noticing the difference" I can't find that anywhere! Where do you find that? --D-Kuru (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's what de minimis means -- a minimal thing, a trifle. See de minimis..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I read this page a few times and I know that. My question still is where on this all mighty de minimis page it says that "the principal test in most countries, is whether the copyrighted work can be removed without the average user noticing the difference" --D-Kuru (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, that's what de minimis means -- the thing is unimportant enough so it can be removed without the removal being noticed. My statement that you quote is a brief summary of the law in more than 100 countries, but that is not to say that those particular words appear anywhere -- certainly they do not appear in the laws, although the German law, quoted somewhere in this long discussion, is very close. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting different view on what de minimis means. en wikipedia says "De minimis is a Latin expression meaning about minimal things". Neither on the de minimis page on Commons nor in Wikipedia is there anywhere a place to find which says de minimis means that "the thing is unimportant enough so it can be removed without the removal being noticed". There is "de minimis non curat praetor ("The praetor does not concern himself with trifles")" and "de minimis non curat lex ("The law does not concern itself with trifles")" Trifle: In other words bagatelle, mere nothing or peanuts. That has nothing to do that it can be removed or that somebody has to notice anything.
"in more than 100 countries" where have you taken that from again? "is not to say that those particular words appear anywhere" if it's something like it I'm happy as well, but these words (or somthing close) arent't anywhere to find in the law or they would have been written down otherwise somewhere on Commons. --D-Kuru (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, those words don't appear anywhere -- that's a summary of my knowledge of the law in many countries and of my experience with the issue on Commons. I have probably deleted several thousand similar images with de minimis questions. Since my reversal rate is well under 1%, I guess that the community thinks that I have a good understanding of what is and what is not de minimis. That includes this one, which got a good discussion at UnDR, including several very experienced Admins who chose not to restore it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Please read Commons:Deletion requests/Pokemon Jet and tell me your thoughts about that. --D-Kuru (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. We routinely delete images of cars, trucks, buses, trains, and airplanes that are similarly painted. The closing comment is silly -- few airplanes have anything on them that is copyrighted except, in some cases, a tail logo that is truly de minimis. There is nothing de minimis about these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


Quisiera incluir imágenes de las monedas de euro en las páginas correspondientes para ello pero no se si no lo ha hecho algien antes porque esas imágenes estén protegidas por copyright... He buscado y no consigo saberlo... Podrias ayudarme jim? Gracias!-- 21:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Images of Euro coins cannot be kept on Commons because, as you say, they are copyrighted. You may be able to post them on some of the Wikipedias as "fair use" -- the rules are different from one language to the next. I am not even sure of how the "fair use" rules would apply on WP:EN and certainly don;t know anything about WP:ES, so I really cannot help. Sorry. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude on your talkpage, Jim, but I may be able to help. English Wikipedia has a category for such images → w:Category:Euro images, although the gallery is disabled so you have to click on each link to see the image. Spanish Wikipedia does not allow fair use images at all. They rely almost entirely on images from Commons. Hope that helps. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
"Intrusions" that are helpful are always welcome here -- don't apologize -- thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Schorborn Forsthaus.jpg

You decided to keep this file. Of course you are right: it is not the same file as the newer one. On the other hand, in the old file nothing can be seen, that could not be seen on the newer file. So probably no one will ever use the old scan with the lower quality, dust on the scan etc. I just don't want to be the user with dozens of low quality images that are never used. In future, i have to think twice before uploading any photo of non-perfect quality, even if it is needed at the moment, if there is no possibility of replacing it, when better photos of the same object are uploaded. And I have to think twice about uploading another photo with better quality. --Dehio (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

We often keep more than one image of the same thing. In this case, I kept the older image because it showed the trees and shrubs, while the new image was apparently taken in winter. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@Dehio: - From an artist point of view the older version shows more atmosphere (ambiente). If the the other should be part of an architectural documentation it is sufficient only if it is levelled upright. Better to keep both for different purposes. --Maxxl2 - talk 14:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe if I'd had to make a decision, even I would have kept it. But I doubt whether it will ever be used anymore in Wikimedia projects, that's why I requested to delete it. @Maxxl2: I took the photo in 2004 because it showed more atmosphere than other Photos of this building in the internet and in books. Only Wikipedia doesn't need much atmosphere, but documentation. Everyone can improve and level upright the newer photo. If you want to do it, consider that the only upright things in this building are the windows. --Dehio (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Please remember that "But I doubt whether it will ever be used anymore in Wikimedia projects" is a far too narrow view -- Commons is a repository for the whole world, not just WP. Commons images of mine are in use as a refrigerator magnet, on a calendar, and on the web site of the Boston Globe as well as various other places on the Web. It is difficult to predict what images will be used and where. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please suggest how to replace Filaret_Kolessa_phonograph_cylinder_collection

Hi! Can you suggest how I should correctly implement what I was trying to do at Filaret_Kolessa_phonograph_cylinder_collection? The idea of the page was to display all the Kolessa phonograph recordings as a wikitable instead of <gallery>, in order to group them appropriately (sometimes one piece is represented in a sequence files) and to display some additional information and files like images of the cylinders etc. I.e. my plan was to create a page similar to Well-Tempered Clavier.

It was empty because I was just uploading the files and simply didn't yet manage to add them to the page. I also would be glad if the text of the page could be rescued somehow, because I haven't saved it anywhere else. --YurB (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the file as User:Юрій Булка/sandbox1. It is always better to create new pages in a sandbox so that all of the initial edits take place in space that you control, and then copy it to a mainspace page when you are ready. We get around 100 new galleries every day. Almost all of them -- perhaps 90% -- are either mistakes or vandalism, so we are fairly aggressive about deleting those that do not follow the rules.
Galleries should be in Gallery format, not Wikitables. You can do a lot with that -- see, for example, Lighthouses in Maine. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --YurB (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Need some clarification

Hello Jim, thank you for closing File:Lord Shiva.jpg deletion discussion and I'm sorry for being rude there. But I was wondering if you can clarify this words I suggest that you do not do any more work on Commons. which you have commented there. Thank you. Jim Cartar (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What I actually said was, "Unless you can lose the attitude, and learn a little more about copyrights, I suggest that you do not do any more work on Commons," which, I think, pretty much explains itself. Your aggressive attitude, threatening Eleassar in the DR and on his talk page wasted a lot of our time as did having to explain to you that sculptures of gods do, in fact, have copyrights and that the burden of proof is on you, as the uploader, not on the DR nom.
We all recognize that copyright is a complex subject and we try hard to be helpful to newbies, but I, and most of my colleagues, have little patience with newbies who make threats and waste our time. Your polite apology above goes a long way toward addressing my comment above -- if you keep that in mind, you'll do fine here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/01/Category:Female writers from the United States

How do we deal with this? I suppose that the main objection is Why the norm must be "male" and the exception "female"?. Nonetheless I suppose that creating the correspondant category "Male" (I'm not only talking about American writers) would help the main category not to get overcrowded; in this case we can see them as "technical" categories, though I acknowledge that in such matter gender is not topic. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a very hard one. You're wrong either way. If you have a separate category for women (leaving aside athletes and the other areas where it is actually relevant), you are putting them in a ghetto, as one of the cited comments said. But you are also making it harder to find them and categories are supposed to be structured to help find things that outsiders are searching for. It might be a case where breaking the overcat rule would be good -- put them in both Cat:Writers and its subcat Cat:Female writers. The same is true of black writers and others.
Probably the best thing would be to split all such cats into male and female, but it's such a gray area that I have no interest in spending any effort on it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm loosely translated you are telling me that one can't either win or draw and neither quit the game.. :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying that I pick my controversial topics carefully and this isn't one I choose to spend time on. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Juan Ramón Plana Gallery

Hello Jim: I have created this gallery and suddenly it was deleted. I´m not very handful with images and wikipedia at all. You said this is just for images and no text. I agree with you, but please let me do it, now I don´t know how to begin the process, leaving just images. Thank you for your help --Madmentwo (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim, as I´m untrained, do you think that I can create again the page Juan Ramón Plana but taking off the text? thank you, --Madmentwo (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem was that because you did not use the gallery format correctly, the images did not show at all and I deleted it because it appeared to be a gallery without any images. I have fixed it. As you will see there, the gallery format looks like this:
You do not use [[brackets around the filename]] or "thumb".
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Fastily#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hauinger Buurefasnacht 2014

Hi Jim, hope you're well. A user has contested my closure of this DR on my talk page. This user won't take no for an answer (at least not from me), so if it's not too much trouble, would you be willing to evaluate and provide a third opinion? Thanks, FASTILY 08:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! -FASTILY 08:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


It is a software error. Use the VCF and kicks well. I rarely command to remove manually. Occupy semi-automatic programs, as mentioned before. I do not know how it happened?. Best regards. ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 02:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


Based on your comments earlier today, I ran some numbers fome here

(UNDEL/ DEL ) * 100 = Percentage reverted
( 3360 / 424103) 100 = 0.79% Fastily (biggest dog)
( 610 / 75575 ) 100 = 0.80% Jim Woodward (big dog)
( 12 / 1836 ) 100 = 0.65% Ellin Beltz (small kitten)

I feel a lot better, our ratios are all similar even if I'm no where near the number of edits as you all!! I aim a beautiful rainbow ray of sunshine to you for all you do here. If there is something more I can do to clear the backlog than the poke poke poke I've been doing for the last month, please let me know! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Hi,
The number of UNDEL is the number of files an admin have undeleted, all included, not the number of his/her deletions which were undeleted. Just to be clear. ;) Regards, Yann (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Then where does the other UNDEL number come from? Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Where is the "other UNDEL number"? Yann (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Ellin, as Yann says, the Undel number on the database report is the number of Undeletions done by the Admin -- the number of times that an Admin has restored a file, any file -- and is unrelated to his or her deletions. What you'd like, I think, is the number of my deletions that were subsequently undeleted, but I don't think there's a report for that.
Several months ago, when Fastily was under nonsense pressure, I counted manually a lot of UnDRs -- getting both the number of UnDRs filed against Admins and the number of times that the Admin's deletion was reversed. That's where I get the fact that while Fastily actually has more UnDRs filed than the rest of us, the percentage of times he is reversed is less than average. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi, could you please have a look and perhaps comment at [29]? I consider myself a good working editor here but feel concerned about Yann's actions. Thanks a lot. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a close call, particularly since a significant part of it is a coat of arms that is probably PD. I might have gone the other way on the closure, but it isn't worth fighting over..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Uploads more copyvios after nominations

Hi Jim: Could you look at this nomination and user uploads please? Seems as if the user continues to upload more of same after the deletion nomination, but doesn't reply to the nomination. There's nothing on his talk page but the deletion nomination notices either. I hope your day is going well. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You can post a note on his talk page or use the "notify this user" link which has "End copyvio - Give user a final warning because of previous copyright violations". Sometimes it takes a short block to get a newbie's attention. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I did it manually, because I couldn't find the "notify this user" link... Any clues? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Notify this user is in the tools menu in the left hand bar, about 12 down from the top. It's optional -- you have to enable it by checking the box at Preferences>Gadgets>User Messages. If you haven't done so, you might want to spend a while on that page figuring out what is useful for your mode of working. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

People of/People from

So all the instances I've seen of "from" being uses are wrong? Or are they holdovers from before the "of" guideline was enacted? Nightscream (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong? I'd hesitate to say that with any force. It's too subtle. If I'm traveling and someone asks, "Where are you from?", my response would be "I'm from Boston", but if I'm home (in Boston), I'd answer, "I was born and brought up in Chicago". If I were to categorize myself on Commons, I would use both "People of Chicago" and "People of Boston", but only "People from Chicago", not "People from Boston", even though I've lived in the Boston area for almost fifty years. I'm sure that other native speakers would disagree. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Historical marker – Florida Heritage Site

Hello, Jim. Ellin Beltz suggested that a question I posted at the village pump might be up your alley. If you get a chance, please could you take a look over there and offer your opinion? Much appreciated. – Wdchk (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for answering, I knew you had that one on the tip of your tongue. FYI, for California State Historical Markers, the bear is DW from the bear on the California state flag. I have since learned who the artist and the sewing creator of the California state flag were and they're both dead quite long enough for that bear to be PD.  :) Just sayin' for when you get to the Golden State. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Your help on a few things

Hi Jim! I have a couple things which need help. This first gallery of a user, has stuff that looks old, but it all has "self" licenses see here and the second thing is that I couldn't find where to close "Files in Category:2010 Comic-Con International" this deletion request. It didn't print right on the main page for that day and is one of the few items holding that page open. Third item is this file where an uploader totally unclear on the concept overwrote a large good quality image with a small crummy one. He really doesn't seem to know how to use editing software, he finds big good images and turns them tiny. Thank you for all your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

1) I suggest you do a mass DR of the cat Category:Lo mas sublime (film 1927) -- VisualFileChange will make that easy. Then see what else you have. It is, of course, possible that all the relevant people died before 1944, so perhaps the film is PD, but I wouldn't bet on it. Also, Spanish works by authors who died before 1987 are covered by the 1879 law. The definition of covered works is very broad, so I'll guess that movies are covered, but since they were invented post 1879, I might be wrong. See Article 1.

2) DelReqHandler does not work when the DR is the second (or more) time around, so you have to close it by hand. Add {{Delh}} at the top of the new one DR, type four hyphens at the bottom (which sets as a rule (typographer jargon for "line"), type your comment and four tildes, and then add {{Delf}} at the bottom. DelReqHandler is new since I became an Admin -- we used to have to do them all this way.

3) Please try to educate him on the use of "thumb" and other resizing-on-the-fly tools. To get the original image back, go down to File History and click on "revert" in the second box in the bottom row.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

From yesterday's queries... (1) has been mass DR'd, (2) I closed the discussion exactly as you said, and it worked, (3) aha! that's how it's done! Again thank you for all your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again! One more [30]'s user page is 100% about himself. What happens to those? His picture was missing permissions. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I have little patience with User Pages of people who have done nothing here except create a user page, so I would probably delete it on sight as a violation of COM:ADVERT. If you're not feeling quite so bold, you could just hang a DR on it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
DR'd with COM:ADVERT, thank you for the advice. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Problem or not?

Hi Jim,

Had planned on uploading this Sharon Tate photo but I see Corbis has it claiming copyright to John Springer Collection. Springer was a collector of various celebrity photos and not AFAIK, a photographer. The actual owner of the photo is 20th Century Fox and you can see there are no marks front or back. Conversely, we have File:Sharon tate still.jpg and its derivative File:Sharon tate still-2.jpg at Getty with the implication there's a copyright-" Getty Images provides access rights only and does not license the copyright in the image." The site it was taken from says, "We've spent a lot of time preparing these scans, so please don't use them for personal gain. You're free to download them, but that's it. Please send us an email if you would like to use any photos or other content on our site for commercial purposes." Thanks for help, We hope (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Publicity stills are a complicated and difficult area that I have not done much with. I'm inclined to ignore DoctorMacro's claim, because preparing scans does not give them a copyright -- in fact, their claim probably qualifies as copyfraud. However the question of whether the underlying image is PD or not is one I'm not qualified to tackle. Sorry I can;t help more. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Jim, We hope (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this the same as the image deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohenjo-daro.jpg?


. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No. It's almost exactly the same angle, but the deleted image was taken from a point closer to the pit, over the fence rather than through it, and the people in the background are different.
The uploader has uploaded quite a few images, all taken with an Olympus XZ-1 and all good sized, so I see no reason to doubt that they are, in fact, his own work..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Great, I'm glad to hear that as it's a nice image. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

New curiosity

Hi Jim: I found [ this category]. Reviewing several of the images, someone has done a really good job on adding all those PD-US-1996 tags but the images still show in that category with the warning attached. I looked at the files in edit and I can't see where the hidden category is that keeps an image in that category even after the US tags were added. Any advice? As always, thanking you for all your hard volunteering. (Esp. riding herd on me, now that INC is gone!) Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked at two or three and they are in Category:Media with PD-Denmark50 but no explanation why the photograph is public domain in the United States - exempt. I don't think there is anything magic about it -- the person who added the US tag just didn't remove the other. With the URAA changes I'm not sure what should happen to these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Then I shall just leave them! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cocoa Processing Company Building (Cocoa Silo).jpg‎

Hi Jim,

I don't understand your comment there. Either there is a copyright on this industrial building, or there is none. You seem to say that there is a copyright, but then you closed the DR as kept. This doesn't seem logical to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. All buildings, industrial or not, have copyrights, but this is a silo, which is not a building for copyright purposes. It's in the same category as a water tank or a fuel tank -- actually, it's a tank for cocoa, so the comparison is good. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clarification. BTW, do you know any court case where an ordinary industrial building has a copyright? Never seen a DR about that here, although we have numerous recent images of them, even when there is no FOP, nor a citation. Yann (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
No, but I rely on the simple meaning of the words. In almost all countries, "architecture" has a copyright. It is explicitly called out in the various laws because architecture is utilitarian and therefore would not have a copyright without its explicit mention -- it did not have a copyright in the USA until 1991. "Architecture" covers all buildings. Just as there is no requirement for quality in a painting -- any painting created by a human has a copyright -- there is no requirement for quality in architecture. A building is sufficiently complex so that originality is always present, unless, of course, it is an exact copy. The US law is quite explicit -- all architecture has a copyright, but not details such as stock windows and doors. In the US, architectural plan books of very simple houses have a copyright, which has been enforced. I don't see any basis for your argument that industrial buildings, or simple buildings, don't have a copyright and, except for one case, of very simple modular houses in the EU, no one has been able to cite any case law to support you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
If you don't have any court case to cite, my interpretation is as valid as yours. Your interpretation is based on US law, but it is certainly not valid everywhere, and I am not even sure it is a correct interpretation of US law. In most countries, originality is the first requirement to get a copyright. This is also true in US law. I am not sure how this applies to architecture in US law, but I don't see why architecture would be exempted from this requirement. At least in France, and I am quite sure in some other countries, the threshold of originality applies to architecture. Of course, this threshold is different according to the local interpretation of originality, and in US law, the threshold is much higher than say in UK. So in most cases, a purely utilitarian building does not get a copyright, because the same utility requirement would produce the same building. I think it applies to factories (like File:Pierre Bénite PUK1.JPG) and shopping malls like (File:Romilly-sur-Seine - Centre commercial Le Marais.jpg). This is quite different than buildings created for lodging (or other purposes), whre architectural creativity takes a much bigger part. I am ready to be proved wrong, if you have some counter-examples. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You have come to the principal reason that I don't push back against those of your closings with which I disagree. I think I'm right, because any building design requires much work, however much a non-architect may think it is similar to another building. I think that by definition any building that isn't a direct copy from the same drawings is original. It is not correct that the same utility requirements will produce the same building -- no two sites are the same, they differ in ground conditions, sun exposure, noise exposure, wind exposure, and budgetary limitations. However, I realize that the whole subject of copyright brings out strange court decisions and laws. Since the only copyright laws I am really truly experienced with are the USA, where FOP covers buildings, I don't fight what I see as mistakes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, since you mentioned paintings in your previous message, threshold of originality also applies to paintings. Carl L. said that most works by Gene Davis would probably not get a copyright because of lack of originality. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I respect Carl and that surprises me -- would you please give me a link to his comment? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Here it is: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/12#Works of art by William H. Johnson and Gene Davis. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"All buildings, industrial or not, have copyrights"
A relevant US statute -- 17 U.S.C. § 120(a) -- seems worth pointing out here. The law says: "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." That copyright exclusion came into effect on December 1, 1990 with the enactment of the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act. I thought I would share this as Jim seems to be referring to the AWCPA, but the act specifically excludes photographs of buildings from copyrightability. Emw (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As I noted above ("the USA, where FOP covers building"), the USA is not included in this discussion precisely because of the statute you quote. However, "the act specifically excludes photographs of buildings from copyrightability" is not correct in any sense. Any such photographs certainly have copyrights and the buildings themselves also have copyrights. The owner of the copyright of a building may certainly enforce it against anyone who constructed a copy of the building and, I think, could also enforce it against anyone who made a model of the building, since a model is not a picture, painting, photograph, or other pictorial representation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point, I should have said "excludes photographs of buildings from copyrightability of the architectural work". Regarding architectural works themselves, it seems per Section 706 of the AWCPA that most buildings in the United States, having been created before December 1, 1990, would not be eligible for copyright. Emw (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

DR archiving

Hi Jim, I've filed a formal bot request for DR archiving here. Your input would be appreciated! Best, FASTILY 04:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

More promo

Hi Jim: Found a category and an article you might like to take a look at. Article first here, it's easy - no references. It has an image, so I went looking and I find a pile of images with creator "Humboldt State University" and uploader name implies connection (maybe) to HSU, but it could just be a student as well. What do you think should happen to some of these? There are some images which are fine because they came from flickr, but I'm concerned about the other ones, credited to the school and uploaded by 'someone'. That someone's only contributions as far as I can tell was to upload this series of images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC) PS en:Humboldt State University reads like an advertisement, full of only primary links back to the school, etc.

I agree that the WP:EN entries probably need attention, but that's not my concern. I'm not at my own machine, so I don't have "Google this image" installed here -- my guess is that the images uploaded by Marcomhsu should be nuked because they are all off the HSU website. Have you learned about Special:Nuke/Anyuser? It's safe -- you can try it out on Special:Nuke/Marcomhsu without any risk if you don't finally click on the delete button. It only works on files uploaded in the last thirty days..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
All the promo photos are from the HSU website; and everywhere else on the web. It seems that at least one of these users is someone affiliated with the school. There are two competing editors working on the article on en:wiki, one keeps putting the photos back. The files are unfortunately all from 2012, so I will just take them out with the visual editor for copyvio per your advice. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal photo Edgar Andrews

I myself also have the rights to the removed picture - it comes out of my own files, it is a picture I received form the English publisher of his latest book, and I have their permission to use it. The picture is on my Dutch edition. Watch-Wiki (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

First, the permission that you say you have, to use it in Wikipedia, is, as I said in closing the DR, not broad enough. Images on Commons must have permission for use anywhere by anybody, including commercial use.
Second, neither the subject of the picture nor someone like you that has a copy of the picture is the copyright holder. In order to restore this to Commons, we will need a license from the actual photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Curious gallery

This user has one of the odder galleries I've seen in a long time. He has a pile of ecclesiastical uploads, and a pile of deletion nominations. One of them is what drew my eye to his account, look at the image history on this one [31] assuming no one's deleted it before you get there. Cheers Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Although he apparently does some good work, there are a lot of problems on his talk page. Go to it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

How to remove...

Hi Jim: How do you remove empty pages that don't have the handy "delete" box at the top? Examples abound here where pages are empty, marked speedy and I can't find the red button. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless you're speaking metaphorically, I'm not sure what "red button" you mean -- I delete by pulling down a menu between the watch list star and the search box -- the Delete link is the top item on the list. DO you do something else? A tool I don;t have?
I just went through the page you cited above, and they all had the link. Are you sure you were logged in? For me, that's the usual reason the delete button is missing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been having the worst internet day ever, logged in/ logged out... That's probably what did it, thank you for checking. And thanks for the info that the pulldown delete button works and is appropriate for use on those kinds of situations. I'm always so terrified of breaking things. Face-smile.svg Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that, as far as I know, anything you do can be undone. That's one of the magic things about Commons -- any mistake can be fixed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Героям бою під Крутами.jpg

Hi! Hi! Could you please restore File:Героям бою під Крутами.jpg and File:Братська могила 20 січових стрільців (м. Вінниця).JPG, I need use them in my local wiki. I didn`t see while they was nominated. After I`ll use it you could delete it. Or you could place them in my talkpage in uk wiki - uk:User talk:A1 --A1 (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Please let me know when you are done with them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Why ?

Hi ! Why did you erase my picture ?--Calahan59 (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Because it was a copyright violation -- see Commons:Deletion requests/File:France - Carte nationale d'identité sécurisée.jpg .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
A copyright violation ? Actually it's my ID, it's my card, i scaned it myself, so I still dont understand why you erased it ? --Calahan59 (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It may be your ID, but you do not own the copyright to the design of the card -- the French government does. Therefore your image is a derivative work and infringes on the copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I ve never heard about copyright on official documents. Anyway, in this case what about this or this or that ? --Calahan59 (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
In some countries, notably the United States, all government works are free of copyright. In others, some governments works are free. In still others, only a few -- notably laws -- are free. France has no exception at all for any government works -- everything is copyrighted, see Copyright law of France. As for the others, Commons has over 20 million files. My best estimate is that 1% of those -- over 200,000 -- have a copyright problem. When you see other works that appear to be copyvios, please help Commons by tagging them for deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


Dear Jim. Please delete the image File:Praça do Comércio Lisboa 2014 Fotografia de Eduardo Gageiro.jpg. I uploaded it by mistake. It shows one of Gageiro's photos, protected by copyright; at the moment it is outdoors (in Praça do Comércio, Lisbon) but, I realize now, as part of a temporary exhibition. Sorry! Many thanks.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Thanks for your honesty here. In the future, just add {{Speedy}} and it will be taken care of quickly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Beer bottles, wine bottles & product labels

Hi Jim: I've found a couple users who seem to specialize in beer/wine labels and before I get out my extra big broom, I wanted to check with you your opinion on DW's of beer/wine labels being copyvios. View these galleries [32] & [33] to see what I mean. Personally I think the template at the top of Category:Beer bottles is pretty clear and deletions can happen on speedy not deletion nomination/discussion, right? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Bottle labels are a very difficult area which I tend to avoid. While it seems obvious to me that a bottle label with artwork has a copyright, the judge in Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. found that a photograph of a bottle was not a derivative work because the vodka bottle as a whole was not copyrightable. It's a complicated case and only directly applicable in the Ninth Circuit (roughly the West Coast and Northwest), but if you go at bottle labels, it's sure that it will be cited. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps I shall stay away from them until greater clarity is achieved. These galleries certainly feel like advertising to me. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

As you surely know, I'm not afraid to jump into controversy, but if the law is vague, sometimes it's better to move on to other things. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I surely do. I also see what some beer places are doing over on Wikipedia and some of these are blatent self-promo. I have three up as test cases atm, already someone has asked if I plan to take on the entire category. And there are some I will because they are not deminimus, they're showing label ART not just words and I'm tired of the beer companies and breweries flooding Wikipedia projects with their stuff like we're their personal advertising board. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

In other news ...

I'd appreciate your opinion on the bottom item on my talk page; if it's not explanatory, please send me an email as I will be afk today for church and etc. Lilac makes a lot of maps for us; I don't feel qualified to sort it all out solo. The deletion nomination had descended into who struck who and I think we can probably resolve this with a redirect and a merge of descriptions, etc. But I don't know how to do the merge, if indeed that would be the right thing to do. Cheers, Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears that (a) I got the upload dates backwards from reading the deletion discussion notes and (b) L credited T in the "legend" of the map, but I don't read the language and didn't see it. I have left another message to her, and would appreciate you taking another look at it, I'm so sorry to spin wheels like this, but I have the feeling that while some of this discussion could have been more diplomatic, there's truth at the bottom of it somewhere. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Commented there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion on these?

Hi Jim: This gallery has all drawings of cellphones. Are those allowed? Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Except for the two with colored screens, I see nothing about the phones that has a copyright -- that assumes that we have an appropriate license for the drawings themselves. Some of our colleagues might say that the two colored screens have a copyright and if it could be shown that they were by a notable artist -- Piet Mondrian perhaps -- I might agree, but as they are, I think not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again: One interesting note at the bottom of my talk page: here regarding what we were saying about promotion and self-promotion. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Backlogs

Hi Jim, hope you're well! I recently put together a two self-updating pages which count the number of days we're behind on daily deletion chores, and I thought I'd share :]

Best, FASTILY 21:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like we're at least keeping up with the flood? Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Interesting. Given the loss of INC and Fastily's reduced load, I had expected it to be much worse. We've done 1,619 deletions per day in the last 15 days, which is very much normal. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The one place it looks where we need "stronger" or "more experienced" help is in the older deletion nominations. Admins go through and close what they can, but there's always a few that linger around. INC used to run through those every few days, clear them out and blank or remove the daily deletion page. That is the one place I really notice his absence. I've tried to step up to grab the low hanging fruit on speedys, license and permissions. I do have a question about a category that I found "missing source" where about half of the images were transferred from Wikipedia. I'd like to suggest we make a second category there: (a) Missing sources old and (b) Missing sources after interWiki transfer, but I don't know where even to propose doing that. So far I've cleared about 200 of 67,000 images from that category (mostly typo'd templates and "really missing source" > zap ) and I'd say probably half of the 67,000 are interWiki transfer errors (IWTE). If there were some way to lump all those IWTEs in to a single category as I pass them, no one else would duplicate at least that part of the sorting. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
If you think it is useful to have a new cat for InterWiki Transfer Errors, by all means create it and move the applicable images there. Your logic is good and although someone will probably object (someone always does), I think most of the active Admins will support you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I closed out about a week's worth of old DR logs yesterday. I probably won't have time to do this again for awhile so, I hope it doesn't get too bad in the meantime. -FASTILY 22:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Then I'll start doing that so we don't double our effort going past the same images over & over. Today's conundrum is I cannot get this page to refresh despite doing the null edits suggested at top of page. Every few days I try to clear through some of the "missing licenses" and some of these pictures in disambiguation categories; but I can't seem to get the latter to refresh to remove the newly (empty) categories. I assumed the system would do it automatically, but several days later - it hasn't. Thanks for all your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a caching problem. Two things you can try whenever something doesn't refresh after changes. First, purge the page on the server -- the last button on the list on the upper right that begins with "delete". You may need to enable purge -- Preferences > Gadgets > Maintenance tools > Page Purge (second one down). That clears the cache on the WMF server. Then clear your own computer's cache -- see Bypass your cache. The only negative effect to this is that your browser will have to download everything that was in the cache again the next time you go to the page. Unless you're on a dial-up line, you won't notice the difference. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, by default, the software does not recursively update/rebuild link tables (e.g. subcategories, transclusions) instantly because this can cause a massive server load if there are hundreds or thousands of subcategories. So Jim is correct, this is a caching issue, but performing the purge to fix it is only available via API. -FASTILY 22:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I wish I understood that better. It does some of that instantly -- I know that when I remove images from Category:People by name using HotCat, as I do a couple of times a month (they are often problems in other ways), I can reload the category page and they are gone, so some relinking has happened on the fly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to respond earlier but I forgot. A lot of people are doing a great job closing the DR's. The older ones are indeed difficult. I try to avoid those myself not because I don't understand but because the sometimes aggressive posts Fastily and INC had to endure after closing controversial requests. Some messages are quite aggressive if you ask me. Maybe the key to reduce the backlog considering those difficult DR is creating a safer environment for administrators. That cat which Ellin is talking about sounds like a great idea. Just my 2 cents. Natuur12 (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
"creating a safer environment for administrators" -- interesting way to put it -- I agree, but I think all we can realistically expect is for the core group of very active Admins to defend and encourage one another and help each other grow rhinoceros hides so that all the nonsense will just bounce off. I do get tired of being told that we need to be nicer to contributors who threaten us and don't obey the rules and that if we can't be nicer, we should stop being Admins.
I haven't closed a lot of DRs recently, but I've mostly been working on the oldest of the open pages where, presumably, difficult ones are all that remain open..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Just FYI, I think our admins are doing a much better job of being polite to users than some of the Wikipedia admins. I have had two occasions recently where Wiki admins have practically bitten my head off and been insulting besides. I've not see that sort of gratuitous rudeness here and so it really stuck out at Wikipedia. I like it better over here, the support from you all is fantastic and I am thickening my rhino skin jacket every day with this special "Paste du Woodward." Face-smile.svg With all that said, thank you Fastily for all you do and I still miss INC very much. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
From a Wikipedian point of view, I've generally found Commons admins to be friendlier than Wikipedia ones. One of the biggest problems on en-wiki is that being the best known project it attracts a lot of opinionated jerks with their own agendas and this has gradually caused many decent admins to become embittered and snarky. Of course it doesn't help that there have been a few opinionated admins that have been just as bad. My favourite was one that seemed to get angry at small things, blocked a couple of users and then went on a wikibreak when a case is filed against them at ArbCom. :) Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2, 2014

One more for the collection of "self-aggrandizing uploaders," see here. Last edited in 2013. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And again, but this one has piles of uploads. All modern art it looks like, possibly hers? Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't get excited about that sort of thing on WP:EN -- there's enough to do here. As for the second, looks like a candidate for a large DR. Either it's a lot of DWs without permission of the artist, or it's out of scope as personal art..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup, yup. We need a friendly en:Wiki admin to send stuff to. Do you know one? Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

May 7, 2014

Hi Jim: Your help with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eldorado A.jpeg would be graciously appreciated. The Wiki sysop contacted me on my talkpage and as requested I replied on their it:wiki page. I do not know enough about Italian copyright to do anything but ask for help. Thank you for your time. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

May 8, 2014

Why do you what delete my photograph? My photograph is my and my creation and compilation and This is my own compilation which I give rights to CC-by-sa Please no delete my photograph

Thanks you

--Historiador1923 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Please respond at the individual Deletion Requests. Your photographs are simply copies and have no copyrights. You do not have the right to license them because there is nothing you have done that can be licensed. The underlying photographs must conform with Chilean law, which requires knowing the source and author. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim I don't understantud Becouse a put the normal licency , and the photograh is my, Please, I am waiting you answer . I put in Coffe my questions.

--Historiador1923 (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I put a long explanation on your talk page this morning, but again -- owning a photograph does not mean that you own the copyright. The copyright belongs to the photographer or his heirs. You cannot upload images of photographs, drawings, paintings, posters or any other created works without permission of the artist or photographer unless the work is in the Public Domain. Your copying of the photograph and other works does not have a copyright, so you must not put a license on your copies. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim Where is Copy Right in Chile?; When I can to speak about copy right in Chile? I´m the owner this original works.

I Waiting you answer Thanks --Historiador1923 (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, owning a painting or other work does not mean that you own the copyright. That is true, as far as I know, in every country. The copyright is owned by the creator or his heirs. I suggest you read Commons:Copyright#Scope_of_licensing which explicitly states this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim

Eugenio Cruz Vargas is pooet and painter , I can to see his exposition. The exposition is the public and not private , for that is this photograph .

Please, can you reconsider ate

--Historiador1923 (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, no. Commons hosts only works which either are in the public domain or have an appropriate license from their creator. The fact that something is shown in public does not change that, except for permanently installed works in some countries, see Commons:FOP. Those exceptions do not apply here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gäubodenvolksfest 2011 (6058252701).jpg

Hello Jim!

Can you please give a rationale why you have delete this image? Did you really follow the argument of "User:Green Giant" who thinks that the flickr user is wrong with the place he took the image? Cheers, High Contrast (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear I never said I thought the user was wrong. What I asked for was some reasoning or some evidence that the photo was indeed taken at the festival. Perhaps you could answer my question with a reasoned argument? Green Giant (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Fundamentally, I deleted it because its just a group of people -- a Facebook shot, but with little educational value. Whether or not it was taken at a particular festival is irrelevant. I would also delete an image of a group of friends out to celebrate St. Patrick's Day. I do agree with Green Giant, that while we assume good faith for our own users unless they give us some reason not to, that does not extend to Flickr. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I still do not understand Green Giant's argument - my English seems to be to bad for these thoughts. Nevertheless, I would not reduce this image to a facebook friends photograph - there are reasons for keeping it here but you seem to have found out a rational which is above everything. Please update your deletion decission on the DR. --High Contrast (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, sorry if you didn't understand because of language barriers. I would support keeping the photo if it showed an aspect of the festival, like you said "young people being at this beer festival". The "young people" bit is obvious, but there is nothing that shows they are definitely at that festival. To me it looks like some friends having a drink, which is not very educational. Like Jim says, it is a photo to put on Facebook or similar social websites. Green Giant (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy-deletion request

here: 50px and here 50px. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done by Sven. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

About Greek Orthodox Pyrography candidate deletions

Hi Jim and sorry if I'm not writing in the appropriate space, just that I'm in a BIG hurry... PLEASE do not delete the pictures. I can ascertain you that Father Vasileios fully agrees to releasing the copyright. Both Tekmenidis and Pavlatos are my students an an evening secondary school and this is part of a project we started 2 years ago (see "pyrography" article on Greek Wikipedia). As I'm leaving on a trip abroad tonight I don't have the time to deal with the issue right now but I will definitely get to it next week when I return. Thanks for understanding, best from Kefalonia, Greece :) --Saintfevrier (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Copied the post above to Commons:Deletion requests/Files on Greek Orthodox Pyrography. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jim, thanks for the extension until the end of May for the licenses. I'm back from my trip and am ready to go through with the license process. Unfortunately, another user has bypassed your suggestion and deleted the files. As I am in no mood to start a wiki-war with the impatient user, please attend to the issue. I stopped editing on Greek Wikipedia after several episodes of "unfriendly" behavior (to put it mildly). It makes me sad to see the same thing happening here. Cheers, Mina --Saintfevrier (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries -- User:Natuur12 is a good colleague and I have no doubt we can fix this quickly. Commons is a multi-lingual project and misunderstandings do happen -- also, Commons admins work fast and delete more than 1,500 images every day, so mistakes do happen occasionally.
As noted at the DR, what we need is a license from each of the artists using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Once they have sent the e-mail, please post a note here and I will consult with Natuur12 and attend to the restoration. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I missed the second DR and missed Jim's statement at that DR. I would have let it open if I would have seen the stetements in the second DR. I would be happy te restore the files after you have send the email. Natuur12 (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks, I'll get Father Vasilios to send the e-mail as quickly as possible. BTW he's working on new icons which will also be uploaded to the gallery when completed :) --Saintfevrier (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

After reading that the two images left in the gallery are also candidate for deletion, and given the fact that neither George nor Father Vasileios is fluent in English, I sent the OTRS e-mail myself as their representative. If any further verification is required we would be happy to provide. Thanks, Mina --Saintfevrier (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
That might work -- while I would not accept a third party "representative" e-mail, some of my OTRS colleagues might. Please note that OTRS has volunteers who read most major languages -- certainly including Greek. Please forgive my caution -- while you seem to be honest and sincere, we are regularly misled by experts in deception and therefore are very careful..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


Lass mich bitte einfach mal Arbeiten und lösche dann, wenn Du sicher bist, dass etwas nicht in Ordnung ist. Danke. --Asurnipal (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me just work times and then delete, if you are certain that something is not right. Thank you.
translator: Google
  • User:Asurnipal -- I am sorry, but I do not understand. Unless you give me a link to the problem, or a better idea what the problem is, I can not help. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Aha. Now I understand. I deleted the empty gallery Kirchle. We get about 100 new galleries every day, most of which are problems -- empty, mistakes, or out of scope. Empty galleries are often created instead of new categories. All new galleries that do not follow the rules at Commons:Galleries are deleted on sight.
If you want to create a gallery you can do one of three things:
  • Create it in your own space, for example User:Asurnipal/Sandbox and then copy it to mainspace when ready.
  • Create it in mainspace, but include at least two images before saving.
  • Create it in mainspace, and put a message at the top that it is under construction.
If you have questions, feel free to ask. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Bartolomeu Costa Cabral

Dear Jim. I uploaded 3 new images of Bartolomeu Costa Cabral's building... but I uploaded them all at once by mistake. What a mess I made... and I have no idea how to correct it. Can you help? Is it possible to just leave the first image?

  • File:Bartolomeu Costa Cabral Moradia no Alentejo 2 img 8960 1.jpg
  • File:Bartolomeu Costa Cabral Moradia no Alentejo 2 img 9026.jpg
  • File:Bartolomeu Costa Cabral Moradia no Alentejo 2 img 8960 1.jpg

Sorry!!!!!)Manuelvbotelho (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe I solved the problem: I uploaded a new version of the missing image.Manuelvbotelho (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

An odd gallery

Hi Jim: Your opinion of this gallery, most of the pictures are historic, but he has airphotos of various places that I find dubious. Too many cameras, no regular photos, etc. Would love to hear your view! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you suspicions are well placed, but the cases may not be worth the trouble. The rule in Austria is 50 years PMA for simple photographs, so many of the old photos are going to be PD. I see three aerial photos of Munich -- all taken with an Olympus. I don't find them elsewhere on the Web. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Uploading New Images During (Un)DRs


A user has twice uploaded new images (16 and 17 May) while the file is part of an ongoing DR (started 14 May), which I think is somewhat disruptive (although I would believe done in complete good-faith). I was wondering if, as an admin outside of the discussion, if you'd be able to provide a friendly reminder that this type of behaviour may be counterproductive during an ongoing DR (if you feel that any such reminder would even be warranted). Thank you for all your time and work towards the project. Respectfully, trackratte (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it could be disruptive in some circumstances, but here the issue is whether the design is copyrighted or not, so a new, larger version, does not affect the DR. Also, FRY is well aware of what he is doing and any warning is likely to be useless or even counter-productive. He can be a royal pain, but he is a productive contributor. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep, no worries. It just shifted the entire point of the discussion half way through from one of copyright to one of derivative works due to these new images being uploaded. Not a significant issue though, as you say. Thanks for all your time! trackratte (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


Hello Jim, unfortunately, your reasoning does not correspond to the facts, could you please reconsider your decision again. I personally hate it also a bit, if there is so much trash on Commons that nobody in the hole wold never in any time used anymore. Thanks and regards -- Perhelion 22:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. File:Тризуб.svg shows a creation date of 19:02, 4 May 2014, three weeks ago. The subject png was created in 2009, five years ago. As I said, we do not generally delete raster files that were created before the vector file. Am I missing something? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, behind this scheme surely a sense? The quality and the reference, yes? The source is File:Lesser_Coat_of_Arms_of_Ukraine.svg shows a creation date of 26. Mär. 2007..... (Also the author is for sure not the uploader/ pixel editor). So do apply this rule here is invalid. -- Perhelion 10:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
While I understand your point, the rule is what it is. I think this is a very small point and it costs us nothing to keep the file in accordance with the rule. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anatoliy Solovianenko - Soviet Life, October 1984.jpg

Hi Jim,

What do you think about this issue? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A difficult one. It is clearly OK in the US, as Soviet Life has no copyright notice. The question is whether the image was published earlier in another country. I think that if we start asking that question about non-US images that appear to have been first published in the USA, we open a very difficult can of worms. Also, Novosti was/is a government agency and clearly knew that the image would be PD in the USA.
On the other hand, it seems very likely that the image was one that Novosti pulled from their files on request. I doubt if they sent a photographer out to get a photo to illustrate the article. Even so, it may not have been published previously -- while film was not free, photographers did not take just one image when on a portrait shoot -- and Novosti would certainly have all of the images in its files.
On balance, while I usually enforce COM:PRP vigorously, I think that it is unlikely that the image was published previously and extremely unlikely that Novosti would attempt to enforce its copyright, if there is one, so I probably would keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks a lot. I asked undeletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


Give the issues raised here in relation to the UN Administrative Instruction namely :

  • It can be viewed as only covering the text of documents as the Administrative Instruction uses phrases such as "written material" and "material offset from typescript and issued under a masthead" and makes no references what so ever to either images, logos or symbols being covered by the instruction.
  • The Administrative Instruction can be revoked and overridden at will and is not binding.

should we indeed review if {{PD-UN}} meets the requirements of COM:L ? LGA talkedits 22:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There is also this page which states "United Nations photographs are the property of the United Nations, which holds all rights in connection with their usage" further indicating the Administrative Instruction is not intended to cover images, yet the AI is used to licence File:Opening of 67th General Debate of General Assembly.jpg. LGA talkedits 23:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It appears that {{PD-UN}} sets forth a policy that cannot be depended on for our purposes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I have opened a DR here on the template and all the files licensed with it. LGA talkedits 04:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi Jim: What do you think of the text in File:Stefan Lofven 1c379 6362.face.jpg this image's description? In light of the discussions of self-promotion and also "are all sizes of image covered by single license", this user's images and galleries may need review. He has several cameras and many of the images are tagged like this one - to buy a higher quality image see his website. Also please see bottom of my talk page for his comments when three of his images were tagged for no source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Agreed. See Commons:Deletion requests/User:Janwikifoto/template pic-politik. I also think that he needs to be told that description and source information are his responsibility -- we are not here to clean up after careless users. If he cannot bother to properly identify and license his images, they will be deleted. And no, we will not communicate by e-mail -- we communicate on talk pages and if he wants an e-mail he can set it up in his preferences to notify him when his talk page changes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much what I thought and mostly what I told him via the only email he'll ever get from me, copy attached to my talk page. Thanks for validating. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The user has left a pair of comments on the deletion request, but atm I'm not up to any arguments, so I request some help with that also. He seems a bit cranky. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The two templates were nominated [Commons:Deletion requests/User:Janwikifoto/template pic-bloggers]] and Commons:Deletion requests/User:Janwikifoto/template picinfo on 6 June. Today Jan left another message on my talk page, apparently he wants all his images deleted if he can't have his templates (?) I am asking for help because I am really foggy today. I gave him the standard "Please talk on the nomination pages," and seek guidance. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC) PS, please highlight my name or ping me for the next couple days to be sure I don't miss your reply, thank you!

Information on file deletion

Hello Jim.
I have seen that you wrote me about the deletion of a file (a photo) that I have uploaded on Commons due to lack of copyright Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Vito_Latora.jpg. Unfortunately I have been offline in these days and I did not have time to answer you back in order to "fix" the issue. Anyway, I want to upload the file again but this time I will provide the copyright statement of the author (that I know personally). So, my question is: do I have to re-upload it again, as if it is a new upload, or there are any chances to "recover" it just adding the copyright statement? I also have another question: where do I can find an example of copyright statement to use as a model (I am not keen at all with copyright statements)?
Thanks in advance for your help
Spariggio82 (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Files are never actually deleted, simply hidden from general view, so it is never necessary to upload a file a second time -- in fact, it is a violation of Commons rules to do a second upload.
Have Claudia Sinatra send a license as described at Commons:OTRS, referencing File:Vito Latora.jpg, and it will be restored. Note that OTRS has a backlog, so that the restoration may not be immediate..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Jim for the help!
Spariggio82 (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi James,

Concerning the removal of the photograph of Edgar Andrews, EP Books, which owns the exclusive rights to this photo, has given me permission to upload the file for use on Wikipedia. This is the message I got: 'Hi Ed, I have checked with our Managing Director Graham Hind and he has given permission to use the photograph. Kind Regards, Denise McCormick. Watch-Wiki (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

First, as I said in the closing comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edgar-andrews.tif, "permission to upload the file for use on Wikipedia" is not sufficient permission for use either on Commons or on WP. WMF projects require that files be free for all uses, including commercial use and derivative works. For more information on licensing, see COM:Licensing.
If the copyright holder is willing to grant an appropriate license, then an officer of the corporation must send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. When that has been received, it will be restored. Please be aware that OTRS has a considerable backlog, so restoration will not be immediate..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Several thousand image "no source"

Hi Jim: I found over 2,000 pages uploaded by same user User:Red_Rooster who hasn't been active since 2008. You can see some of them here ( and paging back and forth from there. The only place these thousands of images link to are user galleries of the uploader, although the Wikipedia page links back to the first image of each book, I think. The uploader didn't source any of the images although its obvious they all came from the same book. I fixed a few and then went looking to see the extent of the problem and see about 2,000. Is there a fast way to emplace the source on all those images? Otherwise, it will be several weeks just to fix this guy's uploads one at a time! I do not know how to write "bots" but it would seem this would be a good one to bottify. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It's probably time for you to take a look at AWB, which is a quick way to page through many files and make changes. It's not a bot -- you actually have to look at each page and accept the changes -- but you can, for example, have it automatically search the page for "Source" and have it replace it with "Source:XYZ". You then hit accept and the next page loads. Bottom line, each page takes one click and a few seconds. For image pages, the image doesn't download -- only the text.
There's also Visual File Change, which I have used a few times, but am not really familiar with. I think it will also allow you to insert text on all the uploads of a user.
obviously either can create a large mess if not used carefully -- when doing a long list with AWB I always stop after one or two and look at the results before proceeding. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Unf. AWB only works on Windows machines which leaves me out. Perhaps if I dump them all in a category, some kind user with Windows could finish them off? Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It's going to be three or four hours of dull work for "some kind user". Better polish up your Huck Finn act. Or, take a closer look at Visual File Change. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Ellin, it is a choice between a rock and a hard place. I think the best bet is probably to Cat-a-lot the files into a new category and then use VFC's custom replace function. AWB will do the job but involves at least a click per file. On WP I've used AWB for categories with up to about three hundred members but I'm not sure if it could cope with thousands without freezing for a while. It does have the advantage that if you were to load up all the files in Category:Images_without_sources, you can filter the list to only include files that have the word Meyers in them. Anyway I will go ahead and make a start on this because I've got a couple of hours free. Jim, I might be wrong but I believe VFC has an advanced configuration where you can ask for confirmation after X number of edits so you might be able to limit any possible devastation. Green Giant (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I hoped that someone with more VFC experience would join this question -- thanks, Green Giant. Although the AWB filtering will work, it would slow things down because AWB does have to load the description data from every file it examines -- better to make a selected list, which does not have to be a category. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Bah! 2000 files was a massive underestimate - I estimate that I've gone through more than 9000, just under a thousand for each of 10 books. Not sure how long its taken because I've spaced it out over the day but it wasn't as dull as I thought it might be. The only thing I couldn't work out was how to add the page number to the description. I'm certain there is a way using variables in VFC but it escapes me at the moment. Do feel free to manually add the page numbers if either of you is feeling enthusiastic! :P Green Giant (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Wow, awesome Green Giant! That's really great way to cut the "images needing source" from 68,000 to less than 60K! Again, thank you so much! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. It is always a nice feeling to see a backlog reduced, and especially by so much. Also thank you for the barnstar, much appreciated. Green Giant (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

About remove deletion

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Charitarth Unagar Myself Charitarth Unagar small level object photographer from Surat, This all photos captured by me. This are not a copied photographs from other websites, if you find somewhere this photographs you sure can go for deletion it. And phototag is also mine CHariTarTH PHoToGRaPHY designed by me and all photos caputed by me.This all are not copied so request to remove this deletion request from those.

-User:Charitarth Unagar
Talk here me 31st May 2014 / 4.51 PM India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charitarth Unagar (talk • contribs) 11:25, 31 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Please read the DR again -- I do not say that they are not your work. I say that they are out of scope for Commons because we do not keep personal art on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much i will make speedy deletion request on all photographts. User:Charitarth Unagar
It means that i can upload photographs like this but which doens't have phototag? User:Charitarth Unagar
Watermarks are discouraged but not forbidden. The problem with all of your uploads is that they were personal art -- they are not useful for educational purposes. You can upload personal art to Flickr or Facebook, but not Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Forces Flag DR

Jim, please don't construe this as forum shopping, but I've placed a question on the closing admin's talk page and have not had a response after 5 days. As the case is the same as this DR with essentially the same sources and reasoning, I'm not exactly sure how the closing admin's remarks relate at all to the DR since no evidence of PD was introduced and I'm not aware of the concept of "re-copyright" or how that could logically apply here. I've done this once before with this particular admin, and all that was done was a ping for Fry and essentially the same thing which has just happened again here. Thanks for all of your time. trackratte (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have deliberately stayed out of this dogfight. I think my deletion of the one was correct for the reasons given -- we do not have a free license for the realization uploaded to Commons, but I am not sure of the status of the older one. I think your reading of the applicable law is probably wrong -- Crown Copyright expires in fifty years. The CF statement which you point to says no more than that their flags are copyrighted. The implication that they may be copyrighted forever (as is the KJV bible in the UK) is simply sloppy drafting and ignorance, similar to some White House images which say they cannot be used commercially, despite the law which clearly puts them PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Prerogative wasn't a discussion point for the CF flag, as ita is less than 50 years old.trackratte (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A man who

…loves Boston and its waterfront, and lighthouses, etc., cannot be at all bad, and so I can only guess you were drawn into the Lx discussion by long-standing relationship. Cheers, and hope we cross paths under more collegial circumstances in the future, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


Should this be speedily deleted based on previous discussion? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule, the fact that other images of the object have been deleted does not mean that the new one is a speedy. As for the second one, it's in Alabama, so a second DR is necessary. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. Makes sense. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


Is it OK per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Costumes_and_cosplay? If then, does it need {{Costume}}? I doubt whether a authentication of author is needed. See my comments at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Geiko Kimiha.jpg too. Jee 13:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  • For the first, no, Cosplay does not extend to costumes which are sculptures. You can dress up as Harry Potter if you like, because there is nothing copyrightable about his clothing, but this shows a costume which qualifies for copyright as a sculpture.
  • For the second, I just put a {{Delete}} on the image. There is no evidence that the uploader has permission to override the (c) on the source site. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, for you opinions/prompt actions. Jee 15:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

About The Other Colors Category

09:50, 9 June 2014 Jameslwoodward (talk | contribs) deleted page The Other Colors / I inderstand : a single image... Yes but it's a work in progress and you delete the page / Category after ten minutes... our creation. Are you sure? :) --360ET1 (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

First, it was not a category, it was a gallery. If you intend to create a category, you must start it with "Category:". :Second, we get around a hundred new galleries every day from new users. Almost all of them are out of scope for one reason or another, and since it is a primary source of vandalism, we delete them rapidly. If you are actually trying to create a gallery that meets the requirements of Commons:Galleries, then do one of three things:
  • Create it in a user subpage such as User:360ET1/Sandbox and copy it to gallery space when it is complete. You can take as much time as you need for this.
  • Create it in gallery space, as you did, but put a note at the top that it is under construction. This will only be good for a day or two.
  • Create it in gallery space, but do not click on SAVE until it meets the minimum requirements for a gallery.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanations. I inderstand and I'll create a gallery. :) --360ET1 (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Bull in porcelain shop

I discovered a user [34] making huge changes to categories for no reason. I became aware of her due to her changing pictures of two towns into the general county category(!) but when I looked at her changes log, I became very concerned. I do not know what to do and I'm a bit befuzzled today due to preop, so while I hate to put on my Tom Sawyer pleading look with a paintbrush, I fear I must ask you to take a look and render an opinion please, because I am unlikely to remember it even exists by tomorrow. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Apparently she's really hung up on "populated place" categories only containing other categories, (eg,_California) which might work out in the populated east, but out here we'd have 150 subcategories, each with one photo and it doesn't seem very practical. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

One of those days

Mr. James, thank you so much for your help. Sorry for the inconvencience. But now, you change the correct name. You puted Category:Joselo Schaup, instead of SCHUAP (the correct last name). Thank you for your patience. --Regions (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I see that it is all OK now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Erdbeerteller01.jpg The strawberry fruit (which is not actually a berry) is widely appreciated for its characteristic aroma, bright red color, juicy texture, and sweetness.

Some strawberry's for you :) -- Steinsplitter (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll have them for breakfast in a few minutes..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Some time ago you participated in deletion discussions at Commons:Deletion requests/File:TLC LA.png. This file has now been deleted from commons and uploaded to en.Wikipedia where it is currently being discussed. If you have time, could you please review the discussion and make any comments that you may think are appropriate. The discussion is here. Thankyou. --AussieLegend () 22:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

While I know that some would disagree with me, it seems perfectly clear that this is simply three letters in a particular type face. Type faces have no copyright in the US and this is a US image. Even if you discard that argument, with just three letters and a drop shadow, it is clearly way below the ToO, which is relatively high in the US, see Commons:TOO#United_States. I see no reason why it cannot remain on Commons.

It was speedy deleted out of process here by User:Hedwig in Washington after two DRs that were both closed by me as keeps. Policy is clear:

"Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." from Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion

Therefore, I have restored the file on Commons. I invite Hedwig to start a new DR, since she apparently disagrees with keeping it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, IMHO the shading isn't something I could easily reproduce. Therefore I considered the image not PD. I probably should lower my expectations on TOO quite a bit. I seem to have missed the former DRs, how I can't tell. I agree, totally out of process FU-tagged. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick action on this. --AussieLegend () 20:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
NP, I don't mind if I get reminded about mistakes I made. That's the way to learn. Left a comment on the enwiki discussion as well. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:500 lb Blakely MLR.jpg

Hi Jim! Thank you for closing above DR but additionally I nominated 2 more files (1x with similar problems + 1x thumb size image). Could you review the request? Thx! Gunnex (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Sorry. Either I was working too fast (as usual), or DelReqHandler hiccuped, which it has been doing less recently than in the past. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello My Frined.. I am A Photogarphy man.

Please Mr James, Don't Choose "DELETE"... I was Got A Camera About Samsung ES70.. The Picture it for the Users on WIKIMEDIA.

I Swear Allah.. The Photography it mine..

I am Stell A Live. I am Born 1983.--على المزارقه (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • First, it is a serious violation of Commons rules to remove a {{Delete}} tag. You must let the discussion reach its conclusion, usually in seven days. You removed two such tags. If you do it again, you will blocked from editing on Commons.
  • Second, the problem is not your taking the pictures. The problem is that the design of the stadium is copyrighted and your pictures infringe on the architect's copyright. We cannot keep pictures of copyrighted works without written permission from their creator. In this case, that would be the stadium's architect. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Problem files:

Mr James.. Just Lesson to me, Please.



--على المزارقه (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Again, read the message above -- the problem is not you -- it is that we cannot keep any pictures of the stadium, no matter who took them, unless we have permission from the architect.


WHO'S architect?


IT'S NOT FAIR. --على المزارقه (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I am Understood

Thank you for Information About the Wikimedia and The Commons:Derivative works... But .. What about WIKIPEDIA ARABIA and Upload Pictures?

I was A Fury,, becouse Commons:Derivative works Unfair.--على المزارقه (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • You may not think it is fair, but it has nothing to do with Europe -- it is Saudi Arabian law that is the problem. The architect of the stadium owns the copyright and according to Saudi law we cannot host images of it because they infringe on his copyright.

I do not understand


In each of the DRs, I have linked to the Wikimedia rules which apply, at COM:FOP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

MMRDA source

Hi! The Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mumbai Monorail Line 1 map.jpg that your closed as delete also involved a big chunk of images with same issue. After querying here and there, I was told that all 150+ images need not be tagged or added individually in the DR. So are you planning to delete those all images or what should be done about them? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:37, 16 June 2014‎

I am not sure who told you that, but it is generally the rule that the images should be tagged, and in particular, all the uploaders must have notice. Completely aside from that, images listed in a DR can be deleted rapidly, without any page loads, using the Admin tool DelReqHandler. Images that are not listed in a DR must be deleted one at a time and each one takes three page loads. You might want to use COM:VFC to create a mass DR for the relevant images, referencing the subject DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The referred discussion happened at Commons:Help_desk#Mass_deletion. So its a cumbersome job for deletion as well. That was the main reason for me to go and ask on help desk. I wanted to find an easy way to tag 150+ images. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I was not clear -- Visual File Change, which I also linked above, will allow you to check off images in any category or uploaded by any user and nominate them for deletion, including tagging them and notifying the uploader(s). Although it can be installed, it can also be run without installing, go to Step 0 on the linked page. There is only one page load for the whole list. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Aa..... okay thanks. User:Green Giant has done some at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BigJolly9. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Guilty as charged, although I'm not sure if I identified all the affected files. If you have the time and energy, feel free to add more files. Green Giant (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Another odd template

What do you think of the license on this image, this line please contact me to negotiate licensing terms.? Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That's OK -- he is very clear that nothing is required if you want to use the file within the CC-BY-SA license, but that if you want to eliminate either BY or SA, he is willing to talk. I can imagine that -- use on a billboard, where an attribution would be difficult, or use in a for-sale work where SA would not be possible..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Such fine lines! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as a fine line -- a Commons Licensor can
  • demand attribution, but cannot specify where it is placed
  • specify the words for the attribution, as long as it is a name or other reasonable identifier and not more
  • request, but not require, notification when an image is used
  • offer to negotiate a different license -- to eliminate the BY or SA or both.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I learn something new every day, thanks for the help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

About trophies

Hi, Since the recent DR about the Oscar statuette certain questions came to my mind about some specific works that may be under copyright or not. Well, I'm not updated that a rendition (p.e.: a SVG drawing) of a sculpture is not allowed here too. My question is: are trophies considered sculptures too? I'm specifically talking about FIFA trophy and examples like this drawing. This trophy was designed (1971) by Italian artist Silvio Gazzaniga who is still alive so the throphy would be still under copyright as far as I know.

I have checked that Italy has not FoP so the sculpture is not exempt of copyright. On the other hand, the copyright holder of the trophy is the FIFA (headquartered in Switzerland, where there is FoP for all works).

Considering all detailed above, could you clear me about this point? so it sounds a bit confusing to me...

Thanks in advance, - Fma12 (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, trophies are sculptures for all copyright purposes. FOP is not an issue here because the FIFA trophy is not on permanent display anywhere. The 1971 trophy is clearly still under copyright, so any derivative work, which would include both photographs and drawings, infringe on the copyright and cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Fma12, this might be helpful too. Эlcobbola talk 14:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for the information, both Jim and Эlcobbola. I've just nominated the files for deletion. - Fma12 (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You have deleted "Hochrhein below confluence of Aare"

Hallo, I just got the message that you have deleted "Hochrhein below confluence of Aare".

I'm preparing a longer article about a canoe trip on the Hochrhein between Schaffhausen and Basel and I'm adding some image to commons. From my point of view, there should be separate subcategories for different segments of Hochrhein. (Otherwise we will end up with quite a mess with images from the whole length of the river). You have deleted the new category (which should have been a subcategory of Hochrhein) between uploading and adding image information of my images. I didn't manage to make it appear in the subdirectories of "Hochrhein", mybe you can do that. So I use the "Hochrhein" Category now for my images. You might move the images to another category if you like to.

Sorrym the help in Commons with all the Category (create new, create subcategories) is slightly difficult for me and there seems not to be a good german language help file about this. So I try to do my best with english... Regards from Switzerland Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mboesch (talk • contribs) 19:37, 24 June 2014‎ (UTC)

That's fine, but you did not create a new category -- you forgot the required prefix "Category:" -- so what you created was a gallery. It is a very common mistake -- I have done it myself many times. To create a new category, simply type the name, "Category:Hochrhein below confluence of Aare" into the search box, and then click on "Create the page "Category:Hochrhein below confluence of Aare" on this Wiki!".
Be sure to add [[Category:Hochrhein]] and any other categories that seem appropriate to the new page before saving it. In English, I might prefer "Hochrhein below the confluence of the Aare", but that is your choice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help, I remeber I managed to do it last time somehow, but did not remember how... and I even managed to remove the images to the sub-category, now it looks fine. Thanks again, kind regards Martin - Mboesch (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh FoP

Thanks for your correction. My earlier change was based on the quote at Commons:Freedom of panorama#Bangladesh, which says that it's permitted to reproduce "a sculpture or other artistic work falling under section 36(c), if such work is permanently situated in public place or any premises to which the public has access". I don't know why but I must have overlooked the "falling under section 36(c)" bit. Does section 36(c) talk about architecture only? (The official English translation of the Copyright Act seems to be down; where did you get your quote from? If you have access to a different translation, perhaps you could look up the exemption for idols someone mentioned at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pratyya Ghosh‎.) —Psychonaut (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The quote is from the article about the Copyright Act linked in the preceding sentence -- it may not be authoritative, but since it is the only cite in the Bangladesh section, it may be all we have. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there is another, more authoritative citation. At Commons:Freedom of panorama#Bangladesh there's a translation of an excerpt of the actual text of the Copyright Act 2000. This is apparently from the official translation which was once hosted on the Government of Bangladesh Copyright Office's web page. The article you cite, on the other hand, is from a private law firm. The two texts differ in a couple of significant ways:
  1. The private summary doesn't explicitly mention that the artwork must be permanently installed in public, whereas the translation of the Act does. (The respective wordings are "kept in a public place" versus "permanently situated in public place or any premises to which the public has access".)
  2. The private summary says that the exemption applies to "an architectural work of art, or a sculpture", whereas the translation of the Act says it applies to ""a sculpture or other artistic work falling under section 36(c)". Unfortunately, the translation of 36(c) is not provided, so it's hard to know whether "architectural work of art" is synonymous with "artistic work falling under section 36(c)".
Given the differences I think we should generally give preference to the translation of the law itself. This would resolve the issue of whether or not the work must be permanently installed, but not the question of what types of artistic works other than sculptures are covered by freedom of panorama. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Now we've an admin from Bangladesh; so probaby NahidSultan can help. Jee 10:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the best thing would be to get a translation of 36(c), but, until that happens, I think we should remain with the more restrictive definition in the document I cited. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Huh? The definition you cited is less restrictive, not more restrictive, than the one from the Act, since yours doesn't require permanent installation. (Whether it's more or less restrictive regarding the types of artwork covered is unknown, since we don't yet know what §36(c) says.) In any case, hopefully NahidSultan will get the ping and stop by to enlighten us all. :) —Psychonaut (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I assume "permanent", as that is a feature of FOP almost everywhere, so its lack in the lawyer's summary is, I think, an oversight. For me, the only important difference is that the lawyer's summary clearly limits FOP to sculpture and architecture. Thus I said "more restrictive". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! According to Copyright act 2000 "Architectural Antiques, sculpture or other artistic work" falling under section 36(c) only if they are permanently located in a public place or any places to which the public has open access". You can find the translation of 36(c) on page 13 (linked above). According to translation (page 13), Subsection (b) covers "Architectural Antiques" & Subsection (c) covers "sculpture or other artistic work". Now in page 52 (linked above), section 36(c) also covers "carving". There is no such description about "idols" but i can assure you the same rules also apply for idols. "Architectural work of art" is synonymous with "artistic work" and they all falling under section 36(c). Hope this helps. Cheers! ~ Nahid Talk 12:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, now I'm really confused. The following are the usual categories for FOP

  • Architecture -- that is, the buildings themselves
  • Architectural models
  • Architectural drawings
  • Sculpture and other three dimensional works
  • Paintings and other two dimensional works
  • Text

In some laws there are subtle differences -- weaving, carving, bas-reliefs -- but those are the major groupings we usually consider. We know that architecture is covered by the FOP, but I'm not clear about anything else. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a bit confused as well, NahidSultan. You said that that we can find the translation of §36(c) on page 13 of some document that was "linked above", but I don't see links to anything in English. Could you post the link to the translation?
Also, regarding idols, this is actually a separate issue, but maybe you can help with that as well. Another Bangladeshi user informs us that according to the Copyright Act 2000, depictions of gods and goddesses are altogether uncopyrightable [35], regardless of where and how they're exhibited. Can you confirm at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pratyya Ghosh whether this is information is correct? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
FOP of Bangladesh is exactly the same as stated here. I've done some research about copyright act 2000 but didn't find more about three dimensional works. As far as i can see the Bengali text there isn't clear details about those types of works. Psychonaut, unfortunately i didn't find an english version but the good news is one of my friend promised me to provide one. As soon as i get the english documentation, i will let you know. I'm also told that gods and goddesses are under exception though didn't find such evidence on "2000 copyright act". But in general they are made only for the festival and eventually destroyed after the event. ~ Nahid Talk 19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The question remains, what works does section 36(c) describe? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Music / musical

Hello, I have a doubt. What's better in your opinion? Either Music duos or Musical duos? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 20:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I need a little more context. I assume you're naming a category. Is it for music that is in duet form -- written for two voices or two instruments? Or for people who are notable for singing duets? I would probably use "Musical" for the first and "Music" for the second, but I don't much like either. I might use "Musical pairs" for people and simply "Duets" for pieces of music sung or played by two people. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I would like to create separate categories by country and activity for celebrity duos like comedians, actors (like ie Laurel and Hardy), musicians (like ie Simon & Garfunkel); while for Simon & Garfunkel the problem could be solved considering them as "musical group" (incidentally composed by two)... -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The idea is good, but I can't think of a title I really like. "Musical pairs" or "Musical duos" would probably be best. "Pairs" certainly goes better with other vocations, like comedian or acting (although only Lunt and Fontanne really come to mind there).

Jaguar Photos Nominated for Deletion

Hi Jim, last night I was searching for photos of Yasmin Le Bon. She is a fashion model but her profile pic is from last year's Mille Miglia challenge race. Per instructions from her social media assistant, I requested Ms. Le Bon provide photos for which she owns the copyright. I expect to receive those in a few days.

Meanwhile, I stumbled across several photos of Ms. Le Bon that had been posted via the Jaguar Flickr account. I spent about an hour sorting out the categories, removing some, adding some, correcting the others. This afternoon, I noticed that these had all been marked for deletion:

I would like to ask that you postpone deleting these images for a few days. The photos marked for deletion were taken by Jaguar (for Jaguar) during the 2013 Mille Miglia. Perhaps they didn't obtain the proper authorization when they were uploaded--is that the problem? If so, I will message Jaguar's media team. Once they follow the proper procedure, the photos could have the proper wikimedia authorization very quickly.

However, I won't waste my time if there is some other problem with the photos that makes them unacceptable per wiki guidelines.

Last, I created a media page for Yasmin Le Bon. I looked at other pages as my example and tried to follow wikipedia's instructions. I would appreciate your taking a look to see that I set it up correctly:

Thanks for your guidance regarding these questions.PatsySchmatsy (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

All of this should be discussed at the DRs, not here. The reason we DRs is so that the whole community can participate in discussions. Talking about them on my talk page is much less public.
The issue here is whether Jaguar has freely licensed the images. If the Flickr site is actually owned by Jaguar, then there is no problem. If it is a fan site, then it is what we call Flickrwashing, and the images cannot be kept without a license from Jaguar using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
Do I understand correctly that you work for Ms. Le Bon, directly or indirectly?
"Per instructions from her social media assistant..."
If that is the case, you have a conflict of interest, and should not be creating pages for her on Commons. You may upload properly licensed images, but, except for correcting errors, you may not create other content anywhere across WMF without clear disclosure and should not create new pages at all.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I started this conversation in the wrong place. This is my first encounter with a "DR" situation.
First, as far as the Jaguar flickr account, in spite of non-matching url's, it is the same flickr that is linked from the Jaguar website (top right):
here: and
Regarding my reference to Ms. Le Bon's assistant, I have NO relationship, direct or indirect, with either Ms. Le Bon or her assistant. I visited Ms. Le Bon's official Facebook page and her website in search of contact information. Her social media assistant responded to my inquiry. She stated she thought Ms. Le Bon would be able to provide me with a small number of her own modelling photos. Toward that goal, she gave me instructions on how to submit a photo request to Ms. Le Bon--which I have done. Have I violated the policy by attempting to contact Ms. Le Bon personally? I assure you I am an unpaid wiki volunteer just doing a little leg work to improve this particular article. If my work is going to be rejected by my ignorance of the rules, I will stop now--and not waste my or anyone else's time. Please clarify this for me. Thanks, PatsySchmatsy (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It sounds like you have done and are doing exactly the right thing -- independent of the notable person, put together a WP and Commons presence. Sorry for the misunderstanding -- keep up the good work.
I have withdrawn the four DRs -- in the future, keep in mind that reasons for keeping or deleting images need to go in the DRs, not on the talk page of the nominator. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on both of these matters, Jim. I hope I don't encounter any or DR's but if I do, I will remember your advice. I appreciate that there are volunteers like you helping wiki-newbies like me. Best, PatsySchmatsy (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Move page

Can you please move the page Commins:निर्वाचित चित्र उम्मीदवार on Commons:निर्वाचित चित्र उम्मीदवार. You are right that I wrote the wrong spelling while creating this page.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg It's gluten free and sugar free--the perfect THANK YOU for your patience in working with volunteers (like me) stumbling our way through the wiki process. PatsySchmatsy (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

File check?

Hi Jim! I received a note (on talk page) from a confused user who uploaded File:168 RCAF Squadron Crest manufactured by Crest Craft of Saskatoon, circa 1944..jpg in good faith only to run up against having his own tag removed and the image ended up "no source". So he contacted me and asked for help. I have worked on that file template a bit today. I retained all the other material within a <!-- comment section -->. Of course the file history retains all, but this made it easier to read. Please let me know if I have the correct information; the uploader says he has a large collection of this material that he wishes to contribute to the project and I do not want to tell him, "do it like this", until I am certain that I got it correctly! Thanking you again for all your assistance!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

My reading of it is that there are three copyrights here:
  • the photograph -- no problem, our uploader has given a license
  • the crest itself as an abstract creation -- no problem, the Crown Copyright has expired
  • the manufactured crest
The latter is a problem. Our rule is that individual realizations of Coats of Arms have a copyright. I would suggest that you take this to a DR and see what the community thinks. I would delete it myself, assuming we cannot get a license from the manufacturer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Manufacturer was held privately by Gustav Werle until 1967. I cannot find a death date for Mr. Werle, nor any other information on him besides the following from this site: "I was in Saskatoon last Spring and decided to drop in at the library to see what information they had on Crest Craft. Here's what I found. Gustav Werle, the founder of the company, moved to Saskatoon from Langenburg, SK as a boy so he could attend high school. One of the things he had done to pass the time on long winter nights on the farm was learn how to use his mother's sewing machine. In Saskatoon he parlayed this skill into spending money by making crests for his school mates. Crest Craft was begun in 1931 and "Gus" was also a member of the RCAF Reserve. When WWII came about, he was too old to join, but he had military contacts across Canada, which is why his crests turn up from coast to coast. One story is that Gus's friend in Gander, Newfoundland was making such good money on his sales commissions that he was the only man ever to refuse a transfer back to Canada. Werle kept the business until 1967, but Crest Craft didn't survive the 1980's." I found dozens of his creations on their Library database. But again no information on Mr. Werle, his heirs or what became of the company. The other consideration of "Take this to DR" is the roasting I just got for another of this type, trying to get a solution to the problem - not merely delete the image. Another consideration is that we have a few dozen (not zillions) of other WWII Canadian Patches in various categories; their licenses are also a mess. I will contact the user with your comments and see if he has any more information on the company or Mr. Werle or his heirs (assuming he has deceased, which seems a fair assumption if he was too old to serve in WWII). I will then wait and see if he can provide more info before going to DN with it and about 55 others of the same ilk. Are we totally sure the Crown Copyright doesn't cover the crest itself as well as the design?? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is fair to assume that Werle is dead -- he founded CrestCraft in 1931 -- even at age 18, he would have been born in 1913, hence 101 now -- possibly alive, but not likely. More to the point is tht we know that he died after 1967, so the copyright will last a long time from now.
No, I'm not totally sure of what I said above. There's no Canadian case law that I know of that's on point, so who knows what a Canadian court would do with it? Our policy, though, is clear to me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Via email from uploader; Mr. Werle's daughter is alive. A suggestion to OTRS the Crest Craft products was sent to the uploader who will send it to the crest collector who is in contact with Mr. Werle's daughter and see if she will OTRS all, some or none of her father's designs. If approved, then the entire Crest Craft line of Canadian military patches, as well as his other embroideries (or not depending on how she fills out the form) would be available for upload to the project. It is of course holidays all over this week, Canada Day and Fourth of July, so this may move more slowly, but it is moving. I assured the uploader that this is only a process and one which I hope turns out OTRS'd and solved. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


Dear Jim. What are we going to do with the images that still transclude this template and do no longer have a licence box now? --Krd 12:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I assume that Nevit will do something -- either put an acceptable license on the images, or file an UnDR on the template. I wouldn't do anything until a little time passes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I just wonder how this will be tracked. The files either have technically "no license", or the template should be replaced with the licence that was in the template. If nothing is done now, how will this pop up later? --Krd 13:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I think (but I'm not certain) that a bot will pick up the no license. Times like this, I wish WMF had a good mechanism for keeping track of things that need followup. Every now and then, I think about starting a follow up list, but there is always too much to do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I personally don't like that tag much (just see in a file page that is not purged so far); but disagree with deleting license tag without a wider community discussion. See m:User_talk:LuisV_(WMF)#Attribution. Even LuisV_(WMF) stated "interpreting the license obligations for the public is also tricky for us". I don't know how you neglect "Note: To clarify, if any of the above explanations seem to contradict the official CC license, official license is valid for legal disputes." Jee 13:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
There is a certain irony in saying to you, Jee, that many (most?) of our users are not native English speakers. The CC license is available in many languages. User tags that have extra language in English simply make it less likely that the image will be used off-WMF. The tags do a disservice to our goal of being a source of freely licensed images. Whether the lack of clarity is inadvertent or deliberate, it has the same effect and I see no reason why we should allow them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Please participate in the VPC discussion for the new license tag. The current tag is horrible and only encourage piracy. See my comment on improving Commons at AN. Even the WMF staff are careless in providing attribution, and we need to fix them. (This is a quick; comment; I will explain later.) Face-smile.svg Jee 14:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Jim, you stated that "I see no reason why we should allow them." But I think you know we've a lot of such tags. Even WMF staff use them. I think most GLAM uploaders are using custom tags to identify/highlight such firms. The only difference I see is they are much brief compared to individual user tags. And it seems German users are preferring more user tags. See the one used here. It seems very professional, and I see anything wrong. It well explains the requirements than our generic tags. So I repeat: either we must improve the generic tags, or we should be more generous to those who create them themselves. Jee 15:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your example is actually an excellent example for me -- it requires that the attribution be in the caption.

" as long as the author is mentioned in the following form in the caption or for printed products in the image credits:"

Therefore, if you follow his rules, you cannot use any of his images on WP. It also requires a link to the Commons source page.

"When used in online media in addition to the aforementioned copyright and license specifying a reference (link) is also to be set to the original image - so this page with descriptions and license conditions."

Ignoring the "so" which I think should be "to", we have another requirement that is not in the CC license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It is CC BY-SA 4.0; so "link to source" and "Modifications have to be declared as such" are part of that license. I don't know what he meant by "caption". They are not native English speakers and I can found 100+ such tags in Commons. So you are going to delete them, one by one? Could you check and comment on my tag first? I'm happy to make any change if needed. :) Jee 16:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the link to source, question. Thank you for adding to my on-going education.
The "caption" is the image description which goes under a thumbnail on almost all WP images. It is against WP:EN policy (and probably most others as well) to put attributions in image captions unless there are special circumstances. Requiring attribution in the caption therefore makes it impossible to put the image on WP:EN. Your version follows the license -- "reasonable to the medium" -- while he demands a specific location, a demand that the license does not allow. Yours looks fine.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my tag. I personally prefer no additional restrictions; but sympathize with users who try to defend themselves from copyright abuses. Many of them are high quality contributors I frequently meet at COM:FPC. So my opinion is to educate them first instead of handling through DRs. Do you have any idea to make a discussion on it? (Pinging XRay for bringing his attention for his license tag.) Jee 05:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is my attention. ;-) Sorry, I didn't follow the discussion. What's wrong with my meta information and the licence? I'm using my own templates for permission and attribution within the information template. So it is much easier to update the information for hundreds of images. (May be necessary if something is wrong.) The permission field is especially necessary for the Media Viewer, otherwise no detailed licence information is shown. Both should be compliant with the Creative Commons licences and doesn't add any additional conditions, but it should emphasize the use of the licence too.
In the beginnig it was hard to put all the informations to the image. There are too many ways to do it. There was no good explanation how to do it or is wasn't easy to find this explanations. So I had a look to other users and chose a similar way. --XRay talk 06:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@XRay: Jim suggested that "as long as the author is mentioned in the following form in the caption" is a restriction against CC's stand "You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." Everything else seems OK. Jee 06:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your information. I'll update my text.--XRay talk 06:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't for a minute propose going on a crusade against license templates. It's funny. at User_talk:Ellin_Beltz#Couldn.27t_we_just_ask_for_description_to_be_added we are having a discussion about a different name for "Deletion Request", to emphasize that what is needed is a discussion, which, to be sure, might end up in a deletion, but also might end up with a change. THat would certainly apply in cases like this.

I had intended, when this discussion ended, to post a polite note on XRay's talk page suggesting a change to the template. Anyone who gives us wonderful images such as that of the cathedral deserves at least that much consideration from the community. Jee's explanation is good -- I hope that you (XRay) understand that the WP method of providing attribution by linking thumbnails to the image page is both permitted by the CC license and not permitted by your template. Therefore your template actually prohibits use on WP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes; DRs need to be much friendly. Today morning I noticed Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)'s angry comment on Fastily's talk page. I've no wonder as I can see 27 warnings on his talk page stating Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. :)
I think some parallel discussions are going on German and other language VPs about Media Viewer and its effects. See Such bugs are very frustrating and many people are showing very disappointment. Another thing as XRay stated above is Media Viewer only show license tag if it is inside {{Information}}. It do not care tags outside it. There are many such things we need to update to satisfy our contributors. :) Jee 12:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Stefan4: Do you read this? It is not very simple, especially in case of third party uploads. Jee 17:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Does the document User:Jkadavoor linked to state that someone violated the attribution requirement for File:1986 Ulf Fink 800.jpg because he linked to the file information page on Wikipedia (de:File:1986 Ulf Fink 800.jpg) instead of a file information page on the defendant's server? Looks like an interesting case. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Waved Albatross in flight by Roar Johansen.jpg was closed incorrectly. The requirement:
"All usage must display the phrase "Photo: Roar Johansen" in the immediate vicinity of the image."
is, as I said above, contrary to both WP:EN policy and to the CC-BY license. That requirement may be why the otherwise excellent image hasn't received wider use. I note that he violates his own requirement on User:Roarjo..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The copyright holder can of course use his copyrighted photograph in any way he wants (for example on his user page), with or without attribution. On the other hand, this makes it impossible for reusers to use the user page without first modifying it. Maybe the user page should be nominated for deletion as unfree (in its current condition) for this reason. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. We could have fun debating this one. I take the position that while Roarjo added it to the page, every edit becomes the responsibility of the whole community, and, therefore, the community is violating Roarjo's license by allowing it to stay as it is. However, as I said above, I don't think we should approach these with DRs, but with polite notes on talk pages. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I would say that by submitting that revision of his user page, he consented to that revision of the user page, so the current revision doesn't seem to be a problem as long as it remains on Commons. It may not be possible for other users to modify the user page without at the same time changing the attribution, without explicit permission from the owner of the user page. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Nothing prevent us from deleting a user's files if the community think his requirements are too demanding. We need not bothered about whether or not his terms are against the license. But we need consensus; we didn't have it it that previous DR. So I think INC's closing is correct. The result may different if we try again now. Jee 02:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Only CC 4.0 licenses explicitly allow to provide attribution in a linked page ("it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information."). In all other versions, CC only said "You may satisfy the conditions in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material". I had discussed this with the CC Communication Manager earlier. He said CC intended to allow the way Wikimedia operates. But they can't change the wordings in previous versions of license; only court can decide whether it is acceptable or not. May be this is the reason why CC updated this point in 4.0.
In the above judgement, the judge clearly states that whether a user allow his work to be used without proper attribution in one place is not a permission to others. Everybody who doesn't have an explicit permission from that user must follow the license terms.
This may not be a problem if the contributor is a Wikimedian as out ToU 7d allow us some additional permissions: "and also comply with the requirements of the specific Project edition or feature to which you are contributing." But we have a lot of third party uploads and I don't think we win in court if a Flickr user or a similar external user has a complaint.
Anyway I forward it to LuisV (WMF) and waiting for his response. Jee 02:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
This is the best legal advice I found in the web. It advises "attribution" under photo "preferred"; "at the end of the post" "good". Not even mention as "attribute through link" as an option. Jee 03:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes but -- if you look at the print analogy, there is a long history of allowing attributions to be collected at the beginning or end of the book and not put under each illustration. And, the fact that WP -- one of the largest users of CC licenses of all versions -- uses attributions through a link would tend to influence a court to conclude that it was OK. That's even more true for longer attributions such as your own -- I would not want to have to put that under every image in a gallery along with a descriptive caption (I know you don;t require it, but I use it as an example of a long credit.)
What you are suggesting is that every pre CC-4.0 image must either be relicensed or credited on every WP page. That's not going to happen.
Back to Johansen -- his requirement makes use in galleries much more difficult - I have just removed his images from Commons galleries where no credit was given. What about categories? Strictly speaking, including the bird image in any category violates the license because on the category page it appears without the required words "Photo: Roar Johansen", although his name is in the image name for all four of his Commons images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
(First, I would like to say I don't want credits near the image. My only interest in these discussions is to find and stay inline with the legal point of view.)
I think Johansen's works can be deleted as they too restrictive to even our own use, even if they may satisfy the license terms. So there is no need to argue further. But what we will do if people setup separate conditions for off wiki uses? See User:Martin_Kraft/Licence. Here he needs "Legible name of the author close to the image" for "usage outside of Wikipedia". Jee 09:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we cannot allow that. Most of my life was spent without the Internet and a part of my business background is in the printing industry, so I am, perhaps, more conscious of its needs than most Web dwellers. There is, as I said above, a long history of collecting credits on one page. Some of this is convenience -- it was easier to do pre computer. Part of it is esthetic -- credits are not necessary to the flow of the work. A page with a double page full bleed image has no place for a credit and even the customary caption location on the preceding or following page is not "close to the image", so that restriction makes it impossible to use such images in some print uses. Any different requirement for off-WMF would make use impossible on WP repackagers, of which there are many. Since they tend to get our word out to a wider audience, I'm in favor of them and would be reluctant to allow restrictions on their work, much of which is automatic. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
This seems a bit more neutral. Further only "prefer"; not "must". Anyway I think a wider community education is needed for this matter. :)
Why attribution is "preferred" under the photo? Because it guarantee the viewer see the credits. Why attribution at the bottom of page is "good"? Because still chances that the viewer see the credits. Why a link is not advised? Because we have no guarantee that the viewer click on an image (as court commented in their judgement).
One suggestion: Currently our Wikipedia articles have a brief note on the page footer: "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply." What about improving it to "Images are available under a variety of licenses. Click on each image to see attribution and license requirements for reuse." Now nowhere it is mentioned that attribution/credits are available on click. Jee 10:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You and I see attribution differently. I think, that for almost all readers, the attribution is simply clutter that they don't want or need to see. The only time I look at a credit is if I really like an image and would like to see more from the same photographer. And note that I say that as someone who from time to time has made his living as a photographer and who has contributed about 500 images to Commons. I don't care if the average reader knows that Jameslwoodward took the picture -- I only care that someone who wants more of my work knows where to find it.
Given my attitude, I think that providing complete attribution under a link, as WMF and many other web sites do, is just fine. Note, too, that it is consistent with the long standing print practice of not putting credits in the caption. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In many countries, copyright law includes moral rights which require attribution in many situations. I suspect that a court sometimes might look at the moral right attribution requirement, which may use a wording similar to that in the CC licence. For example, article 3 of the Swedish copyright act tells that "the author should be attributed to the extent and in the manner which good manners require" ([...] skall upphovsmannen angivas i den omfattning och på det sätt god sed kräver). A court might decide that CC-BY-SA 3.0 requires in the same way as article 3 of the copyright law, except (presumably) cases where article 3 doesn't require attribution. For example, article 3 typically doesn't require attribution in advertisements, but CC-BY-SA 3.0 always requires attribution, including when an image is used in an advertisement. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not all suggesting that we can do without attributions -- just pointing out that a there is a long history of not having them in a caption immediately adjacent to the illustration. Although we have certainly seen some strange court decisions, it is hard to imagine a court ignoring that history and requiring that images have watermarks (in the case of full bleed double page printing) or long attribution lines in the caption. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jim for sharing your view. I too have a similar view, and you can see my images widely used outside WMF projects with or without proper attribution that I don't care. But our view points are irrelevant if the courts see it in a different way. Hope WMF legal will look into this matter seriously. Jee 15:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In point 7 (d) of the terms of use, Wikimedia contributors agree that a link is sufficient attribution for text. Unfortunately, this point only mentions text, not images. It also doesn't apply to text imported from elsewhere (although there probably isn't too much of such text), and probably not to text contributed to Wikimedia projects before the point was added to the terms of use.
User:Martin Kraft/Licence: Is there a limitation so that images with this tag only can be used in online and print media, or do the attribution restrictions only apply to online and print media, whereas for example television broadcasts only need to satisfy the attribution requirements given in the licence specified?
I started a similar discussion about attribution some time ago at w:Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#Proposed change to Copying from other Wikimedia Projects section, and User:Moonriddengirl (in her WMF position) talked about contacting the legal team, but I don't know if this ever happened. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for info - I have restored the page with the standard license supported by uploader. His last change before deletion mentioned to use the standard license in case of legal questions/problems. --Denniss (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please contact Martin Kraft and ask for toning down the requirement to place the attribution next to the image, if he doesn't change it we have to delete all his images that were uploaded with this incompatible license add-on. See User:Heinz-Josef Lücking/Creative Commons by-sa-3.0 de as bad example where the user refused to do so and many images had to be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Pinging Martin Kraft for attention. Jee 15:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Without reading the full discussion yet: @Stefan4, Jkadavoor, Denniss: All I am doing with my user template (which will be fully moved to User:Martin Kraft/permission soon) is to clarify the rules of CC BY-SA for the users. Many of them are simply unable to cope with the abstract information provided on the regular licence-pages. And I think it's better to provide a clear do this and that instead of letting them run into trouble or provoking CopyVios?! I'm not trying to overrule any of the licences terms and conditions, but to provide a kind of best practice applying them. So, what's wrong with that? P.S.: I know my template is far from perfect, but I just haven't had the time for a revision yet. --Martin Kraft (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Martin Kraft: "Legible name of the author close to the image" has a "must to be" tone. Changing it to "Legible name of the author, preferably close to the image" may be enough. Jee 09:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: I just edited the page. I hope it's ok now?! --Martin Kraft (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Martin Kraft: In print media also (English), remove "close to the image" Jee 11:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What a thread! I would like to give you some information from a user perspective, even though I actually do not follow this discussion. But it may be helpful for your discussion. I'm starting uploading images 2 years ago. It was hard to find the way how to upload images. The uploading wizard is useful but it's not satisfying my requirements. (I am looking until today for a good upload tool with a template for the description page and working with more than 20 images and the ability the upload to pause and resume.) So I added additional informations to my images. That was a good way for only a few images. Every time I found another useful page on Commons I had to modify all my pages. That's not the way for a lot of images. So I chose the way with my own templates like others do it. So it was possible to modify informations only by modifying the template. IMO it is not a really good way to do this with user templates but it's the only way I found. Today I'm using the user templates and a bot for checking and modifying the description page of my images.
From a user perspective it is very difficult to find a very good way for the description page. IMO it is necessary to add hints for contacting the author via mail or to give a hint for a voucher copy. And it is good to have a structured easy to read description page. Some description pages are not structured and it is not easy to see the license information or the way how to use it. I found some pages on Commons with useful information how to use the attribution. So a link to this page is a good way for all users. And some aspects are confusing. What to do with the license details? There is the permission field of the (preferred) information template and there is a license section on the page. IMO the best way was a short information in the permission field with a link to the license section containig all licence informations and FoP and so on. (The short information should, no, must be compliant with the license. If it isn't, I can modify it.) It is necessary to give all the users this information on the description page. They are searching for images with an external search engine and the first page they see is the page with the image. The important information has to be seen at the top of the description page - at best without scrolling. The whole license term is too long for the permission field.
Today it's a little bit easier to use Commons but there are a lot of written and unwritten rules. It is not easy to find a way through the jungle. I got a many hints from other users, do this or don't do this - the unwritten or hidden rules. For example: Where I can find a hint what is allowed in templates? And once a day there is a Media Viewer. The Media Viewer supports copying an image without complying with the licence rules. Important informations like FoP or trademarks are missing. And the permission field of the information template becomes very important. These are all problems of a user.
(And sorry for my bumpy englisch.) Hopefully my explanations are helpful. You are experts using Commons and using the licenses. For a new user it is very difficult if he would like to respect all the rules. And: I really like Commons. A good place for publishing images with a good licence. And I hope my description pages are exemplary for other users. (And thanks to all the friendly and helpful people.) :-) --XRay talk 15:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks XRay for your valuable feedback. Yes; this is a fascinating project. But it is our responsibility to work together to make it more beautiful. I started a discussion here. Please read and make your suggestions there. Jee 15:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you from me also. I have uploaded about 500 images and although the tools have gotten better, I still find it a nuisance to get the categories I want.
I think the key to all the written and unwritten rules is to ask questions. While a few of our experienced editors tend to blow off questions, most of us (and I include myself in this) try hard to be helpful to people who honestly want to improve Commons and their work on it. We've also tried hard to write understandable explanations of things like FOP, but copyright is a complicated subject in any one country and we're dealing with 100+.
I confess that I don't really understand the need for custom license templates. My assumption is that when I put an image up on Commons, most off-WMF users will respect the license and that a few will not. Several of my images are in use on non-WMF web sites without attribution. If a simple e-mail asking them to follow the terms of the license doesn't fix the problem, I shrug. It's not worth the trouble to straighten them out. I could write a license with a lot of warnings, such as Jee's or Xray's, but people who are going to disobey the license won't be changed by that. And, as I said above, I say that as someone who has, in the past, made his living as a photographer.
And, by the way, there's no reason at all to apologize for your "bumpy englisch", which isn't bumpy at all, although it is misspelled ;-)
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Marking_your_works to notify our photographers. Jee 03:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)