User talk:Jameslwoodward

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

2009-10 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015
2016 2017 2018
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself. The original talk page is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward

I like to keep discussions in one place, so:

  • I will respond on this page to everything left on this page.
  • If I leave a message on your talk page, I will look there for a response.
  • Please post new messages at the bottom of the page.


My formal name is James L. Woodward, but I prefer to be called "Jim"

Adil Raja's Images

[edit]

Hello. I messaged earlier. What should I do moving forward to get these images back? Despite the Conflict of Interest, is it possible for the page to get accepted? I made it really neutral. How long should it take for my article to get reviewed? WarriorYt43 (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have two problems here. The first is, that as I noted at the UnDR, all of the images infringe on the copyrights of the actual photographers. In order to deal with that, each of them must send a free license using VRT.
The second is the acceptance of the article on WP. This is Commons, not WP, so I cannot comment directly on that. However I suggest that you follow the notes in the header to the draft -- that you notify all of those who commented on the deleted draft. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Morgan Image

[edit]

Hello Jim,

I have recently created a Wikipedia Page on John Morgan, 6th Baron Tredegar. In an infobox, I have added a portrait of him in 1950, by Leonard J Fuller.

When I uploaded the image, I selected the "Share Alike 4.0 Creative Commons" copyright status. Since then, the image has been removed from the Wikipedia Commons, as "author died in 1973, meaning the image cannot be used until 2046".

I was suggested by another Wikipedia user, to contact you for advice on how to upload my image.

Please find attached, a link to the image.


Best Regards,

Mac Edmunds,

Link to image: https://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/1553690

Mac Edmunds (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mac: It is a waste of your time and mine to raise the same issue in two places. You have, no doubt, read my message on UnDR about the only way to get the image restored to Commons. You have also read Abzeronow's suggestion that the image can probably be uploaded to WP:EN, subject to the Fair Use rules there. I'm not sure what you want me to add here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim,
I am new to Wikipedia. Apologies - I didn't realise you had replied... I thought it was Abzeronow providing me a link to your talk page.
I have now read your messages. Please could I ask, what does "WP:EN" stand for. Moreover, how could I go about contacting Leonard Fuller's heir?
M
Mac Edmunds (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EN means English Wikipedia (what most people just call "Wikipedia"). The link to where you'd want to upload is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload and please read en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria before you upload to make sure the file meets the criteria. Abzeronow (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much
M
Mac Edmunds (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would help if I could, but I have no idea how to contact Fuller's heir -- as the uploader it is your responsibility to do all that is required to prove beyond a substantial doubt that the image is free. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kusama at Tate Modern 2012

[edit]

Notification about possible deletion. Jim, I have no idea what your comment references. I have made no request for deletion of this image that I can recall. --zeamays (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Jw.cross. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lotte Tower Hanoi - NKS (9 to 16).jpg

[edit]

Mind if I undelete this? It wasn't clearly labeled, but it seems to be a derivative of File:Lotte Tower Hanoi - NKS.jpg. The original was uploaded before the 2023 cut-off for Vietnam buildings (COM:FOP Vietnam), so the cropped image should be ok once I clean up the attribution. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- the solar reflection is identical in the two versions. As you say, they need to be cross referenced. Thank you for asking. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship Building deletion - all photos?

[edit]

You deleted photos according to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Greece–Bosnia and Herzegovina Friendship Building. I don't remember what photos there were, but I am surprised none of the nominated images were excluded based on de minimis. What about the images of trams (according to file names), the fire (there must have been such images as I commented on them) and the damage (the damage may have been de minimis, but was it perhaps the main motif, then perhaps falling under the Article 44 "informing the public" clause)? I assume most of the images needed to go, but if we can save some images of the fire and of the war damage, those are important for histography, and might be salvageable according to the above. –LPfi (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your request, I have just reviewed all of the images. In every case, a large modern building is the most prominent thing in the image. In the case of the trams, one might argue that the trams are de minimis, but not the buildings. One of the modern buildings shown was very much on fire, but that does not make it out of copyright. Another had clearly burned out, same problem. Article 44 applies only "Within the scope required for informing the public on current events". While the fires may have fallen under this clause shortly after they happened, they are clearly no longer current events. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This DR

[edit]

Dear Jim,

I filed a DR about 13 days ago and other users spotted other images from a flickrwashing account listed in the DR above. This flickrwashing account has now been added to a blacklist but the images from it are still in use such as this image which is "Copyright: Jorge A. Novoa, www.jorgenovoa.com" as the camera metadata says. Is it time to just delete all the images from this account and close this DR as a delete? Most of the images from this account are of low resolution and have no metadata. No one knows who the copyright owner is. Kind Regards and Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, I'm just helping out Andrew Matthews (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Matthews_(author)) as he is not experienced with editing wikipedia. He noted that his photo was deleted from his profile. Looking through the history I can see that you removed the photo on June 6, 2020. Just wondering why this was as it also helps with disambiguation from the entomologist of the same name? He is happy to supply a photo. Cheers from Australia, Penny Pennylewis (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Andrew-Matthews.jpg. There is a white wall behind him with a cartoon figure on it, so keeping the image on Commons would require written permission from the artist using VRT, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, that makes sense, but there's a big but: this is Andrews signature move - he's an accomplished artist and when he speaks at events he draws a figure, cleverly not revealing who/what it is until the very end. His books are similarly illustrated. You will see this on his website: [1]https://andrewmatthews.com/]
Do you need anything more to reinstate? Pennylewis (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Andrew-Matthews.jpg. There are two licenses required here, neither of which seems to be present -- one from the actual photographer and one from Matthews for the art. Both should be sent using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Sorry, for my lack of understanding, learning at speed. Will do the VRT application. Pennylewis (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS Did I pick the right place to start this thread on this page? Could not see an alternative... Pennylewis (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good -- you start talk page threads at the bottom, which it was when you started it. Commons and copyright can be a steep learning curve, so feel free to ask questions. Most Admins do their best to be helpful to new editors who ask questions and don't bull ahead incorrectly. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience. Andrew has put together the information, with a new photo, and is sending it off for VAT approval - to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Pennylewis (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Matthews has now been given approval from VRT for a different photo - one that did not have one of his cartoons in the background (to simplify things). I have added to his page - I hope in the correct way (see my edit comment) & format. Is this all good? Thanks again for your help with this. Pennylewis (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine, provided that your claim that you are the actual photographer is true. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I was not the photographer. Andrew submitted all the info to VRT and explained that the photo was taken by a photographer who was paid by him and who transferred ownership - I presumed the ticket number would have given access to this info. I just uploaded the photo once they gave him permission to do so. Pennylewis (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume we are talking about File:Andrew Matthews for Wiki 2.jpg. Since you were not the photographer, your claim that you were is a violation of Commons rules and the file is subject to immediate deletion. I suggest you edit the file to show the name of the actual photographer and have the VRT volunteer who handled the case tag the file appropriately. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the image. Sorry, but I had not idea I was being identified as the photographer! All I did was go in and upload the photo once we had permission to do so. This was the note that I wrote to explain the edit: "As discussed with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jameslwoodward who deleted the original image because it did not have VRT approval, this image was subsequently submitted and did receive VRT approval - Ticket#2024041810000904." How is it that I'm being identified as the photographer? Pennylewis (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you did the upload, you picked "own work" -- this results in

Source Own work
Author Pennylewis

when it should read

Source Andrew Matthews
Author (the name of the actual photographer)

There is no evidence that any VRT volunteer has looked at or approved the ticket, so, as I said above, you should get them to do that at once. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation, sorry to be so inept (I do not recall the 'own work' option), but think it is easiest to remove it pending the approval which Andrew told me he had, but he appears to have confused it with acceptance of the ticket. Pennylewis (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests/File:S garvezys1.jpg

[edit]

Jameslwoodward, you kept the image full of mistakes, with highly possible copyright issue (no source for locomotive drawing provided) and not used anywhere. --Obivan Kenobi (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes in the description are, as I said in the closing comment, not a valid reason for deletion. Instead of deleting the image, we fix the mistakes. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:National Bank of Romania (new building), Bucharest

[edit]

You deleted this on URAA grounds, but the URAA cannot restore the copyright of something which was uncopyrightable in the US (in this case, pre-1990 architecture). Could you clarify or expand if there was another reason why this was deleted? Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I have restored them all and changed the closing comment. Thank you very much. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi, I wanted to ask about your closing of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg. Your closing statement says "the restriction is clearly based on copyright", but the BCS license specifically says that it is in line with the "No Copyright - Altre Restrizione Legali Note" (No Copyright - Other Known Legal Restrictions) declaration based upon the ownership or cultural stewardship of an item otherwise in public domain. As I'm reading it, this is a non-copyright limitation that creates a caution for potential reuse beyond Commons, but not a restriction of its inclusion in the project. Are you seeing something else that makes the restriction one related to copyright (and thus should be deleted)? —Tcr25 (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There may be subtleties here that need an Italian speaker, but as I see it, the BCS license is a copyright license, which licenses the photograph. The object photographed appears to predate the concept of copyright. While I think I am correct, I suggest you make an Undeletion Request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tirnkbrunnen Hamburg von Iondesign Berlin.jpg

[edit]

Hello Jim,

you closed this DR as deleted, but the file (which had been moved to File:Trinkbrunnen Hamburg von Iondesign Berlin.jpg) is still up. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 16:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the old filename and kept the moved one -- a bad name is not a reason to delete a file. I don't read German, so I'm not one to change the name. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't delete the old file name. The file had been moved (without leaving a redirect) to correct the orthographic error. Per the discussion, it's unclear if the uploader is also the person who took the photograph. Since the last question (about who the photographer is) went unanswered and the uploader had requested deletion anyway, I would delete the file, but not if you object and while you have closed the DR. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, uploader supplied a replacement file as announced in the discussion: File:Trinkbrunnen Hamburg Iondesign Berlin 2023.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my misunderstanding. I respect your judgement, so feel free to do what you think is right. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thx. I have deleted the file as requested by the uploader, who has since supplied a replacement file. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 20:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Batman, ca. 1973.webm

[edit]

Hi Jim, Why don't you think that Racconish's opinion is valid here? Just curious. Yann (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) There is no such thing as a "parody copyright exception"; parody is an invocation of the fair use exception. We don't allow fair use, and "add[ing something new" does not remove the old. Эlcobbola talk 20:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) The costumes clearly infringe on the Batman copyrights. Parody would certainly be a defense if the whole movie ever came to court as a copyvio, but that doesn't help us, because our images must be free not only as the whole movie, but also frame by frame. Use of a single frame from the movie would not have the parody defense. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/One Piece graphics

[edit]

I did not see a consensus to delete some of these images. In particular File:Toyoda 豊田 (53078815141).jpg had multiple keep votes. I don’t like administrators overriding consensus (or lack thereof) with their personal opinion so they can speed through a stagnant deletion discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The large hat is clearly the most important thing in the image and because it is huge it is not utilitarian, but instead copyright law treats it as a copyrighted sculpture.

DRs are not votes. Admins closing DRs are required to consider the comments made by others, but in every case must use their own judgement and knowledge of copyright law. This image was not a close call. If you disagree, please feel free to make an UnDR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to highjack the discussion, but I've actually been wondering if models of utilitarian objects can be copyrighted or not. Going by your reply to Dronebogus it seems like you think they can be. Is that correct? Adamant1 (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any question about it. A model of a chair -- too large or small for a human to sit in certainly would have a copyright. See COM:Toys. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. I was mainly asking because there's a bunch of images for models of ships on here and according to COM:Toys "A toy model that is an exact replica of an automobile, airplane, train, or other useful article where no creative expression has been added to the existing design is not eligible for copyright protection in the United States." So it seems that the guideline and the existence of thousands of images of models on here both disagree with you. Perhaps I'll ask about it on the village pump though. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is problematic, misleading, and probably incorrect. Any practical model requires creative decisions -- for example, on a model of a ship, you cannot show ropes at their scale diameter -- they would be too fragile to last -- so the modeler makes a creative balance between appearance and fragility. Although disc brakes are easily visible on automobiles, looking through the spokes of the wheels, you rarely see them on models. And so forth. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree. There's clearly artistic license and creativity involved in creating a model. Especially of something like a ship. But then your the one who told me to read COM:Toys to begin with. So.... --Adamant1 (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I try to be as open as possible -- when I checked COM:Toys before suggesting it, I saw the difficult sentence, and decided I had to recommend it anyway. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Elcobbola/Models. Эlcobbola talk 17:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, interesting. It would be cool if the guideline reflected the facts. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These Deletion Requests

[edit]

Dear Admin Jim,

Is it time to close these 3 Deletion Requests as delete. Here are the 2 relevant DRs here and DR here and this Third DR

  • The second Deletion Request is a clear flickrwash and some of the third deletion images prior to 1987 likely cannot be kept either due to PD-Egypt rules such as this reportedly 1990 image. Usually when someone uploads copyrighted materials and is warned no to do so, his/her whole images become suspect. even his upload of a 1981 image was deleted.

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have thousands of DRs that need closing. I have been concentrating my little available time on UnDRs and New Page Patrol. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of Justice Kagan, page 31 image.jpg

[edit]

Why did you say that this was “nonsense?” It was in use, too, so your deletion was entirely improper. Please restore the file immediately. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that the image was used in the Kagan opinion cited, that is not a reason to keep a duplicate copy of the painting of which we have far too many, see Category:Venus of Urbino. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Posankka.jpg

[edit]

What's going on? This photo was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Posankka.jpg but there it is. Do you know what is happening? I found it in Category:Images for transfer -- Htm (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A different editor editor discovered on Flickr and uploaded it -- they may or may not have been aware of the previous deletion. I've deleted it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, Jim! -- Htm (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pregunta

[edit]

@Jameslwoodward:Buenas una pregunta el logo de la Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (https://twitter.com/manuelrosalesg/status/956712085848772609) forma parte de un "too simple" o complejo (el logo aparece un símbolo la manito pero tipo escritura con los colores amarillo, rojo y azul)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_V#Venezuela has no information on the Threshold of Originality in Venezuela. I would say it is definitely above the ToO of the UK and possibly above that in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward:Osea se puede publicar el Logo a Wikimedia?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward:Esta foto (COM:UD#File:Tarjeta Electoral Partido MUD UNIDAD.png) debería ser restaurada (support) o oponerse?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Venezuela and older works

[edit]

@Jameslwoodward:Buenas, el Usuario:Bedivere (Admin of Wikimedia) preguntó en el help task (copyright, Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/04#PD-Venezuela and older works):Hello there. I've been asked to give a statement regarding the PD status of a 1950s official portrait of a Venezuelan president. I am not really sure if the final law cited in the PD-VenezuelaGov template applies retroactively. It says: "Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, los Trabajadores y las Trabajadoras (Labor Law), on May 7, 2012, Article 325. Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector—or financed through public funds—that generates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, while maintaining the authors' rights to public recogniti"o Since this is a labor law, not a copyright or intellectual property law per se, I am not certain this applies retroactively. In the particular case, the pertinent template is PD-Venezuela as it only protects works for 60 years and it is in the public domain, safely, in Venezuela. However, for later works I'm not sure PD-VenezuelaGov could apply. y otra pregunta se puede publicar fotos (generalizados por el sector público o algún fotógrafo) durante la Dictadura Militar de Marcos Perez Jimenez (1952-1958)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Museum Folkwang-Chipperfield Building

[edit]

How about you'd elaborate a bit on the rationale for your decision cause the request didn't remain without pushback. This style of administrating is extremely frustrating. Julius1990 (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that we have thousands of DRs in the backlog and only a handful of Admins actually working on them. Giving detailed explanations of every DR is just not possible.

The building and its architecture is under copyright. The argument that somehow the copyright covers only the whole building is incorrect. Please remember that even a single sentence from a thousand page novel has a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Hello, Based on which deletion criteria did you delete the image? Kadı Message 19:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restored postal covers

[edit]

Hello Jim,

I noticed that you have restored several crops of USSR postal covers, like File:Postal cover of the Soviet Union. 1972. August Kirchenstein-100 (Portrait).png, which had been deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:ArturKappPostCardUSSR1978cropped.jpg. I could not find an obvious reason for the restorations. So why did you restore them? Did some law change and crops of USSR stamps etc. are now ok for us to keep? --Rosenzweig τ 08:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember -- but the restoration was part of a restore-a-lot so I suspect it was caught up by mistake. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. --Rosenzweig τ 08:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the grammar nazi logos

[edit]

Why were the grammar nazi logos deleted? is it because they seemed inappropriate? Adinar0012 (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were nominated because they are hate speech, illegal in many places. They are also personal creations which we don't keep and they are out of scope as not serving any educational purpose. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Grammar Nazi icons + It's a clear breach of INUSE rule. — Draceane talkcontrib. 06:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Whig political banner

[edit]

Hi. I've been catching up on Commons matters and noticed that you closed a deletion request I made by saying there was "no valid reason for deletion". What was inadequate or invalid about my deletion request explanation? w:Wikipedia:Public domain states that [a]rtworks are likely to remain unpublished long after their creation date. A date of publication must be ascertained to establish PD status and that [b]ecause an artwork is not published by being exhibited, and also neither by being created or sold, one needs to know when reproductions of the artwork (photos, postcards, lithographs, casts of statues, and so on) were first published. That constitutes publication of the artwork, and from then on, the work is subject to all the rules for published works.

I found no evidence the work was published or registered with the U. S. copyright office prior to 1929. Its earliest publication that I'm aware of was in 1971, as part of the cover of the book A People and a Nation. Because of that, the image won't be in the public domain until 2066 per w:Wikipedia:Public domain. As the {{PD-Art|1=PD-old}} tag states, an image page must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States, and I'm unable to do that because I'm unable to establish the image is in the public domain in the United States because as far as I can tell it isn't. I'm very sorry for not noticing my mistake until after uploading the image. But I don't understand why my mistake must now be perpetuated when I want to make things right. Hydrangeans (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look harder at one of the several US Copyright reference charts. I prefer File:PD-US_table.svg. Or read note "S" at w:Wikipedia:Public domain. Terrence J. Kennedy, the artist, died in 1883. It is clear, therefore, that even if the work was first published yesterday, it is far more than 70 years after the artist's death. As a general rule, almost everything created in the 19th century will be PD. The only exceptions will be works which have a known creator who died after 1953. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the image had been published yesterday, that would be much better for us because then it would fall in the "Unpublished before 2003" row (fourth row) of the table you linked and therefore would be in the public domain. However, because available evidence indicates it was first published in 1971, that places it in the table's "During 1964–77" (the second row) which states Copyrighted for 95 years after first publication with no reference made to pma (or postmortem of the author). Hydrangeans (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Talk page is on my watchlist) Generally with artwork, we tend to assume publication around creation. Pre-1978, the definition of publication is murky, and if this was purchased after the artist's death but before the known publication in 1971, we'd consider that publication. Abzeronow (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- the problem here is that you are quoting the Berne definition of publication before Berne was the law of the land in the USA. Our general rule is that publication occurred if the item was displayed to the public under circumstances that allowed it to be copied or photographed. Some of our editors (with which I do not agree) go further and say that publication occurs as soon as someone other than the creator sees the item. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the further explanation. I definitely also don't agree with saying publication occurs as soon as someone other than the creator sees the item. I'm afraid I still don't understand how the Wikimedia Movement could have a general rule to presume that publication happens if an item is displayed to the public yet also give guidance that an artwork is not published by being exhibited and that distribution in copies is only considered publication if the distribution of copies occurred legally, in particular with the consent of the copyright holder, but I appreciate that you have fully explained yourself and that we can agree to disagree; thanks for your time. Hydrangeans (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep decision

[edit]

Hi, I'd like to ask you to read Google Maps Terms and Conditions and reconsider Commons:Deletion requests/File:Location results from WMUK BL georeferencing pilot phase.jpg. Or, if you are aware of applicable loopholes that allow GM screenshots, I'd like to learn about those. Thanks! --Enyavar (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So little of the actual GM is visible that my judgement is that there is nothing copyrightable left. In fact, my guess is that at that scale, even if there were none of the dots obscuring much of the map, that Google would have a hard time proving that there is anything creative there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The dots are also a creation of GoogleMaps. Not their placement, sure, but the entire design is the creative choice of Google. --Enyavar (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Images from Auckland Museum marked with cultural permissions

[edit]

You marked this one as kept, but when I scroll through the (long) list I see red links. Can you restore those too? Multichill (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I apparently deliberately deleted a very few of the 2000+ images. I can't remember why. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Max Fishman.jpg

[edit]

"Jim". Please restore the photograph of Max Fishman. File:Max Fishman.jpg It was made by amateurs around 1953-54 for the stand of our conservatory teachers. Since then it has not been published anywhere. All rights to the photograph were given for free use. Comments that I am 90 years old are too exaggerated - I am 86 years old. When the photo was taken I was learning to take photographs. There were many assistants. Max Fishman died in 1985. Why remove a photograph of a person that no one has claimed for about 80 years. Sincerely Levikoan (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levikoan, making duplicate requests here and at UnDR wastes your time and mine. Please do not do it again. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, forgive me old , I was very upset. I am hope for your help. Levikoan (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Femme de dos di Richard Durando Togo

[edit]

Buonasera Jim. Nonostante estese ricerche, fatte anche presso antiquari francesi per avere notizie biografiche di questo autore, non si trova nulla. Era stato stampato anni fa un libretto di poche pagine "L'art de D. T. Richard" di B. Binet, introvabile (se no lo avrei comprato volentieri) e di cui ho solo un paio di pagine in foto, dove, a ricordo di chi lo ha letto, non c'era menzione di una sua famiglia. E' quindi del tutto verosimile che non esistano eredi cui potere, anche volendo, chiedere alcuna licenza. Tantomeno è stato costituito, in Francia o in Italia, un Archivio Ufficiale con l'autenticazione delle sue opere le quali, quelle si, godrebbero di una tutela legale che vada oltre il solo p ossesso dell'opera: quindi in una situazione come questa, dove ho fatto una foto a un quadro di mia proprietà e di cui sono io (che non ho qualifiche artistiche) a dichiararne l'autore, non dovrebbero esserci problemi di copyright, e quindi di pubblicazione. Ti ringrazio per l'attenzione, e molti cordiali saluti. Pierdelama Pierdelama (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you for your assistance... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of File:Driving Her Home by voltmop.png

[edit]

Hello Jim, you recently closed the deletion request regarding File:Driving Her Home by voltmop.png as "Deleted" in part due to "probable license laundering on Deviant". This seems unlikely to me for two reasons and I am wondering if you would be willing to undelete the image based on that reasoning.
The first reason I find license laundering to be unlikely comes from the fact that a reverse image search using Google Images currently only shows matches in two contexts. The first context is instances of the image on DeviantArt, including on voltmop's profile, the favorites of other DeviantArt users, and the compiled galleries of other DeviantArt users. All of these DeviantArt hits ultimately point back to voltmop's DeviantArt profile. The second context that appears in the reverse image search results is from the previous appearance of the image in Category:Erotic comics here on Commons before it was deleted.
If the image was being license laundered, that would mean that it was being reposted to DeviantArt from somewhere else, but the reverse image search results don't seem to point to anywhere else the image could have been reposted from.
Another point of evidence in my mind that the voltmop DeviantArt account is owned by the originating artist is that another image posted to the account is described as a commission from another DeviantArt user who also left a comment thanking voltmop for the commissioned work.
Given these details, I think that the image was unlikely to be have been license laundered and therefore worthy of undeletion.
Thanks for your work as an admin and in processing deletion requests, please take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk) 21:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Jim, I hope this doesn't come as rushing, but its been a bit so I wanted to follow up to ask if you've thought more about my request and come to a conclusion either way. Thanks again and take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk) 20:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder. License laundering does not necessarily mean copying an image that exists elsewhere on the web. It can also encompass copying a copyrighted character, creating a new image that infringes on a copyright. That may well have been the case here. I won't restore it, but feel free to make an Undeletion Request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for getting back to me. I have gone ahead and made a undeletion request. Take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk) 19:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Hi. Can you delete File:Flag of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.svg to since I missed it in the DR and seems to be from the same source. So I assume the copyright status would be just as questionable. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files by User:Navi Capitani

[edit]

Hi Jim! You've recently deleted some of the files mentioned in this deletion request, and closed it. However, the request was for all uploads by the user, and there are a few that you haven't deleted yet. These files are no better than those you've already deleted. For example, I've checked the 3 most recently uploaded ones:

Please delete all the remaining files uploaded by the user: Special:ListFiles/Navi_Capitani. DmitTrix (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a general rule, files must be named in a DR in order for an Admin to act on them. This notifies the uploader and the community as a whole that they may be deleted. It also provides a list in the DR that can be mass deleted. Admins are in short supply and it is inappropriate to ask them to go searching for files to be deleted. Therefore, a DR may not properly ask for deletion of all of a user's files unless they are all named. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Grammar Nazi icons

[edit]

Could you answer to request after your summary? MBH 02:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to hijack the discussion, but the "in use clause" only applies in cases where the usage is done in good faith and serves an eductional purpose. There's nothing good faithed or esuctional about using unofficial icons on other projects as a way to troll and insult users. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usage of this icons in an article about this movement is definitely good faithed and eductional. This article has 7 interwikis. And even in userboxes they obviously aren't used "as a way to troll and insult users" (at least in ruwiki). MBH 06:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "Movement"? Lol. To quote your own source "Grammar Nazi (English grammar Nazi, from grammar - grammar and German Nazi - Nazi) is an Internet meme, an ironic name and self-name of Internet communities distinguished by an extremely pedantic attitude towards literacy issues." 100% it's a noneducational meme meant to insult people who correct other people's bad grammar. That's not a "movement" though. And no offense to ru.wikipedia, but it's well known that 99% of what's on there at this point is pro-Russian propaganda meant purely to push a divisive nationalist agenda and stir up drama. I have yet to see a Russian editor on here who doesn't do exactly that with most of their edits either. Regardless, the icons were clearly created purely to trigger people. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like statements by certain Russian users, that's not a reason to slander all Commons-active Russian users to be Putin's propagandists. That's childish to say the very least. --A.Savin 07:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: Where exactly have I said "all Commons-active Russian users are Putin's propagandists"? You know that's not what I saying. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't have to be said precisely like this to offend good-faith Russian contributors. --A.Savin 07:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment on ANU. Your clearly just misconstruing what I said to stir up drama. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transferring this to an ANU thread which has nothing to do at all with this thread except that I'm involved in both = harassment. Harassment = violation of UCoC, section 3.1. You wish a complaint at WMF T&S? Well, sooner or later you'll surely get what you wish. --A.Savin 07:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naaahh mentioning a users behavior in a ANU complaint that's literally about exactly that isn't harassment. Nice try though. I'm actually kind of surprised you wouldn't know better as a long standing administrator. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know better how to contribute content and maintain categories, you know better how to spread drama around, indeed, let's record. --A.Savin 08:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your the one who started this back and forth by disingenuously responding to me when I wasn't talking to you to begin with. But sure, I'm the one spreading drama around. Right. Be my guest and don't try to goad me with petty, dishonest nonsense again if your so above it. It's not on me that you decided to start this when I wasn't talking to you though. Maybe read the room next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And no offense to ru.wikipedia, but it's well known that 99% of what's on there at this point is pro-Russian propaganda meant purely to push a divisive nationalist agenda and stir up drama - LMAO ROFL. You can't even imagine how wrong you are. And if you read at least meta news or The Signpost issues about ruwiki community, you would know how wrong you are. Yes, the Russian government admits that Russian Wikipedia community pushes a divisive nationalist agenda. Ukrainian agenda. That's why they created 3 or 4 Russian Wikipedia forks with pro-Kremlin propaganda (like en:Ruwiki) and designated one of our admins a "foreign agent" in real life, because Russian Wikipedia stands on absolutely pro-Ukrainian, pro-Western and anti-Kremlin positions. I'm one of the users who repelled the attack of pro-Kremlin bot farm on ruwiki's ArbCom elections in 2021. On Russian Wikipedia, the history of several thousand articles is hidden by a bot to make it difficult for the government and pro-Kremlin activists to prosecute ruwiki users for edits to articles, which are a criminal offense under Russian law. And just six months ago, I wrote to the privacy deraptment of the WMF that the MediaWiki engine had a hole in the mechanism for hiding edits, because of which, through simple actions, you can see the hidden author of the edits, and they thanked me and fixed this hole. Right now I have written a Signpost draft about our community - read it if you want to know, what's inside the Russian Wikipedia. You could also read, using any translator, our article about the war.
What "Movement"? Lol. - you can replace "movement" in my remark to "group of people". MBH 07:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They push nationalist agendas in general. Be that a Russian, Ukrainian, American, or one from any other country. I could really care less, but the fact is that the nationalist agenda pushing purely benefits Russia and their agenda. If a Ukrainian pushes a pro-Ukraine, anti-European agenda that still benefits the Kremlin. If a white nationalist in the United States uses Commons to push a pro-America first agenda, at the end of the day that still benefits Russia and the Kremlin's agenda. And probably the Russian state is behind both somehow. Like they don't intentionally feed into nationalism in the Ukraine to cause discord though. You should know that as someone who's so involved in the topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You absolutely don't understand local context, you don't understand what happens in Russia, Ukraine, Russian and Ukrainian wikipedias. I'm sorry, but your statements about our situation hears like you're living in distant country of elves (although, why "like"? You really lives in a distant country of elves, from our perspective). MBH 07:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, we feel the same way about you guys from our perspective in the United States ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we, from your perspective, are living in the country of orcs, not elves. This difference matters. MBH 07:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually going to say that but it somehow seemed more insulting then calling you elves did for some reason lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read such nonsense for a long time. This is not the Country of Elves, this is another Galaxy... Pessimist (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MBH. Usage of picture on at least one WP version or sister project = COM:SCOPE is there. Anyone who thinks the article itself is not in scope, should go ahead and nominate the article for deletion first. And only after it's deleted, then yes, delete the image too. Thanks --A.Savin 07:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Jameslwoodward: Please respond? --A.Savin 09:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The "in use clause" only applies in cases where the usage is done in good faith and serves an educational purpose. There's nothing good faithed or instructional about using unofficial icons on other projects as a way to troll and insult users. --Adamant1" states my position exactly. They were not in legitimate use and I see no use for them other than vandalism. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds to me like nothing but assuming bad faith for communities of Russian, Belarusian, Azerbaijani, Czech, Danish, French, and Ukrainian Wikipedia, where there obviously is consensus to keep the Grammar Nazi article. So please stop these absurd vandalism accusations and restore the files. --A.Savin 13:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume bad faith or lack of understanding of the horrors that the Nazis caused for anyone who uses these images. File an UnDR if you wish, but this discussion is closed here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: Naleski Legacy Studios.jpg

[edit]

There was a copyright issue that came up few files that were uploaded. How do I remove the photos? File:Naleski Legacy Studios.jpg JoeK2033 (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naleski Legacy Studios.jpg shows that you already know how to request a deletion. What is the problem? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward&oldid=893357107"