User talk:Collect

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Collect!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

File:The Times - Argentine Capture of the Falkland Islands 1821.jpg

The history of this image before it was picked up and used by the Argentine embassy, is that it was created as a fake on a nationalist website [1] to "prove" the story was front page news in the Times. If you were around on the English wikipedia in 2006, a group of editors from this site are now permanently banned for disruption, including putting fake material on the english wikipedia. WCM_email 11:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I know exactly -- but at least this solution would make clear that it is a "composite" as getting some folks to use the word "fake" is like pulling teeth. If the image gets ugly enough showing its composite nature, the utility for the ones pushing it is reduced to zero. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:J. W. Scott 1869.jpg

Can you please fix the author of this image? Obviously you are not old enough to have taken this photo in 1869, so you cannot claim to be the author of work that was done by others. Even if you copied the image from somewhere you are not the original author and should not claim it. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I was the person who took the photo of the old label of J. W. Scott showing that it was pasted into a stamp album (note the printed perforations used to show where the label should be placed).

This image was thus first "fixed" (copyright boilerplate talk) in 2016 by me, and was not done by Mr. Scott. I was my impression that such an image is thus "made" by the person who took a photograph which could not possibly have been made by any other person (as far as I know, I may be the only person in the world having the 1870 album with label affixed). What is the proper solution? Collect (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

First, instead of posting a duplicate of the above post on my talk page you can post a {{Talkback}} tag on my talk page to let me know you responded here. So, you took an image that someone else produced and you made a derivative work of that image. You still need to properly attribute the original image because you did not make the original image but state your derivative work on the image. It just a matter of honest attribution though some editors believe that simply copying an image makes that image their work when all they did is copy it from somewhere - they never made the original image. Perhaps you can look at the original 1870 album and see if it has an attribution to the original author but if not you can state it to be unknown. You are not the author of the original work and if there is no significant creative additions then the copyright remains the same as the original. As an aside there is a famous US court case, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. about copying 2D images that states a new copyright is not created if a slavish copy of a 2D image is made, so copying, photographing, etc, of such an image retains the same copyright as the original. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the fact that the placement of the image on an album page is not a derivative image. Note also that I attributed the photo of Scott to the second edition of his album in 1869, thus I never took credit for the original label - only the image of the label on a unique album page.

As no one has any copies of the original sheet of images, no one can tell whether, in 1869, Scott was prescient enough to note the origins of each image. At the 147 year mark, I doubt that any of the images are copyright, and they appear to be photographic prints (use of halftone printing dates to 1873, or four years after this image, and was not commercially possible until the 1890s.

As the use of the position of a label on is not "slavish copying", is there any real reason you wish to dispute the fact that I made the original source of the label explicitly clear? By your apparent standard, if I take a photo of a scene where an out-of-copyright image is remotely included, then I have created nothing. I assure you that it is impossible for anyone to have created this photo on an album page in this form at all. I also note that images of photographs which only include the original photograph are not the case at hand. Had I cropped it to not show any of the album page, you might have a semi-decent cavil. Collect (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)