User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive 2023
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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
 | 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. |
Hi Jim, Could you please check the license of this file? You were involved in the DR. I am not sure about the copyright status is USA. Happy New Year! Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Yann, the 2011 DR did not consider the URAA because (as you know) it was still in flux on Wiki projects. Now we don't keep files that were not PD in their home country in 1996, so at first look, it appears that it will have a URAA copyright in the USA until 1/1/2054. Although I don't see any copyright notice on it, the subject image is a tight crop of a full length portrait, see https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/53372415_fernado-amorsolo-portrait-of-us-senator-magnuson so it may have notice. I can't tell on the small image. Given the Amorsolo was Philippine, it seems unlikely that he would be careful about notice, so I think it likely that it did not have a notice on it.
We are told that Magnuson commissioned it, so presumably it came to the USA shortly after it was painted. Magnuson was very much in the public eye until he lost his Senate seat in the election in 1980. He died May 20, 1989, after the end of the notice required period. I would think it likely that it was on public display somewhere. I'm inclined to think that we're OK in keeping it as PD-No Notice, but that's not a certainty. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. You mean that it was first published in USA? In that case, the author's date is irrelevant for the copyright status, right? And the license should be changed to
{{PD-Art|PD-US-no notice}}. OK? Yann (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC) - Yann, I think it is a reasonable assumption -- beyond our "significant doubt" -- that Magnuson had it on display somewhere that would qualify for publication under the 1909 Copyright Act. So, as you say, it would be
{{PD-Art|PD-US-no notice}}. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)- OK, thanks. I use
{{PD-Art|PD-US}}, as even it there was a notice, there most probably wasn't a renewal. Yann (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I use
Hi, can you please verify the license of this image? It seems like a copyright violation. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Good catch, thank you. See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive#File:Paetongtarn-Shinawatra.webp . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Jim, You closed this request for undeletion as "Not done", but the file is still there. Any reason? Best, Yann (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Just didn't notice that it had been restored temporarily. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Question re: dashcam footage
Hello. I recently noticed your close of this DR that concluded that there is no copyright in bodycam footage. In your opinion, would the same go for dashcam footage or traffic camera security footage? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
It's pretty well established that security camera images -- fixed camera, running continuously or motion activated -- have no human creative input and therefore have no copyright. A dashcam would be the same unless it could be proven that the driver had deliberately aimed the vehicle to take a picture. A bodycam is arguably the weakest argument for no copyright, but I think the USCO would require proof that the person wearing the bodycam deliberately aimed the camera before registering a copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. For security cameras, do you know if there's a specific template, or do people just use {{PD-ineligible}}? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I looked and didn't find one, so on the subject image I used {{PD-ineligible}}. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi James, the book is from 1978, but the object depicted is from 1802. General: There are photos in catalogues of objects or works of art by craftsmen or artists who have been dead for 70 years. If someone scans this photo, I don't think it needs to be deleted. - Hallo James, das Buch ist zwar von 1978, aber das dargestellte Objekt ist von 1802. Allgemein: Es gibt in Katalogen Fotos von Objekten oder Kunstwerken von Handwerkern oder Künstlern, die bereits 70 Jahre tot sind. Wenn jemand dieses Foto einscannt, muss es meines Erachtens nicht gelöscht werden. Mit freundlichen Grüßen - Friederike FriedeWie (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
See my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kasten für Nadeln.jpg. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This photograph was inspired by and in fact uses a 1937 painting by René Magritte (1898-1967). Is this too close to the painting (which would still be copyright in the EU and in the US) to be hosted on Commons? Abzeronow (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- First, I think the small reproduction of the original painting Not to Be Reproduced is de minimis. I also think that the photograph, while certainly inspired by the painting, is a long way from being a derivative work in the sense we must worry about. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was thinking similarly but I wanted to be sure. Abzeronow (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the second time I have seen you reject a courtesy deletion request from an uploader who was a minor at the time (the other one was Commons:Deletion requests/File:Axillary Hair in Puberty.jpg). In this case, it is even worse: you also threatened to block the nominator, despite the second request containing new information and being made in good faith (as far as I can tell).
Can you explain your approach to such deletion requests? Are they ever acceptable? Why did you threaten to block the nominator in this case? Brianjd (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Generally, when someone makes a second request for deletion without introducing any new information, they are wasting community time, so I generally warn them not to try it a third time. I do the same with UnDRs and other repetitive actions.
In this case, I am suspicious of the reason given -- the photo is of two men who lived a hundred years ago, so there is hardly any privacy issue. The file was in use until the requester deleted it. I suspect that there is more going on here than he has said. On top of that, while in most jurisdictions, acts done by a minor can be rescinded if done promptly, that right does not extend indefinitely. We are told that he was 15 seven years ago, so he is now 22. He might have rescinded at age 18, maybe even 19, but not now. And, finally, the image is PD, so we don't need his consent.
As for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Axillary Hair in Puberty.jpg, we don't actually know that the unidentifiable subject was a minor -- all we had there was a claim from an IP user that it was his upload and a photograph of him. We get many claims from IP users -- some of them are true. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Generally, when someone makes a second request for deletion without introducing any new information I agree – but, like I said, the second request did introduce new information.
- the photo is of two men who lived a hundred years ago, so there is hardly any privacy issue This is not a universal view. An experienced user wrote at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dorking Schoolgirls Patiently Waiting For Mum (6258299657) (cropped).jpg: The subject of a photo in 1920 is almost certainly dead now, so I think less about the effect the photo has on them or their family, but it would still be a conversation worth having. It reminds me of this thread from a few years ago concerning photograph of slaves. (emphasis added) Let’s have those conversations when necessary, without threatening to block users just for starting those conversations.
- As for File:Axillary Hair in Puberty.jpg, the file was initially tagged by an IP user but subsequently tagged multiple times by the uploader, who apparently remained a minor at the time of tagging. I did point this out at the DR, but you keep ignoring it for some reason. Brianjd (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Assuming you meant to keep this image because you did not delete the file and kept the cropped version of the image? IronGargoyle (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I hit the keep button on the image, but the wrong button for the DR. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Dear Jim, according to everything I can see, you have solicited the deletion of the above graphic. I cannot find out why you did that. But what I can find out is that you can delete important sections of the article en:Binary search tree as well, because they reference fig. 2 which may well have been the graphic which was deleted by you. I'm wondering how such things can happen within WP !! All the best regards, -Nomen4Omen (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment I didn't solicit the deletion -- I performed it. According to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary search tree deletion illustration.png the graphic was lifted from a recent book without the consent of the publisher. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the information ! I understand. But why wasn't it earlier available ? Best regards, –Nomen4Omen (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand the question. Everything in the deletion request was posted on December 22, 2022 and has remained unchanged until you closed the DR two days ago. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
OK, I understand: you do not understand that I didn't see the deletion request and that it was posted on December 22, 2022 and has remained unchanged until you closed the DR two days ago. I only saw that the image has been deleted. But it's my fault: Now I have seen your deletion request even after deletion. –Nomen4Omen (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, still I have an idea:
Would it be possible to post the DR also in the referencing article(s), and not only on Commons ??
This would have the following advantage: The watchers of the article(s) would be notofied and could comment. –Nomen4Omen (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Hmm. I thought that happened routinely. I recall seeing such notices. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- en:Talk:Binary search tree#A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
- The simplest move could be to re-draw this, based on the book as a source (it's a standard technique and diagram, we can do this without infringing anyone's copyright). That could also be formatted as SVG, which is an advantage. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- This is a very good idea and it would rescue parts of the subject article.
- It would be appreciated very much. Many thanks and best regards, –Nomen4Omen (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Why was the gallery removed when it included at least 10 photos? Wasa Kawasaker (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
My error, I saw only the one image in the first line. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Recently undeleted File:Louis Barnett.jpg photo
Fyi, I have replaced the formerly in-use photos with this recently undeleted better quality photo. However, the source of this image has and even higher quality version. The undelete discussion [1] indicated that this organization's website makes a mistaken claim, because this photo is now Public Domain in both the U. S. and New Zealand. Using the discussion related to this photo's undeletion, can I upload this better quality version of this same photo here [2]? Will it be covered by this same discussion from a potential future Deletion Request? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes -- it is clearly out of copyright in New Zealand and almost certainly so in the USA. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward You said, "... and almost certainly so in the USA." This file does have a PD-US type tag now- is it not certain? If not, could you share what might be the uncertainty? Thanks again, -- Ooligan (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- The only publication of the photo that we are sure of was in 1958. The US copyright status depends on date of publication, not date of creation or author's death. If in fact the image was not published until 1958, then it will be under copyright in the USA until 1/1/2054. However, the definition of "publication" under the 1909 Copyright Act was broad enough so that this was almost certainly "published" in 1927. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the further details to consider. I appreciate your comments and others about copyrights world-wide. There is so much to learn. -- Ooligan (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- The only publication of the photo that we are sure of was in 1958. The US copyright status depends on date of publication, not date of creation or author's death. If in fact the image was not published until 1958, then it will be under copyright in the USA until 1/1/2054. However, the definition of "publication" under the 1909 Copyright Act was broad enough so that this was almost certainly "published" in 1927. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
About costume copyright
Hi. I just saw the closure of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BlogOrlando_with_Mickey_Mouse_(2889298501).jpg. I agree with the outcome, but I'd just like a clarification, so I can make more accurate votes in the future:
- If the costume has a mask that represents a face, delete.
- If the costume has a mask that is worn as a mask by the copyrighted character, keep?
TilmannR (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
As a general rule, clothing, even elaborate costumes, cannot have a copyright in the USA because it is utilitarian. There are some countries where even utilitarian things can have copyrights if sufficient creativity went into them. Masks, on the other hand, are not utilitarian, so a costume that includes a mask can have a copyright. That may seem a little illogical, but, as you surely know by now, copyright is not always logical. So, as a general rule, any distinctive costume with a mask has a copyright unless it has expired. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Copyright foto Giuseppe Ferlito
Hi Jim, regarding the contestation of the photo for copyright File:Il regista Giuseppe Ferlito sul set.jpg there must have been an error because the photo uploaded is mine and I later provided it to the director Giuseppe Ferlito. Is it possible to put the photo back? What should I do to fix it? Thanks for your help --Valentina Tretti Valentina Tretti (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
I think I figured out what I was wrong. I hope I fixed it correctly. Thank you --Valentina Tretti (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Jim I uploaded the photo File:Giuseppe Ferlito Regista.jpg on the Flickr site to make the photo free of copyright, but I must have made some mistakes because Superspritz has again flagged it as possible copyright infringement. I want to ask the subject Giuseppe Ferlito to place a free license on his site, a general free license for images. Can you please tell me what I should ask him to write on his site? Thanks a lot for your help. --Valentina Tretti (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Dear Jim, thank you for your kind message. Is it okay if I ask director Giuseppe Ferlito (born 1975) to send an email from his official web site to permissions-it@wikimedia.org where he declares that the photos I'm trying to post are free from copyright? Thanks for your help, it's hard for me to figure out the correct way. I made mistakes unintentionally and I don't want to make mistakes anymore --Valentina Tretti (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
That would be fine -- make sure that he says that the credit should go to you, not him -- otherwise it might be assumed that since it is a photographer's web site that the credit should go to him. If you have nay other problems in the future, please don;t hesitate to ask me or any of our colleagues here. We know that it is a steep learning curve and we aare very willing to help. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Jim, thank you for the answer. To avoid making mistakes, can I send him the email by copying this page https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modello_richiesta_di_permesso/Immagini/Licenza_libera and having him reply in copy to this address permissions-it@wikimedia.org? Thanks so much for your help. --Valentina Tretti (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
That won't be good because the form is written for the case where the sender is the creator. Instead, he should simply say that you are the creator and that he doe not claim any rights to it. Something like:
- With regard to the deleted image File:Giuseppe Ferlito Regista.jpg, which appears on my web site at https://www.giuseppeferlito.com/images/lead/giuseppe-ferlito-movie-director-padova.jpg and on Flickr at https://flickr.com/photos/197701059@N02/52691584810, the photographer is Valentina Tretti and I, Giuseppe Ferlito, do not claim any rights to it other than the right to have it on my web site.
That should do it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Jim, ok thanks, I'll get the answer you indicated to me from Giuseppe Ferlito (born 1975). Thanks for your time. --Valentina Tretti (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
This looks like a fair use upload mistakenly uploaded to Commons. Billboard renewed their copyrights from 1937 on, so this 1963 excerpt if the text is original enough would be copyrighted until 2059. I want to double check if the text is creative enough before I take action. If it's PD-text, I'll fix accordingly. Abzeronow (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
My general rule is that in the USA all but the very simplest of single sentences have a copyright. Certainly these two paragraphs are far over the ToO.
- OK, I'll add the Billboard files directly to the Undeletion category pages for those years since it will be a while before they're out of copyright and just let them be deleted for no license. Abzeronow (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Jim. You closed it for ND restriction. However, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Indian Army which has the same "you must reproduce the work accurately and not in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context" was kept. It seems there is a discrepancy here. Would you be able to read thru those earlier discussions and see if this should be undeleted? Thanks -- DaxServer (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
We have close to 100 million files on Commons. I would not be surprised if 1% -- a million files -- are here when they should not be. It is very clear to me that "not in a derogatory manner" prevents use in an article or book critical of the subject and therefore this is not a free license. Rather than restoring this file, any that depend on the template you cite should be deleted. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Undeletion of File:20180220 Landskrona Image By Me Elvira Lundh 0017 (25550173907).jpg and others
Hi Jim. I'm sorry it took me a while to respond to your message at the UDR but I was awfully busy off-wiki. Per the closing of the discussion I have now undeleted and cropped most of those images. The remaining two I did not find in scope or notable. De728631 (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
De728631 -- that's fine, thank you for making the effort required to keep them. We all have obligations in real life. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
The cartoonist was an American, but the Henry comics started in 1932 and the Saturday Evening Post regularly renewed copyright of issues in 1932 and 1933 https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/satevepost so they'd likely still be in copyright. Any idea when this particular cartoon was published? (If necessary, I could put Undelete in 2044 since the cartoonist died in 1948 but if this was published in the 1930s, I'd like to possibly put it in for undeletion sooner). Abzeronow (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
It's at File:Henry44.jpg with a July 28, 1935 date. That seems early for color, even on Sunday, but it's best I can do -- it's 12 years before my time. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Jim. Added to the DR to the Category Undelete in 2031. Abzeronow (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
undeletion request
excuse me mr jameslwoodward i am LTA a1cb3 i would like to ask how can i apply for deleted files recovery?? I just don't have the right to apply?? I had made that recent request just to ask you administrators for help, I wanted your opinion. how can i hope for a file restore hope?? do i have to ask someone to present them for me?? because some administrators had seen the file more than the loader, while you saw the loader first. give me an answer. 2.36.102.41 16:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
As a long term major abuser, you and your contributions of any sort are not welcome on Commons. Please stop wasting our time and just go away. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Why was the gallery removed when it included at over 7 photos? Gemalmaz ileti 07:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose None of the photos had valid permission for their use here, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files on Ankara Rüzgar Tüneli (ART). . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
VRTS I have just accepted permission for “File:RÜZGAR TÜNELİ 2001 (7).jpg” under ticket:2023030210015879. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC) VRTS I have just accepted permission for “File:RÜZGAR TÜNELİ 2001 (19).jpg” under ticket:2023030210015879. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC) VRTS I have just accepted permission for “File:RÜZGAR TÜNELİ 2001 (29).jpg” under ticket:2023030210015879. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC) VRTS I have just accepted permission for “File:RÜZGAR TÜNELİ 2001 (5).jpg” under ticket:2023030210015879. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC) VRTS I have just accepted permission for “File:RÜZGAR TÜNELİ 2001 (6).jpg” under ticket:2023030210015879. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC) VRTS I have just accepted permission for “File:Hava Kuvvetleri Komutanı Ergin Celesin'in ART Ziyareti.jpg” under ticket:2023030210015879. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The photos have valid permission.--Gemalmaz ileti 14:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Restored. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank You Gemalmaz ileti 14:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
National Emblem Of Algeria
Hi,
why should File:National Emblem of Algeria.svg be removed since it's the new Emblem used by the gouvernement since 2019.
All emblems are uploaded in wikimedia common, so why the new Logo should be an exception? Riad Salih (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
You should raise any issues at Commons:Deletion requests/File:National Emblem of Algeria.svg where it will be seen by others and may affect the result of the request. It wastes your time and mine to discuss this in two places.
In most countries the law makes national emblems free of copyright. Algerian law does so, but only for non-commercial use, which makes it unusable on Commons. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
An IP user asked me to do a UDR request for a file uploaded by a LTA.
The file is File:Portrait of King Edward VII with the Robes of the Order of the Star of India.png The artist died in 1944. I don't see a date associated with the source but since King Edward VII died in 1910, it was probably done around 1909 or 1910 which would make it public domain in the US. Now, I could upload the file myself and this would sidestep the whole need for a UDR. What do you think? Abzeronow (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I object to anything that encourages an LTA in any way. If this is one of the A3cb1 socks, I object especially strongly, as he is creating socks almost daily and we have to make a concerted effort to not do anything that encourages him to continue harassing us on Commons. So, please, just say "no". . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- I suspect the IP user that pinged me is an A3cb1 sock. I'll just ignore the request that they made, and I'll reconsider uploading the painting myself from the best source I can find in 4-6 months so it doesn't feel like I'm encouraging their behavior. Thanks for the advice, Jim. Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand how the parent file at File:The Book of Börk.png can be deleted as a copyright violation while this file can be kept. User:Modern primat created File:Greeceball.png and we we have File:GRE1828.png which are fine but we have File:Grechiaball.PNG which wasn't listed because it was from the Bork file and I only asked about Dutchball rather than picking the Greek one. As noted at User_talk:Yann/archives_45#File:The_Book_of_Börk.png, two other files were deleted but Yann didn't think these would be (which is fine, they weren't). Was the original a more complex image than I imagine? Can you describe them vaguely so I get an idea of the difference? Ricky81682 (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The question here is one of the Threshold of Originality, that is, whether the image is creative enough to warrant a copyright in the country of origin. That is necessarily a subjective issue and it varies from country to country and from viewer to viewer. File:The Book of Börk.png has 88 different balls and I assume that when Yann deleted it he was looking at the complexity of the whole array. The subject is just a rough circle with two smaller circles and the Dutch colors -- not much creativity there. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I want to disagree with your decision. According to the law of Russian Federation, materials that reports about facts, which have a purely informational character are not copyrighted – they are part of public domain. Shouldn't we consider the copy (which is not a modification, but literally a copy) as such material? --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
In most countries, mere information - facts -- do not have a copyright. In some countries, including Russia, the presentation of information, in words, does not have a copyright. Thus a news story may not have a copyright in Russia, but will in most other countries. However, this calendar goes well beyond merely reporting the facts of the calendar -- it clearly has a copyright everywhere as art. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to ask you about this file before I did anything. I can't find any indication that the photographer is also the author of the book depicted. Are the illustrations de minimis? Abzeronow (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
The Flickr account from which the image came shows Alexandre Dulaunoy as the photographer and the author of the book. He might not actually have the right to freely license the images on the book cover, but I'd be inclined to let them go as de minimis. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I was also inclined to let it go. Thanks. Abzeronow (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi James - sorry to spam you on the "Undeletion Requests" thread, was having some technical difficulty there. Any advice on how I can proceed uploading the image (which I am the photographer of - Craig Thomas is a noteworthy screenwriter, known for the American sitcom How I Met Your Mother) would be greatly appreciated! Elliotnadeau (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Done by KoH. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Would you say this circa 1960s coat of arms from London, UK is a 2D artwork or a 3D one? Abzeronow (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Probably 3D, but 2D works exclude "graphic works", but works of artistic craftsmanship are OK, so even if you argue it is 2D, it's clearly not a graphic work. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- OK Thanks. Added FoP template. It could be public domain if it's covered under Crown Copyright since this appears to have been created in 1965. Abzeronow (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I received a VRT ticket (ticket:2023032110016869) regarding File:James Murray at his Murr Live show in Cleveland.png, which you deleted as being a recreation of content deleted per consensus. Could you please point me to the DR where the decision was made to delete this so I can see if there are additional issues? Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Mdaniels5757, the original upload of the image was File:Murr Live.png which is an active request at UnDR. The DR was Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Impracticalproductions. If the VRT message is from Jack Morgan, the only issue is which one he wants to keep -- Murr Live.png is a crop of this one -- I don't think we need them both and if it were up to me I would keep the crop.
BTW, I think you would make a good CU, but the community believes that the number of CUs should be kept low. I'm not sure that is entirely logical if they are all trustworthy people, but that's the way it is. Your request did push me into looking at RFCU more often, which I will keep up, so it wasn't entirely in vain. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for that information. Looks like Krd already took care of it.
- Thanks for your note about my checkuser run. It's good to hear that it wasn't entirely useless :).
- Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Jim, thanks for weighing in File:Folies Bergere Tropicana Matchbook back closeup. I hopefully signed the entry.--Gumballhead1of2 (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Block request
Hi, could you please block User:Ponyotrash? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Done I would ordinarily ask "Why", but that became obvious when I looked at his vandalism. I fear he will return in another guise. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- No doubt. You might want to revert all of his edits to others Talk pages - easier for you than for me. I removed my own (very nasty). Revdeletion may be in order too, not sure how it works here. I'll leave it to you. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't like it when others remove vandalism from my talk page -- I think it is better to leave that to the owner. I know that when I see that on my page, I have to look to see what it was and then delete it, which takes longer than simply reading and deleting. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Different projects, different ways. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't like it when others remove vandalism from my talk page -- I think it is better to leave that to the owner. I know that when I see that on my page, I have to look to see what it was and then delete it, which takes longer than simply reading and deleting. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
A bit of a quandary with File:Digital Coded Money.jpg
The license for the Flickr file itself is definitely CC-BY-SA. It was derived from two other Flickr files. One of which was CC-BY-SA on August 10, 2010 and is now CC-BY-ND (which can be dealt with), the other is apparently no longer on Flickr and Wayback Machine only has it after it was taken off. Do you think it would be OK for me to pass a license review of it or should I file a DR because I cannot verify that one of the files it was derived from is CC-BY-SA? Abzeronow (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's in scope -- it's clever, but it's personal art from someone who is not a contributor. You certainly should not do a license review -- we must keep our license reviews absolutely clean in case one is ever needed to prove the prior license. If the image were really important, I could argue that because the Flickr user who created it said that the two images were both CC, that it's OK, or I could argue that there's no copyright in a scan or photo of a dollar bill, but it's probably best just to let it go. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I won't do anything as far as a license review. It has a lot of hits on TinEye so it's possible the version on Commons is being externally used. I could just do nothing on the file unless you believe it really should have a DR for not fitting our scope. Abzeronow (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, as I said, let's just let it go. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Undeletion request
Hi Mr Jameslwoodward,
I saw the negative result you gave concerning my request, I have to tell you that I don't really agree with the idea of evaluating the uploader rather than the file, just because the user is an evader/harasser, this does not it means that what is left behind does not necessarily have to be thrown away completely. I absolutely understand that such a thing would not be encouraged, but I checked the logs of his uploads and I noticed that some and I repeat some of his following files are correct. then you should open the dialog for some of its files. one shouldn't dismiss everything, because he is "an infamous dirty dodger". I don't find it very fair, and I also don't find it fair the constant puppet attacks he keeps making. I understand this hassle 46.249.58.134 14:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- why on earth has a deletion request sent for Srabonti's picture? I am the owner of those Stills. 223.191.46.144 16:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
About "Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/HOGD08"
Hi Jameslwoodward, Good morning. I just saw the resolution of the user verification you requested for HOGD08 and TanailaBaby [3], which is very interesting to me, especially when you mention that "there are other accounts related to the latter". I would like to know which are those other accounts to put on notice in Spanish Wikipedia, since it was also blocked for being a puppet of HOGD08 [4][5], who has been characterized lately for making cross-wiki evasions through female accounts. Greetings. Luis1944MX (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
In line with the WP policy of disclosing as little private CU information as possible, I am uncomfortable discussing this here. Any WP:ES Checkuser can answer the question by running a CU on TanailaBaby. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:CMB-memorial-pl-mod-poppy.jpg
Thanks for closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:CMB-memorial-pl-mod-poppy.jpg, however there was a related file included in the discussion at File:CMB-memorial-pl-mod-lavender.jpg. Can you please consider making a ruling on that one too? From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Done by Krd. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Amar Osim
- Hello James, I think there was a misunderstanding. The image which you deleted of Amar Osim, was an image I took. So, not only was the camera mine, but I phisically took that image, as in I am the actual photographer of that image... Bakir123 (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. In the DR you said, "I do have the permission as this is my phone on which the picture was taken." That would be entirely irrelevant if you were the actual photographer. In the DR you did not say that you were the actual photographer, which would have been the appropriate response if it were the case. I also note that you have an long history of uploading copyvios. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- @ Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) I understand the copyvios are an issue, but I can 100% assure you that I phisically took this image. I said that I "have the permission as this is my phone on which the picture was taken" because I was just flabbergasted that the image was even nominated up for deletion because that was mine "cleanest" image up to that point, as in I was assured it wouldn't be deleted becaue I actually took the image. Okay, maybe my response wasn't the best, but in full honesty I expected that by saying that the phone was mine, I thought that it would be logical to assume that I was also the photographer. That's my bad. The copyvios I hope will not happen anymore. The images I'm uploading now have a reliable source, and in the future, regarding the images of buildings and etc. here in Bosnia, I will upload only locally, because I did have recently an image of the UNITIC Twin Skyscrapers in Sarajevo deleted as I uploaded them on Commons, instead of just locally on Wikipedia. But I understand that now. I truly do hope that you believe me. Once again, yes the copyvios past is a slight issue and the response could have been more precise, but this is genuinely an image I personally, phisically took of Osim. Bakir123 (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
So... Do we remove the uploaders "This image is free to use only on Wikipedia" comment or should we proceed with the deletion request? Trade (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
You can't change what the uploader wrote. The image also has the problem that it is not Own Work, as claimed. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
How to bring back my image?
Hello!
I recently contributed a photograph (I took it myself on my iPhone) of a famous mural of Greta Thunberg, found in San Francisco where I live.
I think you deleted it! How do I bring it back?
File:Andrés_Iglesias_mural_of_Greta_Thunberg_above_Mason_Street,_San_Francisco.jpg Harlancrystal (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to prove I own this photo aside from showing you my iPhone and the other 20x pictures I took in that area on the same day. But, yes, I definitely own the copyright of this image of a mural in a public place! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlancrystal (talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
ok, nevermind I read the mural document thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlancrystal (talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion 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 a timestamp will then automatically be added 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). Thank you.
Harlancrystal, I think you get it -- your photo is fine, but the mural itself is copyrighted and images of it cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the artist who painted it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Apostolicus
Hi,
You closed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Apostolicus as delete. Since the time of filing of the DR, Apostolicus has uploaded more images sourced to the Flickr account that look just as dubious. Should I file another DR for those or is the precedent from the original DR for you to take action? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The DR was opened March 30 -- I don't see any images uploaded by him after that date. There were acouple that predated the DR and should have been in it -- I deleted them. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks muchly. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Heller Vignelli files
Hello Jameslwoodward, I am working on trying to secure proper licence for these files. May I ask you to reinstate at least the Vignelli Dinnerware (Hellerware) files provisionally? I'm particularly interested in the Lella Vignelli article, and these photographs are an integral to the work I am doing there. Their absence leaves a big hole in the article. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
There are many photographs that we would like to have for WP articles that we cannot have because they are not freely licensed. Until you get a free license from the actual copyright holder(s), I see no basis for restoring them. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Noted and understood. I will continue to try to solicit a response from the user who uploaded the images (at my request). This person
may havevery likely has some connection with the company Heller, so once they reappear, they may be well placed to re-upload the files with proper attribution and licensing (the assumption being that the company either owns the images or has a connection to whoever does). Thanks for your reply. I'll let you know if the matter gets resolved. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Legal documents
Hi Jim, Regarding [6], legal documents are perfectly in scope on Commons. We already have thousands of them: Category:Legal documents. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Yann, OK, but there ought to be some sort of criteria -- as there is with everything else. Important cases, certainly, but we shouldn't take everything that comes along. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- IMO, we are not overflooded with this kind of files, so no explicit criteria is needed now. We accept many pictures of minor Bollywood actors and actresses (or other people and things not really notable), so why not court cases... Yann (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think we agree in principle -- while we take minor Hollywood actors, we don't take local high school actors. Similarly, I think we should draw a line at local court cases. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Request immediate restoration of mistakenly deleted pages
The two pages are Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather/Montpelier.tab and Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather/Juneau.tab. You did not notify anyone prior to deletion and did not have any proper reason for deletion. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
As noted on the DR, tables are out of scope for Commons. If needed elsewhere, they should be set locally in Wiki markup. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Livio Castiglioni
Hello again, I believe that the deletion request for the file you just deleted was retracted by the nominator. Perhaps Justlettersandnumbers could shed more light on the matter? As this image survived the scrutiny of a Wikipedia DYK nomination, it's deletion now seems odd and arbitrary. Might you have made a mistake? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
PS: Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Livio_Castiglioni (which was also inadvertently modified by the deletion).
- Hi, Jim! Thank you for closing this deletion request of mine – the more we can do to limit the activities of this pestilential LTA, the better! Could I just check with you that my additional note about this file did not add up to a reason to keep? I'm asking because the same or very similar file on it.wp has an apparently valid PD claim and is marked 'copy to Commons'; it was recently uploaded by a long-term user in good standing. If you've no objection I'll go ahead and do that, but obviously will not if there's any uncertainty. I've explained to user Cl3phact0 that it could be hosted on en.wp as WP:NFC, but I don't think that would allow use of it in his DYK nomination of the page on the subject. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- If Google correctly translated the WP:IT template for me, the argument is that this is a simple photo and gets a 20 yr copyright. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_I#Italy warns against using that rationale as it is poorly defined. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- For reference, the article was already featured on DYK (January 14, 2023) with the photo in question. There was robust discussion of this matter at the time (please see Talk threads here, here, and here), so I am puzzled as to why this is still an open question. (Admittedly, my knowledge of the nuances and complexities of licensing is limited.) Any help you're able to give finding a solution would be much appreciated. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Any discussion of the subtleties of Italian copyright law on WP:EN will not mean much here on Commons. The guidance I cited above is quite specific that we should not rely on the 20 year rule. This is a posed portrait, not a simple snap. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Marginataen's uploads
Hi, Regarding File:Lars Boje Mathiesen, 2023.jpg, I would assume good faith, seeing their statement and File:Brian Mørk, 2022.jpg, a picture obviously taken at the same time. But I understand the lack of trust given the uploader's history. Should File:Brian Mørk, 2022.jpg be deleted? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't know. Even given his history, I'd be OK if he uploaded a good sized image with full EXIF -- but the "lost the camera" excuse is a little lame when everything goes into the cloud whether you like it or not. Although VRT is not a solution for everything, the more personal interaction there may make it possible to accept what he says. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Dare image (SurfaceAgentX2Zero)
Hi Jim,
thank you for the comment on the undeletion page. I thought I'd do this here after reading your guidance above.
Does the pasted below copy of the email that originally came though to give permission to use the image count? It was sent through with the image but was overlooked. Perhaps it needs to be sent again as I have redacted some details as instructed to do on the relevent page - don't include email addresses etc it said.
Looking forward to hearing back from you. Apologies but I'm learning. SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Duh... I forgot to paste...
EMAIL: From: redacted legend-records.co.uk <redacted@legend-records.co.uk> Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2022 10:25 PM To: Gray <redacted@straydogdesign.co.uk> Subject: RE: Wiki band picture
Hi Gray, thanks for the email.
Please see below.
Merry Christmas Darren/DARE/Thin Lizzy
I hereby affirm that I Darren Warton, represent Legend Records the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work as shown here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dare_Band_shot_2_HIGH_RES.jpg
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Darren Wharton Redacted Redacted. North Wales. Redacted
DATE 24/12/2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk • contribs) 16:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Darren:
The problem we have is that while 99% of our users are honest, we have 25,000 users, more or less, so we can figure on a significant number of people who are willing to lie and forge in order to have images kept here. The message above could, of course, be a complete forgery. As a result, we require that email licenses come directly from the copyright holder to VRT. That usually gives the VRT volunteer a traceable email address or other way to identify the sender and confirm that the message is legitimate. If worst came to worst, it would be a defense in court against a lawsuit for damages. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Jim, and thanks for such a clear and concise reply. Yes, I totally understand what you say about the honesty thing. No issues whatsoever with that. Before I rush off and email Darren again I did have one thought. As I mentioned somewhere back when I first looked at this undeletion request, Darren did send the permission email through, but it was overlooked somehow and the image taken down for no permission. I'm wondering if there's a record/archive kept of such deletions etc., and I wonder if that email is still floating around out there and the two can be connected? If easier for me to just ask him to send an email again, that is fine. Thank you again. SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- The only edits to the image file were yours and a cleanup bot, so there is no record there of any VRT ticket number. Although VRT is not always quick -- its current backlog is a little over a week -- it is pretty thorough -- messages do not get lost very often. My first guess would be that Darren did not, in fact, send the message, or that he sent it to a completely wrong address. Beyond that, I don't know. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, thank you for taking the time to look into this. As I say, I'm learning, so this is all new to me. The email trail I have suggests he did send it through, but no matter, I'll get on it and get Darren to re-send his permission. The address he used was permissions-commons@wikimedia.org which I take to be correct? Finally, if he just sends an email through and references File:Dare Band shot 2 HIGH RES.jpg that will link to it for verification and then undeletion with nothing else needing to be done this end? Thank you again. SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- The only edits to the image file were yours and a cleanup bot, so there is no record there of any VRT ticket number. Although VRT is not always quick -- its current backlog is a little over a week -- it is pretty thorough -- messages do not get lost very often. My first guess would be that Darren did not, in fact, send the message, or that he sent it to a completely wrong address. Beyond that, I don't know. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The email address is permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and the file name is File:Dare Band shot 2 HIGH RES.jpg. There are full instructions at VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Derivative Image Not Deleted
This is regarding your decision here. Honestly, I think it's risible that you concluded that there was "no valid reason for deletion" when the drawing is obvious copywashing by making a derivative work from a copyrighted piece. The very same user, User:Little maquisart, has had multiple uploaded images of theirs successfully deleted for being derivative drawings of copyrighted works. See here, here, here, and here. They also have many more nominated for deletion and awaiting review (through Commons' glacial pace). This is a serial copyviolator. It's absurd that you don't recognize it—especially in light of the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith decision. -- Veggies (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Obviously it is a subjective decision and I think we have to leave it there. I saw so little resemblance between the two that I don't think the two images are of the same person -- you say they are, but I see only what I see. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Review requested as it's now after 2018 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
That's probably appropriate, but this is the wrong place to ask. Make an Undeletion Request, making it clear that while the file is not deleted, you want to use the earlier version with the illustrations. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, @Jameslwoodward: , can you please check this file, just like File:Adriana Caselotti photo.jpg and File:CFerrell.jpg, it was also published by Disney who mostly copyright them, and the source material here is unreliable, if it breaks the Wikipedia Commons rules, can you deleted please? Nuturi (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Policy does not allow me to simply delete an image unless it is an obvious copyright violation, which this is not. If you think it is a problem, nominate it for deletion and let the community decide. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio
@Jameslwoodward Jim, I found this copyright violation. File:Flag of SAARC.png is derived from en:File:SAARC Logo.svg. Rather than transferring the PNG to the English Wikipedia, it would be better to put the existing SVG of the logo on a white background. The existence of the flag is confirmed via [7]https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/int-saar.html. 24.12.3.153 00:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you want here. I see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of SAARC.png. The DR must run its course -- at least a week. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward Make an SVG of the SAARC flag for en:SAARC using the existing SVG logo on the English Wikipedia. Note that the flag image will be used under a claim of fair use and therefore uploaded locally to English Wikipedia. The flag is just the logo on a white background. 24.12.3.153 19:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
You don't need to ping me on my own talk page. I still don't know what you want of me -- I don't make SVGs. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Henry Moore sculptures in the United States.
At the moment, I'm trying to figure out if I would need to take any action on the files in Category:Draped Reclining Figure - Henry Moore (LH 336, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden) which pertains to w:Draped Reclining Figure, 1952–53 sculpture that is at the w:Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden in Washington, D.C. Moore was a British sculptor who died in 1986 and both Wikipedia and https://www.artchive.com/artwork/draped-reclining-figure-1952-53-by-henry-moore/ mention that this was cast in an edition of four. There's no FOP for sculpture in the US and so I'm trying to find out if the US copy should be considered a British work (and therefore still under copyright) or an American one that fell out of copyright. Any advice or assistance would be welcome. Abzeronow (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Frustrating. Usually, SIRIS (https://siris-artinventories.si.edu) is a good source of detailed information, including information on the foundry for cast sculptures, but there is no detail there even though the work is owned by the Smithsonian. Artchive, which you cite above, implies that the four were cast at the same time in the UK, so I think we have to go with that. That makes it a UK work, and still under copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's definitely frustrating that the US is only country that has one of the copies that doesn't have Freedom of Panorama for 3D artwork. I filed a DR, and may have to file other DRs in the future on Moore's sculptures here in the United States. Abzeronow (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Paintings by Allan Ramsay
Hi @Jameslwoodward, please, can you explain the deletion of the page for Allan Ramsay's paintings list? I saw that you deleted it per encyclopedic content. Honestly, the truth is I don't understand that decision very well since other authors such as Titian, Rubens, Rembrandt or van Gogh have similar pages and they aren't deleted: [8][9][10][11]. In fact, Ramsay has a considerable number of pictures on his list, and I even based on Titian's list to create Ramsay's. If you don't mind too much, and if u know of any other more appropriate way to include a list for Ramsay's pictures, I would be interested to know so as to avoid making mistakes again. I hope u can help me with this. Best regards and thanks for your help. Stv26 (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Commons galleries are for galleries -- that is, collections that are only images, perhaps with a brief caption on each -- and not for encyclopedic content. The pages you created and those you cite above are encyclopedic and belong on Wikipedia, not Commons. See for example, List of works by Titian.
- I recognize that this may not be settled policy here, so I encourage you to post an Undeletion Request to see what our colleagues think. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi James. Thank you very much for your very quickly reply, which I just saw.
- Actually, I think you're right in your explanation, so I'd better be more careful and avoid creating new similar lists, especially without being sure first. However, regarding to Ramsay's list already created, I think that, to be sure, I'd better follow your advice and ask to Commons:UNDR to see what they think there.
- Thanks again for your help. Best regards! ;-) Stv26 (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Jameslwoodward. I took the picture and I confirm that is free from any license and can be used. What I can do to have it restored? Thanks Aneta Mlcakova (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
First, please note that using more than one account here is a serious violation of Commons rules. I have blocked your Aneta Mlcakova account. You may continue to use the Niccolo59 account.
In order for the image to be restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
The one who originally wanted to speedy delete the file found that "I have identified the source of the photograph, it is photo 5 on page 26 of https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Harrow001.pdf#page=26 The author of the document is Lt-Col G.R.S. Wilson, Royal Engineers; there is no separate credit for the photograph. The document is Crown Copyright Reserved, published 1953 by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.". If it was PD-UKGov, URAA would not apply. Abzeronow (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Fixed, thank you. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Would this file relating to a modification (mod) of the video game Grand Theft Auto IV be in Commons scope? Abzeronow (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
With the very little information present in the file and no useful categories, I would think not. It's been here for seven years, unused, and is the only action by its uploader. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey Jim, what was your reasoning for closing this discussion for delete? SilverStar54 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
In the DR, you said, "Under that law, all works owned by legal persons were protected 50 years from publication, applied retroactively. That means that this photograph became public domain in China on January 1st, 2000." In turn, that means that the image became PD well after the URAA date. While we had a transition period in dealing with the URAA, it is clear that now we treat URAA copyrights like any others and it is apparent that this image will have a US copyright until sometime about 2045. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The images from the Portal for the Disclosure of Candidacies and Electoral Accounts
Please see the discussion about the images you sent for deletion from the Portal for the Disclosure of Candidacies and Electoral Accounts Emerson Júnior GSF (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Emerson Júnior GSF . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Deletion request due to privacy matters (GDPR)
Hey Jim, what's your reasoning for not having deleted this photo when requested in 2021? I'm the person appearing in the photo and I want it deleted for privacy matters, based on GDPR, there's no reason as to why this file shouldn't be deleted.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Helloimrafa.jpg Unbrandstudio (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Helloimrafa.jpg. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Deletion request File:Matapour.png
Here i am contemplating to revert this edit. It is your edit. And i belive it is the right thing to do. This edit lay as a premiss for the ongoing Deletion request.
Could you look at the proposition? Andrez1 (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I see that you are Norwegian -- or at least speak the language like a native. If you can cite Norwegian law -- either statute or case law -- that makes it clear that images taken by automatic cameras have a copyright in Norway, then by all means remove the tag. However, as far as I know in most countries that have addressed the issue, the conclusion is that there can be no copyright from an automatic camera because there is no creativity. If Norway has not addressed the issue, I think it is a fair assumption that when you do, the conclusion will be as it is elsewhere. So if you can not show that a copyright exists, please leave the tag. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- Your action mentioned above (and here again is done in connection with your previous decision to keep the image here. It seems like you are closing an argument (the previous deletion request) with a claim - "Kept: no valid reason for deletion - Taken by a surveillance camera and therefore has no copyright" - and supporting or acting on your own descision by changing the images license from "PD-NorwayGov" to "PD-ineligible|Surveillance camera - has no copyright".
- That solution induced a new problem, the ongoing deletion request. The claim that the image is "Taken by a surveillance camera and therefore has no copyright" is wholly yours and it is you who are expected to substanciate that claim. I do not have to refute it.
- It overuns the claim from the uploader of the image, that this image is PD due to it beeing published by the Norwegian Police. This action is an act of, and in the capasity of, public authority. The police's competence to publish GDPR-restricted material this way regulated by law. My understanding of this spesific exercise of public autority is that the police in this matter is acting within the frame of law.
- The assumption that there are some hidden holders of copyright to the cctv-material that could pop up anytime and claim their share of the fame. Are not substanciated in the discussion. The ongoing or the former deletion request.
- Assumptions on what Norway may or may not do is not is likewise hypothetical. I am not aware of laws regulating this as a copyright-issue on cctv-material. The Norwegian law "Åndsverksloven" (here is what regulates what is a "åndsverk", (literally "work of spirit"), work of art. Google translate may be helpful in a translation of the law.
- The §23 in the law mentioned above states:
- - § 23.Eneretten til fotografiske bilder
- - Den som lager et fotografisk bilde, har enerett til å fremstille eksemplar av det, enten det skjer ved fotografering, trykk, tegning eller på annen måte, og gjøre det tilgjengelig for allmennheten. Med fotografisk bilde menes bilde som er frembrakt ved bruk av kamera eller ved annen teknikk som kan likestilles med fotografering.
- It can be argued that the laws "Den" (Who) - who makes an photographic image - will have the sole right to make copies. The "Den" (who) can hardly bee intepreted as the thing (the cctv-thing) who records. If the owner of such a thing can claim copyright for what the thing produces. Interesting.
- But not relevant as the law's § 14, "work of art without copyright protection" is what the license "PD-NorwayGov" is based on.
- - § 14.Åndsverk som ikke har opphavsrettslig vern
- - Lover, forskrifter, rettsavgjørelser og andre vedtak av offentlig myndighet er uten vern etter denne loven. Det samme gjelder forslag, utredninger, uttalelser og lignende som gjelder offentlig myndighetsutøvelse, og er avgitt av offentlig myndighet, offentlig oppnevnt råd eller utvalg, eller utgitt av det offentlige. Tilsvarende er offisielle oversettelser av slike tekster uten vern etter denne loven.
- - Åndsverk som ikke er skapt særskilt til bruk i dokumenter som nevnt i første ledd, og som det siteres fra eller som gjengis i særskilt vedlegg, omfattes ikke av denne bestemmelsen. Første ledd gjelder heller ikke lyrikk, musikkverk eller kunstverk.
- I prefer to name the File:Matapour.png a document. And its existence and license are based on public authorities, in that capasity, are performing their duty and lawfully handing out what otherwise be GDPR-restricted material.
- This document by that fall within "work of art without copyright protection". Which is what is what the license "PD-NorwayGov" is based on.
- I intend to set the document back to that. It would solve the problem. Your comment on that is wanted. Andrez1 (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Jim, I understand that some small files without EXIF data may be suspicious in the DR, but File:Agartala town Hall-version.jpg is in high resolution with EXIF, so I don't see the issue. Idem for File:Srirampur Bridge.jpg, File:RKMkailashaharArts.jpg, File:RKMkailashaharscience.jpg, and File:KailashaharAirport.jpg. Did I miss anything? Yann (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Yann, I don't understand. At the subject DR you cited Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tojoroy20 where the uploader admits that he didn't take the pix. Your question above came later than that cite, which, I think, answers your question. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Bizarre keep of a definitely copyrighted image?
Commons:Deletion requests/File:FIFA Womens World Cup AU NZ (Wordmark).svg - you closed as no valid reason for deletion despite a literal copyright statement being linked, and other similar wordmarks being deleted under COM:TOO even when not produced in the heavily-restrictive Australia. So, you know, might want to read again and not just nod fine at an unexplained "PD text" !vote. Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I have read the definitions section of the Australian Copyright Act and I do not see any basis on which a logo that is purely text can be copyrighted. In this regard, Australia did not follow the UK which has a special copyright for typography.
Also note that FIFA is headquartered in Switzerland, so it is probable that the country of origin is Switzerland, not Australia.
Also note that "wordmark" and the claims in the linked file apply to trademark, not copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- The font is a copyrighted graphic design, no? What else does that statement say. And the World Cup Organising Committee produced the media, not FIFA. Kingsif (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps you should take the time to read the 22 pages of definitions in the law. Also note that Australian copyright exists only in works created by a qualified person.
- "In this section, qualified person means an Australian citizen or a person resident in Australia." (section 32 (4))
There's no evidence that the creator was a qualified person. As I noted, FIFA is headquartered in Switzerland and the World Cup Organizing Committee is simply an arm of FIFA. It's very unlikely that FIFA uses local creative people for an event that happens every two years -- they either have such people of staff or hire Swiss creators. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, the World Cup Organising Committee is indeed a fresh group every tournament, as organisation is the host nation's responsibility. Source for confirmation on this tournament's organisation for you. (In Qatar it was called the Supreme Committee!) So now that's noted, we may not have a creator name but we have a copyright statement and since COM:PCP - there is no evidence that the creator was not a "qualified person", with a distinct likelihood that they were - is there a strong argument to keep? Kingsif (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Please do your homework. Your cite proves my point -- the CEO of the committee, David Beeche, is a New Zealander. I think we are safe on two different grounds -- there is no evidence in the Australian law that type faces can be copyrighted and we have no evidence that the creator of the type face was an Australian. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Look, I seek for reasons to keep a lot, but I hope we both know that 'reasons to keep' and 'reasons not to delete' have this gap between them that is precaution. There's been a copyright statement and we do not know the author. Even with assumptions that copyright can't legally apply and the author could be from a region with low TOO, those are assumptions. I think we're following the same thought process but from different angles, and I don't think we're safe on the same grounds you think we are. Yes, it's unlikely the organising committee or individual creator would come for Wikipedia if we err, but I also considered the typeface has a large marketing/branding purpose. Kingsif (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Again, there is no evidence in the law that typefaces have a copyright in Australia. The IOC is notorious for pushing its IP farther than the law allows -- a suit, which they lost, against a Greek restaurant in the US which called itself the Olympic comes to mind. Therefore I put no credence in their claim of a copyright in the typeface. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- FIFA isn't quite the IOC (and for the latter we could point to winning a lawsuit against the Games-formerly-known-as-the-Gay-Olympics), but if you still see no valid reason to be cautious then I don't see myself convincing you. I will say, you haven't convinced me that we shouldn't be cautious, and I am definitely open to that, but I imagine you don't want to continue. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think we have reached the end of useful discussion here -- feel free to open another DR, but please notify me as I will comment there, but will not close it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think another DR would be productive. Thank you for the discussion. Kingsif (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think we have reached the end of useful discussion here -- feel free to open another DR, but please notify me as I will comment there, but will not close it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- FIFA isn't quite the IOC (and for the latter we could point to winning a lawsuit against the Games-formerly-known-as-the-Gay-Olympics), but if you still see no valid reason to be cautious then I don't see myself convincing you. I will say, you haven't convinced me that we shouldn't be cautious, and I am definitely open to that, but I imagine you don't want to continue. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Again, there is no evidence in the law that typefaces have a copyright in Australia. The IOC is notorious for pushing its IP farther than the law allows -- a suit, which they lost, against a Greek restaurant in the US which called itself the Olympic comes to mind. Therefore I put no credence in their claim of a copyright in the typeface. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Look, I seek for reasons to keep a lot, but I hope we both know that 'reasons to keep' and 'reasons not to delete' have this gap between them that is precaution. There's been a copyright statement and we do not know the author. Even with assumptions that copyright can't legally apply and the author could be from a region with low TOO, those are assumptions. I think we're following the same thought process but from different angles, and I don't think we're safe on the same grounds you think we are. Yes, it's unlikely the organising committee or individual creator would come for Wikipedia if we err, but I also considered the typeface has a large marketing/branding purpose. Kingsif (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Please do your homework. Your cite proves my point -- the CEO of the committee, David Beeche, is a New Zealander. I think we are safe on two different grounds -- there is no evidence in the Australian law that type faces can be copyrighted and we have no evidence that the creator of the type face was an Australian. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
== Rev del of original upload of copyrighted work needed? ==
Please, see here: File:Charging Bull (28919670730).jpg. It was related to the DR you closed here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charging Bull (28919670730).jpg.
Also, you wrote that the file is "in use" in your closing. Where is the cropped version used? I don't see a link on the file. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
What's your point? I don't see any problem with the image. The bull is sufficiently obscured by the crowd that the images are not DWs. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
استرجاع صور محذوفة
أهلًا، لقد قمت بحذف الصور الموجودة هنا. جميع الصور الموجودة في هذا التصنيف هي صور خاصة بي، وأخي هو من صور هذه الصور، أرجو استعادة جميع الصور. تقبل تحياتي. سيف القوضي (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
There are two reasons that I deleted the images. The first is that you claimed that you were the actual photographer, but they did not look like selfies. As you say above, you were not the actual photographer, so the deletions were correct. Making false claims is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here.
The second reason is that Commons is not a web host for your personal images -- Commons is not Facebook. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
أول صورة رفعتها لي كانت من تصويري، لذا أرجو استرجاعها ولا مشكلة في حذف باقي الصور. تقبل تحياتي. سيف القوضي (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Seven Cross Flag
Sorry that I uploaded it again. I am new to Commons and was not aware. As I stated thats not the only source of that image. Please check all these sources -
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=647871188957601
http://thesyromalabarchurch.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html
https://www.facebook.com/nasranichurch/photos/the-syro-malabar-marthoma-nasrani-church-is-one-of-the-23-eastern-oriental-churc/1981915018535713/ Nasrani131 (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
The flag may appear in many places, but without a free license from its creator or a good reason why it is PD (usually age), we cannot keep it on Commons . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- If I create this flag on my computer based on these images, will it qualify as an original image? Nasrani131 (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- No. If you copy a copyrighted work, you have created a Derivative Work which may have its own copyright but it infringes on the copyright for the original. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Jim, sorry to overrule you there, but this is clearly covererd by German Freedom of panorama. Regards --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Freely licensed photograph of a 3D yarn artwork made by the wife of the photographer. Is there anything I should do about this? Abzeronow (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Hmm. There are two assumptions here -- first that Heather Brown is the wife of Matt Brown and second that she has authorized the images. Strictly speaking we should get a free license from her for the artwork, but I'd be inclined to let it go. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- This Evening Standard story says they are married: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/the-race-for-knitty-hall-the-london-mayor-candidates-in-wool-7657589.html I'd also prefer that we get a free license from her, but I'm not sure how likely that is. I suppose I could leave a message on the Flickr photograph page. Abzeronow (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say we have better things to do than worrying about whether a man has permission to post his wife's art here, but it's your call. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll leave it alone. Abzeronow (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Please restore the file. It has ticket permission, and the argument of the IP is entire nonsense. --Krd 12:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Krd, if the VRT ticket answers the questions raised in the DR, go ahead and restore it. Since I can;t see the VRT ticket, I'm uncomfortable with doing it myself. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you. Krd 08:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Would the Cheetah image in this logo be below the ToO in South Africa or would the cheetah image other be public domain? These kind of airplanes were first built in 1986. Abzeronow (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it is certainly above the ToO anywhere. Whether it is PD for another reason is anyone's guess, but that would have to be proven by the uploader. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thought so, but I just wanted to check. Started a DR. Abzeronow (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Hikmet Toker
Good evening Jameslwoodward I respect your sensitivity to protect Wikimedia. But I don't understand how you delete a photo right away when it is uploaded. Sometimes it takes a few days for the permission letter to be approved. I uploaded 2 more images for the Hikmet Toker page. Please restore the page. I want to include both images in the page. Permission letter for pictures is on the way. Thank you for your understanding.--Gemalmaz ileti 20:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Our experience is that fewer than half of letters which users claim to have sent to VRT actually result in an approval, so we delete images knowing that if the approval happens the image can easily be restored. Commons Admins have thousands of DRs and other requests in the backlog, so making things faster for us is a priority. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Good night James, I inform you that once again I will nominate the deletion request of this flag because there is no official document, not even at the tribal level, that the flag exists, as I commented in the February DR, tribal flags must have recognition from the respective congress. Since there is no document, the flag is simply false, illegal and can lead to a great misunderstanding.
Given that keeping that hoax flag in Commons can even generate a legal problem (as it does not exist in a document), I will nominate it again. The file is not used by any article, only in two subpages without encyclopedic use, so in the next few days I will do, and if necessary I will request it until it is deleted, to remove such illegality. Greetings. Taichi (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I have no problem with your nominating it again, although I think you very much overstate the case. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have been collaborating not only on Wikimedia Commons for almost 20 years, I'm also an administrator on several Wikimedia projects including Meta (in past years). I would kindly appreciate it if you would re-evaluate your misguided perceptions about my considerations in this case for the next interaction we have. Thank you. Taichi (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you want. When you last nominated the file for deletion, it was in use, so it could not be deleted except for copyright violation. Now I have said above that I have no problem with your nominating it again. I do have a problem with "can even generate a legal problem" and "simply false, illegal". I see no legal problem with hoax flags and the flag is certainly not illegal. This may be a language problem -- the word "illegal" implies that the poster could go to jail for posting it. That is the case only with child pornography and, in a few countries, Nazi material. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Jim, I think this file was taken from this Instagram post on November 1, 2022. HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- Good catch, thank you. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Bibliotheek Ommoord
I was planning to add a few other pics of this soon to be demolished library and add them to the gallery but since you deleted it without warning I won't bother. I'm tired now and will stop uploading and log oit. Feel free to delete more or place some warnings on my talk page. Someone Not Awful (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Someone Not Awful, if you leave a gallery page with only one image on it, it will be deleted. To avoid that, add {{Underconstruction}}, removing it when you are done. I have restored the page. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Restoration
Hello, Jim!
Can you please restore Life in the 90s in Kosovo you recently deleted? It's about a photo campaign we're having on Tuesday (the Albanian community). Actually it needs to be created in the Campaign namespace I believe and I plan to move it and add in the translations but I wouldn't want to recreate the whole content from scratch. - Klein Muçi (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Done I learn something every day -- I didn't know there was a Campaign: namespace. I tried to move to to that space, but couldn't, so I leave it to you. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, it's my bad. I meant to write "the Commons namespace" (where campaign pages usually are located) but got confused. Thank you for the restoration! I'll deal with it soon.
— Klein Muçi (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
copyright
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunset_Mish_Mash_II.webm the music used is this video, "starfire by Jason Marsh" is under copyright. starfire was hosted on wikimedia with a verified PD tag years ago when this was made. Starfire as since been removed from wiki as it is actually under copyright, living composer., so this video needs to be removed because it violates Jason Marsh's copyright.
i dont understand the wiki communication system. i will watch this post for a response. thanks. Paulisawoof (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Done
Most of us prefer to have all conversations in the same place, as I say above
Some, however, will answer a message on their talk page with a message on the other person's talk page, so you need to pay attention to what is said at the top of the page. When in doubt, put it both places. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC) . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
accidentally calling your closure into question
I recently nominated File:Monica Elfriede Witt in uniform.jpg for deletion, citing your closure of this deletion discussion. I took your closure as precedent in the nomination, but it's apparently not as cut-and-dried as I thought and instead I've led to your closing being questioned. I'm not an expert on the matter, just basing my understanding on previous decisions, and would definitely like a consensus on this; not asking your to come down one way or another, but would you mind looking in on the discussion? Cheers, Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Done See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monica Elfriede Witt in uniform.jpg. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Why did you delete my photo?
In 11 years of photographing people, I've owned a lot of cameras. I was lied to by your colleagues and you deleted the photos that I took myself. HTC HD2 T8585, HUAWEI U8950-1 — it`s my cameras, I have many photos from these cameras. I've uploaded some of these photos to Flickr, go take a look. We have entire photo sessions with artist Galina Vorobyova, artist Igor Barkhatkov and sculptor Andrei Zaspitsky. And these same cameras were used to take my personal photos, they are also on Flickr. Your colleagues are lying and you have done the executioner's job — you deleted my photos by mistake. https://www.flickr.com/photos/199607278@N04/
- File:Igor Barkhatkov Portrait of Anton Barkhatkov.jpg - HUAWEI U8950-1
- File:Andrey Zaspitski by Tatiana Markina 9.03.2015.jpg - HUAWEI U8950-1
- File:Galina Vorobyova IRISES August 2010 Minsk ArtGallery of Leonid Shchemelev 02.jpg - HTC HD2 T8585
--Tatiana Markina 22:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I found one of the images in a wide variety of places on the Web. It's very rare for a photographer to own both Nikon and Canon -- why own two sets of incompatible lenses when they have more or less equal capability. Even if you are actually the photographer, the fact that images appear on Flickr requires that their creator be proven by using VRT or otherwise, so they had to be deleted, at least until that is done. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- I had Nikon and Canon at different times. I sold both cameras and started using the camera in mobile phones. I am writing to you to ask you to look at my photo sessions with artists on Flickr. There I am also in all the photos. And the cameras I'm talking about are signed - HTC HD2 T8585 and - HUAWEI U8950-1. These artists are my friends and I photographed them. Cancel the deletion of these three photos. And see my photo with Igor Barkhatkov - HTC HD2 T8585
- File:Igor Barkhatkov Portrait of Anton Barkhatkov.jpg - HUAWEI U8950-1
- File:Andrey Zaspitski by Tatiana Markina 9.03.2015.jpg - HUAWEI U8950-1
- File:Galina Vorobyova IRISES August 2010 Minsk ArtGallery of Leonid Shchemelev 02.jpg - HTC HD2 T8585
- Tatiana Markina 23:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The first and third of these images (and the one to the right) infringe on the copyright for the painting(s) shown and cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the artists via VRT. The second image appears on Flickr and therefore cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the actual photographer. It would save your time and that of other Commons editors if you spent the time necessary to read and understand our rules, particularly our rules on licensing and derivative works. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- The actual photographer is me. In the photo with the artist Barkhatkov, a very small part of each painting is visible, and this image is of very low quality. I wrote to you so that you would protect my photos, but on the contrary, you want to delete another one. You are causing me psychological trauma. You are trying to ensure that I delete all my photos from Wikipedia and leave the project to which I have dedicated more than 10 years! You are an abuser! Tatiana Markina 22:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Again -- please read and understand the rules. We do not keep images of paintings without a free license from the artist. We do not keep images that have appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license without confirmation using VRT.
- Abusing those who are patient with you mistakes and your diatribes is a mistake. If I see one more word of abuse from you, I will block you from editing on Commons. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi. It looks like you forgot to delete the last file in the deletion request. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Done by KRD, thanks. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Jim, you closed this DR. Please reconsider the deletion of File:Brdbg Tor 091014.jpg in regard to my rationale or add a statement to the DR closure why you see this differently. Thanks & regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I added "As noted, File:Brdbg Tor 091014.jpg is a copy of the Sistine Chapel work which never had a copyright. Copies of paintings have their own copyrights -- the only exception to this is exact photographic copies as with Bridgeman and not even that in many countries." . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
deletion template still on "kept" image
Hi Jim, thanks for closing Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:/mynewsdesk.com.se.atg/. However, 135 files are still listed on Category:Deletion requests July 2023. The "mass proces" to keep the files does not function it seems, I tried several times. Do you know the cause of this? Regards, Ellywa (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Ellywa, I know that after I use the mass process for a deleted, I always refresh the page to make sure that all were deleted. Often a few are not, but that's easy to see because they aren't red. On the keep side, I imagine the same bug happens, but you can't see it. I see that you fixed at least one -- did you do them all? Thank you. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, with deleting it easily seen. But with keep...I did succeed with some...many... with the automatic "mass keep", but 135 remained, still in de July category. You can look at my latest contributions to see how many were done. Ellywa (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Wow: it looks like you have done most of them. I just made a list of the ones that you didn't do -- and I will do them. I am committed elsewhere from now until Sunday night, so I will get to them Monday. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jim. Ellywa (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Turns out Krd did it yesterday. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jim. Ellywa (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This appears to be a 1954 Indian photograph. The Flickr uploader apparently got it from the Smithsonian. Should I accept the CC-BY on this or should I file a DR based on this being public domain in India but not the US? Abzeronow (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
It is almost certainly post 1953 (the year Norgay summited Everest) and therefore was under copyright in India until at least 2003, well past the URAA date. Therefore it will have a US copyright until at least 1/1/2049 and cannot be kept on Commons. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, started a DR. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nehru visiting home of Tenzing Norgay, Darjeeling, 1954.jpg Abzeronow (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
  |
* Happy Holidays! * | |
|
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(1).jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=731511932#File:Louis_Barnett.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
File:RAUF CAVAD.jpg
I don't think it's right to delete "File:RAUF JAVAD.jpg!. Because this is a stifling of freedom of speech. Please, as the name suggests, allow free speech on the free wiki. Otherwise, the free wikipedia word you write is considered to have lost its meaning. Arif Hikmət türk (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Commons is not Facebook or social media. Photographs hosted here must have be useful for educational purposes. Anyway, we already have the photo and that version was uploaded after the other one. Abzeronow (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Speech here is limited to that which is useful for an educational purpose. As my colleague says above, Commons is not Facebook. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)