User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2017/June

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

FYI on {{Ping}}

Just FYI (I saw it anyway, so the ping didn't matter in the end), edits like Special:Diff/246339405/246339802 do not work as intended (though I wish they did). A ping only works when it is signed at the same time as a ping. I think re-signing with ~~~~ triggers the new ping to work again, but I'm not 100% sure. Storkk (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Storkk: Ok, thanks for the tip. FYI, I came to your user talk page due to a ping, and I came back to COM:ANU due to another ping, bringing what I had learned. It was not my intention to fork, but to respond to statements about me wherever they are.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

MediaAustralia

Just a FYI poke, MediaAustralia has uploaded more vio's. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: Thanks, I agree. I tagged two I could find and started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Auskar Surbakti interviews a child in the Indonesian province of West Sumatra.jpg. Note the uploader's draft autobiography on enwp.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Another question

Hey Jeff, I hope I'm not inundating you with too many questions. If you'd prefer I direct them elsewhere, please let me know. Anyway, I was wondering if you could help me figure out how to handle photo releases from corporate staff photographers. It's in their contracts that the rights to the photos they take belong to the company, but I'm not sure how to demonstrate that outside of showing the actual contract. Could you provide any insight? Thanks again.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@FacultiesIntact: A blanket statement on the corporate website of what types of work for hire contractually belong to the corporation would do very nicely for this purpose, but that might alienate potential employees.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Warning

Hi. Can you tell me what images I've uploaded violating the copyright rules? Thanks. NiloGlock (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@NiloGlock: Sure:
  — Jeff G. ツ 14:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Zamiatin WE.jpg

Dear Jeff G,

I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, so apologies if this is not the proper way to communicate. It looks like you and other editors tagged me in your discussion, but I don't know where to find that. If you can direct me to simple instructions on communication, I'd be grateful.

Anyway, I just reviewed your comments regarding File:Zamiatin WE.jpg at

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive

A few responses:

1. There is only one book pictured here. The black thing behind the book is a slipcase. 2. Zilboorg renewed the rights to his translation, which is not relevant here. The photograph is of the physical book, not of the text. Similarly, I think photographs of the covers Ernest Hemingway's early books are fine, reprinting a Hemingway story is not. 3. I think you're right that copyright to the image on the cover probably rested with the artist, or more likely the publisher. But the artist is uncredited, and the publisher surely failed to renew copyright on a book that lapsed out of print in 1924. 4. Later reprints had totally different cover art. 5. Although I think you were hasty here, I recognize the importance of your efforts to protect both the rights of copyright holders and the legal position of Wikimedia commons, and salute you for that.

Best regards,

Brad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverter (talk • contribs) 14:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline 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.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bverter: Brad, you wrote to me in the right place, but again neglected to sign your post. You were mentioned in a section which was soon archived, therefore it is not surprising you had trouble finding it. Copyright timing for both images and texts is the same in the US. It seems that copyright registration and renewal at the US Copyright Office was for the entire English First Edition, including the cover. @Revent: , your thoughts and links for the registration and renewal, please?   — Jeff G. ツ 15:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jeff, Thank you for your help and your patience -- I'll get the hang of wikicommunications yet. Looks like one pings other folks this way: @NAME: so let me try bringing in another person who voiced concerns,@Revent: ... I've actually just written to Special Collections at Syracuse University, which holds the Dutton Archives, to see if there is any information there. If the renewed copyright in 1959 was by the translator, then the 1924 cover image is certainly not covered under that copyright. This is what the 1959 edition looks like: https://art220typography.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/we.jpg I am impressed with Revent's research on copyright renewal. Is it possible to see whether any other copyrights for Zamiatin or We were renewed in 1959 besides Zilboorg's translation. If there are no records -- and I expect there aren't -- then this should be public domain. Proof here is determined by the absence of copyright rather than the presence of a statement of a work being in the public domain, no? Many thanks for your consideration. --Bverter (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. @Ruthven: @Revent: Forgot to mention that if including the slipcase in the picture is a source of confusion -- I meant it only to offset the book to make it stand out -- I can take another picture without the slipcase. I should note also that my picture was intended to replace the crummy picture that used to illustrate articles on the author and the book: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/08/We_first_ed_dust_jacket.jpg/220px-We_first_ed_dust_jacket.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/We_first_edition_1924.jpg Noting that these lousy shots passed copyright hurdles in the past, one renders a public service by offering better photographs. --Bverter (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bverter: Searching for registrations for 'specific' books is not particularly difficult as long as you have the correct year, title, and author.... it's when things get vague that it can get difficult (works of art, for example, are hard because it's rare that you know the formal 'name', and you can't actually see the works that were registered). The old (pre 70s) registrations are not indexed online, though.... you have to look at scans of the printed catalogs.
Book renewals are in an online index (at https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals) but it's hard to check definitively without knowing the registration number.... searching for "Zamiatin" as a contributor, however, only gives the one renewal in 1952.
Just to be clear, it's rather likely that the cover artwork is in fact in the public domain; it's just that we have no way of knowing at the point, and what evidence we have goes toward making it 'possible' that it is not (many works from that time period were simply not copyrighted, either because of the expense of doing so or a perception that piracy was unlikely). If Syracuse has any more specific information about actual publication of the first edition it might help, and perhaps be useful info for the enwiki article.
As far as current cover image having 'passed copyright hurdles', however, it's worth pointing out that the dust jacket is under fair use on enwiki, not a PD claim. - Reventtalk 18:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bverter and Revent: Thank you both. I have seen Stanford's record of R101210, used that to justify deletion of en:File:We first edition 1924.jpg on copyright grounds, and restored en:File:We first ed dust jacket.jpg to en:We (novel). Which file would the image in File:Zamiatin WE.jpg improve?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The image in File:Zamiatin WE.jpg improves the picture you restored, en:File:We first ed dust jacket.jpg, which is a blurry partial version of the same image. --Bverter (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bverter: Thank you. Would you then be willing to upload a new version of en:File:We first ed dust jacket.jpg using your existing photo, a new photo, or a high resolution scan of your dust jacket?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I just tried but it bounced because the system recognized it as a file that had been rejected already. I'll take another picture later this week and try again. --Bverter ([[User talk:Bverter|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}--Bverter (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)}]]) 02:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bverter: On the other hand, "If the image is copyrighted and used under fair use, the uploaded image must be as low-resolution as possible consistent with its fair-use rationale, to prevent use of Wikipedia's copy as a substitute for the original work" per en:Wikipedia:Image use policy#Uploaded image size.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I am confused. I thought you encouraged me to resubmit the picture, then I was tagged for copyright violation. Why? --Bverter (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bverter: Not here, on English Wikipedia or any other project with an EDP until after 1924+95=2019. Further attempts to upload it here will have harsh consequences.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

So can you explain why last week you wrote: "@Bverter: Thank you. Would you then be willing to upload a new version of en:File:We first ed dust jacket.jpg using your existing photo, a new photo, or a high resolution scan of your dust jacket? — Jeff G. ツ 02:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)"? How did you go from asking me to resubmit to threatening "harsh consequences"?--Bverter (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bverter: I meant for you to overwrite en:File:We first ed dust jacket.jpg with a sharper version using the "Upload a new version of this file" link.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Look again at your note: you request an "existing photo, A NEW PHOTO, or a high resolution scan." I go with the middle option and as a consequence am threatened with "harsh consequences." What am I not getting here? --Bverter (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bverter: My concern with your latest upload here was not with what you uploaded, but where. Please overwrite en:File:We first ed dust jacket.jpg as per my previous post. Also, please don't ping me on this page.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Special:Diff/248430293

Hi Jeff. Where did you get this information (user Panyd) from? --Leyo 10:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Leyo: I got that info from the ticket and documented it (per established practice as documented in Template:PermissionOTRS/doc, on the OTRS Noticeboard, and in many file histories) and crosschecked with otrswiki. According to Special:Diff/61051704, that info should have been publicly available in the history of the predecessor file from 2009 to 2011, I don't have access to it (or, strangely, any logs of the predecessor file) now. I was unaware of any problem with such practice, and I'm sorry if I inadvertently stumbled into something I shouldn't have touched. If this is best discussed further in private, I can be reached via email or otrswiki, and this section can be revdelled.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I just thought this might possibly have been a replacement error when batch fixing the files in Category:Pages using PermissionOTRS template with incorrect parameter. --Leyo 14:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Leyo: Thanks for asking. I take usernames in PermissionOTRS template user parameters seriously, unlike those users who put in full sigs, unnamed parameters, years, months, and days.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

improved template

Please stop adding your template to images you just cropped or added similar minor modifications - these do not qualify for additional attribution as implied by the template. I suggest you remove them from all images not requiring additional attribution. At least it should not be prominently displayed above the license template as this may actually lead to wrong attributions. --Denniss (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Denniss: All these images I have cropped today and on 13 May are in the Public Domain. Attribution is not required, it is merely requested. For files licensed with any CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license, I contend that my crop uploads are derivative works with the same license already on the page, and that therefore attribution should extend to me, as well.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Mere cropping does not qualify for attribution, do not invent something on your own. Requesting/requiring this is close to a license violation. --Denniss (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Denniss: Exactly which text in which section of the legal code of which license would be violated?   — Jeff G. ツ 15:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Simply cropping a file generally crates no new copyrights (below the threshold of originality), adding the template in question might be copyfraud. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding Category:Photos improved by User:Jeff G., please remove the template from simply crops. No new copyrights have been created, thus no need to attribute the PD files to you. Not considered as a "work of authorship". --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
+1 I also find the attribution request for trivial edits to be in extremely poor taste. Please stop and undo them. It makes about as much sense to add such template to an article after fixing a typo on Wikipedia. —Quibik (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Denniss, Steinsplitter, and Quibik: I have noincluded the visible portion of that template in this edit, it still adds the cat.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeff_G./Archives/2017/June&oldid=250352156"