User talk:Rlandmann

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


Tip: Categorizing images

[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Rlandmann!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:A7-1.jpg

[edit]
File:A7-1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

russavia (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bleriot III.jpg

[edit]
File:Bleriot III.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Jcb (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Breguet 17.jpg

[edit]
العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Breguet 17.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Breguet 17.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Castillo blanco (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Breguet 5.jpg

[edit]
العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Breguet 5.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Breguet 5.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Castillo blanco (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Breguet 17.jpg

[edit]
File:Breguet 17.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Fæ (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Breguet 5.jpg

[edit]
File:Breguet 5.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Fæ (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lorna Jane activewear 4.jpg

[edit]
File:Lorna Jane activewear 4.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Pr12402 (talk) 08:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for creating chaos

[edit]

I really want to congratulate you for starting the process to disrupt hundreds of weather-related Wikipedia articles, the entire WikiProject of Weather, and somehow manage to overturn a precedent that has existed for over a decade. Keep up the amazing work protecting copyright, since it is a vital thing to do on the Commons and on Wikipedia! But, I hope you understand when I say, I really (really) hope we never meet again in a deletion request, given our history now. Cheers! WeatherWriter (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to contradict that entire statement there. @Rlandmann didn’t create the chaos; and in fact, I applaud them for discovering this major and egregious copyright issue with the template. I understand that you @WeatherWriter are extremely passionate about what you believe in when it comes to this issue; I used to agree with you and I used to be in the exact same position. And with that; I am going to caution you that you really need to stop ranting about it. We can’t change the law. And I really wish you’d take back that statement above because it could potentially be considered a personal attack (I know this because I was accused multiple times of personal attacks for making similar statements and almost got blocked over it). WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I also want to clarify that @WeatherWriter didn’t create the chaos either. If anything all of us are equally responsible. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted a (nice) warning to @WeatherWriter talk page about it. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If indeed dozens to hundreds of photographs have been improperly labeled as public domain—as seems pretty conclusively the case—why blame someone who noticed the issue, instead of those who created and perpetuated a sprawling licensing template based on a single office's one-time photo competition disclaimer? I am very grateful to Rlandmann for leading the charge on this Gordian Knot of licensing issues now, when the amount of images in play is still manageable and the harm to photographers' copyrights is lesser than if we had to go through this in five years' time. Penitentes (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what I thought too. Now you see why I put a notice on their talk page. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But see; WeatherWriter doesn’t seem to think that way. They still believe that everything on NWS servers is PD and they’re very w:WP:STUBBORN about it. So in their mind; @Rlandmann here completely upended their world (even though the clock was ticking for years on someone to discover it; and Rlandmann just happened to be the unlucky person to discover it and make WeatherWriter mad); if I had discovered the issue; I’d probably have a “congratulations for creating chaos” message on my talk page right now. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WestVirginiaWX: I think of you as the most heroic of everyone who has participated in these discussions. It takes a heck of a lot of courage for a person to come to the conclusion that they were wrong about something they believed in, when better evidence comes along. And it takes a truckload more courage to admit it publicly, as you have done. So congratulations -- the world needs a lot more people as brave as you in it! --Rlandmann (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Penitentes: for your kind words. It's certainly been a wild ride so far! I suspect I will have many reflections when I'm done. For now, I'm astonished by what I've been seeing as I traverse the images uploaded under {{PD-NWS}}:
  • groupthink: that one user, many years ago, could enshrine their personal, eccentric views on copyright in a template, and then 15 years later, have folks treat it as if it's been handed down on stone tablets. Admins have closed DRs based on the assertions made in this template without apparently pausing to question whether its claims were actually correct!
  • Streisand Effect: I'll admit that my curiosity about what the heck was going on with these images was fanned early on by the utter belligerence and hostility I encountered from some quarters when daring to question the validity of "holy writ". It got so bad that I couldn't bear to even visit the Commons for about 10 days at one point. But I'm grateful now that these grains of sand produced pearls, and if people hadn't been so unpleasant, I might not have got so curious about why they were acting so defensive and we might not have a fix underway.
  • Cassandra Effect: And the real tragedy that I've uncovered during my reviews is how some folks have been warning the people using this template for over a year that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I remember seeing you and @Red-tailed hawk: providing particularly clear and sound advice, and basically being ignored until we got where we are now.
  • And this one: When facts surfaced in a few DRs that illustrated that the reasoning behind the PD-NWS template was obvious nonsense, these cases got treated as weird exceptions to the rule, instead of warning signs that the whole chain of reasoning was wrong and built on rotten assumptions. I'm sure there's a formal name for whatever this logical fallacy is, but I can't think of it. It reminds me of the efforts to construct ever-weirder epicyclic models to try and match observations of the planets with the "truth" of a geocentric universe, instead of the obvious conclusion that no, the observations are fine, it's the geocentric model that was wrong...
Right now, I'm thinking of this as a multi-month effort. Out of 200 images reviewed so far, just over half are obviously fine; about a quarter are obviously not, and another quarter will need another pass for a closer look. In the end, I expect we will lose ~500 images, give or take. This is very far from the "sky is falling!" predictions I've been hearing!
I absolutely did not "create chaos", but I do mean to end it. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As always, templates are not law. If we find cases where the statement on the template is incorrect, or is at least inapplicable to a particular case, then we should deal with it via DR. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I (politely) told @Runningonbrains, the creator of the template; about the discussion. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's also a good idea to check weather-images tagged with {{PD-USGov}} as some users may not be aware of the {{PD-NWS}} template. For example, a query for {{PD-USGov}} files containing "NWS" alone returns 493 results. Hope that doesn't keep you too occupied. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi -- Thanks! Yes, I've been exploring a few other search options. I've just finished a sweep of *everything* linking to weather.gov (2200 files...) and a bunch of noaa.gov subdomains. (another 1400) -- there are of course lots of overlaps with the original tag-based searches.
It's definitely chaos out there! I appreciate your input around these as well! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your assessments

[edit]

I have taken a step back and have assessed the arguments you have made. Logically, I do believe images on NWS websites are PD. Off-wikipedia, I am an actual severe weather researcher, so off-Wikipedia/Wikimedia, I will still be continuing to use them, as I have for years. Heck, someone even praised me on X for adding their image from an NWS site onto Wikipedia.

That said, I think most of the images (except a few which I have and will !vote delete or neutral along with you), I will probably still !vote “Keep” under the NWS general disclaimer. That said, I foresee a lot of precautionary principle deletions, rather than “copyright violation” deletions. I think that is the step which will occur the most. I am honestly satisfied with those deletions as well. The few speedy deletions on copyright violations were already reassessed by administrators and overturned, which is what I care about. In the more recent deletion requests, you have not stated “copyright violations” and have been going more after precautionary principle deletions. I appreciate you for doing that.

Wikimedia has rules and I do appreciate you for following them. My comment earlier about “creating chaos” hasn’t come true. I do expect it to when a couple of the famous tornado images are deleted. For instance, the 1974 Xenia tornado photograph, had that been deleted, that probably would have been noticed fairly quickly, given the pages which use it as the image (i.e. the top photograph / embed photograph) gain upwards of 100,000 views every month. My “creating chaos” comment isn’t like “Panic mode!”, but rather someone eventually will bring it up either on here, EN-Wiki, or social media (X or Reddit probably). Basically, any of those “famous” photographs need to be really carefully assessed, since those discussions will probably end up on social media’s microscope at some point. Also to note, there is only around a dozen-ish images which would be in this category. You will probably know which ones they are based on how many news organizations I cite. 1974 Xenia + 1965 Palm Sunday are the only two you have come across so far with deletion requests that are “famous” (per se).

With all that said, I do appreciate your assessments. I hope you don’t see me as the bad guy in this situation. I use to see you as one, but I no longer do. Your delete !votes along with my keep !votes will lead to precautionary principle deletions, rather than copyright violation deletions, which is what matters. Doing that upholds the integrity of the Wikimedia Commons rules & gives something to point back to.

Hopefully we can get along and I hope you accept my apology for making you seem like the bad guy, when you are just upholding Wikimedia’s guidelines. Cheers! WeatherWriter (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @WeatherWriter: -- this is a big-hearted and generous response, and I appreciate the gesture.
The background I'm bringing to this is two years of law school (where Contract was my favourite class!) plus 15+ years of publishing software and manuals in the Open-Source Software world where understanding and correctly applying free licences is business-critical.
TBH, if I had to lay bets, I would say that most of the images where I say we don't know the copyright or licencing status are actually (technically) under copyright (and there are a few I have listed which I think are probably not; basically the vintage newspaper photos, just because US copyright was so finnicky pre-1989, but that finnickyness itself produces significant doubt). The little exercise I started to walk you through re: the hypothetical weatherwriter.com was/is intended to help explain the legal reasoning and logic behind that conclusion. I'm happy to keep walking you through that if you're interested; but maybe there's a better page for that than inside a DR. :)
At the same time, if someone shared a cloud photo with the NWS 10 years ago, they are extremely unlikely to care (if they even remember) about someone else using it now, even if, technically, it's still under copyright. They might even be happy! (Just like your "X" example). They might not even understand that they own a copyright over it, because a lot of people still assume that copyright requires notices and registrations or formal publication in jurisdictions that it doesn't (and I even find that belief common here in Australia where it hasn't been the case for much much longer than in the US). ("Are you entitled to compensation? You might own copyrights you don't even know about! Dial 1800....")
Application of legal principles takes place within a context. Copyright clearances cost time and money. So if you or your employer are publishing your research for money, there's a commercial decision to make between "how sure am I that I'm free to use this, and how much is it going to cost to reduce that uncertainty?" versus "how likely is it that someone is going to object, and if they do, what's it likely to cost to defend and/or in compensation?"
The choice here on Commons is a simpler one, only because the threshold is higher. We quite specifically disallow "can we get away with it?" thinking, which is pragmatically necessary in many commercial settings!
And I also want you to know that in spite of the friction -- I do very much appreciate your input and even your opposition! In the open-source world, we say that "all bugs are shallow with enough eyes". I'm far from infallible, and an opposing view to help me spot things I've missed is truly valuable. It's also why most modern legal systems have an adversarial process with two sides arguing hard against each other to get to the truth in the middle.
There's a lot more to say, but this is long enough. But know that I appreciate you, and most especially this message. --Rlandmann (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-DAT

[edit]

I’m putting this as a separate talk page section since it is different than the topics above. You may come across damage photos from the NOAA Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT). There is a separate template for it ({{PD-DAT}}), but I think only 2022-2024 tornado damage photos have been fully switched to it. It helps separate some of the NOAA severe storm (tornado and wind) damage photos. NOAA wasn’t mandated to use it until 2013 (i.e. in use 2013-present), but a couple pre-2013 tornadoes are listed there (mostly from 2011). I’ll try to go back through and re-template some of the ones you have already come across. For example, File:BlanchardScouring2011.JPG, is a DAT image. If you see any image source URLS that are apps.DAT.noaa.gov (website base URL) or services.dat.noaa.gov (exact image URLs), then you can use the DAT template, rather than some NWS-based template. Cheers! WeatherWriter (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thank you! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was bold and cleaned up the reasoning in the template a little, and linked in the relevant legislation. If you have objections, please feel free to revert so we can discuss, but I think (hope!) these are uncontroversial changes. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good! WeatherWriter (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

[edit]

If you see an unfamiliar username start commenting on future discussions. I am in the process of changing my username from WestVirginiaWX to Hurricane Clyde. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Hey there Rlandmann, it's Sir MemeGod from en.wiki. While I will be honest that the deletion discussions have pent my frustration up a teensy bit, I understand that you are doing the right thing, and I just wanted to thank you for that. It's not often that (in the real world or not) that I see someone dedicated to exposing flaws of things, especially when they go out of their way to do good, so thank you, and have a great rest of your fall (Then again you're in the southern hemisphere so It might be... spring?)! :D Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 14:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat odd request

[edit]

I’m making my request here because I’m trying to do this as under the radar as I can. There has been a troll that has been sock puppeting and impersonating and otherwise disrupting my talk page (on several wikis) and have made disruptive comments on at least one other page. It got too bad on the Simple English Wikipedia (which I don’t even regularly edit); that they had to semi-protect my talk page. And it’s gotten so bad that I’ve even had to get a steward involved. They have been doing this under both IPs and registered users.

Given the pattern; I’m a little concerned about the possibility that said troll might try to vandalize my main EnWiki user page. So if you can; can you please put extended confirmed protection on my main user page (NOT the talk page; just the actual user page) on the (regular) English Wikipedia and set the expiration date at least six months from now. Please? Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason why I’m asking here and not on the English Wikipedia is because I think said troll is watching what I’m saying and I don’t want to encourage that troll to in fact make the steps to vandalize my user page. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reaching out with this; that kind of protection isn't something we'd normally do pre-emptively, but now that you've brought it to my attention, I've added your en User page and User talk page to my watchlist. If trouble starts, I will take protective action, and if you don't see me do that quickly enough, please reply here so I see it. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify by just asking about images

[edit]

One of the reasons that you say that the images from the weather project may be protected by copyright is because the person who toke the photo did not specify whether they were willing to publish it in public domain. However, some of these photos come off social media.(i.e. the EF2 Latham tornado, which you just brought for discussion) If they came off social media, wouldn’t it make sense to just ask them ourselves, instead of speculating? That would save us the trouble of possibly losing photos that the photographer had no problem releasing into public domain. ChessEric (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! With any of these images, anyone can reach out to the rights holder and ask them whether they are willing to release it into the public domain. Technically, the onus is on the uploader or the person who would like to keep the file to get that clearance.
That said, as I've been working through these images, I've been trying to identify the actual photographer, and then handling things this way:
  • for images where the photographer is an individual and weather.gov is the only known place where the image has been published, I've been contacting them to ask if they still own the copyright to the image and then if they do, whether they'd be willing to release it. A log of folks I've reached out to is here and I expect to have made a second pass of all PD-NWS tagged images within the next 24 hours or so.
  • for images where the photo has been published elsewhere (especially with an explicit copyright notice and especially by a business or a person trying to make some income from their photo), I've taken it straight to deletion. It's not fair that we've been treating other people's property this way (unintentionally, sure, but we've still been doing it).
The other thing to keep in mind is that if a photo is deleted while you're waiting to hear back from someone, their permission that they're willing to release the photo into the PD (or that they already did) can be used to un-delete it.
If you do reach out to Frame, make sure to note it in the DR. If he *is* willing to surrender his rights to the photo, he can email his consent, or use this online tool.
Finally, note that the version of the image that Frame sells via SmugMug is much, much higher res than the one we're hosting, so if he is willing to release it, we should upgrade the one we're hosting. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lincoln, NE EF3 tornado.jpg

[edit]

Would this link https://www.btimesonline.com/articles/166398/20240522/tornado-kills-multiple-people-devastates-small-iowa-town-of-greenfield.htm that User:WeatherWriter shared on the above deletion discussion potentially be enough to preclude PRP deletion? Please post your opinion on the deletion request and not here. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please remember to categorize NWS-related DRs so that we can easily find them. Tried to ping you twice in the edit summaries but it wouldn’t do it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you review an image for me please?

[edit]

One of my first images I published was this one: File:Wayne County, WV tornado damage - April 2, 2024.jpg; I’d like you to review it and make sure it is actually a damage survey photo; and if it isn’t, go ahead and nominate it for deletion, because I have no reason to think it was taken by an employee unless it was a DAT photo (I can’t find it under DAT and there have been a number of third party pictures showing up on the NWS page for the April 2nd tornado outbreak). Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have suspicions that it wasn’t taken by an employee. That’s why I’m asking you to review who actually took the picture. It’s currently tagged under the new PD-UsGov-NWS-employee tag. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have since updated the tag until someone can review the picture. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hurricane Clyde; I had previously cleared this as being strongly probable (beyond, to my mind, significant doubt) to be part of an NWS damage assessment. I did note that a local EMA had "assisted" with the assessment, but I didn't think they necessarily took the photo. I had not considered that if it was missing from the DAT, it suggests that it might not be an NWS image.
Is there anything else that makes you suspect this is a third-party image that might help my review? --Rlandmann (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that images on the current webpage (which no longer features the image) have third party attribution. This particular image when it was on the webpage wasn’t attributed to anyone. Normally I don’t suspect anything when the local EMA assists; but I never found anything on the DAT, which leads me to think that it wasn’t taken by the survey team; and might not have even been taken by the EMA or fire department assisting the survey team. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m also tagging most of the other non-obvious NWS images in that category. If it isn’t on the DAT; it likely isn’t PD. If you do DR those; notify me; because it’s going to notify User:Snowmanonahoe, because he uploaded it to complete a Files for Upload request I made back before WestVirginiaWX; let alone Hurricane Clyde existed. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add any images you'd like me to look at in the "Damage photos not in DAT" section here and I'll get to them! --Rlandmann (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: -- I'd appreciate your expertise here too. How strong is the expectation that all NWS/NOAA damage survey images make their way into DAT? What kind of conclusions is it reasonable to draw if we can't locate them in there? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I’m not WeatherWriter but I’m going to put my two cents in anyway. If it were my opinion; unless there is some other clear reason why it would still be PD; I think if it isn’t in DAT, and it doesn’t obviously look like an employee-produced photo. It should be nominated for deletion under precautionary principle. Whether or not all some damage survey photos don’t make it to DAT is irrelevant because even if that were the case; the NWS hosts so many non-free stuff and mixes it in that we can’t really tell what’s PD vs not. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least from 2013 to present, it is a mandate that NWS use the DAT with respect to tornadic damage, straight-line wind damage, and microburst damage. Basically, wind damage. With the DAT being a fluid database, images can be added and removed without notifications to the public. DAT images can also be any quality, from 5-star Featured Pictures (File:Low-end EF3 damage to a home in Virginia Beach, Virginia.jpg - an actual Picture of the Day on the Commons) all the way to extremely poor quality (File:EF2 damage near Ripley, Mississippi.jpg comes to mind]]). Also, several NWS offices have drones (some taking airplane rides pre-drone era for violent and/or long-track tornadoes). Actually, part of the w:TORNADO Act in the U.S. congress would give every NWS office their own drone for damage surveys. Anyway, back on track with the question. At least with respect with wind-related damage (tornadoes, straight-line wind, thunderstorm wind, microbursts, ect...) NWS is required to do one of two things: (1) Add damage points or (2) add a line. Photos aren't required to be added, only "points" (with or without photos) or a track-line/track polygon (to show where X damage occurred...photos aren't required). However, it is extremely rare for offices to not add them. Even Alaska and California offices use the DAT, and they almost never have to use it (lack of tornadoes being the reason). Like I said though, it is "fluid" (always changing). That policy only requires it to be on the DAT, not necessarily "published" on the DAT. It can be stored without being in the public view (like in an "editing"-style phase), but it still has to be on the DAT, at least post w:2013 Moore tornado-era, which is what caused the DAT to become mandated. WeatherWriter (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still though; I want to emphasize that if it isn’t on DAT; unless it’s obviously NWS-produced; PRP should apply. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Referring specifically to the Wayne County image that triggered this discussion. Many of the images were attributed to someone by the name of Randall Lewis. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comprehensive answer! Can you please check my summary?
  1. We have a bunch of images of post-2013 wind damage published on weather.gov that are unattributed and otherwise unremarkably similar to the types of damage survey photos that NWS/NOAA takes (and a lot of other agencies do too)
  2. There is a legislative mandate that damage photos be loaded into the DAT
  3. Not all photos in the DAT are (or have to be) publicly visible
Do I understand this correctly? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read from @WeatherWriter answer. That would appear to be the case. Although I want to point out that I have never known of a third party image making its way to DAT. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don’t see anything about the TORNADO Act actually passing and being signed into law. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it could be a policy mandate. I don’t know. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen that either, which is why for me, "in the DAT"=instant keep.
But it's a stretch to go from there to "not in the DAT"="not an NWS image". I'm just not far how big a stretch, hence my questions to someone who knows far more about it than me. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d say if it’s not in the DAT it should be scrutinized heavily.
if it doesn’t appear to be an obvious employee produced image; especially if it doesn’t have attribution; or third party attribution, then that in my opinion should equal DR. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that’s based on existing precedent that we seem to have already established here within the past few weeks. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly inch closer towards the PRP threshold if it isn’t on DAT. Especially if third party attributions are mixed in. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion (and I am by NO means a lawyer); but it is better to delete something under the precautionary principle and later find out that it is in fact a free file (because you can always request undeletion) than it is to keep hosting an unfree file and get a bunch of legal problems out of it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Rlandmann said is mostly correct. It isn’t “legislative” in terms of Congress, but rather in the NWS directives (couple thousand page documents). I learned the DAT processes on my IRL jobs. Also, the TORNADO Act isn’t a law yet. I only mentioned it because aerial images can be on the DAT (not that the image which started this discussion was taken from the air). Most of the central plains offices (like tornado alley offices) have drones they use. Offices in like Oregon don’t have drones. If the Tornado Act became a law, all offices, regardless of location, would be given a drone. That is all I was mentioning with the Tornado Act side-talk bit. But yeah, post 2013 Moore tornado, the DAT became a requirement for NWS offices. They change stuff on the DAT all the time. Actually, really recently, the w:2024 Elkhorn–Blair tornado was changed from an EF3 to an EF4 (w:2024 Elkhorn–Blair tornado#Post-analysis upgrade). Briefly, the whole tornado track was removed from the DAT while the upgraded points were changed. Some points are also removed entirely (like File:Error EF5 Damage Point for Keota, Iowa EF4 tornado on March 31, 2023.jpg) if they were placed as an error (true entire point error or location error). Some offices place the point where the photo was taken vs on the structure the photo was for. Some offices are also bad about placing very few points or photos. But yeah, y’all got the main idea of the DAT and process of it. NWS offices are just required to use it, especially for tornadic damage. WeatherWriter (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complete P.S. statement, if you want to see the absolute best of the best on the DAT, put in the dates “May 19, 2013” for the start and “May 21, 2013” for the end. Then check out Moore, Oklahoma. That survey is by far the best of the best. Every-single structure damage or destroyed by the tornado (thousands of them) have a point on them. Another great set on the DAT is the December 10-11, 2021 outbreak (including the w:2021 Western Kentucky tornado…a 165-mile long tornado). WeatherWriter (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for another amazingly generous reply; and I am curious now to explore the PS :) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infrogmation allegation

[edit]

Good day. I note at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Niles_Park_Plaza_1985_tornado.jpg you wrote "The closing admin admitted that the last DR had been improperly closed by counting !votes instead of applying copyright law and Commons policy." I think that is an inaccurate summary of the situation. Please see my reply at [1]. Please read as well Commons:Assume good faith. If your primary issue was repoening that deletion request, I suggest saying something on my talk page like "I think that listing should be reopened because (so and so factors) weren't considered" would have gotten it done much quicker and with less verbiage by both of us. If your issue is that you think Infrogmation is a terrible no-good very bad admin, I suggest you bring it up on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. If your issue is improving the distressing backlog of deletion requests, I'll be happy to share suggestions of tasks non-admins can do that can help hugely (eg, reverse image searches, checking sources, checking archived versions of sources, and putting results on the deletion discussion). Otherwise let's both get back to assumption of good faith and work together to improve Commons. Your colleague, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Infrogmation; I'm sorry that I spoke too harshly. I'll comment further in the DR itself, but please know that I'm certainly not saying you're a bad admin. I think this was improperly closed if it was closed just on counting !votes, and at the same time, we're all human and all make mistakes, and we're all volunteers here! Please don't take my comment to mean anything more general than referring to one specific decision out of the very many thousands you have made here over the years. --Rlandmann (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for your positive reply. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template info added

[edit]

Hey Rlandmann. I added some more information to the {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}} template. I did my best to format it, but please reformat it if there is a better way. I also added information regarding the w:Monthly Weather Review (MWR). Wikisource had a copyright discussion regarding it (wikisource:Wikisource:Copyright discussions#Monthly Weather Review), so I did my best to add that information. Short summary of MWR, created and published solely by the USWB/NWS until 1973, when it was given to the w:American Meteorological Society. Starting in 1974, AMS published it. However, as found on Wikipedia, it was published without a copyright notice until January 1976. So pre-1976 is confirmed public domain. I added that info as it is published currently on a website that has a copyright notice at the bottom, but was originally published entirely by the U.S. government. You can see the very first issue of MWR on Wikisource even at Wikisource:Monthly Weather Review/Volume 1/Issue 1. Cheers! WeatherWriter (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I have no issue with the content, it's comprehensively and abundantly clear, and very nicely researched, especially regarding the MWR.
My only question is that with so much detail presented up-front, a lot of clarity is sacrificed, and I wonder if the detail is best ported to the template documentation.
As it stands, the template is bigger than the images it's presented with. I can't think of any other licensing template I've seen that has this level of detail and complexity; it might be worth getting broader input at the Village Pump? (Another way of looking at it might be... if we need to front-load this much detail into a template, then maybe it should be a family of templates? Or a parameterized template that displays only the relevant sections?) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, {{PD-CAGov}}, {{PD-FLGov}}, and {{PD-MAGov}} are all larger than the current PD-NWS-employee template. Honestly, I think it may be best to do some dropdowns, like those templates have, as you are right, the template is larger than the photos it would be with. Village Pump might be also a good idea. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very true; I just haven't ever expanded all their subsections!
So drop-downs might be an easy way to condense that detail, and honestly, if the clarity issue can be addressed that way, then it's definitely better to keep that info with the image than to spin it out to the documentation. Do you want to have a go at implementing the drop downs? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that having the license tag be selectable (and require selection of) as to the specific situation that applies is ideal compared to having a very long license tag. The issue is where to move the information provided to - it doesn't look like Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States would be a good place because that's just a list of templates... perhaps a subpage of the template itself? I'm also not sure if there's a standard way that this is done on Commons - I'd envision it being possible through a module (similar to w:Template:ATC navboxes that I created using modules on enwiki to decode parameters into navbox templates and wrap them), but is there already a standardized module that is used on Commons for this sort of thing? Berchanhimez (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, the navbox template dropdowns aren't that good to use. I just made one part of the template a clickable dropdown (the sub-branches of the NWS). That helped cut down the template size a good amount. Also just a P.S. Berchanhimez, those navboxes do not show whatsoever on mobile. That is why they aren't used for anything besides bottom of EN-Wiki articles for the 5-6 people who use them. EN-Wiki actually tells editors to not make them for anything else, due to the fact mobile versions cannot view them. At least, that it what I was told when I started thinking about making them back in 2022. Maybe that bug was patched? Not sure though, but I thought you should know that. WeatherWriter (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sub-branch part works really well, and is really the part that added the most "noise". I like your approach here.
Moving the warnings to a drop-down might have broken something? (I'm seeing "empty" fields) but more generally, I'm more hesitant about hiding those. I'd be more inclined to hide all the different places NWS employees' work might show up if we/you can think of a tody way to summarize that above a fuller drop-down? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check again. I think you refreshed it in the like 5 minute period I had broken it. It should be fixed now, at least no empty fields/error messages. Format can always be changed though or we can just take the warnings out of a dropdown if you think that would be better. WeatherWriter (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha -- yeah, working now as expected. I'm still iffy about hiding those, but it's not a deal-breaker for me, and something we can always smooth out later, like you say. I'm happy for those to stay as you've placed them. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

[edit]

Hello, can I mark Template:PD-NWS for i18n? Or is the template expected to be updated in some time? —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matrix -- it will be completely overhauled soon, now that the RfC is closed. This was only ever an interim solution. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ansel Adams

[edit]

Hi, You wrote on VPC that Ansel Adams has over 250 copyright registrations. Could you please tell me how you found these? I am specially interested about the ones mentioned in Category:Exhibition at M. H. De Young Memorial Museum. November 15, 1932–December 31, 1932. I could not find any copyright renewal in 1960 (28 years after the exhibition), so I presume that all these are in the public domain. What do you think? Yann (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann! That number came from the number of registrations and renewals in the Library of Congress copyright catalog: https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First -- and these are just the works registered or renewed since 1978. Stanford has another 6 books renewed earlier
Specific versions of three of the photos on the list you linked received posthumous registrations (just like what happened for "Moonrise"):
  • VA0000209058 / 1985-04-22
Title: The Golden Gate before the bridge, San Francisco, California : [no.] 1-CAL-17. (1980 print)
  • VA0000209100 / 1985-03-26
Title: Frozen lake and cliffs, Sierra Nevada, California : [no.] 4-S-8. (1980 print)
  • VA0000636566 / 1994-02-18
Title: Nevada Fall, Rainbow, Yosemite National Park, California, 1946.
But see the doubt cast by Toohool in the discussion on VP/C about the legitimacy of these.
Other miscellaneous notes:
  • "Cottonwood Trunks Yosemite Valley" -- the detailed dating and provenance at Sotheby's makes me confident that the version they reproduced (if not all versions) was never protected by copyright and I believe should be "no notice"
  • "Boards and Thistles" was published on page 8 of Adams' book Making a Photograph, which was first published in London and New York in 1935. The first printings of this book did not carry a copyright notice. (The fourth printing in 1948 did, but of course it was too late by then!)
    • this print auctioned by Sotheby's is dated September 1932 and appears considerably different from other copies online, including the one we're hosting, even to my untrained eye.
  • "Factory Building" appears in the same book, page 72
  • "Portrait of Gottardo Piazzoni (1932)" appears in the same book, page 86
  • "Golden Gate (before the Bridge)" is cited to the same book, plate 12, but I haven't seen this myself yet
  • "Nevada Fall, Yosemite Valley" -- assuming it's this early work (he appears to have photographed this place a few times), I see that Adams himself was selling postcards of this print in the 1930s or 1940s. The backs of two such cards are shown in this Southeby's auction without copyright notices, suggesting further investigation in this direction might confirm that this one didn't either.
  • "Pine Cone and Eucalyptus Leaves" was also available as a postcard from Adams himself in the 1970s, and definitely without a copyright notice.
  • "(Frozen) Lakes and Cliffs, Sierra Nevada" -- taken in 1932 (not 1927), and was published in Sierra Nevada: The John Muir Trail in 1938. I haven't found all the front matter of this book, but it looks to me it was published without a copyright notice.
  • "Portrait of Annette Rosenshine (1932)" -- I haven't been able to learn anything about its early publication history
  • "Portrait of Domenico Brecia" -- ditto
I hope this is is useful, or at least interesting! --Rlandmann (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! And "Golden Gate (before the Bridge)" is actually plate 11, page 65 of Making a Photograph! --Rlandmann (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatroller

[edit]

Hi, I just saw that you are not yet Autopatroller, so I gave you the right. Thanks for your contributions. Yann (talk) 08:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks --Rlandmann (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check a few photos for me?

[edit]

I’ve been working on some the non-free tornado photos over on EN-Wiki. I’ve come across/uploaded three photos which might actually be free photos that I wanted to run past you prior to transferring to the Commons. w:File:Photograph of the 2019 Havana tornado.png and w:File:Photo of the 2024 Winchester tornado.png were both from security cameras and w:File:Photograph of the 1976 Brownwood tornado.jpeg was directly from a 1976 newspaper, which I do not know if it’s copyright stuff was up to date. Would love to hear your input on those three photos on if they would be cleared for the Commons. WeatherWriter (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! In my opinion, the two security camera images are ineligible for copyright as fully automated. That said, I have seen someone recently argue for deletion of an automated image from the US because while this reasoning has been generally accepted on the Commons (backed up by legal opinion), the copyright status of such images has yet to be tested in a US court. I'll see if I can find that DR and its outcome (if any).
The Brownwood tornado photo is public domain, though. The newspaper it was published in did not have a copyright notice, and also does not appear in the Catalog of Copyright Entries for that year. I've uploaded a higher-res version of the whole image as the paper ran it here: File:1976 Brownwood tornado.png. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request

[edit]

Please either ping me or leave me a talk page message whenever you nominate an NWS image of the April 2, 2024 tornado outbreak/derecho for deletion. It’ll say that Snowmanonahoe created it; but I was the one who submitted the FFU before registering; so he was acting on my behalf. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem @Hurricane Clyde -- I just added File:National Weather Service April 2 tornado outbreak 16.png as well. I'm pretty confident that's all of the ones that are problematic. I don't know why I missed this one. I think I got it confused with the other Boyd county EMA drone image from the same page. But I double-checked with their Director, who confirmed the own both of them --Rlandmann (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image number 3 might be another one that you missed. Areal image: credited to the South Charleston Fire Department and the Kanawha County Emergency Management. Assuming it hasn’t already been cleared. Tagged with an NWS employee tag. Should probably be revisited? Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading that one and interpreting it at the time as an NWS image created with a drone they had borrowed from the South Charleston Fire Department (they only thank the FD for letting the NWS use the drone, not for supplying the image). But it's probably worth asking the question. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is possible too; but it definitely wouldn’t hurt to ask… just to make sure. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed the WFO. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rlandmann&oldid=956310469"