User talk:Jameslwoodward

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

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

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

I like to keep discussions in one place, so:

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


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

Adil Raja's Images[edit]

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

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

John Morgan Image[edit]

Hello Jim,

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

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

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

Please find attached, a link to the image.


Best Regards,

Mac Edmunds,

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

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

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

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

File:Kusama at Tate Modern 2012[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Friendship Building deletion - all photos?[edit]

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

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

This DR[edit]

Dear Jim,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source Own work
Author Pennylewis

when it should read

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

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

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

Deletion requests/File:S garvezys1.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

BCS license & copyright[edit]

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

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

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

Hello Jim,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commons:Deletion requests/One Piece graphics[edit]

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

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

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

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

These Deletion Requests[edit]

Dear Admin Jim,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Posankka.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

Pregunta[edit]

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

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

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

PD-Venezuela and older works[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward&oldid=875270832"