User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive 2024

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page archive.

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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

File:Coat of Arms of Danilovsky district.jpeg

You have keept this file (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of Danilovsky district.jpeg). As a reason: "no valid reason for deletion - widely used". However, I have given the reason — This is just a PROJECT, it isn'a an official symbol => it isn't PD-RU-exempt. Widely used cannot be the reason for keept because this is not free.— Redboston 19:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Closing an RfdeA

Dear Jameslwoodward,

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kallerna (de-adminship 2) has ended now since 01:43, 15 January 2024.

To prevent more votes after scheduled time the nomination is probably worth a protection and an archive.

Thanks for your attention. Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

OK It seems the rules are different from there, so no rush. Have a good day! -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, if I counted correctly there was only 19 remove votes and not 20. (one was striked) --Zache (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Right you are, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

The last two votes were posted after the scheduled time. Not that it changed anything, but IMO that should be corrected. Yann (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

As you say, it doesn't change anything, but I'm not sure you are correct. Although there is no guidance on this for de-adminships, the guide for admin votes says, "Bureaucrats may, at their discretion, extend the period of an RfA if they feel that it will be helpful in better determining community consensus." Although this case more inattention than intended on the part of the crats, it still seems clear that votes made after the deadline can and should be counted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Closure in Undeletion requests

Hi, Jameslwoodward/Archive 2024. You wrote here "Below the ToO and also past the copyright period" (which apparently, correct me if I'm wrong, are reasons for the file not to be beleted) but yet you closed the request as not done, and the file remained... deleted. Was this an oversight or I'm missing something? Strakhov (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Good catch, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Recovery of formation impact image

sent via talk to you link by Cresterest:

The following is a follow up question to a now closed undeletion request:

Ca (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The deleted photo is not a photo of a crashed airplane / airplane crash site. Thuresson(talk) 16:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photo depicts four airplanes flying together in a tight formation. Abzeronow (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, can you describe the “tight formation,” i.e. was it line-abrest? Can you somehow show me the deleted formation image? Also you may be more experienced on Wikipedia than I— I can’t find the edit where the formation crash ground scar I was trying to replace with my errant undeletion request was lost from this article. I would like to place that image to the same location where it was lost from. Maybe it was because of a now-dead link? Cresterest (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the image at https://www.pinterest.com/pin/320811173426378057/

This is the only image that has been removed from the WP:EN article 1982 Thunderbirds Indian Springs Diamond Crash. You can see that by examining the history for that article for April 2018 (click on View History near the top of the page). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you James. This is an Air Force Public domain image. It was used as an Air Force recruiting billboard displayed inside NY Grand Central Station in the late ‘70s and on an fold-out Air Show handout for attendees—-public domain.

this is a Diamond formation, which is the subject of the wikipedia article we are discusding and the photo that was substituted for the deleted one has five aircraft instead of four in a non-diamond formation, so the deleted photo is more appropriate. The aircraft had transitioned from a diamond formation to line-abreast to perform the maneuver that resulted in an accident.

Thank you for confirming that the cite impact scarf photo was not part of the original article. I have to study how to try to add that to this article as an enhancement edit. Cresterest (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it is likely that it is {{PD-USAF}} -- the photographer is very likely an Air Force professional photographer as this image would be difficult for anyone else to take. However, "likely" does not suffice here. Neither of these uses:

"It was used as an Air Force recruiting billboard displayed inside NY Grand Central Station in the late ‘70s and on an fold-out Air Show handout for attendees"

make it a public domain image unless the photographer was, in fact, an Air Force person either military or civilian. It is up to you to prove that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, question on the airplane drawings.

When I restored the licenses to some of those drawings, I restored the last stable license. I didn't know until today that GFDL was also originally there but removed by the uploader in 2023. Should I restore the GFDL license as well or should I just leave things as is? Also learned new things from reading en:Wikipedia talk:Revocation of our licensing is not permitted Abzeronow (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The GFDL was originally created for software and while it can be used for other text as well, it is not suited to images because it requires that the full text of the license be included with the use. That's easy enough if you're distributing a megabyte of software but impossible for print use of an image -- where do you put 3700 words of license in print? Therefore I think it adds nothing to the licensing of a Commons image file. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'm content to leave things with those as they are now. Thanks. Abzeronow (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ayuda en UDR (Undeletion Request)

@Jameslwoodward:Buenas, por favor en el COM:UDEL (en la parte "File:Logo Alcaldía Municipio Blvno Angostura (2021-2025).jpg") esta foto debería ser restaurada (support) o no restaurar (oppose)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

There are good arguments on both sides. The truth probably lies in subtleties of language that may not be well handled by Google Translate, so I will leave it to those who read Spanish. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Robert T. deGavre

Not sure these should have been refused undeletion.

If his father in law took the pictures, he inherited the copyright and can license them. That was the only thing missing originally, was what license he wanted on them. If they were taken by other people on his camera, then copies were distributed to him without restriction meaning publication without notice and they are PD. I think it would be safer to just assume an heirs copyright ownership and let him license them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It's possible in this case that they weren't revealed to the public until after 1989. The uploader seems to have inherited them in the 1990s, and these might have only been published when they were put online. Abzeronow (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I would simply ask the uploader what license they want to give. Apparently that was missing. If you think the photographer being someone else matters though, that means he had prints, and handing out prints to friends most likely constituted U.S. publication at the time. I would indeed simply assume a copyright, but assume the uploader has the rights to license them. Which they seemed prepared to do, but the conversation never got there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Carl, Abzeronow, it is my understanding that deGavre, the father in law, is the subject, not the photographer. The photographer is unknown. I also understand that part of the claim was that it was deGavre's camera, but as we know, that is irrelevant. As for handing out prints, we were told that the images were slides, not negatives. While you could have had prints made from slides, if that happened at all, it would have been after he returned home. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like he was the photographer on some of them, and the subject of others. Slides, prints, whatever -- copies got given out, in the possession of someone else, without restrictions. I'm sure that was after returning home, but that would still have been before 1989 (or 1978). Before 1978, ownership of copyright would be cloudier -- daGarve would have owned the negatives. Not sure the real photographers had much way to claim copyright, if copies were not given out -- that is either ownership by deGarve, or maybe abandonment, or publishing without notice. Not sure any of the actual photographers have a way of proving ownership anyways, and if deGarve participated in some of the copyrightable decisions, he could be a co-owner of copyright too. Deletion in this situation I think is beyond extreme; there are theoretical doubts (as always) but I can't really find a significant doubt. I would err on the side that deGarve owns the copyrights and the heirs should license them. If someone else claims copyright and brings forth further information we could deal with it then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Carl, I'm surprised at your reasoning, which strikes me as a violation of PCP. The two images at issue are both of deGarve himself. We are told that he brought the slides home from Korea and they went in a box which ended up with his step-son, who made the UnDR. There is no claim that they were shared with anyone else. And, again, there were no negatives -- these are slides, which could not have been made into prints in Korea. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not that. Korea has nothing to do with it. It sounds like they were taken with deGarve's own camera. If deGarve had them developed and never gave them out, he very well could own copyright (or his heirs, rather). This is before 1978. No other photographer could prove ownership -- just like asking a passerby to take a photo of you with your camera. If someone else got them developed and gave deGarve slides, that is publication right then, presumably without notice, same as with prints. I would tend to assume deGarve actually does own copyright, and needs a free license from the heirs. If anyone else owns copyright you'd have to explain how deGarve got copies (and slides are copies) without it being publication. Like passerby photos, it's best to just assume the subject does own the copyright and ask for a license. I think that's all we needed to explain to the uploader, to ask which license they wanted to use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning -- I thought that several years ago we firmly and finally established that in the case of a passer-by taking your picture with your camera, that the passer-by owns the copyright and the fact that it is your camera is irrelevant. If you Google, "who owns copyright when someone takes a photo with your camera", you will get a uniform series of responses confirming this, including:

https://www.copyright.gov/engage/photographers/. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If someone borrows your camera to do their own photography, of course. When it comes to a passerby who can't ever prove ownership, I would disagree -- that is different. Secondly, if someone takes a photo with your camera but with your involvement (i.e. choosing angles etc.), then that person can be a co-author. I thought that had been settled years ago. If he asked for a photo of himself, it's arguable deGarve was at least a co-author. It's not necessarily who presses the shutter, but who makes the decision on what to photograph, angle, framing, etc. I don't think it's worth getting into the weeds and technicalities in situations like this -- it may be too much to assume PD status but I would assume good faith and let the heirs give a license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Viresh Borkar.jpg

Hi Jim. User:Rejoy2003 has uploaded File:Viresh Borkar.jpg, which is a duplicate of the deleted File:Shri-Viresh-Borkar.jpg (confirmation[1]). You deleted the original file following Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shri-Viresh-Borkar.jpg. The copyright policy of the source website[2] has not resolved the issue, and has the phrase "subject to the material being reproduced accurately". Will you delete the file, or should I raise a deletion request? The file page uses User:Ravensfire/Goa-Govt – should this be revised or deleted? Verbcatcher (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete

@Jameslwoodward Please delete image File:Keratuan Darah Putih dalam Aksara Lampung.png, because of an error in the script and I will update it Daeng Hanif (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Krd chose not to delete it. I suggest you ask them to do this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Simultaneous publication

Hi. Regarding your closing statement in this discussion. Simultaneous publication (defined specifically as within 30 days) in two or more Berne signatory countries triggers special rules about what country is to be considered the country of origin for the purposes of determining copyright protection (see COM:L). In practice, this means that works published simultaneously in the UK and the US (the most common case were I run across this) are considered US works for copyright purposes and thus for Commons policy purposes it only needs to be public domain in the US. That 30-day limit is pretty darn specific (bright-line legislation), which was why I emphasised that there was no positive evidence that publication happened within that window (although I still think the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for a risk-based assessment under COM:PRP in this case). But, anyways, simultaneous UK/US publication is at least as common as missing or defective notices and failure to renew copyright for books and other written works (which is what I mainly see coming from English Wikisource). Xover (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The question of simultaneous publication is irrelevant. COM:L states that a work is acceptable in Commons if it is PD in both the country of origin and the USA. It also says, "The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." [emphasis added]. In a case such as this, where the book was written in the UK with the subject matter being entirely UK people, it seems to me clear that the country of origin is clearly the UK despite the fact that it may have actually been published in the US within thirty days of UK publication. Even granting that copyright rules are sometimes illogical, this seems to me to be very clear. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In the specific case in that deletion discussion there is doubt about whether it was published in the US within 30 days or not, so for this specific book it's a subjective assessment whether it meets PRP or not.

But in the general case, if a book was published simultaneously in the UK and the US the rules in Berne for determining the country of origin come into play. That's why COM:L says "generally" (this is one major exception) and has COM:L#cite_note-1 to clarify. This is directly from the Berne convention Art. 5 (4) (a): (4) The country of origin shall be considered to be: (a) …; in the case of works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection;. The distinction here is that while bibliographically (and common sensically) speaking it is a UK work, in copyright terms its country of origin is the US. I'll grant you this is the sort of stuff that only makes sense to lawyers, but then that does tend to describe most of copyright law. Xover (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Your analysis doesn't go far enough. You are correct that in copyright terms it is a US work if published within 30 days in the US and UK. However, the Commons language is not clear. I take it to mean that for Commons purposes the country of origin is the logical one -- that is where it was written or where the principal offices of the publisher are. It is unfortunate that COM:L uses the same words as Berne but they don't necessarily mean the same thing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not an accident that COM:L uses the term "country of origin"; it's specifically because that's the term Berne uses. I know it's non-intuitive, and it took me a long time to figure out how all the moving pieces fit together here, cf. COM:VPC#Source country vs simultaneous publication. Xover (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, COM:L is explicit: In cases where a work is simultaneously published in multiple countries, the "country of origin" is the country which grants the shortest term of copyright protection, per the Berne Convention. There's no ambiguity there, it's just a non-intuitive effect of the laws, and an edge case for Commons' licensing policy (which is why it's in a footnote modifying the general statement, rather than just being put into that paragraph directly). The only very likely applicability of this is going to be books, and possibly some other written material like magazines, as those are the only kinds of media likely to have been simultaneously published like this. And it will only apply to works that are public domain in the US to begin with (otherwise it wouldn't be a US work under Berne Art. 5 (4) (a)). Xover (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Mention

I mentioned you at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Are all images on Government of India-owned websites subject to the Government Open Data License (GODL) related to something you brought up at User_talk:Ravensfire#User:Ravensfire/Goa-Govt. Hopefully can get some consensus around that phrasing, and if it's not allowed, there are multiple other templates and images that will need to be deleted. Ravensfire (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)