User talk:Dcoetzee/Archive 2009-04-16

US Copyright of Public Place Statues

File:Thinker Philadelphia.jpg is a statue by Auguste Rodin, on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia, PA. The Rodin Museum was built in 1927, so the 1923 rule does not apply. I am told by a staff member of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, which manages the museum and grounds, that permission from some agency in France is required for use of photos of The Thinker, which is outside the building, or otheether or not statues are located in public places. This is a strict rule because it is compelled by law. I don't know enough about the specific case of The Thinker, particularly because it involves two different countries; I advise you to post your responses in the original thread where other people can comment. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cartes

Thanks for answer me Dcoetzee, I believe also the cartes must be in .svg format, but how can I became this file in a vectorial image?
Thank you very much!
best regards
--Mel ^Parlez 00:55, 14 rgMarch 2009 (UTC)

And how can I rename a file?, because the correct name of the file isn't Suisse italiene, it 's Suisse italienne, I was wrong when I uploaded the file .

To rename a file you uploaded, upload the file under the new name and mark the old one with {{Badname}}. Converting a PNG to SVG is complicated and requires some expertise; if you don't know how to do it, you might make a request at Commons:Graphic Lab. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks friend, ahd I have another question, which software is the best for to make maps? And how can I learn to draw them?

best regards=)!--Mel ^Parlez 12:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wenceslas Hollar

That guy really seems to have spent some time at his work ;-) Thanks... AnonMoos (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed he did, over the length of his lifetime. :-) I'm very thankful to him and to the University of Toronto for their scanning efforts. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hollar Holbeins

Many thanks for this treasure trove of Hollars. The other day I added Hollar's engravings of Holbeins to the Hans Holbein the Younger category (this shows on my contributions), but for some reason they aren't in that category any more. It took me some time to go through them, so I am disappointed. I think they should definitely be in the Holbein category as they are very significant. In itself, an engraving of an existing painting is not significant, but it happens that some of these engravings are of Holbeins that no longer exist, and so they are important documents for Holbein students. I don't know how it happened or if your tool can reverse this. Cheers.qp10qp (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Qp10qp - I had a bot automatically update the descriptions of all the images after they were uploaded, and it accidentally killed your edits. I'm now going through the "related changes" of the category and re-adding all such changes, so they should be back soon. Thanks for the heads up, and I'm glad you're enjoying the images! Dcoetzee (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And done. Let me know if I missed anything. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks.

Something I wanted to ask you: I was going to add the date of File:Wenceslas Hollar - Bearded man (State 1).jpg and the other two states, but when I open the edit box, the date perameter is not accessible. I know that the date of this piece is 1647, which I found in Parker when I was putting up File:Man with a beard, by Hans Holbein the Younger.jpg today to complement the Hollar versions. (As you are finding out, I'm a Holbein obsessive!) So, in short, how does one add a specific date to these Hollar files? qp10qp (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Qp10qp. The date is an optional parameter (if unspecified, it just gives the date of birth and death of Hollar). You can add it by adding a line that says "|date=1652" or whatever inside the template invocation. I ran across a few more works after Holbein as well and added them to his category. Hope this helps! Dcoetzee (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Holbeins and almost Holbeins

BEAUTIFUL new Kratzer. You are getting to be my favourite Commopedian! One note of caution, though, a lot of the pictures in the galleries are copies, not original Holbeins, and this is one such (the original is in the Louvre). I'll qualify the image description. How does your tool work? (I'm engaged in trying to accumulate files of all Holbeins and decent Holbein copies for Commons, and it's not always easy.) Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you're quite right, it does say "after" Hans Holbein the Younger on the NPG page. I'll describe my tool to you in an e-mail, and I'll also go ahead and cat all the new Holbein portraits for your convenience. :-) Below is a gallery of them. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Wow, amazing! You're my hero. Of these, only Butts and the last are Holbeins. The rest are mostly after Holbein, with a couple after non-Holbeins once thought to be Holbeins. Please don't think there is less value to the derivatives, because each one is crucial in Holbein scholarship, for various reasons. By the way, one can't always believe what museums say about their own paintings, as they, understandably, err on the generous side when attributing. Fortunately, there are some red hot Holbein scholars about who tell it like it is. qp10qp (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's excellent! Sir William Butts does not currently have an image, and to have an authentic Holbein to illustrate him is an enormous improvement. :-) Please feel free to mark the others with regard to their derivative status, I don't mind. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, the NPG website says the Butts portrait is an early copy - but regardless it's very useful. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right: like a fool I was talking off the top of my head; the More isn't either. Ha ha. better check the lady. qp10qp (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

H ha ha, not her either!!!!!! This will teach me. qp10qp (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We do have the original Butts, but it is a terrible reproduction. Mostly these pictures were taken directly from Holbein's drawings, so they are absolutely valid as illustrations of the historical figure. I actually put the copy of Jane Seymour in the article ahead of the original, for example, because it was brighter. qp10qp (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, it will be great fun for me to look into the exact origins of these pictures and beef up the image descriptions. qp10qp (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New Holbeins

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		I, Qp10qp, hereby award this barnstar to colleague Dcoetzee for services to the dissemination of Hans Holbein the Younger's art on the net. qp10qp (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU! This is really like Christmas for me. I can't wait to start filling in the image descriptions, etc. It may take me some time, so please don't delete the earlier versions till I've copied the info over. The ones I copied from the site should go, but where the same drawing comes from somewhere else (a scan, or whatever), I think they should stay, as they often have interesting (extraordinary really) differences in colour. This really makes such a difference to the quality of the pictures we have! Thanks again.

Glad to help. :-) I wish you luck with your project! Dcoetzee (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

file:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington by Robert Home cropped.jpg

Copyrights are reserved by © National Portrait Gallery, London 2009 as you can see at source page. It is a better pic with higher resolution but with copyrights even if cropped. --Seha bs (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. We do not respect the National Portrait Gallery, London's claim of copyright over these reproductions, and this is the official position of the WMF and the Commons community. I've uploaded over 3000 images from this source and would not have done so without being quite sure that this was permitted. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • See Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#According_to_these_guidelines.2C_all_National_Portrait_Gallery_images_must_be_deleted_from_the_Commons --Seha bs (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like "legal breaking of laws" :) Remove the tags. Best regards --Seha bs (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, this was a relatively recent change. :-) A year ago these images were forbidden but they're okay now. Thank you for discussing the problem. Could I ask you to remove the deletion nominations yourself? It might raise undue suspicion if I do so. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I tought you are admin here so you can close the request. I gonna remove them. --Seha bs (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Image descriptions

I've just done the first one, File:Elizabeth, Lady Audley (1) by Hans Holbein the Younger.jpg, after deframing the three with frames. But I need to check with you that the bot won't override these. Also, what message would you like on there about your upload? Obviously your original upload statement is still in the File History bit down lower, but can you suggest a standard wording to put at the bottom of the description parameter? For these Holbeins, I will put up precise dates etc., and since they are all very old, we probably don't need to put a disclaimer on PD. qp10qp (talk)

Cool, thanks for the deframings, didn't know you were an image editor. :-) That fully described image looks great too. My bot will not override anything in descriptions - for the Holbeins, I intend to use it only to fill in the source field with a direct link. You don't need to keep anything from my original description text, since its main purpose was to demonstrate that the portrait was in the public domain. However, we do need to keep the PD-Art around the PD-old, because the photographer has not given (and will not give) permission to use these works. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Boleyn, etc.

I saw the image you put up and took down at Anne Boleyn (I'm not following you around, honest, but I've got that watchlisted). So-called Boleyn portraits are a highly complex field, and the one you put up is certainly derived from the same earlier, lost original as the one it supplanted, but it is probabably even later, and so the other one tends to be the accepted image, though it is by no means certainly her, being painted about 50 years after she died. Nothing will go to waste, though, because there will be an article on images of Anne sooner or later, which is a fascinating subject. If you ever need any identification or image description help (gallery notes can sometimes be unclear or plain wrong), my fields of knowledge (I have decent books on them, anyway!) are Holbein, Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn, Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I, James I, Mary Queen of Scots, Hilliard, Renaissance English miniatures, Brueghel, Van Dyck, Jean and Francois Clouet, Bronzino, Philip II of Spain, and stuff along those lines. Images in these areas are very rarely straightforward, given all the losses, overpaintings, and workshop copies. qp10qp (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, at first I was certain that it was just an upscale version of the image, but closer inspection showed clear differences in the portrait itself. I think everyone would be helped to have the date and status of these paintings clarified - I'm certainly no art historian. My description bot is running now, but the NPG's description of it provides little information other than a guess that perhaps it's late 16th century. Where you may also be of help is that I intend to put up a page of NPG works that I have copies of that I did not upload due to unclear copyright status. There are about 300 of these remaining. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've finished doing all the image descriptions of the Royal Collection stuff now: very satisying (needed my wits about me for some, such as File:Sir Thomas Wyatt (2) by Hans Holbein the Younger.jpg, which is an almost exact copy and just the sort of picture that can go rogue on the internet). Let me know when you have the ones you want me to check ready. qp10qp (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Request: A Newton portrait

First of all, I'm very exciting about your uploads! You are doing a very big favor for all. Honestly, and I bet you know it without saying. I'm very well aware of the fact that all kind of requests sucks when one goes to great pains without getting paid etc., but could you upload this portrait of Isaac Newton to here, Commons? I have seen that one in many books, and high quality/high resolution image in Commons would make a great deal. Thanks. --QWerk (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Governors general of Canada

Hello - I've noticed that you've recently altered a few of the images that are used on w:List of Governors General of Canada. While providing higer res or generally better quality pictures can't cause any issues in itself, what has happened is that the images in the list on Wikipedia are no longer the same dimensions, which I earlier went to great difficulty to ensure. Could you please, if you plan on continuing to make changes to this series of files, have them stick to the common image dimensions? Thanks. --Miesianiacal (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi User:Miesianiacal - I see the issue. I can crop the images as necessary to generate versions for your list and will do so. I believe at this time Kempt is the only affected image - please correct me if I'm wrong. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And done. For future reference, please do not downscale images before uploading them to Commons. You may crop them to achieve your desired aspect ratio (5:6) but we want to always use the highest resolution image possible. The main reason is that your list would look very bad when converted to print at the current web resolution. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's excellent; cheers. I do, though, think File:GG-Freeman Freeman-Thomas.jpg was affected (judging by a comparison of the two versions at the bottom of that page). I will also keep in mind the res values of future uploads; for some reason I was under the impression that it was the lowest possible res that was desired (or, is that just something unique to uploading to Wikipedia itself?). --Miesianiacal (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha, right you are. In that case, I will upload the version I gave under another name, and crop it to the 5:6 ratio for your image. Regarding resolution, the English Wikipedia wants their uploads to be low res because those images are non-free copyrighted images used under fair use, and they might break the law if they don't. No such issue exists for public domain images - maximum resolution ensures a maximum range of applications. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

NPG images

I see that you are going to update the image descriptions of these via bot. I've added categories for some and will do more.

If I use these anywhere, would you like me to note that on the appropriate section of your user subpage? (I assume you are doing image replacements by hand and not by bot...?) - PKM (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The descriptions have already been updated as much as they're going to be by the bot (except for a few that I missed, which I'm doing now). I'm doing image replacements by hand, or using CommonsDelinker when it's working. Feel free to go ahead and use these anywhere you like - in fact, I need help placing them in articles. I don't need to keep track of them, that's what "check usage" is for. :-) Enjoy and let me know if you have any questions or problems. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, ready to rock ... -PKM (talk)

Hello, I am pleased that You uploaded File:John Martin by Henry Warren.jpg; but I am not pleased that You deleted first version on Commons because it had proprietly fulfiled {{Painting}} and categories etc. Can You pleas somehow bring this better description to the new version of image? --marv1N (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, sorry for accidentally not migrating the description materials. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked and the old version had no additional categories and only a couple additional facts in the painting template. Nevertheless I've copied those facts over and the painting template itself. To tell you the truth I have some fear of NPG invoking their compilation and/or database copyrights against me, so I've been deliberately omitting information that I could have migrated. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never known how could be size of paintig copyrighted... Anyway, thanks. --marv1N (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Image manipulation and tag

How do you feel about making brightened copies of these images? PD is PD, but I thought I'd ask in case there's a special case here. As an example, File:Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke from NPG.jpg is really dark and could use some gamma manipulation. I am happy to do the work. Thoughts?

Also, some of the images are tagged PD-Art|PD-UK-Unknown which causes a redlink; it seems it should be PD-Art|PD-UK-unknown (lower case "u" on unknown). I am fixing these as I find them, but would be it be easy to script that change? Thanks again for this treasure-trove. - PKM (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I went and fixed the remaining PD-UK-Unknown tags (there were only 9 left). As for gamma correction, it's my general policy to upload modified versions under a different name, in case anyone wants to use the original "official" one from the NPG, but if a photo is really terrible it's okay to just upload over it. I don't own the images so use your own best judgement. :-) I can help with universal replacement as necessary. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Retouched version File:Philip Herbert 4th Earl of Pembroke from NPG retouched.jpg up and placed in article. More later... - PKM (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool, that's a good job, not too overdone like some I've seen. If I had to point to one that needs fixing, it would be File:Unknown woman, formerly known as Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury from NPG cropped.jpg, which is quite dark and replaced a version that was rather brighter (as well as its parent image File:Unknown woman, formerly known as Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury from NPG.jpg). Don't ask me why the Wikipedias are illustrating Margaret Pole with a disputed work. :-P Dcoetzee (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that identification is now disputed? Curious - if I've read that, I spaced it out. Will do some research. I can probably clean up the image (or possibly rescan it). I can't get a lot done during the week, but I'll see what I have. - PKM (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Retouched both versions (love these high-res images, I can zoom in and see the embroidery on her smock):

File:Unknown_woman,_formerly_known_as_Margaret_Pole,_Countess_of_Salisbury_from_NPG_retouched.jpg

File:Unknown_woman,_formerly_known_as_Margaret_Pole,_Countess_of_Salisbury_from_NPG_cropped_retouched.jpg

Good night! - PKM (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! And good night. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you are drawing in the obsessives, Dc, like people who can get excited by seeing the embroidery on a smock. (Oh, I forgot, that includes me.) File:Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey from NPG (2).jpg has come out very dark, but fortunately we already have the decent version that PKM put up before, so it doesn't matter. qp10qp (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk about obsessive, I'm the one who verified the NPG number of every work in Category:National Portrait Gallery, London this weekend. :-P In cases like Henry Howard there I generally lean towards creating a cleaned-up version of the higher resolution image, to avoid having too many competing redundant versions around, but if it's too dark then noise becomes a significant issue and we really do need to keep both. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Brightening that one would be unsatisfactory, I think. In fact, I think we should keep all versions of images where they come from different sources and only delete where they are directly from the same immediate source. qp10qp (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

One reason is that there are often surprising differences between different versions. Some photographers obviously clean up their photographs more than others, often eradicating little marks, rough edges etc., to achieve a pristine look. Sometimes they omit the extreme edges of a picture. Also, some older photographs show pictures pre-restoration, with interesting aspects of damage—splits, mould marks, varnish, abrasions, etc. All these things are fascinating to an art nerd and part of the history of the image. qp10qp (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will keep that in mind. I thought two photos of the same work would necessarily be redundant, but when you take postprocessing into account even the photographer is effectively producing their own copy of the work. How confusing. :-/ Dcoetzee (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There will definitely be times when a good scan from a high-quality catalog will be better than whatever image the museum has on its website, often because those images are not recalibrated for the web by someone who knows how to do that. And given a large enough original printed image we can sometimes get much better resolution. It does drive me nuts that the Featured Picture process often ends up with five or six tweaked versions of a picture in Commons, which must all be kept to keep the history of the choice of which one to feature (see Darnley Portrait.)

Also, especially for 16th and 17th century portraits, there are frequently many studio copies of an image in existence - the portrait of Burghley in Garter robes is one - and the authorship of these is also open to dispute.- PKM (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed identifications

You said: "Don't ask me why the Wikipedias are illustrating Margaret Pole with a disputed work."

The answer to that is that these images are all over secondary sources like popular biographies, general histories, and older books on art history and history of costume. Disputations of "traditional" identifications tend to happen in specialist journals and conference papers. They make it into museum sites and exhibition catalogs, but they take forever to trickle down into popular works. That's why we still see the Wikis illustrating Frances Brandon with the portrait of Mary Nevill that was correctly identified back in the '80s, and just yesterday I had to remove another attribution of Elizabeth as a Princess to William Scrots. - PKM (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for both your comments, that's interesting. :-) I actually have an image up for deletion at the moment (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dowland.jpg) of a portrait of Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury that has seemingly spontaneously become associated with John Dowland the composer. Widespread misattribution is an intriguing social phenomenon. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright check

I've had a look at quite a few, but I am giving it a rest for the day, since there are so many. From NPG 604 downwards to Ax128383 seem fine, except for 6489 and 6164. Then from Ax16434 down to NPG P426 seem fine, except NPG D23322 (Sybil Thorndike). There are plenty more good ones higher up; will check some more tomorrow. qp10qp (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help. Can you describe in a bit more detail your reasoning for these images? Basically anything old enough that its author surely died before 1939 is fine, or any anonymous works published before 1923, but without author information I find it difficult to conclude with certainty that some of these are not recent copies of older works. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically most of these are very old. In many cases the NPG notes helped because though they might say a work was by an unknown artist, they still gave a date. I don't think the NPG would be hold recent copies of old engravings, which would be valueless: they collect the engravings themselves. And if they did, they would credit the copyist in their notes. All the images have obviously been photographed by someone, but no copyright accrues on the photos. With the historical photographs, it was simply a case of seeing that the date given for the photo made it impossible that the photographer was still alive in 1939. qp10qp (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Edward VI

Wow! My cup runneth over. I think this is the copy (I suspect the gallery are pushing it with "Holbein and studio") sold by Christies in 1929 and described as "whereabouts unknown" by Rowlands in 1985. Looks like this gallery bought it in 1996. This is probably the one once in the Earl of Arundel's Collection that Hollar engraved. It particularly fascinates me because the brown background of the original was formerly blue, but the smalt pigment has deteriorated to brown; so this shows how it might have originally looked. My only reservation on that, though, is that we don't know how much the Berger version has been restored. When I've done the description, I'm going to add this to the Wikipedia Holbein list, under copies and derivatives, because it is a significant one. Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Very satisfying. qp10qp (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been meaning to write an article on the Berger Collection for ages; it's a great story. Now I have an excuse. (Adds item to ever-growing to-do list.) - PKM (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And by the way: re: File:Charles, Prince of Wales (later Charles I) by Isaac Oliver.jpg: Whoop!! - PKM (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to help you both. :-) Thank you for removing the frames and adding descriptions! The art would be nothing without real art people describing its relevance and historical context. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Image correction

Hello,

Re File:Gandhi seated Juhu 1944.jpg, I corrected the white balance. You can see the improvement. So please do not grayscale the images before uploading, because we can correct them if they are still in RGB. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem - I normally do not do so, I was only trying to replicate your original image. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

LIFE

Hello, Could you give access to your database about LIFE images? I would like to sort out images about India between 1923 and 1949. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No Indian image published between 1940 and 1949 is going to be public domain in the United States, regardless of whether formalities are satisfied, because it was not in the public domain in its source country in 1996. The relevant restoration law has not been overturned by the Supreme Court, only in the jurisdiction of a single federal district. It would be contrary to policy to allow you to upload those. I can give you a list of authors who took images in India and took no images after 1939, but it's going to be a very short list. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I just did the search and there are zero named photographers in my database who took no photo prior in 1939 or later and also took photos in India. I currently only have about half the images in the database, but it doesn't look promising. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not what we have done up to now, see images tagged {{PD-India}}. I don't see why we should change that. Yann (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-India}} is not and has never been sufficient by itself. You need a separate tag to show PD in the US. Images without one might be deleted later. This is longstanding policy. I'm not going to nominate your images for deletion, or stop you from uploading anything, because I don't care that much, but I'm certainly not going to help you flagrantly violate policy. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"By" and "After"

I think images in Commons with filenames as "by [artist name]" which are agreed by scholars to be copies or variants "after [artist name]" should be renamed as we find them, to avoid spreading misinformation. I doubt there's anyway to automate this.

Can admins actually move files, or do we have to download/upload and use "badname"? - PKM (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this was a rather grievous error on my part. However, names are not easy to correct after the fact - I don't know if the renamer bot is even running. For now it'll have to be done with badname and (when it's working) CommonsDelinker. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Far outweighed by the benefits of having the images, so no worries. As I work on these I'll make the change. - PKM (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

licensing issues

Responded to your comment here. Kaldari (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)