User talk:Revent/Archive 10

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

deleted files

i want to ask you , how can i access to deleted files to check them and maybe request an undelete ? if its impossible then how can users chech the files copyrights ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunisianball777 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tunisianball777: I'll go ahead and reply, even though you are blocked (not by me) for socking. Only admins can actually 'look at' a deleted file, but you most admins are willing to give you enough information (such as a pointer to an off-wiki source) to identify the image, or in certain cases might provide a copy of a deleted image via email (typically not if it was a copyright issue, but if it was just out of scope).
If a file is actually a subject of an open undeletion discussion, an editor can request that it be temporarily undeleted for the purpose of allowing the conversation to proceed, but that's unusual, and it's aways a matter of discretion. Usually there is some other better solution.
As an alternative, for non-admins, recently deleted files are sometimes (temporarily) visible in a Google cache of the deleted file page. Reventtalk 23:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

When are a GIs photos PD?

Thanks for your interesting followup. I am responding here, because I don't think this discussion is on topic for a discussion of those files.

There is a marine, or former marine, named Cesar Monroy, who published several dozen images he took at Guantanamo. He published them on flickr, under a CC license.

About a third of the images seem to be taken when he was on duty. I am surprised he got away with it.

Quite a few years ago I read of a problem with young recruits in the Israeli Army. The NCOs had to make sure none of the young recruits was trying to carry a cell phone with them, when they were on patrol. Here is the racist part. The article went on to say that their mothers were phoning their sons, and this sometimes tipped off their enemies that someone was nearby. If I was a commander in an armed forces my standing orders would proscribe my subordinates carrying a personal camera or cellphone, when on duty.

I am surprised the SECDEF hasn't issued that order.

Those Agu Ghraib photos were taken by GIs who were on duty. They seem to be treated as PD, even though all the brass claim the things they did for the camera weren't authorized. What's up with that.

Anyhow, here is a gallery of photos Cesar Monroy took, while on duty. Take a look. Do you think any should be considered PD?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
  • File:One of the Cuban observation towers that surrounds the US Guantanamo Naval Base -3.jpg
    File:One of the Cuban observation towers that surrounds the US Guantanamo Naval Base -3.jpg
  • File:One of the Cuban observation towers that surrounds the US Guantanamo Naval Base.jpg
    File:One of the Cuban observation towers that surrounds the US Guantanamo Naval Base.jpg
  • File:Guantanamo River, Guantanamo Naval Base.jpg
    File:Guantanamo River, Guantanamo Naval Base.jpg
  • File:Bridge over the Guantanamo River.jpg
    File:Bridge over the Guantanamo River.jpg
  • File:Camainera, Cuba, from a Guantanamo observation tower.jpg
    File:Camainera, Cuba, from a Guantanamo observation tower.jpg
  • File:Cuban migrant being washed out to sea.jpg
    File:Cuban migrant being washed out to sea.jpg
  • File:Cuban migrant tries to sneak into the Guantanamo Naval Base -c.jpg
    File:Cuban migrant tries to sneak into the Guantanamo Naval Base -c.jpg
  • File:Cuban migrant tries to sneak into the Guantanamo Naval Base 1.jpg
    File:Cuban migrant tries to sneak into the Guantanamo Naval Base 1.jpg
  • File:Cuban migrant tries to sneak into the Guantanamo Naval Base 2.jpg
    File:Cuban migrant tries to sneak into the Guantanamo Naval Base 2.jpg
  • File:Cuban migrant, Guantanamo.jpg
    File:Cuban migrant, Guantanamo.jpg
  • File:Cuban observation post, just outside Guantanamo.jpg
    File:Cuban observation post, just outside Guantanamo.jpg
  • File:Cuban patrol, just outside the Guantanamo Naval Base.jpg
    File:Cuban patrol, just outside the Guantanamo Naval Base.jpg
  • File:Fence line in Cuba..jpg
    File:Fence line in Cuba..jpg
  • File:Marines on firing practice, Guantanamo.jpg
    File:Marines on firing practice, Guantanamo.jpg
  • File:Marksmanship training, Leeward, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 2003 -b.jpg
    File:Marksmanship training, Leeward, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 2003 -b.jpg
  • File:Marksmanship training, Leeward, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 2003 -c.jpg
    File:Marksmanship training, Leeward, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 2003 -c.jpg
  • File:Marksmanship training, Leeward, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 2003 -d.jpg
    File:Marksmanship training, Leeward, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 2003 -d.jpg
  • File:Marksmanship training, Leeward, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 2003.jpg
    File:Marksmanship training, Leeward, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 2003.jpg
  • File:One of the Cuban observation towers that surrounds the US Guantanamo Naval Base -2.jpg
    File:One of the Cuban observation towers that surrounds the US Guantanamo Naval Base -2.jpg
  • File:Outside the fence line, Guantanamo Naval Base.jpg
    File:Outside the fence line, Guantanamo Naval Base.jpg
  • File:Patrolling the fence line, heading to MOP 13, by the Guantanamo river.jpg
    File:Patrolling the fence line, heading to MOP 13, by the Guantanamo river.jpg
  • File:Riding a 7 ton truck, Guantanamo.jpg
    File:Riding a 7 ton truck, Guantanamo.jpg
@Geo Swan: One thing to be keep in mind... even if a soldier is violating orders by taking a photograph, that does not mean that he does not own the copyright in it. He might not be able to 'exert' that copyright without breaking the law, the government might seize the actual images, but the soldier still owns the copyright. It's only when the images were actually a 'work for hire' of a US Government employee (that taking the images was actually an assigned part of the person's duties). Monroy's photos certainly 'appear' to be personal, though he was likely screwing around on duty when taking them.
As far as the Abu Ghraib photos..... if we really, truly knew all the facts, those were probably personal images, and are not PD.... however, and this is important, the soldiers who took those images testified in court, under oath, that they were taken as a part of their official duties.... IMO they did so, transparently, in an attempt to minimize their criminal liability. This being the case, we can keep them, because the creators have made a legally binding assertion that they don't own them, and are quite unlikely to suddenly try to exert ownership over them (since it would mean making a legal claim that they had committed perjury).
Regarding Israel, the law is different, but I'm pretty certain a soldier would still 'own' his photos even if he was violating orders by taking them. Reventtalk 02:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Company logo at wiki commons

Hi there. You've participated in deletion of a file I've uploaded a while ago. It was this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Playrix_Logo.png Can you please clarify the process of uploading official company logos for use in wikipedia articles? Basically I represent the owners if this logo and they are interested in having it in the article about the company. Dimka2 (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dimka2: The claim made when the deleted file was uploaded, that it was a 'text logo', was obviously wrong. It's copyrightable, and thus 'is' copyrighted (it has not been required to actually 'claim' copyright for a very long time), and so to upload the file to Wikimedia Commons would require that the owner of the work freely license it. This is unlikely to be what you want to do.
The 'real' solution that you would want is to upload a low-resolution version of the file directly to Wikipedia, not Commons, under a 'fair use' claim. You should read the guideline at WP:LOGO, and refer to the 'non-free content criteria'. If you are 'technically' unable to upload files directly to Wikipedia (such as if your account is not old enough) you can also make a request at WP:FFU. Reventtalk 17:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I made 10 edits and now I'm able to upload images directly to wiki. I wasn't aware of this 'text logo' issue. Just copied the desc template from another logo which actually was a text one (now I get it). Although it's arguable when a certain special font is used in logo and letters are arranged in specific way but it still remains just a 'text logo'... well I guess it's ok to think of it that way. Dimka2 (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dimka2: What is and isn't is not obvious, and takes having looked at a fair amount of examples... and it's still largely a matter of opinion, unless a specific example has actually been ruled on. Typefaces are not copyrightable, however, by an explicit exception in US law, which is really what 'text logo' is referring to, though we extend it from the literal meaning of the name in practice, to include aspects of the 'threshold of originality'. The Playrix logo is very obviously above that, however. Reventtalk 08:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding 'de minimis'

@Geo Swan: @Josve05a: Because of the arguments made at Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Josve05a/The Wire v. Stock images regarding 'de minimis', I feel the need to write a bit of an essay... I'll try to keep it short.

The argument is made that the 'used work', some photographs, is 'de minimis' because it only makes up a small percentage of the work in which it is used, the magazine'. This is completely, and totally, incorrect, to the point of basically being nonsensical. 'de minimis' is a matter of how the 'source' is used, and if that use is significant enough, with regards to the entirety of that source, to constitute copyright infringement. I cannot transform an infringing use into a de-minimis use merely by including it in a 'larger work'. A copyrighted photo on Wikipedia does not become 'de minimis' because it's only included on one out of 4 million articles. If I make an art book out of 500 copyrighted, unlicensed paintings... but each was only on one page, and so each was only 0.2% of the book, my use of the entirety of every single one does not become de minimis. Am I making this sound ridiculous enough?

The use of a copyrighted work becomes 'de minimis' when it is "too small for fair use", as Rich Stim of NOLO put it.... it's when the use is so trivial that you don't even need to consider if fair use applies. The 2nd Circuit considered the use of photos in the movie "7" to be de minimis because they “appear fleetingly and are obscured, severely out of focus, and virtually unidentifiable," in Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp. Regarding the movie "What Women Want", it was ruled that the use of a 'Silver Slugger' in the background was de minimis because it was out of focus, obscured, never mentioned, and unrecognizable to a layperson as anything but a generic pinball machine. "Not identifiable to a lay person without close examination" is a decent rule of thumb for if a use is 'de minimis'. So is "if it would make no difference if you replaced the source work with a completely different work of the same type." A 'de minimis' use of a work is one that uses a literally trivial portion of it's copyrightable content.

The use of a photograph for the purpose of depicting the subject of the photograph can never, by definition, be 'de minimis', because you actually care that it's that particular photograph, no matter how small a part of the new work it constitutes. Reventtalk 16:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Onerva Madetoja image

Hi, Revent. Some months ago you helped me with loading a Madetoja picture or two up on the website. I am still on the hunt for and in need of and Onerva picture. A while back I posted on your talk page information about an image I had found of her that I wanted to load up to wikipedia, but since I struggle on this end, I was hopeful you could do it for me. Regrettably I cannot seem to locate my old posting in your archives. Thanks! 2601:480:8600:7C37:F9C0:D40F:F23D:193B 05:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@2601:480:8600:7C37:F9C0:D40F:F23D:193B: Uploaded File:L. Onerva.jpg, and gave the bot a command to globally replace the thumbnailed version with the larger (and much sharper) one. Hope that suits. I remember the 'search', and I don't recall ever finding a better image of her, but I do remember that we tracked down a copy of this image in one of her scanned books. Reventtalk 18:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Many, many thanks. This'll do! 2601:480:8600:7C37:6DBC:AF29:D943:4014 16:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:AlexanderHermanDeCrooWahlplakat2012.jpg

Hello. I just would like to tell you that I think your reasoning in this deletion request is not correct. The Belgian law provides several exceptions to copyright (in article XI.190): one is de minimis. It exists for several years and it is stated as "Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit [...] reproduction and communication to the public of a work shown in a place accessible to the public where the aim of reproduction or communication to the public is not the work itself [...]". Since July 15th 2016, there is another exception, that we can call "freedom of panorama". This exception is stated as "Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit: [...] 2/1°. the reproduction and the communication to the public of works of plastic, graphic or architectural art designed to be placed on a permanent basis in public places, provided that the reproduction or the communication of the work is as it is found there and that this reproduction or communication does not infringe upon the normal exploitation of the work and does not cause unreasonable harm to the legitimate interests of the author [...]." If the conditions of FoP exception are met, there is no need to meet the conditions of "de minimis" exception. These are 2 independant exceptions. Since you are an administrator, I thought it was useful to make this point clear with you, because you may close other deletion requests related to Belgian FOP. Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@BrightRaven: I'm aware that FoP and de minimis are not the same thing, though the way I said it might not have been very clear... I agree with you that FoP doesn't apply to that photo, and was basically just saying "and it's not de minimis either". Looking at FoP first, before de minimis, is somewhat backwards though. A 'de minimis' use is so trivial that it's 'not even copyright infringement', so there is no point to worrying about it it falls under FoP, is licensed, PD, or anything else.... if it's truly de minimis, it's acceptable even if if fails on every one of those points. The argument 'could have been made' by someone that it was instead de minimis (which is is obviously not, but...). Reventtalk 23:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #220

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 4 August 2016

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Dispero Ras Siento

Hello my friend i want to make you a question , you delete all of my pictures and videos, and music and i dont know why....all of this copyrights is ours, behind of this user page is Music Kitchen record, Ghetolabel and Dispero. we send all of the copyrights to wikipedia and we are wait to they responce. So if you can help me with this I would appreciate. thank you Dispero Ras Siento (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dispero Ras Siento: Files that have been marked for over 30 days as 'OTRS pending', where an OTRS agent has not indicated that an email was received and a permissions ticket is being processed, can be deleted. The files were only not automatically marked to be deleted for that reason because the original {{OTRS pending}} templates were not timestamped.... the files actually got 'extra time'.
You need to contact OTRS and ask them to investigate (at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org or Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard). If asking at the noticeboard, don't post any personal information, including your email address. I am not an OTRS agent, but your permissions may have been misfiled or simply backlogged... if OTRS decides that the statement of permission is acceptable, they will ask for undeletion. Please do not simply re-upload the files.
If this is simply due to a failure at OTRS, I apologize, but I am not an OTRS agent. Reventtalk 21:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thumbnail preview not correct

I uploaded a new version of File:Dublin, Co. Dublin - Ireland (9701336118).jpg. However the main image does not show the correct preview on my laptop. The image shows the cropped version on my iPhone perfectly. I have cleared my cookies and cache regularly to ensure that the image is appearing as the version I expect it to be. I understand this may be annoying, but I would like you to have a look into the matter and see what is the best solution. Please can you help me :) --Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@EurovisionNim: Unfortunately, the best solution to this (if it is actually the issue from that VP discussion) is simply to wait a few hours. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_58#Bendale_map.png for a way to check that lag between the datacenters is actually what you are seeing (by looking at a newly generated thumbnail of the image that won't be cached). If the problem persists, it's possible for someone with server access (not a Commons admin, but a WMF developer) to clear the cached copies, but these issues usually resolve themselves in less time than it would take to get in touch with someone that has the access. If you are actually seeing the updated image on one device, though, then that's a good sign it will update everywhere... I haven't heard of it taking more than a day or so, at most. This is actually a bug, but it's not a critical one, and I don't think it's considered a priority right now. (the one that occasionally prevents admins from being able to delete or restore random files is more worrying) Reventtalk 05:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #221

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Please review draft

Hello Mate,

Hope you are doing great.

As per discussion, I have added more citation in my draft. Can you please review it and suggest what to do next.

Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Risingguns_007/Edelweiss_Tokio_Life_Insurance

Thanks,

Risingguns 007 (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Risingguns 007, this is not English Wikipedia. Revent is unlikely to respond to issues related to en:Wiki here. You may leave a message for them here. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Wikicology: He found me on IRC again since posting this. I actually do tend to respond here faster, I don't edit en much anymore. Thanks, tho. :) Reventtalk 22:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I see that you decided to stay away from the drama at en:Wiki. Well, smetimes the only winning move is not to play. Wikicology (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

File:20160530 7419 SV henry green.jpg

Hi Revent. Would you mind taking a look at File:20160530 7419 SV henry green.jpg? The file is licensed as "own work", but there is a notice in the META data which says "© 2016 Vincent DeVries, All rights reserved" and the image title is given as "Sephardi Voices interviews at South Miami-Dade in Miami. May 30, 2016". I guess the uploader and the copyright holder could be the same person. FWIW, the photo is also being used here, but appears to be new new based upon this June 2016 archive of the same page. For reference, the same uploader also uploaded File:Henry Alan Green.jpg, but the file has no META data. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I flagged the professional photo with {{Npd}}, it clearly needs OTRS permission. The other seems likely to have been taken by the uploader, at the event. Good catch. Reventtalk 22:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #222

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

ticket:2016070410010519

Mind taking a look at the above ticket? It contains multiple images and would be a pain for a non-admin to deal with (even moreso than the pain it will be for an admin to deal with). Thanks. ~ Rob13Talk 08:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Lake Berryessa drain hole.jpg

@Billinghurst: @Taivo: Yes, I 'overruled' you both.... saying it carefully, the request from the original enwiki uploader to delete the file was indeed clearly justified from looking at the ticket, for reasons that would be compelling if explained by him outside of OTRS 'confidentiality'. The agent handling the ticket advised him to ask for deletion. Reventtalk 22:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Help with image deletion

Hi, i need your help to delete a image that i recently uploaded. I only realised i uploaded the unedited one after the upload was finished. I was hoping you could help me delete it. I filed the image for speedy deletion but i hope to remove this file from commons as soon as possible. Thank you! File:POSB_Go_Card_Front.jpg

--Deoma12 (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Deoma12: I have revision-deleted the problematic version. Whoops, indeed. Reventtalk 06:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Thank you! Yes, a huge screw up. --Deoma12 (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Uploads of ENG MOAD86

Hi Revent. I came across File:TTU UNIV.png while checking through some stuff on English Wikipedia. It looks like a fair use logo (not "own work") to me, since it can be found being used on the university's official website prior to being uploaded to Commons. So, I tagged the file with {{Logo}}. If it's better to tag with {{No permission since}} instead, then let me know and I will self-revert. Anyway, I took a look at Special:contributions/ENG MOAD86 and it seems this editor has been uploading everything as "own work". Some of the files may be own work since it's possible they were photos taken by the uploader; Others, however, do not seem to have been created by this editor at all. Many appear to be currency images or other fair use logos, but they are not being used on English Wikipedia so I'm having a difficult time figuring them out. None of the file's are provided with any source information as well, so I cannot see if they're freely licensed images or public domain. Any suggestions on what to do in a case like this? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I speedied the logo... you're right, certainly not own work, and must be uploaded locally under fair use. I'm looking at the banknotes, but I strongly suspect that I'll take them to a bulk DR. Reventtalk 07:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ENG MOAD86, probably another for at least some of the banknotes soon. Reventtalk 08:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a closer look Revent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: After a bit of research, {{PD-Jordan-money}} now exists. Just FYI. Reventtalk 10:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Revent. I've got another question to ask you, but I'll start a new thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revent/Archive_10&oldid=211714685"