2020s
date QS:P, 2020-00-00T00:00:00Z/8
2029	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2028	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2027	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2026	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2025	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2024	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2023	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2022	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2021	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2020	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

2010s
date QS:P, 2010-00-00T00:00:00Z/8
2019	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2018	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2017	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2016	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2015	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2014	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2013	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2012	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2011	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2010	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

2000s
date QS:P, 2000-00-00T00:00:00Z/8
2009	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2008	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2007	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2006	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2005	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2004	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

April 1

Topic of interest

Perhaps others here would find this discussion here of interest Archive.org --Shyamal 02:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"'Click here' considered harmful". The title is "What is Non-Commercial Use?" - en:Jmabel | talk 18:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New free license buttons

With the generous support of the Free Software Foundation, http://freedomdefined.org/ is publishing a new set of buttons that you can use to identify freely licensed works clearly as such:

These buttons, unlike some official ones like those used by Creative Commons, are in the public domain. I asked for three colors so that users can use the one that suits their taste; I would suggest red for music, black for science and software, and yellow for everything else. I would be honored if Wikimedia Commons chose to adopt these buttons in its licensing templates. :-)

Coming up next: free symbols to identify different types of license (attribution symbol, copyleft symbol, etc.).--Eloquence 05:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are vector versions available? —Pathoschild 05:51:40, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. I've asked Amy to provide them & a blank button template in each color if at all possible.--Eloquence 05:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a blue one like the bigger buttons? I think the yellow and red have poor contrast with the logo. --Gmaxwell 20:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've created Category:License icons for these icons. —Pathoschild 06:07:47, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of avoiding cryptic acronyms, I actually thought the ones with words on them were better. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones would that be? The only one from CC I know simply says "Some rights reserved", which is completely useless with regard to identifying the level of freedom provided.--Eloquence 07:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this one:

The CC "Some rights reserved" one is absolutely TERRIBLE and should be shredded. The little symbols, like "=" for SA, person or "BY:" for Attribution etc, were OK, but probably still too cryptic. At this stage in the 'open content movement' the concepts are simply still too alien to be understood if they are presented in such an abbreviated form. So I think we should spell out exactly what we're talking about whenever we're interacting with the public (and not just geeking out amongst ourselves). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

‘=’ stands for ND. The symbol for SA is the reversed ©. Spelling out things seems to be a good idea. —xyzzy_n 11:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... snap :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fitting readable text on buttons which are still meant to be pretty is not that easy .. Amy is brainstorming a bit about symbols that could be used.--Eloquence 12:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well what's more important, being pretty or trying to communicate something here? Is there any particular reason they have to be so small? At least create larger ones as *well*. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need a big fat one that can be printed and used as bumper sticker :P -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If tried one for use in sidebars: . Big con that there is no room for CC (although it could probably say CC-BY-2.5) and I am not to fond of the antialiasing on the text. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I redrew the characters by hand. Should look better now. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I like that. Sadly "CC" doesn't tell you all that much about the license status of the work, so I'm not sure it's that big a loss to not include it in such a small logo. :) --Gmaxwell 20:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and the source

-- Bryan (talk to me) 21:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got a typo in the new attribution icon version. ;) Yonatan ^talk 18:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC):[reply]

Nice buttons, I now use them in my personal pseudo license-tag (see Image:Oslo City Hall 2006-06-13.jpg). But I didn't use the yellow buttons as Eloquence suggested, because Bastique ~~forced me to~~ kindly suggested that the the black buttons were better Kjetil r 14:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate

Hello, I volunteered for Adminship yesterday on Commons:Administrators (maybe the date was a bad choice - this is not an april fool) Micheletb 06:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your votes. Michelet-密是力 16:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2

Image of Buran

I feel, the image Image:Buran AN-225.jpg cannot have the PD-USGov-NASA copyright. Miraceti 11:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please nominate on deletion. --EugeneZelenko 14:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, that image was obviously taken by the Russian government.--Pharos 05:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now listed this and several other images of a similar origin at Commons:Deletion requests/Buran photos.--Pharos 15:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can some more folks please look at the deletion proposal carefully? I am afraid some of the comments there may represent incomplete thinking on the subject. Thanks.--Pharos 19:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I crop this right?

I cropped Sweat lodge frame loc.jpg into Sweat lodge frame loc cropped.jpg. I linked the images to each other, and changed the page on en to point to the cropped version. Did I do right here? grendel|khan 18:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you also correct the perspective? I see a little tilt in the text left bottom corner. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of identifiable people

A question has been posted to the help desk here asking when permission of the subject is needed before upload a photo. I've directed the questioner to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, but that page doesn't at the moment appear in Category: Commons policies. How should I go about getting it adopted? I'm reluctant just to add the page to the category myself in case others think the talk page discussion hasn't gone on for long enough yet. I believe I've addressed all the issues that editors have raised, but how long is it reasonable to wait? Or perhaps as a guideline page rather than a rules page it can't actually be 'policy' at all?--MichaelMaggs 20:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think advice pages like this are appropriate as guidelines, not policies, and I marked it as such. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CopyrightByWikimedia

At the Portuguese Wikipedia we are trying to transfer all images here (with proper filtering first, of course). Local upload is already disabled. I was marking some altered commemorative logos for the 100K and 200K articles with {{Move-to-commons}}, when another editor told me not to do it cause they'de be likely deleted here in commons. I found that strange, as I clearly remembered viewing altered wikimedia logos in Category:CopyrightByWikimedia. I couldnt find any policy defining the official position of Wikimedia in this issue, so I ask here: Is it forbidden to make alternate logos for, say, commemorative occasions, or other special needs? If so, why are those images in the category I linked above allowed? --Waldir 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... AFAIK we have no problem hosting alternate versions of logos. Whether or not WMF will let you use them is obviously a matter out of our hands. Who told you we would probably delete them? That could come as a great surprise to me. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would only delete them if Wikimedia wanted them deleted... but they would also be eventually deleted on your local project if that were the case. --Gmaxwell 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been shown this, for example (by User:555, who btw wasnt the one to tell me they'd be deleted). Waldir 02:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, i found this, too. Waldir 02:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official status of the foundation towards logos is not well defined. Currently anyone is allowed to create their derivative works of Wikipedia, Wikinews and etc logos. The foundation reserves the right to disalow them in the future however is not exercising this function currently. Foundation however exercises a tighter control on the Wikimedia logo (

). There is a guideline for it. -- Cat ^chi? 13:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this is only for the internal use of logos (i.e. within Wikimedia websites). We most certainly do not permit external use of the logos or derivatives without permission.--Eloquence 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to know if I can continue the labelling of those commemorative logos to be transferred here without fearing they could be deleted... I mean, I dont want to start a discussion anytime one of them (eventually) gets deleted. Perhaps a better definition of the modifications and respective use that are allowed would be good at this time. Waldir 18:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 3

Censorship

I understand that this is a bloodied subject here on the commons. I don't mean to beat it up any further, or to provoke argument and righteous indignation. As a relatively new user on the commons, I do not exactly understand the accepted policy regarding sexually explicit content/pornography. I do not feel it is clearly laid out. I understand that all images with encyclopedic merit and acceptable licenses are welcomed on the commons. However, it seems that pornography is deemed unacceptable content. The most enlightening conversation I have found is here at [1], but the general consensus still seems divided. If sexually explicit images (and I understand how interpretable that term is) are acceptable as long as they have encyclopedic merit, what of a page or category like this [2]? The images are obviously pornographic. Is such a page subject to the usual removal of pornography? Or is it protected as art? Or as detailed illustrations of various sexual fantasies, positions, and fetishes? These images clearly go beyond the bare illustrations found in the categories that relate to the acts portrayed. Is this content encyclopedic? Is it fit for general consumption? I personally say no. I do not believe that the commons should be a host for porn, but I object to such content--not everyone else does. What is the opinion of the community? Could those in the know share the policy about such images? 16:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Haephestus (talk • contribs) at 09:15, 3 Apr 2007 (UTC)

Deletion requests made here are declined. Please use the relevant process for it instead. -- Cat ^chi? 12:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it wasn't really a deletion request. I'll speak about what I observed from current practices. Remember that Commons isn't censored, so being "fit for general consumption" is not really an issue (except in certain legal areas).

People are quite very harsh towards new photographs of genitals. We already have a sufficient number of images for most purposes, so you have to make the case that a new image is needed (such as to depict a particular condition or detail). Photos of people in some setting where they happen to be nude are probably acceptable, as long as the focus of the image is not their nudity. Sexually explicit artwork is generally acceptable, since it has historical value. Drawings are also generally acceptable, even if the equivalent photograph would be deleted, since image quality can vary so much that alternate versions are helpful.

Commons does not host pornography, except perhaps as an example of pornography. Pornography is defined as "any sexually explicit writing, picture and/or video intended to arouse sexual desire." If there is nothing to gain from an image apart from arousal, it's probably not acceptable here. The issue of whether or not to accept photographs of various sexual positions is still debated.

Some administrators take strong stance against even just questionable sexual images, whereas some have a less strict personal policy. This can lead to some confusion, since the stricter administrators are obviously more vocal and active in this regard. If you believe a particular image falls within Commons' scope and you can make a good argument for its storage here, then please do so. You may face some opposition, but that's the nature of controversial images. ~MDD 46 96 13:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually try to avoid the porn conversations, but the gallery given as an example (as well as much of what's in Category:Erotic art) is historically interesting, public-domain art that could certainly be used in Wikipedia articles, Wikibooks on art history (or a history of erotica), a Wikinews article about an exhibit (or protests about an exhibit), etc.

As one of those "administrators who's soft on porn" (excuse the pun, and please remember that we're more akin to janitors than to censors), my only real objection to allowing mass-uploads of porn is that it would likely end up consuming rediculous amounts of bandwidth showing 10,000 pictures of every concievable sexual act (and there's really only so many ways to skin a cat, if you see what I mean). The old, public domain stuff is certainly interesting, and maybe a hundred years from now some of the contemporary stuff will be interesting in a similar way, but then maybe not, and in any case anyone with an email account will know that the need for posting "free pix of hotties" has apparently been more than fulfilled by the marketplace without help from a foundation like ours. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 19:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full ACK. --Fb78 07:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haephestus, there is no cut-and-dried policy about this because it's a vexed issue everywhere. In general I think we can be guided by our two criteria for inclusion:

Is it available under the terms of a free license?
Will it serve some useful purpose in one or more Wikimedia projects?

But also: Wikipedia (Commons) is not censored, and Commons is not a free web space host.

The images that most often come up as questionable here are amatuer photography, rather than historical documents as you are discussing. Generally if it's fit for Wikipedia to have an article about it, it's fit for Commons to have images about it. We should be at least as inclusive as all the Wikimedia projects. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia projects do not host pornography. Wikimedia projects are hosted in the United States, where laws require distributors of pornography to keep a registry of actor names and birth dates. The Wikimedia Foundation does not maintain such a registry. Wikimedia projects thus do not include pornography, though they may host artistic, informative or didactic views of sexual acts. David.Monniaux 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK the laws you refer to exempt pictures made before a certain deadline which I don't recall exactly right now, but I think it's somewhere in the mid-1980s. --Vydra 16:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old drawing in new book

I have just uploaded an old drawing, but I am not sure about the copyright. The artist died 237 years ago. However, the very few preserved copies of the drawing are not easily accessible. Which is why I scanned the image from a book. Its author died only 20 years ago. Is this images in the public domain? Obviously, the original drawing is. But is it allowed to scan it from more recent sources? Hanno 19:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that should be ok as long as what was printed in the book was a simple reproduction of the original drawing. In that case, the book publishers have no added copyright. But on the other hand if they have done something to the original drawing - such as newly-coloured it - the publisher will get a new copyright in their changes, which means you can't upload. It may not be easy to tell, but it looks to me like a straight copy of the old drawing and absent evidence to the contrary I would say it's ok here. So PD-Old is fine. --MichaelMaggs 19:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. The author of the book does not seem to have changed anything. At least I cannot see what these changes should have been. Besides, he states to have reproduced the "original drawing". So everything should be ok then. Hanno 11:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine then. --MichaelMaggs 14:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

The Free Sculpture Garden

A very strange and possibly visionary idea has just occurred to me. I've been thinking over some COM:FOP issues, and it occurs to me that free culture would greatly benefit from a free sculpture garden or series of gardens, probably in the UK. Any sort of 3-D art is freely photographable in the UK, so long as it is permanently situated in a public space. As I see it, all we need is a public space (indoors or outdoors, preferably someone's yard or barn or someplace else very cheap), the ability to permanently display works there, and the capacity to administer it as a public space (admitting visitors, etc.). Presumably the works on display would be mostly cheap mass-produced 3-D art, like toys, but such a system could also accommodate more significant pieces. Or we could even mass-distribute the free sculpture garden though displays on windowsills and the outside of buildings. I realize that this idea may sound extremely odd, but as far as I can see it is legally quite sound.--Pharos 06:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that would work. Why not?

I just think it would be cheaper and easier to just go and ask creators for a freely licensed picture. CC-BY-SA is something most creators will agree on. Especially if the picture is too small for print.

Seriously, I think your idea will bring more problems with it. First of all, FOP does not even exist in many countries. If someone wants to sue us in France, they can sue us in France, no matter where the picture was taken. Fact. Second, FOP brings along other restrictions. For example (in Germany), you can't manipulate a FOP photographed object - like, say, cutting it out or using it for a montage. Therefore, creating derivative works from FOP pictures should be strongly discouraged.

Remember that FOP doesn't really mean "free" (as in "Four Freedoms") - it's just a little legal loophole. I don't think it's such a good idea to build an entire image collection on loopholes alone. --Fb78 07:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about UK law. In France, there is such a thing a an "right of exhibition", which is a component of the right of representation: the author's got the right to prohibit the public exhibition of his/her work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there would be problems in other countries, but I don't see why this couldn't be done in the UK, for UK subject matter. I do not believe that the UK has any relevant restrictions that would make the photos unfree.--Pharos 01:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is not a UK project. Images should be as free as possible for as many countries as possible. Like I said before: Freedom of panorama does not magically turn copyrighted material into free material. It just relieves restrictions on usage. --Fb78 08:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 5

Seeking permission

Numerous photographs I took at the Hockey Hall of Fame of NHL trophies have been put up for deletion, as violation of "derivative works". This seems like somewhat of a grey area and not a straightforward issue. To stay clear of problems, I would like to write to the Hockey Hall of Fame and seek permission for my photographs of their trophies to be used here on Wikimedia Commons under a compatible license. Of course they might say no, but they do expressly permit photography [3] and suspect they might say yes. I have looked at the email templates, but not sure any (asking the copyright holder to release the work under GFDL) are really appropriate. GFDL seems intended for works such as photographs and not the 3D objects themselves.

I have the following text from a template:

In order for us to do so, it would be necessary for you to license your work under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which was designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for free works. You can find the license text at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html. If you licensed one or more of your documents under this license, you would retain full copyright. However, we would be licensed to distribute the material, as would future users of it. We would distribute your work free of charge. However, future commercial distribution could occur. This is because users of our encyclopedia are authorized by the GFDL to distribute it, or any part of it, for a fee. The license does stipulate that any copy of the material, even if modified, must carry the same license. This guarantees that if licensed in this manner, no copy of your work could be made proprietary. That means that no one who distributes the work can ever restrict future distribution.

Can someone please advise me what to write instead of that? -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have come up with the following:

We would like your permission for my photographs taken at the Hockey Hall of Fame of the Stanley Cup and other NHL trophies to be used in Wikipedia articles and on Wikimedia Commons. As well, I'd like permission to use photographs taken in exhibit areas at the HHOF to use on Wikimedia Commons and in Wikipedia articles. In order for us to do so, it would be necessary for you to grant me permission to license my photographs under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which was designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for free works. You can find the license text at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html. This license means that we would be free to distribute the material, as would future users of it. We would distribute your work free of charge. However, future commercial distribution could occur. This is because users of our encyclopedia are authorized by the GFDL to distribute it, or any part of it, for a fee. The license does stipulate that any copy of the material, even if modified, must carry the same license. This guarantees that if licensed in this manner, no copy of the photographs could be made proprietary. That means that no one who distributes the work can ever restrict future distribution.

Any suggestions? Does this satisfy our requirements? Or do I need to say something else? -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if these trophies are still copyrighted we would need a permission from the creator of the trophies, not from the Hall of Fame. --88.134.140.64 23:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, yes, but on the other hand, the owner of the object is supposed to know which are the rights involved with its proprety. Since the creator is unknown to us, the word of the owner can (IMHO) be regarded as a sufficient proof, since this answer is made under his responsibility. Micheletb 11:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

Writing down some desicions

Although I enjoy the maneuverability of non-written rules on commons and how we don't deal with redundant bureaucracy, I think we should write certain things down. Certain issues keep coming back such as Pd-ineligible German logos, Disney characters from PD US gov works and etc. -- Cat ^chi? 01:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we don't have enough written policy.--Pharos 01:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking of policy. I was thinking more along the lines of "List of copyright related decisions". It is hard to keep track of them all. -- Cat ^chi? 10:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a bad idea. We could start a list of some links at Commons:Precedents or something like that. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A free image of a Dalek?

Re-stric-tive cop-y-rights? Ex-ter-min-ate them!!!

I thought I'd share a possibly controversial image with the wider community. This is a CC-BY-SA photograph of a 3-D artistic work, permitted I believe under the liberal laws of COM:FOP#United_Kingdom. I have not used this in any Wikipedia article as of yet. Are there any objections to its use that I haven't noted?--Pharos 03:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ok to me under UK law.--MichaelMaggs 09:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the location it was taken is considered a 'public area' under UK law then yes it should be 'free use' in the UK. The question is... does Commons allow images which are 'free use' in ANY country (which, would be ALL images), images which are 'free use' in ALL countries, images which are 'free use' in any of a specific LIST of countries, or... what? That same Dalek image would definitely not be 'free' in the US. Or Germany. Or various other countries. So is it 'free enough' for Commons? There is no 'official' word on this issue that I'm aware of. --CBDunkerson 10:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A car is not a sculpture"

Don't confuse between "artistical proprety" (Berne convention, see here for reference) and "industrial intellectual property" (Paris convention, see here for reference). An industrial model folows the Paris convention: it may not be reproduced, but a photograph is not a problem. Otherwise, how could today's picture of the day be permitted? it would be a copyvio... even made by the US-gov! Micheletb 11:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oups! I thought it was a commercial model, apparently it is not. The Berne convention applies in that case, OK. Michelet-密是力 17:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually OK here and on Wikipedia, in spite of the fact that the servers are in the US. The picture was taken in the UK, and was uploaded from the UK, actions which are both allowed under the UK FOP provisions. The image is stored on US servers, true, but the copyright holder (the BBC) is a UK organization, and were they to object - which is highly unlikely in my view - they would have to convince a US court that it should dis-apply freedoms which are allowed in the country of origin and to which the copyright owner, as a UK organization, is bound. If it were otherwise, there would be no sense in Commons havng the page Commons:Freedom of panorama at all. --MichaelMaggs 14:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

erm, are bookstores "public places" in the UK? --Fb78 13:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. The language is "a public place or in premises open to the public", which is probably more or less the same standard for which the smoking ban applies. The difference between UK law and that of most other countries is that freedom of panorama can also apply to indoor spaces.--Pharos 00:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it hard to believe that Commons would really allow images which are 'unfree' for most of the planet, so I dug around to see if there actually was a policy on these sort of 'international variation' issues. See Commons:Licensing#Country-specific_laws, specifically:

"The safest way to apply international copyright law is to consider the laws of all the relevant jurisdictions and then use the most restrictive combination of laws to determine whether something is copyrighted or not. The jurisdictions that might need to be considered are:

The place where the work was created;
The place where the work is being uploaded from;
The place that any web server the work has been downloaded from physically is;
The United States.

A work is only allowed on Commons if it is either public domain in all relevant jurisdictions or if there is a free licence which applies to the work in all relevant jurisdictions."

If taken literally this would mean that 'freedom of panorama' on Commons only applies to images which would be free in the countries they came from / passed through en route to us (most notably, the United States where the servers are housed). I'm surprised that we don't require that they would be free in all countries which might USE the images per the Commons:Project scope statement that we allow only images which "may be used by anyone for any purpose", but even just limiting it to a requirement that use of the image by Commons itself (and not future re-users) is 'free' would mean that 'freedom of panorama' on Commons only covers buildings - and possibly not even those in some cases. --CBDunkerson 10:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're forgetting that the British law applies to photos of British statues permanently sited on British soil. There is no reason at all to think that American freedom of panorama law was ever meant to apply overseas; these things are very specific to the geography of the country. I don't see how a British sculptor could ever sue in a US court against the photography of a statue permanently sited on British soil. Anyway, you're taking the "may be used by anyone for any purpose" statement too literally — this is really just meant as a gloss of the Free Cultural Works definition.--Pharos 05:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get too liberal here with the Freedom of Panorama, please. Remember that Freedom of Panorama does not magically turn copyrighted material into free material. It just relieves SOME restrictions on USAGE of the photo. Plus, it does so only in countries with a liberal FOP jurisdiction. FOP is not automatically "attached" to the photo. It applies in the country where you go to court, not in the country where you take the picture.

I'm still not convinced that the Dalek photo is a good example.

1. Permanent exhibition does not mean permanently installed (it can be moved, can it? so it's more like a billboard).

2. My definition of a public place does not fit the interior of a bookstore. If this is really the case in the UK, please provide a legal definition of "public place" that can prove this.

3. As CBDunkerson says - the image might be OK in the UK (according to the uploader), but it cannot be used in the US, in Germany, France or most other countries. --Fb78 08:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multilanguage templates

Templates like {{GFDL-self}} should use javascript to display the alternate language text without navigating away from the image page. 71.183.106.162 04:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why aren't we using Meta:Language select? Kjetil r 22:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed a few times. I have opposed it so far because I don't consider it a complete solution. Expecting people to know the Wikimedia code for their language is OK at meta, but not so great for Commons IMO. And it needs a drop down list, rather than the "shock surprise" of getting 50 messages when you type in a language code that hasn't been translated yet.

Anyway I can't remember any more compelling objections I had, so if someone wants to introduce it here, I guess they can go ahead. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't liked this idea because it makes pages overly long and hard to download. Not everyone has a fast Internet connection, for example in poorer countries, in remote places, or on their cellphones. Besides, does the current system have anything really broken? Because if it ain't broken... Samulili 14:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current system does have the advantage of using redlinks to prompt people to create translations, in what is probably a very straightforward way. I imagine doing it via Language Select/javascript would be more messy and not as obvious. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

our purpose

Is it a fundamental proposition that very image hosted here should potentially be useful in a wikimedia project?

I know Commons:Project scope defines us so. Once I argued that this should be our purpose and that we should not host content outside this area. I opposed ideas that we have a mission outside the wikis. I know that user:Eloquence, in the original Commons proposal, suggested that the key criterion is that images must be potentially useful to at least one Wikimedia project.

But I have started doubting this limitation. The doubt started to creep in when I was trying to write a wikibook and I couldnt find drawings which I could use as a simple illustration: a hand, a boy, a girl, a hat, a simple sketch of a boy leaping of joy. Such stuff. The kind of stuff you find in ordinary schoolbooks. It wasnt there. Everything we had was very serious. I browsed through [[[Hand]] and category:Hand. Most of it was very serious. No jokes, nothing frivolous.

So I wonder: has this kind of stuff never been uploaded, is it viewed as against our mission, should we think about broadening our mission, do we view the scope of what is possible in our current mission as to narrow, or what?

Teun Spaans 15:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a wikibook, eh? I guess that automatically widens the project scope. You need images for a wikimedia project so they should be uploaded to commons. I don't see the need to change the mission statement here. --Dschwen 16:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Commons:Project scope is official policy, it should of course be taken with common sense. I think most contributors will not even notice the page, and we really only use it to delete images from users that use Commons as their personal Flickr. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuen Spaans: I doubt it has not been uploaded because of fear of breaking the COM:PS. Like Bryan and Schwen, I think it's simply that no one has got around to it yet. The vast majority of our uploads, I suspect, are uploaded for specific purposes specific articles. Only some few photography Commons regulars (and FlickrLickrs) will upload random stuff thinking "some day someone could find this useful". So for sure, go ahead, if you have appropriate stuff - upload it! --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding images for wikibooks can be a bit more difficult, in part because the wikibookian communities are much smaller than the wikipedian communities (watch the RC feeds on wikibooks, then watch on wikipedia... it's like comparing an ox-cart to a bullet train). Images for use in children's books (if that's what we're talking about) is even more difficult, but en.wikibooks might have a model for getting more, since we have class projects (university level courses where the assignment is to help write a wikibook), and I don't see why we couldn't try to encourage art students to do something similar here on commons. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 20:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized place for Flickr related discussions

To avoid scattering around discussions about Flickr, I created some days ago Commons:WikiProject Flickr. Unfortunately, I forgot to announce it here. Shame on me, -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of geographical features

Hiking season is starting up where I live, and I'll soon be in a position to take pictures of the local geography. Where should I draw the dividing line between "worth uploading" and "too minor for Commons to be interested in"?

Mount Spokane is a definite "yes": it's one of the most prominent mountains in the area, and has a great deal of recreational and historical significance. But what about something like Lower Blossom Lake, a mountain lake a quarter-mile across whose only historical significance is that there was a failed attempt to divert the water to support gold mining operations in the nearby town of Mullen? Or Pear Lake, a small lake with no known historical or geological significance? --Carnildo 22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you've got/get, I'd say. Wikinews might want a picture of Pear Lake next month if someone goes missing while camping there. There may one day be en:Environment effects of gold mining in Washington State. If anything, quality photography of less-travelled places should be more of a priority for us than another picture of the Statue of Liberty. Jkelly 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing too minor for commons' interest. :-) Imagine a visual atlas, or a free version of Google Earth for instance. Stan Shebs 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, if You can write four lines of text plus coordinates and category in en:wiki, then certainly a picture is relevant...

Another way to choose could be "If it's on the map, someone would be looking for it."

G®iffen 14:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

Specifying attribution

I have not specified how I should be attributed when the images I have uploaded are used. I notice that some users provide detailed instructions for the attribution (see for example Image:Espevaer Harbour.jpg). May I add such detailed requirements to the photos I have already uploaded, or would that count as adding additional restrictions to a license already granted? Kjetil r 19:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I don't like Roar Johansen's attribution requirements. I very much think that attribution is good, and it is part of the author's moral rights, but there is no point in requiring a certain form ("Photo: Roar Johansen") or a certain place for the attribution. Samulili 07:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Samulili - I think requiring that Wikipedia articles have attribution in the image caption is an extra requirement not set out in the licenses. MediaWiki attribution is in the form of the image page, which by default each image links to.

To Kjetil - I think it's fine to add a suggestion about your preferred way to be attributed. Many re-users would appreciate more guidance in how to satisfy license requirements, so it would be helpful I think. (Especially eg. real name vs username) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the ~35 articles/websites using my photos (that I am aware of), only one is actually mentioning the license (see User:Kjetil r/usage). It is certainly a good idea to give re-users some guidance in how to do it properly. Kjetil r 15:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have always thought that Roar's requirements were ok, as the CC deed states that “You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author.” However, when I now read the legal code, I see that “credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner.” (see §4c) Does it mean that one can safely ignore his requirement of attribution in Wikipedia articles? I by the way used such a requirement for the images I uploaded yesterday (for example Image:US Supreme Court.JPG) Kjetil r 15:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many countries have laws describing how work of art should be attributed. This also apply to photos. If anyone request to be attributed those laws must be followed, and very few countries accept a reference to a website. Attribution should be were the photo is used, or nearby, or collected somewhere within the project or within the same printed work. 87.248.12.214 20:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One is of course required to give attribution, and I was not suggesting that we should ignore Roar's right to attribution. The point is that the image page at Commons might count as “a reasonable manner.” Is one required by the license to use attribution in the byline when one has a corresponding image page which gives credit? Kjetil r 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I open the link “Official licence” from Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5 I reach this page: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ saying: Under the following conditions: Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Should there be any room for optional interpretations? Roarjo 09:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The full license does not say that. You are citing the Creative Commons deed, a human-readable summary of the license. See the CC legal code, §4c. Kjetil r 14:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new "Clean the Commons!" project

Dear users,
a list of images from the Commons that have no copyright tag is available in the "Clean the Commons!" project. It's a small project based on the Polish-language Wikipedia version. In few words: I've created the list using Duesentrieb's Untagged Images tool – now we have to check it section by section basing on this directives. Every pair of hands would be very helpful. Regards, /odder 20:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! 25 done already -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Every project should have something like this. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikimedia Commons as a media host

I have had a question from a user, who basically wants to use Commons as a media host. The user is a member of a Dutch Student Political party and wants to publish podcasts. They do not have the money to host the media of their own. Those podcast do not have any direct relation with any Wikimedia project.

The podcasts subjects will be about eduction and in Dutch. Will we allow such a thing on Commons? In one way, it is great to help the freedom of expression by supporting organizations who cannot afford to do that themselves. On the other hand we are not a free hosting service. Any comments? -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are about education, but are they themselves educational? I think that is the question here. I would be more comfortable saying that this is okay if, for instance, nl: Wikinews expressed some interest in using the material. Jkelly 21:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, supporting student activists is very far outside Commons:Project scope. I'm sure they'll be able to find another free or low cost place to host their audio files.--Pharos 00:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect what they want to do is heavily POV, but if not, they might be able to fit it within the scope of the Dutch Wikinews, which could use an infusion of fresh people & content.--Eloquence 08:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound appropriate to me, unless (as Eloquence says) Wikinews or someone else wants to cover it. We're not free webspace for anyone, even if they are poor. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Dutch Wikiversity yet? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay

What's our position on cosplay images? Aren't these just sartorial fan art, and therefore derivative works that should all be deleted?--Pharos 22:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

Graphic lab

The Graphic Lab and the Graphic Village Pump aim to transform Commons from an uploaders' community to a true working graphist community, based on the four graphic skills and interests categories.
This project is in the beginning stages: please talk everywhere about it. Feel free to request image improvements as well. Active contributors are also really needed to lead the project too. We need all this to start !

Yug (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded and pasted for Yug by -- Editor at Large • talk 09:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throphy deletion request

I was asked to process deletion requests made on the above images. I am inclined to delete them all in a week unless I hear anything convincing suggesting the contrary. -- Cat ^chi? 10:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a second thought I'll delete them right away. They can be undeleted later if someone comes up with a convincing reason. -- Cat ^chi? 10:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is there any "local wizard tavern"?

I join the Ancient Chinese characters project, but I am not familiar with the software: Inkscape. Can anyone help me? Chanueting 14:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yug just posted a note to point out the Commons:Graphic Village Pump, which may be the place. Michelet-密是力 17:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of writing a tutorial here. I am not an expert on all the features of inkscape, but I do use it and no one else has written a tutorial yet. Anyway what do you want to know? Theresa Knott 13:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you in your talk page? Chanueting 15:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Theresa Knott 16:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image really at night?

(1) night time?

(2) inverse night? or just a day?

(3) Inversed, decontrasted, enlarged.

I'm wondering about the image (1) of the Endurance at "night"... Yes, I know it says it's a night photograph both in the caption and at the Library of Congress page... but...

The image is remarkably well-lit; even the mast's of the ship, considerably further away than the foreground, are still very bright
I'm not familiar enough with the history of flashes, but at least the magnesium-potassium flashes supposedly were prone to exploding; I don't know if Shackleton would've wanted that on his ship (but maybe the ingredients could be transported separately and then be mixed on the spot?); or else he maybe still used the magnesium-only flashes, again, I don't know enough, but wonder...
The light clearly comes from the side; now, that could be due to the fact that the early flashes were just material that burnt for several seconds--so Shackleton (or whoever took the photograph) maybe just had someone light it there because of the effect on shades etc.; again, the view of an "expert" on the history of flashes would seem interesting; at least, the large angle between the photographer's view and the light source are remarkable.
Why on Earth would they want to have a picture of their ship at night? I mean, today it's just a matter of activating the flash (or having an automatic one), but I guess that at the time, flash was still more expensive and simply more cumbersome... so if the object easily lends itself for a daylight picture, why...?
Old pictures are sometimes filed as inverse images (BTW, is that just because they sometimes just got the negatives, or why?)
The picture simply looks just as good when inverted--dark foreground, which could be explained by the light conditions, but apart from that, simply a regular picture during daytime.

So much for my musings. I'm wondering if some of the people with more knowledge about photography have further ideas about this? --Ibn Battuta 19:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC) PS: Either way - what's that something behind the ship?[reply]

Sounds like a negative picture to me too. The main problem with a night photograph is that the illumination from a flashlight varies according to the inverse of the distance squared, which is enough to make a marked difference between the front scene and the back details, which is not the case here - and obviously, the light source can't be kilometers away if it's artificial. You can use several flash on a long-aperture photograph, a useful technique in speleology, but the result can't be evenly exposed. If it was taken without any lignt source, it may have been taken "by night" using the midnight sun, and then erroneously classified. Now, the cloud in the center of the ship is probably the smoke from the kitchen's stove. Seems to be cold out there, they need heat, and you can't burn a fire anywhere on a wooden ship. Michelet-密是力 20:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain clues you can look for to tell if an image is shot during the daytime, at night with a flash, or at night with a long exposure and ambient light. Unfortunately, this image isn't high-resolution enough to show any of them. That said, my guess is that this is a night image shot with the flash about 20-50 feet off to the left and somewhat forward of the camera, with the exposure settings such that nearby objects are seriously overexposed. Note how the bow and forward mast seem to be overexposed, while the stern mast is dark. I doubt it's a daytime photograph, because you just don't get that much brightness variation in sunlit ice and snow. --Carnildo 21:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♦ The problem is this big "rock" under the stern, there is no way to render it correctly exposed with a flash near the camera: since it is 1/3 of the distance to the ship, it would have recieved ~10 times the light of the stern, and be overexposed (a common experience when taking flash photos of subjects with a wide distance range). Here, only the right ones are overexposed, which is abnormal and should be explained for. Technically, the photograph could have used partially smoked filter, but who would make professionnal studio corrections when it's freezing out there? ♦ The fading away of the stern may be accounted for by a light mist. ♦ Brightness variation may be ajusted through "hard" or "soft" negatives. I've lowered the contrast in picture (3), the scenery seems natural indeed.

See en:Imperial_Trans-Antarctic_Expedition. You can see under the photograph a comment "Journey by F.A.Worsley, with a narrative introduction by Sir Edmund Hillary. To be published by W.W.Morton (Credit: Scott Polar Research Institute)": Hillary was a baby when the expedition took place. The book for which the photograph was intended could only be published after the en:Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition (1955-58), where Hillary became famous as a polar explorer. If they needed a dramatic "Endurance in the polar night" to illustrate the book, the easiest method was to use a negative picture. Who cared fifty years later? And this is not the scientific /historical picture (kept by the Scott Polar research institute), but a commercial one (by W.W.Morton). "Is fecit qui prodest". Michelet-密是力 05:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your interesting comments (keep them coming! :o)).

@Carnildo: You're mentioning "certain clues you can look for to tell if an image is shot during the daytime, at night with a flahs, or at night with a long exposure and ambient light". I'd be curious to hear more, could you name a few?

Micheletb, thanks for all the interesting comments. Just one question, which rock are you talking about? Or do you mean the one on the left? Yes, the big on on the left, just under the stern. Sorry not to be specific. Michelet-密是力 16:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC) ... - No, it wasn't about being specific, it's just the bow of the ship, that's all :o) --Ibn Battuta 01:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ngtship.jpg

Ref- E8 = Ngtship.jpg inverted

... and then, looking for more information about the people mentioned below the picture, I've found this website (including also two further night photographs):

Well - if you invert the picture "Ref- E8 = Ngtship.jpg", you can see that the "ice" is in fact a big wave, with foam(?) forming under the stern, the ship being at anchor, & other masts can be seen at a distance. Clearly an inversion, with fraudulous legend. The "Ref-E11 = Skier.jpg" is clearly taken with a flash (the inversion gives impossible lightning conditions); but then, it is a close view, not a panoramic one. Michelet-密是力 17:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“During night take flashlight of ship beset by pressure, This necessitated some 20 flashes ,one behind each salient pressure hummock, no less than 10 of the flashes being required to satisfactory illuminate the ship herself. Half blinded after the successive flashes, I lost my bearings amidst the hummocks ,bumping shins against projecting ice points and stumbling into deep snow drifts.” Hurley Dairy '

It seems, then, that they did at least have a flashlight (of some sorts) and made night photographs... I'm afraid that makes a pretty strong case for the picture in question being one of them... too bad, I so much liked your explanations!

Thanks for linking to the article about Worsley, though... as the Library of Congress doesn't give any more information on the copyright of the picture, I'm afraid that means that the image is in fact still copyrighted, correct? (Sorry, the one thing where I disagree with you, Michelet, is that I don't think the picture is too trivial to be copyrighted.) --Ibn Battuta 13:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC) No: my transformations are too trivial to be copiryghted, the original picture is what it is... I should definitely take some english lessons! ;o) Michelet-密是力 16:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC) ... Non, c'était pas ton anglais (maintenant t'avais piqué ma curiosité :o)), I was just too stupid to realize that you had licensed "your" work as work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. :o) ... --Ibn Battuta 18:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the other picture ("Ref-E8"), I'm not sure. The thing in the foreground clearly doesn't look like a wave, so why would a ship be tied so closely to the ice and yet far enough that some wave could build up? Also given that it's the Endurance, it doesn't seem so plausible to me (after all, they had several years to take picture of her frozen in the ice, but considerably less time for her free to move and play with the waves, so to speak). I'm curious, though, what the stuff in the background could be... --Ibn Battuta 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref-E8 shows a wave once it is inverted, have a look. Michelet-密是力 05:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did invert it, I just don't think the thing in the foreground is a wave. Again, we're talking about the Endurance (see also Frank's entry below). --Ibn Battuta 23:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Michelet-密是力, but you're ignoring the fact that historically, this was an ice-locked ship and the Shackleton's expedition went through a historically well documented life threatening crises... to put it mildly, since it lasted a heroic 22 months. The hump you are taking to be a wave is far more likely to be a lee drift that acccumuated in the 'wind-shadow' of the ship while it was locked in place. More to the point, it's cynical to assume bad faith in the processs over the years. There was plenty of sensational material in that mission and rescue of the crew that no one would need to manufacture such, or make false claims. And that doesn't count in the culture of the Victorian era Gentlemen, his towering scientific prominence (His knighthood was from his prior voyage), nor the well funded and well equipped, if ill-concieved optimism, of the expedition. How many crews take films and color photographs during what is essentially a hopeless shipwreck? Just one, this amazing one. // FrankB 21:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(You don't need to be sorry, there is nothing personnal here :). I do admire what happened in the 1914 expedition, and the photographs that were taken there. There is nothing offensive against the polar heroes, if there was an inversion they never saw it. The fraud, if any, would have taken place at the publication of this book fifty years later (sounds like a public domain limit), around 1965.

The arguments are: ♦ Night photographs of a large object at long distance are technically very difficult to illuminate evenly (even with modern equipments). ♦ Looking at the expedition story, there is no reason why a night photograph should have been taken (especially given the technical difficulty of it): the ship was stuck in ice (and photographed) under daylight, and was crushed by ice (and photographed) under daylight, but nothing special happend in between during the polar night. ♦ The photographs are plausible day-light versions, whereas the night version is more questionnable. ♦ If the (1965) editor needed a dramatic photograph to illustrate a dramatic story, and was one inversion away from having one, he could have done it at that time. A polar hero can resist anything, OK, but can a greedy publisher resist temptation? Michelet-密是力 06:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion :-) The expeditioner's diary clearly talks about taking night photos though, so you would have to believe that was fake too. The diary mentions using 20 flashes from different locations before enough light had come into the camera; that would probably result in some odd effects that are not possible with a single light source. I'm far from an expert on this, but an inversion sounds unlikely in this case. I suppose if you're stuck in ice with photographic equipment on hand with nothing else to do, experiments with night photography seem reasonable (especially if it was during a period of 24-hour darkness -- this is Antarctica, after all). BTW, how is this a PD-USGov image? It was a British expedition and an Australian (Frank Hurley, died 1962) was the photographer. The photos would be PD under both British and Australian law so I don't see a problem, but PD-USGov is odd (unless that is just for the caption). Carl Lindberg 04:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the Village pump

The Village Pump has become overcrowded. And now that a new Graphic Village Pump has started, I think it is a good idea to re arrange the discussion places:

Commons:Village pump and other language versions, for general discussions
Commons:Graphic Village pump and other language versions, for graphic related discussions
Split Commons talk:Licensing into two places where:
- License tags in general can be discussed, no change from the current situation, on Commons talk:Licensing (should not be divided over multiple languages)
- A new page is set up to discuss specific copyright questions about images. (Images where you are not sure to start a deletion request about, or just general "is this tag correct" questions)
Commons:Help desk and other language versions for questions from newcomers
A new page is set up where problems and policy proposals are discuss that affect the whole community (should not be divided over multiple languages)
Specific problems with Flickr, Commons talk:WikiProject Flickr
Dispute resolution stays on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes

About the pages that should not be divided over multiple languages, I am not trying to push English over other languages. We are however a multilingual community and English is what most of the active community members can read. If they can't write it, they should be welcome to enter the discussion in their native language; there are always users who are able to translate the main points.

So far what I can directly think about, I would appreciate comments. Not only on the proposal or parts of it itself, but also on whether it is actually needed. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a good idea; discussion on the the VP does currently tend a bit toward randomness.--Pharos 19:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably create a template that lists all the discussion boards and their purposes, and put the template on all the said boards.

I was thinking today maybe we should make a Commons:Category discussions board, where people can get advice and opinions about names and arrangements of categories. There are several such requests on the VP at the moment. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot: Killing all thumbnails

I wanted to discuss the whole idea before I actually request a bot status or even begin programming. As I checked out several months ago, there are a lot of thumbnails here from Wikipedia projects. I could program a bot that:

Reads out all images that are thumbnails
Search the larger projects for an image that is named the same (without the [0-9]px- prefix)
Download the thumbnail and compare whether these are the same images
If they are, upload the full version to Commons

Then it could, if it would be able to get admin rights:

Tell CommonsDelinker to replace the thumbnail by the full image on all Wikimedia projects
Delete the thumbnail

Or, if it weren't admin:

Prepare a page with commands for CommonsDelinker, that an admin could feed to CommonsDelinker
Add {{Duplicate}} to the thumbnail

Just something that popped up in my mind. Don't expect anything on the short term, but it is nice to already start brainstorming and get comments. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1, but is step 3 actually possible? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because there could have been uploaded another image over the Commons image, the image could have been changed, cropped, etc... Experience shows that this does happen a lot. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was, is it possible to do it automatically? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... it's a bot, it will do all the steps above automatically ;) -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This all sounds very useful. --MichaelMaggs 09:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

Commons:Upload now live for English

For users with English language settings, the "Upload file" link in the menu now points to Commons:Upload, with several specialised forms. For non-English settings, the link still points to Special:Upload.

I wrote Commons:Redesigning the upload form to try and explain how the form can be updated in other languages. Hopefully it makes sense. If anyone wants to try implementing it for another language, please get in contact with me. thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Thanks pfctdayelise and gmaxwell! -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I will translate it into Norwegian. Kjetil r 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very good start! My only criticism would be that the "own work" page is really a bit complex. This is probably the most common case and we should make sure that it does not overwhelm people. I think both step 2 and step 3 could be greatly simplified, and the "other tips" could be under a JavaScript "expand" link or on a separate page (where I'm sure we could make a larger collection of useful tips). Step 1 is probably a very good idea, though, and appeals to me visually.

I'll be away for a few days but I'll take a first step at simplification in the next few weeks if nobody else does.--Eloquence 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. This is a major improvement. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now we only need something like Aide:Importer un fichier instead of the current Commons:Upload. Kjetil r 22:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for the good feedback. I should point out that I talked to TimStarling on IRC and he didn't much like this "overloading" of the uselang parameter. He may add another one so we can have URLs like purpose=ownwork&uselang=de. I don't think it will to be too difficult to convert over, if/when that happens.

To Eloquence: Step 3 on ownwork has expanded dramatically from what it used to be. Probably now it is again at the "tl;dr" stage, so it needs to be hacked down again. this is a constant process. :)

BTW if people don't like the design, this is not set in stone of course. The French help page is probably good, but I can't read French. So experiment with stuff and create new pages if you like... congrats to Kjetil for his speedy translation work too :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to revert the menu link. MW was giving all languages the Commons:Upload link, even though I defined all the MediaWiki:Upload-url/XX to be Special:Upload. Grrrrrr. I will open a bug report and put further comments at Commons talk:Upload. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Minor request is that the "{{Information}}" copy paste thing should be somewhere on the "upload from another wikipedia"-page. /Lokal _Profil 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One is supposed to use CommonsHelper, but I kind of agree. Kjetil r 03:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now rewritten Commons:Upload, see User:Kjetil r/Upload. What do you think? Should we change it to my version? If so, it will need some copyediting first, as English is not my native language. Kjetil r 03:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your version looks awesome. I think we should use this new version, since the current one, as it is, looks messy and overly complicated for new users. Does anyone else want to give their $0.02 here? V60 ^{干什么？ · VContribs} 03:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just started a new discussion on this at the bottom of the page, so hopefully more people will see it :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 10

further upload improvements?

Another thought: At least the German Wikipedia has the general "form" ( {{description |description= |source= etc.) pre-entered in the summary field. That is, when you click on upload (provided you're signed in) you'll find this overall format already entered and would have to manually delete it to get rid of it. Why doesn't Commons have that, too? That would guide uploaders as well to provide all relevant information. --Ibn Battuta 01:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be easy, just copy, paste, credit (for GFDL stuff) and translate de:MediaWiki:Onlyifuploading.js --Iamunknown 05:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be even better if we had separate text boxes for each component, "description", "source", etc. That would encourage more people (including myself probably!) to actually fill these out completely.--Pharos 08:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there should be introduced separate text boxes, I beg you leave the current upload format somewhere easily accessible "for those who know"--because at least I myself use it (yes Sir, all fields except permission! And sometimes even that, too!!), and I don't feel like clicking myself through several fields. (Often I just copy-paste a description from an internet source into the upload field and then split, move, and copy-paste there... which for people like me is much more convenient than having to use a mouse all the time :o)) --Ibn Battuta 23:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned a translation, Iamunknown... not sure whether you actually referred to it as literally as I'm taking it, but here is one...

// This loads the information template directly into the summary field
// It should be added to MediaWiki:Monobook.js at the very bottom

function setSpecialUploadTemplate() {
   var editbox = document.getElementById('wpUploadDescription');
   if (!editbox)            return;
   if (editbox.value != ) return;
   editbox.value = "{" "{Information\n"
                   "|Description= \n"
                   "|Source = \n"
                   "|Author = \n"
                   "|Date = \n"
                   "|Permission = \n"
                   "|Other versions = \n"
                   "|Remarks = \n"
                   "}" "}";
}
addOnloadHook(setSpecialUploadTemplate);

(source: de:MediaWiki:Onlyifuploading.js; please note that this code is currently not sufficiently cited according to the GDL. This code should be deleted from this page and not be archived after this discussion has ended or else be sourced'n cited properly.)

I guess the line "remarks" isn't common here, so we could delete it... or introduce it generally. Again, sorry if you meant something different, Iamunknown :o) --Ibn Battuta 23:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally fine! This is exactly what I meant. I think it is a great idea. I'm not entirely familiar with JavaScript. Would we be able to implement a means to disable it? That is, it would be enabled by default but one could disable it if they added a particular line to their monobook.js (or OtherSkin.js)? --Iamunknown 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities in/of?

Should it be municipalities in or of a country and in or of a region? If both are fine but one must chosen, what is your pick? I need this because my memory can't handle this mess:

Category:Municipalities in Finland
- Category:Coats of arms of municipalities in Ostrobothnia
- Category:Former municipalities in Finland
Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Finland
- Category:Coats of arms of municipalities in Ostrobothnia
- Category:Coats of arms of former municipalities of Finland
Locator maps for municipalities of Finland

Then there are also

Sub-regions of Finland
Provinces of Finland
Locator maps for regions of Finland

Samulili 14:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO you can say both. "of" is generic, and indicates simply some kind of link. "In" is more specific, and indicates an inclusion - which is the case here. Since "of" is generic and the specific meaning is not needed, I would suggest to use "of" in all cases. Michelet-密是力 11:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll get at changing things asap. Samulili 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

licences of screenshots

I want to upload some screenshots of inkscape. Now inkscape is licenced under the GPL so does that mean the screenshot should be licenced under the GFDL? If not then which licence should I use? Cheers Theresa Knott 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL = GNU Free Documentation License and GPL = GNU General Public License; they are legally not the same, nor are they compatible with each other. You will at least need {{GPL}}, and depending on whether there is some drawing shown in Inkscape, also the license of the drawing. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers I will use GPL. Any drawings will be done by me so no problem there. Theresa Knott 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt about licencing

I have the scanning of a document of my property that as the power and torque curves of a motor vehicle that's my own property. 1.Can I upload it? 2.What license to consider?(It's not my own work because it is the printed graphics result of a bench test, although the vehicle and the test are my own property). Thanks, AntoniusJ 18:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About copyrighted work's Originality

According to South korean supreme court decisions, Copyright is only for "copyright act's work" not "all work".

"copyright act's work" or the work that is protected by copyright law must have "Originality".

So, South korean supreme court concluded as following.

1. Image that anyone can take is not "copyright act's work". because this image have not "Originality". Specialized artist picture, or a lot money for picture, etc have "Originality". Most, general pictures don't have "Originality", justices think...

2. So, sample product image for Calendar is not "copyright act's work". so, to copy and reuse Calendar image is not copyright infringement.

3. supreme court say, newspager photograph (such as politician, singer snap shot photo for daliy newspaer, etc...everyone can shot...) is not "copyright act's work".

4. How in US, other countries? how to see "Originality"?

5. I upload some politician, singer, product newspaper images and put {{PD-ineligible}}...it may be deleted because wrong copyright license. right? I can make {{PD-ineligible-korean}} image license tag?

6. sorry, my english is not well...:)

-- WonYong (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite the court cases so that specifics can be looked at? A summary prepared by a legal professional that us laymen could understand would also be nice. What are the exact criteria for a copyrightable photograph? (I have a hard time believing that they would have made a blanket statement about the lack of originality in photographs, considering how difficult it could be to get good photographs due to lack of good technique, equipment, opportunities, positioning, etc. I have also never heard of anything like this despite living in the country, although admittedly I'm not a close follower of South Korean copyright law.) YooChung 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can read korean text? see ko:저작물. sorry, I can't translate...my english is not good, legal english? oh~ :( -- WonYong (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't very unusual. We have seen in Commons that some countries, for example Italy, Sweden, and Finland, interpret the threshold of originality for photographs in the same way as South Korea. Some other countries, such as Germany, give copyright to almost any photos, while Italy, Sweden, and Finland protect photographs with neighbouring rights. Samulili 07:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be very skeptical of this until clear documentation in English can be found. Specifically, I suspect that WonYong may be misinterpreting the South Korean version of w:fair use. If the South Korea government really adhered to the copyright views described, I am almost certain there would be massive international lawsuits on the matter.--Pharos 08:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There’s an English translation of the ROK’s copyright law at [4]. Article 4, item 6 lists photographs as copyrightable works. So we at most dealing with case law, which is tricky. Are there any English sources on those court decisions? —xyzzy_n 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find english articles

Yunjeong Choi, Development of Copyright Protection in Korea: Its History, Inherent Limits, and Suggested Solutions(PDF), Brooklyn Journal of International Law, VOLUME XXVIII, NUMBER 2, 2003
Property versus Misappropriation: Legal Protection for Databases in Korea
Protecting Uncopyrightable Databases

-- WonYong (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have read the relevant section by Yunjeong Choi, and it seems to make clear that the "originality" requirement in South Korea is about the same as in the US. And in the US, every photograph of a 3-D object is considered to be a "creative" work. Also, the discussion I've read by Yunjeong Choi about material published in newspapers suggests this is indeed the South Korean equivalent of "fair use" (ko:공정 사용), and that copyright still exists.--Pharos 06:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the court cases cited in ko:저작물 ([5], [6], [7], [8], all in Korean), and here's what I got out of them:

South Korean copyright law explicitly defines "reporting of current news limited to mere transmission of facts" ("사실의 전달에 불과한 시사보도") as uncopyrightable in article 7, item 5. Amount of originality determines whether a news report and included photographs is more than a "mere transmission of facts".
The bar for originality is as clear as mud to this non-lawyer. The 2001 decision denies the copyright of a photograph because "it only serves a utilitarian purpose of showcasing a product" and "originality must be shown in subject selection, composition, lighting, etc., but photographer only contributed photography skills and not originality". On the other hand, the 1997 decision admits the copyright of exam problems because "despite testing understanding and skills" (which seems to be a utilitarian purpose) "significant mental effort was spent in their creation" and "a minimum of originality can be shown" (no mention of what constitutes "a minimum of originality"). This confuses the heck out of me since the pages do not explain when significant mental effort is "mere skill" or "contributes to originality".

I think WonYong is interpreting the court decisions overly permissively. The court decisions do not seem to imply that photographs in general are not copyrightable. They certainly deny that they must be "highly artistic" or "sold for a high price" (in fact, the 2001 decision probably indicates that price does not matter). Whether anyone would have been able to take a certain picture seems irrelevant. On the other hand, photographs taken for the express purpose of reporting current news and lack originality are in the public domain (whether a photograph lacks originality should probably judged on a case-by-case basis). YooChung 10:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in the US, every photograph of a 3-D object is considered to be a "creative" work. (O)

But in the Korea, every photograph of a 3-D object is considered to be a "creative" work. (X)

-- WonYong (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Certain photographs are automatically in the public domain in both the US and South Korea. However, they're the exception, not the norm (at least the cited court decisions do not imply otherwise). YooChung 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images moved from other projects

E.G. Image with {{PD-self}} tag was moved to commons from ruWiki by a user, who is not the author, so he uses template {{PD-user-ru}}, put a description there, attributes the authorship, and put the page at russian Wiki as a source. Then after some, image in ruWiki is deleted, will it pose any problem?--Vaya 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. However will be good idea that admin who process image deletion on local wiki will verify descriptions. --EugeneZelenko 16:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy images always using CommonsHelper to preserve all information, always tag NowCommons on the source wiki and remove on the local wiki with reference to the image on Commons, possibly using nowcommons.py. That'll ensure that all logs are consistent and things can be verified by anyone. Siebrand 20:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks.--Vaya 17:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How has Wikimedia Changed your Life?

This message is being crossposted around village pumps and mailing lists - apologies if you receive it more than once!
Have any of the Wikimedia projects had an effect on you in real life, or do you know of someone, or some group of people, who use our projects in real life? If so, we want to hear from you at m:Success Stories - How has Wikimedia Changed your Life?. The hope is that this page can become somewhere to which we can point members of the press so that they can immediately get an idea of the usefulness of our projects. Please, take a look, and add your stories! Martinp23 16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 11

Graffiti Redux

I believe I may have come upon a new wrinkle in the question of whether graffiti can be copyrighted. We had a previous discussion in February, and the conclusion was basically that works created under illegal circumstances could not be copyrighted. However, it has come to my attention that graffiti is not the only circumstance where this question has arisen: the right to copyright of "obscene" works has a significant legal history in the United States, without a totally clear consensus. The below quote is from Paul Goldstein's "Copyright's Highway" (1997 edition) as cited in this article. There is also a major discussion at the blog of Google's top copyright lawyer.--Pharos 06:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“The 1976 Copyright Act nowhere bars protection because of the
perceived illegality or immorality of a work’s content. Contemporary
courts have generally declined to imply any such bar
into the Act, and have sustained copyright against charges that
a work’s obscene . . . content precluded relief for infringement.”

Graffiti and obscene works and works created under illegal circumstances are all copyrighted. --Rtc 22:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are confusing to seperate issues: 1) Does infringment exist? 2)Is the copyright holder is entilted to monetary relief for the infringment? I believe there are several situations where the copyright holder can get a ruling that the infringement must stop but not recieve any damages for the infringment in the US.--BirgitteSB 13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 12

Image overwritten at Image:Sal2.jpg

This showed up on CommonsTicker and I am not sure what to do about it. This image was replaced with this image. Could a Commons regular look into it? Thanks.--BirgitteSB 13:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. Uploader had immediately re-uploaded the image as Image:Sal22.jpg, but must not have realized that he hit the "save" rather than "cancel" button on the first one. --Davepape 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What’s up with the summary section of Image:Sal22.jpg, though? It looks copy-pasted, but I can’t find the source. —xyzzy_n 14:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting out {{PD-Art}}

Anyone interested in helping to sort out the confusing mess that is the PD-Art template should drop over to User talk:Kareha/PD-Art where a discussion about how best to improve this template is just getting started. We're intending to work away from the main page as this is a heavily-used template and repeated modifications to it, as we're going along, would over-stress the server. A cross-link to the discussion is of course going on the main talk page. --MichaelMaggs 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting people know. Jkelly 17:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion erred to discuss the legitimacy of {{PD-Old}} (with conclusion: mostly illegal). Do come in! Michelet-密是力 15:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was transferred to Template talk:PD-old. Michelet-密是力 17:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Groups

Would someone please take a look there? From the cat-tree going up, it looks like this category was intended for the mathematical term group, but is it used for groups of persons. I guess all the subcats should be moved to some other place in the categories-tree. --h-stt !? 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on newspaper advertizements

Who would own the copyright on advertizements in a newspaper or magazine? The company that paid to put the ad in, right? And if they omit a copyright notice from the ad, in a situation where such a notice is necessary to secure copyright, wouldn't the image be PD?--Pharos 20:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright of an ad exists indepedently of a copyright notice. There is no need to put such a notice. The copyright of the ad lies with the designer of the ad not the company that paid for it. However, the copyright owner transfered the right to use the ad to that company. There is a difference as you might notice. So: The ad is of course not in the PD. --ALE! ¿…? 20:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, for example publications in the US between 1923 and 1977 do need a copyright notice to be considered copyrighted. Now of course newspapers always had copyright notices, but most of the ads in them didn't. And since the ads would have a separate owner...--Pharos 22:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you have an ad produced and first published in the US without a copyright notice, that you want to upload or what is the aim of your question? It is easier to answer having a particular case. --ALE! ¿…? 08:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1916 magazine

HI all,

I've uploaded some images from an old French magazine published in 1916 (Category:Lectures pour tous) because I thought it was in the public domain. Indeed, it is a publication made by many people which are not clearly identified so I thought it was in the domain public 80 years after the first publication and not 80 years after the death of the unknown photographer. Can you help me please? Thanx very much. --Sebb 21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. If the attribution of a photo to an author is not possible, the publication is globally an "oeuvre collective" (Article L113-2 CPI), & it falls in the PD 70 years after publication (Article L123-3) -- Actually, in that case, it was already PD in 1966, under the previous legal conditions. Michelet-密是力 11:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so what kind of tag should I use pd-old talks about an author, we should make a new one, shouldn't we? --Sebb-fr 15:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

use {{PD-old}} and add a mention "anonymous job, copyright term = publication plus 70 years". Michelet-密是力 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC) ...je ne vois même pas pourquoi on se prend la tête à parler en anglais ;o)[reply]

April 14

Use of party logo

Yesterday I uploaded the logo of the Norwegian Green party, giving it a licence "attribution required", and added it to articles about the party in English and Norwegian. Within minutes the logo was deleted, before there was any time to react to the ticker notification. I then uploaded the image again, giving it this time a GNU-licence, which I as party spokesman am qualified to do. This time it was immediately deleted, and I was also blocked not only from uploading images, but also from posting comments to this page, the Village pump.

Norwegian administrators have now unblocked me, and the deleting administrator has apologized, but I feel there are some matters of pinciple here:

1) the time from upload to deletion, even with dubious licencing was extremely short

2) Blocking from the village pump denies uploaders the ability to defend their actions

3) wikipedia policy on the use of logos in general; when are logos allowed and when not? --Vindheim 11:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Yes (2) No, a blocked user is blocked everywhere (exept on his discussion page, AFAIK). (3) Interesting question. ♦ Theoretically, logo are a special case of immaterial property, not entirely governed by artistic property (Berne convention). Since the aim of a mark or a logo is to represent something, its reproduction and display is legal, in an information context. So they are "free" insofar as no authorisation nor payment is required to reproduce and use them; but there are of course obvious "restrictions of use" because the corresponding usage does not cause a prejudice to the right holder (typically: confusion with his products, or use in diffamatory publications). Actually, these restrictions of use are applicable even on so-called "free material" (GNU or CC licenced), because these restrictions cannot be contractually ruled out. So there is no legal problem to use logos in Wikipedia projects (as long as the restrictions of use are respected) or in derivative works made using WP, but the logo itself is not free. It's exactly the same restrictions as the "geat seal of the US", or any flag: it is PD, but you can't use it in a way that would create confusion with an official use, and misusages can be sanctionned whatever the licence says. Michelet-密是力 12:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<quote>It's exactly the same restrictions as the "geat seal of the US", or any flag: it is PD, but you can't use it in a way that would create confusion with an official use, and misusages can be sanctionned whatever the licence says.</quote> I think I disagree with this. Nothing prevents you from "misusing" Public Domain works, including the Great Seal of the United States. As for confusion with official use, that would be fraud, which is covered in criminal statues of various nations, and not copyright law. Nothing prevents you from using the US flag in any fashion you wish, unless you are attempting to deceive someone that you are representing the government in an official capacity.

Sure. But copyright law is not all the law: you can't say "it's not forbidden by copyright, it is therefore legal". If you misuse the great seal of the US, and if the US-gov wants to take the case to court, chances are you will loose, PD or not. Using the US flag? well, I'm not quite sure of it, but if I burn the US flag in France, I might get into legal trouble according to french law... The fact is that US-gov (or Fr-gov) won't move most of the time, so the restriction is de facto lessenned. Michelet-密是力 14:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if I burn the US flag in France, I might get into legal trouble according to french law

This is offtopic, but I don't see how this is possible. Even insulting the French flag is prohibited only in very specific circumstances. David.Monniaux 18:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (France=See Art L-433-5-1 of the french penal code. US Flag may be burt, actually, even in the US (see here-fr: - sorry. Michelet-密是力 07:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Asking for images

Let's say there is a site with images that may be useful, and that it has the copyright of such images (it means, it isn't a user page about The Simpsons or similar). I know that we can't just take the images and upload them here, but there is an alternative: to ask the webmaster to release all the images, or perhaps just 1, under a license compatible with GNU. And if he does agree, then the image/s can be uploaded and used at proyects.

But how should I do it? What kind of questions should I make, and what do I do if I receive a positive answer to confirm everybody that the authorization was given? Do I use my own e-mail, or shoud I contact the site with some other system provided by Commons? Thanos 17:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Email templates and Category:Wikimedia licensing permissions. Basically, [email protected] must recieve a copy of the authorisation, and there must be convincing evidence that the webmaster indeed holds the rights (depends on the images at stake). - put [email protected] in the cc list of the asking message as well. Michelet-密是力 17:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that the copyright owner understands that a free license means unlimited redistribution by any one, for any purpose, including derivate and commercial use. Asking Can I use your image for Wikipedia under the GFDL? is not good enough. (Also note that there is no such thing as the GNU license, or a GNU compatible license. You probably meant the GNU Free Documentation License) -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of the 2007 eruption of the Piton de la Fournaise

Following from my request, the author of these photographs would kindly accept to put some of them under CC-BY-SA. Please let me know your choice on my talk page. David.Monniaux 18:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise by Yonidebest

You may or may not know this: I would like to transalte the site to Hebrew. I applied to adminship to do this, but was supprised to be regected. I would like to offer a compromise which will allow me to transalte the site and that will also put your hearts at rest.

I have already prresented who I am, but I will do so again incase you are not aware of this, and in the process, add some background:

I am Yoni Weiden from Israel, 23 yrs old. A few weeks ago I, a Hebrew Wikipedia active sysop user, decided to promote users to upload free images to Commons instead of to the Hebrew Wikipedia. One of their requests was that Commons first be translated properly to Hebrew. On March 26th I entered Commons and changed my preference to Hebrew interface. Indeed, the site needed translation. Although most of it was translated, but many bits of it were not, and seeing that the Hebrew upload page was (and still is) in English, told me I needed to get this site transalted ASAP. The translation of a site includes editing many protected pages, and considering that the interface is a left-to-right interface while the Hebrew is a right-to-left langauge, this meant that CSS and JS editing also needed be done too.

This is not something I could do in a reasonable way without sysop tools, IMHO: I would have to edit many talk pages and then monitor all of them, adding changes to talk pages and then again monitoring them etc., and making sure that my requests are done correctly. I decided to get the admin tools for this and so I applied (here). Naturally, I thought that once I was finished translating all the protected sysytem pages and all the unprotected page, I would consider helping with backlogs and other stuff. I was sure I would get these rights, as all I wanted to do was to translate the site, plus I considered myself a trusted user. I didn't know I needed 4 support votes, and so I failed the nomination. One of you bureaucrats suggested I opened a new nomination, and so I did (here). This nomination encountered, IMHO, odd rejections, the most odd one was some saying I opened one too soon after the last one closed. Of course, I did not know I am supposted to wait between nominations, as the bureaucrats himselft suggested the idea.

I feel I am indeed trustworthy: The two Hebrew admins from Commons voted for me, and the only bureaucrat of he.wiki, David Shay, had voted for me too. Other reasons I feel I can be trusted are: I have been an admin on he.wiki for a year and half now, and I have made over 39,000 edits with my bot on that site. I am also one of the founders of Wikimedia Israel chapter (to be) and I have an account on the foundation site for translations. I also maintain (i.e. bureaucrat tools) the Wikimedia Israel's site, http://il.wikimedia.org - Foundation members themselves gave me these rights when I asked them to create the site.

That said, my compromise is this: I would like to get the admin tools and I put my good name and reputation and promise I will not use any of the tools, except the tool which allows me to edit protected pages. I also promise that when I am done with the translations, that I will turn to a steward and request the removal of my admin tools. If I would like to continue to be a sysop after translations are finished and after my sysop tools are removed, I will go through the normal channel set by the Adminship policy.

I do hope the this is satisfactory for all, I know I will be satisfied. Regards, Yonidebest Ω Talk 18:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation is not a one-time task. As Commons evolves, so the English-language interface will change. This mitigates strongly against temporary sysopping merely for that purpose. It is better for Hebrew-interface users to see the English interface than an outdated Hebrew one. If you are sincere about doing translations here, you should have an interest in that beyond as a one time task. There is a whole host of things you can do which are of importance in the translation role, which do not require this process. There should be versions of all the pages of Category:Commons policies in every language. There are none with Hebrew translations. Likewise, many of the most important templates here have no Hebrew translation; Template:Delete is a prime example.

These tasks are just as important as the interface, if you do those you will earn the trust of the Commons community and so pass be able to pass RfA at a future point, without needing to resort to canvassing the he.wiki community. Your current actions (particularly on the Foundation mailing list) only serve to make the division between you and the community here all the larger. The interface needs translating yes; go to the SVN people. For the local system stuff use {{Editprotected}} and the MediaWiki talk pages. As an aside edits to the interface should never been done speedily, it is better to have someone else check the quality of the work before implementation.--Nilfanion 19:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about changes in the future. I am talking about the urgent changes that need to be made soon like the upload form. Once we have the basic translation, and once I have removed the sysop tools, I will apply for a fixed sysop so that I can help with other stuff, as well as helping with future translations. Template:Delete might be important, but the upload page and the Hebrew interface is currently more important. I have showed you all my cards, I have nothing to hide. I urge you to allow me to proove myself even further by giving me the tools that I need. Help me help you. Yonidebest Ω Talk 21:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already started translating the upload form over two weeks ago (I didn't finish since I needed to check how to translate the different {{Information}} parameters). The only reason it isn't live yet is because I want more people to go over it, please see User:Yonatanh/Uploadtext. Yonatan ^talk 22:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already translated that template in he.wiki. There is nothing to think about. Yonidebest Ω Talk 13:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a translators class

It is technically possible to have user level in MediaWiki that certain users can edit protected pages, but not delete and undelete pages. Would it not be a good idea to have such a user level in MediaWiki? Especially since we are a multilingual project, there are probably more users that are willing to translate the interface but don't want to bother with backlogs. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. Reason is if you can be trusted to edit the interface you can be trusted to do any admin activity. Deletion=Blocking=MW editing in terms of level of trust. Splitting the sysop abilities is a recurring proposal on en for reform there and it never comes to anything, no reason why it would be any different here. There is no need for it either, {{Editprotected}} or a poke on the AN does the job just fine for those who aren't admins - and admins can do it.--Nilfanion 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nilfanion, there, I have translated your Delete template. Can I now start working on the real Hebrew problems? IMHO, that template should have been the last thing to be translated. I promised the users on he.wiki that they will have a desent Hebrew Commons so that they can upload their free images here, I will very much regret to tell them not to bother. Yonidebest Ω Talk 22:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem is with the fact that rtl viewing in an ltr wiki doesn't work well. The side bar is on the wrong side, as are the different links at the top right corner (which should be at the top left corner when you set your language to he). IIRC, the developers advised against adding the div Rtl code at the top of every he page. Yonatan ^talk 22:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I have now opened ויקישיתוף:העלה קובץ לשרת and it seems I will need to edit even more protected pages that I originally thought. Yonidebest Ω Talk 23:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the image

Can somebody help me with renaming 2 images: Image:Maria Vlatorta1.jpg and Image:Maria Vlatorta2.jpg. The correct names are Image:Maria Valtorta1.jpg and Image:Maria Valtorta1.jpg. Thanks, --Janezdrilc 20:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can rename them yourself, just upload them again under the new names (be sure to get the highest resolution) and copy all the relevant information (original uploader, licensing information, etc.). Yonatan ^talk 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And then tag the old image with {{Bad name}} /Lokal _Profil 23:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Question Regarding NIST Chemistry Webbook

At webbook.nist.gov you can find spectra in GIF and other formats. For example, on the Toluene page, you can find a link to a nice mass spectrum. The page says

Owner: NIST Mass Spectrometry Data Center Collection (C) 2006 copyright by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce on behalf of the United States of America. All rights reserved.
Origin: Japan AIST/NIMC Database- Spectrum MS-NW- 67

It looks like NIST generated a stick spectrum based on data from the Japanese database (x and y values).

Question: is the mass spectrum a work by the US federal government and therefore in the public domain?

Thanks. --Kkmurray 21:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how do I rename a category?

how do I rename a category? Dunc|☺ 22:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, you need to ask an administrator so they can tell orgullobot to move it. Yonatan ^talk 22:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-language namespace names

I see this as something that is obviously needed for a multilingual project but I thought I'd see people's opinions here. I was thinking of filing a bug request to enable redirects from the different namespaces in different languages (this is already supported by the code just needs to be implemented by a developer). For example, if language X calls the Category namespace Categoria, when you go to Categoria:Living people it will bring you to Category:Living people. Yonatan ^talk 23:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy. It's already done on he.wiki: Category:blah takes you to קטגוריה:blah. That's not the problem. The problem is that we need to have קטגוריה:blah and Category:blah be a valid page name while "Category" and "קטגוריה" are still the same namespace, just diff language. Yonidebest Ω Talk 23:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed, the devolpers say this feature still needs to be developed. Yonidebest Ω Talk 00:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know it's doable, I wanted to get people's agreement before filing a bug requesting this to be enabled (and I was told by the devs the feature already exists). Why would you want to have two different categories - one Category:blah and one קטגוריה:blah - the latter should redirect to the former. Yonatan ^talk 11:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems if MediaWiki will automatically convert namespaces form user-selected language to wiki defaults ones (Category in this case). However, category redirects still not working, so translating only namespace is not so useful. --EugeneZelenko 14:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't strike me as overly useful since the actual name of the category, the meaningful part, is still not properly translatable. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it doesn't solve the real issue which is true multilingual support but I suppose it makes users from other language wikis feel more "at home". Also, if you create a redirect from Category:ירושלים to Category:Jerusalem, people will be able to enter קטגוריה:ירושלים just like they would on he (or any other language) and get the desired result. Yonatan ^talk 00:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can type it in the search box, but they can't add it to their photographs - which is kind of the part where we really need multilingual support. :( --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If such "category synonyms" were used, we would also need something that automatically translates them in wiki text. Otherwise many people will have problems when categories are [[Category:]], [[Törkem:]], [[Flokkur:]], or [[ קטגוריה :]] in wikicode, depending on who categorised a page. Users should see the categories translated to their language when editing pages. /82.212.68.183 09:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same should be true for different language descriptions, they should probably be ordered so your preferred language comes first, then English and then the rest and for the category name itself, if there's an alias for Category:Jerusalem in Hebrew and my default lang is he, instead of seeing Category:Jerusalem at the top I should see קטגוריה:ירושלים. Yonatan ^talk 10:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is light years (in OSS development terms) away. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duesentrieb proposed such solution based on interwikis. But it still not in MediaWiki code. Please ask him for more details. --EugeneZelenko 15:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert all [[Category: to [[Törkem: on opening for edit, and all [[Törkem: back to [[Category: on save (using Törkem as your localized namespace).

It's easy and should work almost always (i predict problems if you were trying to quote someone, <nowiki>s needs to be escaped). Diffs would still show Category though.

Platonides 19:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

Upload form

On he.wiki I added JS code that inserts the Information template automatically when the form is loaded. The template is used in most uploads, so I figured that inserting the template into the description box will be a smart move. And it worked: more ppl felt like they needed to fill in all the parameter. See here - notice how the Information template is automatically inserted into the description box. Considering this side is all about loading media, doing this here is a good idea. Yonidebest Ω Talk 00:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the information template is hugely useful...it's currently present in the upload page to cut and paste from for at least some pages (we now have more than one upload depending on what kind of upload you are doing). How did you insert it into the form, that is, what js code did you add and where, and does it work for all skins? Lar: t/c 20:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metadata in image files

On the English Wikipedia, we chemists are in discussion with a software company about including Wikipedia structure drawing settings within their free drawing software, ChemSketch. This could be a critical point, so we want to get it right now.

One key thing we'd like to do is to add metadata to the image file - specifically the InChI - which their software can already generate automatically. Google accepts InChI as a standard, as does IUPAC. With chemical structures, one wants to be able to search on the web for a particular compound. Right now, all our drawings on Commons are meaningless to a search engine, since all chemical information is lost when we convert it to a PNG or SVG file, hence the need to add metadata. If we can do tag our files (automatically!) with InChIs, we will make Wikipedia one of the most powerful and user-friendly sources of chemical information on the web. So, how should we add this metadata?

I realise that we could add InChIs to the description, but a typical example would look something like this: InChI=1/C26H26BrNO5S2/c1-13(29)7-19(30)10-17-8-15(5-6-21(17)28(31)32)16-9-18-12-22-26(35-25(3,4) 34-22)24(33-26)23(18)20(11-16)14(2)27/h5-6,8-9,11,14,22,24H,7,10,12H2,1-4H3/t14-,22-,24?,26-/s2

It seems to me there should be a proper place for metadata like this - where is it? Or do we need to think about adding a new field to the Wikimedia software for image metadata?

I think in general the image files need the fields organising, rather than relying on free text descriptions, but that's a much bigger issue that I shouldn't get into right now. Can someone knowledgable please advise? Walkerma 02:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[9] suggests using the string InChI string as the document title in an RDF block. (I’m not quite sure that this is compatible with the definition of the title element given in [10], though.) This would work in terms of providing the data in a machine-readable form, but, as that article suggests, we might have to render the information elsewhere to have it indexed by Google et al. This might be done on the image description page, as already happens with EXIF data from JPEG files. I’m unaware of existing code to do it (and have been thinking about writing some myself). —xyzzy_n 03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current practice is to create a template for this purpose, for example you could do something like {{InChI|1/C26H26BrNO5S2/c1-13(29)7-19(30)10-17-8-15(5-6-21(17)28(31)32)16-9-18-12-22-26(35-25(3,4) 34-22)24(33-26)23(18)20(11-16)14(2)27/h5-6,8-9,11,14,22,24H,7,10,12H2,1-4H3/t14-,22-,24?,26-/s2}}. Anyone who wanted to machine read this out of our image pages could extract it with a simple regular expression and the template itself could either pretty print the data, link it to a viewing app (ideally one Wikimedia hosted), or hide it.. whichever you wish. --Gmaxwell 04:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the data should be present in the actual image file as well, so that it’s still identifiable after being copied someplace else. —xyzzy_n 13:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty hard to do in PNGs... for SVGs it wouldn't be had to add an RDF block that other software would ignore. Exif would work fine for jpegs, but I expect none of these images will be jpegs. --Gmaxwell 23:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it’s possible with PNG (the same way XMP can be embedded), but these drawings should be SVG in the first place. (Ideally, there would be a standard XML format for molecules and people could upload that and MediaWiki would just apply a stylesheet to get the SVG, but I digress…) —xyzzy_n 20:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) This looks to be very helpful. I should mention the main reason for this - a chemical names is not a unique identifier, but the InChI is. I'd like to recap your suggestions for the technically-challenged such as myself. Please correct me if I'm wrong! We could embed the InChI as an RDF block within the SVG code (maybe in the PNG, but much harder), but this may be hard for Google to find the information (Note - this is a major reason for wanting the InChI). So instead we should probably place the InChI within the project description, like an Exif file, so Google can find it. Maybe this could be done with an RDF block that can be read by Google or a , but ignored by other software. This could also be done using a template, but in that case we'd need to make sure that Google picks up the image page, not the template page (is this done with "subst"?). Have I got the gist of the suggestions? MANY thanks for your help! Walkerma 02:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I posted without doing sufficient research. [11] discusses a similar problem and has an example of RDF code on page 11 that is almost identical to what one might put into an SVG file. (In case you are not familiar with this stuff, both SVG and RDF are extensions of w:XML and have the same syntax; RDF embeds in a natural, well-understood manner in SVG.)

To have this picked up by Google, assuming that Google ignores the data in the SVG file, you need either to put the same data on the image description page (see above the example by Gmaxwell) or to modify the MediaWiki software. Maybe the latter will happen eventually, but do not count on it in the very near future.

Do you know of any molecule drawing software that already works with this kind of data and SVG? —xyzzy_n 09:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, this is gradually getting clearer for me! Funny you should cite Henry Rzepa's paper, that was one of the inspirations for my proposal to embed InChI here! (He's aware of our efforts here, BTW). As for existing molecule editors that work like this, Chemsketch (we are working with their people on this project) can already generate an InChI from a structure, and they now have a beta test patch that can generate a PNG directly with Wikipedia settings in it. As for generating SVG files directly, the most common editor that is able to do this is w:BKchem, which I see now also supports InChI. Our ultimate goal here is not just to get one molecule editor to do this, but all of them - so that chemists will find these tools in the next upgrade of the software they currently use. The molecule editor that currently dominates the market is w:ChemDraw. I'll pass on your helpful information, thanks, Walkerma 05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posters of political activities

I had two images of political activity of the Italian gay movement deleted as "derivate" since propaganda posters appeared in them. I asked whether this was a general policy with all propaganda posters of any kind, here but I got no reply. Perhaps I asked in the wrong place. So I try again gere. I accept any rules, but I need to know the rule first. If all images of political posters are "derivate" works, then we should delete all political posters, not only the gay-themed ones: right? Meanwhile, perhaps for equity sake after I posed the question, a propaganda poster by the municipality of Palermo against the Mafia was labelled as copyviol. I am a journalist, and I know that in copyright exists a thing that is called in my language "diritto di cronaca", i.e. the right to document an event, that partly restricts copyright rights (more about the issue here).

I think that because of a Copyright paranoia Commons is on the way to give up our "right to document" anything that happened less than 140 years ago. In fact (and I am not telling a paradox: I am serious) also a handwritten propaganda poster is, being the result of a creative act, copyrighted. Therefore we should delete as "derivate" any images of a political manifestation. Nonsense. I think things are getting more and more kafkians. However, someone give me a clear answer on the matter. Thank you. --G.dallorto 08:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not against propaganda posters but against unauthorized derivative works. In fact, we have lots of old (ie free) propaganda stuff here. Just two simple questions:

Has the poster shown in your photos been published under a free license?
If you cannot provide evidence of the former, do you have a permission of the copyright holder to reproduce it in your photos?

And no, the "diritto di cronaca" does not apply here, as well as fair use does not either. And yes, "a handwritten propaganda poster is, being the result of a creative act, copyrighted" (as well as Picasso's drawings are, for example), but that is not a nonsense but the result of the absurd copyright laws we have.

If you think some other images are unauthorized derivative works you are free to tag them with {{Derivative}} but please don't come here to accuse us of being homophobe. Regards. --Dodo 08:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than a few gay admins (and even bureaucrats) on here so I'd say the accusation of us being anti-gay\homophobic is pretty unfounded. Yonatan ^talk 11:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

‘[N]ot only the gay-themed ones: right?’ Right. Commons:Deletion requests/Italian posters. —xyzzy_n 14:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that G.dallorto has requested the deletion of various similar photos. Shouldn't he use the {{Derivative}} template? --Dodo 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I had done, but User:xyzzy_n very kinldy let me know I was wrong in doing so (and deleted all of my requests): quote:

I’ve reverted your edits. Sorry, but you’re mixing two different deletion processes (speedy and regular; please read Commons:Deletion) and several different cases of problematic (or, in at least one case, not problematic) images. There is more than one rule for everything and there is no need to try to figure out everything under one rationale (but feel free to copy my nomination prose, if you find it so useful…). —xyzzy_n 14:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC) <unquote>.[reply]

You can find the conversation on my user page. So I thought using an "ordinary" request and a case-by-case approach would prove more appropriate and by-the-rules. --G.dallorto 22:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But IMHO some of those images infringe pretty clearly COM:DW... When should we use the {{Derivative}} template? Regards. --Dodo 06:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice question, and in fact I am after a tentative to discover it out... --G.dallorto 14:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we don't even need the {{Derivative}}, it misleads people into believing we speedy delete all derivatives when we only speedy the really obvious ones and the others go in COM:DEL (this has nothing to do with the aforementioned case as I didn't review these images). Obvious derivative works should probably use {{Copyvio}} anyway and not-so-obvious ones should go through COM:DEL. Yonatan ^talk 14:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G.dallorto seems to confuse two different issues:

Photos of a political poster, where the single or overwhelmingly main object is the poster. The goal here is to faithfully reproduce the poster, which is a protected works. The photo is thus a derived work.
Photos of whole groups marching in protest, carrying flags or other items with logos. First, it is not obvious that logos are copyrightable in some cases (they are possibly trade marks but this is a different issue). Second, the fact that a whole, composite scene includes as a mere element a copyrighted itsm does not make the whole photo a derived work of that item. In fact, there was a major court decision in France in 2005 based on this (France has no freedom of panorama in law, but the court ruled that the picture of a whole plaza is not a derived work of sculptures and arrangements placed in that plaza... because the protected works were a mere component integrated into a whole scene)

Finally, it is evident that G.Dallorto is disrupting Wikimedia Commons to make a point. Because he is afraid of copyright paranoia (which is understandable), and because some people put up for deletion two photos he or she is interested in, he or she is deliberately putting up for deletion other pictures by other photographers.

It is quite evident to me that G.Dallorto has no legal knowledge in the jurisdictions where some of the pictures he or she is discussing. For instance, he or she made gross legal errors when discussing a picture taken in France, showing he or she knows little about French copyright law.

I thus suggest that we ignore all his deletion requests and warn him that he should not disrupt Wikimedia Commons to make a point. David.Monniaux 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I think that's a bit harsh. I don't think Giovanni is doing anything in bad faith nor is he trying to disrupt (whether to make a point or not). Freedom of panorama is a complex concept and how do we learn more about it after we read about it if not by nominating pictures for deletion (and then seeing whether they're kept or deleted). Yonatan ^talk 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posters of political activities as a test case

I think that taking bad faith for granted and insulting a person does not belong to the policy of Wikipedia. Therefore I invite David.Monniaux to respect them if he really wants to solve the problem in place of playing little trolls, ok? Thank you. Of course I am trying to make a point, and I did state it openly. I was told (quote)"There is more than one rule for everything and there is no need to try to figure out everything under one rationale"(unquote) and I am just testing the chaos to see which the fucking rules are. After we find out them, we shall all work BY THE RULES, but we have to know them first. Can you tell me what's wrong in trying to check the rules? I think this is a duty, more than a right.

To make my point further, I am not "disprupting" anything. Quite the reverse, although this is a bit bold of me (yes it is), I'd like to call the attention on the fact that through certain rules that were self-imposed Wikicommons risks to miss its task and to disrupt it.

David Monniaux, when inviting everybody to disregard the rules that apply on Wikipedia only because he does not like their consequences, is a good exemple of my point. If the rules are stupid, we should change them. If we cannot, or do not want to change them, we must stick to them all the time, and not only in certain cases, as people please. So gay posters may not stay, but other kinds may? Mhhhh. I never accused anybody of homophobia (I know that "some of your best adms are gay") I was just asking. The word "homophobia" sprung up from user Dodo, not from me. I wast checking the criteria to be met to leave a poster stand in WikiCommons. Nothing else.

Eventually, David, "right of panorama" applies - in all of Europe, since France adopted a EUROPEAN legislation, in case you did not notice... - to incidental inclusion of a trademarked object/logo in a picture that has a different subject. e.g.: you shoot a pic of a square, where am Attac kiosks stand, but this is just a portion of the pic, even if it is still visible. This is the case you refer to. But the pictures we are discussing about have the association, and their logo, as main and only subject... I repeat, main and only.

...Which is the very case of my pictures that were speedily deleted (without me being even warned): pictures of Arcigay activities in which their posters were visibile (yes they were, I am not denying it). Now, I am playing by the rules, I made a regular deletion request, I warned you, you had the right to contest my request, so I don't think I am "disrupting" anything. I am democratically discussing. If you are furious about Commons' rules, please don't take me as your personal target. Use your anger to fight for them to be amended. No one obliged us to decide that all and any pictures on Wikicommons should be available also for commercial and derivate use, but we did, and by so doing we gave up the right to appeal to the clauses that limit copytights for noncommercial and educational uses. It is not the law that is stupid, is a choice freely taken by WikiCommons which is. In my opinion, a special category should be available for images depiting events to be chronicled, although under more limited scope. Do you find my request "disruptive"?. I think this is trivial good sense. And I think you have the right to disagree. without being "ignored" by me. That's the difference. Thanks. --G.dallorto 14:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Monniaux, when inviting everybody to disregard the rules that apply on Wikipedia only because he does not like their consequences, is a good exemple of my point.

Personal attack, straw man.

Eventually, David, "right of panorama" applies - in all of Europe, since France adopted a EUROPEAN legislation, in case you did not notice...

No. European legislation (I suppose you mean EUCD) does not impose "right of panorama" as an exception to the exclusive rights of the authors. It is an optional exception and was not adopted when EUCD was transposed by the DADVSI law. Read the EUCD, article 5, and the French code of Intellectual property article L122-5.

The truth is that you're totally incompetent on French legislation and that I happen to know DADVSI and related issues fairly well. In fact, I'm the person writing Wikimédia France's position papers on copyright... and the person who wrote Commons' legal details on French copyright law, including the "freedom of panorama" section. So, please. Do not make yourself ridiculous and please stop making legal claims before you actually researched the matter (You'll note that I won't make claims on Italian law, because I cannot read Italian nor do I know anything about Italian law).

You are angry about having some of your pictures speedily deleted for reasons that you consider bogus. I did not delete these pictures, didn't see the motives for deleting them. If the reasons were truly bogus, then you are right in being angry.

However, being angry is no excuse for deliberately disrupting other people's work. You have deliberately called for the deletion of bunches of pictures under false legal claims so as to make your point. As a result, we now have people who scurrily wonder why the heck their pictures are going to be deleted, including people who do not speak English and do not realize your claims are invalid. Please cease and desist from that kind of silliness. David.Monniaux 15:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni, we have rules. They are written down. You should find the time to read them. Please do not disrupt Commons to get people to point out the rules to you. In particular, nothing is gained by badly researched deletion nominations. —xyzzy_n 16:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving apart the personal attack by David Monniaux, since personal attacks lead nowhere. I'm afraid I'm not angry, I'm simply, and very calmy, puzzled by the contradictions of implementation of the "rules" here, whatever they are. Mr Monniaux, deciding whether a poster by an organisation appearing in a picture of a public activity of such an organisation makes it "derivative" or not, does not depend upon French, or Italian, or Zululand legislation at all (especially when we discuss about Attac-Austria, with pics taken in Austria... maybe Austrian laws will apply, rather than French ones? I think so), no matter how pompously you refer to it. This regards the internal policy of WikiCommons and its licensing terms. We may in fact decide that any logo makes it derivative ipso facto (a prudent - or paranoid -, we-want-no-trouble approach), or choose another approach. Of course, by respecting the law. But laws, as you might know, can be and are interpreted. Hence my, and other people's, doubts.

In case we chose the second option, which rules shall we follow then? That's the point. No one here seems to know... Quot capita, tot sententiae.

Furthermore, Mr Monniaux, if you think only legal experts, lawyers and jurists should judge about keeping or deleting images in WikiCommons, you should put to vote this proposal an have it approved as an officialy policy here. It may make a lot of sense, indeed, but if this is your point of view, you should have the courage to defend it openly, without simply implying it by hinting at other people's in-competence in deciding about images, in sheer contrast with your deep learning and understanding of the matter. So please make such a proposal and submit it to a vote. Until you do, though, your personal attacks will be not only meaningless, but also pointless: in Wikicommons even people who are not lawyers (at least at the moment) may and can vote about legal issues. I am sorry, but this is Wikipedia: love it or leave it.

xyzzy: I am not "disrupting" anything. Democracy, to work, needs testing. Or, if you prefere to put it this way, democracy is dusruptive per se: I agree. Having one person deciding everything for everybody would be more orderly and neat: I agree again. But this is not the case with democracy, nor with Wikipedia.

Of course I am not implying you don't like democracry, since testing the matter to make my mind about is literally what Dodo had suggested me to do, and of course Dodo was not just scorning me, he was serious. And I am testing the rule trough carefully chosen images. If I did what you imply, I would have blanket-nominated a whole category. Instead, I only picked up cases I deemed dubious, and in several cases other users agreed with my opinion we were dealing with derivative works. So please, refrain for personal judgments and let's talk about the issue.

It' obviouos that some images I nominated are dubious, since I carefully chose them quite for being so!!! I am testing a case, and borderline cases make perfect tests.

You invite me to read the rules, which I did years ago. I invite you in my turn to read the terms of my question, my test going beyond the trifling case of one single picture, as you imply. I had scores of pictures deleted: many of those I uploaded when I began collaborating here have gone. It took some time to learn the rules, but I did, and I never complained: what is just, is just. I always work by the rules. But rules must be (1) clear and (2) consistent. In this test case what I say - please do read what I write - (I may be wrong, and democracy means that after I say this, other people may vote my opinion out) they are contraddictory and waving, and even that perhaps a different license should be approved in Commons for cases such of documentation of events of so-called "derivative works". The rules we adopted are strangling freedom of information.

Of course to make the case I need a test and a vote and a common decision to base my statement upon. But if you think I am just looking for revenge for a picture that was deleted (you don't mention the fact that I am not objecting to the deletion of the second one, which should demonstrate something, I guess), then look at here: I am nominating for deletion dozens of images taken by ME. That under the rules set by Wikimedia foundation may not stay here. Of course I don't want them to be deleted, I want the rules to be changed. But, again, decision-making, in democracy, is a slow and painful process. So please, do vote against my proposals if you feel they are wrong (in some cases I already changed my mind myself, after reading the reasoning of other commoners, in other cases I stuck to my analysis) but please don't preach about my purpoted hidden motivation. I know democracy is fastidious and boring, but it's all we have as an alternative to Corbis.com by Microsoft (that offers an eccellent - albeit commercial - service, btw). --G.dallorto 14:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t a democracy. It doesn’t need ‘testing’. And I’m commenting mostly on your failure to do fairly trivial research regarding some of the images for which you requested deletion; that your self-proclaimed motivation is to test the rules is just another bad thing. —xyzzy_n 16:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can Fractals be Featured?

I have some super hi-res (6144x4608) fractals (see them at User:Wj32) so does Featured Images take Fractals? Also, does it matter if the images are too hi-res for previews (my images are 27mpx, the limit for previews is 12mpx)? --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 09:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but you might as well try - there certainly isn't an anti-fractal rule at COM:FP. I don't think having a picture that's too hi-res can harm your pictures' chances of becoming featured pictures, especially since they can always be scaled down. Yonatan ^talk 11:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any on who is good at editing templates?

As I work on the ACC project. However the page is not functional, I would like to ask if anyone can give me a hand on the template modifying? Chanueting 15:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chanueting, the page seems OK to me. What is the problem? Could be a simple cache problem, wait for the page to be updated? Michelet-密是力 06:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This problem is solved. Thanks for Yug. Chanueting 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing deleted images on other projects and verifying imports

I thought I'd bring this up here before bringing it up on foundation-l. Basically, I think commons admins should have the ability to view deleted pages in the image namespace on *all* projects. The reason this is needed is the large amount of images imported here from the other projects and the fact that it's very hard to verify that the uploads are fine. Right now, every time I wanna check such an image I have to go to #wikipedia-xx (xx=language name) on freenode and wait until an admin is around so he can check the image page and tell me what's on it. This is a *very* tedious process and a reason why I think a lot of admins probably avoid verifying such images' sources. I think in addition to that, we should have something like {{Verifiedupload}}, a template that admins add to uploads from other wikipedias that have been checked over by an admin (so other admins don't check it again) and maybe a {{Verificationneeded}} that could be implemented into CommonsHelper for files moved here from other wikipedias (like flickrreview since little if any review is done of files that were moved from other Wikimedia projects). It's happened more than once that I found out that an image that was moved to commons wasn't actually free by getting the admins of the other project to tell me what the image page said. Yonatan ^talk 13:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support It might not be a vote but I think this is a very important matter and I agree with Yonatan wholeheartedly. Admins on other projects aren't always aware that we don't accept non-free images and will delete locally when it has been moved here (often with an incorrect or intentionally changed license), and we need to be able to verify that images are/were free. Also the problem of an image not being verified at the other project to ensure we have the same image; it may have the same name but could be a different image altogether. Commons admins are often left having to verify these things or double-check when problems arise and we have to find a local admin to check it, which is a hassle for both parties, and then there are misunderstandings or mistakes and it is a huge unnecessary mess. So yes, I think Commons admins should be able to see deleted images on other projects :) -- Editor at Large • talk 13:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --DieBuche 13:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Completely agree, such ability will be very helpful. --EugeneZelenko 14:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support The lack of this ability is very frustrating. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding viewing deleted images in other projects, it's a great idea but I don't think it will be technically possible without some serious tweaking. For one thing other projects don't know we are Commons admins. Even if we have an account there and the same name, they don't know our rights on other wikis. Even once SUL arrives, I am not sure this passing of information will be possible. Secondly there is no current functionality to only allow viewing of deleted edits in a particular namespace, or even a separation between the ability to view deleted edits, and all the other admin actions. So... nice idea, go ahead and suggest it, but don't expect to see it in action any time soon.

Precisely - Doesn't the suggestion implies that an admin on Commons should be admin on all project as well? ;o) Michelet-密是力 15:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding templates. What stops any well-meaning user applying them once they figure out that is what needs to happen? regardless of whether or not they are accurate) And how can we be assured that admin standards everywhere are the same as what we expect? I feel quite certain they won't be.

These are good ideas to be thinking about, but I'm not sure either of your specific suggestions will actually be implementable. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with pfctdayelise... some great thought starter stuff here, there's a real problem all right, but I am not sure that the powers needed to carry this out as written (global adminship, in essense, or at least a restricted form of it) would be granted. But very worthy of talking through to see what might be done. If I may be so bold, when you bring it to foundation-l I suggest that you position it as a problem to be thought about rather than a solution/power that is being sought. Perhaps there is another solution for the problem? Lar: t/c 15:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An idea I have been playing with for quite some time, but never took the time to investigate or even put here :) About the templates, I don't think what pfctdayelise and lar indicate will be that big a problem. Other review templates show that this is seldomly abused: I have fetched all images pages, and grouped the reviews by user, and checked whether that user also did edit the image page. It appears that the number of illegal use of the template is countable on one hand; while it is used on 6000 images. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is with the need for (at least a restricted subset of) adminship on every project, more than the template misuse. That part we can handle. But given how much trouble just getting delinkerbot permission was... Love the idea though! Lar: t/c 17:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, at least on en, the NowCommons rules (here and CSD I8) say that an en admin should verify the source and license of the Commons copy before deleting, which means Commons admins shouldn't have to. Obviously that doesn't always happen. But perhaps we could help things by starting the {{Verifiedupload}} system, and getting it made policy elsewhere that images aren't deleted until verified. Then Commons admins wouldn't need to be able to view deleted pages elsewhere. --Davepape 17:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I believe has already been mentioned deleted images are not available (and never will be) on the Toolserver (neither are deleted pages for that matter) however when Tim finishes the new image back-end hashes of all images will be available which will allow us to compare deleted images on the commons with deleted images on other projects. Lcarsdata 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image hashes may be great to create the suspicion that images may be identical, but the only certainty they can establish is that images are non-identical (as binary files, that is). I have been running into clearly different binary files having identcal MD5s at least twice up to now, not counting instances I did not detect. Also, I have several instances of visually indistinguishalbe images having different sizes and / or MD5s, I did not even attempt to find out why thy they differ. So visual inspection is likely unavoidable both for identical and non-identical MD5s. Sorry folks. --Purodha Blissenbach 20:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MD5 hashes will not be used, instead SHA 2 will probably be chosen instead. Lcarsdata 16:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For who?

For who would, if approved, be this permission for? There are several options:

Administrators who want such permission should go through an additional request process.
All administrators [semi-]automatically get such a permissions.
All users, administrators or not, could go through a process to request the permission.

Anyway I think this proposal will reach great opposition, especially on the larger wikis who do not want us to mingle with their affairs. A separate request process on meta will probably get the least opposition, due to the fact that it will give other communities more influence on the selection process. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I of course expect such oppositions but I'll find them odd. Seeing how we can already delete most pictures that are used on the different wikis, I don't see why we can't be trusted with viewing deleted images. I think this sort of conversation is better placed on foundation-l, where I will be posting it today. Yonatan ^talk 15:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A feature idea - image deletion/superseded notification via automatic image watermarking

Bugzilla:9616: "Feature: Templates on image pages cause ImageMagick to create new thumbs with watermarks". Why do labour when software can do it for us.

May be of interest to the "superseded" arguers further up the page. -pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs of DVD's, books etc.

I know that scans of book covers and DVD's isn't allowed at commons. However, what if I use my camera to take photographs of a DVD or a book? I mean, there's already photographs of books at commons, take Image:Nationalencyklopedin.jpg as an example. Don't forget the page Book. Well, the object in the photograph is a 3D object and it isn't possible to reproduce DVD or book covers using the images. I also know that if I go to a book store and take some pictures I can post them here. Anyway, I took some pictures of a DVD and a couple of mangas. So, should these kinds of photographs be allowed at Commons? Oh, and please comment the images individually.

Link to photographs / Klibbnisse 20:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also know that if I go to a book store and take some pictures I can post them here. Not if you take single book covers. Yes if you take general, wide, views.

So, should these kinds of photographs be allowed at Commons? No. Copyright violation. David.Monniaux 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-US-flag

This image is a U.S. state, federal district, or insular area flag. Such flags are in the public domain.

Village pump/Archive/2007/04

Is it actually correct that all US state flags are public domain? I thought that works by some states are not public domain. The public domain status has been disputed at en:Template talk:PD-US-flag. Thuresson 21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Answered on discussion page Michelet-密是力 04:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather call that a non-answer. Thuresson 23:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch

After fixing and reordering all the images concerning the doors of the Duomo in Milan (650 years old) I found out all doors have ben modelled (in bronze) by sculptors none of which died at least 70 years ago. They are super-famous but I think that they must all be deleted, is it not? You find them here: Category:Duomo di Milano - Main bronze door. Please give me your opinion (but please don't mark for deletion the baroque marble reliefs that surround the door, they are patently PD due to age. Only the bronze parts are from 19th and 20th century).--G.dallorto 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC) PS Obviously if you agree about deletion, all of Pogliaghi's work should be deleted, including the frescos on the facade of palazzo san Giorgio in Genoa: Category:Ludovico Pogliaghi :-( .[reply]

In some countries, photos of works of art permanently placed in a public area can be used as the photograher pleases. Does Italy have "panorama freedom"? Thuresson 21:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italy has no freedom of panorama. :-(

April 17

Upload your own work

For people pictures, it is said to be "either public figures or (...) taken at public events"
I'd rather think it has to be "both public figures and taken at public events".
B.navez 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of ordinary people are public events (such as protests, rallies) are widely regarded as OK with respect to privacy concerns. I think the "public figures" is just there so people don't upload pictures of their sister and brother. :) But suggestions in improving the wording are welcome. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new laws about privacy could constitute a problem (and a nightmare). A series of pictures showing peope whose face is revognisable in a political manifestation, could be seen as filing them according with their political ideas, which is against such laws. I have no solution to propose, but the recent fuss about Google keeping trace of what a person did and wrote 5 years ago as being against privacy might be an indication about what could happen to us in the near future. Personally, when I shoot pictures of monuments of Milan to upload here, I wait until I can get an empty road/scene, or I blur faces of passers-by if I cannot. At the risk of looking like living in a city without inhabitants :-) I repeat, I have no solutions to offer, I was just pointing at a problem. --G.dallorto 11:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 18

Image:HK Nelson Street Ladies Market junction.jpg

This photo has not been deleted but its link is dead--Bananasims 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. (Clear your cache.) —xyzzy_n 12:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Panorama issues

Another problem with Italy

Category:Ara Pacis museum in Rome: Italy apparently has no freedom of panorama and the architect, Category:Richard Meier, is alive. Ditto for:

Category:Marcello Piacentini (he died in 1960)
Category:Gae Aulenti (alive)
Category:Renzo Piano (alive)
Category:Aldo Rossi († 1997)
Category:Franco Minissi († 1996)
Category:Paolo Mezzanotte († 1969)
Category:Pier Luigi Nervi († 1979)
Category:Giuseppe Terragni († 1943)
Category:Torre Velasca in Milan (built in 1958) and the whole Category:Skyscrapers in Milan... or worse, the whole Category:Contemporary architecture in Milan. And since the immensely famous Teatro alla Scala was just renovated with the addition of a new building, all the images in Category:Teatro alla Scala in Milan showing the new bulding should go as well. And since this building is a part of the panorama of Piazza Scala, most images of the square should go too.

Shall we simply get rid of all architecture of Italy built less than 140 years ago?

This "freedom of panorama" is not under control

Stop this nonsense (this may be POV ;o). For the one I know: indeed, in France, architects have claimed that it was an infringment of laws on intellectual property, but this has never been subject to any jugement, so this might as well amount to intellectual terrorism. What has been juged, is that the owner of a photographied place must demonstrate a prejudice if he wants to attack any given picture of his property. So the factual situation in France is: you may freely take and reproduce picture, but you must take into account object property and artistical property, and make sure that the use of the picture will not cause (economical, mainly) prejudice to the owner.

Publicly exposed material is "free", insofar as no payment nor authorisation is needed to use the picture most of the time; this amounts to "free with pendant right", and for any thinkable use in the wikipedian world, the restriction on pendant rights is pointless.

Instead of systematically asking for the suppression of such images based on non-juged claims and lack of juridical framework, we should acknowledge that there is debate on the juridical status of such picture, and debate on what would be a sensible Commons policy (limits on what seems acceptable / warning model to explicit private rights / ask for authorization or confirmation ...). If the debate leads to sensible "home rules", chances are that they will make their way through jurisprudence toward legislation anyway.

So please apply the Wikipedia rule: when facing a problem, be creative and think of what a solution might be! Michelet-密是力 18:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On "free content"

Re ‘Publicly exposed material is "free", insofar as no payment nor authorisation is needed to use the picture most of the time’: we use a different definition of ‘free’. And I do not see why a judge or a legislative body would add exceptions to existing laws just because somebody on the WWW doesn’t like those laws. —xyzzy_n 19:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♦ You seem not to be aware of how legislation evolves.

♦ The freedomdefined.org definition is irresponsible and lunatic, as far as law is concerned. You can't say that a "free picture" may be used for any purpose, or may have any transformation, because some legal restrictions will always apply some way or another. For instance, even when a painting has fallen into public domain, it is still subject to the "moral rights" - which are "perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible" - that definitely restrict the right to make changes, since the "respect due to the work" is imprescriptible. It has been juged in France that this "respect to the work" is enough to forbid a TV channel to put its logo while transmitting a film, or cut it to allow for ads. If freedomdefined.org definition is accepted, then all PD-old art must be suppressed because the freedom to transform the work is not absolute? - ridiculous. If you want to seriously discuss legal matters, please don't use this freedomdefined.org definition, it's mere propaganda.

Michelet-密是力 05:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The freedomdefined.org definition is authoritative. —xyzzy_n 07:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is authoritative but this definition, while perhaps fitting on US law, does not fit (if taken strictly) on European legal systems that have a notion of "moral rights". Unless you want to declare all European content to be unfree, you'll have to take this definition with a pinch of salt. David.Monniaux 07:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moral rights, a concept present in the Berne Convention (Article 6bis) and in United States law (U.S.C. 17 §106A), have two major purposes: to allow the author to demand attribution and to give the author a means to object to uses and modifications of the work that are ‘prejudicial to [the author’s] honor or reputation’. The major difference between European and US law is that the latter gives the author a means to waive these rights. However, my impression from reading §106A is that even in the United States, a universal waiver of moral rights would be difficult or impossible. So if moral rights are a problem, then the problem is (almost?) world-wide. However, the definition explicitly allows a requirement of attribution and I interpret the phrase ‘some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms’ to mean, in particular, that it is permissible for a free content licence by omission to imply restrictions without which the licence would contradict copyright law. This is why I see moral rights not as a problem, in the same way that a free content licence needs not e. g. try to exempt the user from liability for crossing a street on a red light while reading the work. In the words of w:Lawrence Lessig, ‘we’re not trying to “strip” anyone of moral rights. Indeed, we don’t do moral rights.’[12] —xyzzy_n 10:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Since no "free licence" can cancel moral rights, you can't say that such a licence gives you complete freedom to make whatever transformation you want: this is why the "authorative definition" is excessive, at best a militant one, but unrealistic. If you want a realistic definition with due respect to legal constraints, limit yourself to something like:

♦ No payment nor authorisation is required to use or reproduce the picture. ♦ No conventional restriction clause is made to limit reproduction or usage. ♦ The only restrictions on usage, reproduction or transformation are those imposed by law, due to the very nature of the picture (eg, seals or trade marks) and/or moral rights of the author and/or rights linked to the object represented.

The question of derivative works is embarassing, though. An author may licence his work under a free licence (GFDL) allowing uncontrolled derivative work, but a PD-old work has not such a licence, so any modification is made under the user's responsability: though not problematic, Wikipedia cannot say it is "free" material if the definition of freedomdefined.org is stricly required. IMHO, this is an very theoretical and academical question, though: any usage I can think of on wikipedia is not problematic for PD-old, there is no need for an "unlimited derivative right" on pictures anyway. Michelet-密是力 12:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think ‘complete freedom’ is mentioned anywhere in the definition. The extent of rights to be granted to users is defined in the ‘Essential freedoms’ section[13], to which I refer in my analysis above. I don’t understand what your point regarding PD-old is. By the way, the free {software,content} movement is indeed ‘militant’ in the sense that it challenges the traditional method of distributing copyrighted works and this website happens to be a part of that. —xyzzy_n 16:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do know we're on a militant site, but legal analysis must nevertheless be realistic. Michelet-密是力 12:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the sentence "a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation": some pictures are such that the corresponding freedoms cannot be "granted" by any kind of licence, because that would be illegal (for instance, you can't say that a CC photo licence grants you the freedom to use it for public insults, because there is no such freedom, nor that a PD-old material inserted in a GFDL wikipedia article may be transformed at will, because the moral rights of the author must nevertheless be respected). The sentense would be perfectly OK if it ran "a license must state no limitation to the following freedoms", because it would not have excluded limitations that are imposed by law for the respect of "public order" & which therefore cannot be contracted out. This (militant and unrrealistic) formulation causes two kind of problems: (1) it lets the contributors under the impression that anything can be made with "free" material, which is false, and (2) when a legal restriction is discovered by the "free" community, it leads to systematically exclude the corresponding material, which is an overreaction. Hence my advocating for more realism. Michelet-密是力 12:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. The ‘right’ to insult people, just like the ‘right’ to ignore a red light (see above), has nothing to do with copyright and is therefore outside the scope of the entire discussion. As for whether the licence is required to ‘grant’ freedoms or to ‘state no limitation’, the latter version fails to imply that the licence should grant the user rights that are a priori exclusive rights of the copyright holder and is therefore useless. —xyzzy_n 21:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonsense indeed, but that's the way WP users react. I've seen tons of discussions based on the line "this polititian can't have allowed his picture to be put under free licence, because it would amount to allow any insulting derivative". I've seen plenty of arguments based on "there is such and such legal limitation, therefore the picture can't be free". I know this is nonsense - this is precisely my point. The militant definition leads to such nonsense, and therefore is de facto problematic and irrealistic. Michelet-密是力 03:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition does not say this. Have you seen these tons of discussions only after the definition was made official (2007-03-23)? —xyzzy_n 11:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Freedom of panorama

For the one I know: indeed, in France, architects have claimed that it was an infringment of laws on intellectual property, but this has never been subject to any jugement

Mmmh. Actually, there was a ruling of Cassation in 2005 that denied the right of sculptors / architects (Daniel Buren and another person) to monetary compensation from a postcard company... but the reason cited by the Court was that their protected work was an element integrated into a larger scene. Thus, the Court left open the possibility that a photograph that represents one building (as opposed to a building in a whole panorama) is a derived work of the building.

I don't know recent rulings off the top of my head granting money to architects, but certainly, they do request money or authorizations, there's ample evidence to that (see the SPMI Observatoire de l'Image newsletter). David.Monniaux 20:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does Italian case law tell us about photographs of contemporary buildings in Italy? Lupo 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question! David.Monniaux 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked in Wikipedia Italy, and at the moment no one seems to know the answer. If you can read Italian you can find about it here. --G.dallorto 12:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ceterum censeo, once again: Remember that Freedom of Panorama does not magically turn copyrighted material into free material. It just relieves SOME restrictions on USAGE of the photo. Plus, it does so only in countries with a liberal FOP jurisdiction. FOP is not automatically "attached" to the photo. It applies in the country where you go to court, not in the country where you take the picture. --Fb78 09:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true in general. Remember "national treatment"? But we have this idea that in order to host an image at the commons, it must be ok to publish the image under the copyright laws of both the country of origin and of the U.S. With freedom of panorama (FOP), we get into troubles. If we'd apply that strictly, we could delete all images of copyrighted sculptures, because the U.S. has no FOP for these (only for buildings). We could also delete all FOP-images from eastern European countries, where FOP is only for non-commercial uses. So what options do we have:

Allow FOP-images generally. We'd host files that we couldn't publish under U.S. law (sculptures), and we'd host files that couldn't be published in their source country (e.g., FOP images from Italy), and we'd host non-commercial-only FOP images (Eastern Europe). We could also host images of the Atomium under that rule. (I'm not saying that'd be wise!)
Allow only images that would be fine under U.S. FOP. Bye-bye to all sculptures, but keep all buildings, even if not ok under the law of the source country.
Allow only images that would be fine under the FOP of the source country. Bye-bye to images from no-FOP and non-commercial-FOP countries, but keep FOP images of sculptures from countries where FOP allows that, even though not ok under U.S. law.
Allow only images fine under FOP in the U.S. and in the source country. Bye-bye to sculptures (even if fine in source country, because not ok in the U.S.), and bye-bye to images from no-FOP or non-commercial-FOP countries (because although fine in the U.S., publishing those images is not ok (or not ok for commercial purposes) in the source country).
Allow images that are ok under FOP in the U.S. or in the source country. That appears to be our current practice, but it is inconsistent. We host images of non-U.S. sculptures if fine under FOP in the country of origin, even though that's not ok under U.S. law. We don't host images of U.S. sculptures. We currently also host FOP images from no-FOP countries (e.g., Italy) and from non-commercial-FOP countries (Eastern Europe) because they're fine in the U.S. and other FOP-countries. In fact, we even seem to ignore the "non-commercial" restriction in non-commercial-FOP countries (we have quite a few images of copyrighted sculptures from Eastern Europe). But we don't host Atomium images, or nighttime images of the Eiffel tower.

Some explanations:

The source country (or country of origin) is a non-obvious concept itself (see Berne Convention, article 5). A work may even have several "source countries" at the same time. Since most countries of the world are members of the BC and buildings and sculptures are not "published" by being erected, I think for buildings and sculptures the source country would be in general the country where the work is placed. (Article 5(4)(c)(ii) BC).
In any case, images of sculptures or buildings where we have the consent of the copyright holder of the pictured work to publish the image under a free license are fine.
For buildings, not all contemporary buildings are subject to copyright. Some minimum creativity is still required. A standard, run-of-the-mill suburban single-family home might not be copyrighted, but the works of star architects certainly are. But the precise standards for that required creativity may vary amongst countries, and they may be low. The copyright remains with the architect, not the owner of the building, unless explicitly transferred in the construction contract. The author is in any case the architect (important for calculating the copyright term).
For countries where the copyright law does not have an explicit provision for FOP, we do have the option of looking at case law (if there are cases dealing with similar issues). That even applies to civil law countries. If courts in a country decide in a way indicating that FOP-images are fine or tolerated, we could treat such countries as "de-facto FOP". If there is no relevant case law in a no-FOP country, I think we should consider it a strict no-FOP country.

I can understand that G.dallorto wants to have all that mess clarified in one way or another. What do we do? Keep on going (do as you like), or do we try to decide on a clear rule? Lupo 08:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely well set out analysis, Lupo. The problem we have is that the safest option is number 4, ie to require images to be fully usable in both the country of origin and in the US. But, as you say, that means we lose very many useful images. I don't believe that courts in all jurisdictions would be consistent in applying the FOP provisions of the court's country to any alleged infringement, even though that may often be the case. In the US Bridgeman -v- Corel case, for example, the court first held that UK law should be applied to the question of originality, but on a re-hearing changed its mind and held that orginality should be decided under US law. Admittedly that was to do with originality, not FOP, but the fact is that courts aren't always very consistent. Ultimately, though, is this a question for Commons users to decide? I'd have thought that the important issue is that the Wikimedia Foundation is happy that it's not being unduly exposed to legal actions in the US. So it's really an issue for the Foundation's lawyer to tell us what he/she is prepared to allow us to do. Obviously, the broader the better as far as we are concerned. --MichaelMaggs 12:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that this means "just keep on muddling along"? Past experience has shown that we're highly unlikely to get any input from the foundation on such questions. Does the foundation even have a lawyer presently? I thought they were in the process of hiring one? Lupo 13:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't know that. So, we have to do the best we can, then. I've made a practical proposal below. --MichaelMaggs 06:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of being frightned by one's own shadow, at least for the cases I know: There has been indeed a jugement stating that the specific firework and illumination created for the 100th anniversary of the Eiffel tower was copyrighted (a one-shot event), and after that everybody says that night pictures (note the plural - a permanent vision) are forbidden. This is very different from what has been juged, the prohibition flows from the one that applies to a public performance, not to a building. For the Bruxelles atomium, the landlord refuses to authorize pictures, because of artistical proprety rights - OK, but the architect never has said a word on that AFAIK, and the case certainly wasen't juged.

So here we are, discussing on what laws allow or not in each country, when the facts are mere claims and urban legends? this is nonsense! This means that each and every time someone somewhere in the world will make an abusive claim on reproduction restrictions, thousands of pictures will have to be suppressed in commons? This is ridiculous! Reacting to rumors cannot be a good legal policy.

Find the references for laws and jugement facts, let's study the cases, and let's discuss of a decent policy that might be applicable worldwide. Michelet-密是力 12:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelet, it's not about "finding a policy that might be applicable worldwide". You know perfectly well that such a policy doesn't exist: "national treatment" bites again. It's about whether we want to clarify our policies on what content we're prepared host, and if so, how our policy should look. It may or may not be necessary, but evidently the current situation is confusing. It's not the only place where our policies are a little at odds. Take PD-old images, for instance: non-US works published 1923 or later may not be PD in the US, even if the author died more than 70 years ago. And pre-1923 US works may not be PD elsewhere... We generally ignore these cases. And in any case, the ultimate responsibility for re-using the images we host is with the re-users, who are responsible themselves to make sure that their re-use is ok by their local laws. Lupo 13:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the situation is different and calls for a different approach. But thanks for your analysis, of course ;o) let's examine the case. ♦ For PD, we have to determine which are the explicit limits set by law in different countries, because Berne traty says that when an artistic work looses its protection in the country of publication, it is the case worldwide (unless otherwise specified). Local law is precise and final, and its examination relevant to us. ♦ For so-called FoP, the problem is to determine wether or not a given picture must be given the protection of the convention on artistic property (Berne treaty), because of the object represented. This is a jurisprudential problem, not a legal one: the conflict is between a public liberty (take picture) and a public right (artistic property), both protected by law, and the line has to be drawn somewhere in equity (and common sense). The solution depends on interests at stake, public welfare, simplicity of determination,... ♦ The jurisprudential solution will not be immediatly clear-cut, but once it becomes fed with relevant cases, the formulation may be generalized and may be adopted world-wide. Since Wikipedia is one of the place where such problems are discussed daily, our interest is to formulate sensible guidelines that might be adopted by further jurisprudences. ♦ Hence my position: IMHO, we should'nt be passive on such a problem, but actively discuss a possible NPOV solution, considering interests at stake, and promote it. Michelet-密是力 14:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you were looking further. Did you mean "if we could come up with a sensible policy, it might be picked up and eventually be applied world-wide"? That'd of course be great. BTW, FOP is not primarily about taking the picture, it is about publishing the picture. I think in most jurisdictions, taking a picture for personal use is fine anyway. Lupo 14:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A marginal note about: "A standard, run-of-the-mill suburban single-family home might not be copyrighted, but the works of star architects certainly are". Well, of course it is the images of contemporary Italian "star architects" I was uploading. Otherwise there would be no point in uploading them. :-)

As for court cases, that would be relevant in my case, I posted a request in the it.Wiki bar (in the sense of discussion area :-) ) to know whether some of the lawyers contributing to the project is aware of any such cases. I'll let you know if I get an answer. --G.dallorto 15:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Italy two

The scope of my question is pratical, the theoretical question about "how laws ought to be to be just" is beyond my scope. The point is: freedom of panorama applies whenever the intellectual rights of the author are not harmed (the "famous" French case - cited again and again and again... and again - while denying rights to one artist alone, still did not discard the fact - established by laws - that monetary compensation is necessary if these rights were harmed: simply, the judge decided in this case that they were not harmed, since his work was not the main subject of the postcard. Which does not mean that other rulings could not overturn this one, should the moral rights of the artist be considered harmed...).

This said, if I take and publish in Commons (as I did) pictures of the most important works of art of contemporary architects in Italy (whose laws do not conteplate "freedom of Panorama"), they are made available also for commercial use. This is a conditio sine qua non, freely chosen by the Wikipedia foundation; this is not something the laws obliges us to do. But if I don't accept the "commercial" clause, my uploads will be deleted.

Now, if someone prints a postcard featuring one such picture of mine of such works of art, the architect might complain about such a use as harming his interest, id est to sell images of this work to a postcard company in exchange for a fee or a royalty. I think in this case is pretty self-evident that the freedom of panorama clause might not be invoked, not certainly in Italy, and perhaps even elsewhere.

My point is whether a different policy about copyrighted works should be implemented here, such as the "Green copyright" and the "Red copyright" available on national wikis ("Available for non-commercial uses only"). By the way, non-commercial and educational uses are allowed by any copyright laws in a much wider and much more free way than commercial ones.

When we are talking of a picture which is copyrighted because of the photographer who took it, the solution is easy: we should delete it, and wait for someone of us to shoot a new one and publish it under a free license. This is what I am doing with works of art of Italy, especially Milan. But when we speak of an image which is not free because it is an architectonical work of art whose author did not die at least 70 years ago, a different approch may be -- is -- necessary. At least for those countries, such as Italy, where freedom of panorama is not contemplated (to date).

Please remind that I am the sole responsible of the pictures I upload here (and before you accuse me again of being "disruptive" no, I am not "nominating for deletion" pictures by other people: at the moment I am discussing about pictures taken by me). If WikiCommons is sued, they would turn the litigation to me as the main offender (a similar case with the Sovraintendenza alle Belle Arti in Florence asking for pictures publicly displayed of ancient PD objects to be removed from Wikipedia under Italian laws giving intellectual rights over object in the PD they own, resulted in Wikipedia saying: "It's not our business, it's the photographer's alone, talk to him". Given the support the Wikipedia foundation gives you if you get in trouble, I'd rather do without, thanks). And I sincerely don't need any troubles for volunteering my work and making it available to anybody for free.

IMHO, this attitude is impossible to defend, and would not stand in case of litigation. Indeed, the photograph has his own responsability when uploading something. But Wikipedia takes the responsability for maintaining it available on the net, has the organisation admins,...) to chase illegal material, and must do so actively. If wikipedia states that such or such problem is "outside control", then volontarily putting it outside control is its responsability, and Wikipedia can be sued for that, of course. Wikipedia's responsability cannot be absolute, of course (especially considering its anarchical organisation), but it is there nevertheless. Michelet-密是力 14:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it did happen, but recriminating will not, of course, be useful for anybody so let's forget about it. The point is: nowhere we are promised we will get legal assistance from Wikipedia foundation in case we were unjustly sued. So it is not unwise acting in a preemptive way, by deleting our own images that might prove controversial. --G.dallorto 16:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni, there are some points in your remarks that I don't understand. “Freedom of panorama applies whenever the intellectual rights of the author are not harmed”: can you elaborate? How do you understand full FOP--that is, when usage is not explicitly restricted to non-commercial usage, such as in Germany? What do you mean by “other rulings could not overturn this one, should the moral rights of the artist be considered harmed”? How would the moral rights of the artist be harmed by taking a picture of the entire place, including the said work of art? Btw, the Terreaux case, which I suppose you are refering to in your first paragraph, is supported by another ruling of the Cour de Cassation (Sté Antenne 2 c/ Sté Spadem). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I did not express myself clearly. In the case you mention, the decision is clear, I am NOT saying it does not stand as a precedent. I was just pointing at the fact that it cannot stand as a cover-up-all for cases that are different from that one, such are my portraits of a building of a famous contemporary architect, as a main subject. In such a case, my pix (provided they were not amateurish, as they are :-) ) if published could constitute a free, and royalty-free, alternative to an image licensed by the artist, whose economical rights would be thus be harmed. Sorry for not having being clear. --G.dallorto 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your precisions. It's hard to be clear and conversely, to understand properly, on such complex matters when one is not a native speaker :-) Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Yeah - let's discuss it in french, such a precise language ;o)) Michelet-密是力 17:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Hi there, Jastrow... Si tu organises une visite de musée, je suis fana...[reply]

G.dallorto, see the discussion below: in that case, if you release your picture under a GFDL licence, the "alternative licence" is de facto limited to non-profit publications (and their drawbacks: cheap n' dirty). Whether or not non-profit publications make a competition to profit-making publications may be arguable, but it's at best a second-order competition - not the real thing. So, the legal risk of being accused to harm economical right is accordingly lessened. - Well ... at least, as far as I understand it. This is why I advocate for a GFDL licence whenever private rights are involved: the commercial fields infolved are most of the time distinct. Now, if someone has an analysis on the CC case, I'd be glad to read it. Michelet-密是力 17:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is: the current policy is flawed when we come to letting pictures like those I listed above to be kept here. In fact, we may not allow commercial use of works whose commercial rights are owned by someone else. Fullstop. We should either delete them, or restrict re-use to educational, review and noncommercial uses, that the laws grant to users anywhere in the world. But this requests a change of policy in WikiCommons.

The same applies to the ongoing debate concerning images documenting news and facts happening arouns us. Otherwise Wikipedia will become a pretty repository of babies photographed by their dads (btw even this will lead us into trouble soon or late: image rights MUST ALWAYS be waived in written form, ESPECIALLY if the image is released for commercial uses also), flowers, trees, stones, dogs & cats (and cows) and of works of art produced no later than 1920.... How exciting. --G.dallorto 12:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. The main problem with commercial rights is unfair commercial practice, but GFDL licence is so strict that it cannot be used for profit. The commercial use allowed by GFDL is practically limited to financing the diffusion of the media, because GFDL imposes to make freely available a source of the work sold, and imposes it to be sold under deliberatly unfair competition conditions (the source is here for anyone to take: you do the conception work, I take it and sell it independently). As long as public availability of the work is required by the licence, no monopolistic profit can be made. So the "commercial use" is not a relevant limit in that case. I haven't studied the CC case, though.

But this would rather lead to a recommandation like: when a picture is attached to commercial rights, put it under GFDL with an invariant section that states the identified private rights. When a material is reused in derivative work, this is not wikipedia's responsability anymore. Either the use is similar to that of WP, and there will be no problem, or the use is specific, and let the commercial user examine by himself if it's OK or not. Michelet-密是力 14:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is sound. So perhaps after all my idea is not practically enforceable. I suspect/fear the only solution out of the doubt will be acting as we do in other cpopyrighted fields: asking case by case to copyright holder(s) the permission to publish images featuring their work, and file the permission, case by case, or else putting a warning on their page: "do not upload images featuring...". Many architects, actually, will enjoy the fact of their work being widespread. But the process will be long, time consuming and boring... :-( And in the meantimes, thousands of images will have to go. --G.dallorto 16:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not: as for today, most architects obviously don't care it their building is photographed, exept -from time to time- when profit is involved: when a profit-making publication is made on their work, they may want to share a part. Good, & understaindable. The point will usually be: when no profit is involved, and non competition involved, they don't care a damm'. Michelet-密是力 17:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can read Italian: a lawyer ("causidico": it's a hironical self-definition) posted an opinion saying he thinks it is the restrictive interpretation that applies in Italy. Another poster said he shot a picture in front of the Pescara Courthouse and asked a lawyer passing by whether he could post on Commons and he was said he might. All I gather it that there seems not to be any consent on the matter. We need an authoritative opinion. Furthermore, Wikipedia foundation just let know that non-commercial licenses will no longer be accepted, and that pages on it.Wiki already using them should either change it or be deleted. This is not helping either. --G.dallorto 18:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've went through it. It seems to boil down to "t'is illegal - yeah, but that souds stupid". Indeed... Michelet-密是力 05:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FoP has no national exception

The "restrictive interpretation" of FoP applies worldwide, since the Berne convention allows legal exceptions only if this does not cause an economical prejudice to the architect. Therefore, no national legislation can say the contrary: when a building demonstrates artistical creation, it cannot be photographed as the main subject of a picture for profit exploitation without the architect's consent (and that's final). The only possible exceptions are (1) for private use, since private copying is allowed by Berne convention and generally written in national legislations (2) when the monument appears as a background (in a movie, a news event,...), not the main picture: this is where national legislation may introduce derogations.

If wikipedia wants to use the picture of a recent monument under any kind of "free" licence, this can only be done if (1) The architect gives his permission to do so - of course; (2) The building demonstrate no artistic creativity (eg: common road infrastructure), and is therefore outside the Berne convention object - but this is almost impossible to demonstrate; (3) The picture of the building laks any public interest (eg: harbour infrastructure), excluding any economical prejudice caused by the exploitation of the picture - hard to prove, borderline and probably illegal anyway.

Most of the time, pictures of new building are therefore not "free", whatever the country, and should be deleted. On the other hand, let's be pragmatic: architects only react when cash-making activity is involved: post cards or posters, usage of the building in a film, or commercial publication.

There may be a solution with the difference made between "profit use" and "commercial use": the well-known problem that a GFDL licence makes it impossible to use the picture alone, and the fact that GFDL imposes the conditions of unfair competition, making it impossible to use the work for "profit" (the one that makes cash flow) may be used to back a local policy: consider a picture used under GFDL as similar to "private use" as far as economic activity is concerned. The point is, the chances of wikipedia being sent to court because of its own activity, or benig involved in a trial as third party because a picture was placed under a GFDL licence, are practically nonexistent.

So the solution may be a specific licence tag, saying that the work has private rights attached, its use has been considered possible to illustrate a GFDL publication, and users willing to use the picture in another context should appreciate the legal risks by themselves. Michelet-密是力 05:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for a resolution

OK, time for an actual proposal for adoption or shooting down. I suggest the following as a pragmatic solution in the absence of any policy guidance from the Foundation, which it appears we are unlikely to get:

Photographs which are taken and uploaded under a local FOP law are accepted on Commons (this is analagous to the acceptance of images which may be PD in one country but which are still protected by copyright in the USA)

Such images should have a new FOP tag attached, as follows:

This photograph was taken and uploaded under Freedom of Panorama laws of the originating country, and may normally be freely used in that country. In other countries, usage-restrictions may apply.

--MichaelMaggs 06:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The exceptions found in "FoP" can be considered to apply worldwide, since they are guaranteed either by explicit national law (eg, Germany) or by jurisprudence (eg, France). This was my point above: whatever the country, jurisprudence will tend to align to common solutions, so we can as well anticipate this position. On the other hand, the problem raised about profit exploitation of picture (when the building is the main picture) will be the same in every country, since it takes its source in the Berne convention itself. In both cases, there is no point in making a national discussion in this tag: we should take into account identified exception to copyright laws, OK, but consider they apply worldwide. I'm in favor of such usage, btw, but be warned that it ressembles to a "fair use" exception... Michelet-密是力 08:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet I think this might be the solution, if feasible, although with a different wording. Actually, this is what professional and for-profit images banks already do. They sell you the shot, but state that in case it portrays a copyrighted building, in case you want to use it for non-personal use you should take care yourself to contact the copyright holder for royalties issues. Fullstop. This is done by knowing that in 99% of cases architects won't bother (legal costs would be higher than royalties) on will not know that the building was published, therefore this is a way to go around copyright laws. However, when you are Coca-Cola and you are launching a world-wide ad campaing based on a building, then you contact the copyright-holders and strike a deal with them -- or else you give up the idea. Normally this part of the job is done by the advertisement agency, of course. But this is not our case.

However I have a doubt about the feasibility of such a thing: even if we published the shots - as for-profit image banks do in their catalogues - with a warning about the fact that the subject may be copyrighted, we have published it anyway, therefore we have broken the copyright. When "Fratelli Alinari" foundation sells you a paper reproduction of an old picture by an author that has not been dead for at least 70 years, what they sell you is the paper reproduction for personal and study use, but they state they are not selling the right of publication. Quite the opposite, they insist that they don't want you to publish it (they are rather prone to copyright piracy, claiming copyright on images whose authors died more than 70 years ago only because they own the paper original, claiming they are a museum -- too). But if we publish an image online, there is no paper object, the image is the real thing, and therefore we published it.

So, again, perhaps we should implement a policy asking to contact all architect estates and asking for permission... :-( --G.dallorto 11:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelet, I'm not sure what your specific proposal would be, based upon what you've said above. You seem to be suggesting a sort of 'notional worldwide FOP rule', but the fact is that national laws do differ and we can't pretend they don't. There are countries that have no FOP provisions at all, whereas the UK, for example, has very broad provisions that allow for any re-use of photographs of buildings and 3D works of artistic craftsmnship both in all public places and also in places to which the public has access. No 'worldwide' rule such as you are suggesting can possibly fit both approaches. Could you indicate exactly what your proposal would be, if you don't like mine? --MichaelMaggs 12:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of a two-level distinction:

Some exceptions to FoP (when the artwork is incidental in the picture) is common jurisprudential conclusion, even when not explicit in the legislation. This can (IMHO: safely) be considered to apply wordwise, with a warning saying that part of the picture consists in artwork/architecture protected by laws on artistic property, and therefore cannot be considered as "free of rights". (Typically: you can't make any kind of "derivative work" with such picture, since a change in the frame may resurrect the privative right).
Freedom of expression (http://www.lexinter.net/UE/droits_et_libertes.htm, art. 10) implies the right to collect and publish information at least for the needs of WP articles, which is the purpose of commons (see Commons:Project scope). The §5(3) of directive 2001/29/CE together with Berne convention art. 9 shows that the reproduction of publicly and pernanently displayed artwork idoes not "unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author" (it would otherwise be illegal, whatever the national law). Use of FoP information may (? with some possible legal contestation) therefore be considered legal within the scope of wikipedia project, and any GFDL-based derived product (right to inform no economical prejudice). In this case (fhen the art work is the main subject of the picture) a clear warning must be put that the use of this picture in a WP project does not mean anything about the use of the same pictures in other contexts (see Commons:General disclaimer : "Your use of any such or similar incorporeal property is at your own risk.").

These are two different situations: When the artwork is incidental to the picture, the picture may be used even in profit-making contexts, based on law or jurisprudence. When the artwork is the main subject, profit-making use will be illegal when not explicitly allowed, but non-profit use justified by the right to inform is legal. In this latter case, the justification is very similar to "fair use" consideration, with the big difference that it can apply worldwide. Well, at least this is my analysis so far. Michelet-密是力 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This derivation does not make sense to me. First off, I don't see at all how you can conclude that article 10 of the ECHR implied anything about a "right" of the commons of the other Wikimedia projects that would top copyright law.

Second, in countries that do have FOP, evidently the legislator considers FOP not to infringe the authors legitimate interests (art 9(2) Berne Convention). But that doesn't help us much, as not all countries do think so: the no-FOP countries evidently have made the decision that FOP would indeed be detrimental to the legitimate interests of an author. And likewise for the non-commercial-FOP countries: why else would they have restricted FOP to non-commercial uses? (Well, actually, the no-FOP countries may just have "forgotten" to spell out FOP in their laws, which is why we should look at their case law. But non-commerical-FOP countries evidently did think about this.) §5(3)(h) of EU directive 2001/29/EEC is facultative ("Member states may provide..."); not all Eu member states have chosen to implement it. Before concluding from the fact that it is allowed at Union level to include FOP in a member state's laws that FOP would also be ok in countries that don't have it in their laws, I'd like to see some evidence for such a conclusion. Solid evidence, not unproven legal theories. To me, the allowance of FOP-provisions at the Union level looks more like a necessary compromise because some EU members already had FOP in their copyright laws.

Third, this EU-based argument doesn't help us much with non-EU countries.

And fourth, Wikimedia only considers images free if they can also be used commercially. Non-profit-use-only is not considered "free enough". So we cannot use this as an argument, but maybe our re-users in no-FOP countries can.

Lupo 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Michael's proposal, there are two things to note:

For PD images, we do not just require "PD in the source country". COM:L says it must be PD in the source country and PD in the U.S. (Although that statement from the policy apparently isn't always enforced.)
Hence, either there's confirmation that the fact that our servers are in Florida, USA and we're thus publishing in the U.S. doesn't matter. In this case, we should also change the PD policy to require only "PD in source country". Or it turns out that we do also have to comply with U.S. law, and then this "FOP-images are ok if the source country has FOP that allows publication of the images" doesn't work.

Which is it? Lupo 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting we opt for your point 4, above (must be ok in both the US and the local country)? Fine, let's do that and accept we will lose sculptures and such imges as this from the UK. The issues seem clear enough, actually; it's now just a matter of policy. --MichaelMaggs 07:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. I hate doing so, and I hope someone can present convincing arguments why only the law of the source country should be relevant, but I just cannot see how we can ignore U.S. law, given that both the WMF and the servers are in the U.S. If we could somehow argue or find technical means such that hosting images on U.S. servers did not also imply publishing in the U.S., the "source country only" interpretation might be made to work. But we currently do publish in the U.S. ... don't we? Lupo 08:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, for FOP at least: are there any U.S. court cases about images of non-U.S. sculptures that would have been fine under the foreign FOP? If so, what were the verdicts? Did U.S. courts follow the foreign FOP (an argument similar to Michelet's above: if it doesn't infringe the authors legitimate interests in the source country, why should it do so in the U.S.?), or did they strictly apply U.S. law and considered the images derivative works? If we could determine that the U.S. were a "de-facto FOP" country at least regarding works from FOP-countries, we could also use the "source country only" approach, at least for FOP. Lupo 08:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One not-so-legal argument in favour of the source country rule would be that the artist reputedly knows what copyright rules apply to his creation when he sells it to be publicly displayed. The purchase price should then compensate the loss of some rights due to FOP. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that argument works in FOP countries. See e.g. [14] for the situation in Canada. Would U.S. courts follow such reasoning? Or rather, did they? Anyone with Lexis access here? Lupo 09:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it, see Berne convention art. 16: "Infringing copies of a work shall be liable to seizure in any country of the Union where the work enjoys legal protection (here, the USA where the work is legally protected) / The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall also apply to reproductions coming from a country where the work is not protected, or has ceased to be protected." (here, FoP country). If we adhere strictly to this, FoP pictures cannot be exported outside FoP countries, so they can't be published on a US server, since the artistic work itself is protected according to US laws. No, there has to be a deliberate policy sayng "we accept this kind of picture on commons, though it's borderline". Michelet-密是力 09:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Michelet, your use of identation is rather confusing. Who are you answering to? Your argument seems to plead in favour of 4), i.e., both local and US rules. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC) -- Sorry for that, Jastrow... [reply]

I knew that, Michelet. Nevertheless, the U.S. does some things that do not follow the letter of the BC. Their copyright law even states explicitly that "No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto." (17 USC 104(c)) Hence, looking for relevant U.S. case law, even if it's grasping at straws, just might turn up something useful. But if we don't find anything, I guess it'd have to be option 4. Lupo 10:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...or use Jastrow's argument: since the work is permanently and publicly displayed in a FoP country, the author has necessarily abandonned the right of picture reproduction of his work, so publication of a picture is not a copyright infringment by itself. Publication in the FoP country is legal, and from there, the reproduction can legally be exported to non-FoP countries. The catch is: this does not mean that publication in non-FoP country is legal. If publication on commons is made in the US server, there should be a publication in the UK in the first place to legitimate the one in the US. I'm afraid there's no simple solution. Michelet-密是力 10:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the COM:FOP project page

Having gone round in a big loop and back again, it seems that Lupo's proposal #4 is the only one that will (a) be safe and (b) comply with COM:L. On that basis I think we should update the main page to make it clear to users what the practical effect of FOP is: viz, that an photo relying on FOP is free for upload only if it falls under the FOP provisions of both the US and the country in which the photo was taken. --MichaelMaggs 18:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really do understand the need to comply to U.S. copyright law, but the problem is that if Wikipedia (Wikimedia) wants to pretend that it is free to spread, then it seems to be antagonistic to follow the U.S. laws, when the U.S. law has little to say about how the material of (say) Swedish Wikipedia is to be spread (I admit that I am biased when I refer to Sw. Wiki).

Swedish Wikipedia wants to build a repository of material that is free in Sweden. If we take a stand that the U.S. copyright law must always be taken into account, then the Swedish users will stop using Commons. And I reccon users from German Wikipedia and other Wikipedias that are restricted by the U.S. copyright law will do the same.

And, to take it a further step, since the Swedish Wikipedia hosts it material on a server that is physically in the U.S., will there be attempts to delete sculptures also from Swedish Wikipedia? If that should happen, then I don't find it unlikely that users of Swedish Wikipedia will break off, take all its GFDL released material and move it to a site that is hosted in Sweden.

So I think we should consider about what we want more.

Fred Chess 21:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the consensus here is already to modify the usual COM:L rule that the law of both countries applies. If we are going to ignore US law in that case, I suppose there's little reason not to do so here as well. But I'm sure the Foundation's lawyers won't like it. --MichaelMaggs 19:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No rash actions either way, please. Michelet had alerted Anthere about that issue, and for once, it appears that the Board indeed will consider these issues ("Must U.S. copyright law always be applied on all projects? If so, what are the allowable exceptions?", which covers both the URAA stuff and this FOP problem). I do hope they can come up with a well-reasoned rule that would allow non-English projects to apply only the local laws of their target countries. Personally, I know not enough about the U.S. laws to even guess whether that'd be possible, but one may hope... And I do hope the Board follows this one through and doesn't let it all end in (idle) talk but eventually will present us with a coherent resolution. It may take time, though—the Board will most probably let a professional lawyer look at these issues. Lupo 12:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is good news for once. So far, everytime I've asked the message has basically been that we should try and make consensus among ourselves. I am actually quite proud that Commons hasn't broken down due to our previous disputes....

Lupo, could you please tell me where this thread has been posted? I searched through the foundation-l yesterday but could not find it.

Fred Chess 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little bit surprised about the Board taking this question aboard myself. But note that disputes about the text of tags (as heated as they can get) are just attempts to define what we do consider "free content". In contrast, the question here "Must U.S. copyright law always be applied on all projects?" is more fundamental. It's a question about what we have to do (complying with external laws) in order to be able to do what we want to do (publish free knowledge). Lupo 04:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's excellent news they are considering it. I'll await their response with interest! --MichaelMaggs 06:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athere posted this on Commons talk:Licensing, but has since removed the posting with the comment "actually there is none". So I'm not sure where we are now. Could someone who has the ear of the WMF Board please confirm here that the Board has indeed agreed to consider the question Lupo mentions above? The Board needs to be aware of the question's relevance also to Commons talk:Licensing#Images PD outside of the U.S. but not PD in the U.S. (URAA restoration) - Opinion section. --MichaelMaggs 12:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

See Anthere's talk page at meta and the thread on foundation-l starting here. They are aware of the implications. Lupo 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web 2.0

I was just wandering why the commons don't try to be involved in adding web 2.0 funtionality and concepts such as image tagging and, virtual indexing so, categories don't have to phsically be created, the page will be automatically created and updated when needed. It would be difficult to add this funtionality but this is a great time - the image base isn't too big - it will only grow so, it is ideal to be able to go back and tag existing images. For those of you who are saying "yeah, well what if an image has a lot of tags, just to be found in more searches. The solution is simple, limit the amount of tags to 5 tags and, allow a tag to consist of a phrase, no longer then x letters, 5 in each language --talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 16:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, continuing on from before, if the commons introduce virtual indexing, pages will be created when needed so, there will be various alnguage editions but, the same images will be available to all languages - say the commons have an image. There will be one central page with all the language descriptions and tags with each image but, only say, the english tags and descriptions will be shown to those who have set english as their native language --talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got some extra devs in the closet that you aren't telling us about? Yonatan ^talk 20:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the image base isn't too big -- Surely 1.2 million files is not that big. Of course everything you say is great, however there is a particular shortage of developers. FYI, all images are available in the languages Commons supports. And last not but not least, please do not link to your personal website in your signature. It's considered spam. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know 1.2 million is a heap but, the image base can only get larger and, if we are going to embrace web 2.0 (face it... the search sucks because, the images don't have a good description and don't have a good title - very hard to work off. This will have to be fixed if we want the commons to improve and, at the end of the day, it is better now then in a year or two when the base bill be harder to review. My signature will be fixed now. I think we should look into this a lot more --talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 03:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a bit about this recently, actually. There is a lot of room for improvement, but we're still just a low priority in an open source development model. So if you want it, you code it. ;) See User:Pfctdayelise/Categories and galleries. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SVG support improvements

After a little gentile prodding Tim Starling put on his superhero cape today and upgraded the font set on the Wikimedia cluster. We are now using the DejaVu font plus a set of CJK fonts. This gives our SVG support a fairly complete coverage of most languages while retaining high quality output. This is the same font set that most modern Linux distributions (FC6 and current Ubuntu) ship by default today. If you are editing in windows you may wish to install the dejavu font from the site above it order to get performance which is more consistent with the Wikimedia rendering. If you discover missing characters for your language you should give the DejaVu folks a hand with their project, as DejaVu becomes better and more complete our support will improve as well. --Gmaxwell 02:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem report and Undeletion Request

Just back from holidays I discover that Image:Corcovado_statue01_2005-03-14.jpg has been deleted because User:Dantadd stating "I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content" had flagged it for deletion. In any case, there is/was the statement of the licence tag "I, the author of this work, hereby publish it [...]" so this information implicitly was there, I am sure that I had all my licences right.

Further I have the reliable habit of stating at the very least "own photo" or equivalent on the image pages of my photos (one omission out of 72, not dating from the Brazil photos submission time range). ~~I cannot prove it for this case of Image:Corcovado_statue01_2005-03-14.jpg, as I have no access to the deleted material.~~ The remark "own photo" was there.

Now noticing the disaster, could an Administrator please undelete it. How can every and all unlinking that has occured been reversed? The photo has been linked many times and even has features in several portals. I would also appreciate information from Administrator side whether "own photo" or equivalent statement was really absent — and if yes, did this really warrant tagging the image for deletion despite proper licence info given.--Klaus with K 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Undeletion request now on Commons:Undeletion requests#Problem report and Undeletion Request, I wish and hope that after undeletion all links to the image can be reinstated.--Klaus with K 14:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted.  The licence was there, in spite of the tag indicating it was missing.
The problem was that it was not believed. I see no reason to question the uploader's  
statement that he took the photo himself from a helicopter. I'm afraid the links in
other projects will need to be fixed manually
--MichaelMaggs 16:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that I am not amused about this incident, ideally the same person that then deleted would have orphaned the image in all pages of all wikis. The photo was used in more than a dozen wikis, can at least a (series of) log extract(s) be provided so one has a list along which to work?--Klaus with K 17:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for checkuser

We haven't had a page for this which caused requests to be scattered all over the place so I created COM:RFCU which is a de-bureaucrified version of en:WP:RFCU. Please fix it up so it's good or if you think it isn't a good idea let me know. Thanks, Yonatan ^talk 18:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need someone knowing Japanese law or fluently in Japanese

Hi there. There is currently a discussion at Image:Utada Hikaru Kanto 2004.jpg where a Japanese user claims such image cannot be uploaded due Japanese law. I would like someone knowing the law to clarify it, or being able to fluently talk Japanese to contact the record company or the artist herself. Since I am currently discussing with someone to get a free image from another Japanese artist, I would like to get this clarified before investing more time and effort for an already lost cause. Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo 04:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a precedent, at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Range-Murata-03.jpg, where the image was deleted after the subject (or a representative of the subject) requested to have it deleted. Still, it does not clarify whether the image is unfree or if it is free but can be removed due personality rights. -- ReyBrujo 05:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing sound files

Anyone willing to help edit four sound file interviews for Wikinews and Wikipedia's use? -- Zanimum 20:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to my talk page, if you're interested. I'm looking for multiple volunteers, so that there's less work for each person individually. -- Zanimum 16:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Mitsotakis

I Uploaded the image Mitsotakis.jpg retrieved from el.wikipedia (its description page is there) but "fair use" licence is against Wikimedia policies. May I upload another image of former Greek Prime Minister in my possession? I didn't create the snapshot. A photograph of a Greek Newspaper gave me the photo. Please contact me at my talk page. Thanks Gobbler 11:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing

I'm used to accept that all comic-book related kind of drawings, unless specific cases counted with the fingers of a hand, are completely off-limits for Commons. But now, there is a case that may be acceptable.

Normally, a hand drawing made by an important artist at a convention or such, wich is made just "for the fan" and not for used at a commercially distributed comic book, would still be unacceptable. Despite the source or context, if the subject of the drawing has copyright, then the image would still be affected. To scan a drawing of "Raven" gifted by George Perez would be as unacceptable as scanning a page of the "Teen Titans" comic-books itself or using a screen-shot or the animated series or whatever. Derivative works and such.

But... what if in this scenario the subject is not a subject protected by copyright? What if the "gift" is a drawing about another person the artist works with, or animals, or a huge landmark, or something like that? Thanos 16:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The problem is in the act of drawing, not in the character drawn. A drawing made by an artist must be given a licence by the author, or we have to wait 70 years after his death for it to become PD. Michelet-密是力 18:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another map from a copyrighted source

Original source- http://www.trp.dundee.ac.uk/data/councils/nc28.gif Self made work - Image:Stirling towns.gif. As you can see borders and other geographical staff are not identical. So is it copyright infringement or not?--Vaya 23:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not from this source anyway. Michelet-密是力 13:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User just used this sourse map to draw her own.--Vaya 14:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

Form for uploads

I'm referring to this earlier discussion. Someone has now been so nice to change the settings such that every new upload has the format Description/Source/Date/Author already entered - great, thanks a lot! Just one request: Could you please also enter "other_versions"? Apart from the fact that some users (like me) use it a lot, it will help to convince others to use it... and yes, I believe that it helps users greatly if they learn about related versions. Besides, if you think that "Permission" should not be in the form, I would suggest to take it out in the page text as well. I don't think it makes much sense to have a different form in the explanatory page text and in the field. Thanks, Ibn Battuta 06:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Anyone here? --Ibn Battuta 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say, that I also think the current form is a major improvement. / Fred Chess 15:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingual descriptions

Hi, i have a bot for descriptions in many languages, but it can't identify the language of original description, because of it needs human help.

Maintenance page is here, and a tutorial for newbies. Thanks. --Emijrp 10:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new upload screen

The new upload screen:

Where is the work from? (Click on the appropriate link)

It is entirely my own work
It is from Flickr
It is from another Wikimedia project
(Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikinews, etc)
It is from a US federal government source
It is from somewhere else
I don't know who the author is
I don't know what license applies

Should contain another option: it's a derived work from another image on commons. Currently it's unclear which option you need to choose in such a case. Shinobu 11:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. Can {{Flickrreview}} be placed in the "Summary" when clicking from Flickr?--Vaya 11:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already is. Kjetil r 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@I don't know who the author is: Well, we should allow uploading of anonymous works if the image is older than 100 years. (Or for example in the case of images published first in Argentina: 50 years.) The current description is somewhat misleading in this sense. --ALE! ¿…? 17:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media roadmap

The technically minded may be interested in this wikitech-l post from Tim Starling concerning the future of media handling in MediaWiki. --bainer (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know whether templates exist for this?

Does anyone know whether standard templates exist to tag images, covering the following situations:

a) A template to indicate that the image has been based on a template.

b) A template to indicate that an image has been generated from another image by converting all textboxes to paths to work around the fact that Wikimedia's current renderer doesn't support textboxes.

Lots of thanks in advance, Shinobu 11:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either of those templates exist. What do you mean "Wikimedia's current renderer doesn't support textboxes"? Converting masses of text to paths seems like a good way to destroy the very properties that make SVGs useful, to me... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recent change to Special:Upload

Whenever Special:Upload is loaded, the template (which can be copied from just above) is placed in the box using Javascript. This is a problem because it overwrites any text already in the box, and if you forget to put the filename above, you have to retype the description. --NE2 18:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily disabled the script. I'll see whether I can fix it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot excactly reproduce the problem. Can you explain in greater detail what happens, in the steps you do it? And also which browser do you use? -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is reproducible (use the back button after uploading) and I just added a fix. --Dschwen 20:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that I find the new addition slightly annoying, as it is executrd before my own monobook.js form fill-in routine. I'll add a deactivation option tomorrow. --Dschwen 20:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I introduced a global configuration scheme which allows to deactivate some of the recent JavaScript additions. --Dschwen 11:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add the script to Special:Upload&uselang=noownwork? Kjetil r 01:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed on the nl pages, it would force the page to "jump" down to the summary box. This is bad because it encourages people to skip reading the text. can we make it not jump, or else jump it back to the top of the page? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the focus grabbing from the script. --Dschwen 11:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Press Kit Photo Question

I would like to use the image from Bright Sheng's publisher's website to replace the current photo on his Wikipedia entry. The photo appears to be copyrighted by Alex Cao. However, the publisher provides a high resolution copy of the image under the "print portrait" link. I assume this to be a press kit image. Would this image be permissable in the Commons, and what would the license be? Thanks. --TheDapperDan 02:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not permissable unless you can find a specific statement that shows the copyright holder is releasing it under a specific free license. So it's probably not OK. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Upload - which do people prefer?

Current design or Kjetil r's French-style design?

Both can be tweaked, of course.

Experienced users might prefer that the link go back to being simply Special:Upload, but I think it's more important to provide this information for our newer users in this prominent way (and after all, in the long run, users who haven't yet joined us will provide the bulk of our work).

The current design has the advantage of being a short page (1 1/2 screens at most). It seems the external links was confusing for some people, so I've now added an instruction for users to click on the appropriate link.

Anyway, which do people prefer? (If you haven't been at Commons very long, we especially welcome your opinion!) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kjetil's is thorough but it's long.. is anyone really going to read through all that, or know what to read and what links to click? I think the simpler the better; perhaps a hybrid of Kjetil's look and Pfctdayelise's simpler version. -- Editor at Large • talk 04:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that the contents of Commons:Upload/en is quite similar as Commons:Upload. Is that suitable to merge them together? --Shinjiman 04:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Geni is still working on an alternate version. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth looking at en:User:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart. Jkelly 05:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr upload page needs rewording. "This form is only for uploading work found on Flickr created by someone else (not you). To upload work created by someone else, please use a different form." The second "someone else" should be "another source", or something to that effect, to avoid confusion.--Pharos 06:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused too. I think the current upload form should emphasize the Help Desk more, like Kjetil does. Gflores 06:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the government source upload page needs to be seriously clarified. This is just for US government works, right? The page should be a lot more explicit on that issue.--Pharos 06:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong views, but I do note that both 'own work' options ignore the common situation of the uploader having created a work which they think is their own but which is is actually a modified version of something found on the web. This seems to happen a lot with maps. --MichaelMaggs 07:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel Kjetil r's design (or somethign similar) should be the default, to assist newcomers to the project. I've been around the project for a while, and only recently found out that material from Flickr could potentially be included. Experiences users should have the option of using the current system. Tompw (talk) (en) 10:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe offtopic, but i think it would be a good idea to put a category-line on this form :

DescriptionVillage pump/Archive/2007/04	This file has no description, and may be lacking other information. Please provide a meaningful description of this file.
Source	This file is lacking source information. Please edit this file's description and provide a source.
Author	This file is lacking author information.

? -- Nico 08:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it might be nice for new users, but couldn't we keep the "good old version" somewhere too for those of us who prefer it? Actually, a stripped down version (with nothing but the upload dialog, the template, and the license option bar) would be even nicer for the "veterans" among us (something we could bookmark so that we're not interrogated at length every time). It kind of reminds me of a telephone computer system that makes you go through 5 minutes of Q&A before finally telling you that you need to talk to an operator, who then asks you the same questions anyway. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 10:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can still reach it through Special:Upload. /Lokal _Profil 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I did find it actually, thanks (got distracted and forgot to post again). Might not be a bad idea to change the mediawiki on Special:Upload to provide a prominent (large text on top) link to the new dialogs though, once they've been fully debugged and polished. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kjetil's looks very helpful. There will always be Special:Upload for the people that know what they're doing. The more information you put in for the people that don't, the more educated and informed they become. Sure, not everyone will read it, but a lot of people will. I deal with new uploaders on enwiki a lot, they aren't out to do anything bad, they are just confused. - cohesion 16:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, seeing as we are trying to send people away from Special:Upload as far as possible (which I somewhat approve of), would it make sense to simplify Special:Upload. If its retargeted at experienced users its content could be trimmed right down, streamlining uploads by those who know what they are doing.--Nilfanion 16:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't like the alternate version at all. It seems like it would be useful, but I had encounters with it at the French Wikipedia multiple times and I found it ridiculous to work with. With the current version, which I and most other users are used to, everything is up to the user to take care of. This is good enough. It is too confusing for people to have to scroll through the list in order to figure out which picture upload process to use. It is more straightforward if the person can just do it themselves. It was a good thought, but I just don't think it will work. JP06035 (Jared) 14:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I conducted a little test with some non-wikipedia friends and they got lost with the french design. I think the initial page needs to be as simple as possible and our current page achieves that. The internal pages can be more wordy because almost everything they say applies. --Gmaxwell 23:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first response was "Gah, what did I do wrong?" Then came "Boy, what's with all the spam?" My third response was to bypass the page and bookmark the "other" page. On the other hand, I'm a Unix kinda fellow, so I may not be representative. Cheers. Haus 02:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from April 14 to get more input)

Ok, some of you do not like my suggestion for Special:Upload. Fair enough, I have created a new version, see User:Kjetil r/Upload2. I think it is more visually attractive than the current version. I also think that it is important to clearly specify that all files need a free license (one can of course question if the link to freedomdefined.org is appropriate/necessary). I also added a link “I need help figuring out what the license is”, going to the Help Desk. What do you think of my new version? Kjetil r 02:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some randomly ordered ideas: I don't mind the current form (though some info should be added), but could we please format it smaller/ not bold? It makes me aggressive each time I open it... :o. [And yes, Haus, you're at least representative for a non-Unix user like me :o) ...]

The descriptions for own work are ways too long. Almost nobody is going to read that (apart from the fact that the page is already scrolled down to the entry fields, see above). If all that info is deemed necessary, then we should distribute it over several pages. BTW, if we want to "force" users to fill out all fields, that wouldn't be too bad anyways: Disabling the "proceed" button unless something entered for every field.

Why don't the flickr page, the other wiki project page and the US Gov't page have the form pre-entered?

I fully agree that a further option is needed for derivative work. (BTW, a tool to create such uploads would be extremely welcome. I've already asked Magnus Manske if it would be difficult to extend the CommonsHelper for that kind of work, but he seems to be away. If anyone of you feels like taking care of it, it'd be more than welcome!! If you might be interested, but don't quite understand what I'm trying to describe, feel free to contact me on my discussion page!)

I fully agree that "I don't know who the author is" requires a clearly visible link for cases of expired copyrights.

I fully agree that "own work" should inform that the user did this work from scratch, otherwise another license should be used.

I fully agree with the category thing: They should either go into the form, or probably even more effectively, they should be asked in an extra step at the end of the upload process--i.e., if the form doesn't include at least one "[Category:..." tag, another window opens and requests a category. In other words, an image could not be uploaded without at least one category. [Sorry if I sound draconic here, but I'm getting slightly tired of accidentally finding all those great images that there users, for whatever reasons, never bothered to categorize... yeah, me included at times, though I think I'm learning my lesson...]

The page for don't know the licence should help the user to find the correct license rather than just lecture about why that matters. I'd suggest some hierarchical approach which will lead the uploader to the right license, with enough information about the different licenses along the way. [e.g., just as a start: The work is entirely by myself; entirely by one other person or company; a joint work by other people; a joint work by someone else and myself... every "path" then goes on to the respective next questions, etc.]

BTW, in the German version there are orthography mistakes (Ich weiß nicht Komma wer der Autor ist; Ich weiß nicht Komma welche Lizenz das Bild hat).

Generally, I think that mandatory entries should be included both for the extended tutorial-like uploads we're discussing here and (!) for the "pro version" that we want to keep for experienced users. That is, an image without any entry for author, date, description or source should just not be accepted for an upload. period. (We can discuss if certain license tags should be excluded, e.g., a US-Govt work tag makes a pretty strong statement about the source, etc. But those are details.)... What's your view on that? --Ibn Battuta 03:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bold. And I still welcome more design suggestions (although I suggest to put them at Commons talk:Upload. I'm sorry some people find it kinda of annoying, but frankly if you know enough to be able to complain about it at the Village pump, then this form is not really designed with you in mind. It's designed for the other 90% of our uploaders.

Secondly this is only supposed to cover the major cases. Certainly we can cover some more cases, like derivative works of our own items. But I have a feeling that such works are not a major category of our uploads, and also are not a major category of our copyvios!!

Ibn Battuta, some of the things you suggest are not technically possible by us wiki admins. We can only customise the form in the ways the develops allow us, not in any way we wish. eg currently there is no way to require categories, or to require that all fields in a form be filled out.

The page for don't know the licence should help the user to find the correct license rather than just lecture about why that matters. I'd suggest some hierarchical approach which will lead the uploader to the right license, with enough information about the different licenses along the way. GUH. Such "decision trees" have been created by people before, and they are so complicated I can barely understand them, so I don't think shoving them at a newbie is very helpful. Commons:Upload/Unknown_author_or_license is where you should end up if you want to upload something you grabbed off a random website. It is a true dead end, so I don't think we should provide any more options. If you have a genuine case, ask at Commons:Help desk.

Also complain about the German version at Commons talk:Upload/de. Just a thought.... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the policy of avoiding complicated decision trees. Could don't know the licence allow the possibility of a work of unknown authorship being OK, if it's old enough? As written, it excludes eg photos of medieval stained glass windows :) --MichaelMaggs 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

photos* of medieval stained glass windows? :)

How do you know it's old enough if you don't know when it was taken? Knowing source info does not exclude PD-old stuff. People are not clamouring to upload medieval PD-old stained glass window pictures, ok. they are clamouring to upload stuff they found off images.google.com. People who are doing not-dodgy things should feel free to continue using special:Upload, and if they come to the Help desk I will tell them that immediately. Weeding out dodgy images is a major process, though. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. The hardest thing about copyright is keeping it simple. --MichaelMaggs 16:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to some questions I just asked on Swedish Wikipedia, people actually don't perceive the upload form to be complicated... / Fred Chess 16:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

random section break

I find both the current and proposed forms here to be meta:instruction creep. Especially User:Kjetil r/Upload. Special:Upload contains nothing about needing a source and a license otherwise it will be deleted. Instead, half of it is a philosophical bit about freedom and the other half is explaining {{Information}}. If there is an issue with uploads missing these two pieces of information then Special:Upload needs to be blanked, these two simple things listed, and a short, bold blurb about files not having these will be deleted. My suggestion:

In order to upload a file here we require two things:

Source information. Who created this work? [[Link to page about more source details where own work vs. flickr vs. US gov vs. etc. can be explained]]
License information. Only files under certain copyright licenses may be uploaded. [[Link to a page explaining the four freedoms and a list of common licenses]]

ALL FILES THAT DO NOT HAVE A SOURCE AND AN ACCEPTABLE LICENSE WILL BE DELETED.

Source filename

Destination filename

Summary with {{Information}} precopied into textarea

List of common licenses

Making uploads a multi-step process with loads of information and explanations is instruction creep. My suggestion above follows the KISS principle by being direct as to what is required and links to more information for people who want it; has no philosophical spiels; and doesn't bog the user down with questions and decisions to make. Cburnett 06:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there are conflicting desires. Desire (1) is to make the process as simple as possible for the uploader, to save them time and effort. Another desire (2) is to reduce the number of copyright violations uploaded for admins and the community, to fulfill our mission.

I suppose we believe that providing more information about common copyright violation situations will help reduce the number of copyvios.

A mitigating factor (3) is related to the first: if the complexity of a process passes a certain threshold, the user will just ignore the process. ("RL;DR")

So to me, designing the upload form is about helping (2). The reason it is split up at all is because of (3) - if we cover every case at once, it becomes 3/4 irrelevant to EVERYBODY.

Anyway... my point is I am not in favour of changing the form if it is to help (1), only to help (2) and (3). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

Document scanning and OCR software

I need advice for a project in it.wikisource: we want to insert some book both in wiki-text format and in image format

Which are the best parameters (resolution, color, format, ...) for a scanned page?
Which are good OCR software that we can use?

Someone know if this method is also used in other project, so we can follow others' example?

--Qualc1 09:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be better off talking to the Wikisource people. There is a mailing list, wikisource-l.

Several projects, but not all, use the DjVU image format. It has some nice properties where you can semi-automatically link pages of one work together, I think. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For OCR, maybe you should check out Tesseract OCR open sourced by Google recently. --Fb78 15:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experiments with it, it's not been very useful (very poor recognition); I'd be very interested to hear success stories. To my knowledge, there is no usable open source OCR solution yet. The standard proprietary OCR software I've used for a long time is OmniPage; it has fantastic recognition rates and an excellent user interface. --Eloquence 05:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spreadsheets

I have a spreadsheet (in Excel format) that I created to use as a baseball scorecard, and I would like to make it avaialable for others to use. Would the Commons be an appropriate place for it? I could also convert it to another format (PDF, for example) if that would be better. Sliver7 15:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aims and goals

I just wrote a bit about aims and goals of Commons (big picture, long term type stuff). Comments and suggestions always welcome --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A place to record the Media's use of our stock?

Hi there, I noted a few months back that one of the images stored here was used on the guardian newspaper website [15]. I thought it could be beneficial if we had a page to note down any appearances of commons material in the main stream, could be a useful way to legitimise the commons with the skeptical user? Any thoughts? Pluke 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to just post links and mentions to commons-l as I find them. We could have a "press coverage" page, but if we do anything like Wikipedia, it becomes pretty irrelevant pretty quickly. :) I guess we have a way to go before then, though. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot requests

Is there a page similar to en:Wikipedia:Bot requests here on Commons? /Lokal _Profil 22:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot requests can be made at Commons:Administrators#Bot flags, where the requests for adminship and requests for checkuser are also located. -- Editor at Large • talk 23:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant requests for tasks to be done where a bot is needed. /Lokal _Profil 11:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Bots. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks/Lokal _Profil 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

Moral rights and freedom to use

See Commons:Deletion requests/Divine Mercy paintings. This picture Image:Jesus Of Divine Mercy.jpg (or Image:Łagiewniki Jezu Ufam Tobie sanktuarium.jpg) is a good example of the limitations imposed by "moral rights" on the "right to modify". The "licence" for this picture has been found to be:

Hyła's painting is not in public domain, Hyła himself (d. 1968) passed copyright to the convent by agreement confirmed in notary public office.
Their mission is protecting cult of Divine Mercy: therefore they grant licenses only on verbatim copies and would never allow derivative works.

The picture being an object of worship, the rights holders do not want the picture to be freely modified, for obvious reasons. Now, this picture may be considered "free" as far as the above-given definition (Commons:Village pump#On "free content") is concerned (quoting):

♦ No payment nor authorisation is required to use or reproduce the picture. ♦ No conventional restriction clause is made to limit reproduction or usage. ♦ The only restrictions on usage, reproduction or transformation are those imposed by law, due to the very nature of the picture (eg, seals or trade marks) and/or moral rights of the author and/or rights linked to the object represented.

In 2039, the picture will fall into public domain, but won't be "free" as far as moral rights are concerned: the convent will still object to any kind of modification. Since the right to oppose to modifications is governed by moral rights (imprescriptible), not economical rights (limited to death 70 years), and since the convent is not likely to forget its mission:

This picture will never be "free" if we retain the freedomdefined.org definition, which is supposed to be "authoritative" (thanks to xyzzy).
This picture is already "free" as far as economical rights (to display, use and reproduce) are concerned.

What is the wikipedia foundation policy? to support a free encyclopaedia, dictionary, news depository, and so forth; the text of which is licenced under the GFDL licence (and therefore must be freely modifiable for derivative works). Agreed. Now, consider Commons:Project scope : "Wikimedia Commons is a freely licensed media file repository (similar to stock photography archives) targeted at other Wikimedia projects." Commons is an exception in the wikipedian world. Pictures need not to be "free" by themeselves (freedomdefined.org definition) since commons is subordinated to its use in other wikipedia projects. For the WP project to be "free" (freedomdefined.org definition), we need "free contributions" (freedomdefined.org definition) and "free material" (my definition). There is no need to require the right to modify for pre-existing material.

The only point to be considered, when dealing with material with pending privative rights, is whether they can be freely used and reproduced, with no authorisation nor payment required. (This is the case for textual quotations, btw: they can be used, but not transformed without limits.) For the considered usage, the "right to modify" the pictures is not necessary (though it can be appreciated, of course). And anyway, the "right to modify" being linked to moral rights, it is imprescriptible and cannot be assumed for PD-old material. ~~In short, IMHO, a licence like CC-No derivative works should be acceptable for Commons~~ - a picture depository in a GFDL project, because the "free content" is supposed to be the encyclopaedia, not the pictures. Michelet-密是力 03:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused regarding the extent of protection moral rights provide. Moral rights alone do not allow you to prohibit "any modification"; they relate to derivatives which would be "prejudicial to [the author's] honor or reputation" (Berne Convention). The given case appears to have nothing to do with moral rights, and when the copyright does expire, the picture is free for most modifications. As I've already explained on foundation-l, the WMF licensing policy specifically only refers to the licensing section of freedomdefined.org; it does not require the absence of moral rights. Explicit ND licensing is an entirely different kettle of fish. It prohibits any derivatives whatsoever, which certainly will involve many transformations that would be potentially useful to our projects (such as the creation of a video documentary that embeds a picture in time-synchronization with narrative or music, which is explicitly forbidden by ND).--Eloquence 05:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree video documentary might be usefull, but then, the convent probably won't object to that kind of work anyway. The point is not at moral right or no derivative as such, but to which extend we need limitless' derivative rights on commons. This is clearly too strong (at least- this seems so to me). Michelet-密是力 06:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which restrictions would you consider acceptable?--Eloquence 07:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a confusion between "no derivative" and "no modification", sorry. The case here seems to be that "derivative" is OK, but not "modification", and IMHO this should be OK on commons. Michelet-密是力 07:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do you define the difference between derivatives and modifications?--Eloquence 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, derivative without modification means that the picture is used (as-is) in the context of another work of art. This is what we need for pictures to be used in WP projects, since the needs for modification of paintings and photographs are very limited and rather technical in that case (color equilibrium, reframe, ... and that's about all). If the limitation is "no modification of the picture", it does not prevent any practical use of it in WP projects, and any page using this picture would be a "derivative work" of it. We do need more transformation power (legend translation, .jpg>.svg, ...) on diagrams, but this is a different problem, and furthermore they are created by WP contributors most of the time.

This is the restrictions that hold for trade marks logos, by the way: they may be used without authorisation nor payment, the only restrictions (for usage or derivative works) are those imposed by law or moral rights of the rightholder, and no modification is allowed. But then, these restrictions are not a problem for WP usages. Michelet-密是力 04:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simple, a modification is still the same work, a derivative is a derived other work. It's a difference we already make habitually: If I make a modification of a public-domain work (for example by scanning it), the result is still public domain. If I make a derivative work (for example by combining two images into one), I do own a copyright on the results. - Andre Engels 15:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case in the Berne Convention, but not necessarily for other countries. In the Netherlands, because of 'moral rights' an author may object to:

publication without mentioning him as the author
publication under another name than his or publication with a change in the way author and/or title are given in the work
any change in the work except where such a request would be unreasonable
any deformation, mutilation or degradation of the work that could cause harm to the name or honour of the author

- Andre Engels 15:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On moral rights in Berne Convention:

(1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.

(2) The rights granted to the author in accordance with the preceding paragraph shall, after his death, be maintained, at least until the expiry of the economic rights, and shall be exercisable by the persons or institutions authorized by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed.

So moral right may expire. On which national law do you base your claim that these works will have eternal moral rights? Samulili 07:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is the French law. I don't know about Polish one... Michelet-密是力 09:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In France, moral rights are perpetual and inalienable. When there is no known holder any more, any people interested in defending these rights can present a complaint; the Minsistry of Culture is legally assigned to do so. For all practical purpose, the protection of the right of integrity tends to fade out with time. IRC, there was a legal complaint about Pei's glass pyramid which supposedly infringed the moral rights of the original architect (can't remember his name). As you all know, the case was dismissed. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course moral rights may expire. It all depends upon the country. In France and Russia, for instance, moral rights are perpetual. In the U.S., which do not have a strong moral rights tradition, the moral rights granted under the Visual Artists Rights Act (which applies only to very specific categories of works) expire together with the other copyrights for works created before the VARA became effective and where the author was still the copyright owner on that date (June 1, 1991: 6 months after enactment, see VARA 610(a), which was on December 1, 1990[16]), and with the author's death otherwise. In Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, the Urheberpersönlichkeitsrechte expire together with the economic rights, i.e. after 70 years p.m.a. In Poland, moral rights are perpetual, see article 16 of the Polish copyright law. AFAIK, moral rights in general are inalienable (cannot be waived or transferred, except by inheritance). In the U.S., moral rights cannot be transferred but can be waived. (17 USC 106A) Lupo 09:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping down

Given that:

I have not been very active on Commons recently
I do not agree with existing policy on some points
I tend to get into fights very easily,

I hereby announce my intent to step down as sysop and bureaucrat. - Andre Engels 09:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is very thoughtful to step down like this, so I personally want to thank you for your contributions to the wiki, and hope that you will always be welcomed back if you ever decide to become more active again. All the best --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jammer André, maar zoals pfctdayelise al zegt, erg netjes om het zo te doen. Ook van mij dank voor je inzet hier. NielsF talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't be gone completely. I am still working on FlickrLickr, and Robbot might come along again too. But there's things like policy that I don't want to be involved with any more. - Andre Engels 08:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry to hear this. Thanks for all you've done here, Andre.--Eloquence 01:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been done now. - Andre Engels 09:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software bug?

I tried to overwrite this picture shot by me with this new, sharper version of the same subject (also shot by me). It was impossible to do so, since in place of the warning the whole picture now appears, covering and hiding the "ok" button necessary to complete the process. Could someone "in the know" chech what happened? I tried with a Mozilla and with a Safari browser, and nothng changes. --User:G.dallorto 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried clicking the "Ignore any warnings" checkbox on the upload form, which is between the "license" drop down box and the "upload file" button? Zzyzx11 01:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the hint, I shall try this method, as a temporary solution, but why putting a warning if we have to ignore it to work? The point is the odd way the image is now being displayed, not the warning. In fact, I would like the warning to be displayed as it was in the past... --User:G.dallorto 19:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

Question about posibly illegal photographs

While navigating in spanish wikipedia I have found a series of images that I think that should be deleted, although I am not quite sure what process to follow.

The images I have found are Image:Microsoft Sign on German campus.jpg, Image:Microsoft sign closeup.jpg and Image:Apple Headquarters Sign ByDay.jpg.

As you can see, those photos have been licensed by the author of the photograph. On my opinion those are derivative works and you can not license the photo without having the license of the logo previously. We must take into account that the only reason of the photo is to capture the logo and make a copy of it.

On the other hand, the photos have received a different treatment: one has been requested for deletion, another one has a "trademarked" template and the third one has nothing except the license.

Therefore, my question is what process should I follow: Speedy deletion, deletion request or simple advising template?

Thanks, Filipo 08:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Commons:Freedom of Panorama? At least the German one is perfectly legal. --Fb78 09:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point of Commons:Freedom of Panorama, but I don't think it is applicable to this case. Those articles allow to take pictures in public places and use them as a new work. By the way, that concept applies to the pictures taken of buildings, sculptures, people, etc.

I am sure that if the pictures that I am talking about showed the building of Microsoft or Apple there could be no possible breach of the law. If the pictures showed people playing and the Microsoft logo behind I wouldn't object either. The thing is that the those pictures only show the logo, which is protected by it's own trademark, and that they are closer to being a mere reproduction of the logo than a real new work of art.

Therefore, my question is that, if I used that photo to create t-shirts and sell them: Could Microsoft or Apple object? Probably the answer would be affirmative. Therefore, those photos aren't free licensed. --Filipo 12:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common error to think that "Free license" means you can do all what you want. Independent of the license many images are underlying restrictions that stem from the depicted object/subject resp. from attached rights. For example, you can't use a portrait image (under whatever license) to advertise your products (without the explicit consent of the depicted person). -- Túrelio 13:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we should introduce a model release policy for newly uploaded photos... --Fb78 14:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though a model release would probably not lift all restrictions for example in regard to marketing-use of portrait images. -- Túrelio 14:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I sincerely do not understand: The GFDL requires the ability to "copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially" and therefore is incompatible with material that excludes commercial re-use. Material that restricts commercial re-use is incompatible with the license and cannot be incorporated into the work. (extracted from en:GNU Free Documentation License).

I do not mean I can do all that I want but, if I understand GFDL correctly, a t-shirt is a medium, and I can copy and distribute it commercially as long as I respect the rest of the GFDL conditions.

Where am I wrong?

Thanks, --Filipo 15:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy one: if you use GFDL licenced picture, you must print the 10 pages of the GFDL licence together with the picture itself, in such a way as to be readable. The GFDL licence text will probably fit on a T-shirt, as a matter of fact, but then this is not the typical "commercial use" you may think of: that kind of picture will never be a source of profit ;o) Michelet-密是力 18:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL licence is impractical for stand-alone "free" pictures, because it requires the GFDL licence to be printed together with the document. This is why CC pictures are prefered if the picture is ment to be used freely AND as a stand-alone. Of course, the reverse is true: if you don't want the image to be freely used as a stand-alone picture, putting it under a GFDL licence is a solution, because it makes it impractical for any profit-making use: the user will have to ask for a specific licence. Michelet-密是力 18:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, more seriously: these are specific trade marks, not general "artistic creation of the mind". As such, they follow the rules of the Paris conventionfor the protection of industrial property, not the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, because "Generalia specialibus derogant" (the general law does not apply when a specific one exists). The main difference is that for trademarks, reprodution is licit within limits (you may not use them on similar products, of course). So the use of trade marks on wikipedia is most of the time perfectly OK, as far as law is concerned. Michelet-密是力 18:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, tanks for the explanation. Anyway, I do not totally agree with your legal interpretation. In my opinion, trademark protection does not exclude artistic works protection. Microsoft, as a name, is protected by the trademark protection, but the logo we are talking about has both protections at the same time because it is also an artistic creation.

For instance, in Spain there is a "Nike" trademark that was used for clothes long before the international well known trademark came into the country. That trademark is, therefore, licit in Spain, but they must use a different logo (the logo is intellectual property of Nike, Inc.).--Filipo 12:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what the Paris convention says: they cannot use the logo, not because of artistic property (Berne convention), but because it is a registered trade mark and its usage would create confusion (and probably notoriety parasitism).

As for the Image:Microsoft sign closeup.jpg, artistic property is not a relevant legal aspect. There is as much artistic creativity in the Microsoft logo than in the stone pillar on which it is posted, and the latter obviously needs no protection ;o) Some logo designs do have some artistic creativity, like the one in Image:Apple Headquarters Sign ByDay.jpg, but even when it is the case, trials for counterfeil are always made because of industrial and mark property rights, not artistic rights. Michelet-密是力 16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake: there are indeed cases where trade mark logos are juged according to artistic property laws = when the mark that uses the logo is doing so without proper authorisation of the logo designer, because in tat case the designers act as artists and author, not as owner of a mark. But this is the only case AFAIK Michelet-密是力 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super-sharp thumbnails

Have I missed the announcement?! We suddenly get super-sharp thumbnails generated by the Mediawiki software installed on the wikimedia servers. Nice. --Dschwen 18:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Duesentrieb, who asked Tim Starling, they improved the scaling/sharpening options for imagemagick. Yonatan ^talk 18:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Image source

Using this template on a regular basis (virtually anytime you would use a {nsd}) i ran into two shortcomings:

The template is very long, and used many times on a user's talk page (one time for every nsd'd image). Therefore user talk pages can get cluttered with messages for a lot of images very fast.
It's not usable with multiple images from one 'upload batch' from a user (which regularly happens).

My proposal would be to design a new template that is entered once on every user's talk page (underneath the welcome template), where images with unknown sources and/or licenses are listed below that general template with a time stamp and a link to the file. In that way user talk pages get less cluttered and it's easier to see which images are nominated for deletion. IMHO, having the same template applied many times to a single user talk page (for every nsd'd image upload) doesn't make a lot of sense. Husky ^{(talk to me)} 22:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a user has many images unsourced images, I mark them all with {{Nsd}} but I only add one warning to the talk page. In addition, I bold the text which says: "if you have uploaded other media..." That should be enough, imho. Samulili 14:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

Colorized photographs

What should we do with images Image:Paul von Hindenburg rest.jpg, which is just an amateur colorization of Image:Paul von Hindenburg.jpeg? This would fall outside of Commons:Project scope, right?--Pharos 23:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's very borderline, but I'd put it in the category of photo enhancements. It's borderline because it involves inventing information, but so do some other enhancements, to a lesser extent, like watermark removal. The key is in the caption - it should be labelled as a "colorization" or "artist's conception" of what the person might have looked like, rather than what a person would assume, an authentic colour photograph. Dcoetzee 10:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upload form help

I'm trying to convert the Wikipedia upload form to match something like the Commons one (which I think is awesome, now). But I have poor skills with this. Can anyone who has cool skills go an help? The awesome folks who helped design the one here would be great too. I can add content, but am weak with other things. A large goal of this upload form redesign is to try and redirect free content that would be uploaded at Wikipedia to be uploaded here instead, so this will be a great project for Commons. But we need to try and give information to help users who are confused as to what really is free and can come here. Please go take a look and help out where you can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is Commons:Redesigning the upload form. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it to be accepted there, I think you need to talk to your English Wikipedia peeps to get their approval and ideas. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

Deletion of image revisions

Lately I have seen many cases where single revisions of images have been deleted and no explanation given. I am sure there is a very good reason for doing this, however it is difficult to tell why it has been deleted without going through the Special:Undelete. Can someone tell me why this happens? Lcarsdata 06:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK it's not possible to give reasons for image version deletions. --AndreasPraefcke 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a bug report for this in January, bugzilla:8477. If more people think it is a good idea, you can comment and/or vote for it. / Fred Chess 08:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Lcarsdata: Deletion of image revisions usually happen for non-disputed reason. Often it is because the uploader by mistake uploaded the same image more than once, or because of reverts back and forth between revisions. In those cases the revisions are merely duplicated and redundant. However, sometimes such deletions can also be for privacy or copyright reasons. / Fred Chess 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DjVu files do not display properly anymore

Since a couple of days, DjVu display seems broken (in both FF and IE, so I guess it's a Commons software problem). There are examples galore in Category:De Wikisource book djvu. It's only the first page of the file that is displayed, regardless if you want to see that first page or any other page. --AndreasPraefcke 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works again, and better than before (even some djvu's that never displayed properly do seem to be correct now). --AndreasPraefcke 14:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

PD in Canada, not in US

Many of the images uploaded by User:Themedpark were published before 1949, so are PD in Canada, but not before 1923, so not PD in the US. (Conveniently, most of the files have a date in the name or description.) Many of them are taken from government archives of Canada, Ontario and Toronto, but the photos must be individually checked if the rights aren't owned by the archives. What is the policy/law on this and how should I proceed? (I am also procrastinating end of term work, so I may not check this message in the next while, so if someone wants to take action on this they are free to do so.) Telso 03:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images that are still copyright in the US should be proposed for deletion. --MichaelMaggs 05:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they be copyrighted in the US? The pre-1923 clause is for US works only. / Fred Chess 08:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons why these end up copyrighted. 1)Once the US signed Berne it granted all foriegn authors the same copyright terms as native authors. 2) The US does not recognize the "rule of the shorter term" which would free foriegn works which become public domin in their home countries.--BirgitteSB 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a live petition to fight the American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term now. Please see also Commons_talk:Licensing#Images_PD_outside_of_the_U.S._but_not_PD_in_the_U.S._.28URAA_restoration.29.--Jusjih 00:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about all those country-specific PD-tags with copyright term shorter than those in the US? Should they be deleted or what? --Botev 23:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personalised license

I remember there being a discussion earlier about personalied licenses (incorporating standard templates such as GFDL) and wheter or not they should be substed. If I remember correctly the decision was that they should be substed since changes to the license could be made without showing up on the image pages. I now can't seem to find that discussion however. /Lokal _Profil 16:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the discussion is archived but, yes, the conclusion was to subst them. - en:Jmabel | talk 06:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion can be found at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007Jan#Personal license templates. /82.212.68.183 09:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. How does this apply to templates like {{Claude}}?/Lokal _Profil 10:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be ok to split such templates up into a standard license and a separate photographer/source part. Similar templates are Azov-images2, Azov-images and to an extent Cc-world66. /Lokal _Profil 16:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's the best idea - make {{Personalised template}} include whatever personal info they want, as well as a standard license template. (Literally put {{CC-BY-SA-2.5}} or whatever, don't copy the info from that template into the personalised one.) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And then subst all uses of {{Personalised template}}? /Lokal _Profil 15:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand it. If you split source-specific licenses like Cc-world66, why don't you split all the PD tags? What's the difference? --Botev 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to deal with this if someone could create a policy about it. As it is now the above question about cc-world66 (which is a source specific cc-license) isn't answered and no-one dares make any major (read robot) substing of templates since there is no clear guideline. Also without a proper policy it's hard to quickly inform users of which our rules are to stop them from using unsubsted versions of their templates on new images. /Lokal _Profil 17:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) I'm in total agreement with a policy on this. We actually don't need {{Personalised template}}; just create a user subpage with {{Self}} and the licenses, and then subst the user subpage on the image description page. V60 ^{干什么？ · VContribs} 18:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but if this is done without a clear policy that one can refer to the users in question tend to become very defensive. /Lokal _Profil 20:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 29

Culture and place

Is there something we can do with categoriess like Category:Seattle Cherry Blossom Festival to associate them with the culture of a country besides the one where they occur? Clearly, this is a Japanese cultural festival, but it is in the United States. The parent category Category:Festál traces upward to Category:Culture of the United States. There ought (it seems) to be some way to link to Category:Culture of Japan, but since it isn't in Japan, our category scheme seems to discourage that. Any thoughts? Any ways similar issues of culture/ethnicity are handled elsewhere? - en:Jmabel | talk 06:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japonism? Man vyi 16:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. Japonism, unless I am mistaken, is equivalent to japonoiserie: Western imitation and appropriation of Japanese motifs. Seattle Cherry Blossom Festival is a cultural festival of a Japanese-American community, which retains strong, legitimate connections to Japan. It is certainly not a matter of cultural appropriation. - en:Jmabel | talk 22:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Gaming License

Open Gaming License is free copyright? I made D&D images, and under free copyright? --Shizhao 10:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coord

Coords sytem from Wikipedia. I just added most of the coordinates system from Wikipedia. Image:Huskisson Street 2.jpg has the templated added. as does Image:Sefton park 1.jpg.--JIrate 10:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What's wrong with Template:Location and Template:Location dec? As far as I know, en:Template:Coord is still a work in progress, and is unnecessarily complex for the uses Commons has for coordinates. Anyway, this should probably be continued on Commons talk:Geocoding. --Para 11:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I missed their existance. Well I've made astart so as soon as it is finished.--JIrate 12:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. User:Irate copied 27 geocoding templates over from enwiki. Enwiki's handling of gecoding is a huge and inconsistent mess. It's certantly not something we want here. As mentioned above commons geocoding is discussed on at Commons:Geocoding. The upload page already mentions it, but if you can suggest other places where we could make it easier to find.. that would be useful. I've removed the copied templates, and fixed the few images using them. --Gmaxwell 07:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about keeping the copied templates and making big notes on them directing the user to visit Commons:Geocoding? :) Cary Bass ^demandez 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wake up admins

You told me to use this temaplte, but no admin is willing to update the page. Get to it. Yonidebest Ω Talk 14:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? "get to it" ??? You may get better results with a more collegial request. Even if you're right... Don't forget we're all volunteers here. I myself took a look but am not very facile with editing R-L so am not clear exactly what needs inserting and thus did not do the suggested change. Lar: t/c 16:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I asked for temp adminship. I added verticle lines - please replace the page with the code between the lines, not including the lines. Thanks, Yonidebest Ω Talk 17:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it, however I suggest you de-redlink the pages linked to. Lcarsdata 21:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look also at MediaWiki talk:Monobook.js/he (2 last requests). Eran 08:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that I went over all pages you added {{Editprotected}} to (the same day you added them I'm pretty sure) and added the translations to the MediaWiki pages. I didn't make your proposed change only on that page (and another one because I don't see the point in changing a link in the sidebar to link to a page that doesn't even exist) where I didn't transfer it over since I'd already translated the Commons English upload form whereas you just copied over the form you made for he with minor adjustments (ie. changing Wikipedia to Commons). I think a commons-specific Hebrew upload form is better than copying over the one from he and there was basically no reason for complaining in this case since the upload form was *already translated* and all other translations went through quickly. I'm reverting it back to my version and I invite (sincerely) anyone who disagrees with me to post their thoughts on this page. Yonatan ^talk 13:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Egnlish upload form sucks. Can someone please revert Yonatanh's removal of the code I wrote? Yonidebest Ω Talk 17:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zzzz.... -- Cat ^chi? 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK everyone, let's all remain civil here, please. saying things suck or saying zzz are not likely to have good effects. Lar: t/c 01:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get consensus among the Hebrew Commons users, please. There's a Hebrew Village pump, isn't there? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a Hebrew Wikinews, but it's deserted too. There are two Hebrew admins and me. Should I bring the Hebrew Wikipedia community to vote here? Yonidebest Ω Talk 12:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is Commons:מזנון ? It doesn't look totally deserted to me. That is the appropriate place to discuss it. (And bringing in friends from Hebrew Wikipedia to agree with you is not appropriate for any discussion here.) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the dates on that page? They date back to last year. There are no regular Hebrew speeking uses in this site, except for the two admins (whom are suppose to be active) and me. The two users who responded on the Hebrew Village pump last month are he.wiki users - Should I ask them on he.wiki to view my fixes? What should I do? Yonidebest Ω Talk 08:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please change MediaWiki talk:Upload-url/he already. Sheesh. Yonidebest Ω Talk 08:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whats next......? Yonidebest Ω Talk 09:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting... Do I need to get a resolution from the foundation to fix up the Hebrew langague!? This is why I asked for sysop tools in the first place. Yonidebest Ω Talk 21:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't need to get a resolution from the Foundation. You need to learn to collaborate with other users instead of bullying them. And this attitude is why you will never GET sysop tools here -- at least as long as you have it. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 30

Image:Face-smile.svg

What is the copyright status of smilies?

See http://www.boston.com/news/daily/13/smiley.htm: Created in Worcester (UK) by Harvey R. Ball, who died in 2001. So ... I'm afraid we'll have to wait until 2072 before we can use smilies on WP, if we strictly adhere to our local rules. Maybe we should lessen the local rules, then ;o) Michelet-密是力 08:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He never applied for a trademark or copyright, something his son, Charles Ball, said his father never regretted. -- It was apparently never copyrighted it. Copyright was not automatic before 1989 (?) in the US, so no problem here I guess :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also my impression from that article is that they're talking about a little soft yellow ball with a face on it, rather than a generic image of a yellow face with a smile. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan: Yes, but AFAIK Worcester is not in the US... what about UK law? ♦ >Pfctdayelise: The "smilies" that we see nowadays are derivative works of his original, and therefore, the copyright licence for the original work should theoretically be considered. Michelet-密是力 17:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ball was from Worcester, Massachusetts, USA (which, like many settlements in the region, was named after the English city). This is the third-largest city in New England and the second-largest city in the state of Massachusetts. —David Levy 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News: Native support for video in browsers

April 17, 2007: A call for video on the web (seems they don't have permalinks, sorry).

Opera Software calls for native support for video in browsers and suggests Ogg Theora. IMHO if Commons grabs hold of this opportunity, we wouldn't need no {{Video}} workarounds in the near future. ~~helix84 21:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007/04