User talk:Elcobbola/Archive4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scottish piper image repositioning

You asked at FAC whether the piper image on Scottish National Antarctic Expedition could be relocated nearer to its text reference, in view of stacking problems arising from its position in the lead section. I have been a little reluctant to do this, for reasons explained on the FAC page; however, another editor has done a trial, relocating the piper within the text. Can you comment on this? Does the displacement of the next section heading represent a violation? Brianboulton (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not aware of policy or guidelines advising against the header displacement (stacking, however, is to be avoided). My comment was meant to be explicit in its declaration of being merely a (helpful) observation (i.e. the placement really doesn't matter to me and I don't consider the issue actionable); it's somehow vexing that it's even merited mention in the declarations of others. Do what makes sense and is best for the article. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

PD-Art

I'm becoming a bit overwhelmed trying to sort out PD-Art. For example, we don't seem to have a complete list of countries and their rulings on photographic representations of 2D works of art. Do you know of one? I need information on Ireland. Awadewit (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The notions on which PD-ART is based generally fall out of case law (i.e. they're adjudicated, not necessarily statutory). As such, they're tricker to find (e.g. one might need a "local" analog of Lexis) and only exist in relatively few jurisdictions (i.e. those with active IP legislation - mostly "first world" countries). The brief list here is probably the best you'll do (direct to UK, to which Ireland belongs). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Have I lost it? I thought only Northern Ireland was covered by UK law. I'm losing my mind. Awadewit (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you need to know for the Republic? Is there an image in particular or is this general curiosity? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I was working on improving the details for Image:LadyMorgan.jpg, which I just added to an article. In the process, I buckled down and started looking at PD-Art. Awadewit (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Another one

An unresolved image issue at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert F. Kennedy assassination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson

hello. I currently have Janet Jackson in peer review. Would you mind looking over the fair use content? The article currently has two audio samples and two images. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 13:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm traveling, so it may be a few days before I get to it, but I'll take a look. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have a chance ...

Talk:Tourettes Action#Image licensing SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I know you're going to be disappointed (you may start hating me after all :-), but I didn't understand a single thing there. Does it matter, btw, that it's UK and not US? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Imagine the "chaos" and impracticality that would arise from making everything that was created by a human (i.e. a work of authorship) eligible for copyright protection. You wouldn't be able to photograph cars, chairs, clothing, etc. Photographs at picnics could be nothing but naked people on grass (the blanket, clothes, bottles, glasses, plates, etc would all be subject to copyright) - and no one wants to see Uncle Wally naked. The horror.
Copyright law has a mechanism to alleviate this problem by granting exemption to "useful articles" (objects with "intrinsic utilitarian function"). The U.S. has case law which establishes typefaces, the characters therein, etc. as such "useful objects"; merely changing coloring/positioning, additionally, is not creative/original enough to defeat the intrinsic utilitarian function (thus the statement on the Copyright Office website). Basically, that logo is too utilitarian, too simple, too laking in originality, etc. to be eligible for copyright protection in the U.S. (although it does get Trademark protection). If it helps, ignore the legal lingo and just go for the concept via examples: the White Album and 3M logo (if the image is just text, it doesn't get copyright protection). The U.K. is somewhat different; typefaces are copyrightable as such, but not in their use. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. (Where would we be without you?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Marriott School of Management

I'm contemplating putting the article up for FAC again, after responding to a good PR. Would you mind scanning the article and letting me know if anything jumps out at you that would create any road blocks. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost heads up

Heads up. Unfortunately (although I put out the alert), it looks like User:Mifter/Signpost is going to come out the week before the Dispatch, so I thought you might need to have a look, lest anything is missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

is going to come out the week before the Dispatch
I'm confused; isn't it already the week before the Dispatch (August 11)? I don't like that this doesn't tell folks that they should be using the Commons. Wikipedia should really only have fair use images and images PD in the US, but not in their originating country (per WP:IMAGES "It is recommended that free media ... be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons"). Also, it's concerning that it doesn't rely on the actual policy (WP:IUP), but instead relies only on guidelines. It also encourages (implicitly) forcing image size. Grrrr. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I tried to put out the heads up (post on Ral315's talk page, he's the Signpost editor),[1] to no avail. Re dates, the Signpost never publishes on time, but this is scheduled for the August 4 edition (which hasn't published yet, but could publish any day), and you're scheduled for August 11. If you're interested in trying to clean that up, I'm not sure where you would post about it ... perhaps directly to Mifter? Or if it's really bad, post to the Signpost newsroom, ask that it be deferred a week to run with ours, so you'll have time to provide suggestions ? Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It's just contrary to MOS, so it's not a "stop the presses" issue. I'll drop Mifter a note. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Literature in the Hoysala Empire

Please confirm if all images meet wiki guidelines in this article. thanks,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Only a few, relatively minor issues:
Thanks. I have taken care of these issues. I just removed the Udupi image without verifyable source and added my won image. As far as the Hoysala emblem image, I have requested for deletion and assume that once the en.wiki image is deleted, the wiki commons equivalent image with automatically show up in the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons

Do you happen to have a wikicommons account? If not, I think they allow ips to file copyright problems there. I brought up one problem in a discussion forum as an ip, but never filed a review, so I don't know if its allowable without an account. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Commons admin. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, good. Then you can file the appropriate action, right? We really need things on that end to go first, otherwise, it will still appear as GFDL compliant from this end. Could you add diffs to the RFK FAC page? That would help. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
That's not correct. Images used in Wikipedia articles, regardless of the where the file is on a Wikimedia server (e.g. whether it's in the Commons folder or the en.wiki folder), need to comply with Wikipedia policy (which, by the way, is more lenient than Commons policy). I've nominated the files for deletion - your implicit request - but I bring them up at FAC (an appropriate venue) so you can actually fix and retain them or find alternatives. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Now, once that goes through, can you help us figure out what images can be used? We do have the luxury of some of the images not being replaceable. Also, are there any others on the commons that haven't been found yet? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you did not tag this for deletion, but it was one that you mentioned on the FAC about. Was this overlooked? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I found this at LOC; it should be a good replacement for the lead image. I'm uploading now. I don't think the journal page would pass NFCC#1 or NFCC#8, so it can't be salvaged. The grave stone image has an en.wiki and Commons version; I'm debating how to handle it. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There was also this image on commons already. It looks like the commons version of the grave was moved from the wikipedia version, so delete the wiki and keep the commons? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the notebook can only be found in chunks from websites with sketchy copyrights and in that book. However, could it be in the archives somwhere? Is there an RFK archive? I doubt the author of that one book had the original and kept it to himself. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The source for that image is password protected; a verifiable source (required per WP:IUP) is one that can be accessed by the public.
The reason the grave image is an issue is because it doesn't explicitly assert an author (we are forced "to rely" on the implication of the {{PD-self}} copyright tag). Per IUP, this is not good enough. It's a problem, further, because the en.wiki version was uploaded by WiscoBoy91 and the Commons version was uploaded by Estoymuybueno. Are they the same person? Which one is the real author (en.wiki was here first, but Commons version has the metadata)? There are millions of photos of this grave site on Flickr; how do we know this image wasn't just grabbed from that or another site? This is precisely why IUP requires a verifiable source (an explicit assertion of authorship with contact information, in the case of "self-made" images) and a summary (details to corrobarate the tag). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Are there any pictures of the grave on Flicker that are able to be taken onto Commons or justified? I've seen it done before with lolcats, but, yeah, they aren't going on an FA candidate. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me look and see what I can find. Is the new lead going to work? If folks are ok with it (i.e. it won't be reverted to the questionable one), I'll go ahead and strike that issue. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pick your poison:
There are thousands I didn't look through; I assumed one of these would work. Let me know. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with the image changes that have been made so far, FYI Fritzpoll (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The first one gives a nice closeup of the grave stone. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No image checks

Bad news ... no one's checking images in spite of my talk page prompts. I'm seeing about four that are ready to be promoted, but for image clearance (including RFK). Also noticed these:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Oliver Sacks.jpg ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll buy that the shirt is incidental inclusion, so I suppose it's ok (although I would prefer a closer crop to avoid the issue altogether). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me see what I can do. Travel has me light on time and I need to finish the Dispatch today. It's also a time drain when I need to give out fish when people would actually be better served learning to fish. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did these. Awadewit (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Awadewit. Ec, the price of fame; you're the best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

PNS Behr Paima

Hi, could you please advise on Image:Behr paima.gif? It's the only image available about the subject, but I can't find out the right tag at WP:ICT/FU. Cheers. --IslesCapeTalk 12:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The "generic" tag is {{Non-free fair use in|Article}}. Regardless of the tag, however, I don't think this image can pass WP:NFCC#1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent ... could be created" (emphasis mine). As an object still in existence, it's unable to pass this criterion (this is, for example, why biographies of living people don't have fair use images - so too with ships, I'm afraid). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another question

How do we know that this image should be tagged with a NOAA tag when there is no information about who took the photo? The website claims "The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public so long as you do not 1) claim it is your own (e.g. by claiming copyright for NWS information -- see below), 2) use it in a manner that implies an endorsement or affiliation with NOAA/NWS, or 3) modify it in content and then present it as official government material. You also cannot present information of your own in a way that makes it appear to be official government information." - Doesn't that mean we can only assume public domain, not NOAA? Awadewit (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't without the explicit assertion; you're right that we have merely a hosting entity, not an assertion of authorship (the image is actually likely to be the work product of the Emergency Management department of a certain county - although undoubtedly PD given the universal disclaimer). Ideally, the {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} template would be tweaked to contain consideration of these cases; {{PD-because}}, alternatively, could be applied to get the specificity needed and avoid misrepresenting authorship. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Just trying to get at the finer points here. Awadewit (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

RFK assassination FAC again

Seems I'm down to one image problem, which is Sirhan's diary. I think an image is needed in this section, so I was wondering if I could make a claim of fair use on this image from the FBI investigation? Otherwise I may need a slightly different image... any chance you can help me with this? My image knowledge is zilch Fritzpoll (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a case to be made for fair use. WP:NFCC#1 only allows fair use when there is and can be no free alternative. In this case, as the image is merely a page of text, the text could be transcribed and included as prose (as is already done). Unless there's some significance to the handwriting itself, there doesn't seem to be a need for the image. NFCC#8, further, requires a significant contribution to our understanding. There may indeed be some historical value to this journal page, but is seeing it really necessary for a reader to understand the assassination? I don't believe so. As for replacement images, perhaps an image of California State Prison, Corcoran could be found (other than an image of Sirhan himself, I'm not sure what would be pertinent here). If you're just looking for something to break up the prose, perhaps a "toccolours" box (e.g. as used here) would work? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
How about a transwiki link to the wikisource text? I'd lose an image, but still break up the text... Fritzpoll (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
That's just crazy enough to work. ;) (My non-image MOS knowledge is sketchy, so I assume there isn't a requirement that such things be relegated to, say, the notes/references/external links section). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

According to my records, you have nominated at least one article (Oliver Typewriter Company) that includes a category at WP:CHIBOTCATS and that has been promoted to WP:FA, WP:FL or WP:GA. You are not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Crown Fountain FAC

Can you please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain on my latest efforts at FURs for everything in Crown Fountain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 13:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you recheck the images. This FAC is getting close to decision time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I'll stop back today; I've been diverting the majority of my time the the Dispatch, so I apologize for not being terribly timely. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
As of 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) was still waiting for an image check.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you tell me how long you have been involved in FAC image licensing discussion and if any modern art has passed at FAC in that time. If any has I would like to see examples of modern art that would pass your FU standards. Please name them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have FU standards; Wikipedia has an FU policy here. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument and I'm not interested in entertaining it. I've posed questions at the FAC that have yet to be answered adequately, or even in terms of NFCC. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying I want to include images because other articles can. I am saying I can not find modern art and artist images that have passed at FAC in 2008. I am trying to understand how the standards apply. Please show me an example of a modern art or artist FA that has met your interpretation of the standards for FU.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried to rewrite and beef up my FURs to appease your concerns. It certainly would have been helpful if you would show me some modern art pages that have passed FAC under your watch.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I don't recall any modern art FAs since I started paying attention in March/April. I'll look at the log and see whether anything jogs my memory. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have offered to make a collage of the three image sequence that shows the face puckering and spouting water for TonyTheTiger. Would this be considered one image for fair use / NFCC purposes? If so I will make it, if not I will not bother. I defer to your understanding and thank you in advance, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and made it and uploaded it Image:Crown Fountain collage.JPG. My understanding is that this would be used in place of three separate images in the Crown Fountain article. I will delete it if you think it is not justifiable. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
This has been the subject of some debate. Consider, for instance, an article about German auto makers. Ignoring the criterion of significance for a moment, let's say the author wanted "to comply" with minimal usage by consolidating the logos of BMW, Opel and Porsche into one image. In this case, the letter of the policy is followed, but the spirit is violated as the article would still contain the three copyrighted works (i.e. copyrighted material hasn't really been minimized). The question for the fountain, then, is whether this is still an issue given that the three images of are of the same copyrighted work. While I recognize that there may exist reasonable argument to the contrary, I think, in this case, that I still side with opinion that this doesn't cut the proverbial NFCC mustard. There is, further, the question of why we would need Image:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG if the article has the compilation; both show the fountain in daylight from a functionally equivalent angle. Why are both needed? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this discussion be on the FAC page. Note the three most recent modern art FAs are Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion (May 2007), Triptych, May–June 1973 (Aug 2007), and André Kertész (Oct 2007). The first two use collages of a logical series that go together just as this collage does. I think you understand that three collages of different company logos are a different thing than a collage of a series. However, if you do not or if this does not matter then the first two of these has seven FU images just like Crown Fountain. I will copy this to the FAC discussion for transparency.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
A copyrighted work is a copyrighted work is a copyrighted work. The constant mention of mechanical image counts indicates a genuine failure to understand the intention of NFCC and the questions I have posed related thereto. Further, what other articles do or have done is absolutely irrelevant. I, as I see is the case with several other reviewers, am tired of bickering on this subject. I'll try to approach it this way: my oppose stands until Image:CrownFountain.jpg and the collage (i.e. the images therein) are removed, as I can foresee no reasonable explanation of how they would pass NFCC#3A and NFCC#8. I do not intend to revisit the FAC; you are welcome to move relevant comments. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted the collage. Thanks for your time and expertise. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hate to be a bother...

Awadewit's been guiding me a bit, but I'm curious to have your opinion: I'm working to FA-ize the article about Emmeline Pankhurst and I've come across these two images. I don't know the author on one – and can't find dates of first publication for either. Given the possibility that the author might not have died 70+ years ago – and assuming we can't find this info – what do you recommend? My gut says to avoid using them, but the EP article simply cannot exist without an image of her husband. Is Fair Use my only option? Thanks in advance for your guidance. – Scartol • Tok 23:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Her, but not hubby – d'oh! (Pics of her are plentiful and apparently clearly in the PD.) Thanks for the link, tho. You know you're always welcome to butt into conversations I start, especially when you're mentioned by name. (Gods know I butt into enough of yours, heh.) – Scartol • Tok 00:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Be very careful with NPG images (see Commons:Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Reply_to_call_for_revision and the subsequent Commons:Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#According_to_these_guidelines.2C_all_National_Portrait_Gallery_images_must_be_deleted_from_the_Commons). Without weighing in (this is a big to-do on the Commons), it would probably be wise to avoid NPG, if possible. Scartol, let me respond in the morning; I've been too busy with the Dispatch to address other things and I need to head off. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for taking the time to look into it. Scartol • Tok 04:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Reading over that second link, it looks like Godwin (and Wales) both endorse keeping NPG images – am I missing something? Scartol • Tok 04:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
NPG images can be on Wikipedia. Commons is a different matter. Awadewit (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, they (at least Jimbo - Godwin is only saying the Foundation is not likely to be exposed to legal problems) endorse keeping the images; this is distinct, however, from whether or not the images are PD in the UK. Foundation servers are in Florida and the images are PD in the US, so the issue of legal exposure isn't really relevant. The issue is whether we should be representing the images as public domain in the UK (as we currently are) when they, per the cases sited, may actually not be. Images on Commons must be PD in the US and country of origin, thus the issue. Awadewit is correct that the images are fine on en.wiki, but I caution against them because, among other reasons, they will need {{Do not move to Commons}} tags (which are often ignored, resulting in housekeeping headaches) and NPG's complaints may eventually rise above saber rattling (it's a long term thing; they may be problematic in the future, so it may just be wisest, as I said, to avoid them if possible). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand, I'm not having much luck

  • This image of Emmeline is dated 1913, but the field is "created/published" (I suspect the former - no halftones, etc.) - at least it gives us a date and (former?) copyright holder.
  • This image of Emmeline gives us a publication date, but July 14, 1928, is well after January 1, 1923.
  • There's, of course, the NPG; certain images (e.g. this 1911 postcard) would be considered PD in the U.S. and, thus, preclude fair use for Emmeline.

Still working on the husband... ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for constantly bugging you about this, but I realized that Emmeline Pankhurst's autobiography was first published in 1914, and that Sylvia's book The Suffragette was published in 1911. Does this mean that images in those books are in the PD? If so, my life just got a little easier. (But of course neither book has an image of Mr. Pankhurst.) Scartol • Tok 19:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Never a bother! Yes indeed, images therein would be PD in the US. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Look at us. Trying so hard to find a picture of Mr Pankhurst. What good feminists we are. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch review

I added some comments here. I think it is a wonderful dispatch - very clear. We've needed something like this for a long time. Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I also thank you for writing that up – very handy. – Scartol • Tok 00:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Elcobbola, what are your thoughts on Part 2? Are you burnt out, or do you want to get it over with? The reason I ask is that I have travel at the end of the month, and I want to nail down what we're going to do about the 25th. Free images is the 11th, TFA/R is the 18th, then we have the 25th, 1st and 8th. Tony would probably take the 8th for Monthly style guide updates (he can't have them ready by the 1st), and Featured topics probably wants the 1st (they have a pending milestone, but all in flux). So, unless you want the 25th for non-free images, we've got to scare up an interview. I know you've worked hard on this, and may want a break, but it would also be good to strike while the iron is hot, and have one follow on the heels of the other. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use is actually much easier, as WP:NFCC is basically nothing but a check list (i.e. it's mechanical exercise requiring far less critical thought). That said, however, it's a miracle part 1 got done when it did (kudos to the surprisingly good 3G coverage in New England). I can try for the 25th, but am quite hesitant to commit given my schedule (I will not have a reprieve from travel until the second week of September). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Great. Then when I plead ignorance, I'll really be ignorant :-) How about putting it at Wikipedia:FCDW/TempNF? We can move it when we have a date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful dispatch - many thanks to you and the editors who helped you. With the exception of the last four captions, this is better than most of the very polished how-tos and policies I've read on WP. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-23t15:15z

Thanks for the kind words. I don't disagree about the captions; unlike the previous images, those four don't really have a meaningful function other than eye candy. Superfluous images breed superfluous captions, I suppose. If you would like to suggest or implement alternative captions, I'd be happy to have you do so. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Elcobbola, I hope Wikipedia:FCDW/TempNF is aiming for Sept 15? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, dart players aim for the bullseye, but it doesn't mean their walls are free of holes. ;) Seriously though, I am indeed trying. I'm currently writing it "offline", as I prefer not to have the distraction of tinkering while the main thoughts are developing - not that they're exactly profound or many in this sort of writing. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Image advice

Hi, Elcobbola. I'm working on Stonewall riots to being to FA. There are two known images of the riots while they were occurring. I would like to use one of them at the top of the page. One is from a freelance photographer named Fred McDarrah you can find here, about 3/4 down the page. I've emailed the address on the bottom of the page asking for permissions to use the image, but have not received a response.

The other was taken by UPI, and may have run in the New York Daily News, but I'm not sure. I'm trying to find a good image of it, but quickly it's here on the cover of Stonewall by David Carter, one of the main sources I used for the article.

I'm familiar with NFCC #8. I wrote the section for "Images of the Day" in Birmingham campaign. However, I was wondering, since only two images seem to exist regarding the riots, are either of them available for use? I appreciate your response. --Moni3 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm admittedly not familiar with the economics of UPI or McDarrah's freelance work, but there may be an issue with NFCC#2 if one or both market intellectual properties to media, etc. for the purpose of illustrating critical commentary. NFCC#8 is difficult to judge when the image is not yet being used (i.e. how does one determine whether a contribution is significant when that contribution has yet to be made?), but it certainly seems reasonable to assume that either image could be successfully used in the article if accompanied by a well-reasoned rationale. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. The Fred McDarrah image may be sold for profit. I think it ran in the Village Voice in 1969. Neither really attracted attention the way the images in Birmingham campaign did, but since the UPI image was taken during the riots-- the first night they broke out, I think -- and the only image I know of showing that. How would I load it with a good rationale? --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Filling out the {{Non-free use rationale}} template, obviously, is a good start and an easy way to articulate compliance with the more "mechanical" criteria (e.g. NFCC#3B). A good rationale will explain both the significant contribution the image is expected to make to our understanding (this is distinct from historical significance) and how our understanding of the topic would be impaired by removal of the image. Only the former remains a NFCC requirement, but the latter is highly recommended for additional support, "insurance", etc. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I uploaded this image: Image:Stonewall riots.jpg with a non-free historic image template. Let me know if I need to amend or change it in any way. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it's a start. You have for the purpose "It is the only published image of the riots during the first evening when they spontaneously began." This is more a description of the image than an articulation of its purpose. We want to explain why the image is being included (presumably to illustrate the riots - but that needs to be explicitly said). If illustration is indeed the purpose, it should then expand on why seeing the riots assists us significantly in understanding the riots. What do we see in the image that words alone could not express? How would our understanding of the riots be harmed if the image were not present in the article? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I added some more information to the Purpose of the image. --Moni3 (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The purpose looks good. If you really want to pick nits for FAC, you should probably reduce the resolution to 0.1 megapixels (NFCC#3B) and move the image to a place in the text more pertinent to the riot's participants than the lead is. I'd actually recommend the Inn image for the lead, but that image appears to be a copyvio (NYPL does not support the GFDL tag - I'm not sure where that license claim is coming from...) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I have an OTRS ticket number (2008080810018509) for the New York Public Library image of the Stonewall Inn. No one has altered the image file to reflect that, however. Usually an admin (or someone) does that. Any advice on that issue? --Moni3 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Well that's a horse of a different colour. ;) The OTRS folks add those templates; I left a note for Nishkid64. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A duplicate version of Moni3's upload exists at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Stonewall_Inn_1969.jpg. The uploader Howcheng was the one who dealt with the Moni3's OTRS ticket. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's odd. Usually they ticket the image and leave it up to the uploader or author to shift it to Commons. I'm completely confused. --Moni3 (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
From the OTRS ticket, there's nothing to indicate that he knew about your localized upload of this image. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Nishkid, I appreciate your assistance. Elcobbola, I'm still thinking of how the images will be placed in the article, and I'm considering adding another. But I am also grateful for your help in getting the right template information for the riots image. That's the whipped cream and the cherry for the whole sundae. --Moni3 (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Moni. The article is looking great. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

When you have a chance, can you look at the images at Samuel Johnson and get back to me about them? We are prepping it for FA, and I want to settle the images first. I have a book that documents the owners of some of the paintings if necessary. I'm not that current on such materials that are so old. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Can anything be worked from the information I provided here? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you've provided good information. I made a sample edit here so you can see how the majority of images could be corrected. I'll stop back at the article talk and elaborate, etc. tomorrow. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I went through, added the template with info to all the images (and on commons also). I hope I did it correctly. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem. We have all the time in the world. Just trying to get everything 100% before a FA nomination. We don't want an FA, we want the best article possible. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot edit commons, because a fly by admin blocked my IP for claims of "trolling". I pointed out in a deletion review that an image was cropped from another image that was hosted by Wikipedia, without a clear statement that the image was a derivative or when the derivative was made. The "info" for both images were copy and paste of the other, without reference. It was a simple fix, but no one cares about being in compliant for that.

Regardless: 1. This can be found on Lane p. 207. Courage Ltd, London owns the original. Cooper-Bridgeman Library owns a copy. 2. This is stated to be owned by Mary Hyde in NJ on page xvii in Bate. Most of the duplicates of it cut the picture off just below the rounded edges at the top (at the line across the two paintings). 3,4. This and this I added that I cropped and scanned the images of the dictionary pages to the source. 5. The 17 gough square image can be removed. Johnson didn't live there during the time the picture is placed in the article. I put in its place a scan of the second edition of London's title page. I put up the information as per the dictionary pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What IP is it? I'm happy to review and unblock if it was indeed inappropriate. Alternatively, have you considered setting up a Commons account (or you could just unify your login)? If you're not interested in the Commons shenanigans; I can move/amend the images. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I sent via email. I had an account on the commons before, but people seem to be more concerned about popular opinion than actual licensing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Wikipedia emails go to my German laptop; I'll be back in town late tomorrow (Thursday, realistically), so I'll be able to get it it then. I'm happy to correct the images in the mean time; if you'd like not to to wait for whatever reason, let me know and I'll send you my "US" email. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It can wait a few days. The Commons thing doesn't seem to matter. There are already six people "supporting" the image whose responses show that they didn't even grasp the concern present. Its a sad state of affairs over there. JzG got harassed by another person, so it seems to be mob rule. It you are very curious. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC) This - could you revert my editing and upload it then, or is it unrecoverable? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's recoverable (just click the older date in the "file history" section). The Commons transfer script, however, only grabs the most recent version, so I'd just need to make the move manually (not a big deal - just more steps than I was interested in undertaking at the time). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thats good. I was afraid that it might have been damaged. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hannah Pritchard

Hi; I want to add the image of Hannah Pritchard on this page to the article on Irene (play), on the grounds that Mrs. Pritchard played the title character in the first (and almost only) production of this (justly forgotten piece of high-minded but boring) drama. I have emailed the editors of the magazine in question, but they have not responded. I would very much like to know your opinion about the likely usability of this image, seeing as it is clearly by an artist who has now been dead for more than a hundred years, and whether or not that counts for anything. (I too am a Schiller fan, btw, although when I tried to read the Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man in my early 20s I did get a bit stuck.) Many thanks. Lexo (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with making a PD claim for the image. The date 1750 is inscribed thereupon and the NPG reiterates the date. A {{PD-Old}} tag should do, but don't upload the image to the Commons (long story). Schiller didn't exactly take the direct route in developing a theme in Letters, that's for certain. I hope you managed to get unstuck later in life; it's truly profound. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. Lexo (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm....

Image:0064MC.jpg - Do you think a professional photographer donated images to Wikipedia? Awadewit (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There are several professional photographers active on the Commons and other projects. Tetraktys, the uploader here, reports to be staff member of Rio Grande do Sul Museum of Art and a photographer, among other things. Some uploads have wrinkles (e.g. many uploads of items in a Greek museum - quite a ways from Brazil, landscapes with borders, etc.), but, in the absence of evidence that the photos originated elsewhere, I'm happy to AGF. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm a professional photographer, albeit just starting out, and I donate my 'culls' to wikipedia. I don't donate the best stuff, obviously, but shooting generates a LOT of culls, and might as well make some use of them. (Some of the other "culls" go to stock photography, for example). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! It is nice to have other opinions on these matters! Awadewit (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Translation?

  • Shiels Maggie (14 August 2008). "Legal milestone for open source". BBC News. Retrieved 17 August 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
No matter how "free" copyleft licenses seem, one still needs to abide by the terms of license. If, for example, a license requires attribution (giving the original author credit), a failure to do so constitutes a breach (i.e. infringement). This is "Copyleft images are still under copyright" in practice. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sad loss for Janeites

Image:Lyme Park 2.jpg - Since this Flickr link isn't working, I believe we can no longer use this image, correct? Awadewit (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, Flickr images with dead links are still ok if they've had a Flickr review (i.e. a Flickrreview template has been added by a Commons admin or a trusted reviewer; FlickreviewR bot doesn't appear to be on the list, but it counts). A brief description of Flickr review is here. Put simply, when legitimately tagged, these images are confirmed to have been published on Flickr with the license tag indicated. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ec, what do you think about adding these sorts of post-Dispatch questions into one FAQ section on the talk page of the Dispatch? Or even add them in to the Dispatch if you feel it's warranted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent - good to know. Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to do it. Would a separate page (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches/FAQ) be the best way to go about it? (I don't think it would fit nicely into the Dispatch - and I do worry about TLDR). Alternatively, there could probably even be a "Reviewing free images: part two" Dispatch. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Medical consent

I believe it is only in images where the patient is identifiable that consent is required? So, for example, this does not require the patient's consent? Awadewit (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, this does not require consent. Although "in images where the patient is identifiable ... consent is required" may not always be the case. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! You're a gem! Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd license

Have you ever seen this license before? I haven't read it all the way through yet. Awadewit (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's new to me. The SEL license seems as if it would be acceptable on Wikipedia (a SEL copyright tag does not exist to my knowledge, but that is easily remedied), as it appears to be nothing more than GFDL with propriety "social commentary" baggage. I, however, don't see support for that license. The image is from Christina Ruth Mann's page on wearcam.org which implies she is the author, not Steve Mann/Glogger (talk · contribs), as indicated in the image summary (even if they're married, my understanding is that she alone would have the copyright - assuming she is still alive). Steve appears to be the webmaster at wearcam.org itself, but the site has a copyright disclaimer incompatible with Wikipedia and I see no evidence that A) Christina transfered rights to Steve or B) that images on the site are published under SEL. Did I miss it? The site is straight out of dada. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
What should we do? I'm thinking the image should be deleted. Awadewit (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree; IfD calls. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So time consuming

Image reviewing is so time consuming. Wow. We need some sort of campaign to educate editors about image regulations so that they can learn to check the basics on their own. Awadewit (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I just assume if it's on Commons, it's good to go. Now you know how I feel about sourcing... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't know how you do the sourcing reviews. I've only just started reviewing every FAC for image violations and I know I won't be able to keep it up. I have no time for any other wiki-work and it is taking far too much time every day. :( We need an army of volunteers to do this and educated editors! Awadewit (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Images are probably harder than sources in some respects, because folks are less educated. On the other hand, it should be easier once folks are educated, I'd hope. You don't have to copy my model of reviewing either, it's only for those that have a fair amount of time, which I do. If your wiki time is limited, it's not going to work so well. Also, once I am on "top" of things, and only having to cope with the new ones, it does become easier to keep on top of things. I've found that reviewing the new ones every morning, then catching the replies I can while I'm doing other wiki work throughout the day, and then three times a week going back through and getting any responses that I've missed works pretty good. FACs that required a LARGE number of comments, I'm much more likely to leave til that three times a week review of the whole list, rather than try to stay on top of all their replies. Sandy keeps trying to convince me to only source check the FACs that have garnered supports, but I figure since I have the time, doing every FAC helps educate folks on how things work. And, what... five or six months later, I've got most of the regular nominators trained to find their own errors. Note I said "most". I think part of the problem with images is that it's more than one problem. You have the fair-use issues, and then you have the nitpicky details missing from Commons. If you are strapped for time, pick ONE of those problems, and leave the other for others. If I was you, I'd stick with fair use, and just spot check Commons. In theory, Commons should be policing itself on the tags and sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Before Elcobbola, that was what I thought, too (if it's on Commons, it's good). Awadewit, don't be discouraged. The cadre is growing, and the shortages were due to past ignorance, which left Elcobbola pretty much alone on image review, taking the brunt of nominator hostility. Now that more people are aware, and now that Ec has written the Dispatch, I think we'll be over this hump soon, and it will become just another educational "wave" at FAC. I remember a few years back when every single FAC presented with Wp:FN footnote placement problems; we educated, and nowadays, that almost never shows up. I think image review will be under control within a few months, as more reviewers learn and as nominators realize they should get their images squared away in advance. And hopefully with other people helping, we can encourage and motivate Elcobbola to return full force. What troubles me equally is that Ealdgyth is the only person reviewing sources; it boggles my mind when people support a FAC without checking the sourcing, and I wonder who will want to take on that tedious work if Ealdgyth ever tires. Thanks for taking on so many image reviews, Awadewit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Mama Sandy worrying again (grins). I actually kinda enjoy it, it's productive and I can see folks are learning about sourcing. When I started doing it, it was as much to learn about FAC and it's culture, but now it's kinda fun. I sure learn a lot, that's for sure. And like I said above, it's not like the many headed Hydra that is images, there really isn't that much to sources. I will admit that I've pretty much decided against taking any admin nomination offers, between FAC sourcing and trying to write articles, I just don't see how I'd have time to do admin work either. Oh, yeah, and RL should get SOME effort too! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. ;) The time is amazing, especially when you get images with a lot of flags and, consequently, have to go rummaging around Google images, Flickr, LoC, NYDL, NPG, Bridgeman, Everystockphoto, PicFindr, Spffy and all the rest. Then there's the issue of being attacked for your time and effort; FAC is not the place I thought it was - but I digress. No one will be more jubilant than I if Sandy's optimism comes to fruition, however. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Reviewers Award The Reviewers Award
Thankyou for all the work you do for Featured article candidates. The FAC Process would surely crumble without your continued efforts. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thank You

Thanks - it makes me feel slightly less guilty at walking away. I had reached the point where I did not see my contributions having much hope of making a difference and I wanted to keep it civil, so I left. As Thumper says in the film Bambi, if you can't say something nice, then don't say nothin' at all (or words to that effect). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Query...

Stigand. The images from the Bayeux tapestry. There is no question that it's out of copyright, but images OF it, are they out of copyright? I'm so totally at see at this whole non-US copyright thing. What do I need to do to get these images up to snuff for a run at FAC? He's up next after the current one.. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, no need to worry about the international aspects on en.wiki. These are the types of images I struggle with, as there exists a difference between what I believe to be the "correct" answer in the real world, and the answer that would be acceptable to Wikipedia. Bridgeman v Corel, the ruling that allows us to use exact copies of 2D works (like my good friend above, Schiller), could be seen as limited by the scope of what it was actually intending to address (2D paintings and slides thereof), but several of the cases underlying the Court's findings (e.g. Mazer v. Stein and Feist) seem more easily extended to a 3D work (a tapestry). The legal discussion aside, I don't foresee a problem with images whose subjects are very much 2D (e.g. Image:Stigand.jpg); I would become moreso concerned with images that begin to display the 3D nature of the work (e.g. Image:Bayeux Tapestry 4.jpg) or textural detail (e.g. Image:Bayeux tapestry laid work detail..jpg). Although, frankly, the community would probably call me a loony for even doubting/questioning those (again, "real life" and Wikipedia have a tendency to diverge).
So, if I have a photograph of these in a book, even if that photograph was taken in the UK or in a non-US country, where Bridgeman v. Corel doesn't apply, I could still scan the image and use it as PD-Old on Wikipedia? (I'm in the US) I think that's the basic question I'm asking. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That is our modus operandi, yes. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Okay, I can get soures for the two tapestry images, thankfully. The third has a source so that's good (although I'd avoided using manuscripts in British hands, but guess I didn't need to...) Luckily, medieval manuscripts are all PD! Thanks a BUNCH! Awa thanks you too, since she won't have to walk me through this at Stigand's FAC! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Logos everywhere

Does this need a fair use rationale because it has the Texas Tech logo on it? Or is the Texas Tech logo too simple to guarantee it copyright? Or do pictures of logos once-removed not require fair use rationales? Or....? Awadewit (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Several things here:
  • The Texas Tech logo itself (e.g. this) is indeed probably too simple, as it is really nothing but mere typographic ornamentation (although there are those who would disagree with me; frankly, I think there's a reason the logo has a "TM" in the corner and not a copyright logo.) This is moot however, as:
  • The ring as a whole is copyrightable as an "original [work] of authorship fixed in [a] tangible medium of expression" [2] (yes, jewelry, like equally mundane stuffed animals, is subject to copyright); this image is a derivative work.
  • The image appears professionally done (even lighting, etc.), is of low resolution, has no metadata and the uploader's talk page has number of image-related warning templates; are we sure the uploader is even the image's author? Quack?
  • Fair use wouldn't fly per NFCC#1. As an object still in existence, a free image could be obtained/created. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Strike that last bit; I need to rethink that. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose a fair use claim could be made, but I'd anticipate NFCC#8 to be a significant hurdle. Is it really that hard to imagine a ring with the logo on it, especially when the logo is already used in the article? Sometimes I'm dumbfounded by what people claim needs illustrating; I think Wikipedians must watch too much television. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be a character witness for Elred, so to speak. He is a graphic artist and I find believable his claim of having created the image of the ring. Most of the image-related problems noted on his talk page come from a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy, not from dishonesty. Additionally, many of the notices are related to simple housekeeping for things like orphaned free-use. Just my 2¢ since this was linked to from the Texas Tech FA discussion. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's good enough for me; I'm happy to AGF. The image is still a derivative, however, and would require permission of the ring's designer/creator to be freely published. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I agree that it does need a fair-use rationale. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image review Dispatch

It's looking like Wikipedia:FCDW/TempNF will be on September 15. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. My sorting through of preliminary thoughts has already caused NFCC to be changed [3] [4], so hopefully I won't have to continue to rewrite the criteria to write about the criteria. ;) I did start making illustrations last night, so it is somewhat underway. Do let me know about the free FAQ, too. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, did I forget to reply <smack> ... the FAQ is wonderful. If you think it's ready, I think you could add it to the bottom of the Dispatch as a See also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was hoping it would become "frequently asked questions" (as opposed to its current "frequently asked question") before making it more prominent... ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Meaning you want me to ask more dumb questions? Can you trawl through your talk page for some? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know whether you'd already had mental notes; you, obviously, pay much closer attention to FAC, so I thought you might be able to better gauge what was truly "frequent" in the realm of review. Your questions are never dumb, but I suppose I can go trawling. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I've had my head elsewhere lately (that is, whether I'm going to have to take off the delegate hat, put on the reviewer hat, recuse some FACs to Raul, and do something to kickstart FAC out of this 100KB-FACs-without-opposes-or-supports current mode it's in). Can't focus on images when there are now several capable people on the job. Gosh, I guess I was a brutal reviewer; I lodged Fixes needed all over the place, and switched to oppose if they weren't fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You can move it to WP:FCDW/September 15, 2008 whenever you think it's close enough for others to weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Too funny!

I kind of wanted to see if anyone would review the images in Proserpine (play) and I was curious what they would say. I was sort of testing the FAC waters, but you were too quick! :) Awadewit (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah nuts, you've got to let me in on such schemes. ;) I would like to have known the outcome. (I do wonder from time to time whether "experts" get a pass in their field - i.e. would people be diligent about checking sources on an Ealdgyth nom, comprehensiveness on an Awadewit nom, images on an Elcobbola nom, prose on a Tony1 nom, etc?) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 07:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image check request

Could you possibly look at the images on Southern Cross Expedition? It's at PR awaiting a review, and no doubt someone will look at the prose, but I'd really appreciate knowing whether there are any likely problems with the images, bearing in mind problems I've had in the past with these wretched expeditions. Many thanks Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded there. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this. My bemused responses are on the review page. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image review

Elcobbola, Awadewit let me know she's going to have limited access over the coming week; is there any chance I can entice you to do image reviews for about the next ten days? There are several articles ready to go but lacking image review, and several that I just restarted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm available to do some image checks if you want to throw some over my way. I've been neglecting making myself useful at FAC for a while now. —Giggy 11:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Giggy. By the way, I've been meaning to say kudos for this; very impressive to see the right call on something so mundane and seemingly benign. That sort of thing might get you attacked at FAC. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you find images, too?

So, Simmaren and I are slowly preparing Reception history of Jane Austen for FAC, but I'm having trouble finding an image of a modern scholar to include. I thought I had one of Edward Said, but this one is looking pretty sketchy. I'm trying to track down the source, but I think it might be a professional photo falsely uploaded. Anyway, if you feel like helping find an image of Said or any of the scholars listed in that section of the article or if any other inspired idea hits you, we would greatly appreciate it. If you don't have time, we totally understand. (We are only at GAN, so absolutely no rush.) Awadewit (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've indeed gone image hunting from time to time (although I've yet to find Mr Pankhurst). ;) I'll take a look for these folks. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
See here, by the way. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A question on images

I was just wondering whetheryou could find time to check out these images as per my query here. [5]. Secondly, Will the images here like this [6] be acceptable as the Jaina calender is its own publication and put it in public domain.--Anish (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay; this one got lost in travel and succeeding queries.
  1. No, those images won't do. The readme" says: "The majority of the material of this CD has been collected from various Jain pathshala teachers and scholars of North America, from the past publications of similar CDs by the JAINA education committee under the leadership of Dr. Gada, from internet and e-mails of public domain" (emphasis added). The "majority" is quite distinct from "all"; when the images are arranged like this, with no commentary as to whether they belong to "the majority", we don't have anything usable. Further, the English of the readme is terrible (and I say that as a non-native speaker), especially for a document that, in part, is attempting to make a legal assertion. One could read "the majority" as not even referring to public domain, as "and e-mails of public domain" is the only use of the phrase. Does public domain apply to just the emails or the other, preceding sources as well?
  2. Whether the images on the calender are acceptable depends upon who took the photographs. Did a representative of Jaina.org take the images, or did Jaina.org just compile "found" images for their publication (see derivative works). We'd really need to see a "credits" page; are there cover pages or other, non-month pages that have been scanned and posted which might have this information? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...That clears up the query. Too bad...they had good images depicting the life of Lord Mahavira..as well as from various themes of Jainism. Maybe I can correspond with them to get the exact status of the image. Thanks again.--Anish (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

I'm confused by this tag. Perhaps you could explain it to me? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Conceptually, this is why the tags are properly called "copyright tags", not "license tags". True licenses (e.g. CC and GFDL) are actual legal documents establishing, among others, parties, terms of use and termination, liabilities, etc. This tag, however, is moreso a mere declaration by the copyright holder without the legal "baggage". It's the concept from the Dispatch of "Copyleft images are still under copyright; their creators have merely waived some, but not all of the protection that copyright affords them". This tag asserts that Jcrocker holds the copyright (nothing wrong with that) and that certain protections have been waived ("use [is allowed] for any purpose"). If it helps, think of it as CC-by or GFDL without an underlying legal document. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Lack of source

Can we use this logo without a precise source? See the discussion here. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd ask the uploader of the current version (Bobak (talk · contribs) - an admin and still-active editor) where s/he obtained it. If that doesn't pan out, however, WP:IAR seems fine, as the image's origin - although imprecise - is obvious (provenance isn't really in question). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
What a relief! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

Just a follow up on the Red-necked Grebe images (thanks for checking) Image:Podicepsgrisegena.jpg and Image:Grèbejougrisparade.jpg both click straight through to the USFWS website for me and are not dead links (although Image:Grebe.jpg is) Is it possible that your browser has a problem with the USFWS site? I've reluctantly removed these images, the two best in the article, but one of the replacements Image:Podiceps grisegena9.jpg is also USFWS. Url works for me, but could you check, because if that image has to go as well I might as well forget pictures of the North American subspecies altogether since they are all USFWS. Thanks jimfbleak (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up; I responded at the FAC (I think I just happened to hit the USFWS site when it was down). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Voyage of the James Caird

Can you put any sense to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voyage of the James Caird? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh, TLDR - closely, anyway ;). I just did my own review; hope it helps! ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, reassuring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I feel so ashamed. I'm still an apprentice. :( Awadewit (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Goodness, there's nothing to be ashamed of ! (Well, except this, maybe, which was painful.) That blog seriously ruined the 2000th moment for me since I happened across it immediately after excitedly e-mailing Raul that the 2000th batch was ready and it included an educational project. In hindsight, it may have bothered me more than Elcobbola, since it dashed my excitement  :-). But just look how far we've come since then ! Now there are many reviewers backing up Elcobbola and learning from him, where he used to be all alone facing the wrath. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
It always helps to multiple people mentioning the same issues. I think we are making people aware that they need to check images - raising awareness (step 1) seems to have been accomplished. I have seen more people asking for help before FAC which is always a good sign. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, before I get out the door, we need you two at WP:FAR; Fasach Nua is getting beaten up over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "beaten up": attacked or unable to handle the load/answer questions? I'm not exactly keen on entering a venue where image reviewers are being attacked. I'd been contemplating "moving" to FAR in the hopes the environment was different, especially as the recent FACs at which I've commented "on my own devices" -- Crown Fountain and Croatia national football team -- have strongly reinforced my disillusion. If FAR is going to be more of the same, I might prefer to stick to being the image review vampire (i.e. only reviewing when invited to do so). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm rushed; check my contribs at FAR. And Elcobbola, you have to accept that when others don't understand images as well as you do, it's hard for us to know if someone is being unreasonable. As we learn, this will change, but until you weigh in, how do we know? Also, pls remember that it's not optimal for me to be the one to step in when there are attacks; there is still an unstruck blatant, stunning, blockable personal attack on the Samuel Johnson FAC (delusional troll), and not a soul has said a word. I can't be the one to do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
A conversation for when you are not rushed, perhaps. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Croatian national team candidate

Thanks for your comments on the featured article candidate. Really helped, appreciated. Just wanted to let you know that I fixed up all the images now. Thought this was holding you back from supporting or something. Here it is. Domiy (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the follow-up. I've commented on remaining image issues at the FAC. I rarely review outside of images (largely due to time constraints) and typically only support articles on topics in which I have substantial enough knowledge to make an educated evaluation of comprehensiveness and factual accuracy (e.g. economics/finance, literature and all things German). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

More thanks

Many thanks for your comments on the images for the Voyage of the James Caird article, now promoted. It seems that an attempt by someone to create difficulties was neatly averted. In a more general way I would like to thank you for your work on image issues at FA. Sometimes I find your judgements baffling, at other times frustrating, but I have absolute confidence in their soundness, which is why I so frequently turn to you for advice. Which reminds me: when you looked at the Southern Cross Expedition images at PR, you expressed doubts about Image:Borchgrevink Hut.jpg. Do these doubts amount to a "don't use"? Trouble is, there are apparently so few free images for this expedition; there are lots of photographs from Borchgrevink's 1901 book on various websites, but the sites seem to be claiming copyright. Can I use any of these images? With grateful thanks again, Brianboulton (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think FN was attempting to cause problems; having an image pending deletion is never a good thing. The circumstances here, though, were such that an oppose was not really warranted. In any case, thank you for the kind words. I've been meaning to get back to Southern Cross Expedition; I'll be "home" tomorrow, so I'll try to pop in then. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
When you do get back, perhaps you'd give an opinion on these? I've looked at the copyright section and these photographs, taken 110 years ago, appear to be PD under Australian copyright. Is it possible to use them here? (Note also a couple of other additions to the article's images). Brianboulton (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It's the same (frustrating) issue of publication. Were these published before or after the death of the author? If before, the term is 50 years after their death; if after, the term is 50 years from publication. I only see creation dates. Knowing the publication information is critical to our ability to determine whether they're PD. Per the rights page, an unpublished photograph holds copyright in perpetuity (i.e. the PD clock doesn't start ticking until the image is published); to play devil's advocate, what if these were first published in 1960? That they are currently 110 years old won't be a consideration. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I'll hold off using these until I can get unimpeachable evidence of publication. I don't think these are from Borchgrevink's 1901 book, they could be from Bernacchi's (also pub. 1901), but who knows? The article can live without them. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Flipping images

Can you please comment here?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. It's all settled. Thx anyway.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Hi, you have voiced concern about an image here. I have changed that since then. I'm not sure if you haven't looked at it since, or whether you still think it violates WP:NFCC. Thanks. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Byron

Low priority - I uploaded this and this. I was wondering if there was any other information that I was missing or if I made any mistakes. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just made some minor tweaks to make the authorship more "accessible". Otherwise, everything looks goods (and a fancy new unified login, too, I see...) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Existential question about sculpture

When does a work of art become a work of art? :) See here. Awadewit (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So we've transcended to philosophical questions, I see. ;) There isn't really such a thing as a "work of art" in this sense. Copyright law uses the term "work of authorship", realizing that "art", as something in the eye of the beholder, is not exactly useful in such a context. I, Elcobbola, for example, don't really consider some things art; the "authorship" verbiage removes that subjective interpretation, however, as merely being a work of authorship is the threshold for copyright protection. Here's the legalese:

Copyright protection subsists ... in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. (emphasis mine)

Simply put, once an "artistic idea" transitions from your mind to paper, stone, metal or some other "tangible medium", even if it's not yet complete ("or later developed"), the copyright has been generated (or, as you've put it, art has become art). Now, getting to specifics:
  • This image's subject is an outdoor scene with no one or group of copyright-eligible work(s) as the implicit subject (the white structure is the implicit subject and is exempt).
  • I assume this image is of Cloud Gate being constructed? If the ring is merely a structural element, I would argue it is a useful article (e.g. buildings, as works of architecture, are eligible for copyright protection; the structural steel beams therein, however, are not eligible in and of themselves). If, alternatively, this ring is a visible and obviously a deliberate "artistic" element of the completed sculpture, then yes, it would be "non-free".
In both cases, obviously, the author of the photos would need to give permission for their use. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alexandra of Denmark

Hi, I was wondering if you could look at this FAC on a Queen of England and help us determine if the photos are of public domain in the UK, or should we upload them to Wikipedia (ref:FAC for Voyage of the James Caird)? Furthermore, I am wondering if an article can have any amount of "free" images as long as it is associated with the subject (i.e. do we subject "free" images to the same "appropriate" condition as fair-use images)? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I responded at the FAC regarding the first question (no move needed). Regarding the other question, there isn't a really a limit on "free" images in a numerical sense (other than common sense), although the totality and spirit of several guidelines set something of a limit. WP:IMAGES advises against redundancy (e.g. I agree with your comments about the multiple images of Alexandra) and recommends one be "judicious" in picking suitable images (e.g. although freely licensed, a pogo stick image wouldn't really belong in the article). Basically, use as many free images as needed to assist the reader without cramming so many in that there is sandwiching (MOS:IMAGES), impairment of readability/flow, or disruption for those with different needs or hardware setups (WP:ACCESS). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarifications and enlightenment! Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion sought

If you have a moment to spare, can you take a look at this IFD for a fair-use image. I'm not asking you to get involved in the discussion, but would like to hear your opinion (which I respect) on the validity of arguments presented there. (Note that the image formerly appeared in the infobox of MV Empire Galahad (old version with image.) Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll go in somewhat backwards order, and you'll see why in a moment; the replacement image is not kosher. Per Title 17 (United States copyright law) [7]:

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. (emphasis mine)

That being the case, I think the argument that "[the] image is not replaceable by a free one" may be valid. I don't believe that a drawing based upon blueprints (which may or may not itself be considered a derivative, as defined above) is reasonably expected to be created, as the existence, availability and accessibility of the blueprints have not been established. I say "may be" because the existence of images of sister ships was not discussed. Here there is interplay with NFCC#8 and, as the image has since been deleted, I can't evaluate its purpose (if, for example, the purpose was merely to illustrate the ship, I'd be hard pressed to believe that an image of a sister ship wouldn't "serve the same encyclopedic purpose" (NFCC#1), which, presumably, is to convey a basic understanding of the ship's size, general configuration, etc.; unique livery and name aren't really relevant to that purpose). I would also note that I consider comments like "The nominator is clutching at straws to find a reason for deletion" (not made by you, obviously) utterly inappropriate and that they would preclude my entry into such a discussion. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I appreciate your insight into the matter. I know that you had some sort of a run-in about images at FAC a while back so I was not trying to draw you into another one, by any means. Thanks again! — Bellhalla (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, there wasn't necessarily a particular incident, rather a totality and (still) ongoing abuse and dismissal of image reviewers. In any case, I'm always happy to comment when "invited" and folks are working cooperatively and in good faith. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Post-travel catch-up

Elcobbola, I can't remember if Wikipedia:FCDW/TempNF is on track for WP:FCDW/September 15, 2008?

Also, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel Johnson has passed 150KB and has become hard to sort; can I interest you in capping your sections? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm aiming... I capped my section; the other section in which I commented is really Awadewit's, so I should probably let her do that. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought I had asked somewhere, but I couldn't find it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any solutions for moving this forward? Responses appear to have moved into the realm of sarcasm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. I love when nominators don't realize the "real" reason you're asking. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Seriously :-) But also, it's used in three featured articles, so really should be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wehe mir. Straw men about procedure and unfortunate attitudes. The concerns are legitimate, but this isn't yet a "discussion" for me. Эlcobbola talk 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an email

Hope it wasn't too much trouble. Serendipodous 17:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I don't get WP emails during the day, so it will be at least this evening before I can respond. Эlcobbola talk 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dumb question of the day

Elcobbola, I'm just learning how to negotiate my local library online from home. I found a beautiful, color version of Image:Hester Thrale.jpg. If it's PD, why can't we upload that color version from my library database? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We can; were you told otherwise? Reynolds died in 1792, so the painting is indeed PD. Images of the painting could be subject to copyright in real life (depending upon the country in which they were created), but en.wiki and Commons do not recognize such claims, so there's no issue there either. A Google images search for "Thrale Reynolds" (sans quotes) hits this as the first result, so the colour versions appear plentiful. If your version is superior or verifiably made in the US, all the better. Эlcobbola talk 02:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Mine looks much more natural; that one has strangely red cheeks. The one I found is gorgeous ... I feel like I'm in the museum ... all excited to be exploring my local library online. But now you're not going to believe what I did. I downloaded the image to my hard drive, and now I can't find the place I downloaded it from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I can believe it; I can't imagine that anyone misplaces more websites than I. In any case, let me know if you need any help uploading it (assuming you relocate the source). Am I reading your log correctly; you've never uploaded an image? Could this be history in the making? ;) Эlcobbola talk 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I've never uploaded an image (don't ya know how much they scare me?? ... and ... <grrrr> ... I literally have so many stupid options from my local library database that I can NOT find the damn image again in spite of 20 minutes of searching. Oh, well. Maybe I'll come across it sometime, but I just can't find the database where I got it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That made me *so* mad. I found it in a database called eLibrary. It says "Copyright ¿ 2004 Bridgeman. All Rights Reserved." It gives me a citation that includes the name of my local library, which I'm not willing to put out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bridgeman? As in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.? That would be so delightfully ironic. Эlcobbola talk 04:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently ... bit I'm still too mad to enjoy the irony :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
If I take out the name of my library, the citation they supply is:
  • Reynolds, Sir Joshua (1723-92). "Mrs Thrale and her Daughter Hester (Queeney) 1777-78." 01 Oct 2004. Bridgeman. eLibrary. Proquest CSA. 10 Sep 2008. <http://elibrary.bigchalk.com>.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, you know the sourcing "ropes" better than I; would you take that as a source for text/data in an article? I suppose the test I like to use is whether there's enough information for a reader, so motivated, to verify the image's origin and the information included in the summary. That link takes me to a eLibrary login page. If I had a user account, would I reasonably be able to locate this image's entry? Эlcobbola talk 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't test it, because my login procedure is different. That page asks for a username and password. When I go through my local library, I enter a barcode and then navigate to that page. I don't have the means to determine if someone else could 1) log in to that site with a username, and 2) search on that image to easily find it. My problem last night was sorting through the gazillion databases available from my library login to figure out which database the image was in; theoretically, with a direct link, one would find the image easily, but I don't have the means to log in directly with a username. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The WP:IUP verbiage is "could be verified", so the need for an account isn't terribly troubling. Given the "Copyright © 2008 ProQuest LLC ", I wonder whether it would just take a ProQuest account? I don'use that service (I usually take the lazy route and call my library's research services department), but maybe Awadewit would? As long as we can get to that image without having to know your library, we're ok. I'll drop her a note (knowing she's on vacation and may not be able to check for some time). Эlcobbola talk 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It would be good to sort because, now that I know I can access my local library from home, I should be able to do more of same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Still in India! I avoided the Delhi bombings by a few hours but I've had to adjust my plans. Anyhow, could I delve into research databases when I return in about a week? Proquest actually owns many databases so it will take me awhile to figure out which one it is, but I'm sure I can find the image. Awadewit (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Need some expert help

I'm working on Harvey Milk's article, and I have asked a professional photographer who took images of Milk for the rights to some of his images. I sent him the GNU Documentation release and he's understandably concerned, and in one of the replies in our correspondence, he asked the following, which I am unable to answer:

  • Unfortunately this clearance language seems a little broad to me... does it clear third parties to then go and disseminate the web size file?, that would seriously impair my ability to license these photos, so this may not work out, in which case I might be more inclined to clear only one... and then I may also need to modify the clearance agreement to my standards... use on Wicki only or some such language... I don’t have a lot of time to presence this, can you send me this GNU free documentation license or a link to it... Myself and my lawyer will want to see this in its entirety... Thanks - dan

Also, I'd like to use a newspaper front page for an obvious huge event that shook the city. Would I use a template for a magazine cover to do that? Are there any copyright restrictions if the article describes the enormity of the event and the headline illustrates it? I appreciate your response. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I'm not sure what the "GNU Documentation release" is. The GFDL itself is here, which seems to be what he would like to see and is indeed what he would want to present to his attorney for consideration. To address what appear to be his two "usability"questions:
  • The license would indeed allow third parties to disseminate the image in the size of their choosing. He might be able to manipulate this in a certain sense by, for example, only giving us a low resolution image (say 300x300). Subsequent increase of the image's dimensions would result in increasing pixelation (i.e. lose of quality) as the image gets larger.
  • The condition of "Wikipedia use only" would be a limitation on redistribution which would render the image "non-free" (i.e. a no-no).
{{Non-free newspaper image}} is the newspaper template. NFCC#1 is a hurdle for newspapers as, if the image is just text, it could be converted to prose and, thus, preclude the need for a "non-free" image. There are exceptions, of course, so I'd probably need to see the image in context. Эlcobbola talk 14:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I will suggest to the photographer that he release his images only at 300 pixels, I guess. Otherwise, I've already been turned down by one photographer, and I can't get the San Francisco Public Library to freakin' respond to my emails. I'm looking at an FA class article with potentially shit images. I'm having an argh day.
Along that vein, I wanted to post the image of the newspaper for you to see, but I have it only in pdf form and my shit computer at work won't allow me to open an image program to convert it to jpg or otherwise edit it. Swearing at this point is basically all there is left to do, and I'm doing a damn fine job of it here. I can send the pdf to you if you email me - if you're open to that. Otherwise, I'll just swear a lot until I can get some god*(&*&^ mother*^&R^^$R^% bull$%^$### to work. --Moni3 (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Email sent. ;) Эlcobbola talk 15:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Either or

Would you rather fight with editors at FAC or have them besiege your talk page before nominating?

I'm still struggling to find images for a long article for Harvey Milk, and with the extended discussion at Jose Sarria I'm getting nervous about what I have.

  • Does Image:Bronze plate of Harvey Milk ashes on Castro Street.JPG need a copyright holder if it's on a public sidewalk?
  • I've contacted the store where Image:Mural of Harvey Milk in former Castro Camera.JPG is located to ask them if it's under copyright, who the artist was and whatnot. Derivative.
  • I think I would like to use a cropped version of the headlines from the San Francisco Examiner - the image I emailed to you. Is that magazine cover licensing? If not, what licensing would I use?
  • Am I able to use screenshots from the DVD of the documentary The Times of Harvey Milk? How do I indicate licensing for those? They would be news stories about him.
  • The San Francisco Public Library sent a release they had me sign (hence the panic attack lower on your talk page), but they wrote in ONE TIME ONLY, inexplicably. That's why J.Smith said their images are useless. What do I need to tell them to change on it? Just that "One time only" should be removed? I can email the release I signed so you can read it if you wish.
  • I appreciate your help, and you do deserve that barnstar Sandy just gave you. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Besiege immer wieder! I've never been been attacked or called a racist in my own user space, although I am a total, dismal failure in life. ;)
  • Image:Bronze plate of Harvey Milk ashes on Castro Street.JPG is tricky for the same reasons we discussed with the SF Examiner. Simple plaques with no images are generally considered useful articles (such items -- like cars, chairs, etc. -- don't get copyright protection because the creative/artistic elements cannot be separated and identified independently from the function). The problem is that, as the amount of text grows, the likelihood that the text itself is eligible for copyright grows (for example, a picture of a piece of paper with only the word "the" on it would not be eligible, but a picture of a full page of text would be - see also my response to Sandy here). I do think this has enough content to no longer be a "short phrase".
  • Image:Mural_of_Harvey_Milk_in_former_Castro_Camera.JPG - definitely a derivative; we'd need the artist's permission to freely license it (I assume this was taken in the US).
  • If you're going with all three parts - {{Non-free newspaper image}}.
  • I'd need to know a bit more about the purpose of the DVD captures to comment on whether they could work, but {{Non-free film screenshot}} would be the tag.
  • Probably, but yes, I'd need to see it to be sure (I'm actually OTRS now, BTW; they're just still setting up the account)
  • Thanks, Moni! Эlcobbola talk 20:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The store owner just gave me permission to use the mural, so that's a relief...
  • If I took two screenshots from the documentary (three examples): one that showed Milk debating John Briggs and placed it in the section Harvey_milk#Briggs_Initiative, one that showed Milk at the 1978 Gay Freedom Day Parade, and one of the local news interviewing him stepping in dog shit (seriously - it's in the article) and placed them in the appropriate sections? The documentary is in pieces on YouTube and I think the sections I'm referring to would be 5/10 and 6/10. To be clear: I would not use shots from YouTube, but screenshots.
  • Shall I send you the release from SFPL?
Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, email away (I won't be able to get to it or the videos until this evening, however.) Эlcobbola talk 22:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. I've added four images to Harvey Milk. I'd appreciate your looking at them to let me know if I need to alter the fair use rationales. Thanks so much for your help. --Moni3 (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria

In this week's signpost, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria criteria 4 added Or publicly displayed. How does this affect public sculptures in the United States?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: No impact. The change closed a loophole and brought the NFCC into alignment with common practice.
Long answer: Before the change, that criterion required previous publication. Publication is a defined term, meaning "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". A sculpture such as Crown Fountain, therefore, has not technically been published. In a literal sense, before this change, images of such sculptures were not in compliance with NFCC#4. That, obviously, was somewhat silly and never enforced - thus the change. Эlcobbola talk 14:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Group (mathematics)

I see all kinds of strange tags on images, no image review. No MoS review either, but I'm about to give up on that front. There are a gazillion images there; would you mind looking at them? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

FAC revisit

Hi, could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4chan. Thanks. Giggy (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ec, can you glance at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2005 Sugar Bowl please? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
And Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Image check, please

Could you take a look at this Commons image (Image:US10dollarbill-Series 2004A.jpg)? I'm especially concerned about its use at Alexander Hamilton, which is provisionally accepted for inclusion in the WP:V0.7 release on DVD. Seems like a case where we really, really don't want to screw up. Maralia (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In terms of copyright law, I don't see any problems (i.e. I agree authorship is rightly attributed to the federal government). In terms its usage in that article, it seems fine ("free" images are not subject to NFCC and, thus, do not need to pass the high barrier to entry of contributing significantly to our understanding). Any wrinkle would come from the Secret Service restrictions. On the Commons, the image is indeed one-sided and sufficiently larger than the genuine article (the destruction of materials used in the making of the image isn't really pertinent in this case). I also looked around to see whether "specimen" stamping was required for images of US currency, but have found no support for that notion in statutes or government sites (see also my query to Nishkid64 and the response below). The problem, if any, lies in what form the image would take in WP V.07 (i.e. if the size published therein is more than 3/4s of the real size and less than 1.5 times the real size, there may be an issue). I suppose I don't know enough about the particulars of currency to be of much help. Эlcobbola talk 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that the 0.5 release only included thumbnails of images; I haven't seen it explicitly stated whether 0.7 will do the same, but I'll make sure to raise the question. Thanks for looking into this.Maralia (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Query

The person who sent the email (someone from a PR firm that works with the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing) cited http://www.moneyfactory.gov/newmoney/main.cfm/currency/regulations as the justification for including the words "SPECIMEN" over US currency from the 2004 Series and onwards. As noted by ticket handler Daniel (talk · contribs) in his reply, the aforementioned link does not mention anything about labeling these currency images with the word "SPECIMEN". Nonetheless, Daniel made the change and requested the person clarify which part of US federal law he had been referring to. As far as I know, no reply was ever sent back. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

PD-USGov-Congress-Bio

I desire to help out at TfD orphan by working on the pages linking to Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio. I started with Image:RudyBoschwitz.jpg, and found this, and this. bioguide.congress.gov says "Unless otherwise noted, images of Representatives are provided by, and should be credited to Collection of U.S. House of Representatives. Images of Senators are provided by, and should be credited to the U.S. Senate Historical Office." First, it doesn't say were such "otherwise information" would be noted. I going to assume that it will be on the image page, such as this. When it is not on the image page, then look to Collection of U.S. House of Representatives" or "U.S. Senate Historical Office". Following this step, I could not find "Collection of U.S. House of Representatives", but I found U.S. Senate Historical Office. I then looked for U.S. Senate Historical Office's copyright notice, and couldn't find it. (Insert photo of my head spinning around HERE). Would you please post instructions at PD-USGov-Congress-Bio TfD on the steps used to sort the good images from the bad ones. Thanks. -- -- Suntag ☼ 18:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, instructions would actually be a good idea. I'll write some up and post them to Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio/Clean-up (yet to be created, obviously), which seems a more appropriate venue. I've only processed 20-30 of these things, as I'm partially waiting for the Commons version to close before rounding up folks for a more organized effort. Эlcobbola talk 18:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I added Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio/Clean-up to my user page. Also, feel free to post a note on my talk page when the instructions are ready. -- Suntag ☼ 02:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Suntag, please see my response there. I think you've missed a fundamental concept and would suggest you reread, and critically so, the definition of publication. This isn't a task that can be done or assisted by a bot. Human eyes need to find relevant information (i.e. dates and authors) on reliable, external websites and make determinations supported by due consideration of copyright law. Эlcobbola talk 15:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Hanna

Can you look at the two images here? Some image admins say they're okay and some not. East718 uploaded the one at top and wrote the FUR. Can you give your input here? Thanks. Pls respond on the FAC page. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Very rational and well thought and stated reasoning. Thank you. I'll fix the issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of FA star image questioned

Huh? [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Commented there. Эlcobbola talk 15:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Onemorewikiuser

This image looks like the last one you were unable to track down. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed! Very much obliged. Эlcobbola talk 15:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Query on low-resolution images

This is in regards to a recent comment you made on a FAC I submitted, and it's a question that's been bubbling in my mind for a while. When using a logo or other copyrighted image, what qualifies as "low resolution"? I've been unable to find specific instructions or regulations for this, and it's been bothering me. I make it a habit of reducing the resolution of copyrighted images -- usually by lowering the resolution to 50 dpi instead of 72 or 90 for downloaded images, but I'm wondering if there's any regulation in particular that I should be following. As one of the people with the greatest familiarity with Wikipedia's image guidelines, I'm hoping you have an answer for me. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no link or definition on the NFCC page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Which is why I was looking for guidance. I had thought the Sugar Bowl logo was low resolution, but evidently Elco did not. If there's room for confusion, I want to iron it out. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The definition of low resolution has, for whatever reason, been relegated to template usage documentation (e.g. here, here, etc.) The rule of thumb is 0.1 megapixels, as this is decidedly low resolution and tends to keep image width around 300 pixels (once, I believe, the explicit maximum thumbnail size per MOS:IMAGES, now only the implicit maximum per WP:PIC). Obviously, however, utilizing a higher resolution is fine if there is a compelling reason to do so. The DPI isn't so much a concern, as one of the underlying considerations of the low resolution requirement is that Wikipedia should not be a source of copyrighted material. Low resolution in terms of physical dimension dissuades reuse as, for example, increasing resolution would have a corresponding increase in loss of quality due to pixelation. In the case of Image:Sugar Bowl Logo.gif, the resolution is not a big deal and is merely a matter of crossing Ts and dotting Is for FAC. At ca. 0.25 megapixels (493x500 = 246,500), the image is a higher resolution than the rule of thumb and higher than strictly necessary to make its contribution. Эlcobbola talk 14:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Can that info be worked into the Dispatch so we'll be able to find it in the future? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That's the plan. :) If memory serves, I haven't even added the actual criterion 3 wording. Эlcobbola talk 15:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the guideline! I'll be sure to keep copyrighted images in my articles below 100,000 pixels from now on. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Russian Ground Forces

At FAR, three premature Keep delarations, warrants a close look: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Russian Ground Forces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, since I mentioned your name: [9]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I did MOS:IMAGES clean-up and completed sourcing and other information on several images. There remain sourcing problems and at least one copyvio; I'll finish and comment tonight once I get on a computer better set up for copyvio hunting. Thanks for the heads up (is FN out now, too?) Эlcobbola talk 18:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Unclear. We need your Dispatch. They fall like flies :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance Elcobbola. You tidied up the spacing of the Russian soldier with the new helmet (Image:Russiansoldier1.jpg), but checking, I believe it's unlikely to have been taken by a wiki-contributer and is probably some type of copyvio from some Russian military enthusisasts' website. How do I mark the picture to be checked for its copyright status? Thanks again, Buckshot06(prof) 21:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Good eye. Notice how I said "there remain sourcing problems and at least one copyvio" above? You found the one. ;) It's tagged for speedy deletion on the Commons. Эlcobbola talk 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

oh say, Mr. copyright expert

Browsing WP:COPYRIGHT. How come we don't deal with the issue of translations? When is a translation a copyvio? Where do we deal with this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Title 17 (US copyright law) governs literary works (i.e. same rules as with images, with the caveat of alternative case law). Translations are derivative works. If I were to translate Harry Potter into German, Rowling could successfully sue me for copyright infringement. Exactly when text (translated or otherwise) becomes a copyvio (i.e. how much is too much) is the million dollar question and similar to the issue I brought up to Moni. Consider the following:
  • "It" - just a word; I can't copyright that.
  • "It was" - short phrase; no copyright
  • "It was the" - same deal
  • "It was the was the best of times" - same deal
  • "It was the was the best of times, it was the worst of times" - getting longer; now?
  • "It was the was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair." - how about now?
(Obviously Dickens is public domain and the quotes are too short compared to the whole (see below), but I hope you see what I'm getting at). The quotations of copyrighted work we use in academia, our professional lives, etc. and that we see in various media are examples of fair use in action. A "real life" fair use consideration (see the Dispatch footnote) is "the amount and substantially of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". When a use becomes so substantial as to cross from fair use into infringement, I don't know. Is it 0.1%, 1%, 5% of the whole? The matter just gets less and less grey as more is used. Эlcobbola talk 22:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
We're going to have to do something about this tendency of yours to give incomplete answers :-) Thank you dear! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll just say "I don't know" next time. ;) Эlcobbola talk 22:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Here to bug you with another question :)

What do you think of the license for Image:Darwin 42.jpg? It would seem to fall within the Australian definition of PD (if you can believe the license template), but if you follow the link and find the image (no persistent URLs, I'm afraid), you find the phrase "You must seek permission to reproduce this image." Other images I've found there that would, by virtue of the date, seem to meet the Aussie PD definition all seem to have the same phrase on their description pages. What do you think, is the Australian War Memorial trying going too far in trying to sell hard copies of images? Or are the images not really PD after all? I'd like to use an image or two I've found, so I'm eager to hear your response. Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of Australian copyright law is that photographs taken before 1.1.1955 are indeed public domain and not burdened by considerations of the photographer's employment or whether the work was commissioned (two factors that can impact the copyright term for post 1954 works). Certain Commonwealth countries (e.g. UK) may allow new copyrights to be generated on high quality derivatives, but Wikimedia does not recognize the validity of those claims (nor would the United States) and this does not appear to have the necessary quality anyway. Long story short, the copyright statement appears to be a site-wide "cover all" and not necessarily applicable to all images thereon (yes, it is indeed likely that there is some degree of FUD is being employed). The site, however, acknowledges the aforementioned copyright term expiration and the copyright "Status to be assessed" on the image page further suggests the copyright disclaimer is specious. Эlcobbola talk 14:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Image disputes

... have already dominated the Cloud Gate and Frank Zappa FACs, in case you're inclined to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to be too nosy

but I just saw your post on the MN wikiproject. Are you minnesotan? I've seen you around FAC etc (I only read those pages mostly, rarely contribute), I'm more than impressed with your level of sanity. I would be warmly enheartened to know that another Minnesotan is as smart as you appear on wiki :-) Feel free to delete this if it's too "close to home", feel free not to reply at all if you wish. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 21:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Recognize the building(s) in back of my typewriter? ;) Эlcobbola talk 21:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Yep I do, although I'm quite suburban (work and live in the northburbs) :-). I don't know why, but I feel much much better about this place knowing that you're here. Are you going to the Oct meetup? See here... Keeper ǀ 76 21:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware there was such a thing. I very much doubt so; cameras aren't a good thing, to say nothing of scheduling or that, as a transplant, I'm not really the genuine article anyway. Although hating the Badgers does transcend nationality. Эlcobbola talk 22:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree definitely about the Badgers. "Badger" is a swear word in my house. If you can make it, excellent, if not, understood. I wil also refuse to be photographed (I have a life and family that knows nothing of my wikipedian-ness) if I do show up at a meetup. Cheers, and good to know another Minnesooootan, eh? Keeper ǀ 76 22:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Erick (2007)

Hi Elcobbola. Thanks for your comments on the FAC. I responded there. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

I saw your request on Jb's talk page; it's time for you to submit to trial by ... er ... RfA so you can view deleted versions. I'd be happy to nominate or co-nominate (as long as there are only two co-noms, I don't believe in three); let's get on with it :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy, but I'm not sure I'm interested in being burnt. Happy he who learns to bear what he cannot change. Эlcobbola talk 15:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not have a bridge to sell to you, but I was wondering if these were free...

Hi, Elcobbola. I have uploaded some pictures for Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge and am wondering if I am correct in my reasons and actions. Could you run a check on them? For convenience, I list them here if you are only able to check the images.

Not in the article, but uploaded recently.

If it is possible, could you also go through the article and judge if it has a fair chance at FAC? Leave your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge/archive1. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Very nicely done. If all images were so well sourced, I'd be out of a job. Some minor things, however:
  • Image:John Augustus Roebling.jpg - The LoC didn't have the details necessary to support PD-USGov (being commissioned for and being the work of the federal government are entirely different matters; the federal government can receive and hold copyrights. We would have to know the details of the commission, especially whether the author not only transferred rights to the government, but actually released them altogether. I was able to find, however, that the image was published before 1.1.1923 and have updated the license accordingly. Also, the retouching may be a bit extreme; it now looks like a photograph when the image from which it was derived is clearly an engraving. It doesn't bother me personally (I'm playing devil's advocate), but some may be concerned about misrepresenting Roebling's appearance (engravings being more so the product of the artist than "mechanical" photographs).
  • Image:Niagara Suspension Bridge End to End.jpg - How did you determine Bierstadt's lifetime? I don't see it at the source.
I'll do my best to stop by the article as well. Time is not abundant this week. Эlcobbola talk 14:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the work. With regards to Bierstadt, I did a search for him (using only his family name) at the Library of Congress. Various results popped up with his lifetime. If you look at the one titled "Stereographs of Niagara Falls, New York " (Lot 13644), it even gives the lifetime for George Barker. I am going to use one hit (this one) as the source, since Lot 13644 does not seem to have a permanent link. Jappalang (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
With regards to the Roebling portrait, I uploaded a version that is more faithful to the source. Its larger size should also make it more distinct as an engraving-based image. Jappalang (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Image questions

see here, Is there something in policy about time magazine that allows FP to rm this without discussion and then delete it? He did it here too. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For my reference: log and Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_September_15#Image:1937-nj1-time-cover.jpg

Well, there was indeed discussion at the IfD, so I don't necessarily think FP acted inappropriately. I'm at a substantial disadvantage not being able to see the image in context, its copyright tag or the image's rationale. I do agree that the IfD participants did not really adequately address the issues raised (NFCC#1 and 8). Yes, the image is historic and directly related to the BSA (the primary reasons to keep at the IfD), and is therefore within project scope; scope (NFCC#5), however, is but one of ten criteria and was not contested. If I correctly understand the concerns, hopefully the following will be a better articulation of some of the underlying questions:
Does seeing West on the cover of Time help the reader, and significantly so, to understand West as a person or his scouting work? Certainly appearing on Time is indicative of importance/notability and may well have been an important event for West himself, but isn't that something that's readily understood by merely saying "West was featured on the July 12, 1937 cover of Time in recognition of the first national Scout jamboree"? Doesn't that (former) caption, as mere prose (i.e. free), seem to reasonably convey the necessary understanding?
This wasn't brought up at the discussion, but if the rationale was indeed "To illustrate the national emphasis on Scouting in the 1930s", how does that meet the NFCC#10C requirement that "The rationale ... is relevant to each use"?
Similar questions: do we better understand the BSA, the BSA in the 1930s or West's involvement therewith by seeing this cover? Was this cover influential (e.g. did it impact public perception, participation, etc.), or is it merely an example of something scouting related from the 1930s (which, in the absence of critical commentary, it does seem to be). The caption was the same as in the West article; isn't it, too, sufficient to convey the necessary understanding to the reader? The IfD brought up that it "illustrates for the reader the manner in which the BSA conveyed their leader's visage to the public"; why is this knowledge necessary or relevant to the history of the BSA? The article doesn't seem to discuss visages.
Magazine covers are generally best suited for discussion of the cover itself, the reaction thereto, the impact thereof, etc. (see, for example, Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.) Absent a discussion of the impact of the cover on West's life or the BSA in the 1930s, it might indeed be the case that the image was not supported. Эlcobbola talk 17:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
RE your "I'm at a substantial disadvantage not being able to see the image in context, its copyright tag or the image's rationale"--this is why you need to accept our offer of an RFA nom! I can see your points but what about the argument that some would undoubtedly make that "the examples you are a permissible use of a non-free image as the cover itself was the subject of sourced discussion in the article.". Would this exemption then apply: "It therefore falls under the exemption: "if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate.""? The policy is at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2. Would then a revision to the fair use criteria or an improvement to the article would allow the image to be legitimately used, Speedy is clearly inappropriate I think, but FP will never ever admit he was wrong and imposes his view on everyone else. The other problem is that even image people can not agree on this stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, there seems to be a back story with FP? I won't ask. I think a point was either lost or obscured by my lengthy response. :) From what I can see sans mop, it doesn't look like the articles, in their current state, support use of the image. That's not to say that they couldn't. Indeed, with relevant commentary, such as impact on public perception, BSA participation, etc. (i.e. "if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article"), the image could certainly be supported.
I liken certain NFC criteria to WP:CIVIL or the importance versus notability question of CSD:A7, as all are policies open to interpretation and on which reasonable people can disagree. Its not indicative of a failing of the policy, merely that the governed aspect is inherently nebulous. There isn't always a "right answer" to these discussions (or, if there is, I've never gotten the memo) and, like everything discussed on Wikipedia, there will always be a dissenter - even amongst "image people". It's why we have discussion forums (e.g. IfD) and delete/restore buttons. For the life of me, though, I'll never understand why people get so passionate about non-free images. Эlcobbola talk 21:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank You!
for your assistance in helping Virus to become a Featured Article today.

It's much appreciated, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 13:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Image feedback.

If you have time, any input on these images in a current FAC candidate would be most appreciated. Regards, --HJensen, talk 14:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status of photo of ancient papyrus fragment

The featured article candidate Philitas of Cos uses Image:POxy.XX.2260.i-Philitas-highlight.jpeg and during review a question came up about that image's copyright status. It is a photograph of 2nd century AD papyrus fragment. I think {{PD-Art}} applies, as it is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work. User:Dr pda writes that {{PD-Art}} will probably work, but "not wanting to be super-picky here but I think I can see a shadow!" The shadow in question is the shadow cast by the work's holes and edges onto a featureless white background that is not part of the work. Any two-dimensional work would cast shadows in this sense. Do you think these shadows will be a problem? If so, I can use the GIMP to remove the shadows from the image but this is more work for me and I'd rather not do it if I don't have to. I think the shadows are not a copyrightable element, and that they don't need to be removed, but Dr pda would feel more comfortable if someone more experienced would look over the matter, and suggested asking you.

Thanks for any advice you can provide at the review page. Eubulides (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

<commented at the FAC talk> Эlcobbola talk 15:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Etwas wichtiges

Achtung...wirklich. Warum? Was tun Sie? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ich? Hab' nichts getan. Wegen ähnlicher „Schläge“ hab' ich die FAC-Teilnahme ja reduziert. Das Zitat ist bloss allgemeine Weisheit. Эlcobbola talk 02:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Ach so. OK that's enough German. I'm very rusty at it. A long time ago I was very good at it though ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 09:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't speak German; did you agree to RFA in there? <ducking> 16:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Quizás más tarde. Lo que sea por un poco de tranquilidad. ;) Эlcobbola talk 16:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, manténgame informado (no diacritics on my laptop). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

Hi Elcobbola- I just wanted to drop a message saying thanks for doing some clean-up on The College of William & Mary and for also pointing out errors that need to be addressed when trying to apply it for FA status. I can clearly see you know the Wikipedia rules very well (I admit that I lack in knowing the exact guidelines), so I was wondering if I could request your assistance every now and then to look over the W&M article? I'm going to do my best to clean it all up, fix typos/errors/formatting issues etc, but it's always good to have multiple users check on one another. It's my personal goal on this site to get W&M as an FA, so any input into making that happen is more than welcome. Thanks again. -Jrcla2 (talk)(contribs) 23:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

of admins and images

Hi EC, I'm thinking of subjecting myself to the traumatic flagellation refreshing rigors of RfA in a period of four or five months... or so... from now. I would be very interested in learning about the intersection of admins and images...How can admins help you? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 10:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You're a braver soul than I. ;) How can en.wiki admins help me? The most significant hurdle I have pertinent to general Commons work (where I'm an admin) and en.wiki review work is the inability to see deleted en.wiki images. It's not uncommon for images to be incompletely transfered (in terms of sourcing and license information) to the Commons. When the local version is deleted per CSD#I8, I lose the ability to retrieve missing information and/or confirm the accuracy of the transfer. As admins can see the deleted local versions, they can help me by telling me what information, if any, was present on the local file. Эlcobbola talk 15:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll trade you. If I pass the RfA (a nontrivial hurdle—I am often insistent, and insistent people have fewer friends), and assuming there are no rules of any kind stopping me from showing the images, then you can always ask me for this info, as long as you teach me about images... and other things that you may know... Later! Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 15:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we can stand together (that is, at the same time; although Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elcobbola and Ling.Nut would be a riot). If Sandy stays as persistent as she has been, I'll have no choice but to give in. That not withstanding, image "tutoring" is always gratis. Эlcobbola talk 15:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you want me to nom? Do you want co-noms? I'm ready to write it. After one bad experience, my terms are 1) only two co-noms, and 2) the nom doesn't go live 'til we've all approved, checked, copyedited etc. Someone put forward a not very well presented nom with three co-noms, one that I didn't know about, before it was in good shape, which was really irritating; I wasn't happy finding myself as one of three co-noms after the fact, one of whom I didn't know. Ling's got different issues to overcome than you do ... his is going to be fun :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) @Sandy: My issues are between me and my psychiatrist, thank you :-P... @ EC: It's a deal... Or maybe we could do a Three Musketeers thing: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elcobbola and Ling.Nut and Malleus Fatuorum. The only problem is, you have a sweet and pleasant disposition, unlike the other two members of that motley crew. :-) Later Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 16:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
<sarcasm> Well, wth, let's just nom The FAC Cabal, and watch The IRC Cabal object.</sarcasm> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
...a sweet and pleasant disposition? Oh dear, I've been in the states too long. ;) Эlcobbola talk 16:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You mean we just need to send Malleus across the pond for a bit so he can pass RfA ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Elcobbola--will you accept an rfa now? Then you can see those deleted images. Take the plunge — Rlevse • Talk • 16:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't take it yet; it's Friday, I must go to the spa. But if you're ready, I'll write a blurb in my sandbox. Which languages do you speak? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, whoa - this train is going too fast for poor ol' Elco. Maybe if the OTRS is granted? Let me think about it; I have thoughts I need to sort out. (Languages for an RfA? I don't think I've seen that before. German, English, Dutch, Swedish, Russian, Spanish, French - in that order, I'm sorry to say. I don't really understand or like WP:BABEL ratings - e.g. speaking a "professional level" seems like it should be higher than native, thus the reason I made my own boxes. I can give proficiencies in terms of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages if you really want; Russian is B2, for reference.) Эlcobbola talk 17:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm in no hurry, but can you please pick up some Chinese or Japanese while we wait? Sheesh, what a slacker ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a hard enough time with Cyrillic; I'm sticking with the Latin alphabet from now on, thank you very much. Эlcobbola talk 20:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

German translation

Elcobbola, would you be able to lend a green light to these translations? [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we more concerned with translating as literally and true to the original as possible or just ensuring that the meaning is conveyed? I see two translated quotes in that diff., and they are certainly true to the meaning, although I might kibitz with translation if the former is the case.
  • "Schicklichkeit und Anstand" is more like "decency and decorum" or "decency and modesty" (that latter of which seems better given the context); I wouldn't use "etiquette", though.
  • "Wir betreiben eine ganz andere Sportart" is literally "we conduct an entirely different (type of) sport", so putting the English into the plural "two...sports" isn't, as a strictly technical matter, what was said. (I won't bore you with a German lesson, but "Sport" is not used as it is in English and can be a tricky thing to translate. The translation is probably how an English speaker would have said it, so this isn't really a big deal). Эlcobbola talk 15:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Just making sure we're within the bounds of WP:V, but since it is a direct quote that is being translated, it should be as true as possible. If we're only sourcing a statement, we just need to get the meaning, but it seems to me that when translating a direct quote, and including it in quotes, we should be as literal and exact as possible, no? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, the other side of the coin is not being so literal as to make the translation sound odd to native speakers (e.g. no English speaker would be so starchy as to say "conduct a sport"). Эlcobbola talk 15:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, left to your better judgment :-) I'm wondering why the original editor used a direct quote ... <shrug>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm biased; I spent years translating back in the university days, so I have a certain appreciation for the complexities of meaning. What are words but vehicles for the conveyance of meaning? Sure, some are more eloquent than others, but the end result can be the same. I can, after all, knock a nail in with a hammer, a rock or a hamster; the ultimate result will be the same, just accomplished with varying degrees of gracefulness. This, however, is Wikipedia - an encyclopedia. Details, factuality, precision, etc. are all important and the subsequent necessity to be exact is something with which I indeed sympathize. I would certainly yield to your understanding of WP:V. Эlcobbola talk 16:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not a BLP, they aren't surprising or controversial statements, so I'm not fussed. If you can improve it, though, why not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

I'm afraid I can't look over the dispatch - I'm quite ill at the moment and wouldn't be able to do it justice. Awadewit (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't do it justice? I dare say, at your most ill you'd be more insightful than I at my most healthy. ;) Not a problem at all. I hope you feel better soon. Эlcobbola talk 19:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia GFDL release no longer good? Or rogue editor making things up?

Can you give any insight as to what is happening here? I don't know what's going on. --Moni3 (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It would seem the email J.S. received had verbiage that either implied or explicitly stated the image could only be used on Wikipedia. If the wording is the same as previous emails you've sent successfully, it's possible previous OTRS folks missed something, or it's possible J.S. misread something this time around; I can't know, obviously, without seeing the emails. It might be a hassle, but perhaps the best way around the problem would be to have the copyright holder send another email explicitly allowing use everywhere? In any case, though, I very much doubt J.S. has gone rouge. :) Эlcobbola talk 19:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
This is the language I got from Wikipedia, that I have successfully used for previous images: I own the copyright to the images attached. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify these documents under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
I don't know J.S., and I'm cognizant of the constant confusion about and re-interpretation of image policy. I'm doing my best to adhere to copyright recognition by obtaining permission, and it has so far appeared that it has been successful. Why the sudden change? Does this void all my previous permissions? I pestered the hell out of the people who have me permission to use their images, and I do not look forward to re-acquiring their permission to use their images. --Moni3 (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
EVERYONE CAN CALM DOWN NOW!! Because I know you were getting overwrought. The images in question came from a different source. Different release. Mini-freakout over. --Moni3 (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Given a perfectly good chance to freak out, why would I pass it by? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, didn't Norman Bates say "we all go a little mad sometimes"? At least here we didn't need to buy a new shower curtain. ;) Эlcobbola talk 01:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [11]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise talk 00:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Image query

When you have a moment I'd be most grateful if you could let me know if this [12], which seems to be PD in Australia, would be PD in US on the basis of the information available. It's related to Darwin Rebellion which I am currently reviewing. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a case where the "Wiki world" and "real world" diverge. In the "real world", we don't know (if you want to be depressed, read American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term); in the "Wiki world", the precedent is that it's A-OK. We have a verifiable source (physical location with collection name and call number) that says early 1910s, so the tag, as it is written, is supported. Эlcobbola talk 00:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for these words of wisdom. Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You are the best

The Working Man's Barnstar
Dear Elcobbola, I award you this heartfelt barnstar for your prodigious efforts to translate Wikipedia's image policy to something intelligible to the rest of us mere mortals, in Reviewing free images and Reviewing non-free images. They broke the mold when they made you! Thank you so much, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You didn't need to do that; I'd meant to thank you for the kind words at WT:FAC. Very much appreciated. Эlcobbola talk 18:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Image ?

See Image:Newvrindabanaccordions.jpg. Since this was published in a newspaper, I doubt it's GFDL. Pls handle as appropriate. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

PUI'd. I've left the uploader a message. Эlcobbola talk 01:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We beseech you, O image wizard

I know you're probably sick to death of this stuff, but I have two questions about images. this image of the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst (and presumably this one as well) are indicated as FOP. Correct me if I'm wrong: This means that, because they were taken in England, where FOP is way liberal, we can use the images without fear of copyright infringement. Right? Does this plaque have any FOP concerns? Or are plaques immune? Thanks as always – I agree 100% with Sandy's comment above; you are the best. Scartol • Tok 02:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well, the Dutch would be way liberal. The U.K., alternatively, is imprecise and unnecessarily complex (which, as a former Range Rover driver, seems par for the course - but I digress). Yes, those images (including the plaque) are fine, as U.K. FoP indeed extends to three dimensional objects (works of artistic craftsmanship). Although "spared" by the three dimensional nature in this case, plaques, as a whole (i.e. in other jurisdictions), won't always be immune, as there are complexities including, among others, the length of the text thereon and whether or not an "image" is incorporated. Эlcobbola talk 02:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, excellent. Thanks so much! You betcha! (Sorry, just got done watching Palin do her thing. Gack.) Scartol • Tok 02:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vithoba

Thanks for your comments. Have addressed your concerns about the images. Please strike out comments that you feel are addressed satisfactorily. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for rectifying the image tags. Need your help. I found another image of Vithoba, to replace the Image:Vitthal.png at [13], with copyright:

"Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledge. However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site which is identified as being the copyright of the third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material be obtained from the copyright holders concerned."[14] Can it be uploaded? If yes, what tag? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that will do. I'm concerned about this condition: "This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context." Wikipedia only allows images for which one can freely create derivatives (i.e. "reproduced accurately" could be interpreted as disallowing derivatives). Also, Wikipedia images need to be freely reusable in any context, even if subjectively "derogatory" or "misleading". What you may want to do is email the site and ask whether they'd be willing to release those conditions for this image (see WP:COPYREQ). Эlcobbola talk 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The disputed image is removed. Can i upload any img from Flickr? Need help.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
<responded on Redtigerxyz talk> Эlcobbola talk 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Will this work?

<responded on Redtigerxyz talk> Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, would you please comment on the FAC, that Images are OK in bold.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I added three more images after your Image OK. Please check if they are fine. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. will trouble ypu again if I add more images :) --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, i got a positive reply, can i upload the image in the link now. Please reply. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you forward that email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? I'll work with you through the OTRS system. Эlcobbola talk 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The email does not say anything about license, should I ask what license is the creator want the img to have? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, if they could just include this statement and choose a free license, we'll be in good shape. Эlcobbola talk 15:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Forwarded the mail. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
2 more images at Vithoba, please check these too, if you are not busy. One is showing a red link as the bot on commons is not working [15] --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I fixed Image:Alandi_Palki_08.jpg on the Commons (the image is just fine). The other image, however, needs an explicit assertion of authorship. Эlcobbola talk 16:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The other is declared PD. "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain." A date stamp is present on photo. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see that, but it doesn't matter. We can't rely on a boilerplate template. We need an explicit assertion of authorship. Did the uploader take this image? Did a friend or relative take it? Did they find it on the website? Эlcobbola talk 18:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, please revisit the FAC, I have removed disputed images and added new ones. Also, an editor pointed "At least one of the images is a b/w whose colors have been altered... se http://flickr.com/photos/an2/2623887237/" Is that a problem? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletable dispatch fodder

All that dispatch yum yum for nothing. Image:Stonewall_riots.jpg is up for deletion. I would appreciate your input into the discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wehe mir. Wikipedia, you so crazy. Эlcobbola talk 00:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Holy moley. A phrase is taken out, it's back in...The guidelines are muddy and interpretation is different from one editor to another, and the end result could be a deleted image despite anything I'm willing to do to keep it. Afwaaahhh??! --Moni3 (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to the wonderfully wacky world of wiki images (the WWWWI?) :) There's no such thing as a bullet-proof "non-free" image. A good rationale just makes an image less likely to be questioned. I think the image is fine, as do others, but reasonable people can disagree (although I do question the appropriateness of the policy reversion under these circumstances). At the end of the day, it's just an image; no need to stress. User:Angr#A_parable is good for a laugh, too. Эlcobbola talk 03:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg images

I have found a couple of images in a Project Gutenberg ebook. The link to the book is this. The book was originally published in New York in 1905. The Project Gutenberg rules appear to allow use of ebook material without condition. Would this allow me to upload a couple of the images? By the way, I have asked for your help so often, I wish I could return the favour in some way, but I can't conceive that you would ever need my help| Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Gutenberg is a fantastic resource, as it hosts only material that is free (libre) in the United States (although not necessarily in other jurisdictions). The linked book is A-OK (published in US before 1.1.1923), so have at it. I'm not so sure about never needing help; my English, as you've no doubt noticed, is not terribly good. If I ever get around to writing up another typewriter article, I may have to call in a copyedit. So, "someday, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service for me." ;) Эlcobbola talk 23:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Raining stars

The Barnstar of Diligence
I award this barnstar to Elcobbola for his invaluable help and extraordinary diligence in translating the baffling minutiae involved with providing kinda good articles with excellent images, making them wonderful pieces of art. Moni3 (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Rock on, man. Stonewall riots got the bronze star today. My next is Milk's. The star isn't a bribe, but if you could look at the images in the article and give any suggestions to make their inclusion beyond question before it gos up for FAC, you would be, if possible, more awesome. --Moni3 (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Great Denzel Washington on a cheddar cheese cracker, I forgot about Milk! There is indeed some image polishing to be done; is it okay if I get to it tonight (and where should I respond - here or on the article talk)? Thanks for the star, BTW, and well deserved on Stonewall. Эlcobbola talk 13:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That exclamation alone deserves another barnstar... If you could reply on the article talk page, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Will do! Mmm, brisket... Эlcobbola talk 14:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I've tried to strengthen the connection to the images in the text. Please give me your opinion on the changes. I'd like to put it up for FAC within the next couple of days, but I'm worried about fair-use rationales. --Moni3 (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Newvrindabanaccordions.jpg

Image:Newvrindabanaccordions.jpg Hi Henrydoktorsk, I've listed this image at possibly unfree images as I have concerns about its copyright tag. You're welcome to comment there. Let me know if you have questions. Regards, Эlcobbola talk 01:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Perhaps I need to do the correct license, something which I haven't quite yet figured out. The image is from the New Vrindaban Archives, which I own. What license need I fill out? Many thanks. Henry Doktorski (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Is a logo completely made up of text copyrightable?

Is Image:AXXo.jpg copyrightable? It's just text, but of a logo (for a software pirate). Gary King (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a useful article (mere letters forming letters - in contrast to, say, this, which is letters forming an image). Note, however, that there's been a rash of (patently absurd, I think) deletion of text logos at the Commons recently; this image, it appears, is now amongst them. I've provided case law and US Copyright Office links in several deletion discussions, but armchair quarterbacks are winning the day with uninformed "it looks copyrightable to me" declarations. This, obviously, is a sore issue for me; the Commons simply has not been making good or informed decisions lately. If you want background reading for the text issue:
  • Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954) [74 S.Ct. 460, 98 L. Ed. 630, rehearing denied 74 S.Ct. 637, 347 U.S. 949, 98 L.Ed. 1096]
  • Eltra Corp. v. Ringer, 579 F.2d 294, 296 n.4 (4th Cir. 1978)
  • United States Copyright Office: Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices
  • United States Copyright Office Circular 1, revised July 2006
Hope this helps. Эlcobbola talk 14:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, so I guess you won't restore the image for fear of backlash from the other admins? :( Gary King (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, fear of repercussion is not really a factor. I need to be respectful of consensus, even if I disagree with it. Although the Axxo logo itself didn't really have consensus, the totality of the logo deletions is indicative that the community has affirmed an interpretation contrary to my own. There's always COM:UNDEL, if you're so inclined. Эlcobbola talk 15:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Nah it's okay; in any case, I can always use the logo under fair use. Gary King (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

There's already a murky image question there. Since that FAC has spun out of control in the past, I'm hoping you'll get in there quickly and address the issue already raised, and anything else you see. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, Sandy; I'm not touching this. Эlcobbola talk 14:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well, I'm slowly picking it up, and Awadewit has a great handle on images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So, looks like you won't touch it and Awadewit isn't touching it, and it's all wrapped up in ... ahem ... German PD law. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW: Angr, Fasach Nua, and Elcobbola are in agreement; "German newspaper images seem to have a copyright term of 50 years" is not correct. My tongue bleeds. Эlcobbola talk 12:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you: I don't know why I wasn't able to locate that, perhaps related to the thousands of KB on those FACs :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look?

Hey, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is undergoing a GAN and User:Protonk brought up a question with a Fair use image used in the article (Image:Star-trek-II-spocks-funeral.png) here. I was wondering if you could give a second opinion. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Update

Thanks much for your image review at Harvey Milk. On the subject of WP:IUP ... the most common complaint (Moni just repeated it again at Talk:Everglades, but you hear it all the time) is "I can't keep up with all those guideline and policy changes". We've been getting monthly updates of some important guideline and policy pages into the Signpost recently. I've moved the project into WP-space, at WP:Update. Would you be interested in reporting on monthly changes to IUP, when there are any? You can get a sense of the level of detail we're looking for at that page. If so, I can create a new link for that page at WP:Update. (Feel free to reply here.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, IUP hasn't actually had a meaningful change in ages (e.g. nothing but non-substantive changes since at least July - I didn't look back any further). If anything germane to IUP is in flux, it's the degree to which reviewers actually engage IUP (i.e. some just do a superficial check to see that a copyright tag exists, while others dig deeper). Generally speaking, as long as you hit the three policy-mandated elements, you're just fine. That being said, though, I'm happy to update Wikipedia:Update if IUP ever changes. Эlcobbola talk 15:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:JaneAustenEpitaph.jpg

Would you advise us to find another version of this image? The tag doesn't explicitly release the copyright, to my understanding. Awadewit (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the copyright doesn't need to be released, just certain protections afforded thereby (the "copyleft licenses are still under copyright" concept). The protections that need to be released in order for an image to be "free" are those restricting use, redistribution, and creation of modified versions (derivatives). This copyright right tag does indeed indicate a release of those protections.
The problem with this image is not the copyright tag, but, rather, that there is no explicit assertion of authorship. Did EMJALSJ take this him/herself? Did EMJALSJ find it on a website? Did a friend or relative of EMJALSJ take it? There isn't enough information there for us to know. Aside from running afoul of WP:IUP, it runs afoul of the copyright tag, which requires "the copyright holder is properly attributed". So, unless EMJALSJ can add attribution of the author (last edit 12.07), another version would be advisable. Эlcobbola talk 15:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, what I meant to say was that the tag doesn't explicitly label the copyright holder - sorry I wasn't more precise. Awadewit (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhinemaidens images

A week or so ago you checked out a couple of Gutenberg images for me on this article. Is there any chance you could visit its peer review and look at the other images? I think they're OK, but I didn't choose all of them, and there is an FU rationale. I like to get rid of potential problems before, rather than during, the FAC process.

Coins from Ivory Coast

Are coins from the Ivory Coast in the PD? :) Awadewit (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire is a signatory to the Berne Convention, so they'll have at least the 50 year minimum pma term. Whether or not government works get an exception, I don't know (although the President's official site states "all rights reserved", which, the site itself being a government work, probably does not bode well for the coins). My French is only good enough to get around town (ideally, a SNCF ticket east), so I didn't look further to see whether there are any statutes. Эlcobbola talk 15:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OTRS tickets

Heya. I loaded Image:Robert and Harvey Milk 1934.JPG and Image:Harvey Milk with Audrey Milk 1973.jpg with permissions, sent the email in on Friday. Can you check for that, please? Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll respond through the system. Эlcobbola talk 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ernest Hemingway 1950.jpg

Hi, Elcobbola, I hope you don't mind me bothering you. Awadewit suggested that I check with you about an image I may use for Stephen Crane, which is currently at FAC. Is this kosher? The JFK Library says that it's in the public domain and the credit is given as: "Ernest Hemingway Photograph Collection, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Boston." We're currently discussing its inclusion at Crane's talk page, so any input would be greatly appreciated! María (habla conmigo) 01:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This page indeed says it's public domain; such a statement from the JFK Presidential Library is certainly good enough for me. I would note, however, that the current copyright tag is not supported, as the current source (National Archives) says nothing about whether or not it was published - a notion quite different from mere creation (i.e. if we're claiming PD based on publication on a certain date, as we currently are, the source must explicitly state a publication date - it does not). Using {{PD-Because}} with reference to the JFK Library's statement would be a supported copyright tag. Эlcobbola talk 02:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I've updated the copyright tag and will add it to the Crane article shortly. María (habla conmigo) 12:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright discussion at DKY

El: I cited a disussion between you and Sandy here. I have seen a number of new articles which are consist of or contain verbatim or minimally-paraphrased text from the source. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks! I didn't know you were still there, and I appreciate the extra eyes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Betty Williams.jpg

Hey, could you check this image for my FLC? There's apparently a statement granting permission to use the image on its talk page, but David wanted me to double check with you to see if that's sufficient. Thanks, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, WP:IUP requires a verifiable source which, in this case, would at a minimum be contact information for Ms. Findley (COM:L has an analogous requirement). There are also WP:V implications (talk page comments, like any Wiki text, are not considered reliable and the whole "verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion" axiom). One would hope, however, that this would be an easily solvable matter, as the talk page comment ends with "Mail to User:Elya". If Elya could just forward the email (or scanned letter, if it's physical mail) to OTRS, we could ticket the image. Эlcobbola talk 20:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I've asked Eyla to forward the email to OTRS, and in the meantime, I'll remove the image. Thanks for your help, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Replied to your concerns at my FLC. Thanks for the review, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping; replied there. Эlcobbola talk 22:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually done now. ;-) — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not what Dorothy says. ;P Эlcobbola talk 22:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
On that note, could you review my other FLCs (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel laureates in Literature, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University, List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Washington University in St. Louis)? I've gone through the images in each, but an outside reviewer (namely one with your expertise) is always best. Thanks, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to do so, but that's a lot of images; I may need a few days to get to it. Эlcobbola talk 21:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Take your time. That said, the one that should be checked is Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel laureates in Literature. I'm fairly sure the other two are fine. Thanks, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just noting that Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel laureates in Literature is winding down, and the only item remaining really is an image audit. I realize you're busy reviewing stuff (as your talents in this area are so scarce :p), but I would really appreciate it if you checked the images. Thanks, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Those **** Rhinemaidens again!

I wonder, could you possibly look again at the Covent Garden image in the last section of the article, and reconsider your expressed opinion that this does not meet the requirements of FU? The section to which it relates is substantial and important. I have re-ordered the section as a chronological review of Rhinemaidens staging since the 1876 production; the image of the earliest production seems, in my view, to be well complemented by an image of one of the latest productions. There is surely a strong case for saying that both illustrations help towards understanding the text, a point made by a couple of editors who have commented at the review. Your words of wisdom are awaited (and many thanks for your help in establishing the PD of the Lili Lehmann image). Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the questions I posed at the PR weren't meant to be rhetorical, and they haven't really been answered... Anyway, the purpose establishes two functions:
A) underwater effect produced by lighting and
B) nudity to demonstrate innocence.
To me, the latter is a nonstarter; prose is all that's needed to understand the performers were nude. The association of nudity with innocence is self-obvious and, even if it weren't, is not truly depicted by this image; the Nixen here, from behind and in the shadows, do not appear particularly innocent or otherwise.
That leaves us with the lighting. Obviously, the image establishes the visual effect with more clarity than prose. Prose, however, is still capable of depicting the general idea. Is the image's superior "clarity" really needed to understand, well, anything? This lighting effect, literally, has half a sentence worth of mention in the article; that hardly appears to constitute critical commentary. Do we even really see a water effect in this image; or is in just some green lines? Of course the section is important/significant, but does this image really assist our understanding thereof? If this image were removed, what significant detriment (the NFCC#8 test) would there be to the reader's understanding of the Nixen as a general concept or the understanding of their presentation on stage? Unless this portrayal of the Nixen had a meaningful and significant impact on, say, public perception of the Nixen/Nibelungen or future portrayals thereof, this seems to be entirely unnecessary (a mere example of one of many interpretations).
That being said, my possible biases include my frequent patronage of performing arts (i.e. I've seen that lightning trick dozens of times), to say nothing of the fact that I recall precious little, if any, literature that required images to be understood. The Great Gatsby did not have pictures. What ever has happened to people's imagination or ability to visualize concepts? Frankly, I don't have the stamina to argue over NFCC issues; I won't continue the discussion at PR or bring it up at FAC. If others disagree with me, so be it; do what's best for Wikipedia. Just promise me you'll actually add the bloody copyright tag. ;) Эlcobbola talk 22:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this detailed reply. I utterly respect your viewpoint. However, two contributors to the PR say that the image enhances their understanding of the section. I think the issue is balanced, but am inclined to take it to FAC and see what happens. If the fair use is strongly opposed I will withdraw the image. I have, as you requested, added the copyright tag. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OTRS screwup?

Hiya Elcobbola. I'm not good with OTRS issues but I'm willing to learn. Another user tried to get permission from IBM to use their image, and the results are at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_October_7#Image:P11_kasparov_breakout.jpg: it didn't work, and the image may get deleted. This is the only image we can find of a very important event in the history of AI and of the planet: the first time a computer beat the best in the world at a chess match. Can you tell me how to fix this? (I'm watchlisting.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem regarding the correspondence received by OTRS is that the "permission" from IBM is not sufficiently explicit. In order for an image to be "free", the copyright holder must explicitly allow derivatives, redistribution and use for any purpose. The IBM email does not address these conditions and, implicitly, allows only use on Wikipedia. That being the case, the image cannot be freely licensed and is, therefore, subject to the NFCC. The "fix" is A) to have IBM explicitly allow the aforementioned conditions or B) to successfully argue that the image does indeed make a significant contribution to the reader's understanding (the deletion discussion is per apparent failure to meet NFCC#8). Эlcobbola talk 21:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire

Hi. Please take a look at this article and see if the images I have used are OK. It is in PR right now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom Crean (explorer)

I'm not the main editor on this one, but I'm trying to help it through the difficult stage of transition from GA to FAC. It's on PR at present. I'm uncertain about four of the images:

  • Image:HMS Howe (1859).jpg It's a very old photo, but there seems to be no evidence of original publication date.
  • Image:Crean & Bones.JPG No inf. given as to when first published. It's from the Terra Nova expedition and the photo is probably by Ponting, the expedition's photographer who died in 1935. It's not from Scott's Last Expedition, pub. 1913.
  • Image:Tom Crean2b.JPG No evidence of when first published.
  • Image:Crean statue.jpg I seem to recall problems about use of images of 3D objects, but I can't remember what the problems were.

Anyway, if you could put these on your list to look at, I'd be most grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess ...

... we have no more image reviewers at FAC :-)) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder has some congenial confusion on images, if you care to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going through almost 50 FACs and finding almost no image reviews. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anglo-Zanzibar War also has congenial concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
And there's a weird one at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Haumea (dwarf planet). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
And a query at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pilot (House). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

do we care about color alteration in FA images?

This photo appears in the Vithoba article at FAC. It is patently edited to add color.. do we care? The license is CC Attribution 2.0 Generic. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OTRS

Elc... Are you involved in OTRS? Can you point me to someone who is? Oh, and can you confirm that this is the place to go to confirm that someone has provided permission to use an image?

In short, we have email permission to use an image for Julia Alvarez. NB I'm not entirely sure that the person who's provided the permission yet realizes what he's permitting. How can we make sure that this is all on the level and sorted out?

Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker reply) You need to forward your emails to the OTRS system. But make sure that the copyright holders state something along the lines of "I am the copyright holder/author of Image X. I license this image under X". Make sure it's plain that they know what they're saying. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this, oh talk page stalker. Do you have a good, clear form of words? We can take this to email if it's simpler. (My email is enabled.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Help!

Elcobbola, you are wiser than all other Wikipedians combined, especially in matters of image copyright. This medddlesome user has tagged one of my family photos for deletion. If I recall correctly, an uncle or aunt or grandparent snapped the photo, using my Mom's camera. Who owns the copyright, and how do I assert proof of this? (especially without exposing a family member's name/email address. Present company excluded, I wouldn't trust the average OTRS helper as far as I can throw him; many of those who handle the queue despise me).

Should I just create a sockpuppet called User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's Mom and say I release the photo into the public domain?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My favorite ec hasn't edited since the 23rd; Moni3 and Awadewit are up on images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, SG. It's now resolved, thanks to Moni3 and a nice OTRS volunteer I've never heard of. Enjoy your wikibreak.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elcobbola/Archive4&oldid=1166668783"