User talk:GreenMeansGo
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.
|
|
Contents
- 1 File:200th anniversary of Albany as the New York state capital (34907946675) (cropped).jpg
- 2 Canvassing
- 3 Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2017 is open!
- 4 File:Pinkheadshot.jpg
- 5 Tell me a Tale: Help please
- 6 Magazine Clipping from 1960's
- 7 Quality Image Promotion
- 8 File:Writer Margarita Meklina in Inishturk, Ireland (cropped).jpg
- 9 Wade Burleson
File:200th anniversary of Albany as the New York state capital (34907946675) (cropped).jpg[edit]
|
File:200th anniversary of Albany as the New York state capital (34907946675) (cropped).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. |
Guanaco (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Canvassing[edit]
I can see you are busy making this a better document. When it comes down to it, could you think twice before moving to make it a guideline or part of policy? We have essays that are just as effective for advising people as to project norms, without making our body of policies larger. Any guideline on canvassing is only ever going to be advisory and we probably do want it to be a longish explanation of the issues in a way that a firm guideline of "do this, not that" probably should not be.
As an example of a solid essay that nails a norm, I quite like referencing to User:Elcobbola/Stuffed Animals which is extensive and maintained without needing to fill guidelines with all the details.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Umm...well I'm not saying I'm planning on trying to make it a guideline any time soon. Heck, I've worked on and off on w:WP:NAC for almost a year and a half now and haven't started a discussion about making it a guideline yet.
- But I would certainly like broader input on and contribution to what's written there, since at this point, I've written almost the whole thing myself. I think we do need some kind of guid-ance, even if it's not a guide-line. Commons:Administrators/Requests/Yug shows I think pretty well the confusion that can be caused when people say "follow this advice that doesn't exist". But getting that advice from advice to a guideline would mean finding the median of the position of many many users. So gotta start somewhere I guess. GMGtalk 19:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2017 is open![edit]
You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2017 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in R2.
Dear GreenMeansGo,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2017 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the twelfth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2017) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top 2 from each sub-category.
In the final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2017.
Round 2 will end on 22 July 2018, 23:59 UTC.
Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 11:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
File:Pinkheadshot.jpg[edit]
 |
File:Pinkheadshot.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.
The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.
|
Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm... Well this one still has the original meta data. The other was posted by the same account. I should have looked more closely to tell that the meta data on that one was from photoshop. I guess it's unlikely that User:Nina Vaca will weigh in given they've made so few edits. User:Guanaco, feel free to delete them both along with the category if you wish. Not gonna hurt my feelings. Just please let me know so I can remove the com cat from the en.wiki article. GMGtalk 23:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Tell me a Tale: Help please[edit]
Could you tell me what licence I can use for the book cover for Tell me a Tale? I find it extremely difficult to follow the rules. Pogga D Pogga D (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Pogga D. There probably isn't one you can use on Commons, because Commons only accepts free images. You can however upload it under a claim of fair use locally on the English Wikipedia using the Upload Wizard there if you want to use is on the main article for the book, but it wouldn't be allowed on the article for the person because there's already a free file being used on the article for the person.
- I know that's all super complicated but it's wrapped up in copyright issues and local policy, so there's not much we can do about it really. GMGtalk 11:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for your reply GreenMeansGo. It has helped and it would seem that I cannot use this image. However I would be grateful for your advice about another image for this same page. I would like to include a miniature painting painted by EC's sister (who is of course deceased). I do not own this painting, it is owned by an aunt who has sent me an email giving me permission to use it on this wiki page. I have forwarded this email to permissions-commons and await a response. I am wondering if I could do as you suggested for the book-cover and upload it under a claim of fair use locally on the English Wikipedia on the grounds that both the article and painting are about the author. If this is possible do I have to wait for permissions-commons to respond? (They have never so far responded to any of my queries.) Thank you for your response. Pogga D (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Pogga D. Well, there's two distinct avenues for image use we're talking about here: free use and fair use. Unfortunately pretty much everything to do with copyright is complicated, but I'll try to explain as best I can.
- Free use - This generally means one of two things: 1) that media is in the public domain (meaning intellectual property rights have expired), most commonly because it was first published before 1923, or because the author has been dead for 70 years, (That's an oversimplification for United States law, but it's kindof the base that everything else builds from.) or 2) because it's been licensed for free use by the person who owns the copyright. That's not necessarily the same as having physical possession. I have a physical possession of the box set for Band of Brothers, but obviously I don't own the copyright to the DVDs. If your aunt inherited the author's estate, then they probably own the copyright to the author's works, and they can license it for free use. If your aunt only owns the physical painting, then she probably doesn't own the copyright, which would reside with whomever inherited the intellectual property of the author, probably next of kin, unless she was wealthy enough to have an "estate" in the legal sense after her death. Only images that fall into this category are allowed on Commons, where they may be freely used by everyone, including all language versions of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
- Fair use - This type of use is not allowed on Commons, but may be used on local projects, like the English Wikipedia, so long as it complies with the project's non-free content criteria. The biggest hurdle you have here is meeting point number one, No free equivalent. Since we already have a free version, policy won't allow us to additionally use other non-free media, since we've already met the essential encyclopedic objective of visually identifying the subject of the article. That's why you can claim fair use for the book cover on an article for the book, but not for an article on the person, for which there is already a free image.
- So your best bet is probably to have the painting licensed for free use, by identifying the person who inherited the copyright, and having them license it appropriately, meaning free for all public use, and not just for use on Wikipedia. Usually that means something like a Creative Commons License. If they do own the intellectual property of the author, and have already sent an email licensing it for free use, you may upload the image and use
{{OTRS pending}}on the file description. When someone answers the email they will verify that it is licensed appropriately. If an email is not received within I believe 60 days, then the image will be deleted, but can be restored once the license is verified. - Sorry for writing such a long response, but I believe this covers the high points. This is again, one of the most complicated things when it comes to Wikipedia, but once you get the basics down it gets a lot easier. GMGtalk 14:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for taking time to write that GreenMeansGo. Please don't apologise for the length. It was exactly what was needed. As I understand it, we can forget 'Free Use' because I am the copyright holder and was granted the intellectual property rights (not the 'estate'). My aunt simply owns the miniature painting. Therefore it has to be 'Fair Use'. So I shall follow your advice at the end of your last message. I have a few questions. The first is, I assume we are not talking about use only on English Wikipedia (if this were the case, what would it imply for people using Wiki in Germany for example? - not an important question at the moment!) and so I don't have to use the link you mentioned in your first response to me. And all I have to do is use the Wizard and specify [Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0] and of course include the code you gave me for the file description. Hope I don't appear too dumb. I have learnt quite a bit I hope. Very many thanksPogga D (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well Pogga D, if you own the intellectual property of the author, either because you were legally next of kin and there was no will specifying otherwise, or because you were explicitly granted her intellectual property in a will, then you can legally license it however you please. You would just need to specify in the email how you came to own the copyright.
- Gonna ping User:Guanaco back here just to fact check me and make sure I'm not missing something. But that should pretty much be it. GMGtalk 11:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, she was my great-aunt, the copyright went first to her to nephew following her death in 1972 and then her nephew passed it on to me in 1987 via a Deed of Gift. So assume I have to send another email to permissions-commons saying just that. Would they require a scan of the Deed of Gift or something? Having sent another email, can I then upload it using the wizard as I suggested? Once again, Thank YouPogga D (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well Pogga D, it couldn't hurt to include a scan, and would probably make it a lot simpler for the volunteer who answers the ticket. Everything you send to OTRS is kept private, and only shared among other OTRS agents if needed for clarification. So there shouldn't be any concerns there. You could even include a link to this discussion in case it adds any context. I don't have access to answer tickets in the permissions queue, but I can view them if the person wants to talk about it privately and provides a link to the ticket number.
- But you should also probably upload the image first, that way you can link to the particular image on Commons in the ticket. Just upload like normal using the Commons upload wizard, and select the license you wish to use. Then once it's uploaded, add
{{OTRS pending}}under the license, and that will tell other users not to nominate it for deletion because it's pending verification. As always, feel free to drop by if I can be of any further assistance, and thanks for contributing! GMGtalk 13:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Will do all you suggest GreenMeansGo, but not sure how to include a link to this discussionPogga D (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Pogga D, -->
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GreenMeansGo#Tell_me_a_Tale:_Help_pleaseGMGtalk 14:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Magazine Clipping from 1960's[edit]
I have a page from an industry magazine that was published in the 1960's. It includes a photo of my father (now deceased) and a paragraph about his promotion at an investment bank called White Weld & Co. I took a photo of that page with my iPhone, and I would like to upload that .JPG file to a Wikipedia page that includes some history about my father. I tried to upload the photo, but it triggered some sort of screen that prevented me from uploading the file.
Can you please help me?
The Wiki page in question is Interactive Data Corporation, where I added several paragraphs about my father, Joseph J. Gal, in the History section.
Thanks in advance.
- Hey Jlglex99. I'm not sure what filter you may have triggered with your attempted upload. There are a few of them and the process behind them is too technical for my understanding.
- Unfortunately, a newspaper clipping from the 1960s would probably not be in the public domain until the 2030s, although it could be as late as the 2050s, or even later. The fact that you took the picture also unfortunately doesn't change the fact that the picture is a reproduction of a copyrighted work, so it would also be covered under the original copyright. That means we probably can't upload it to Commons.
- However, since the subject was your father, you may want to consider whether you or a family member have access to family photos. If you know who took the photo (like a family member or you yourself, since that person would own the copyright to the images) then you can have that person license the image for free use while uploading to Commons. Alternatively you could upload a scan of the image on their behalf, and they could send a verification email licensing it appropriately to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org. GMGtalk 19:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your fast reply.
Do I understand correctly that if I modify a published photo (or other art), then the image is owned by me? So, if I edit the photo of my father with some notes in the margin, or something like that, then does it become my own work under copyright law?
- Hey Jlglex99. Not quite. If you creatively modify an existing work, then you would create a second copyright that you would own, but your work would be derivative of the original (see also Commons:Derivative works). So if the original work was still copyrighted, your work would essentially entail two separate copyrights, one for your creative contribution, and one for the original. GMGtalk 20:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★Congratulations! Lençóis Maranhenses 2018.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
File:Writer Margarita Meklina in Inishturk, Ireland (cropped).jpg[edit]
|
File:Writer Margarita Meklina in Inishturk, Ireland (cropped).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.
The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.
|
Secondarywaltz (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Umm...Secondarywaltz, this appears to be the only instance of this image anywhere online. I'm not sophisticated enough to know what the jumbled mess in the meta data meant, but if it's coming from Facebook, I'm not sure how we can say it's coming from the subject's facebook, rather than the uploader's. GMGtalk 12:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Then, why not the original photograph rather than a copy of a copy uploaded to Facebook. Secondarywaltz (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know that there's a likely explanation, but there are plausible ones. I don't use facebook, but I can only imagine the number of images my wife has on her's that she's since deleted from her mobile. GMGtalk 12:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- and they will all be show as being copyright Facebook © 2018. Secondarywaltz (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Can Facebook do that legally? GMGtalk 12:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- You can add a release to your individual pictures, but by default everything is copyright. I can't just choose to download a nice picture from Facebook and sell it - or upload it to Commons. Secondarywaltz (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, I meant does Facebook claim a copyright, just because it was at some point uploaded on their platform? GMGtalk 12:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's what I meant when I said "by default everything is copyright". Facebook is just the same as Twitter, Instagram, Linkedin, etc. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem correct. See for example here. Facebook's TOU it seems gives them the right to use the content, but doesn't transfer copyright to Facebook, and that contract ends when the content is removed from Facebook. GMGtalk 15:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's not what I am saying. Everything is marked Facebook © 2018 by default, which protects uploaded pictures from abuse and they cannot be freely used or uploaded to Commons. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sure they can. They can be uploaded by the person who took the image and owns the copyright. Same as every other image. If I take an image, upload it to Facebook, then upload the Facebook version to Commons, it's still my picture. GMGtalk 15:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Also ping User:JGHowes, because I'm not super convinced this is not mostly circumstantial. GMGtalk 15:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Correct! But now you would need to prove it because the Facebook version would be copyright by default unless explicitly released. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand that this actually protects Facebook user from abuse. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sigh. Everything is copyrighted by default. Uploading something to Facebook doesn't change the copyright status of the image. What exactly do you want them to send to OTRS other than this was my photo that was previously posted to Facebook. GMGtalk 15:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- I could have made exactly the same statement, but it would have been a lie. People are trying to upload similar copyright material to Commons all the time. Again, you don't seem to understand that we have to protect the original creator from abuse and this was originally sourced from Facebook. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sigh. Everything is copyrighted by default. Uploading something to Facebook doesn't change the copyright status of the image. What exactly do you want them to send to OTRS other than this was my photo that was previously posted to Facebook. GMGtalk 15:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's not what I am saying. Everything is marked Facebook © 2018 by default, which protects uploaded pictures from abuse and they cannot be freely used or uploaded to Commons. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem correct. See for example here. Facebook's TOU it seems gives them the right to use the content, but doesn't transfer copyright to Facebook, and that contract ends when the content is removed from Facebook. GMGtalk 15:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's what I meant when I said "by default everything is copyright". Facebook is just the same as Twitter, Instagram, Linkedin, etc. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, I meant does Facebook claim a copyright, just because it was at some point uploaded on their platform? GMGtalk 12:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- You can add a release to your individual pictures, but by default everything is copyright. I can't just choose to download a nice picture from Facebook and sell it - or upload it to Commons. Secondarywaltz (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Can Facebook do that legally? GMGtalk 12:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- and they will all be show as being copyright Facebook © 2018. Secondarywaltz (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know that there's a likely explanation, but there are plausible ones. I don't use facebook, but I can only imagine the number of images my wife has on her's that she's since deleted from her mobile. GMGtalk 12:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Then, why not the original photograph rather than a copy of a copy uploaded to Facebook. Secondarywaltz (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Except that in the vast and overwhelming majority of cases, I can do a two second search, show you exactly where you got the image from, and show you that you're lying. In this case you can't. What you are presuming is that the user downloaded the image from someone's Facebook, waited on the off chance that it would some day be deleted, and then uploaded it to Commons when they inexplicably happened to be right. In no universe is that a more parsimonious explanation than assuming it was their photo, and it's not on Facebook anymore because they deleted it, because they were uploading it to Commons.
For goodness sake. Just ask them and explain how to fix it. Don't assume they stole it and do your best to scare them off when you don't actually have any evidence that it's not their photo. GMGtalk 16:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Relax! You know that I've told them to try uploading it again, and you have encourage them. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo:@Secondarywaltz: Sorry I didn't see this sooner. Commons receives hundreds of images each week that are found elsewhere on the internet. They are presumed to be copyrighted and non-free, with certain exceptions (e.g., works in the Public Domain or where the source website has an express cc-by-sa 4.0 free license, for example). Remember, the burden of proof is on the uploader to verify that they are the copyright owner. In cases like this, it's easily resolved by having the uploader provide evidence to OTRS, such as the original photo with exif data, as they were informed on 10 August at Softblackstars talk page. I just looked at OTRS, and we don't have it yet. JGHowes talk 14:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Wade Burleson[edit]
GreenMeansGo,
I appreciate your concern that a photograph of Wade Burleson is not "copyrighted." Please forgive my naivety, but I am Wade Burleson (just created a "new account") because photos of me (taken of me and authorized by me using my staff) are being pulled down for not being "copyrighted." The photo you are requesting removed is my work - not a professional studio - and I want people to freely use it whenever they desire online. Am I missing something? I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons and stated it was my work. It's already ONLINE because we gave permission for others to use it. I would appreciate your help if there's a way you can help me.
- Hey Wade. The problem is that copyright for (the ownership of) images normally belongs to the person who took the photo, and not the person depicted in it. An exception to this is in cases where there was a contract transferring ownership, for example, in the case of someone who pays a studio photographer to produce works that they will use in their business dealings. If this is the case, then you need to verify this (along with your identity as the owner) via a private email to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org. GMGtalk 18:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you. I sent the email. okiehistory
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}