User talk:Pbgeerlings

Welcome![edit]

Hi Pbgeerlings, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: You might want to familiarize yourself with WP:COI, just in case disagreements arise. Paradoctor (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons photo[edit]

File:Gerald K. Geerlings.jpg

You uploaded this photo on Commons and claimed it as your own work. I'll assume you're not a supercentenarian, so you'll need to provide correct source information. Otherwise, the photo will be deleted from Commons. You can find information on what is acceptable on Commons at commons:Commons:Licensing. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Paradoctor (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! This photograph actually belongs to my family (Gerald Geerlings was my great grandfather), but, it is also available online for public access at Ancestry.com. See here: ^[1] Hope that clears things up, but let me know if you need anything else. Pbgeerlings (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given this info, the photo is currently not appropriate for Commons, because there is no evidence that the copyright has expired or that the image has been published with a compatible license, so I have put the file up for deletion at Commons.

There are two possible routes you can go now if you want to make the image available for the article. In both cases, please use "Gerald Kenneth Geerlings and Elizabeth Filbey Edmunds (1924)" as the new file name.

Fair use: Reupload here, tag the image as {{non-free biog-pic}}, and make sure you follow the instructions there.
Free license: For this, you either need to show that the copyright has expired, or the current copyright holder must grant a license. The original copyright holder is the person who took the photo. If you can find the current holder, they can grant permission via commons:Commons:OTRS. If the copyright has expired, and the evidence is publicly available, you can reupload at Commons, and cite the evidence in the file description. If the evidence is not publicly available, you'll have to head to OTRS yourself and provide the evidence there.

Yeah, I know. Copyright is messy. ;)

HTH, Paradoctor (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.:: The same goes for File:GKG Award.jpg, new file name should be "Gerald Kenneth Geerlings receives the Legion of Merit (1943)". Paradoctor (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S:: File:GKG Award.jpg might actually be a government work, and potentially free because of it. Paradoctor (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will re-upload the images as you have suggested. I feel fairly confident that both can be used as "fair use" images, since both are already available digitally and uploaded for public consumption through other platforms for their historical significance (and you are correct, the medal award picture is a government image, I believe, but has been cropped - for clarity in this instance). In addition, I am acting on behalf of the estate of Gerald K. Geerlings - all of his rights and licenses are currently held by my grandmother, Gillian Brown, who has approved these images for use on Wikipedia and the broader internet. I'll give this another try and hope it works, but let me know if you spot any other snaggles! Pbgeerlings (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just re-uploaded them with more adequate detail via the other uploader form (using the suggested titles you provided). Hopefully you can access and review these new versions, but let me know if you can't find them for any reason. If they are approved, I assume I can just swap out the approved images in the relevant placeholders on the Gerald K. Geerlings main Wiki page? Thanks for the help! Pbgeerlings (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S I just checked back on the site to see what the status was of the images, and I'm not positive the revised image with new title/data fields successfully got added. I have been receiving alerts that it is an exact duplicate of an existing image... Can you see the new files on your end? If not, should I wait to re-upload until the old images are deleted? Or, am I missing something and there is a specific place I should be revising these? Thanks for all your help! Pbgeerlings (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- I THINK I may have figured it out finally and done the swap... but check it out and let me know if it looks correct/is visible on your end whenever you review! Pbgeerlings (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fairly confident that both can be used as "fair use" images, since both are already available digitally and uploaded for public consumption

That an image is publicly available for "consumption" does in no way imply one is free to republish it. For details, see WP:FAIRUSE.

all of his rights and licenses are currently held by my grandmother, Gillian Brown, who has approved these images for use on Wikipedia and the broader internet

That's great news! Now we only need to prove this fact. Does she have a website where she can publish the images together with a free license? If not, no problem. In this case, your grandmother needs to contact WP:OTRS, so they can verify that she is the rights holder, and that your account is authorized to upload on her behalf. Any media held by the estate you upload after that only need to reference the resulting OTRS ticket.

an exact duplicate of an existing image Sorry. I didn't expect you to reupload before the previous files had been deleted. 😅 I'm watching the files in case this leads to further confusion.

You're doing fine, and your contributions are appreciated. :) Paradoctor (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Want to clarify your last update-- by uploading the images with new names as I have (and re-tagging them with "{{non-free biog-pic}}" as you instructed), are the two pictures potentially ok as-is (given they are simply identifying a deceased, historically-relevant individual & the "award" image being a released military image)? I provided all the declassification information from the government site in my re-uploaded/re-named version.

I'm a little confused about where things stand at the moment. Though I could certainly get my grandmother involved to do a more formal declaration about the images/future graphics for Wikipedia, that may be a more long-term goal (since she's in her late 80's, she would need some technological coaching, and our time with his estate may be better spent on other areas). But to recap -- are we waiting to see if my re-named images pass the vetting process with my small amendments? Or, is there a unilateral verdict that they are "inappropriate" even in their amended state, and will likely be deleted? Since the images are just to provide some historical context/visuals to the article, they may not be worth a huge saga to provide copyrights etc. etc. Thanks again Pbgeerlings (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the original of the award photo, I retagged it as {{PD-USGov}}, as the shot was clearly taken by military photographer. That should be the end of the matter for this one. would need some technological coaching Not necessarily. A phone call or a letter might serve the purpose. That is something you'll need to clear with WP:OTRS, I have no idea what their requirements are. unilateral verdict That's not how it works. Wikipedia works through WP:CONSENSUS. Over the years, a lot of policies and guidelines have been hashed out in the community. Copyright is a sensitive issue, as all our content is supposed to be freely licensed, with very few exceptions. Per Wikipedia:Copyrights § Guidelines for images and other media files:

Someone holds the copyright unless they have explicitly been placed in the public domain. Images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf. In some cases, fair use guidelines may allow them to be used irrespective of any copyright claims

Image description pages must be tagged with a special tag to indicate the legal status of the images, as described at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Untagged or incorrectly-tagged images will be deleted.

Questions about media copyright may be directed to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, which is generally staffed by volunteers familiar with Wikipedia's media copyright guidelines and policies.

From what I can see, the bride and groom picture is still under copyright, so you'll need to contact OTRS. And if you do anyway, the difference between granting a license for one picture or for all estate pictures you upload should be no more than a few words. HTH Paradoctor (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you. Maybe the military photo will suffice for now for the article, appreciate you adding the appropriate tags. I will work on the other image situation in the meantime, but understand that it may get removed at some point from the article in it's current form. Pbgeerlings (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.ancestry.com/mediaui-viewer/tree/427863/person/6981430995/media/81355b2a-14c5-4207-aed1-b49acc466b92?_phsrc=Vvk2&_phstart=successSource

[1] ttps://www.ancestry.com/mediaui-viewer/tree/427863/person/6981430995/media/81355b2a-14c5-4207-aed1-b49acc466b92?_phsrc=Vvk2&_phstart=successSource

[1]