User talk:Elcobbola

His Band and the Street Choir FAC image review

Hi and thanks for the review. Would you mind checking the rational again on the images to see if they now pass criterion three? If not could you give me some pointers on what needs to be done or links to the image criteria, because I don't fully understand how it works? Thanks  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 19:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kitchen roll, I've responded there. I've tried to articulate some issues more fully and have wiki-linked the two relevant policies (WP:IUP and WP:NFCC). Эlcobbola _talk 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Can you reply to my replies please :) Cheers  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to your recent comment. I hope what I've written proves the images significance. Cheers  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 09:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Don Valley Parkway FAC

Hi there, you commented at the featured article candidacy for the Don Valley Parkway a few days ago, and opposed based on the use of non-free imagery. I have removed / replaced every photo, and applied the correct licences as pointed out. I'm hoping you can come back and review your decision. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City FAC

I have responding to your question on the FAC page, you can respond there if you like. My apologizes for the late reply. Insomnia got the best of me earlier today and I just woke up from an extended sleep. I will be up for the duration to answer any further questions you have and can tinker with anything you see that needs it, be it the image or otherwise. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Pe̍h-ōe-jī FAC

Hi Эlcobbola! Thanks for pointing out the problems with the images for the Pe̍h-ōe-jī article. After rereading the guidelines on licensing, I believe I've fixed the issues you raised. I would appreciate it if you could take another look and let me know if there are any remaining problems. Thanks! Taiwantaffy (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Last image fixed now too (hopefully!) Taiwantaffy (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think that's fixed now too. Taiwantaffy (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

pre-FAC check...

File:Cotton Claudius B VII f.224 Merlin Vortigern.jpg and File:LincolnCathedralWest.jpg - is the paperwork in order on these? Or do I need to replace in Alexander of Lincoln? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

They look just fine to me. Эlcobbola _talk 16:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Loretta Jones

Can you help me find a free image of the actress instead please? Loads of images on google search, but I know pap shots always have copyright. How do you go about getting one released into the public domain. There is one image on flickr too. Most sites include email adresses by the pictures for inquiries.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 17:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to email the author of this image (his email address is in his profile) to ask whether he'd be willing to release the image under a free license. Example requests are here. If he agrees, he could either update the license on Flickr or you could forward his email to OTRS. Otherwise, however, I don't know that other currently available options (i.e. searching Google) have any reasonable likelihood of success. Unless we're fortunate enough for a still-liivng celebrity to be photographed by a Wikipedian, we're seldom able to obtain free images. Эlcobbola _talk 18:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, I emailed him earlier. Hope he is in a giving mood. :)RAIN the ONE (Talk) 02:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I got no replies from the few I emailed. No images now, but no one has reviewed the article further.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 15:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty

I've added more info, thanks to Kirk, that I think should address your concern on the remaining problem picture. Hope you are willing to strike your oppose. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Query...

On Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Miss Meyers/archive1, I've had an oppose over fair use of a picture of the deceased horse. Given that every other horse FA currently uses a very similar fair use rationale, I'd like a second/third opinon, if you have time to give one. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium Park/archive1

Your response is requested at Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium Park/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I note the peer review was closed less than 3 hours (!!!) after the above request. A disingenuous request, apparently? Why such imprudent haste? The article still has unresolved issues. Эlcobbola _talk 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I had it closed when another image reviewer said all was resolved. Obviously, you can still edit the page as you see fit even after it was closed. I had honestly thought that all was resolved. Please comment and I will respond to the PR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your final concerns. Please comment on the PR as to whether all concerns have been addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This link was just corrected in the article; is there anything there we've overlooked, and I'm not sure why this is mentioned as an external link but not included in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll break with tradition and answer the specific question first. For Millennium Park, I don't perceive any issue. A) The license was for professionals and students (i.e. aspiring professionals), meaning those with lighting, sophisticated equipment, etc., not for casual visitors with point and shoot cameras; and B) the license requirement is not currently applicable to anyone ("We can all take pictures in Millennium Park, and for the time being, professional photographers and student photographers don't even need a permit").

Generally speaking, there's an important distinction to be made between policy and law. A museum, for example, may well forbid photography in its galleries (a policy), but there is almost certainly not going to be an underlying statute forbidding such photography (a law). Perhaps a more readily accessible scenario is that of a retail store forbidding food and drink; there's certainly no actual law precluding ingestion of foodstuffs in stores, but the retailer is nevertheless welcome to its own proprietary policy. Those policies may find legal teeth if, for example, noncompliance is deemed trespassing, but that is something unrelated to copyright. For our purposes, it's merely a question of ethics. I recall being quite offended by those taking pictures (in defiance of clear signage) inside the barracks at Auschwitz, but, at the same time, I find the notion of precluding photographs in a public park (e.g. Millennium Park) absurd. Each situation is unique and ethical considerations for a given image, if any, are something for broader discussion. Эlcobbola _talk 16:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (your thoroughness is always appreciated). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so

Now that I've traced the copyright on the Statue of Liberty's copper as it was mined from the ground, how do I make the tagging for this image work? I do not know who made the plaque, but it was commissioned by a committee headed by Georgina Schuyler, who had been a friend of Lazarus, and of course the text is entirely Lazarus's.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that the plaque itself (the metal plate) would pass the threshold of originality. The border might, but its depiction in this particular image is, in my judgment, de minimis. That being the case, I don't believe we need to be concerned with the creator/foundry, just as we aren't generally concerned with printer when determining copyright in more "traditional" literary works. The prose thereon is the relevant work, and Lazarus died in 1887 (e.g. {{PD-Art}}). I suppose one would kibitz about the "This tablet..." dedication, but I think it would be exceedingly difficult to make a successful case that it passes the threshold of originality. Эlcobbola _talk 01:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What I hoped. Thank you. I'll reinsert it after changing the template.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, {{PD-Old}} is better. Irony of ironies, I'm apparently going to be inside of this thing in several days; let me know if you need any pictures (although the article already has, to my eyes, too many images). Эlcobbola _talk 01:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. I tend to overadd just because you lose some at FAC. If you get a really good one of the interior, that would be nice and we would replace an existing shot. I've read that since the renovation, it is like a big copper room, very impressive, whereas the shot we have of the interior is quite cluttered. Most exterior shots tend to have too much shadow, as the statue faces the sun early in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

pre-FAC image review

Hiya, could you be persuaded to do an image review of FC Barcelona and post it on the talkpage? Kind regards, Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 08:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I know you requested the talk page, but I've entered comments at the open peer review instead. Feel free to relocate them if you indeed prefer the talk page. Эlcobbola _talk 13:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Image question

Since you seem to have a much better command of image policy than I, could you check the fair-use rationale for this? It doesn't quite add up to me. If it fails, in your opinion, could you please remove it from Steve Beshear and list it for deletion. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous issues: it's not low resolution (NFCC#3B); it doesn't have a detailed and specific rationale (NFCC#10C); it appears purely decorative (NFCC#8). Why is the second paragraph in the "2007 Campaign for Governor" section not sufficient to understand gambling issues? What is meaningful about the visual appearance of this poster? How would a reader's understanding be impaired without it? (Image summary has issues as well: "Copyright status may not apply, as no copyright is given on image" is utter nonsense - no notice is required under the 1976 Act; replaceability must also be a resounding no per NFCC#1; what, then, does "Unlikely" mean?) Acdixon, I'm traveling and do not have time to take follow-through action on the image. Эlcobbola _talk 12:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Majora's Mask FAR

Please comment at the Majora's Mask FAR when you get the chance. Pagrashtak 04:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City Image

Question for ya. I asked Wehwalt a question on a unrelated image and the topic eventually got to this image, the one of the historic marker. I was under the assumption (possibly an incorrect one) that after the {{PD-US-1978-89}} template was placed on the image, after discussing with Nyttend, Wehwalt and myself on MCQ and my talk that it was deemed "OK". With Wehwalt's concern, I thought it better to readdress it (after he suggested I speak to you). If it is not deemed "OK", I guess I have little to no choice than to remove it since I can't find an obvious copyright on the image (per the FAC discussion on the same image). I am kinda confused. If you would take a look and let me know, I would appreciate it. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I did initially think it was OK, however, after I learned more about the definition of "publication" for copyright purposes I changed my mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had hoped I was doing more than hinting ([1] [2]) that the license was not appropriate. This is a very difficult image. The brevity and succinctness of the text could almost cause one to view them as mere facts, not original authorship (Feist v. Rural held that, as facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original, and thus are not copyrightable). Of course, compilations of facts may indeed possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively. Does the presence of two facts or, say, the choice of "burning" instead of "razing" in "General David Hunter ordered the burning of this town on May 30, 1864" constitute sufficient originality? I don't know. There is, however, a certain leap from arranging phone numbers (Feist) to prose. I always try to take a conservative stance, so I would leave it out. Эlcobbola _talk 13:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If it was "George Washington slept here", I would say it was PD as copyright ineligible. This is a more complicated giving of information to the public and so I would agree, it should be left out.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: Sorry, I kinda suck at hinting...Aspergers and all. I can't "read" certain cues. My goof. I will cut that image from the page momentarily.

@Wehwalt: I do have an image that post office in town was "dedicated to service" by then President Carter and then Postmaster General William Bolger. Not really notable, all post offices have those, but it is kinda like a "George Washington slept here" plaque. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Image cut. It remains in Commons for people to look at though. If you want it removed from there, I would have no issue with you nom'ing it for deletion over there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring you into the fold on this one too, the two images that were up for the oppose (by Fascha Nua) have been cut. I addressed the one above and the other one was cut last night. If you want to post on the FAC or here about that, feel free (not saying you have to though). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I've commented at the FAC. Эlcobbola _talk 15:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Postage stamp images

Sorry to bother you, and I ought to know the answer to this, but could you remind me of the correct licensing for postage stamp images? The image I am interested in is File:Norway-Stamp-1935-Fridtjof Nansen.jpg which since it dates from 1935 may not be PD at all; in any event I am pretty sure the current Commons licence is wrong. Somewhere in the system there is a very useful essay on image licensing, I think written by you; if you could remind me of the link to that, I probably wouldn't have to ask so many questions. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the redlink (not my doing) is now a more succinct answer than I could provide. Let me know if you want an explanation of the copyright issues. This is the closest thing I can think of that I've written; I'm not aware, unfortunately, of other non-policy/guideline guides to licensing. It's never a bother; by all means feel free to ask questions or suggest essays you'd like to see. Эlcobbola _talk 13:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful answer - the redlink says it all, so far as the stamp is concerned. It was loaded to my article draft by another editor, removed by me pending enquiries. While on the subject of Nansen, can I ask your opinion on a couple of images that were in the article when I started my expansion? The are File:Fridtjof Nansen LOC 03377u.jpg and File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-09772, Fridjof Nansen.jpg. I am unsure of either. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Both images look good. Эlcobbola _talk 14:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Favour

As Jappalang sourced some of the images for it so might not be considered neutral (if Sandy's in Strict Mode), would you be able to do the image review for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brill Tramway/archive1 when you get the chance? There shouldn't be any problems—anything that seemed potentially problematic has been weeded out by now. There's one fair-use image, but I think there's an overwhelming case for including it. – iridescent 20:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! While I do agree that File:3rd duke governor madras.jpg would be unimpeachable on en-wiki, I'd rather keep it on Commons if possible; it's used in four articles (including a current FA), and FAs tend to be translated quite quickly so it's likely some of the other language projects will want it—the only other illustration we have of the man is this dubious quality sketch. The NPG have quite a few portraits of him in their collection, but none of them are online—besides, using NPG images leads to unpleasantness. – iridescent 12:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, hosting on en.wiki and hosting on Commons isn't necessarily mutually exclusive. A local version could be used for our purposes and the Commons version retained for other projects to use as their quality standards, copyright policies, etc. deem appropriate. Of course, I don't think action is necessary one way or another given the exceedingly remote likelihood of a 20-something artist living to their 90s. As Commons tends to have waves of ultra conservationism and ultra liberalism (as opposed to a more rational middle ground), it was just a suggestion to avoid headaches altogether should it encounter the former. In any case, I wholly agree that avoiding the NPG is wise. Эlcobbola _talk 15:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Image question

Would it be possible to use this image in the Bexhill West Branch Line article under NFFU rules. The image is most likely under copyright (dates to between 1902 and 1969) and it is not possible to recreate it as the viaduct has been demolished. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In the article's current state, I don't believe that the image would pass several criteria. The height, the "seventeen arches" and the building materials (concrete block foundation with brick elsewhere) seem, to me, sufficient description to understand the structure (thus understanding is freely conveyed with prose - NFCC#1). Uniqueness, if any, seems to come from the nature of the ground, so there may be weak support for an image detailing the construction used to overcome that engineering obstacle but, even then, I'm not sure that is significant enough to the understanding of the article's actual topic of the Bexhill West Branch Line itself (NFCC#8). The article seems to be in an early stage, so perhaps there's forthcoming information that will establish support; however, I'm not currently able to see how omission of this image would be a determinant to a reader's understanding of the Bexhill West Branch Line. Эlcobbola _talk 16:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)

Hi,

Per your request of Image sources for this article, I have made appropriate changes. I request you to kindly take a look. TIA   Perseus 71 ^talk 00:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Whistler Sliding Centre FA comments

Per your request, I removed the invalid images on Wikipedia for The Whistler Sliding Centre for FA. This was also noted in the comments. Chris (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/FC Barcelona/archive2

Hiya, could you reply to the comments I've given to your review above? Note that FCB.svg is not considered to be from 1910 according to user:Hammersoft. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 08:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Judd School

Hi Elcobbola, if you have the time would you mind giving the above article a quick image review? Most of the photos I took myself, but I've never uploaded images before so I'm not sure if the licences are correct. Also, the logo is non-free, and the 'Skinners Hall' photo was uploaded from flikr so I'm not sure about it. I'd really appreciate it, but don't worry if not. Thanks, Tom (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The images are largely perfectly; I only have issue with the crest (File:Judd School Logo.jpg):

The rationale essentially says its purpose is to help the reader identify the organization. Isn't that accomplished by the first sentence of the lead (i.e. a free analogue - WP:NFCC#1)? I believe any reader of reasonable intelligence would find "The Judd School is a voluntary aided grammar school in Tonbridge, Kent" perfectly sufficient, unless perhaps there are numerous Judd Schools in Tonbridge, Kent. From another angle, what percent of people in the world - or even in the UK or Kent itself - would actually have the prerequisite familiarity to readily associate it with the school? I doubt I can even recall crests of the institutions I've attended. Even ignoring replaceability, I'm concerned about its significance (NFCC#8). There's not currently a single mention of the crest in the article, let alone critical discussion (e.g. why that particular animal's head was chosen, why "deus dat incrementum" was chosen, why certain colours/design elements where chosen and what the related symbolism and meaning of the aforementioned are). Simply put, the crest appears merely decorative.

Now, all of that may be moot. The school was established in 1888. If this crest existed and as was published before 1.1.1923, it would be PD in the United States. If it was published between 1923 an 1977, it might be PD if certain conditions are met. Do you have any information about the origin of the crest? Эlcobbola _talk 14:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking!

Regards the crest: a very small percent I imagine! The boars head was from Sir Andrew Judd's family crest, and the entire design was just copied from Tonbridge School. However, I don't have a reliable source for this information. The crest certainly existed before 1923, as Tonbridge School was founded in the 16th century, I'm not sure I can prove this though.

What do you recommend? Tom (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd try contacting the school itself [3]. Publication is essentially "distribution of copies to the public"; as the direct question ("Do you happen to know whether copies of your crest were distributed to the public before 1.1.1923?") may seem rather odd, you might just try asking whether they know of any early publications (e.g. books) in which it appeared, or whether they could direct you to or provide other information on the crest. Another approach might to be search around the internet. Perhaps Google Books scanned a pre-1923 work which contained this logo, perhaps someone has listed a publication with this crest on an Auction site (eBay), etc. Эlcobbola _talk 15:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just got back from Tonbridge Library, and I can't find any book that even mentions the crest. Its obvious that it was derived from Sir Andrew Judd's coat of arms but there is absolutely no way of proving this. I can't find any information, on the internet or in print, that details how the crest was designed, or why the school colours are what they are etc.

This book: http://books.google.com/books?id=C-AHAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+history+of+tonbridge+school&hl=en&ei=_3JlTIrbBJ-TONOzzJcN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false which would be the most likely to detail it, doesn't even mention it. I'm actually quite curious as to why not! I don't think the school will know, they don't even have a history section on their website, but I've shot off an email anyway.

Do you think we should remove it, because we won't be able to add any information about it? Tom (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Unused non-free images are deleted, so I'd leave it in the article for the time being in the hopes of receiving a helpful response from the school. If no such response comes after a reasonable period of time (e.g. a week for emails) or if you plan to bring the article to a review process (e.g. FAC), then I would indeed remove it. I don't suppose the school has a carved (i.e. 3D - that is very important) version permanently installed in a public place? Эlcobbola _talk 17:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. They've got it on the sign outside, but it isn't 3D and its not technically a public place. I'm hoping to take it to FAC once its had a good copyedit, but I'll hang on and see what the school say. If in the meantime I find it somewhere published before 1923, then we're in the clear?

Thanks again for reviewing, really appreciate it. Tom (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, then all will be well. Эlcobbola _talk 18:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion on image review

I could use a second opinion on my image review at this FAC. I'm uncertain on the status of two images. Nominator has removed the images in order to pass the candidacy, but I'd like to get clarity on the image status (as I'm sure would the nominator). Thanks for your attention. Magic♪piano 23:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maps are somewhat complex conceptually, so I apologize in advance for my wordiness. The first thing to understand is that facts, ideas, concepts, discoveries, etc. are not themselves eligible for copyright protection. Copyright protection extends only to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression". Data are not works of authorship. For example, that the Berlin Wall began construction on August 13, 1961 isn't something that was authored. Similarly, and relevant to our purposes here, that a volcanic field has an elevation of x metres, a diameter of y and/or geographic coordinates of z aren't aspects that have an author.

That said, data become eligible for copyright through their description, explanation, or illustration (i.e. an author committing data to a tangible medium in an orignal way). Maps are indeed such a visual manifestation of underlying data. As the copyrightable aspect is the original illustration, however, one may still utilize the underlying data without violating copyright or creating a derivative work as long as the original visualization choices are not carried forward (e.g. the new work has different line weights, labels, colorization/texture, etc.). So I do share your concerns about File:Mount Cayley volcanic field.png. The creator of the derivative, for example, didn't even bother to move the interval numbers. I don't agree with concerns about File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg. The visual manifestation is based on a public domain map (NASA) and is entirely different than the copyrighted Canadian map. That the volcanic belt as that particular elliptical shape, and that certain volcanoes are located at specific points therein are facts, not authorship, and thus not eligible for copyright protection under USC 17. Эlcobbola _talk 14:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanation; this should help me in future image reviews. Magic♪piano 16:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there someone that may have the time to recreate the MCVF map so it will not be problematic to use in articles? I don't have the ability to create great maps so I don't believe I'm the one to remake it. Volcanoguy 23:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I understand both Ruhrfisch and Jappalang to be skilled in the creation of maps. Эlcobbola _talk 12:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC comments

I've repled to your comments here.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 00:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You can ring my bell, ring my bell

I've addressed your image concerns. I've withdrawn the 1915 image and substituted a (not so good) one from 1894 pending further research. I'll let you know what I hear from the people who have the album copy. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Stricken accordingly. Good luck. Эlcobbola _talk 13:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

By means of a physical visit to the NPS archives in Philadelphia, I've come up with three more images, which Connormah is busy cropping and so forth. The raw images, including the typewritten (in 2 cases) comments that confirm them as Fed government photos are the first three images in my Commons gallery here. Comments welcome. They had lots of images including a bunch that said they were by specific photographers that I probably could have confirmed were NPS employees, but I settled for three, two recent and on with the copyright inscription on the photo (!).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

All three are fine from a copyright standpoint, of course, although File:Liberty Bell 1872.jpg (and thus its derivative) are incorrectly licensed. The US uses PMA only for unpublished, unregistered works. As this was registered, it should be using {{PD-1923}}. As an aside, I have to say File:Liberty Bell tour 1951-crop.jpg gave me quite a start - a Braunhemd at the Liberty Bell!?! Эlcobbola _talk 12:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I need your help, please

On Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/90377 Sedna/archive1. The image review has got hung up on a credited NASA image, which is also credited to CalTech. We wanted to know if a NASA image that was credited to both NASA and CalTech fell under the NASA public domain policy. Serendi^podous 18:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms

File:Blason de Cubzac.png

I have an image question, and I know from your activity on the FAC and FAR pages that you are keen on images. I've uploaded the coat of arms of Cubzac-les-Ponts. I have no idea about what kind of licence I should put. Could you please help me out? Cheers, Randomblue (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

French works generally enter the public domain 70 years after the author has died. If you can provide a source indicating that this image is a digitalization of a medieval design, then {{PD-Art}} or {{PD-old}} would be appropriate. If you have no such source (the current one, for example, provides no date/authorship information), then you would need to use a non-free license (e.g. {{Non-free symbol}}) and an accompanying rationale, assuming it meets the non-free content criteria (which I personally believe it does not). Note also that the Commons, where it is currently located, does not accept non-free content. Эlcobbola _talk 21:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Gliding FAR

Hi Elcobbola! Would you mind revisiting the Gliding FAR (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gliding/archive1)? It looks like the main editor has addressed your concerns and is awaiting further comments. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Dana. There are still numerous issues; I've updated comments at the FAR. Эlcobbola _talk 16:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, and thanks again for all of your recent work at FAR - it is much appreciated! Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Image inquiry

Hi Elcobbola - is the licensing on File:Alexander Cameron Rutherford - Elliott And Fry.jpg, which I've recently uploaded correct? If I can calculate correctly, both creators have been dead for over 100 years, but I'd just like another assessment. Thanks. Connormah 23:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If those dates are correct, the license is correct (assuming it's unpublished - which should indeed be the assumption unless proven otherwise). The problem, however, is that the source is a link directly to the image (something that should never be done unless the image itself contains the information necessary to support the license - e.g. File:Liberty Bell 1872.jpg). Where can we verify that these men are the authors and that those are their dates of death? Эlcobbola _talk 14:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'll adjust the link. Connormah 01:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Image check

Ec, would you be able to add a second check at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sherlock Holmes Baffled/archive1? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I fixed some issues on the Commons side. It's now good to go. Эlcobbola _talk 00:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much-- I like to check in with you when I don't know certain image reviewers' work ... it gives me a review on the reviewers :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. The ones to be cautious of are "reviews" that summarize image information; they're almost always superficial and mere mechanical exercise. Эlcobbola _talk 01:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Image review request

Hi Elcobbola, I'm preparing Ezra Pound for FAC and thought I'd ask for a preliminary image review before I list. I'm not in a hurry; will be a day or so until it's fully ready to go. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper88, I've left comments on the article's talk page. Эlcobbola _talk 00:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Was worried about these - had a look at the files myself earlier and gulped. Responded on the talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elcobbola, thanks for the review. I've decided not to bring to FAC until I can locate more information on the images we have, or new images with better licenses. I'll email the Sun Valley Center for the Arts; perhaps they have more information on File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg. Specifically what do I need to know? Publication dates if they exist, or whether a copyright holder exists? Also, if the PUF determines File:DorothyPound.jpg is not free, can it be used with FUR for the Dorothy Shakespear article only? Also, would an image such as this be allowable? First publication date was 1925. Thanks for your time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The best approach probably would be simply to ask for whatever information they have available. Particularly meaningful would be the author and date of first publication. If they claim to hold the copyright (whether such belief is true or not), perhaps ask whether they'd be willing to freely license it. Yes, I do believe a non-free File:DorothyPound.jpg would be appropriate for Dorothy Shakespear, assuming, of course, there is no free alternative available. It would be very strange indeed for someone who had obtained some degree of notoriety before 1923 to not have had an image published somewhere; I suspect one would turn up with more research. This image wouldn't be ok because it is was published in France (to use {{PD-US-1996}}, it must have been PD in the country of origin as of 1.1.1996. Ezra, of course, died in 1972, so it won't be PD in France until 2042). Эlcobbola _talk 14:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Again thanks for your help with these images. I realized the image of the cantos couldn't be used because of the publication in Paris - although that page was also published in the 1970 biography. I did find a passport (File:EzraPound Passport.jpg); I hope it's okay to use. I've temporarily re-added File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg to the article to prevent the image being deleted and added to the FUR - in my view it is a valuable image. I don't think I can adequately convey in words the transformation from the boy in uniform to the crazy man in the mugshot. I'll send an e-mail to the Sun Valley center. So glad I had you look at these before FAC! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, File:EzraPound Passport.jpg doesn't work for the same reason the other passport image doesn't work. The physical document is property of the Department of State, but the photograph was not necessarily authored by the government. Giving the photograph to the government for use in a passport is merely a transition of physical property, not intellectual property (similarly, when you purchase a book, you obtain ownership of the physical object; you don't, however, obtain ownership the copyrighted literature therein). Even if copyrights were transfered, the government is allowed to hold transfered rights; it just can't create them itself. Эlcobbola _talk 15:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What a shame! I've commented it out, and will remove from the article. How do I go about deleting the file? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Raid at Cabanatuan FAC

When I contacted the National Archives about images related to the event, they sent me a few of the 100+ photos they have on file. One of the images is exactly the same as the opening scene in File:RangersGuerillasBehindEnemyLinesRaidCabanatuanJan301945.ogv. The image is tagged with the same Signal Corps symbol that the Mucci image has. As I suggested on the FAC page, would it be sufficient to state on the videos' pages that the Signal Corps photographers were there to document the event through photos and video to cover the author issue? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, Nehrams2020, for not getting back to the FAC (I missed it on my watchlist). I'll respond fully here to keep the FAC less cluttered. At this stage, it's just a verifiability over truth issue; I'm hoping to get Ts crossed and Is dotted, as they should be in a FA. If you still have that image and could upload/reference it in the video's summary page, that would be sufficient for me. Even if not, however, I'm going to strike because the case seems so obvious. The YouTube links resolve the sourcing issue, which was the real holdup. (They are indeed copyvios, as they consist of more than just PD footage. I realize there's potential conflict with WP:COPYVIO, but that's only in letter, not in spirit. We need to document sourcing and I don't see any legitimate issue in cases of sourcing for extracted PD content. Perhaps, instead of a link, say something like "PD material extracted from YouTube file aP3X239Q2WA". That's verifiable and avoids linking to a copyvio.) Эlcobbola _talk 14:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I figured that may of happened. I'll upload the image that I received, but it will probably be at the beginning of next week since I'm in the process of moving and currently don't have any Internet service (currently editing from family's house). That's a good idea for the source, I'd prefer to keep it in text form, rather than link to the copyrighted video. I'm still contacting the National Archives to see if I can get access to their 100+ images, but I'm trying to find a way to do it for free and bypass their fees. Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to review the images, your comments were helpful. This was the first FAC I worked on that had only free images, and although there were a few issues, they're much easier to address than defending non-free images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

killer7 FAC

Thanks for your review of the images at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Killer7/archive2. I was wondering if you had any comments about the article as a whole, or whether you are willing to lend the article your support. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a good person to review video games for content. My experience with that topic consists largely of having played Myst in the 90s (as an excuse to try out the then-new-fangled CD-ROM drive), and having played Durak on a long since discarded iPhone. You might want to try asking David Fuchs. Эlcobbola _talk 14:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyway. Regards, Axem Titanium (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Eva-nansen.jpg

Since I last asked for your guidance on the Fridtjof Nansen article images, I have added the above, which appears to be free of copyright in Norway. Can you let me know if it is OK to use it here? Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I was worried you were going to ask about this image. Norway is a problem. It can run into subsisting copyrights because it has long-standing copyright relations with the United States (since at least 1.1.1923) and the copyright term here (50 years) is shorter than the period between 1923 and restoration (1.1.1996 for Norway, so ca. 73) - 50 is indeed less than 73. Thus, there exists a small possibilty that it is copyrighted (if, for example, it was published/registered after 1.1.1923). Long story short, the current information does not indicate the status in the US, and the non-U.S. copyrights guideline directs us to assume works are copyrighted in this circumstance. Эlcobbola _talk 16:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Image review

Hiya, could you be convinced to do an image review of FC Barcelona again? I know it's the third time, but I've added a tricky image which could use some expertise. Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 19:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Commented at the peer review. Эlcobbola _talk 15:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding crest, is a photo of a player with the crest on his shirt considered publication? See here Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 15:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. To be publication, it must be distributed to the general public. If the crest was copied, but then only distributed to a "closed" group (e.g. the team, managers, etc.), then it is considered a "limited publication" which is the same as no publication. If, however, they sold objects with the crest to the general public at the time, then it would be considered published. Эlcobbola _talk 16:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I've responded to the PR comments. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 16:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC Image question

On the FAC for Kent, Ohio a question has arisen about the status of File:Kent city wards streets.png, in particular about its copyright status from the original map I made the file from. Any additional insight would be helpful. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

FAR reviews

There are a couple of new FARs that are probably going to be keeps, but need an image review first. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Taiwanese aborigines/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/0.999.../archive1 are the links for the two. Thanks in advance if you have the time/interest. Dana boomer (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Commented on both. Эlcobbola _talk 15:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Princess Charlotte of Wales

Everyone's dead 70 years or more, in fact much more, so I don't think this one will be complicated. If you have a chance would you mind doing a pre-FAC check on it? Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there an open peer review, or do you just want comments on the talk page? Эlcobbola _talk 16:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk page is fine. I've asked User:DrKiernan to comment on the text and he's agreed, and he's one of our leading royalty experts. I'm content doing it informally.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. What does PMA mean?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

PMA is Post Mortem Auctoris (after the author's death). Эlcobbola _talk 16:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of terms

Hi Ec. After responding to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Taiwanese aborigines/archive1, an idea occurred to me: it might be useful to create a subpage in your userspace called User:Elcobbola/Explanation of terms. I think it would only take about an hour to make, and then you could add new terms from time to time as you do reviews... that page would be a one-stop resource to help people understand terms such as PMA, underlying distribution data, subsidiary source, und so weiter. You could link to it once at the top or bottom of your reviews. Saves time and trouble for everyone. Cheers. • Ling.Nut 00:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yours is the first "complaint" in ages. You may find issues -- image or otherwise -- easier to address if you dispense with the sarcasm and hyperbole and temper your reactions with the understanding that reviewers volunteer their time because they want to see articles improve. Your approach has been very disappointing, Ling. Эlcobbola _talk 02:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Those diffs show neither sarcasm nor (especially) hyperbole. I see Wehwalt, in the thread immediately above this one, asking precisely the same question about PMA; why is mine the first complaint? Moreover, I looked at PMA in Wikipedia, dictionary.com, etc. These definitions are not so in-plain-sight as you would seem to suggest.
• I think my reactions have been extremely mild and restrained, and extremely well within the bounds of fair play on Wikipedia.. in fact, the only thing I have done is simply question your facts... if that is offensive, well... there are two explanations: either I have been too offensive, or you have been too thin-skinned. Not sure which is Truth. In fact, I don't think there is a truth in this matter. It's all a matter of perception... However, if my words have somehow offended you, then I apologize. • Ling.Nut 04:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've not been offended. As I said, I've been disappointed by your approach. You appear to believe intertwining reasonable questions unintelligent nonsense allows the latter to be disregarded. This, for example, is apparently only "What is PMA?". Are you unable to grasp the difference between Wehwalt's polite question and your complaint "You do everyone a disservice by lapsing into jargon"? How exactly do you believe that is merely factual ("simply question[ing my] facts")? Those are rhetorical questions; I'm uninterested in a response. PMA, by the way, is front and center in the prominent guideline for these works; "underlying distribution data" and "supplemental license" are not copyright terms, but English - this isn't Simple Wikipedia. That you perceive "Perhaps the fact that the pictures were taken in 1897 might be a tip-off?" and "This image was published in 1877... if it isn't PD, then PD does not exist" as devoid of sarcasm and hyperbole is lamentable, if genuine. Эlcobbola _talk 13:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• And I can only repeat, I think you have responded more than a little out of proportion. I guess that leaves us there.• Ling.Nut 13:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Work for hire - UK

Hi Elcobbola. I was wondering. UK laws bestow the copyright of a work upon the employer if it was a "work for hire" (done in the course of employment). As such, would the works printed in Punch be considered "works for hire", and hence, are copyrighted for 70 years since publication instead (if so, should Commons template PD-UK-unknown be used)? Would this also apply to comics where different artists are employed? Jappalang (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Just an add on, as far as I know, Punch prints only its artists' works (no freelancers or pieces commissioned from those outside). Jappalang (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not necessarily as simple as that. The underlying legislation is "Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary" (11(2)). Problematic, of course, is the "subject to any agreement to the contrary", as it removes the notion of universal applicability. Did certain illustrators, for example, have contracts that allowed them to retain copyrights? So if you define "work for hire" as "done in the course of employment", then yes, they are; "done in the course of employment", however, does not necessarily mean the copyright transfered to the employer.

Whatever the case, however, I don't believe PD-UK-unknown would be appropriate, as the author, be it employee or employer (depending on the contract), is still a known entity (perhaps I'm incorrect, but I'm not aware of a section that indicates corporate copyright holders should be treated as anonymous holders). If Punch was an international organisation -- "an organisation the members of which include one or more states" (178) -- it might be subject to a certain miscellaneous provision: "Copyright of which an international organisation is first owner by virtue of this section continues to subsist until the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made" (168(3)). Эlcobbola _talk 15:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Image review, please?

Hi, Elcobbola, would you mind doing an image review on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/archive1? There's only two, so it shouldn't take you that long, and from what Sandy said, ti appears to be the bottleneck in this one. Thanks in advance, or let me know if you can't/aren't interested. Courcelles 17:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Courcelles 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Imperial Triple Crown

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial triple crown jewels upon Elcobbola for improving typwriter articles in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Well done, click Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Image advice

I would appreciate a little advice on images. It is a real struggle to find suitable images for English cricterers, due to the difficulty with finding a publication date for them. I asked Brianboulton for advice and I think I'm a little clearer now. However, I thought I would ask for your opinion on this image from an auction catalogue. The picture is anonymous as far as I can see, but the company which published it went out of business in 1904, which can be verified quite easily from a couple of sources, including the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The picture itself is anonymous and would have been published in England. As I understand it, this image would be acceptable on Wikipedia. Would it also be OK on Commons? Any help is greatly appreciated! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

An image question

I've been working on Andalusian horse and have come across some images in Commons that I would like to use, but am unsure of their licensing. The four (all with the same situation) are:

• File:Fotografias-de-caballos.jpg
• File:Fotografo-caballos-pura-raza.jpg
• File:Fotografo-de-caballos-pura-raza--español.jpg
• File:Fotografo-de-caballos-pura-raza-andaluz.jpg

Apparently, when uploaded, they were on Flickr under a CC Attribution 2.0 Generic license. However, they are currently on Flickr under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license. Per Commons, non-commerical licensed images are not allowed. Does the change in Flickr status since the upload to Commons remove our right to use the images? If we're still allowed to use them, are we allowed to modify them (I want to remove the watermarks)?

Forgive me if this is a stupid question - I just want to get my ducks in line with this article, as I am planning to take it to FAC in the near future. Also, if you had the time, the rest of the images could probably use a quick check. I think they are all OK, but I usually miss something arcane (and sometimes something obvious!) in the licensing. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Wintjiya Napaltjarri 2006 work.jpg

Hello Elcobbola. I am about to include the above image, which I have just uploaded, in an article to nominate at FAC: Wintjiya Napaltjarri. Would you be willing to check out the non-free fair-use rationale for me and see if you think it is valid and sufficient? I'd be grateful. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I do believe use of a non-free work in an article about its artist is valid conceptually. I don't think, however, that this work is supported. The only discussion of her style is in relation to the Watanuma piece. I don't really see discussion of style (e.g. shapes, colors, textures, subjects, etc.) outside of that particular work or even discussion of the iconography mentioned in the rationale. That said, I don't see the contextual significance (NFCC#8). Alternatively, however, use of Watanuma would supported, at least minimally (an artist article with so little style/technique discussion?) That aside, minor issues are that 400x487 isn't really low resolution (ca. 300 is the rule of thumb, and this could easily be reduced without impairing its ability to convey information) and {{Non-free 2D art}} is the correct license for these images. Эlcobbola _talk 12:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)