User talk:Lupo

I'm extremely busy off-Wikipedia these days. I may or may not answer promptly, or I may not answer at all. Lupo

2024

Thursday

20

June

Archives of older talk are listed on the archives page.

ref page numbers

In Shrimp farming, how are the "page numbers" of the footnotes valuable? To me, they appear to be content-free.BTW: I assume that you are referring to the alphanumberic labels in the old version such as ALG00.--SallyForth123 11:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite a lot of these references included page numbers, like "[Cons02, p47]". Lupo 19:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Steamboat Willie

Good sections on films! A detail: Steamboat Willie says that Plane Crazy was the first Mickey film. Haukur 09:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic Universe

I have some thin ice. Want to come skate? Haukur 21:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Public domain

OK, thanks for taking care of it, Lupo. When another user intersperses their responsive comments thoughout yours, as happened there, it's impossible to tell who's saying what ... Kenosis 18:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it can be annoying. When it happens to me (and I notice it), I usually solve it by just adding my signature at the appropriate places. Removing someone else's comments just may annoy the other person unnecessarily. But as I said, it's no big deal. Lupo 18:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Details of international copyright

Hello again. I have a few questions related to the Israeli mural we discussed yesterday. If I'm figuring correctly, this seems to be the case, and correct me if my logic is flawed here.

Moshe, an Israeli national in Haifa, creates a mural and installs it in a public place there. Shlomo, also an Israeli national, photographs the mural and publishes the photo (in Israel) in a book. Moshe cannot successfully sue Shlomo in Israeli court for copyright violation. But if Shlomo publishes the book in the U.S., Moshe can sue Shlomo in U.S. court for copyright violation.

Is that correct? Also, what if all this had been done in 1995? This source mentions the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, and I'm fuzzy on the details, but it seems to say that if a work was not copyrighted in its home country in 1/1/1996 then it's PD here too. (Or it might only be saying that the URAA restored copyright on foreign works in some circumstances, and it might not give any opinion on works ineligible for copyright in their home country, I don't know. This is further complicated by the Twin Books v. Walt Disney Co. decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but since that has to do with the language of the work, which doesn't apply to images, I'm ignoring it.)

Anyway, I was just wondering if you could enlighten me on when Wikipedia can and cannot treat images as PD that are PD in their country of origin. That's the bottom line.

Thanks again, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Moshe v. Shlomo: yes, that's correct. (If Moshe's mural was copyrighted in Israel on 1996-01-01, or if it was created later, and Shlomo published the book in the U.S. in 1996 or later.) If Shlomo published his book in the U.S. before 1996, he'd be fine, and Moshe couldn't sue him in the U.S. If Shlomo (or his publisher), however, issued a new printing of that same edition or even a new edition in 1996 or later, they'd be "reliance parties": they've been using Moshe's work without license relying on its PD status, and continued to make unlicensed use of Moshe's work despite its copyright having been restored in 1996. Moshe can sue only if he filed a "Notice of Intent to Enforce" (NIE) his restored copyright within two years since the copyright was restored with the U.S. Copyright Office, or if he serves an NIE on Shlomo (can be done anytime). Shlomo then has one year to sell of his stock of the already produced books. If Shlomo continues to publish the picture, Moshe can sue. If the last printing of Shlomo's book occurred "an appeciable period of time" (whatever that is) before 1996 and he or his publisher then issues a new printing in 1996 or later, they're not reliance parties anymore, and Moshe can sue without serving an NIE.

Basically, this means that we may treat a foreign work as PD in the U.S. if:

• It was published before 1923 (ignoring the 1909 from Twin Books) or 1909, if we want to be hyper-safe.
• Otherwise, if it was published in the U.S. within 30 days from the original foreign publication (17 USC 104A(h)(6)(D); such works are "simultaneously published", they have both the foreign country and the U.S. as countries of origin, c.f. Berne Convention, article 3(4)) and the U.S. copyright has expired (no © notice, or no renewal).
• Otherwise, if it was PD in the foreign source country on 1996-01-01.

If restored, the restored copyright runs for the full period as if all U.S. formalities had been met. That's generally 95 years since publication for pre-1978 works. That even is true if the foreign work has meanwhile—but after 1996—gone out of copyright in its source country.

Note that Golan v. Gonzales challenges the constitutionality of the URAA and has just been sent back to the district court by the Court of Appeals of the 10th circuit. However, 17 USC 104A is still the currently valid legislation, and we should stick to it until a court actually overturns it. Which IMO is unlikely and would take years if it occurred at all (it would certainly go to the Supreme Court if the district indeed declared 104A unconstitutional).

Works ineligible for copyright in their home country are a different kind of fish. It has nothing to do with this mural. The mural is copyrighted in Israel, and so is the photo. "Freedom of panorama" just says that in the case of a work placed permanently at public places, a photo of the work is not a derivative work. Instead, the copyright on the photo is detached and completely independent from the copyright of the mural. Shlomo has a copyright on his photo.

Whether a foreign work that is ineligible to copyright in its foreign source country can be copyrighted in the U.S. (assuming the work passes the U.S. threshold of originality) is a bit unclear to me, but I believe the answer is "yes, it can". This is based on Berne Convention, article 5(2): "such enjoyment and such exercise [of copyrights, Lupo] shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work." and on the Hasbro v. Sparkling Toys case (see Rule of the shorter term; Japanese toys (ineligible in Japan) considered copyrighted in the U.S.; c.f. also William F. Patry's comments on that case given as a reference in the article). But also see "Conflict of law". Lupo 14:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I am clearly not paying you enough. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I glossed over some details. We have a very nifty {{PD-US-1996}} for this (thanks to Haukur). It states four conditions:

• First published before 1978.
  • This covers works created before 1978 but first published afterwards. It's not entirely clear to me whether the strange rule that such works are copyrighted in the U.S. at least until the end of 2047 also applies to foreign pre-1978 works first published abroad after 1978. Haukur opted for the safe date; if we ignored this case, we could use 1989 as the year. (In 1989, the U.S. joined the Berne Convention, and foreign works published since then were granted U.S. copyright automatically as "Berne works".)
• First published outside the U.S.
  • Obvious in this context.
• U.S. formalities not complied with.
  • Covers the case of publication within 30 days in the U.S.: U.S. law applies, hence PD if not renewed or no © notice. Also covers works never published in the U.S., and works published later than 30 days in the U.S.: if those were still copyrighted in 1996, the URAA didn't apply to them and again U.S. law applies.
• PD in source country on 1996-01-01
  • The URAA date. Would be irrelevant for works published within 30 days in the U.S.

For pre-1923 foreign publications, we have {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, also thanks to Haukur. He did an excellent job with these templates. Lupo 20:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

About the French-language Wikipedia and copyrights

Lupo, I vaguely remember hearing something about the French-language Wikipedia and copyrights ... were editors formerly permitted to upload non-encyclopedic photographs (e.g. self-portraits for their user pages), or something to that effect? Or was it on a different project? Or am I totally wacko?  :-P

Anyways, if any of this sounds familiar to you, any info you know would be very appreciated. Or if you haven't heard of this at all do tell me.. Anyways, thank you very much, Iamunknown 23:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I found it, after a bit of searching: fr:Template:Image personnelle. It appears to still be in use. Do you know of any plans (whether fr-wiki- or foundation-) to stop using it? I ask because it seems to be inappropriate per the foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Iamunknown 00:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I had never heard of this, but now that I have seen it, I fully agree with you. It's highly inappropriate and should go ASAP. Wikipedia is not a "home page provider". Contact commons:User:Micheletb, and if he doesn't want to take action, bring it up at foundation-l. Lupo 05:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Victuallers has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or in this case someone chosen at random . Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Frankly said, I think chain letters are stupid, chain e-mails are even worse, and this is just a waste of time. I prefer to show my respect and appreciation of others by collaborating with them on articles. Lupo 13:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

BG

Just out of curiosity, could I ask what piqued your interest in Björn Gunnlaugsson? Haukur 12:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This, which I saw when I posted below. See also here. :-) When I discovered that (a) we didn't have an article on him, and (b) the maps were available at high resolution, I decided to give this a go. User:DGG was so kind to send me Benedikz paper; without that, I wouldn't have gotten far (and missed out on Njóla and Tölvísi). I also seem to have a weakness for surveyors (Andrew Ellicott) or people who undertook such strenuous travels before the 20th century (Paul Kane). :-) Lupo 12:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice! :) Haukur 13:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Menntaskólinn í Reykjavík is a continuation of the Bessastaðir school. Haukur 13:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This 1876 obituary mentions that his portrait had been "stoneprinted" in Copenhagen. So presumably the 1883 Andvari was not its first publication.[1] Haukur 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A rather cute little article by Björn, correcting an error and explaining how to use his map: [2] Haukur 19:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Icelandic names

One thing. Most Icelanders have patronymics rather than family names and this has some consequences that may not be immediately obvious. One of them is that presenting a person's patronymic doesn't really give any more information on them than giving his or her given name. There are many more Bills than there are Clintons but there are just as many Hermannssons as there are Steingrímurs. So it is helpful to give full names rather than just patronymics and initials for the given name.

Also, we don't have a written convention on it but most Wikipedia articles on Icelandic people use their given names rather than patronymics following a previous reference with a full name. See here for an example of how this happens. Not that the way you've done it is really wrong. It's a matter of preference, I suppose. Haukur 17:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I had already noticed that and planned to switch to the Nordic tradition, i.e., use BGs first name instead. The one about the references had escaped me, though. I'll change that, too. Lupo 19:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK, no problem! Haukur 20:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom of panorama

Lupo, I see you around Commons quite a bit with regards to FOP, so I figure soliciting your comment would be appropriate in this case. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom of panorama. --Iamunknown 23:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of this. Lupo 06:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Another xylographist

Inspired by your example I managed to uncover the H.P. Hansen who made this woodcut. Haukur 19:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a whole Hans Peter Hansen category on Commons now :) Haukur 20:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. commons:Category:Engravings by H. P. Hansen... why should you have more luck than I did when I missed commons:Category:Uppdráttr Íslands (1844)? :-) But a nice find; I've added his life dates to the category. Is there a commons:Creator:Hans Peter Hansen yet? Lupo 09:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Páll Melsteð

Tada! Haukur 17:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew you'd be faster than me on this one. :-) I've added a Danish reference (interestingly, his father also was called "Páll Melsteð"). I've also added brief explanations for some of the Icelandic terms to help non-Icelanders understand the text. On Thora, I have to give up: I found only Icelandic references. Lupo 18:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, his father was the original Páll Melsteð, there have been many since then, including one of my best friends - who seems to have the top Google slot at the moment :) It is still considered a bit fancy to have a family name in Iceland, it typically indicates descent from a 19th century aristocrat. Haukur 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

William Gibson

		The Photography Barnstar
		Awarded to all the people here who worked so hard to rescue this image. You'll have to share it, though: everyone gets one slice. :-) Lupo 21:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC). Copied here! -Susanlesch 14:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't feel I deserve it. It's for you guys who got him to relicense as CC-BY-SA. I just deleted it when it was NC. Lupo 15:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC) (For bystanders: see Talk:William Gibson...)

• Lupo, hi. Some people like them some don't. I copied it to the people who worked on it and am about to give myself a copy. Thank you for spreading good cheer that day. -Susanlesch 15:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  I do like the barnstars, don't get me wrong! They're a nice way to tell someone he or she has done something good. But this was given by me to you (and the others), because I thought you people had done very well. I don't think I did very well, though. Mine was just a mechanical "Oh, it's non-commercial: click, and it's gone"-reaction. Lupo 15:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)