User talk:Jkelly

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (September 2 2005 to November 7 2005)
• Archive 2 (November 7 2005 to January 8 2006)
• Archive 3 (January 10 2006 to March 10 2006)
• Archive 4 (March 11 2006 to May 1 2006)
• Archive 5 (May 2 2006 to June 23 2006)
• Archive 6 (June 23 2006 to August 5 2006)

---

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#August 4 - Image:Body everywhere.jpg

Mib has responded by providing a secondary source. However there is already a secondary source listed on the picture's entry. What the picture needs is primary source evidence to justify the fair use tag that was originally in place - am I correct? John Smith's 00:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I also have some websites that refute the status of the picture. Take a look if you would like to learn more about the problems with them. [1][2] John Smith's 12:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion has got rather messy. I'm not sure what to do now. What's your opinion? John Smith's 22:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What would happen after the discussion is moved? You said that it has been confirmed the picture is unfree, so what does that mean for the deletion process? I'm just a bit confused here, that's all. John Smith's 22:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. The only issue is that I'm sure Mib isn't going to agree it isn't fair use. As he is an administrator, how can the issue be resolved?

On first glance, I'm not sure how it can be fair-use. After all, it doesn't really serve any purpose other than that people died during the Sino-Japanese war - during the Nanking Massacre if it is accepted to be part of those events. Any other picture indicating the deaths of Chinese could be used instead. John Smith's 22:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As an administrator, what happens if Miborovsky refuses to admit the picture is not fair use? The same applies to those pictures that I listed on WP:IFD. Is there a different group of administrators that decide on what to do with pictures, or can he block/revert any deletion? I just have a bad feeling he isn't going to let this dispute go. He's making snide comments again, this time on WP:IFD. John Smith's 09:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think Miborovsky and myself have hit a stone wall. We can't agree, so we really need a more impartial view to help decide whether the picture is fair use or not. John Smith's 11:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC re use of computer icons

Hi, could you swing by Talk:Dark Castle if you have time? The discussion concerns use of software computer icons for identifying a product in addition to packaging art, which seems to be bordering on excessive. Thank you. Combination 10:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Correllian Nativist Church article...

hi there

i hope my revisions to the Correllian Nativist Church talk page have been helpful. When would it be appropriate for me to move the revisions to the actual article itself?

thanks, Htwicce333 19:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say go ahead and be bold. Jkelly 19:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks!!! Htwicce333 19:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Image Image:Anti-War Exhibition in Place de l'Étoile Beirut.jpg

Jkelly, you deleted the copyrighted image Image:Anti-War Exhibition in Place de l'Étoile Beirut.jpg, citing "WP:CSD I3 -- incompatible license (no derivative use)," yet WP:CSD I3 says ""No commercial use" or "by permission" images uploaded after target date." The permission to use this image by the copyright holder has no such restrictions. This appears to be a disconnect -- would you please clarify? AdamKesher 02:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

...

why did you say that about my best article? it is awesome. it is one of the best i have done man.Brohanska 05:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Image

Please look at the history and discussion pertaining to Image:Gandhi Boer War 1899.jpg. All source information etc has been available since the day of uploading. Regards, 67.20.232.184 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

Hi. I responded to your original point on Image:Body everywhere.jpg. I can't see how it is fair use, because it shows alleged events of the Nanking Massacres, not a specific massacre, etc. It would be like taking a single picture of an athlete running a race, when others had been taken, and saying that because it showed a particular snap-shot of the race it couldn't be replaced. In reality, you could show another picture from a few seconds later. John Smith's 18:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Licorice

Judging from his/her contributions, this is probably a prankster to be blocked (nice try, though). In fact, in the article licorice there is a reference to Macedonia and to the licorice historian Alvin Hosenfeld, but this guy seems to have never existed and, therefore, we are probably dealing with a wiki hoax. Politis 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

Why have you listed

• SLebanon-gasStation.jpg
• EL-KHIAM-UN-PHOTO.jpg
• IsraeliForeignMinistry-HumanitarianCorridors2006.jpg

as copyright problems? I received permission from the author of the images to use them on wikipedia! Didnt you read that on the image tagging? 82.29.227.171 21:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert the edits I made to the images? Do not vandalise the copyright material on the photographs understand? Mema435 22:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As it clearly states on the image summary for the images you vandalised I asked for and received permission from the creator of the photographs via Flickr, the creator has waived their copyright. Did you not read that in the image summary? Mema435 22:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So the images are incorrectly tagged meaning that you, instead of advising on tags, you report them all as 'copyright violations'? I will contact the creator of the images currently hosting on flickr and meantime tag them

For other uses, see User talk:Jkelly (disambiguation).

For the content guidelines regarding the use of public domain content on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Public domain.

Public domain icon, which is in the public domain itself

The public domain (PD) consists of all the creative work to which no exclusive intellectual property rights apply. Those rights may have expired, been forfeited, expressly waived, or may be inapplicable. Because no one holds the exclusive rights, anyone can legally use or reference those works without permission.

As examples, the works of William Shakespeare, Ludwig van Beethoven, Miguel de Cervantes, Zoroaster, Lao Zi, Confucius, Aristotle, L. Frank Baum, Leonardo da Vinci and Georges Méliès are in the public domain either by virtue of their having been created before copyright existed, or by their copyright term having expired. Some works are not covered by a country's copyright laws, and are therefore in the public domain; for example, in the United States, items excluded from copyright include the formulae of Newtonian physics and cooking recipes. Other works are actively dedicated by their authors to the public domain (see waiver); examples include reference implementations of cryptographic algorithms, and the image-processing software ImageJ (created by the National Institutes of Health). The term public domain is not normally applied to situations where the creator of a work retains residual rights, in which case use of the work is referred to as "under license" or "with permission".

As rights vary by country and jurisdiction, a work may be subject to rights in one country and be in the public domain in another. Some rights depend on registrations on a country-by-country basis, and the absence of registration in a particular country, if required, gives rise to public-domain status for a work in that country. The term public domain may also be interchangeably used with other imprecise or undefined terms such as the public sphere or commons, including concepts such as the "commons of the mind", the "intellectual commons", and the "information commons".

History

Although the term domain did not come into use until the mid-18th century, the concept can be traced back to the ancient Roman law, "as a preset system included in the property right system". The Romans had a large proprietary rights system where they defined "many things that cannot be privately owned" as res nullius, res communes, res publicae and res universitatis. The term res nullius was defined as things not yet appropriated. The term res communes was defined as "things that could be commonly enjoyed by mankind, such as air, sunlight and ocean." The term res publicae referred to things that were shared by all citizens, and the term res universitatis meant things that were owned by the municipalities of Rome. When looking at it from a historical perspective, one could say the construction of the idea of "public domain" sprouted from the concepts of res communes, res publicae, and res universitatis in early Roman law.

When the first early copyright law was originally established in Britain with the Statute of Anne in 1710, public domain did not appear. However, similar concepts were developed by British and French jurists in the 18th century. Instead of "public domain", they used terms such as publici juris or propriété publique to describe works that were not covered by copyright law.

The phrase "fall in the public domain" can be traced to mid-19th-century France to describe the end of copyright term. The French poet Alfred de Vigny equated the expiration of copyright with a work falling "into the sink hole of public domain" and if the public domain receives any attention from intellectual property lawyers it is still treated as little more than that which is left when intellectual property rights, such as copyright, patents, and trademarks, expire or are abandoned. In this historical context Paul Torremans describes copyright as a, "little coral reef of private right jutting up from the ocean of the public domain." Copyright law differs by country, and the American legal scholar Pamela Samuelson has described the public domain as being "different sizes at different times in different countries".

Definition

Newton's own copy of his Principia, with hand-written corrections for the second edition

Definitions of the boundaries of the public domain in relation to copyright, or intellectual property more generally, regard the public domain as a negative space; that is, it consists of works that are no longer in copyright term or were never protected by copyright law. According to James Boyle this definition underlines common usage of the term public domain and equates the public domain to public property and works in copyright to private property. However, the usage of the term public domain can be more granular, including for example uses of works in copyright permitted by copyright exceptions. Such a definition regards work in copyright as private property subject to fair use rights and limitation on ownership. A conceptual definition comes from Lange, who focused on what the public domain should be: "it should be a place of sanctuary for individual creative expression, a sanctuary conferring affirmative protection against the forces of private appropriation that threatened such expression". Patterson and Lindberg described the public domain not as a "territory", but rather as a concept: "[T]here are certain materials – the air we breathe, sunlight, rain, space, life, creations, thoughts, feelings, ideas, words, numbers – not subject to private ownership. The materials that compose our cultural heritage must be free for all living to use no less than matter necessary for biological survival." The term public domain may also be interchangeably used with other imprecise or undefined terms such as the public sphere or commons, including concepts such as the "commons of the mind", the "intellectual commons", and the "information commons".

Public domain by medium

Books

A public-domain book is a book with no copyright, a book that was created without a license, or a book where its copyrights expired or have been forfeited.

In most countries the term of protection of copyright expires on the first day of January, 70 years after the death of the latest living author. The longest copyright term is in Mexico, which has life plus 100 years for all deaths since July 1928.

A notable exception is the United States, where every book and tale published before 1929 is in the public domain; US copyrights last for 95 years for books originally published between 1929 and 1978 if the copyright was properly registered and maintained.

For example: the works of Jane Austen, Lewis Carroll, Machado de Assis, Olavo Bilac and Edgar Allan Poe are in the public domain worldwide as they all died over 100 years ago.

Project Gutenberg, the Internet Archive and Wikisource make tens of thousands of public domain books available online as ebooks.

Music

People have been creating music for millennia. The first musical notation system, the Music of Mesopotamia system, was created 4,000 years ago. Guido of Arezzo introduced Latin musical notation in the 10th century. This laid the foundation for the preservation of global music in the public domain, a distinction formalized alongside copyright systems in the 17th century. Musicians copyrighted their publications of musical notation as literary writings, but performing copyrighted pieces and creating derivative works were not restricted by early copyright laws. Copying was widespread, in compliance with the law, but expansions of those laws intended to benefit literary works and responding to commercial music recording technology's reproducibility have led to stricter rules. Relatively recently, a normative view that copying in music is not desirable and lazy has become popular among professional musicians.

US copyright laws distinguish between musical compositions and sound recordings, the former of which refers to melody, notation or lyrics created by a composer or lyricist, including sheet music, and the latter referring to a recording performed by an artist, including a CD, LP, or digital sound file. Musical compositions fall under the same general rules as other works, and anything published before 1925 is considered public domain. Sound recordings, on the other hand, are subject to different rules and are not eligible for public domain status until 2021–2067, depending on the date and location of publishing, unless explicitly released beforehand.

The Musopen project records music in the public domain for the purposes of making the music available to the general public in a high-quality audio format. Online musical archives preserve collections of classical music recorded by Musopen and offer them for download/distribution as a public service.

Films

Main article: Public domain film

The 1968 horror film Night of the Living Dead is public domain in the United States because its theatrical distributor failed to place a copyright indication on the prints, as would have been required to obtain a copyright at that time.

A public-domain film is a film that was never under copyright, was released to public domain by its author, or whose copyright has expired.

Value

Pamela Samuelson has identified eight "values" that can arise from information and works in the public domain.

Possible values include:

1. Building blocks for the creation of new knowledge, examples include data, facts, ideas, theories, and scientific principle.
2. Access to cultural heritage through information resources such as ancient Greek texts and Mozart's symphonies.
3. Promoting education, through the spread of information, ideas, and scientific principles.
4. Enabling follow-on innovation, through for example expired patents and copyright.
5. Enabling low cost access to information without the need to locate the owner or negotiate rights clearance and pay royalties, through for example expired copyrighted works or patents, and non-original data compilation.
6. Promoting public health and safety, through information and scientific principles.
7. Promoting the democratic process and values, through news, laws, regulation, and judicial opinion.
8. Enabling competitive imitation, through for example expired patents and copyright, or publicly disclosed technologies that do not qualify for patent protection.

Relationship with derivative works

Main article: Derivative work

Derivative works include translations, musical arrangements, and dramatizations of a work, as well as other forms of transformation or adaptation. Copyrighted works may not be used for derivative works without permission from the copyright owner, while public domain works can be freely used for derivative works without permission. Artworks that are public domain may also be reproduced photographically or artistically or used as the basis of new, interpretive works. Works derived from public domain works can be copyrighted.

Once works enter into the public domain, derivative works such as adaptations in book and film may increase noticeably, as happened with Frances Hodgson Burnett's novel The Secret Garden, which became public domain in the US in 1977 and most of the rest of the world in 1995. By 1999, the plays of Shakespeare, all public domain, had been used in more than 420 feature-length films. In addition to straightforward adaptation, they have been used as the launching point for transformative retellings such as Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead and Troma Entertainment's Tromeo and Juliet. Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q. is a derivative of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, one of thousands of derivative works based on the public domain painting. The 2018 film A Star is Born is a remake of the 1937 film of the same name, which is in the public domain due to an unrenewed copyright.

Perpetual copyright

Main article: Perpetual copyright

In some countries, certain works may never fully lapse into the public domain. In the United Kingdom, for example, there is a perpetual crown copyright for the Authorized King James Version of the Bible.

While the copyright has expired for the Peter Pan works by J. M. Barrie (the play Peter Pan, or the Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up and the novel Peter and Wendy) in the United Kingdom, it was granted a special exception under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Schedule 6) that requires royalties to be paid for commercial performances, publications and broadcasts of the story of Peter Pan within the UK, as long as Great Ormond Street Hospital (to whom Barrie gave the copyright) continues to exist.

In a paying public domain regime, works that have entered the public domain after their copyright has expired, or traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions that have never been subject to copyright, are still subject to royalties payable to the state or to an authors' association. The user does not have to seek permission to copy, present or perform the work, but does have to pay the fee. Typically the royalties are directed to support of living artists.

Public domain mark

Main article: Public Domain Mark

Creative Commons' Public Domain Mark

In 2010, The Creative Commons proposed the Public Domain Mark (PDM) as symbol to indicate that a work is free of known copyright restrictions and therefore in the public domain. The public domain mark is a combination of the copyright symbol, which acts as copyright notice, with the international 'no' symbol. The Europeana databases use it, and for instance on the Wikimedia Commons in February 2016 2.9 million works (~10% of all works) are listed with the mark.

Application to copyrightable works

Works not covered by copyright law

The underlying idea that is expressed or manifested in the creation of a work generally cannot be the subject of copyright law (see idea–expression divide). Mathematical formulae will therefore generally form part of the public domain, to the extent that their expression in the form of software is not covered by copyright.

Works created before the existence of copyright and patent laws also form part of the public domain. For example, the Bible and the inventions of Archimedes are in the public domain. However, translations or new formulations of these works may be copyrighted in themselves.

Expiration of copyright

Determination of whether a copyright has expired depends on an examination of the copyright in its source country.

In most countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention, copyright term is based on the life of the author, and extends to 50 or 70 years beyond the death of the author. (See List of countries' copyright lengths.)

In the United States, determining whether a work has entered the public domain or is still under copyright depends upon what the law or regulation was at creation, and whether new regulations have grandfathered in certain older works. Because copyright terms shifted over the course of the 20th century from a fixed-term based on first publication, with a possible renewal term, to a term extending to 50, then 70, years after the death of the author. The claim that "pre-1929 works are in the public domain" is correct only for published works; unpublished works are under federal copyright for at least the life of the author plus 70 years.

Legal traditions differ on whether a work in the public domain can have its copyright restored. In the European Union, the Copyright Duration Directive was applied retroactively, restoring and extending the terms of copyright on material previously in the public domain. Term extensions by the US and Australia generally have not removed works from the public domain, but rather delayed the addition of works to it. However, the United States moved away from that tradition with the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which removed from the public domain many foreign-sourced works that had previously not been in copyright in the US for failure to comply with US-based formalities requirements. Consequently, in the US, foreign-sourced works and US-sourced works are now treated differently, with foreign-sourced works remaining under copyright regardless of compliance with formalities, while domestically sourced works may be in the public domain if they failed to comply with then-existing formalities requirements—a situation described as odd by some scholars, and unfair by some US-based rightsholders.

The Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen, a German art museum, sued Wikimedia Commons in 2016 over photographs uploaded to the database depicting pieces of art in the museum. The museum claimed that the photos were taken by their staff, and that photography within the museum by visitors was prohibited. Therefore, photos taken by the museum, even of material that itself had fallen into the public domain, were protected by copyright law and would need to be removed from the Wikimedia image repository. The court ruled that the photographs taken by the museum would be protected under the German Copyright Act, stating that since the photographer needed to make practical decisions about the photograph that it was protected material. The Wikimedia volunteer was ordered to remove the images from the site, as the museum's policy had been violated when the photos were taken.

Government works

Works of various governments around the world may be excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain in their respective countries. They may also be in the public domain in other countries as well. The legal scholar Melville Nimmer has written that "it is axiomatic that material in the public domain is not protected by copyright, even when incorporated into a copyrighted work".

Dedicating works to the public domain

Release without copyright notice

Before 1 March 1989, in the US, works could be easily given into the public domain by just releasing it without an explicit copyright notice. With the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (and the earlier Copyright Act of 1976, which went into effect in 1978), all works were by default copyright protected and needed to be actively given into public domain by a waiver statement/anti-copyright can call notice. Not all legal systems have processes for reliably donating works to the public domain, e.g. civil law of continental Europe. This may even "effectively prohibit any attempt by copyright owners to surrender rights automatically conferred by law, particularly moral rights".

Public-domain-like licenses

Main article: Public-domain-equivalent license

An alternative is for copyright holders to issue a license which irrevocably grants as many rights as possible to the general public. Real public domain makes licenses unnecessary, as no owner/author is required to grant permission ("Permission culture"). There are multiple licenses which aim to release works into the public domain. In 2000 the WTFPL was released as a public domain like software license. Creative Commons (created in 2002 by Lawrence Lessig, Hal Abelson, and Eric Eldred) has introduced several public-domain-like licenses, called Creative Commons licenses. These give authors of works (that would qualify for copyright) the ability to decide which protections they would like to place on their material. As copyright is the default license for new material, Creative Commons licenses offer authors a variety of options to designate their work under whichever license they wish, as long as this does not violate standing copyright law. For example, a CC BY license allows for re-users to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon material, while also agreeing to provide attribution to the author in any of these cases. In 2009 the Creative Commons released the CC0, which was created for compatibility with law domains which have no concept of dedicating into public domain. This is achieved by a public domain waiver statement and a fallback all-permissive license, in case the waiver is not possible. Unlike in the US, where author's moral rights are generally not specifically regulated, in some countries where moral rights are protected separately in law it is not possible to waive those rights, but only the rights related to the exploitation of the work. A solution to this issue (as found in the Creative Commons Zero dedication) is to interpret the license by setting "three different layers of action. First, the right holder waives any copyright and related rights that can be waived in accordance with the applicable law. Secondly, if there are rights that the right holder cannot waive under applicable law, they are licensed in a way that mirrors as closely as possible the legal effect of a waiver. And finally, if there are any rights that the right holders cannot waive or license, they affirm that they will not exercise them and they will not assert any claim with respect to the use of the work, once again within the limits of applicable law. (...) In countries where moral rights exist but where they can be waived or not asserted, they are waived if asserted (e.g. the UK). In countries where they cannot be waived they will remain into full effect in accordance to the applicable law (think of France, Spain or Italy where moral rights cannot be waived)." The same occurs in Switzerland.

The Unlicense, published around 2010, has a focus on an anti-copyright message. The Unlicense offers a public domain waiver text with a fallback public domain-like license inspired by permissive licenses but without attribution. Another option is the Zero Clause BSD license, released in 2006 and aimed at software.

In October 2014, the Open Knowledge Foundation recommends the Creative Commons CC0 license to dedicate content to the public domain, and the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL) for data.

Patents

Main article: Term of patent

In most countries, the term of rights for patents is 20 years, after which the invention becomes part of the public domain. In the United States, the contents of patents are considered valid and enforceable for 20 years from the date of filing within the United States or 20 years from the earliest date of filing if under 35 USC 120, 121, or 365(c). However, the text and any illustration within a patent, provided the illustrations are essentially line drawings and do not in any substantive way reflect the "personality" of the person drawing them, are not subject to copyright protection. This is separate from the patent rights just mentioned.

Trademarks

A trademark registration may remain in force indefinitely, or expire without specific regard to its age. For a trademark registration to remain valid, the owner must continue to use it. In some circumstances, such as disuse, failure to assert trademark rights, or common usage by the public without regard for its intended use, it could become generic, and therefore part of the public domain.

Because trademarks are registered with governments, some countries or trademark registries may recognize a mark, while others may have determined that it is generic and not allowable as a trademark in that registry. For example, the drug acetylsalicylic acid (2-acetoxybenzoic acid) is better known as aspirin in the United States—a generic term. In Canada, however, Aspirin, with an uppercase A, is still a trademark of the German company Bayer, while aspirin, with a lowercase "a", is not. Bayer lost the trademark in the United States, the UK and France after World War I, as part of the Treaty of Versailles. So many copycat products entered the marketplace during the war that it was deemed generic just three years later.

Informal uses of trademarks are not covered by trademark protection. For example, Hormel, producer of the canned meat product Spam, does not object to informal use of the word "spam" in reference to unsolicited commercial email. However, it has fought attempts by other companies to register names including the word 'spam' as a trademark in relation to computer products, despite that Hormel's trademark is only registered in reference to food products (a trademark claim is made within a particular field). Such defences have failed in the United Kingdom.

Public Domain Day

Main article: Public Domain Day

An English logo of the 2023/2024 Public Domain Day

Public Domain Day is an observance of when copyrights expire and works enter into the public domain. This legal transition of copyright works into the public domain usually happens every year on 1 January based on the individual copyright laws of each country.

Visual created for Public Domain Day. Features Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, as it is famously part of the public domain

The observance of a "Public Domain Day" was initially informal; the earliest known mention was in 2004 by Wallace McLean (a Canadian public domain activist), with support for the idea echoed by Lawrence Lessig. As of 1 January 2010, a Public Domain Day website lists the authors whose works are entering the public domain. There are activities in countries around the world by various organizations all under the banner Public Domain Day.

See also

• Public records
• Center for the Study of the Public Domain
• Copyfraud
• Copyleft
• Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States
• Copyright Term Extension Act
• Eldred v. Ashcroft
• Fair dealing
• Free-culture movement
• Free software
• Freedom of panorama
• Limitations and exceptions to copyright
• List of countries' copyright lengths
• List of films in the public domain in the United States
• Millar v Taylor
• Orphan works
• Paying public domain
• Protection of Classics
• Public Domain Enhancement Act
• Public domain image resources
• Public domain in the United States
• Public domain software
• Rule of the shorter term

External links

• Center for the Study of the Public Domain, Duke University
• Communia, internet association on the digital public domain

then ammend the copyright details on the foreign ministry image to that appearing here [3] Mema435 22:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I updated each image you wrongly labeled 'copyright violations' to read that the author has waived their rights. I will also ask them to send email ala [4]. It is a shame you didnt mention this before here where you raised the issue [5].

I updated the Israeli foreign ministry picture with a new tag and rationale per the IDF image- same law applies. Mema435 22:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote to him/her saying: "Hello, Is it possible I can use some of your images for wikipedia articles? The articles are about bombing in lebanon on civilian areas. A problem is that only images available are press agency and they are restricted on wikipedia due to copyright. I'm hoping you can waive the copyright on some of your images to allow them to be uploaded to wikicommons- full credit to you as photographer and your web presence will be given. Is it possible?"

The user wrote back: "sure. be my guest. M" So they appear ok with it, then I wrote to them explaining where the images were: "That is very kind of you, thanks. I have placed some of the images you created in these articles: [6] and [7] You can of course remove or delete the image at any time and I will also do this for you if needed. Credit has been given to you as 'Masser' with a link to flickr. Thanks again"

Mema435 23:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I understand that and have written to them explaining and providing the link to [8] asking that they fill it in and send it off if they agree to the T&C. I'm pretty sure that UN picture is also ok and i notice that the UN picture of kofi annan is also UN picture so I will update the picture of the base with that rationale. Mema435 23:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand, the fair use policy states "we must permit some non-free material for critical commentary". There are no other images to represent the destruction of the base that im aware of that can do that nevermind any that are free. The photo in the UN article of the base prior to the attacks is probably also originally a UN photo. Mema435 23:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, the author has changed the license on the respective Flickr images to by-nc-sa CreativeCommons [9]. Is it ok to change the tags on the images hosted at wikipedia to CC-BY-SA? Mema435 13:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To test this I put another image at Car&roadBeirut2006.jpg, please look it over and let me know if this is the way to proceed. Thank you. Mema435 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Great, Thanks for your help. Sorry for getting upset about the images. I understand it better now and have sourced a few more to put on commons- will plough ahead with that now. Mema435 17:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the Masser photographer agreed to sharealike license for those specific photos so I uploaded them all again with correct licensing. Mema435 12:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Image Names

I think it is more in line wihtWikipedia guidelines to first ask permission befoe you upload somebod ele's photo to Wikimdia commons. You can do it legally, but it's uncourteous - and we reallyneed to try and pay each other respect and courtes. Lastly, rnaming the name of a photo that I, THE PHOTOGRAPHER, named, is bad form, because you were not thereand I was, and I named the photo perfectly what it should be named. I make a request, that you do not re name photos for which you WERE NOT AN EYEWITNESS. It's fine fr photos 100 years ago, etc., but that rally was NOT over Qana;Qana was just the straw that broke thecamel' back. I named it was most accuratl named. Thank you. --DavidShankBone 05:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have purposely licensed my photographs so that they can be edited and used by others. What I took exception to (in a garbled message when it was very late) was renaming an image--on a controversial topic--that wasn't an accurate name, and then re-uploading it onto that controversy's page. I don't grasp the value you saw in that; perhaps it was to put the date in. I don't think I would typically care--say, if you took my CompaySegundoHotelNacional.JPG and renamed it "CompanySegundoPlaying Guitar" or something. I apologize for my tone above and I purposely didn't edit it because it shows I was tired (and had come home after a night out...). But on some of the more controversial topics, you may want to think twice before renaming photos. Otherwise, after having looked at your contributions, I'd like to say, Keep up the good work.--DavidShankBone 16:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to upload any of my photos to Wikimedia Commons and you are welcome to put the dates in, as well. You can change the titles if you think there is a more accurate reflection of the photograph. Thanks again for your efforts on cleaning up the site; yes--add some images; landmarks and other features in the area you live is a fun project, I'm finding. For the first time since a 5th Grade class trip, I'm a New York tourist. --DavidShankBone 16:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't really taken a look at the Commons, but I will do so. I've enjoyed exploring buildings, trying to find nooks and crannies and artwork. I never replace photos (though I may shrink them if they aren't as good, and move them around). New York hospitals are on my list of "To Do", but taken from that same day was the Beth Israel Medical Center in Union Square: Image:UnionSquareBethIsrael.JPG Wait until I begin my authors series (a lot of authors do readings at bookstores here, and few of them have photos on their entries). I have a packed schedule this month. Gay Talese, Tommy Chong, Jennifer Egan, Wendy Williams.... --DavidShankBone 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

J Kelly eh?

Pardon me for asking, but your name popped up on the Wikipedia Signpost and I just have to ask: does the J by any chance stand for "Jennifer"? —this is messedrocker (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then you're not someone I know. —this is messedrocker (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: discussion

Are you in the proces of moving the discussions to the talk page? If so i will not revert you.. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nm, noticed you did it a couple of seconds after i sent message. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Randallflaggandmordreddt7.jpg

I reuploaded it under a different name. After howcheng deleted it, I discussed it with him, and he told me to reupload it for discussion. I have sent a message to artist Michael Whelan to see if having images is a problem. If it is, I will remove it. I have talked to him before so I know I should get a response.--CyberGhostface 23:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? That was made from a customizable template for images that don't follow the blanket preestablished categories.--CyberGhostface 23:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Image copyright problem with Image:QanaII.jpg

I formally asked for and received permission from the copyright holder to use that image. Now, just tell me what to do in order to keep it as i still have the permission? -- Szvest 09:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Benzmit

Howdy, thanks for the note the other day regarding tagging the recent uploads of Benzmit (talk • contribs). Unfortunately, it appears s/he is back at it again, with another 50 or so images, many of which are obviously not free, (they seem to all be tagged {{self2}}): see Image:Cardsharp1977-img427x600-11550098083.jpg or Image:New mann.jpg. I could go though them and list them at WP:PUI, however this seems like more an issue of willfully ignoring correct tags (s/he's been warned about this before) and fairly clear cut incorrect tagging. What would you suggest as a course of action? Many thanks, --TeaDrinker 08:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

General question about fair-use policy

I'm having some difficulty finding a photo for my FAC on Hilary Putnam. I have emailed him and asked for permission to use his image under the GDFL, bit have not received a response yet. Is it permissible to use a book-cover, as in the case of W.V.O. Quine, with a fair-use rationale of some sort??--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ketuanan Melayu

Someone mentioned your name in connection with this article's FAC and its images. Since the objector never bothered to respond to my request for clarification, I thought I'd drop you a line. Johnleemk | Talk 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to clarify the copyright status of the first image many moons ago (last year actually), but the source (Jeff Ooi) did not return my emails. I contacted the editors of Malaysiakini, who are connected to Ooi and the local journalism community, but they said they've never seen such a version of the photo before. Would it be safe to say that Ooi holds the copyright? I'll try to see if the textbook I scanned Image:Protest against Malayan Union.jpg from credits the copyright owner. As for Image:Gerakan celebrate after 1969 election.jpg, it likely belongs to the Gerakan party, since it came from their official website. I don't know how we can address Image:Bumi discount mod.jpg, but it depicts a typical real estate advertisement for the purposes of discussing economic policies, so I'm not sure how it could be substituted with text. Johnleemk | Talk 14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem

Hello again, you are the only admin ive encountered so far. Do you know what the procedure is when confronted with an edit war? There is a used here that is continually reverting despite opposition to his changes, I am using the user User Talk:RandomGalen to edit there and have tried to canvas some support for the nondeletion of the detail but the user continues to engage in edit warfare. Mema435 11:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

Incidentally, I'm tempted to write one of these things. A nice short one; "Please make sure that none of the images in your "best of Wikipedia" work are candidates for speedy deletion. It's really only about two minutes of effort." Jkelly 01:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but then how are you going to get image dummies like me to figure out which images are candidates for speedy deletion? <grin> It won't compute. Sandy 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical heraldry

I see you tagged the two images for deletion. They are the only two eastern coats of arms I could find on wiki. I found the source for the more critical one. What do I need to do here? Gimmetrow 01:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So you are basically saying I need to paint one myself and scan it? I bought up the two eastern images at the start of the FA, then again in the middle, and was told that "2-3 fair use images are fine." So I feel somewhat offended by this. Gimmetrow 01:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you did post that immediately after commenting on my FAC. Sequence is not causality but I'm sure you understand the inference. Anyway, I have spent quite a bit of time going through the COA images here and commons, and haven't found anything else to work with. Some of the categories are my work-product, even. The difficulty with these arms is that they use the "robe of estate" or manteau; that alone is rare enough that I doubt heraldry software supports it. Then there would be the appropriate hat, etc.Gimmetrow 01:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I must say, the fair use policies and image tagging systems seem too inscrutably byzantine even for me. The pages are difficult to find and not well connected. I guess I'll try to find an image in a book published before 1923. That would work right? Would coats of arms of a state church fall under public domain as official seals of a state authority for certain Slavic countries? While I'm here, I asked on WP:AN for someone to review Image:GLKStamps.jpg after the clearing of fair use stamp images, but saw no response. It's been tagged for deletion three times, but the stamp people apparently don't like using {{Stamp}} for unofficial stamps. Uploader seems to think it is public domain, but I have doubts. Gimmetrow 03:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

While the Serbian image was serving double duty, I've removed both of the offending images. I had been trying to get mostly newer books since much changed in the 1960s and 1970s. It will take time for requests for older books to come through. I would rather not hold up the FAC for this, as it has adequate pictures at the moment. I guarantee any future images added to the article will be PD (probably PD-old), and will notify you for review if you wish.

I am also considering drawing/painting some images myself. If so, I would want attribution and the exclusion of derivative works. Before I put in the time painting, is there a license that guarantees attribution and forbids further modifications (except maybe cropping and lower-resolution images)? Gimmetrow 15:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Text is easy to change, the WP system couldn't have a non-derivative license there. It's unfortunate WP doesn't allow non-derivative licenses for images though. When you have a chance could you point me to some explanation of why? Next question, it turns out there are a few old polish heraldry books that were reprinted, some completely and some with plates of the original diagram pages. The original books are old; are they PD? What about reproductions of the complete pages in other books? Gimmetrow 21:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Harper

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Steveharper-outlook.jpg

What evidence would be sufficient?

CalgaryTower 02:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a scanned copy from the archives of the youth association (probably one of the few copies left in existence). The original is sitting on my shelf. CalgaryTower 03:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The original photograph belongs to the Alberta PC Youth Association. Couldn't say who the original photographer was (seeing as it was taken over 20 years ago), but photo itself is owned by the Alberta PC Youth, which does not assert any claims of ownership over it. You could contact the youth group directly for verification. CalgaryTower 03:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If this continues to be unsatisfactory, perhaps you could suggest a better tag. CalgaryTower 03:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you got it. The photographer released the rights to the youth group, who released the rights years and years ago (probably at least 10-15 years ago). The current youth president (Dave McColl) can be contacted at PC Alberta Calgary Office, Phone: 403-244-8528. CalgaryTower 03:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Jzg's page

Don't know if I should give any more mention to it on AN/I, but see also 64.34.168.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Garion96 (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bagan.png

Hi, the image is the Burmese characters for the city of Bagan in Burma. Thanks. Kirkland1 16:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Peacekeeping photos

Why did you replace the photos for the Peacekeeping article? As was stated on each image page, the UN permits non-commercial use that credits the UN (it states so here). --Tjss(Talk) 17:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Reality TV

Kelly, could you weigh in here with an opinion. I'd like to get an idea of a consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Reality_Telvision_Contestants --DavidShankBone 22:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)