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

Saturday

13

July

Archives of older talk are listed on the archives page.

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Harald Naegeli, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 05:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer the images

Actually, the images of electronic tubes that I tagged with OTRS should be transferred to commons. There, I modified the ConfirmationOTRS template so that it talks of the licensing displayed on the page, not of GFDL. Do you want to do the transfer or do I do it? David.Monniaux 19:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a slow link right now, so if you could do it, that'd be great. But unless you move all such images for which we have a permission to the commons, the problem here on en: remains unsolved. Maybe a rewording would still be in order? Maybe a combined tag: GFDL for articles, but mention that for images, the claimed license has been confirmed by the OTRS ticket such and such. Lupo 19:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. David.Monniaux 20:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Lupo 20:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bing

It's very good news: it means that prof. Donahue has no problem with writing it himself, and therefore we may probably expect something much more detailed than our internet searches could produce. I suppose you have already sent him a link to the article and explained to him how to expand it. Perhaps it would also be a good idea to point out to him, just in case he doesn't know this already, that wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can contribute to; being an expert on a subject will not necessarily prevent (anonymous) strangers from editing your text. David Sneek 10:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in that case, I'll proceed by sending him a very carefully worded follow-up message. I just wasn't sure because he sent back such a brief reply and also wasn't sure whether "I would not mind" could, in some idiomatic ways, also mean "I wouldn't/don't care"—you know, similar to the "I could/couldn't care less" snag. BTW, I had not only mentioned Bing, but also the Copeau article and the Vieux-Colombier, and provided links to the Suzanne Bing and Jacques Copeau articles. Lupo 10:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should create a Théâtre du Vieux-Colombier stub? David Sneek 10:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's one of the theatres of the Comédie-Française and mentioned there. If you can put together a stub and link it from the Bing and Copeau pages, that'd be great. Lupo 10:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a shot later today. David Sneek 10:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AlanBeddoe.png

Hi, it looks like the copyright and year are unknown. So it is probably best to just delete it since Crown copyright pictures are not allowed in Wikipedia. --YUL89YYZ 16:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shudders

-) kidding! Yeah... hopefully the fair use amendment I've added will allow us to delete images more easily. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam88

yes, it certainly looks like it (I am a bit uncomfortably with the number 88 I must say, at first I expected another stormfrontie). technically, the ban hasn't quite expired, since he broke it a couple of times, and I think it was supposed to be reset in such a case, but why quibble. I will just consider Adam88 as identical with Antifinnugor, now again with the permission to run into 3RR once a day. dab (ᛏ) 20:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the redirect now. There is really nothing to be discussed here I think. dab (ᛏ) 20:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Districts of Ghana

Thanks for addressing the copyright issue. I've been away from Wikipedia and didn't see your message at User_talk:Gwil until now. In consequence, I seem to have missed the proposal you referred to on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Other. I have no problems with the Districts of Ghana page as it stands now. If you wanted something else, feel free to ask. I'll try to watch my talk page every day for a while. Gwil 22:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've added my comments to the Talk:Districts of Ghana page. Gwil 04:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USSR tag

[1] Hallo Lupo, ich bedaure, dass die Debatte, von der ich jetzt erst erfahren habe, weil ich nicht täglich hier bin, so unerfreulich endete. Dein Löschantrag war voll und ganz berechtigt. Da inzwischen Copyrights talk die zentrale Anlaufstelle ist, bei der man von so kompetenten Nutzern wie Dir rasch Antwort erhält, sollte man vielleicht auf anderen Copyright-Talk-Seiten Hinweise anbringen. Es gibt dort alte Anfragen, die nie beantwortet wurden, obwohl sie an sich nicht uninteressant sind. Sorry for writing German --Historiograf 18:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the moral support! Actually, it did have a positive side: it brought a few editors into the debate (which is still going on at Template talk:PD-USSR), and it brought out some editors who didn't care before, and most of these have shown that indeed they don't care or know anything about copyright. Sometimes, beating the bushes can be quite interesting... Anyway, I'm in a slow-going e-mail discussion with Jean-Baptiste Souffron; I hope he can help figure out a workable rule. I don't ask for a rule that is 100% correct, just one that covers most cases and appears reasonably correct. Sooner or later, that dreadfully wrong "pre-1973" rule will go, but I decided that before taking action again, I'd want to be able to present such a reasonable rule that is preferrably backed by the Foundation's lawyers. I haven't let the issue drop, and I won't. Patience will win the day.

About more pointers to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights... if you feel they are needed, just add them. I do check Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags and also Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Other from time to time, but I know that there are a couple more such pages, yet I just don't have the time to answer everywhere. Also, there are quite a few other Wikipedians who know a lot about copyright around here. Lupo 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nun ich denke, en kann wirklich froh sein, dass du dich so gründlich darum kümmerst. Solltest du irgendwelche Hilfe zu de brauchen, drop me a note. Thanks --Historiograf 03:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

URL placed

Thanks for warning.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Incropera (talk • contribs) 22:21, March 2, 2006 (UTC)

User:Karim2006

I suppose that's within your range of discretion, but I don't think any user account whose first edit (vandalism or not) is to project space could be an actual clueless n00bie. — Mar. 3, '06 [09:54] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

TOC tip

Thanks Lupo for the "TOC tip". I didn't remember me. -- Paul Martin 11:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Entry.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Entry.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Your statement at that image is confusing--was the image released as PD or GFDL or just permission given? Please note that, since our images are available for mirrors, permission-granted images are not allowed here. Thank you. Chick Bowen 23:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't upload that! I just tracked it down and provided the source. As the uploader is a permablocked vandal, I suggest speedying it. Lupo 08:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, Lupo! I was going through a whole lot of suspicious images quickly (by the way, if you're interested, here's my list). I get those templates for similar reasons sometimes and always find it annoying. I have deleted that image and another used in the same article. Chick Bowen 15:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publication of artworks

The overall tenor of the Copyright Office's position seems to be that it is generally impossible for something to be "published" if no copies have ever been made or distributed. If you think about this, it makes some sense. If there's really only the original, then all rights in the work are inherently privately owned and none have been offered to the public (which is one way to think about unpublished vs. published). Using that logic, the position that merely displaying the original does not constitute publication is also understandable.

However, keep in mind that you and I are interpreting the currently applicable law on the matter. For works created earlier in time, the historical state of the law might change the analysis. There's also the difficulty of knowing as a factual matter whether a particular work has ever been published. --Michael Snow 18:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I gave out legal advice, people would start coming and asking me for it, and then I'd have to start charging for it. And in the general sense, I'm reluctant to make statements that amount to saying some category of things is definitely in the public domain. Part of this is that "public domain" really means an absence of copyright protection, and I trust you realize the difficulty usually inherent in trying to prove a negative.

I would differ with part of your interpretation of the 1909 Copyright Act. It did not so much grant (federal) copyright protection to unpublished works as it didn't impair existing protection (under state law). And incidentally, registering a copyright did not necessarily constitute publication, see section 12.

One way of looking at the difference between the 1909 Act regime and that of the 1976 Act is as an extension of federal law in applying to unpublished works (this ties in with dropping the requirement of a copyright notice as well). And though we usually refer to federal law, it's important to keep in mind the possibility of other sources of law that affect copyrights. This used to have somewhat greater significance, and is still used by rightsholders at times, for example with old recordings where the federal copyright regime did not adapt to the issues fast enough to suit them.

Between the duality of the old regime and the reduced significance of publication in the new one, publication is not easy to pin down, although I wouldn't recommend suddenly assuming that old artwork is necessarily unpublished (being on Wikipedia suggests that it probably has been published in some sense at some point). For a synopsis of the situation, consider this now 50-year-old but still insightful quote from the Second Circuit:

Courts apply different tests of publication depending on whether plaintiff is claiming protection because he did not publish and hence has a common law claim of infringement—in which case the distribution must be quite large to constitute 'publication'—or whether he is claiming under the copyright statute—in which case the requirements for publication are quite narrow. In each case the courts appear so to treat the concept of 'publication' as to prevent piracy.

Piracy is a highly technical term meaning "bad copying" which is the opposite of "good copying" aka authorized reproduction or fair use. When you're looking at the potential for result-oriented law, it's hard to give you simple mechanical predictability of outcomes. So it may be that Wikipedia's culture and public image, which needs to be that of a good project with respect for copyrights, has comparable importance to the challenge of figuring out the technicalities. --Michael Snow 04:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is not as clear-cut as I would have hoped. If a painting was never digitized until after 1996, is it an "unpublished work"? If a painting was photographed with concent of the artist, and that photograph was presented (in a flyer, say, or a textbook), is that the first publication? Does it depend on the intent of the copyright holder, as Michael Snow seems to show above? Copyright law was certainly not written with Wikipedia's ease in mind. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly wasn't! :-) But what does 1996 have to with all this? And if it was digitized and posted on a web site (say, of a museum), is that then (first) "publication"? If so, who would hold the copyright? (Unpublished works published 1978 - 2002 are copyrighted until the later of 2047 or 70 years p.m.a!) The museum or web site owner? The artist or his/her heirs? Do museums ask the artists or their estates before putting up digitized versions of their holdings? Or do they usually also acquire the copyrights? Owning the canvas doesn't mean they owned the copyright... this is getting awfully complicated. I'm almost sorry I asked—I am getting confused. (But applying 70y p.m.a. is probably still a good rule of thumb for Wikipedia, I think.) Lupo 15:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About 1996, I meant 2003 - I got my years mixed up. If a work was created by an author who died in 1935 or earlier, but the work was first published in 2003 or later, then it's considered an "unpublished work" and in the public domain. About the others, I have no idea. Does anyone know someone who had artwork exhibited in the 1930s or 1940s? Or an art museum curator from that period? I guess 70y pma is fine as an intirim guideline. (Incidently, the {{PD-art}} tag currently states that the author died more than 100 years ago, which seems a bit restrictive. But the PD-art tag on the Commons says 70 years. Go figure.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary and further discussion at Wikipedia tak:Public domain#Artwork. Lupo 08:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He removed my comments

and that pissed me off. If you know him ask him to play straight. =Bhannu 13:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]