User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Sfan00 IMG/Archive 19

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Perplexed

Thanks for your message about my picture of St. Barbara at the Church of Santa Barbara Librari. I can't imagine what else I could do to clarify the copyright status of this photograph. I have declared myself to be the photographer, used one of those give-up-copyright things, included the fact that the underlying statue is more than 100 years old (to be specific, I noted that it is from the 17th century). So what is the problem?

Dickstracke (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)dickstracke[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For transcribing an OCRed translation of Iliad and contributing to that sum of human knowledge thingie, you get a barnstar! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:NguyenTuongVan mugshot.jpg

Hello. I noticed that File:NguyenTuongVan mugshot.jpg is attempting to transclude a non-existent template {{Non-free use in}}. I was going to simply remove this from the page, but then I realized the file would still be left without a license tag. ("This template is not a valid license tag alone. Please accompany it with an appropriate license.") At this point I thought I would check in with you: I know it's been a while, but is it possible you might recall the intent of this edit? Or at least, can you suggest what might be a valid license tag for this image? Thanks! – Wdchk (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repaired : Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArgentinePoliceHelicopter.jpg

Hello. Thanks for your advice, but, the website says that as long as the name of the author, or the link to the website is on the photo, there aren't any problems. Also, I think that the photo was taken from Google Images, as the author's page in that website is full of photos of helicopters and airplanes, I don't really think the author took these photos. Ezequiel Matias Acosta (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Coolmarc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Coolmarc (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe free media

see here. Frietjes (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Northern Sportive Lemur Drawing.jpg

Hi, could you explain why you've tagged this image as "This image may not have the proper copyright or licensing information, or there is a conflict of license."? It's the uploader's own work and they have included a free licence template (originally CC-BY but since changed to GFDL). Could you explain to the uploader (and other interested users) what's wrong? I wouldn't assume that a new user (or even a veteran user) would understand what the issue is. Thanks in advance for any help, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged because the authorship name and the uploader name didn't match. If it's own work, the description page should say say so. And what the connection to the orgainsation mentioned is. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles Plymell.jpg

Dear Sir: I find inserting a photo into an article almost insurmountable task. The Wiki legalise is so complicated but here is a permission letter from the author allowing the photo to be inserted. would this not be a step in the right direction of the licencing policy? Being clueless is not a very good feeling. I do completely understand the protective measures that Wiki has to take to prevent legal action but alternative licencing steps are so complex. Thank for your assistance thus far. "Paul, Thanks a lot for getting into Wiki for me. I want you to do it & will work on it. Last time I saw one reference needed was vortex & I have Allen's quote from intro to Apoc Rosethat can go there. Surely don't need by-pass and pacemaker now. Old isn't fun Hugs to Robert. I'm sending some emails to indicate latest movements. Just delete. I'm writing a thing for appearance at St. Mark's on the Bowery but will get back to wikiwork. Thanks! cp" Pjt48 (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COPYREQ Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richard Hofstadter - Anti-intellectualism in American Life.jpeg

Not sure why you tagged that as a wrong license. The cover is well below the threshold of originality, thus not subject to copyright. Werieth (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't sure hence the tag, Thanks for reviewing.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed it when I uploaded it. Drive by tagging is annoying. Werieth (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trinity faces.jpg

What's the point of adding Template:Information if you're going to leave most of the fields blank? -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image

Yes you right, all files must be used in articles. Thank you much for warning me. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I need to view all files created. Thank you. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Googoosh at the age of 4 and her mother Nasrin Atashin.jpg

Applying {{PD-Iran}} doesn't need a source. The subject of the picture is now more than 60 year old, and the picture is from the time she was a child. So, definitely > 30 years have passed since the picture has been taken. R0stam (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with your tool changing/renaming pictures

Hi, the tool you are using changing/renaming pictues leaves syntax errors, please check it: [1], [2], [3] aso ... --Ben Ben (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opps... :( My bad. Let me know if you find anymore Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Clemente orphan

Thank you for the courtesy of notification on my Talk page of the prospective removal of the orphaned Roberto Clemente stamp image. The following is a summary of a three-week discussion on five sites, so I would understand if your eyes glaze over.

Werieth has orphaned twelve, eight are being removed from the data base, five from Puerto Rico on stamps alone. In this case he objects to including the Roberto Clemente stamp in Puerto Rico on stamps. He reads policy to dictate that when an article is written to one stamp alone, the stamp must be notable enough to justify its own article, then the one USPS image can be used to illustrate that one article, or alternately, one USPS image may be used to illustrate a list article for a set of stamps.

But there can also be topical philately articles. These investigate how cultural expression of significant events are commemorated by a visual medium, stamps, as promulgated by Congressional Joint Resolutions. USPS permits use of their stamps for educational use, and that is the purpose fulfilled at Wikipedia in topical philately articles. The images do not compromise lawful postage revenues to the copyright holder USPS in any way.

When the topical context is provided and a description is presented by a reliable source, which can be either USPS itself or Smithsonian Institute’s National Postal Museum, the USPS fair use license is satisfied for WP purposes. It should be akin to the description required for commercially produced baseball card images.

Werieth first objected that Clemente et al were alive, they are dead. Then Werieth objected that Puerto Ricans such as Julia de Burgos on stamps had nothing to do with Puerto Rico, but Clemente was born a U.S. citizen in Puerto Rico, likewise with Luis Munoz Marin, Julia de Burgos and Jose Ferrer, all honored as Americans on USPS stamps, and so significantly related to the topical philately article, Puerto Rico on stamps. I would also like to show the 500th anniversary of Columbus at Puerto Rico in the USPS stamp to complement display of the 400th anniversary Spanish colonial stamp with is free use...but that is another fight.

This point by point explanation including specific references to policy is called “begging”, but to me it is simply answering each objection in turn with counter sources and examples. The last objection by Werieth and others is a simple misconstruing the reasonable restriction against multiple use of the same fair use image once --- to mean an unreasonable, self-imposed restriction against any multiple fair use images used in the same article in a one-time use on Wikipedia. I acknowledge that the fair use implies only one-time use on WP, just not that only one USPS image may be used in each WP article. I'm not sure how to proceed, but

I would welcome any critique you may have to help my reconciliation to the policy as it is now administered. Werieth's stratagem is to revert my edits without explanation on talk pages, until I appealed on project pages. I am not interested in edit wars at Puerto Rico on stamps, Territories of the United States on stamps or anywhere else. I am following the suggestion to link into images posted at the National Postal Museum, as in our example now the article reads, "For an image of the stamp, see Roberto Clemente Issue @ Arago.National Postal Museum." I value the collaborative nature of the writing at WP, I just don't get it yet in this case. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old French battleship photos

Please stop and figure out what you're doing, please. I removed the transfer to Commons tags this morning because there is no evidence that the photos are PD in France, only the US. Now you're adding wrong license tags, and for why I have no idea. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they can't move to commons because they aren't out of copyright in France they are NOT PD-US, and thus are incorrectly licensed, hence the addition of {{Wrong license}}, which you appear to have reverted in good faith. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK Book seems to have been published in Belgium, so EU rules apply and thus {{PD-1923-abroad}}. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not according to me, it's according to copyright law. If you cannot prove the photos are PD in the country of origin, they don't belong on Commons. I also don't understand why you seem to think US copyright is dependent on French copyright - it's not. And whether the photos were first published in France or Belgium is irrelevant, since the Copyright Directive includes both states. Parsecboy (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This problem seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of what {{PD-US}} means - you seem to think (based on this summary) that it implies that the copyright was held in the US and has expired, meaning that the item in question is PD everywhere. That is not the case. It simply means that the term of protection for a given work has expired in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe PD-US needs re-wording?, The template that the images are now using, should correctly indicate what the status is. I'd tagged them as {{wrong license}} partly for the reason you mention. {{PD-US}} could imply a copyright held in the US, which these clearly weren't.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template is quite clear - it states that "Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image might not be in the public domain outside the United States", which should lead one to the conclusion that it only applies to copyright status in the US, not worldwide. It also makes no statement that the copyright is held in the US (unlike more specific templates like {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}}, or {{PD-Pre1978}}). Nevertheless, it might be worthwhile to add an explicit statement to the template documentation that it does not imply that the copyright was held in the US and that a transfer to Commons should only be done if the editor can verify that the photo was either a US work or is PD in the country of origin. Parsecboy (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salyut 7 assembly .jpg

You tagged this image(which I uploaded)for deletion for being an non-free orphan. But I've linked to one article. Could you get that deletion tag removed ?Zince34' 11:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Zince34' 11:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ShakespeareFan00. You have new messages at Jmabel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:Schwarz1861.jpg

This and the other uploads of User:Ghirlandajo you tagged for speedy today are reproductions of 2D art which is in public domain. This means tagging them for speedy is counterproductive. Any image found in the web (or even scanned from a book) would do. It just can not be a copyright violation. I can find some of the sources, but frankly it is not my favorite activity in Wikipedia, and I am not sure I want to spend hours for it.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, You think easing up on PD-art would be reasonable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Most of them are available on Commons, and the rest should be moved to Commons, but this is a separate issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK On the ones you specficalloy posted about I've put "Digital/Mechanical reproduction of original artwork" as the source for now, you are of course welcome to improve on that. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Hi , Not to phased if the pic I uploaded of the Walter Burley Griffin house gets deleted as I am still drafting and it's my first article , but why this and not the others? Also I can't upload other pics as I get an "Invalid token" message - do you know why? Thanks Hussein — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhopp (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Robbins Today album artwork

Something screwed up here. I wrote the artical to match the picture and put a link into it from the Marty Robbins discography page. I then printed it out and all seemed OK but since then disappeared with the link going back to the Marty Robbins page. Fortunately I had saved my work in Word, changed the page link name by capitalising the word Album in the title "Today (Marty Robbins Album)" and pasted it into a new page. I just don't know what happened to the old page "Today (Marty Robbins album)" Perhaps I didn't save it correctly. Delangle9 (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waltz of Polypeptides

Dear Sfan00, Could you please explain why you believe that the image Waltz of the Polypeptides was removed from the article? This is the image of a statue that I took, but I did explain in the image description why it qualifies to be used in Wikipedia under fair use license. Please, reconsider removing this image and let me know if I can add it back into the article. I believe it served a useful purpose there. Thanks in advance! ~Zina~ (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC) File:Waltz of the Polypeptides by Mara G Haseltine CSHL Mar2013.png[reply]

As I only flagged it as being 'orphaned' I don't know why it was removed.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming File:Kerman_Stadium.jpg

Hello Sfan00 IMG, You added a tag under this file (File:Kerman_Stadium.jpg) indicating that it is to be copied to Wikimedia Commons. However, the file is not properly located as it is a picture from a Stadium in Urmia (Shahid Bakery Stadium (under constraction)), NOT in Kerman; see this link Msanta20 (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: File:Kenau Simonsdochter Hasselaer by Frans Hogenberg.jpg

Hello Sfan00 IMG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:Kenau Simonsdochter Hasselaer by Frans Hogenberg.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not hosted on Commons. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: File:Russian Manuscript Miniature The Chronicler.GIF

Hello Sfan00 IMG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:Russian Manuscript Miniature The Chronicler.GIF, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not hosted on Commons. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carla Laemmle also known as "Beth" Laemmle in the 1926.jpg

Hi, I'm looking at File:Carla Laemmle also known as "Beth" Laemmle in the 1926.jpg, which you tagged as a candidate to transfer to Commons. Are you sure about this one?

The file was uploaded by Walter Samson, with the notation that "This work has been released into the public domain by its author, crown022002". Is there any indication that Walter Samson is "crown022002" and able to place into the public domain? Also, given that this is a 1926 photo, it is obviously highly unlikely that either Walter Samson or crown022002 is in fact the copyright owner.

I suspect someone scanned the photo and is disclaiming copyright in the scan; but that does not affect the potential copyright in the underlying photograph itself. That photo may or may not be PD, but we'd need something more than an assertion from the uploader.

I note also that the page links to a website with restrictive terms; actually asserting copyright, contradicting the claim of PD, even in the scan, assuming the scan came from the site referenced.

I have no doubt that this photo is a fair use, but copying it to Commons, which is much more stringent on copyright, deleting fair-use material, would be a mistake. TJRC (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

I'm completely puzzled as to why you added "wrong license" tag to File:Jonas Vinther Joker 2013.jpg??? Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the joker is a 'charcter' , your costume choice is a work derived from the costume/makeup design of the film. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So? Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the makeup design/costume and the charcter are distinctive they can be copyright protected, meaning that you can't just post a picture of yourself in costume as the character. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the make-up was not part of the costume. And, the costume is a combination of a bunch of cloths, not one specific costume. Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim McGinn image

Not sure whether I should contact you or someone else, but the image is being used on my workpage, as I am currently creating an article for Jim McGinn, schoolwork is just slowing me down. Yoshi876 (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image isn't linked according to What Links Here. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that's been removed because it's not allowed in there. I intend to use the image, but as I said schoolwork is slowing down my creation plan. Yoshi876 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion

How is File:Makotoyukipersona3.jpg different from File:YuNarukamirender.png, File:ChieSatonaka.png and File:KanjiTatsumi.png? —KirtZ^Mail 08:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other files are in use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. The file had been replaced. —KirtZ^Mail 10:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Busted Life image

Hi sfanOO, thank you for your effort, but can you tell me what is the problem with Image now and why I can't use it? --Ahmed Mohi El din (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help Please

In relation to File:QMTHairspray.jpg I am fairly new to Wikipedia. I read several of the help pages trying to decipher what I did wrong. This image was promotional material created for Quincy Music Theatre. Just to be sure, I got permission from the photographer to post it on Wikipedia. I may have chosen the wrong category for this? Given this information, is it free or non-free promotional material? And, how do I describe this? I couldn't find examples related specifically to my conditions. Any help is greatly appreciated. ProfessorMama (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)ProfessorMama[reply]