Jump to content

User talk:Jappalang/Image stuff

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Image wp:mos

morning, afternoon or evening, i'm not that bothered though some of the images now render quite small, where is the 'upright' bit in MOS? Tom B (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Pedra Branca graphic

Hi, that's a great graphic you've added to "Pedra Branca, Singapore" and "Pedra Branca dispute", which I've been trying to improve recently. However, can you correct the spelling of "South Lodge" to "South Ledge"? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 03:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Stifle. I had raised the issue that Image:Bilicflickrphoto.jpg was a possible copyright violation at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 October 15 (Flickr page: [1]). From the ensuing discussion, it is clear that the uploader had the misconception that all images on Flickr are free, and had not asked for permission from Sergio Quiros, the owner of the picture in question. As the copyright violation is obvious, should I replace the PUI templates I had placed on the image page with {{subst:db-copyvio|url=source URL}} (or just add it to the page) for speedy deletion, or just leave things as is? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've speedied it as a copyvio. You may find {{di-no permission}} useful in this kind of situation in the future. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Bnguyen

I have had a lot of trouble with this guy's 80% + fake image source uploads and have started a ANI thread about him. He is a disgrace, claiming US-Army on photos of a Vietnamese-prince-cum-French-biochemistry professor. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. He is spinning more tales as his lies are unraveled (see his talk page). Jappalang (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Need a semi-uninvolved admin for a block? See AN/I. -MBK004 02:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. I won't be blocking him because I also revert a lot of his edits for simply being corny, all the time. He always makes all these articles - first Vietnamese American to graduate from law school, first VA killed in Iraq, first VA to become and army officer etc. and a whole pile of VA guys who became councillors in a small US town (100k people). And then accused me of being anti-Vietnamese. Apart from that sticking "he is a devout anti-communist" almost ad nauseum all over the place. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I am taking a break from looking through the images. Is there a way to simply delete them all? I would think that the collatoral damage would be minimal, compared to the strain the user imposes on others to check through his falsehood. If any can be used for "fair-use", I am pretty certain interested editors can find them again via the web. On another note, why are there no templates to declare the information given (author, source, or date) are false? I have to go around, trying to fit db-i9 or npd to the mess. Jappalang (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, only commons has a delete all mode. I don;t think you should worry about tagging it. Some admins are onto it and they'll be deleted without someone having to put an application form on it, like you. It would be good if you voted for the ban though. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Need help with figure

In the article Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment, I modified the color and contrast of the figure at the top of the Infobox (File:Riflemen at Saratoga.jpg) to tone down the screaming yellows and uploaded it to the existing image file. I would like this color-edited version ("21:32, 5 January 2009") to show on my article, which appears to be the case. However, when I click to get the full-resolution image, I get the old, overly yellow version. Plus I made a mess of things by doing a couple of "reverts." Could you help by (1) correctly linking the article image, with the correct full-resolution image, to version "21:32, 5 January 2009" (third version from bottom as seen in the "File history.") and (2) delete my "reverts" (the top two versions in the "File history"), if that can be done. Many thanks. Tfhentz (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your help with the figure! I asked about the ISBN # of the one book because according to the MoS, ISBN #'s are "wikified automatically" (Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style). This is what happened with my one other applicable book reference (if a book was published by the U.S. Government Printing Office or was published before a certain date, for example, it doesn't have an ISBN). Just wondering why the same didn't occur with Williams (2005), which should be "eligible." I'll try to add it manually. Cheers. Tfhentz (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Coenred svg

Thanks very much -- it was needed; and it looks much better as an svg. Mike Christie (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

SVGs

So how do you go about creating an SVG image?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have downloaded inkscape, imported the image into the programme and resaved it as a SVG file however i when i upload it here it is not displaying: see
Any ideas whats went wrong?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much, that looks great! I just couldnt get my head around that programme, from looking around the net it seems you cant do what i did; which was to copy and past a JPEG into that programme and save it. Did you have to create that map from scracth then?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Photo as promised
Source: Tank Combat in North Africa, Thomas Jentz, p. 131
Full book details, i.e. complete title, ISBN etc can be found on the Operation Brevity article at the bottom.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Livius image

Could contact an Admin you know about this image: [2] It is still on English WP...so one can't contact a Commons Admin. It likely cannot be kept since Livius does not allow commercial use as you told me on my Commons account. (before I thought it did as you can see from the file history.

Re: Deletion

Oh. The tracks can also be found on the games, so it would be free if recorded off of the games. However, since it is not the case in File:ThemeofLuBu~DWFireMix.ogg, and since we cannot verify that is the case in File:SWDestiny.ogg, there is nothing standing in your path of deleting the files.

-Cordially yours, BlueCaper (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack Kemp

Do you know how to find us a new main image for Jack Kemp?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedily delete it!

By the 7th criterion of the General section in the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, you are free to delete both File:ThemeofLuBu~DWFireMix.ogg and File:SWDestiny.ogg. Just wait until the weekend. There are some things that must be done before we can erase them from Wikipedia. -BlueCaper (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Image cleanup

Hi, I noticed the work you did cleaning up the image I uploaded, File:Richard Neville.jpg, it's much improved. If you find the time, would you mind having a look at another image, File:Guy de Beauchamp.jpg, that's in even worse shape? I'm currently trying to get the article up to GA level, and a slightly better looking picture would help with the visual appeal of the article. Cheers! Lampman (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, whatever you can manage - without altering the original too drastically - is highly appreciated. Lampman (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the work. It's certainly clearer than the original, but maybe a bit too much; it's very harsh and naked. Do you think there is a middle way, perhaps by increasing the contrast without going entirely black/white? Anyway, here's the article if you want to see how it looks in context: Guy de Beauchamp, 10th Earl of Warwick. Lampman (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's better, thanks. And it just passed as a GA. Lampman (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your image work

I disagree with some of the approaches that you take on images, but I can respect them; I certainly don't think your behaviour is totally inappropriate, or anything. It's really just a question of what assumptions we're prepared to make. In the early 1900s, governments obviously didn't take as many photographs as they do today, and those that they took they generally took for the purpose of using. Finding a photograph that we have no reason to believe is a government work and refraining from using it because it might be, even if it seems nearly certain that the photograph would have been published prior to 1958 strikes me as being too cautious, especially given that the doctrine of fair use almost certainly applies to what we're doing anyway. But that's jut my opinion, just as your belief that it's important to be almost completely sure is just your opinion. Sometimes I find your approach frustrating, but I need to bear in mind that it's no less legitimate than mine. Fundamentally, you're obviously doing very good work, and I don't have any problem with you. Does that clear things up? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Images query

I have been doing some heavy work on Agrippina (opera) with a view to a possible FAC. Apart from one, the images were in place when I took the article up. Could you possibly visit, and let me know any problems with these images, so that I can deal with them (there aren't many)? I would be most grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now responded to your very helpful image review on the article's PR page. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

VRoma images

The director of Vroma gave me permission to use the images you referenced 3 years ago - I don't know if she was aware they could be used elsewhere (At the time, I don't believe there was an image use statement on their website). I can try e-mailing her again. LaurenCole (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Wolters

Do you think you could give this article an image review? It is all I think it is waiting for for promotion to FA. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Noel Coward

Hello, and thanks for the message. I do not have access to that image. Maybe Tim does? However, I think the image of Coward in the sharp suit is equally iconic, and it is even taken by a famous photographer. It shows Coward's determination and ambition as well as his keen sense of style. The Hirschfeld image already has him in a dressing gown, so the suit gives more variety, IMO. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help on the Noel Coward article. Your efforts have really helped us improve it! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this OK?

First, I'd like to associate myself with what is written above. Your work in reviewing images and your constructive comments—in sharp contrast to those of some others—provide wonderful examples of the cooperative approach to article building. I have learned a great deal from your reviews, and from those of Elcobbola before you. One thing I try to do is to get image issues settled before rather than during FACs. With this in mind, can you advise me whether Image:Endurance trapped in pack ice.jpg is PD? It certainly is for Australia, but does that cover Wikipedia? I have a feeling that something like this arose a few months ago and was declared OK, but I can't remember the details. I hope to include the image in Aurora's drift (for which you provided the first line, remember?); I am pretty sure all the other images are OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information on Image:Endurance trapped in pack ice.jpg. I will probably go with it, and do as you suggest if it is challenged at FAC. On Image:Aurora.jpg, I must have read dozens of accounts of Shackleton's expedition, and none have given details of who took the Aurora picture. It wasn't the Ross Sea party photographer, Arnold Spencer-Smith, because he died in the Antarctic. It may have been taken by one of the crew who experienced the drift, it may have been a newspaper photograph, or taken by a passer-by. Since it was published in Shackleton's "South" in US and UK in 1919, I have never doubted its PD status - nor that of any other images in Shackleton's book, all reproduced in the Project Gutenberg edition. Brianboulton (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Tchaikovsky and Antonina

I have discovered the photo of Tchaikovsky and Antonina in Beloved Friend by Catherine Drinker Bowen and Barbara von Meck. This book was published in the United States in 1937. The photo of Mme. von Meck from which the sketch currently in the article was taken is also in this book. Jonyungk (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Red images

Thanks for the comment, I hadn't really thought about it. I'm rather hesitant about using any of the reconstructions because they are either a) dead wrong (in terms of the pronated hands), or possibly inaccurate in context (I'm not sure if Utahraptor has actually been found with feathers, and either way it doesn't have feathers in Bakker's book so I wouldn't want to misrepresent his work.) I contacted the Flickr user you mentioned about grabbing the image for free use. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Found the original source for the Pillar Gate picture in Han Dynasty

Aha! I just visited the library as promised, and I am relieved to find out that I can add the picture back to the article! I checked out Recarving China's Past at the library and found out that the que pillar-gate picture was originally published in Mission archéologique dans la Chine septentrionale by Édouard Chavannes (Paris: E Leroux, 1909-, Series Publications de l'École française d'Éxtrême-Orient, vol. 13, pt. one.) So, Jappalang, since the picture was originally published before 1923, can I add File:Que, or pillar gate, at the Wu Family Shrine.jpg back to the article now?--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

More on Tchaik photos?

Found the following on Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Jonyungk (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to {{PD-RusEmpire}} - photos published in the Russian Empire and which weren't published within 30 days on the territory of Soviet Russia are not eligible for copyright. Hence, any photos pre-1917 which were first published in the Russian Empire are public domain -- even those which come from Novosti. --Russavia Dialogue 12:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo question

Hi Jappalang, as you know Dincher and I work on Pennsylvania state parks articles and I just found an official website that has many photos of state parks that seem to be free as long as they are attributed: "Feel free to download the images you see to promote Pennsylvania state parks, but be sure to credit the Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks." We are about to take Cherry Springs State Park to FAC and one complaint raised at its peer review was that there was no photo of the Woodsmen's Show in the article. There is such a photo here which would be great to use. Does the statement make these photos free to use here? If so it would be a great help to the Cherry Springs article now (we have found no other free photos of the show) and to all the articles on the parks pictured. If you could let me know about using these photos I would appreciate it very much. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I understood the notice about the photos to apply only to the eight Photo Tours pages, not all DCNR photos (the same notice appears on the main Photo Tours page and on all seven subpages, but nowhere else on the DCNR's webpages I have found). I will contact the DCNR and see if they can clarify this if you still think that is needed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, one of our goals is to get photos for all 120 Pennsylvania state park articles. There are several parks that have photos in the "photo tour" pages which currently do not have a photo on Wikipedia. There is an intact Kinzua Bridge picture on the photo tour which would seem to be free, I am not as sure about the photos on the Kinzua Bridge State Park website, although the historic one appears to be from the reconstruction and thus pre-1923. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
PS There are many PennDOT photos of bridges that were covered by that one OTRS ticket - if I uploaded them, would I just have to add the same ticket notice? Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks yet again - I will contact DCNR and ask for clarification. I also will look to see if I have the OTRS email from PennDOT (I think I got a copy but am not sure). My recollection was that any of the photos taken for a survey of bridges for inclusion on the NRHP was covered, but I will look at the example you provided and the email. Thanks so much, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with images

In my article Checkers speech, I use two screencaps from the speech. I believe them to be free use images:


based on the following:

Obviously if the film is public domain, a still or screencap from it is public domain.

Thoughts Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hideo Nomo image (File:HideoNomo.png)

It is in the public domain..... --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Image queries

You're a busy person, I know, but in accordance with my belief that prevention is better than cure, I'd like to raise a couple of image queries concerning an article that I have in progress. The article in question is Bedrich Smetana; none of my work appears there at present, since all my research is in a sandbox. However, I would appreciate your comment on the image of Smetana that appears in the article. To me its licencing looks suspect – author unknown, no details of where originally published, so is it PD? There are two other (better) Smetana portraits on Commons (Image:FriedrichSmetana.jpg and Image:BedrichSmetana.png, but again author and source information is missing in each case. Would my best bet be to choose one of these images and make a fair use rationale on the basis that it might still be in copyright? Your advice (in prose or verse) would be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your rapid and extremely helpful reply. Brianboulton (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use required?

I'm working on getting Oklahoma City bombing ready for FAC, and I had a question with this image. The image shows a portion of the outdoor Oklahoma City National Memorial as well as the "Field of Empty Chairs". The chairs appear to be a form of artwork, and after a suggestion at a peer review of the article, it was recommended that you take a look. The memorial itself is a part of the National Park Service, but the chairs were designed by independent artists, so I'm wondering if it is necessary to include a non-free license tag (and FUR) for this image. Here's a closeup of the chairs, and mention of the chairs' construction can be found here. Let me know if you need further details. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. There are a few sentences on the Field of Empty Chairs which describe the significance of their design. Would that be acceptable for use of the image? If not, does the gate in the same image qualify as artwork (in the background of the image)? There are a few images on Commons with the reflecting pool and gates, so if this image doesn't work, we could use one of those. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. I was unsure if the gate was considered architeture/art, thanks for clarifying. I just got permission for an image on Flickr to upload to the article of the reflecting pool and gate to replace the one with the chairs. Thanks for your assistance, I appreciate it. Hopefully you can take another look at the images when it goes to FAC at some point. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the link to the map here at Wiki. It is now used in the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jappalang

I checked the Village Pump, and the one guy who has commented thus far thinks that the rubbing picture is ok and classifes as PD-art. So, what to think?--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Battersea Bridge

If you get the chance, to save tying up space at FAC, can you have a skim over the images on Battersea Bridge before I submit it? All but one of the photos are by either myself or User:Tarquin Binary, so there shouldn't be any problems with those, but a couple of the paintings might have insufficient info. (I can't find a date for File:Johnspencer.jpg, but as Gainsborough died in 1788 it shouldn't be an issue.)

Nothing will happen at least until Vauxhall Bridge's FAC closes, so no rush at all. Thanks in advance… (Yes, I know Earl Spencer's looking out of the page, but there isn't an obvious place to move him to.) – iridescent 01:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Have replied to you on my talk page just in case anyone else passing by wants to chip in; basically, can reliably confirm the subject but not the artist. – iridescent 15:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Flu in Singapore

Hello, at WT:SG we're discussing creating an incidence map, and your name popped up. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Image question

Hi Jappalang. I'm working on improving Alamo Mission in San Antonio. I really like one of the images that was included File:PostcardTheodoreRooseveltSpeechAtTheAlamo.jpg, but I wanted to check that this would make it through FAC as a PD image. I've beefed up the description and dates, but I'm not sure whether the catalogs I've been able to find would count as reliable sourcing for this information. You have a great deal more experience with images than I do - do you think this is satisfactory? Karanacs (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Image thingy

Aye, I'm a member. Had OTRS access since October '08. :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not letting you know :P Really I only got it because I wanted to not bug others when checking images at FAC. If you run up to that kind of issue a lot or upload lots of OTRS images you might as well beg ask for access yourself. :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Careful now, otherwise I'll make you an offer you can't refuse... :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Abu Nidal

Hi Jappa, your change of this image from gif to jpg [3] has made it washed-out looking on my screen, whereas before it was quite dark. Is there any way round this? I have no knowledge of gifs versus jpegs (or why one is preferred over the other), so I don't know how to fix it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now I see it's because you resourced it. I think we should stick with the better quality one. What is the problem with gifs, and if there is a problem, could the version I uploaded not simply be converted? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for that explanation. I'll leave it in your capable hands. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Bartered Bride

Sorry to trouble you again, but alongside my work on Bedrich Smetana I am also developing the Bartered Bride article, though none of my work shows on the main page yet. Can you advise me whether either of the images in the article have any claim to PD? I would like to keep the Kecal image if that is possible. Also, some time ago you advised me that this issue of National Geographic can provide some pre-1923 photos of Prague. Are these images available online, or do I have to buy the magazine? Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your response was awe-inspiring. Plenty for me to get my head round there. I also have my own photographs of Prague, rather more recent than 1923 I must admit, so it does not look as though the battered lady article will be short of illustration, when I get to work seriously on it. Much thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
(later) Am I missing a trick, or am I merely obtuse, or is it both? Of the various links to images you have provided, the only ones that take me to actual pictures are the various score covers. The links to the Kobbé books simply take me to the google book titles. Have you actually viewed the Kobbé book images online, if so, how? It's the same with the long list of National Geographic pics - I can't decide which of these to use without seeing the pictures. I'm sorry if I sound stupid, but I have no idea how to view any of these pictures, short of acquiring the books they are in. Can you advise? Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for resolving this. It looks like I will have a plentiful choice of images when I come to expand the Bartered Bride article. I see no need to pursue the National Geographic images at this stage; the Smetana article is copiously imaged, and the opera article will be, too. On the Smetana article, I have addessed the remaining PR issues with bits more text, and am going to leave it for a short while before its final polishing (I need a break from it). I'm really grateful for all your help. Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Stained glass

I would have thought that stained glass is generally decorative so I wonder why "works of artistic craftsmanship" wouldn't apply? Thanks for clearing things up on the Maiden Castle FAC by the way, I was disappointed as it was the closet I could manage to an aerial photo but it had to go (the current images look a big drab and only get a real idea of the size of the thing with an aerial shot like the second image here). Nev1 (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if Edward Cunnington, an antiquarian interested in the site, didn't make drawings of the site but the books I've looked through have had nothing older than photographs and diagrams from the 1930s excavations (a google search drew a blank too). There are some good black and white aerial photos from the 1930s excavations by Major George Allen and since he died in 1940 they'll be available sometime next year so if nothing turns up at least there's that. Nev1 (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Raff image query

Hi, was just told there may be a problem with the licensing of File:Jjraffportrait.jpg, which is in Symphonic Poems (Liszt). Any chance you could please check this out? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for yout help on this, but may I ask a favor? The file I downloaded was File:Raff 14.jpg. I put down the information you mentinoed but got the licensing wrong and do not know how to fix it. Could you tell me whaat to do to change the licensing accordingly? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

New York Met image (1905)

Sorry to bother you yet again, but what is your opinion of the status of Image:Metropolitan opera 1905.jpg? It's a Library of Congress photograph but I suspect that's not enough on its own. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Better Cuvier elephant jaw image

Thanks. Besides the image in On the Origin of Species, I also replaced the one in History of paleontology. I left the one in Georges Cuvier alone though because I think it is better in that case to use the image with Cuvier's orignial French caption. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello again

Hi Jappalang. Rama (talk · contribs) has speedy deleted File:Design B-65.jpg, an image that was used exactly like the one you cleared for Design 1047 battlecruiser. If you could comment here I'd greatly appreciate it, as (a) I have little understanding of copyright law and (b) I'd like to know what images I've uploaded, if any, should be tagged for deletion. Thank you, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Weimar photos

Hi, I found two photos in the Weimar article that I'd like to use in Symphonic poems (Liszt). They are File:Goethe Schiller Weimar.jpg and File:HPIM4971.jpg. Will their status allow them to be used in the article? Wasn't sure, so thought I'd ask the expert. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Image request

I'd like to thank you again for creating File:Timothy McVeigh's movements during Oklahoma City bombing.svg. I was wondering if you'd be interested in creating another image for the Oklahoma City bombing article based off of another image. The image can be found here on page 385 (page 4 in the PDF). Is it possible to do that? If you can't/don't want to, then no worries, maybe I can try contacting the authors of the report to see if they are interested in releasing the diagram under a free license. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I wanted to be sure. Now comes the fun part of tracking the original author down. I'm still in your debt for the map image, thanks again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know (a month later) that I got permission for a similar image (File:MurrahBuildingInjuriesbyFloorOCB.jpg) and added it to the article. It's great that there so many high-quality and informative free images available for that article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bartered Bride Overture soundfile

This still languishes under threat of deletion. It is not required for the Smetana article, but is of course of much more importance for The Bartered Bride, which is being slowly pulled up towards featured standard. I am fairly ignorant about these things, but if the recording is PD under US law, albeit not under UK law, is there any procedure whereby the file can still be used in Wikipedia (as is the case with images in similar circumstances)? Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I will restore the overture to The Bartered Bride article, which I hope to have in Peer review by the week's end. Brianboulton (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright & fair-use rationale of SVGified logo - new policy on SVGified images needed

You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#File:Man Utd FC .svg. Your comments & suggestions is very much appreciated Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 19:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ACW photos

Thank you for adding this list of ACW photos...what a great resource. I've added a few of them from volume 1 to the Commons and and put them into article space. They are here in 'Session 5'. I plan to keep working on them but it may take some time. Do you know of anyone else working on them? Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet another in a long line of image questions

Hi there; I hope you can help with this. I wanted to add an image from a website, so I contacted the copyright holder to see if he'd release one. He said that we're free to use any of the press content hosted there; unfortunately, the only indicator of this is the following statement on the site: "Hi-Res Press stills for download (all permissions granted)". Would this be enough? And if it is, have the images effectively been released into the public domain? (We're in the UK, if that matters.) All the best, Steve T • C 18:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(talk page stalker reply) for explicitness' sake we're probably better off if he states plainly what license he's releasing them (or if he's releasing them under pub domain.) If you have him send an email verifying that for the images onwiki at permissions, we can archive it via OTRS, which is much more ironclad. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, I half figured OTRS was the most likely way it would have to go, but I wanted to hold off bothering this person until I really had to. Thanks, Steve T • C 21:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Ping me when you've done them; I've got OTRS access and I can tie the tickets to the image pages. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Well... my talk-page stalker (My very first one!!! Glee!!!) has answered your query, Steve. You would likely indeed require an OTRS ("all permission granted" for downloads only?). Make sure that the copyright holder state very clearly that he would allow:
  • free use (commercial and non-commercial)
  • and derivatives.
Whether he chooses to release into public domain, or license under GFDL or CC has to be clearly stated as well (commons:Commons:OTRS). You might want to point the copyright holder to use commons:Commons:Email templates in their reply. Jappalang (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

J.C.W. Beckham

Thanks for clearing up the issues with File:JCW_Beckham.jpg. I can use this as a model for LOC pictures from now on. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 11:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for advice: would this need an OTRS?

Hi Stifle, I found large sized images on Commons licensed under CC but on Flickr, they are smaller in size and marked copy-righted. I contacted the Flickr user through email, and he confirmed that he is the uploader of the files at Commons. Should I forward the email to OTRS so that his intent can be made clear with an OTRS ticket and avoid any misunderstanding in the future, or just ignore it? Jappalang (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Good question. The main issue with flickr is that it's hard to connect an email address with a flickr account. I'm not honestly sure what's best to do with this; try Commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:8th.jpg

No news yet on the status of this photo. How much longer should we wait, or should I go ahead and delete the photo? I hate to lose it, but at the same time, if it is the only opposing factor with the article at this point ... Know what I mean? Jonyungk (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I was letting the sutuation get me down. Jonyungk (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
And thanks for the Pendrecki photo, which I've already put to use. Jonyungk (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I sent a second, more detailed request tothe library this evening. Turns out the photo is being used by the library in a cyber exhibit on Stokowski and his years with the Philadelphia Orchestra. The page it is on is here. Jonyungk (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is the reply I just received:
I am currently out of the office. I am not able to state definitively whether or not the image is in public domain. I don't know if there is a photographer listed, and I do not know the copyright law in terms of photographs and public domain.
On the other hand, it terms of Penn being the physical owner of the image, you have its permission to use. Penn, however, does not legally hold copyright.
Sincerely,
Nancy Shawcross
Curator of Manuscripts
Rare Book And Manuscript Library
University of Pennsylvania
This does not sound overly promising. As a last resort, I e-mailed the Philadelphia Orchestra to see whether their archivist could answer the question, but I don't know how long a reply might take or whether one would be forthcoming. How much longer should we wait, in your opinion? Jonyungk (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the new information. As far as I know, there was only one photo of the orchestra and choruses involved, so my guess would be that this is the image in question. I think it is time to cut losses and remove the photo from the article. Jonyungk (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On a totally different matter (no brides, bartered or otherwise)

For use in a new article I am hoping to expand I have found this portrait of Archbishop Lang, painted in 1932 by Philip de Laszlo (1869-1937). As de Laszlo died more than 70 years ago, can you say what is the PD status of this? Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Image query

Image:Duchy of Cornwall-coa.png, the arms of the Duchy of Cornwall was recently added to Red-billed Chough. The licence is claimed to be PD, but I’d be surprised if the Duchy allows free use, including commercial purposes. Should I delete the image? . Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, image now deleted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Auld lang syne

Thanks for the information on the de Laszlo portrait. The only picture of Lang I can find that appears definitely PD is the Spy caricature of him as Bishop of Stepney, published in Vanity Fair in April 1906. It looks as though I may have to enter the turbulent waters of non-free rationales to include a suitable image, but any ideas you might have would be welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(Added): just seen the Bosworth star. Congratultions! Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading the Cosmos, I'll be sure to use them. The 1910 postcard doesn't give a more varied portrait (we really need one of "old" Cosmo, post 1920) so I don't think it's worth uploading the postcard image. The article is still very much in the gestation stage, and won't appear for a few weeks yet. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

International Space Station image issues.

Hi there, thanks for commenting on our FAC, even though it's been closed yet again. Anyway, I've been working on the image issues you highlighted, and I'd like to know if you're happy with the work I've done:

  • All above done.
  • I'm looking for a decent set of raw data so that I can make a newer, more up-to-date SVG version of this graph, but in the meantime I've made the PNG conversion.
  • File:Cycle.gif: this image should be transcluded to a JPG per WP:IUP; I also advise to remove the logo to eliminate the need for a {{insignia}} clause to be added (restricting its legal use for reusers).
  • Replaced with an SVG version minus the logo.
  • This is now correctly sourced.
  • I've listed the sources in the image infobox.
  • No.
  • File:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg: I cannot fathom how this is PD "because it was created by NASA." It was taken by the Mir crew, not NASA... are Russian cosmonauts under NASA employment?
  • Because, in a way, they were under the employ of NASA - this image was taken during the Shuttle-Mir Programme, a joint programme between Russia and the USA, meaning that any images taken of the programme were released in NASA's usual public domain manner, including any taken by the Russians.

I hope that deals with all the issues, but please do let me know if you have any other suggestions. If they're all fixed, brilliant, and would you mind giving us a Support vote next time we run a FAC? All the best, Colds7ream (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Lang pics

Thank you for the latest Lang images. Biographical accounts describe how, due to stress combined with alopecia, Lang's appearance changed between 1914 and 1918 from that of a dark-haired youthful man to that of a bald, elderly man. This process evidently continued; pictures of him as Archbishop of Canterbury, post 1928, show him as a veritable dotard. I'll try and decide how to use these pics as the article develops. Meanwhile, do you think there is any chance that Barony kirk Glasgow is PD? It's early 19thC, but publication details are unclear. Brianboulton (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Amazing work on the Barony pics. Image:Barony Church.jpg is a more relavant illustration than Couch boy's modern photograph, so I've replaced. Can't thank you enough – and all this after I was rude about your poetry! Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for yet more Lang stuff - great news about the de Laszlo, that's the one I wanted. As to the British Dictionary of Portraiture, I live in a small country town whose library doesn't run to such extravagances, so I may not get to look at it until I'm next in London. My guess is that it will list the Orpen portrait of 1924, a black & white version of which acts as the frontispiece to Lockhart's biography (Lang's critics called it the portrait of the most pompous man in England). Brianboulton (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jappalang. You have new messages at Colds7ream's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Colds7ream (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Image question

Hi, Jappalang. I've got a question for you, since you're pretty good with copyright stuff :) Is this image ok to use in an article? I'd never seen the "published outside the US before 1923" line used before, and wondered if it's legally kosher. Just to note, the uploader doesn't appear to be active on Wikipedia anymore. Thanks for any help you can give me. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

SMS Derfflinger

Hi and thanks for the message. As most of the photos I post, the images are truly check, so they do NOT violate US copyright laws! The photo File:S.M.S Derfflinger.jpg was taken in 1915 and published by W.Schäfer, Kiel in 1918. Obviously, it could not been taken after 1919 (since the ship was sunk) and definitely could not been published after 1920 since Schäfer stopped publishing military related cards that year. Regards, Maria Mariaflores1955 (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion on image question, please

Can I get your opinion on the image question [4]?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Fertilisation of Orchids images

Thanks very much for resolving the issue with File:Wallacesesquipedale.jpg. The outstanding question of authorisation for File:Catasetum-saccatum.jpg is still unresolved, with no response yet to the request to Cookie to forward the emails on Commons:Authorization to use material from http://www.larsen-twins.dk to OTRS. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fertilisation of Orchids/archive1 has been restarted, so I've uploaded a new version of the article illustration using public domain images, File:Fertilisation of Orchids figure 29d.jpg, and that is now the illustration used in Fertilisation of Orchids. I'll be very grateful if you can look the article over and confirm at FAC that the image review issues have been resolved. Thanks again, dave souza, talk 21:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick image question

I'm prepping Yukon Quest for FAC and was wondering if you might have a moment to do a quick image check. Everything should be good (I took most of the pictures myself), but there are a few I didn't take. If you don't have the time, drop me a note. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  • In regards to the de minimis issue, is there anything I can do? It's about a five-hour drive away, so I can't easily take another picture. But I am headed out to Whitehorse and Dawson City in a few weeks, so any photo-taking tips would be appreciated. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd probably include it even if there were no signs there. It's the only store/restaurant in town and is the most prominent building in town. I don't know if there are any signs like this in Braeburn, but when I go there and take pictures, we'll see. As to the Carston Thies photos ... do you think I should just remove them? JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Scuttle German ships map

Hi, Jappalang. First, let me thank you profusely for finding those images of Derfflinger, as well as the map of the scuttled ships and then transferring it into an svg. There are, however, some spelling problems with the new version: #2 should be "der" instead of "de", #4 should read "Großer Kurfürst", #6 should be "Markgraf", and #20 should be "Derfflinger". Can you fix them when you have a minute? Thanks a lot. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the surprise

Hi, Jappalang. Thanks for the new photo of Penderecki for the Choral symphony article. A nice surprise and, as you wrote, better for alternation. Jonyungk (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

3D image question

Hi Jappalang, I could use your advice on this image. It's a photo of a sculpture that was created in 1918/1919 and displayed publicly on a college campus. The sculpture is signed. The sculptor died in the 1950s, and to our knowledge no copies of the scukpture have ever been made. Is this PD or can it be used only under fair use? Karanacs (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Are signatures copyrighted?

May I draw on your inexhaustible knowledge of all appertaining to Archbishop Lang, and ask you whether his signature is copyright? I found this, and wondered if I could use it under a PD-ineligible licence? Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Question?... tell me what you think about this...

File:BPGLodge.jpg: Fair use solid enough? Rafablu88 16:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, there is no close up, so the best I can do is a large 700x550 shot of the same photo for better detail, as the studio was dark and they only filmed it with a handheld camera. What do you think? RB88 (T) 14:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, can't say I didn't try. Damn those dingy studios! RB88 (T) 14:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Help

Got a question on Japanese copyrights at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amagi class battlecruiser/archive1‎...could you lend a hand? Thanks, —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Image question concerning FOP

Some users at the Commons seem to think that BP Pedestrian Bridge is a piece of art, therefore images of it do not have freedom of panorama, therefore they must be deleted from the commons. This will have lasting effects on the bridge's FA. You checked out the images during the article's FAC, so I was hoping you'd have an opinion on the matter. If you could please comment at the discussion here. Thanks! --TorsodogTalk 19:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Hi there,

I know you're somewhat of an image expert, so I'd appreciate your opinion on this image, taken from this page. Would a coat of arms such as that classify as a free image, or would it be in some sort of copyright? I normally wouldn't think a coat of arms was worth adding, but this one is mentioned in the text of Bramall Hall as it is particularly interesting (note the rope around the man's head at the top). Thanks, Majorly talk 14:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

FLickr licensing question

Hi Jappalang, a user on Flickr who has many photos of Pennsylvania state parks has agreed in a Flickr email to me to license all of them for use here (CC-BY-SA license). The problem is that they are all under the default all rights reserved licens on Flickr now. Does he have to manually change the license of each photo we would want to use? Or could he send an email to OTRS that would suffice (and then we could upload the images that were useful and add a template with the OTRS ticket / permission)? Or would posting something on his Flickr page saying he released the PA state park photos under the CC-BY-SA license suffice? Thanks in advance for your advice on this, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much - I will contact him about the OTRS option - the PA State Parks are all a set here. os that seems the best option. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jappalang, here is an update. The user has agreed on Flickr mail to license the photos in the PA Parks set, but still has not sent the email to OTRS to my knowledge (I asked him to copy me, but have received no CC or BC; also the license of File:Buchanan's Birthplace State Park Pyramid.jpg is still OTRS Pending). He recently posted this to his talk page here. Ignoring the obvious problems with his post here (no free license specified, etc.), I am nearly 100% sure that it needs to be an OTRS email, not a Flickr mail or a Wikipedia talk page posting, right? I thought I would double check with you before pestering him to send an email again. Thanks and sorry to bother you, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I will ask on Commons next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I am not sure what the Flickr universe is either. I gave him the boilerplate OTRS permissions email (CC-BY-SA) with the proper links to his Flickr set and the one picture we uploaded onto Commons, to try and make the email process as painless for him as possible. I wanted to see what the options were before FLickr mailing him again. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Image licensing question

Another user and I are having a discussion about the use of images of medication on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iridescent#Obesity A number of FA such as Schizophrenia uses picture of medications as does obesity with the image in question. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

NRHP photos question/proposals

I've opened the discussion on NRHP photos at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#NRHP_nomination_photos and hope that you'll comment there. Smallbones (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

File:City Building in Henderson, Kentucky.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:City Building in Henderson, Kentucky.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 05:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jappalang. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board.
Message added 07:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I asked WikiProject Canada to clarify the copyright issue - here's their responses. Colds7ream (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Waterfalls, waterfalls, waterfalls!

Feeling wikistress? Wish you could have a vacation someplace with two dozen waterfalls? Well the next best thing is here!

If you want to, please come look at pictures of waterfalls and pick which ones you like best. You'll be helping make a better article too.

Thanks, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. That wikilink again: User talk:Ruhrfisch/Waterfalls

Composite photo used in The Five

I am currently working on Tchaikovsky and the Five and intend eventually to bring it before FAC. There is a composite photo at the beginning of the article on The Five that I would like to include. However, there is no record of where the photos that make up this composite actually came from. Since they date from the 1860s and 70s, would they qualify for public domain under {{PD-old}}, or would they have to qualify as such from first publication, wherever that might be for the five photos that make up the composite? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang, I offered to help Jonyungk make a similar lead composite image for Tchaikovsky and the Five. I found a nicely sourced image of Alexander Borodin online here. Assuming I could find sources for the rest, would the images be PD-Old? My assumption is that the lack of source information would be problematic for these images in any article at FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Usually, I would respond to each of you on your talk page, but to avoid replying twice with the same message... Although it is now (approaching 2010) quite likely that items created around c.1870 could qualify for PD-old (by virture of their creator's likely deaths by more 70 years), US law does consider first publishing. If the photo was not published before 1923 (by remaining in private collection), then there could be 95 years of US copyright protection (if registered). So the key thing here is to establish the first publishing of those desired photos; this also carries the benefit that if there is dispute over qualification of PD-old and thus copyright status in the country of origin, the photos could still be stored on Wikipedia as pre-1923 (PD in US) items. The big problem with the current collage of the Five is that there are no sources for who took those photos, when were they taken, when were they published and where. Borodin's image on Britannica has a creation date, but publishing date and authorship are lacking (UK has a 20-year protection for unpublished till now images).
At any rate, this page of portraits should serve your purposes (they are PD-1923, thus qualifying storage on Wikipedia at the least). In any event, you can try searching on Google Books with the names of the composers and "date:1850-1922" fields to look for pre-1923 publications. Jappalang (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much - will look in old books as you suggest. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture deletion

You speedy deleted a picture I submitted (File:Glorypic.jpg) due to copyright issues. I find this curious, as I took the picture myself. Could you explain your actions, please? Jcbutler (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. In my opinion, however, you and the admin that deleted the picture are misinterpreting an admittedly vague and poorly written policy. In the example provided, there is a difference between a picture of a person wearing a t-shirt and a high resolution photograph of the image on the t-shirt. Likewise, there is a difference between a small portion of mapboard showing a few counters during a game in progress and a photograph or scan of the complete map and counter set in such detail that it could be reproduced accurately. The picture that was deleted showed very little of the contents of the game and is therefore an excellent example of the principle of de minimus which you mention in your second paragraph. The justification and reasoning you provide would have disastrous implications if it were applied broadly to pictures on Wikipedia. Sidenote: this is yet another reason why I no longer submit photos here. --Jcbutler (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
James, I believe you are very much mistaken about the concept of de minimis and its application here. Your photo's subject was the game and its contents. It prominently displays the box cover art, rule books, counters, map, and reference sheets—most of which show the designs in clear details. Its intent is clear; the photo was not to show anything but a copyrighted game. Refer to the example given in Commons on the interpretation of de minimis (commons:Commons:De minimis#An example):

In determining whether the copying was sufficiently trivial, the court will consider all the circumstances. So, for example, if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the poster was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area.

[...]

It may be relevant how the image is described or classified: it will be difficult to argue de minimis if the photograph is described as illustrating "an advertising poster" and is placed within the category Advertising posters.

A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out. If no, then it is difficult to argue that the poster is actually de minimis, even if the poster is small and is "in the background".

Your photo was not focusing on a scene of a wargaming session of Glory (a bunch of people around a table, on which lies maps and counters, etc). It is not a photo that focuses on something else (children at play or a notable person) and Glory was incidentally on a table within the frame. It is indisputably a photo of nothing else but Glory, a copyrighted game (artwork and layout). You had good intentions, but the photo as intended, unfortunately, was a definite copyviolation and not qualified for de minimis. Jappalang (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
You appear to be confusing my photo with someone else's. My photo was a closeup of part of the map with some counters. It was also accepted at boardgamegeek and can be viewed here. As you can plainly see, there is no box cover art, rule books, or any of the other things you claim. Granted, there are not "a bunch of people around a table" but I consider this is to be a minimal image of the game. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, though I doubt you are either. In any case, I'm not planning to argue this any further, but you should try to get your facts straight before you request that any more images be deleted. --Jcbutler (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I may have mixed up the images (since I was nominating a bunch of copyviolations at the same time), but I am not wrong in essence. Each element of the game is copyrighted; the clear display of only those counters (and map) is nothing but an intent to show only copyrighted artwork (counters). Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Not wrong in essence... Good lord, why did I come back to Wikipedia? I was so happy during the break I took from editing here. Now seriously, are you sure you want to defend the notion that any clear display of copyrighted material is forbidden, unless there is explicit permission from the owner? --Jcbutler (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already pointed commons:Commons:Derivative works#If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders? out to you earlier (now bolded if you did not read it). Since you insist on your stance that clear display of copyrighted material is okay, read commons:Commons:Derivative works in whole. If you still insist the policy guideline is wrong, please discuss with those concerned with policies guidelines on derivative work to implement a change in policy the guideline. Jappalang (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's consider the definition of a derivative work from the link you provided:

A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work'.

A "translation, arrangment, dramatization, motion picture version" or similar work preserves the essence of the original work but merely puts it in a new form. A bootleg copy of a movie would be a clear example of a derivative work, and a copyright infringement. Even an "abridgment or condensation" counts as derivative. If I shortened The Lord of the Rings to half its length and tried to publish it as my own work, this would also count as a derivative work. In the example of the game Glory, if I made a simplifed version of the map and some knock off counters, along with a short form of the rules, this would be a copyright violation. But for goodness sake, I took a picture of a game in progress that is so incomplete that you could never play the game by the information in the picture. Don't you see the difference? Can't you admit you made a mistake? You said yourself you "mixed up" the images and didn't know what you were talking about!

I am continuing to argue with you because I don't like the heavy handed interpretation you have made, and I don't want you removing other valuable images from Wikipedia on these erroneous arguments. Nevertheless, I readily admit that I am not an expert on copyright, and I have requested a clarification from one of the admins here who has done a lot of editing on the copyright guidelines. --Jcbutler (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please as again pointed out earlier, read commons:Commons:Image casebook#Board games: "Photographs of a game in progress may possibly be allowable provided that the copyright elements are incidental and de minimis to the overall image, but that is unlikely to be the case if the whole board or box design is clearly shown." Glory's counters are copyrighted. If you take a picture of a single counter (with copyrightable artwork), it is still a copyright violation (derived work) regardless of its being as one of several components of the game. The clearly and detailed display of the counters do not count as de minimis. Jappalang (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's consider the definition of a derivative work from the link you provided:

A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work'.

A "translation, arrangment, dramatization, motion picture version" or similar work preserves the essence of the original work but merely puts it in a new form. A bootleg copy of a movie would be a clear example of a derivative work, and a copyright infringement. Even an "abridgment or condensation" counts as derivative. If I shortened The Lord of the Rings to half its length and tried to publish it as my own work, this would also count as a derivative work. In the example of the game Glory, if I made a simplifed version of the map and some knock off counters, along with a short form of the rules, this would be a copyright violation. But for goodness sake, I took a picture of a game in progress that is so incomplete that you could never play the game by the information in the picture. Don't you see the difference? Can't you admit you made a mistake? You said yourself you "mixed up" the images and didn't know what you were talking about!

File:US Deluxe Monopoly Tokens.jpg
Example #1

Is this derivative work? It's pretty comparable to the picture I took: good detail, partial game components, and no people sitting around a table. There are lots of pictures like this on Wikipedia. Are you going to nominate them all for deletion?

I am continuing to argue with you because I don't like the heavy handed interpretation you have made, and I don't want you removing other valuable images from Wikipedia on these erroneous arguments. Nevertheless, I readily admit that I am not an expert on copyright, and I have requested a clarification from one of the admins here who has done a lot of editing on the copyright guidelines. --Jcbutler (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's consider the definition of a derivative work from the link you provided:

Please as again pointed out earlier, read commons:Commons:Image casebook#Board games: "Photographs of a game in progress may possibly be allowable provided that the copyright elements are incidental and de minimis to the overall image, but that is unlikely to be the case if the whole board or box design is clearly shown." Glory's counters are copyrighted. If you take a picture of a single counter (with copyrightable artwork), it is still a copyright violation (derived work) regardless of its being as one of several components of the game. The clearly and detailed display of the counters do not count as de minimis.
The monoply tokens are not copyrighted; if you had read the Image casebook link earlier: "Old board games such as backgammon, chess and go are allowable unless the board incorporates some original artistic design. Monopoly is also a special case: the 'original' Monopoly board is now out of copyright - it was published in a US patent application back in 1935: see w:Image:DarrowPage1.png. Modern standard sets may be shown provided that they are substantially identical in design to the original. Sets with significant new design elements, such as Monopoly Junior, are not allowed since the new design elements will be entitled to a new copyright.", you would have known that. This applies to the original playing pieces. If you believe the tokens here are new designs, you can nominate the photo for deletion. Other things exist, and I am not obliged to go through all of the project in one go. Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, all right, I was wrong about the Monopoly picture (see how easy that was?). But let's consider the guideline for board games: Photographs of a game in progress may possibly be allowable provided that the copyright elements are incidental and de minimis to the overall image, but that is unlikely to be the case if the whole board or box design is clearly shown. Could you please point out the board or box design in the picture I took? Oh yes, you were mixed up about that... --Jcbutler (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(Again) "Provided that the copyright elements are incidental and de minimis to the overall image" and the counters are copyrighted pieces. Jappalang (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(below passage was a refactored version on Jcbutler's talk page of the above strikethrough portion) Well, all right, I was wrong about the Monopoly picture-- see how easy that was? But let's consider the guideline for board games: Photographs of a game in progress may possibly be allowable provided that the copyright elements are incidental and de minimis to the overall image, but that is unlikely to be the case if the whole board or box design is clearly shown. The whole board and box design were not shown at all, so that is not an issue. You could argue that the copyright elements are not "incidental" but my reply is that only a small portion of the game was shown, and thus the game itself was not represented. This is starting to get tedious, but I maintain that what we have here is either a misinterpretation of a vague guideline, or simply a flawed guideline. Maybe the admin I contacted will clarify the situation, but I am about done with it. No hard feelings, I hope. --Jcbutler (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

None at all. Commons has several conflicting policies/guidelines over certain matters, so it is not unexpected that such issues would be confusing to anyone. Jappalang (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(The following was moved from another thread—DYK for Sword of Aragon. Its content and context was more relevant to this thread.)

File:Sword of Aragon - Battle.png - Example #2. Copyright violation?

Uh oh. While we are on the issue of copyrights, this looks like it might be another derivative work... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcbutler (talk • contribs) 03:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you had even bothered to read the image page, you would have known this image is used under fair use considerations. I never claimed copyrights over the elements in the image, and in fact, acknowledged very clearly who owns the copyright, and why this image can be used under claim of fair use (per WP:NFCC). Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

fixing the svg file on Army of the Danube

THANKS for doing this. I had not a clue how to cut out the white space Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jappalang/Image_stuff&oldid=1142522460"