User talk:Jheald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



London 91[edit]

Hi, we met at London 91 yesterday - I've added you to my list of Wikipedians I have met. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jheald. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.


Thanks for the links and the inspiring presentation about that impressive achievement. Good to meet you. Off to see the tulips nowbut will return to this. (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Op ed[edit]

Hi, edit conflict, and I've just done a massive job on it.

Can you hold off for a few minutes, while I put mine in and integrate your recent edits? Tony (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm done, thanks. I made only a few tweaks to your more recent edits. Two requests/suggestions: slight overuse of semicolons, generally; and could you please not -- use double-hyphens. There are buttons underneath the edit-pane: closed em dash—or open en dash – are the two choices, and within quotes should be silently harmonised to your choice. It's a good piece, and really really important. Tony (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tony1: (ec) Thanks for your help on this, and anything you can do to tighten it up or make it more persuasive. I'm about to crash out -- I think it's now got everything I was thinking of putting in to it, so the field is yours. I've asked our campaign team in Brussels to look over it, so they may have a few more tweaks or factual corrections in the morning. All best, Jheald (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi Jheald, in your Signpost article you said we can send a hard copy of your letter to Brussels by post. Do you know the adress to send a letter to a MEP by post? --Davidpar (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi Jheald, thanks for your contribution to ITM this week. In the future, though, please do not add stories to a Signpost story once it's been published -- instead, feel free to add it to the next issue. We need to avoid having late things about which the editors don't know, as we are responsible for what gets published. Thanks! Go Phightins! 13:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that story you're working on for the new ITM, that looks like a pretty comprehensive look at the issue. We're going to try to publish today or tomorrow, so let me know asap if you need more time to finish. Gamaliel (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: To be honest I'm a bit saturated with the FoP story, and it would be great if somebody with a more distanced news-eye could take it on. I've laid out some of the main developments since the end of last week, but it would be great if you or somebody else could take the bulk of it forward from here. I'll try to keep any new facts up to speed. There may also be a piece forthcoming from Jimbo in the Guardian's "Comment is Free" online section, but I don't know how concrete that yet is. Jheald (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Jheald, @Gamaliel:, another article just out by Andrew Orlowski in The Register: "Wikipedia jumps aboard the bogus 'freedom of panorama' bandwagon". Might be worth incorporating. Andreas JN466 14:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Gamaliel and Jayen466: Feel free to add, if you think you can see a good place to work it in. I'm feeling a bit too done in atm to touch it.
For the record, I think Orlowski is wrong. The statements of Honeyball on BBC2 last week, Cavada as quoted in the article, and Cavada as quoted here were uncompromising, and reflected the success of solid lobbying by ADAGP, who did indeed want to see this brought in across the EU. ADAGP's lobbying had managed to win over all the MEPs from both EPP and S&D on the committee, including the MEPs from currently have FoP. And that's just in the parliment, where we can see what's going on. Who knows what they were achieving in the Commisson with the likes of Oettinger. Was this the last ditch? No. But was this the key moment to stop this proposal in its tracks? Yes.
The latest that I've heard after the hearing in the EP this morning (unconfirmed) is that Cavada might have now rung up the white flag. But I haven't seen a statement yet; and we can be very clear that this would not have happened without the public campaign, the petition, and the number of institutions that have come on board to speak out for FoP. 16:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to add that I've added a similar response in the comments thread there. Sorry if I didn't get this done sooner. Jheald (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this piece. I think it is ready to go. I plan on publishing within the hour, so ping me if you want to add anything. I'd prefer not to make substantive changes post-publication, but I am willing to delay if you think anything needs to be added. Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Thanks for giving it the read-over. The only thing I have done, in the last 20 minutes, is to add three more pictures, to try to leaven what was otherwise quite a long slab of text. It's a shame that the Haus Corbusier pic is that way round, rather than a mirror image -- but I liked being able to show what WMFR had used, an image with freedom of panorama in contrast to the blacked-out ones, but one which had to come from outside France even for such a celebrated French architect. As far as I know the political line is still current; if there's any update, I'll put it in the comments. Jheald (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, it looks like we'll be publishing this evening EST. Gamaliel (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: So that's by or before midnight my time. I'll see if I can wrap it up, but I do have commitments from about 6:30 until 10. (now 6:08) Jheald (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I've moved your story here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-07-15/Special report Gamaliel (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, check out the narrative format we're trialing out right now for long-form pieces. ResMar 13:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


Jheald, thanks for a non-hyperbolic contribution to the discussion on Jimbo's talk. I appreciate its fair-minded (NPOV? Face-smile.svg ) spirit, as opposed to some of the more sycophantic comments often found on that page. However, you lost me when you appeared to want to take the blame for the falsehoods in Wales' op-ed.

What compelled Wales to write, "Wikipedia only uses freely licensed images"? By no possible stretch of the imagination could he have been ignorant of the fact that there are millions of non-free files on the English and other Wikipedias, and that US fair-use law in particular provides generous exceptions for educational use.

Was there a good reason to claim otherwise in a high-profile letter addressed to the public? I don't think so. The need to put fire in a political screed does not excuse blatant falsities: that's the preserve of demagogues. Regards, Andreas JN466 23:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Andreas @Jayen466: Can't write much now, because it's getting on for one in the morning. If you bear in mind that Jimbo was writing under time pressure and word-count pressure for a general audience, I think the occasional slip or simplification is understandable. It's a reasonable message to get over, that Wikipedia does overwhelmingly try to use freely licensed images, and that by free it means usable not only by Wikipedia, but also free for people to be able to re-use in all sorts of contexts, including commercial.
Yes, there's a fair amount of non-free content here as well, re-usable in various jurisdictions to various extents under provisions of "fair use", "fair dealing" or "implied licence". The last probably covers most album covers, book covers and ongoing promotional material in many jurisdictions where U.S. fair use doesn't apply -- I believe it is probably that ("implied licence") that may be an arguable justification in France for such packaging material on fr-wiki and maybe some other promotional material -- though the collecting societies don't like it (one recently called implied licence a "failed doctrine"); but the French and German requirements for criticism/comment to be acceptable in contrast are pretty stringent. As for fr-wiki's use of images of modern buildings, the French collecting society ADAGP believes that's illegal, and say so a number of times in their publicity. I don't think they would sue fr-wiki, because the resulting outcry might be enough even to get freedom of panorama legislated in France. But it's not impossible; and an EU directive that had settled the question as an adopted piece of law across Europe would hugely strengthen their hand.
Wikimedia could try to argue U.S. jurisdiction and U.S. fair use for fr-wiki; but I'm not sure their chances would be particularly good, as (per the Berne convention) the rule for copyright law is lex loci protectionis -- the law of the territory for which copyright protection is claimed. Wikipedia could try to claim the 1st amendment and fair use against that, but given that the readership of fr-wiki is overwhelmingly outside the United States, I wouldn't put money on the argument succeeding. I suspect the best-case likely scenario would be a U.S. court trying to apply French law. This is why the rule of thumb has always been that different language wikis will usually follow the legal traditions associated with countries with that language.
The situation is slightly different for en-wiki, which plainly is directed in substantial part at a U.S. audience, from (predominantly) U.S. servers by a U.S.-based entity, so I would think any case would probably be run under U.S. law. (Though it's not impossible that some day the English High Court might have a go at us for some of our PD-Art images, on the basis that they are viewable in England, so under the principle of lex loci protectionis English law can be applied -- and the terms of such a judgment could then get enforced by a U.S. court). The rule-of-thumb we've come to re U.S. fair use is that a "master image" of a structure or work is probably acceptable in the context of an article specifically devoted to that work; while further images of details may be, if they make specific points that are raised in the article more understandable -- applied as quite a high threshold, and as sparingly as possible, as it probably should be.
So that would let us keep some images on some pages in some languages, most notably English. (As I did actually mention to various people and bodies that I personally wrote to). But it would annihilate the coverage on Commons, mean an end to such panoramas being allowable for Wiki Loves Monuments, and probably mean complete removal in most European languages. So it would be a very heavy hit. It might even conceivably lead to region-blocking for en-wiki, the way eg GoogleBooks and HathiTrust do for scans of books published between the 1870s and 1923 (available in the U.S. but not in Europe), if the images remained on en-wiki and a collecting society decided it wanted to have its pound of flesh.
And of course the books we research from would be less comprehensive and less well-illustrated too.
What the people pushing this wanted was for all commercial-scale use to have to be paid for ("licenses for panorama", as one collecting society put it). IMO it was appropriate to show what that would mean. Jheald (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request JhealdBot[edit]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JhealdBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT 18:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free use rationale album cover/old[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Non-free use rationale album cover/old has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Wdchk (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 20[edit]

You were involved in a discussion about File:Madonna-Material-Girl-333295.jpg. I invite you to the above DRV. --George Ho (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)