User talk:Elcobbola

Dispatch review

I added some comments here. I think it is a wonderful dispatch - very clear. We've needed something like this for a long time. Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I also thank you for writing that up – very handy. – Scartol • Tok 00:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Elcobbola, what are your thoughts on Part 2? Are you burnt out, or do you want to get it over with? The reason I ask is that I have travel at the end of the month, and I want to nail down what we're going to do about the 25th. Free images is the 11th, TFA/R is the 18th, then we have the 25th, 1st and 8th. Tony would probably take the 8th for Monthly style guide updates (he can't have them ready by the 1st), and Featured topics probably wants the 1st (they have a pending milestone, but all in flux). So, unless you want the 25th for non-free images, we've got to scare up an interview. I know you've worked hard on this, and may want a break, but it would also be good to strike while the iron is hot, and have one follow on the heels of the other. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use is actually much easier, as WP:NFCC is basically nothing but a check list (i.e. it's mechanical exercise requiring far less critical thought). That said, however, it's a miracle part 1 got done when it did (kudos to the surprisingly good 3G coverage in New England). I can try for the 25th, but am quite hesitant to commit given my schedule (I will not have a reprieve from travel until the second week of September). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. Then when I plead ignorance, I'll really be ignorant :-) How about putting it at Wikipedia:FCDW/TempNF? We can move it when we have a date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful dispatch - many thanks to you and the editors who helped you. With the exception of the last four captions, this is better than most of the very polished how-tos and policies I've read on WP. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-23t15:15z

Thanks for the kind words. I don't disagree about the captions; unlike the previous images, those four don't really have a meaningful function other than eye candy. Superfluous images breed superfluous captions, I suppose. If you would like to suggest or implement alternative captions, I'd be happy to have you do so. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Elcobbola, I hope Wikipedia:FCDW/TempNF is aiming for Sept 15? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, dart players aim for the bullseye, but it doesn't mean their walls are free of holes. ;) Seriously though, I am indeed trying. I'm currently writing it "offline", as I prefer not to have the distraction of tinkering while the main thoughts are developing - not that they're exactly profound or many in this sort of writing. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Image advice

Hi, Elcobbola. I'm working on Stonewall riots to being to FA. There are two known images of the riots while they were occurring. I would like to use one of them at the top of the page. One is from a freelance photographer named Fred McDarrah you can find here, about 3/4 down the page. I've emailed the address on the bottom of the page asking for permissions to use the image, but have not received a response.

The other was taken by UPI, and may have run in the New York Daily News, but I'm not sure. I'm trying to find a good image of it, but quickly it's here on the cover of Stonewall by David Carter, one of the main sources I used for the article.

I'm familiar with NFCC #8. I wrote the section for "Images of the Day" in Birmingham campaign. However, I was wondering, since only two images seem to exist regarding the riots, are either of them available for use? I appreciate your response. --Moni3 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm admittedly not familiar with the economics of UPI or McDarrah's freelance work, but there may be an issue with NFCC#2 if one or both market intellectual properties to media, etc. for the purpose of illustrating critical commentary. NFCC#8 is difficult to judge when the image is not yet being used (i.e. how does one determine whether a contribution is significant when that contribution has yet to be made?), but it certainly seems reasonable to assume that either image could be successfully used in the article if accompanied by a well-reasoned rationale. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. The Fred McDarrah image may be sold for profit. I think it ran in the Village Voice in 1969. Neither really attracted attention the way the images in Birmingham campaign did, but since the UPI image was taken during the riots-- the first night they broke out, I think -- and the only image I know of showing that. How would I load it with a good rationale? --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Filling out the {{Non-free use rationale}} template, obviously, is a good start and an easy way to articulate compliance with the more "mechanical" criteria (e.g. NFCC#3B). A good rationale will explain both the significant contribution the image is expected to make to our understanding (this is distinct from historical significance) and how our understanding of the topic would be impaired by removal of the image. Only the former remains a NFCC requirement, but the latter is highly recommended for additional support, "insurance", etc. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I uploaded this image: Image:Stonewall riots.jpg with a non-free historic image template. Let me know if I need to amend or change it in any way. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's a start. You have for the purpose "It is the only published image of the riots during the first evening when they spontaneously began." This is more a description of the image than an articulation of its purpose. We want to explain why the image is being included (presumably to illustrate the riots - but that needs to be explicitly said). If illustration is indeed the purpose, it should then expand on why seeing the riots assists us significantly in understanding the riots. What do we see in the image that words alone could not express? How would our understanding of the riots be harmed if the image were not present in the article? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I added some more information to the Purpose of the image. --Moni3 (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose looks good. If you really want to pick nits for FAC, you should probably reduce the resolution to 0.1 megapixels (NFCC#3B) and move the image to a place in the text more pertinent to the riot's participants than the lead is. I'd actually recommend the Inn image for the lead, but that image appears to be a copyvio (NYPL does not support the GFDL tag - I'm not sure where that license claim is coming from...) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have an OTRS ticket number (2008080810018509) for the New York Public Library image of the Stonewall Inn. No one has altered the image file to reflect that, however. Usually an admin (or someone) does that. Any advice on that issue? --Moni3 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a horse of a different colour. ;) The OTRS folks add those templates; I left a note for Nishkid64. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A duplicate version of Moni3's upload exists at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Stonewall_Inn_1969.jpg. The uploader Howcheng was the one who dealt with the Moni3's OTRS ticket. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's odd. Usually they ticket the image and leave it up to the uploader or author to shift it to Commons. I'm completely confused. --Moni3 (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

From the OTRS ticket, there's nothing to indicate that he knew about your localized upload of this image. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Nishkid, I appreciate your assistance. Elcobbola, I'm still thinking of how the images will be placed in the article, and I'm considering adding another. But I am also grateful for your help in getting the right template information for the riots image. That's the whipped cream and the cherry for the whole sundae. --Moni3 (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Moni. The article is looking great. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

When you have a chance, can you look at the images at Samuel Johnson and get back to me about them? We are prepping it for FA, and I want to settle the images first. I have a book that documents the owners of some of the paintings if necessary. I'm not that current on such materials that are so old. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Can anything be worked from the information I provided here? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you've provided good information. I made a sample edit here so you can see how the majority of images could be corrected. I'll stop back at the article talk and elaborate, etc. tomorrow. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I went through, added the template with info to all the images (and on commons also). I hope I did it correctly. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. We have all the time in the world. Just trying to get everything 100% before a FA nomination. We don't want an FA, we want the best article possible. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot edit commons, because a fly by admin blocked my IP for claims of "trolling". I pointed out in a deletion review that an image was cropped from another image that was hosted by Wikipedia, without a clear statement that the image was a derivative or when the derivative was made. The "info" for both images were copy and paste of the other, without reference. It was a simple fix, but no one cares about being in compliant for that.

Regardless: 1. This can be found on Lane p. 207. Courage Ltd, London owns the original. Cooper-Bridgeman Library owns a copy. 2. This is stated to be owned by Mary Hyde in NJ on page xvii in Bate. Most of the duplicates of it cut the picture off just below the rounded edges at the top (at the line across the two paintings). 3,4. This and this I added that I cropped and scanned the images of the dictionary pages to the source. 5. The 17 gough square image can be removed. Johnson didn't live there during the time the picture is placed in the article. I put in its place a scan of the second edition of London's title page. I put up the information as per the dictionary pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What IP is it? I'm happy to review and unblock if it was indeed inappropriate. Alternatively, have you considered setting up a Commons account (or you could just unify your login)? If you're not interested in the Commons shenanigans; I can move/amend the images. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I sent via email. I had an account on the commons before, but people seem to be more concerned about popular opinion than actual licensing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Wikipedia emails go to my German laptop; I'll be back in town late tomorrow (Thursday, realistically), so I'll be able to get it it then. I'm happy to correct the images in the mean time; if you'd like not to to wait for whatever reason, let me know and I'll send you my "US" email. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It can wait a few days. The Commons thing doesn't seem to matter. There are already six people "supporting" the image whose responses show that they didn't even grasp the concern present. Its a sad state of affairs over there. JzG got harassed by another person, so it seems to be mob rule. It you are very curious. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC) This - could you revert my editing and upload it then, or is it unrecoverable? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's recoverable (just click the older date in the "file history" section). The Commons transfer script, however, only grabs the most recent version, so I'd just need to make the move manually (not a big deal - just more steps than I was interested in undertaking at the time). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thats good. I was afraid that it might have been damaged. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hannah Pritchard

Hi; I want to add the image of Hannah Pritchard on this page to the article on Irene (play), on the grounds that Mrs. Pritchard played the title character in the first (and almost only) production of this (justly forgotten piece of high-minded but boring) drama. I have emailed the editors of the magazine in question, but they have not responded. I would very much like to know your opinion about the likely usability of this image, seeing as it is clearly by an artist who has now been dead for more than a hundred years, and whether or not that counts for anything. (I too am a Schiller fan, btw, although when I tried to read the Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man in my early 20s I did get a bit stuck.) Many thanks. Lexo (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with making a PD claim for the image. The date 1750 is inscribed thereupon and the NPG reiterates the date. A {{PD-Old}} tag should do, but don't upload the image to the Commons (long story). Schiller didn't exactly take the direct route in developing a theme in Letters, that's for certain. I hope you managed to get unstuck later in life; it's truly profound. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Lexo (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm....

Image:0064MC.jpg - Do you think a professional photographer donated images to Wikipedia? Awadewit (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There are several professional photographers active on the Commons and other projects. Tetraktys, the uploader here, reports to be staff member of Rio Grande do Sul Museum of Art and a photographer, among other things. Some uploads have wrinkles (e.g. many uploads of items in a Greek museum - quite a ways from Brazil, landscapes with borders, etc.), but, in the absence of evidence that the photos originated elsewhere, I'm happy to AGF. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a professional photographer, albeit just starting out, and I donate my 'culls' to wikipedia. I don't donate the best stuff, obviously, but shooting generates a LOT of culls, and might as well make some use of them. (Some of the other "culls" go to stock photography, for example). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It is nice to have other opinions on these matters! Awadewit (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Translation?

• Shiels Maggie (14 August 2008). "Legal milestone for open source". BBC News. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No matter how "free" copyleft licenses seem, one still needs to abide by the terms of license. If, for example, a license requires attribution (giving the original author credit), a failure to do so constitutes a breach (i.e. infringement). This is "Copyleft images are still under copyright" in practice. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sad loss for Janeites

Image:Lyme Park 2.jpg - Since this Flickr link isn't working, I believe we can no longer use this image, correct? Awadewit (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, Flickr images with dead links are still ok if they've had a Flickr review (i.e. a Flickrreview template has been added by a Commons admin or a trusted reviewer; FlickreviewR bot doesn't appear to be on the list, but it counts). A brief description of Flickr review is here. Put simply, when legitimately tagged, these images are confirmed to have been published on Flickr with the license tag indicated. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ec, what do you think about adding these sorts of post-Dispatch questions into one FAQ section on the talk page of the Dispatch? Or even add them in to the Dispatch if you feel it's warranted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - good to know. Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to do it. Would a separate page (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches/FAQ) be the best way to go about it? (I don't think it would fit nicely into the Dispatch - and I do worry about TLDR). Alternatively, there could probably even be a "Reviewing free images: part two" Dispatch. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Medical consent

I believe it is only in images where the patient is identifiable that consent is required? So, for example, this does not require the patient's consent? Awadewit (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, this does not require consent. Although "in images where the patient is identifiable ... consent is required" may not always be the case. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! You're a gem! Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd license

Have you ever seen this license before? I haven't read it all the way through yet. Awadewit (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's new to me. The SEL license seems as if it would be acceptable on Wikipedia (a SEL copyright tag does not exist to my knowledge, but that is easily remedied), as it appears to be nothing more than GFDL with propriety "social commentary" baggage. I, however, don't see support for that license. The image is from Christina Ruth Mann's page on wearcam.org which implies she is the author, not Steve Mann/Glogger (talk · contribs), as indicated in the image summary (even if they're married, my understanding is that she alone would have the copyright - assuming she is still alive). Steve appears to be the webmaster at wearcam.org itself, but the site has a copyright disclaimer incompatible with Wikipedia and I see no evidence that A) Christina transfered rights to Steve or B) that images on the site are published under SEL. Did I miss it? The site is straight out of dada. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What should we do? I'm thinking the image should be deleted. Awadewit (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree; IfD calls. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So time consuming

Image reviewing is so time consuming. Wow. We need some sort of campaign to educate editors about image regulations so that they can learn to check the basics on their own. Awadewit (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I just assume if it's on Commons, it's good to go. Now you know how I feel about sourcing... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how you do the sourcing reviews. I've only just started reviewing every FAC for image violations and I know I won't be able to keep it up. I have no time for any other wiki-work and it is taking far too much time every day. :( We need an army of volunteers to do this and educated editors! Awadewit (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Images are probably harder than sources in some respects, because folks are less educated. On the other hand, it should be easier once folks are educated, I'd hope. You don't have to copy my model of reviewing either, it's only for those that have a fair amount of time, which I do. If your wiki time is limited, it's not going to work so well. Also, once I am on "top" of things, and only having to cope with the new ones, it does become easier to keep on top of things. I've found that reviewing the new ones every morning, then catching the replies I can while I'm doing other wiki work throughout the day, and then three times a week going back through and getting any responses that I've missed works pretty good. FACs that required a LARGE number of comments, I'm much more likely to leave til that three times a week review of the whole list, rather than try to stay on top of all their replies. Sandy keeps trying to convince me to only source check the FACs that have garnered supports, but I figure since I have the time, doing every FAC helps educate folks on how things work. And, what... five or six months later, I've got most of the regular nominators trained to find their own errors. Note I said "most". I think part of the problem with images is that it's more than one problem. You have the fair-use issues, and then you have the nitpicky details missing from Commons. If you are strapped for time, pick ONE of those problems, and leave the other for others. If I was you, I'd stick with fair use, and just spot check Commons. In theory, Commons should be policing itself on the tags and sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Before Elcobbola, that was what I thought, too (if it's on Commons, it's good). Awadewit, don't be discouraged. The cadre is growing, and the shortages were due to past ignorance, which left Elcobbola pretty much alone on image review, taking the brunt of nominator hostility. Now that more people are aware, and now that Ec has written the Dispatch, I think we'll be over this hump soon, and it will become just another educational "wave" at FAC. I remember a few years back when every single FAC presented with Wp:FN footnote placement problems; we educated, and nowadays, that almost never shows up. I think image review will be under control within a few months, as more reviewers learn and as nominators realize they should get their images squared away in advance. And hopefully with other people helping, we can encourage and motivate Elcobbola to return full force. What troubles me equally is that Ealdgyth is the only person reviewing sources; it boggles my mind when people support a FAC without checking the sourcing, and I wonder who will want to take on that tedious work if Ealdgyth ever tires. Thanks for taking on so many image reviews, Awadewit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Mama Sandy worrying again (grins). I actually kinda enjoy it, it's productive and I can see folks are learning about sourcing. When I started doing it, it was as much to learn about FAC and it's culture, but now it's kinda fun. I sure learn a lot, that's for sure. And like I said above, it's not like the many headed Hydra that is images, there really isn't that much to sources. I will admit that I've pretty much decided against taking any admin nomination offers, between FAC sourcing and trying to write articles, I just don't see how I'd have time to do admin work either. Oh, yeah, and RL should get SOME effort too! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. ;) The time is amazing, especially when you get images with a lot of flags and, consequently, have to go rummaging around Google images, Flickr, LoC, NYDL, NPG, Bridgeman, Everystockphoto, PicFindr, Spffy and all the rest. Then there's the issue of being attacked for your time and effort; FAC is not the place I thought it was - but I digress. No one will be more jubilant than I if Sandy's optimism comes to fruition, however. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Reviewers Award
		Thankyou for all the work you do for Featured article candidates. The FAC Process would surely crumble without your continued efforts. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thank You

Thanks - it makes me feel slightly less guilty at walking away. I had reached the point where I did not see my contributions having much hope of making a difference and I wanted to keep it civil, so I left. As Thumper says in the film Bambi, if you can't say something nice, then don't say nothin' at all (or words to that effect). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Query...

Stigand. The images from the Bayeux tapestry. There is no question that it's out of copyright, but images OF it, are they out of copyright? I'm so totally at see at this whole non-US copyright thing. What do I need to do to get these images up to snuff for a run at FAC? He's up next after the current one.. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, no need to worry about the international aspects on en.wiki. These are the types of images I struggle with, as there exists a difference between what I believe to be the "correct" answer in the real world, and the answer that would be acceptable to Wikipedia. Bridgeman v Corel, the ruling that allows us to use exact copies of 2D works (like my good friend above, Schiller), could be seen as limited by the scope of what it was actually intending to address (2D paintings and slides thereof), but several of the cases underlying the Court's findings (e.g. Mazer v. Stein and Feist) seem more easily extended to a 3D work (a tapestry). The legal discussion aside, I don't foresee a problem with images whose subjects are very much 2D (e.g. Image:Stigand.jpg); I would become moreso concerned with images that begin to display the 3D nature of the work (e.g. Image:Bayeux Tapestry 4.jpg) or textural detail (e.g. Image:Bayeux tapestry laid work detail..jpg). Although, frankly, the community would probably call me a loony for even doubting/questioning those (again, "real life" and Wikipedia have a tendency to diverge).

• Image:Stigand.jpg - needs a verifiable source
• Image:William1.jpg - needs a verifiable source
• Image:British.Library.MS.Add.33241.jpg - is too 3D for my liking but, as I've said, I don't think my view would find support and it's not something about which I'm sure enough to raise the issue anyway. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So, if I have a photograph of these in a book, even if that photograph was taken in the UK or in a non-US country, where Bridgeman v. Corel doesn't apply, I could still scan the image and use it as PD-Old on Wikipedia? (I'm in the US) I think that's the basic question I'm asking. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That is our modus operandi, yes. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Okay, I can get soures for the two tapestry images, thankfully. The third has a source so that's good (although I'd avoided using manuscripts in British hands, but guess I didn't need to...) Luckily, medieval manuscripts are all PD! Thanks a BUNCH! Awa thanks you too, since she won't have to walk me through this at Stigand's FAC! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Logos everywhere

Does this need a fair use rationale because it has the Texas Tech logo on it? Or is the Texas Tech logo too simple to guarantee it copyright? Or do pictures of logos once-removed not require fair use rationales? Or....? Awadewit (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Several things here:

• The Texas Tech logo itself (e.g. this) is indeed probably too simple, as it is really nothing but mere typographic ornamentation (although there are those who would disagree with me; frankly, I think there's a reason the logo has a "TM" in the corner and not a copyright logo.) This is moot however, as:
• The ring as a whole is copyrightable as an "original [work] of authorship fixed in [a] tangible medium of expression" [1] (yes, jewelry, like equally mundane stuffed animals, is subject to copyright); this image is a derivative work.
• The image appears professionally done (even lighting, etc.), is of low resolution, has no metadata and the uploader's talk page has number of image-related warning templates; are we sure the uploader is even the image's author? Quack?
• Fair use wouldn't fly per NFCC#1. As an object still in existence, a free image could be obtained/created. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Strike that last bit; I need to rethink that. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose a fair use claim could be made, but I'd anticipate NFCC#8 to be a significant hurdle. Is it really that hard to imagine a ring with the logo on it, especially when the logo is already used in the article? Sometimes I'm dumbfounded by what people claim needs illustrating; I think Wikipedians must watch too much television. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be a character witness for Elred, so to speak. He is a graphic artist and I find believable his claim of having created the image of the ring. Most of the image-related problems noted on his talk page come from a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy, not from dishonesty. Additionally, many of the notices are related to simple housekeeping for things like orphaned free-use. Just my 2¢ since this was linked to from the Texas Tech FA discussion. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's good enough for me; I'm happy to AGF. The image is still a derivative, however, and would require permission of the ring's designer/creator to be freely published. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree that it does need a fair-use rationale. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image review Dispatch

It's looking like Wikipedia:FCDW/TempNF will be on September 15. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. My sorting through of preliminary thoughts has already caused NFCC to be changed [2] [3], so hopefully I won't have to continue to rewrite the criteria to write about the criteria. ;) I did start making illustrations last night, so it is somewhat underway. Do let me know about the free FAQ, too. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, did I forget to reply <smack> ... the FAQ is wonderful. If you think it's ready, I think you could add it to the bottom of the Dispatch as a See also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping it would become "frequently asked questions" (as opposed to its current "frequently asked question") before making it more prominent... ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Meaning you want me to ask more dumb questions? Can you trawl through your talk page for some? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know whether you'd already had mental notes; you, obviously, pay much closer attention to FAC, so I thought you might be able to better gauge what was truly "frequent" in the realm of review. Your questions are never dumb, but I suppose I can go trawling. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had my head elsewhere lately (that is, whether I'm going to have to take off the delegate hat, put on the reviewer hat, recuse some FACs to Raul, and do something to kickstart FAC out of this 100KB-FACs-without-opposes-or-supports current mode it's in). Can't focus on images when there are now several capable people on the job. Gosh, I guess I was a brutal reviewer; I lodged Fixes needed all over the place, and switched to oppose if they weren't fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You can move it to WP:FCDW/September 15, 2008 whenever you think it's close enough for others to weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Too funny!

I kind of wanted to see if anyone would review the images in Proserpine (play) and I was curious what they would say. I was sort of testing the FAC waters, but you were too quick! :) Awadewit (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah nuts, you've got to let me in on such schemes. ;) I would like to have known the outcome. (I do wonder from time to time whether "experts" get a pass in their field - i.e. would people be diligent about checking sources on an Ealdgyth nom, comprehensiveness on an Awadewit nom, images on an Elcobbola nom, prose on a Tony1 nom, etc?) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 07:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image check request

Could you possibly look at the images on Southern Cross Expedition? It's at PR awaiting a review, and no doubt someone will look at the prose, but I'd really appreciate knowing whether there are any likely problems with the images, bearing in mind problems I've had in the past with these wretched expeditions. Many thanks Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded there. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. My bemused responses are on the review page. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image review

Elcobbola, Awadewit let me know she's going to have limited access over the coming week; is there any chance I can entice you to do image reviews for about the next ten days? There are several articles ready to go but lacking image review, and several that I just restarted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm available to do some image checks if you want to throw some over my way. I've been neglecting making myself useful at FAC for a while now. —Giggy 11:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Giggy. By the way, I've been meaning to say kudos for this; very impressive to see the right call on something so mundane and seemingly benign. That sort of thing might get you attacked at FAC. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you find images, too?

So, Simmaren and I are slowly preparing Reception history of Jane Austen for FAC, but I'm having trouble finding an image of a modern scholar to include. I thought I had one of Edward Said, but this one is looking pretty sketchy. I'm trying to track down the source, but I think it might be a professional photo falsely uploaded. Anyway, if you feel like helping find an image of Said or any of the scholars listed in that section of the article or if any other inspired idea hits you, we would greatly appreciate it. If you don't have time, we totally understand. (We are only at GAN, so absolutely no rush.) Awadewit (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've indeed gone image hunting from time to time (although I've yet to find Mr Pankhurst). ;) I'll take a look for these folks. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See here, by the way. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A question on images

I was just wondering whetheryou could find time to check out these images as per my query here. [4]. Secondly, Will the images here like this [5] be acceptable as the Jaina calender is its own publication and put it in public domain.--Anish (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay; this one got lost in travel and succeeding queries.

1. No, those images won't do. The readme" says: "The majority of the material of this CD has been collected from various Jain pathshala teachers and scholars of North America, from the past publications of similar CDs by the JAINA education committee under the leadership of Dr. Gada, from internet and e-mails of public domain" (emphasis added). The "majority" is quite distinct from "all"; when the images are arranged like this, with no commentary as to whether they belong to "the majority", we don't have anything usable. Further, the English of the readme is terrible (and I say that as a non-native speaker), especially for a document that, in part, is attempting to make a legal assertion. One could read "the majority" as not even referring to public domain, as "and e-mails of public domain" is the only use of the phrase. Does public domain apply to just the emails or the other, preceding sources as well?
2. Whether the images on the calender are acceptable depends upon who took the photographs. Did a representative of Jaina.org take the images, or did Jaina.org just compile "found" images for their publication (see derivative works). We'd really need to see a "credits" page; are there cover pages or other, non-month pages that have been scanned and posted which might have this information? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...That clears up the query. Too bad...they had good images depicting the life of Lord Mahavira..as well as from various themes of Jainism. Maybe I can correspond with them to get the exact status of the image. Thanks again.--Anish (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

I'm confused by this tag. Perhaps you could explain it to me? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Conceptually, this is why the tags are properly called "copyright tags", not "license tags". True licenses (e.g. CC and GFDL) are actual legal documents establishing, among others, parties, terms of use and termination, liabilities, etc. This tag, however, is moreso a mere declaration by the copyright holder without the legal "baggage". It's the concept from the Dispatch of "Copyleft images are still under copyright; their creators have merely waived some, but not all of the protection that copyright affords them". This tag asserts that Jcrocker holds the copyright (nothing wrong with that) and that certain protections have been waived ("use [is allowed] for any purpose"). If it helps, think of it as CC-by or GFDL without an underlying legal document. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Lack of source

Can we use this logo without a precise source? See the discussion here. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd ask the uploader of the current version (Bobak (talk · contribs) - an admin and still-active editor) where s/he obtained it. If that doesn't pan out, however, WP:IAR seems fine, as the image's origin - although imprecise - is obvious (provenance isn't really in question). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What a relief! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

Just a follow up on the Red-necked Grebe images (thanks for checking) Image:Podicepsgrisegena.jpg and Image:Grèbejougrisparade.jpg both click straight through to the USFWS website for me and are not dead links (although Image:Grebe.jpg is) Is it possible that your browser has a problem with the USFWS site? I've reluctantly removed these images, the two best in the article, but one of the replacements Image:Podiceps grisegena9.jpg is also USFWS. Url works for me, but could you check, because if that image has to go as well I might as well forget pictures of the North American subspecies altogether since they are all USFWS. Thanks jimfbleak (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up; I responded at the FAC (I think I just happened to hit the USFWS site when it was down). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Voyage of the James Caird

Can you put any sense to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voyage of the James Caird? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh, TLDR - closely, anyway ;). I just did my own review; hope it helps! ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, reassuring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel so ashamed. I'm still an apprentice. :( Awadewit (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, there's nothing to be ashamed of ! (Well, except this, maybe, which was painful.) That blog seriously ruined the 2000th moment for me since I happened across it immediately after excitedly e-mailing Raul that the 2000th batch was ready and it included an educational project. In hindsight, it may have bothered me more than Elcobbola, since it dashed my excitement  :-). But just look how far we've come since then ! Now there are many reviewers backing up Elcobbola and learning from him, where he used to be all alone facing the wrath. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It always helps to multiple people mentioning the same issues. I think we are making people aware that they need to check images - raising awareness (step 1) seems to have been accomplished. I have seen more people asking for help before FAC which is always a good sign. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, before I get out the door, we need you two at WP:FAR; Fasach Nua is getting beaten up over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "beaten up": attacked or unable to handle the load/answer questions? I'm not exactly keen on entering a venue where image reviewers are being attacked. I'd been contemplating "moving" to FAR in the hopes the environment was different, especially as the recent FACs at which I've commented "on my own devices" -- Crown Fountain and Croatia national football team -- have strongly reinforced my disillusion. If FAR is going to be more of the same, I might prefer to stick to being the image review vampire (i.e. only reviewing when invited to do so). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm rushed; check my contribs at FAR. And Elcobbola, you have to accept that when others don't understand images as well as you do, it's hard for us to know if someone is being unreasonable. As we learn, this will change, but until you weigh in, how do we know? Also, pls remember that it's not optimal for me to be the one to step in when there are attacks; there is still an unstruck blatant, stunning, blockable personal attack on the Samuel Johnson FAC (delusional troll), and not a soul has said a word. I can't be the one to do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A conversation for when you are not rushed, perhaps. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Croatian national team candidate

Thanks for your comments on the featured article candidate. Really helped, appreciated. Just wanted to let you know that I fixed up all the images now. Thought this was holding you back from supporting or something. Here it is. Domiy (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the follow-up. I've commented on remaining image issues at the FAC. I rarely review outside of images (largely due to time constraints) and typically only support articles on topics in which I have substantial enough knowledge to make an educated evaluation of comprehensiveness and factual accuracy (e.g. economics/finance, literature and all things German). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

More thanks

Many thanks for your comments on the images for the Voyage of the James Caird article, now promoted. It seems that an attempt by someone to create difficulties was neatly averted. In a more general way I would like to thank you for your work on image issues at FA. Sometimes I find your judgements baffling, at other times frustrating, but I have absolute confidence in their soundness, which is why I so frequently turn to you for advice. Which reminds me: when you looked at the Southern Cross Expedition images at PR, you expressed doubts about Image:Borchgrevink Hut.jpg. Do these doubts amount to a "don't use"? Trouble is, there are apparently so few free images for this expedition; there are lots of photographs from Borchgrevink's 1901 book on various websites, but the sites seem to be claiming copyright. Can I use any of these images? With grateful thanks again, Brianboulton (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think FN was attempting to cause problems; having an image pending deletion is never a good thing. The circumstances here, though, were such that an oppose was not really warranted. In any case, thank you for the kind words. I've been meaning to get back to Southern Cross Expedition; I'll be "home" tomorrow, so I'll try to pop in then. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

When you do get back, perhaps you'd give an opinion on these? I've looked at the copyright section and these photographs, taken 110 years ago, appear to be PD under Australian copyright. Is it possible to use them here? (Note also a couple of other additions to the article's images). Brianboulton (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the same (frustrating) issue of publication. Were these published before or after the death of the author? If before, the term is 50 years after their death; if after, the term is 50 years from publication. I only see creation dates. Knowing the publication information is critical to our ability to determine whether they're PD. Per the rights page, an unpublished photograph holds copyright in perpetuity (i.e. the PD clock doesn't start ticking until the image is published); to play devil's advocate, what if these were first published in 1960? That they are currently 110 years old won't be a consideration. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll hold off using these until I can get unimpeachable evidence of publication. I don't think these are from Borchgrevink's 1901 book, they could be from Bernacchi's (also pub. 1901), but who knows? The article can live without them. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Flipping images

Can you please comment here?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. It's all settled. Thx anyway.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Hi, you have voiced concern about an image here. I have changed that since then. I'm not sure if you haven't looked at it since, or whether you still think it violates WP:NFCC. Thanks. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Byron

Low priority - I uploaded this and this. I was wondering if there was any other information that I was missing or if I made any mistakes. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just made some minor tweaks to make the authorship more "accessible". Otherwise, everything looks goods (and a fancy new unified login, too, I see...) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Existential question about sculpture

When does a work of art become a work of art? :) See here. Awadewit (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So we've transcended to philosophical questions, I see. ;) There isn't really such a thing as a "work of art" in this sense. Copyright law uses the term "work of authorship", realizing that "art", as something in the eye of the beholder, is not exactly useful in such a context. I, Elcobbola, for example, don't really consider some things art; the "authorship" verbiage removes that subjective interpretation, however, as merely being a work of authorship is the threshold for copyright protection. Here's the legalese:

Copyright protection subsists ... in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. (emphasis mine)

Simply put, once an "artistic idea" transitions from your mind to paper, stone, metal or some other "tangible medium", even if it's not yet complete ("or later developed"), the copyright has been generated (or, as you've put it, art has become art). Now, getting to specifics:

• This image's subject is an outdoor scene with no one or group of copyright-eligible work(s) as the implicit subject (the white structure is the implicit subject and is exempt).
• I assume this image is of Cloud Gate being constructed? If the ring is merely a structural element, I would argue it is a useful article (e.g. buildings, as works of architecture, are eligible for copyright protection; the structural steel beams therein, however, are not eligible in and of themselves). If, alternatively, this ring is a visible and obviously a deliberate "artistic" element of the completed sculpture, then yes, it would be "non-free".

In both cases, obviously, the author of the photos would need to give permission for their use. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alexandra of Denmark

Hi, I was wondering if you could look at this FAC on a Queen of England and help us determine if the photos are of public domain in the UK, or should we upload them to Wikipedia (ref:FAC for Voyage of the James Caird)? Furthermore, I am wondering if an article can have any amount of "free" images as long as it is associated with the subject (i.e. do we subject "free" images to the same "appropriate" condition as fair-use images)? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I responded at the FAC regarding the first question (no move needed). Regarding the other question, there isn't a really a limit on "free" images in a numerical sense (other than common sense), although the totality and spirit of several guidelines set something of a limit. WP:IMAGES advises against redundancy (e.g. I agree with your comments about the multiple images of Alexandra) and recommends one be "judicious" in picking suitable images (e.g. although freely licensed, a pogo stick image wouldn't really belong in the article). Basically, use as many free images as needed to assist the reader without cramming so many in that there is sandwiching (MOS:IMAGES), impairment of readability/flow, or disruption for those with different needs or hardware setups (WP:ACCESS). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications and enlightenment! Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion sought

If you have a moment to spare, can you take a look at this IFD for a fair-use image. I'm not asking you to get involved in the discussion, but would like to hear your opinion (which I respect) on the validity of arguments presented there. (Note that the image formerly appeared in the infobox of MV Empire Galahad (old version with image.) Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll go in somewhat backwards order, and you'll see why in a moment; the replacement image is not kosher. Per Title 17 (United States copyright law) [6]:

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting 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”. (emphasis mine)

That being the case, I think the argument that "[the] image is not replaceable by a free one" may be valid. I don't believe that a drawing based upon blueprints (which may or may not itself be considered a derivative, as defined above) is reasonably expected to be created, as the existence, availability and accessibility of the blueprints have not been established. I say "may be" because the existence of images of sister ships was not discussed. Here there is interplay with NFCC#8 and, as the image has since been deleted, I can't evaluate its purpose (if, for example, the purpose was merely to illustrate the ship, I'd be hard pressed to believe that an image of a sister ship wouldn't "serve the same encyclopedic purpose" (NFCC#1), which, presumably, is to convey a basic understanding of the ship's size, general configuration, etc.; unique livery and name aren't really relevant to that purpose). I would also note that I consider comments like "The nominator is clutching at straws to find a reason for deletion" (not made by you, obviously) utterly inappropriate and that they would preclude my entry into such a discussion. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I appreciate your insight into the matter. I know that you had some sort of a run-in about images at FAC a while back so I was not trying to draw you into another one, by any means. Thanks again! — Bellhalla (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there wasn't necessarily a particular incident, rather a totality and (still) ongoing abuse and dismissal of image reviewers. In any case, I'm always happy to comment when "invited" and folks are working cooperatively and in good faith. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Post-travel catch-up

Elcobbola, I can't remember if Wikipedia:FCDW/TempNF is on track for WP:FCDW/September 15, 2008?

Also, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel Johnson has passed 150KB and has become hard to sort; can I interest you in capping your sections? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm aiming... I capped my section; the other section in which I commented is really Awadewit's, so I should probably let her do that. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had asked somewhere, but I couldn't find it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any solutions for moving this forward? Responses appear to have moved into the realm of sarcasm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. I love when nominators don't realize the "real" reason you're asking. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously :-) But also, it's used in three featured articles, so really should be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Calgary Flames. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wehe mir. Straw men about procedure and unfortunate attitudes. The concerns are legitimate, but this isn't yet a "discussion" for me. Эlcobbola _talk 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an email

Hope it wasn't too much trouble. Serendi^podous 17:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I don't get WP emails during the day, so it will be at least this evening before I can respond. Эlcobbola _talk 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dumb question of the day

Elcobbola, I'm just learning how to negotiate my local library online from home. I found a beautiful, color version of Image:Hester Thrale.jpg. If it's PD, why can't we upload that color version from my library database? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We can; were you told otherwise? Reynolds died in 1792, so the painting is indeed PD. Images of the painting could be subject to copyright in real life (depending upon the country in which they were created), but en.wiki and Commons do not recognize such claims, so there's no issue there either. A Google images search for "Thrale Reynolds" (sans quotes) hits this as the first result, so the colour versions appear plentiful. If your version is superior or verifiably made in the US, all the better. Эlcobbola _talk 02:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mine looks much more natural; that one has strangely red cheeks. The one I found is gorgeous ... I feel like I'm in the museum ... all excited to be exploring my local library online. But now you're not going to believe what I did. I downloaded the image to my hard drive, and now I can't find the place I downloaded it from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I can believe it; I can't imagine that anyone misplaces more websites than I. In any case, let me know if you need any help uploading it (assuming you relocate the source). Am I reading your log correctly; you've never uploaded an image? Could this be history in the making? ;) Эlcobbola _talk 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never uploaded an image (don't ya know how much they scare me?? ... and ... <grrrr> ... I literally have so many stupid options from my local library database that I can NOT find the damn image again in spite of 20 minutes of searching. Oh, well. Maybe I'll come across it sometime, but I just can't find the database where I got it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That made me *so* mad. I found it in a database called eLibrary. It says "Copyright ¿ 2004 Bridgeman. All Rights Reserved." It gives me a citation that includes the name of my local library, which I'm not willing to put out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bridgeman? As in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.? That would be so delightfully ironic. Эlcobbola _talk 04:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently ... bit I'm still too mad to enjoy the irony :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If I take out the name of my library, the citation they supply is:

• Reynolds, Sir Joshua (1723-92). "Mrs Thrale and her Daughter Hester (Queeney) 1777-78." 01 Oct 2004. Bridgeman. eLibrary. Proquest CSA. 10 Sep 2008. <http://elibrary.bigchalk.com>.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know the sourcing "ropes" better than I; would you take that as a source for text/data in an article? I suppose the test I like to use is whether there's enough information for a reader, so motivated, to verify the image's origin and the information included in the summary. That link takes me to a eLibrary login page. If I had a user account, would I reasonably be able to locate this image's entry? Эlcobbola _talk 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't test it, because my login procedure is different. That page asks for a username and password. When I go through my local library, I enter a barcode and then navigate to that page. I don't have the means to determine if someone else could 1) log in to that site with a username, and 2) search on that image to easily find it. My problem last night was sorting through the gazillion databases available from my library login to figure out which database the image was in; theoretically, with a direct link, one would find the image easily, but I don't have the means to log in directly with a username. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The WP:IUP verbiage is "could be verified", so the need for an account isn't terribly troubling. Given the "Copyright © 2008 ProQuest LLC ", I wonder whether it would just take a ProQuest account? I don'use that service (I usually take the lazy route and call my library's research services department), but maybe Awadewit would? As long as we can get to that image without having to know your library, we're ok. I'll drop her a note (knowing she's on vacation and may not be able to check for some time). Эlcobbola _talk 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to sort because, now that I know I can access my local library from home, I should be able to do more of same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Still in India! I avoided the Delhi bombings by a few hours but I've had to adjust my plans. Anyhow, could I delve into research databases when I return in about a week? Proquest actually owns many databases so it will take me awhile to figure out which one it is, but I'm sure I can find the image. Awadewit (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Need some expert help

I'm working on Harvey Milk's article, and I have asked a professional photographer who took images of Milk for the rights to some of his images. I sent him the GNU Documentation release and he's understandably concerned, and in one of the replies in our correspondence, he asked the following, which I am unable to answer:

• Unfortunately this clearance language seems a little broad to me... does it clear third parties to then go and disseminate the web size file?, that would seriously impair my ability to license these photos, so this may not work out, in which case I might be more inclined to clear only one... and then I may also need to modify the clearance agreement to my standards... use on Wicki only or some such language... I don’t have a lot of time to presence this, can you send me this GNU free documentation license or a link to it... Myself and my lawyer will want to see this in its entirety... Thanks - dan

Also, I'd like to use a newspaper front page for an obvious huge event that shook the city. Would I use a template for a magazine cover to do that? Are there any copyright restrictions if the article describes the enormity of the event and the headline illustrates it? I appreciate your response. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I'm not sure what the "GNU Documentation release" is. The GFDL itself is here, which seems to be what he would like to see and is indeed what he would want to present to his attorney for consideration. To address what appear to be his two "usability"questions:

• The license would indeed allow third parties to disseminate the image in the size of their choosing. He might be able to manipulate this in a certain sense by, for example, only giving us a low resolution image (say 300x300). Subsequent increase of the image's dimensions would result in increasing pixelation (i.e. lose of quality) as the image gets larger.
• The condition of "Wikipedia use only" would be a limitation on redistribution which would render the image "non-free" (i.e. a no-no).

{{Non-free newspaper image}} is the newspaper template. NFCC#1 is a hurdle for newspapers as, if the image is just text, it could be converted to prose and, thus, preclude the need for a "non-free" image. There are exceptions, of course, so I'd probably need to see the image in context. Эlcobbola _talk 14:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I will suggest to the photographer that he release his images only at 300 pixels, I guess. Otherwise, I've already been turned down by one photographer, and I can't get the San Francisco Public Library to freakin' respond to my emails. I'm looking at an FA class article with potentially shit images. I'm having an argh day.

Along that vein, I wanted to post the image of the newspaper for you to see, but I have it only in pdf form and my shit computer at work won't allow me to open an image program to convert it to jpg or otherwise edit it. Swearing at this point is basically all there is left to do, and I'm doing a damn fine job of it here. I can send the pdf to you if you email me - if you're open to that. Otherwise, I'll just swear a lot until I can get some god*(&*&^ mother*^&R^^$R^% bull$%^$### to work. --Moni3 (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Email sent. ;) Эlcobbola _talk 15:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria

In this week's signpost, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria criteria 4 added Or publicly displayed. How does this affect public sculptures in the United States?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: No impact. The change closed a loophole and brought the NFCC into alignment with common practice.

Long answer: Before the change, that criterion required previous publication. Publication is a defined term, meaning "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". A sculpture such as Crown Fountain, therefore, has not technically been published. In a literal sense, before this change, images of such sculptures were not in compliance with NFCC#4. That, obviously, was somewhat silly and never enforced - thus the change. Эlcobbola _talk 14:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Group (mathematics)

I see all kinds of strange tags on images, no image review. No MoS review either, but I'm about to give up on that front. There are a gazillion images there; would you mind looking at them? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

FAC revisit

Hi, could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4chan. Thanks. Giggy (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ec, can you glance at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2005 Sugar Bowl please? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Image check, please

Could you take a look at this Commons image (Image:US10dollarbill-Series 2004A.jpg)? I'm especially concerned about its use at Alexander Hamilton, which is provisionally accepted for inclusion in the WP:V0.7 release on DVD. Seems like a case where we really, really don't want to screw up. Maralia (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In terms of copyright law, I don't see any problems (i.e. I agree authorship is rightly attributed to the federal government). In terms its usage in that article, it seems fine ("free" images are not subject to NFCC and, thus, do not need to pass the high barrier to entry of contributing significantly to our understanding). Any wrinkle would come from the Secret Service restrictions. On the Commons, the image is indeed one-sided and sufficiently larger than the genuine article (the destruction of materials used in the making of the image isn't really pertinent in this case). I also looked around to see whether "specimen" stamping was required for images of US currency, but have found no support for that notion in statutes or government sites (see also my query to Nishkid64 and the response below). The problem, if any, lies in what form the image would take in WP V.07 (i.e. if the size published therein is more than 3/4s of the real size and less than 1.5 times the real size, there may be an issue). I suppose I don't know enough about the particulars of currency to be of much help. Эlcobbola _talk 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the 0.5 release only included thumbnails of images; I haven't seen it explicitly stated whether 0.7 will do the same, but I'll make sure to raise the question. Thanks for looking into this.Maralia (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Query

The person who sent the email (someone from a PR firm that works with the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing) cited http://www.moneyfactory.gov/newmoney/main.cfm/currency/regulations as the justification for including the words "SPECIMEN" over US currency from the 2004 Series and onwards. As noted by ticket handler Daniel (talk · contribs) in his reply, the aforementioned link does not mention anything about labeling these currency images with the word "SPECIMEN". Nonetheless, Daniel made the change and requested the person clarify which part of US federal law he had been referring to. As far as I know, no reply was ever sent back. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

PD-USGov-Congress-Bio

I desire to help out at TfD orphan by working on the pages linking to Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio. I started with Image:RudyBoschwitz.jpg, and found this, and this. bioguide.congress.gov says "Unless otherwise noted, images of Representatives are provided by, and should be credited to Collection of U.S. House of Representatives. Images of Senators are provided by, and should be credited to the U.S. Senate Historical Office." First, it doesn't say were such "otherwise information" would be noted. I going to assume that it will be on the image page, such as this. When it is not on the image page, then look to Collection of U.S. House of Representatives" or "U.S. Senate Historical Office". Following this step, I could not find "Collection of U.S. House of Representatives", but I found U.S. Senate Historical Office. I then looked for U.S. Senate Historical Office's copyright notice, and couldn't find it. (Insert photo of my head spinning around HERE). Would you please post instructions at PD-USGov-Congress-Bio TfD on the steps used to sort the good images from the bad ones. Thanks. -- -- Suntag ☼ 18:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, instructions would actually be a good idea. I'll write some up and post them to Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio/Clean-up (yet to be created, obviously), which seems a more appropriate venue. I've only processed 20-30 of these things, as I'm partially waiting for the Commons version to close before rounding up folks for a more organized effort. Эlcobbola _talk 18:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio/Clean-up to my user page. Also, feel free to post a note on my talk page when the instructions are ready. -- Suntag ☼ 02:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I posted a request Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio.2FClean-up. This might give us a good, initial list to work with. -- Suntag ☼ 07:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Hanna

Can you look at the two images here? Some image admins say they're okay and some not. East718 uploaded the one at top and wrote the FUR. Can you give your input here? Thanks. Pls respond on the FAC page. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Very rational and well thought and stated reasoning. Thank you. I'll fix the issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of FA star image questioned

Huh? [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Commented there. Эlcobbola _talk 15:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Onemorewikiuser

This image looks like the last one you were unable to track down. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed! Very much obliged. Эlcobbola _talk 15:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Query on low-resolution images

This is in regards to a recent comment you made on a FAC I submitted, and it's a question that's been bubbling in my mind for a while. When using a logo or other copyrighted image, what qualifies as "low resolution"? I've been unable to find specific instructions or regulations for this, and it's been bothering me. I make it a habit of reducing the resolution of copyrighted images -- usually by lowering the resolution to 50 dpi instead of 72 or 90 for downloaded images, but I'm wondering if there's any regulation in particular that I should be following. As one of the people with the greatest familiarity with Wikipedia's image guidelines, I'm hoping you have an answer for me. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no link or definition on the NFCC page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is why I was looking for guidance. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)