User talk:Bleh999/20070601

Featured Picture
Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 08:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

PD-Italy
Not so fast. This edit is, IMO, a singularly bad idea.

First, the tag now confounds Italian "simple photographs" with Governmental photographs (whether simple or artistic).

Second, whether we should rely on "simple photograph" provisions at all is disputed; IMO we shouldn't, since "simple photographs" may well be considered "photographic works" in countries with a low threshold of originality (such as the U.S.). We don't know whether the simple 1996 - 20 = 1976 calculation (URAA) is valid for "simple photographs": it would depend entirely on whether or not a court would honor Italy's high threshold of originality.

Third, the issue with Governmental photos, whether "simple photographs" or "photographic works", isn't even settled in Italy. See this damaged PDF file (got the text from the Google cache), there's this footnote from the Marchetti/Ubertazzi commentary on §29:
 * II. Effetti della scadenza dei termini previsti dalla norma. [referring to §29]
 * ''Una parte della dottrina ritiene che alla scadenza del termine ventennale di tutela, le opere pubblicate in nome, conto e a spese delle amministrazioni dello stato, delle province e dagli altri enti menzionati dall'art. 11 cadano in pubblico dominio (Di Franco, Proprietà letteraria e artistica, Giuffrè, 1936, 66; Piola Caselli, Diritto d'autore, ND, XVI, 1938, 1000; V. de Sanctis,GCCM, VIII, 193ss.; Id., IDA 1939, 205ss.; Messina, GI 1939, I, 242ss.; De Martini, GCC 1944, 112ss.; Piola Caselli, Codice del diritto d'autore, 233; De Cupis, I diritti della personalità, 211, 280; Ascarelli,740; Greco-Vercellone, II, 211; Ammendola, in Ubertazzi e Ammendola, 211) A giustificazione di questa disciplina particolare è stata talvolta addotta l'esigenza di favorire la circolazione di certe opere (Piola Caselli, Arienzo e Bile, Diritti d'autore, cit., 680; Greco-Vercellone, II, 233), altre volte sono stati invece richiamati i lavori preparatori della l. 41/633 da cui emerge che la formulazione dell'art. 29 è il risultato di un compromesso tra due posizioni contrapposte rispettivamente favorevoli e contrarie all'inserimento dell'art. 11 nella l.a. (Piola Caselli, Codice del diritto d'autore, 311; Ammendola, op.cit., 12). Questa prima ricostruzione non sembra tuttavia proponibile ulteriormente, e ciò alla luce dell'art. 1 co. 4 dir. 93/83CE secondo cui i diritti d'autore spettanti ex lege alle persone giuridiche devono durare fino al 70emo anno dalla pubblicazione dell'opera se il nome dell'autore non è identificato, e fino al 70emo anno pma nel caso contrario (Chimienti, R. dir. ind. 97, II, 126 nt. 6; Auteri, Diritto d'autore, 390; Ricolfi, Diritto d'autore, 211; Bocca, AIDA 02, 90). Un diverso e più diffuso orientamento ritiene invece che allo scadere dei venti anni di tutela, i diritti acquistati dagli enti di cui all'art. 11 l.a. non si estinguano ma tornino in capo all'autore - persona fisica o gruppo di persone fisiche - per il loro periodo residuale di tutela (Santini, I diritti della personalità, 55; Loi, IDA 74, 291ss.;Algardi, La tutela dell'opera dell'ingegno e il plagio, 120; Fabiani, Autore (diritto di) I, Enc. giur., 8; Chimienti, op. loc. citt.; Auteri, Diritto d'autore, 89; Ricolfi, Diritto d'autore, 211; Bocca, op. loc. cit.; in giurisprudenza App. Milano, 5-8-1955, R. d. ind. 55, II, 271). Per le comunicazioni e le memorie pubblicate dalle accademie e dagli altri enti pubblici culturali ex art. 11 l.a. la durata di protezione spettante agli enti pubblici o non profit menzionati nell'art. 11 l.a. è ridotta a due anni "trascorsi i quali, l'autore riprende integralmente la libera disponibilità dei suoi scritti" (Bocca, op. cit., 356).''

In other words, there are two schools of thought: the first says that after the expiration of the 20y-term provided by §29, the works covered by it fall into the public domain. Sources given are mainly old ones. The Marchetti/Ubertazzi commentary considers this untenable in view of EU directive 93/98/EEC, and points to the second school of thought, which is more widespread, claiming that after the expiration of the 20y copyright term granted by §29, the copyrights on the work revert to the author(s) of the work for the remainder of the general 70y term! (Backed by newer citations. Marchetti/Ubertazzi is a leading Italian commentary on the Italian copyright law.) Lupo 08:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the "Governmental works" stuff again from PD-Italy. Lupo 08:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The tag was already using that distinction of 20 yr and 70 yrs check the history, I just updated it and reworded it because it was claiming works published after 1923 are copyright protected in the US even if they are PD in Italy, but that contradicts what is said on the PD-US talk page and also they are keeping the PD Sweden and Finland tags even though they could also be under US copyright.  Also why don't you delete the 20 year section you dispute rather than the government section which is a copy of the Template:PD-ItalyGov on commons? Bleh999 08:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The version before your changes only considered "simple photographs". So does the current version. PD-ItalyGov on commons is a stupid mistake.
 * I don't remove the "simple photographs" 20 year stuff even though I personally think that it is nonsense because evidently consensus is going the other way. Lupo 08:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think the Template:PD-ItalyGov is a mistake why don't you bring it up for deletion? Bleh999 08:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I will. Lupo 08:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * they want to keep the PD Sweden template on commons but it has the same problem has the Italy PD template don't you think? the difference is 50 and 70 yrs, but the same problem with clarifying what a simple or artistic work is, hence really a non license Bleh999 08:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think all those "simple photograph" tags have the same problems (unclear where the demarcation between "simple photograph" and "photographic work" is, and even then, "simple photographs" of one country may be considered "photographic works" in other countries with a lower threshold of originality), as I have consistently pointed out in all these deletion requests over at Commons. See also commons:User:Lupo/Simple Photographs. Lupo 09:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

seeing deleted articles
Until we can get the absurd practice changed, ask me any time. I just emailed you the latest version before deletion. DGG 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

co-edit disruption
When making small co-edits to a large page it can result in very large diffs which makes it very difficult to check for the changes made. Please think of that when doing such edits and ask yourself if doing such things as removing or adding blanks on section headings or adding or removing a blank line at the start of a section is necessary given that it makes tracking changes through the edit history very hard. In this case I will not get into an edit war with you over your changes to genocides in history, but in future please consider if such changes are justified given the disruption it causes. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Death image
In reply to your edit summary question 'what's on the talk page', I refer you to the image discussion, specifically the section on the lead image. I don't think any serious encyclopedia would open such an article with a random roadkill image replete with displaced limbs and bloody tyre tracks. At least it doesn't make assertions about the existence of an afterlife, but two people have reverted it, so please consider the three revert rule. Richard001 02:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings
Hey, sorry if I got the wrong side of you today. Pictures are all I do, all day long, and I guess I get a little detatched and insensitive now & again. I finally tracked down that link (huge file, kept crashing my browser :/ but worth it) and uploaded a retouched version with my support. It's a great image, one of the best I've seen of its kind for a good while, from what looks like an excellent resource; well done in finding it. mikaultalk 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)\
 * NP it's just that I got annoyed at being accused of sharpening the image but I didn't do that, it's possible other effects caused a pseudo sharpening effect. Bleh999 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Happens all the time. Sometimes you get lumbered with unfeasibly corrupted files which never really come good. The Vietnam one really was borderline, needed many masks and adj layers and more than a little TLC. I guess you'd be OK about me replacing the one at Child soldier with the newer version? mikaultalk 22:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured Picture
An image you uploaded, Image:Einsatzgruppen-Killingfull.jpg, has just become a Featured Picture. Congratulations, and thanks for uploading it. Raven4x4x 05:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A request
Could you please stop putting advises on my talk page regarding fair use disputes? I have no problem in looking for free replacements, but please do not make a mess on my talkpage, I am editing things right now and seeing continuously that "new messages" advice is a bit unpleasant to me. In any case why don't you consider using "rfu" and "rfu2" templates, as stated on WP:NONFREE, rather than listing all those images on IfD? Thanks in advance. --Angelo 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm using a script to nominate deletions, it automatically notifies the uploader Bleh999 21:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

PD Japan?
Do you have a source that says that those Nanking images are PD Japan? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:IwaneRidesIn.jpg
 * Image:Nanjingmassacreheads.jpg
 * Image:BuriedAlive.jpg
 * Image:JapaneseStormNanjing.jpg
 * No unfortunately and it would be hard for me to find specific information since I can't read Japanese, but we can safely assume it was taken by either a Japanese soldier or a correspondent of the Japanese government, maybe these images were used in the war crimes trials after the war. I did find some images like these in the library of congress website, but not the same images Bleh999 03:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Look I found this information about the first image 'Printed on the following pages are the photographs that Japanese war correspondents took after the Japanese armyfs victory parade on December 17'  that image looks like it was taken the same time as IwaneRidesIn.jpg. Bleh999 03:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the reason I'm asking is because User:John Smith's had removed the PD tag because there weren't any sources to state that they were PD Japan. I admit he has a point. That's why I put the fair use tag there instead. Not sure how the PD claim is going to stand up to scrutiny if there are no sources to state that specifically. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * well I did add some more sources to Buriedalive.jpg from the link you posted can you find out when A Faithful Record of Atrocity of Japanese Troops was published?  It was a chinese book I think, so it might count as first publication, if it was published more than 50 years ago then these images can use the PD china template. Bleh999 03:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of non-free images
Please do not remove those two images again until an administrator has decided whether their use is acceptable or not. There is no need to remove them from the articles as procedure is already in motion to assess them. John Smith&#39;s 10:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Retaliatory editing
Your edits here and here appear to be retaliatory edits, although I can't imagine why you'd do so. Don't do it - it's a good way to be blocked or banned - and while you're at it, review our policy on articles about living people to understand why I removed the material in both of those cases. | TheBLPGuy 01:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just testing whether you are a single purpose account as your name suggests, anyway I suggest you not threaten bans since you are in no position to set policy here especially since you reached no consensus for your edits and therefore have absolutely no right to claim your edits are correct or acceptable, in the future I will ignore such inane posts on my talk page from you, article talk pages are where you discuss article changes, and I see from your edit history that you have already upset others with your deletions of sourced material. Bleh999 07:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)