User talk:Elcobbola/Archive12

Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium Park/archive1
Your response is requested at Peer review/Millennium Park/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I note the peer review was closed less than 3 hours (!!!) after the above request. A disingenuous request, apparently?  Why such imprudent haste?  The article still has unresolved issues.  Эlcobbola  talk 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I had it closed when another image reviewer said all was resolved. Obviously, you can still edit the page as you see fit even after it was closed. I had honestly thought that all was resolved.  Please comment and I will respond to the PR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your final concerns. Please comment on the PR as to whether all concerns have been addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This link was just corrected in the article; is there anything there we've overlooked, and I'm not sure why this is mentioned as an external link but not included in the article. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll break with tradition and answer the specific question first. For Millennium Park, I don't perceive any issue.  A) The license was for professionals and students (i.e. aspiring professionals), meaning those with lighting, sophisticated equipment, etc., not for casual visitors with point and shoot cameras; and B) the license requirement is not currently applicable to anyone ("We can all take pictures in Millennium Park, and for the time being, professional photographers and student photographers don't even need a permit").
 * Generally speaking, there's an important distinction to be made between policy and law. A museum, for example, may well forbid photography in its galleries (a policy), but there is almost certainly not going to be an underlying statute forbidding such photography (a law).  Perhaps a more readily accessible scenario is that of a retail store forbidding food and drink; there's certainly no actual law precluding ingestion of foodstuffs in stores, but the retailer is nevertheless welcome to its own proprietary policy.  Those policies may find legal teeth if, for example, noncompliance is deemed trespassing, but that is something unrelated to copyright.  For our purposes, it's merely a question of ethics.  I recall being quite offended by those taking pictures (in defiance of clear signage) inside the barracks at Auschwitz, but, at the same time, I find the notion of precluding photographs in a public park (e.g. Millennium Park) absurd.  Each situation is unique and ethical considerations for a given image, if any, are something for broader discussion.  Эlcobbola  talk 16:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks (your thoroughness is always appreciated). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so
Now that I've traced the copyright on the Statue of Liberty's copper as it was mined from the ground, how do I make the tagging for work? I do not know who made the plaque, but it was commissioned by a committee headed by Georgina Schuyler, who had been a friend of Lazarus, and of course the text is entirely Lazarus's.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that the plaque itself (the metal plate) would pass the threshold of originality. The border might, but its depiction in this particular image is, in my judgment, de minimis.  That being the case, I don't believe we need to be concerned with the creator/foundry, just as we aren't generally concerned with printer when determining copyright in more "traditional" literary works.  The prose thereon is the relevant work, and Lazarus died in 1887 (e.g. PD-Art).  I suppose one would kibitz about the "This tablet..." dedication, but I think it would be exceedingly difficult to make a successful case that it passes the threshold of originality.  Эlcobbola  talk 01:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What I hoped. Thank you.  I'll reinsert it after changing the template.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, PD-Old is better. Irony of ironies, I'm apparently going to be inside of this thing in several days; let me know if you need any pictures (although the article already has, to my eyes, too many images). Эlcobbola  talk 01:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I tend to overadd just because you lose some at FAC.  If you get a really good one of the interior, that would be nice and we would replace an existing shot.  I've read that since the renovation, it is like a big copper room, very impressive, whereas the shot we have of the interior is quite cluttered.  Most exterior shots tend to have too much shadow, as the statue faces the sun early in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

pre-FAC image review
Hiya, could you be persuaded to do an image review of FC Barcelona and post it on the talkpage? Kind regards, Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 08:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you requested the talk page, but I've entered comments at the open peer review instead. Feel free to relocate them if you indeed prefer the talk page.  Эlcobbola  talk 13:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Image question
Since you seem to have a much better command of image policy than I, could you check the fair-use rationale for this? It doesn't quite add up to me. If it fails, in your opinion, could you please remove it from Steve Beshear and list it for deletion. Thanks. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are numerous issues: it's not low resolution (NFCC#3B); it doesn't have a detailed and specific rationale (NFCC#10C); it appears purely decorative (NFCC#8). Why is the second paragraph in the "2007 Campaign for Governor" section not sufficient to understand gambling issues?  What is meaningful about the visual appearance of this poster?  How would a reader's understanding be impaired without it? (Image summary has issues as well: "Copyright status may not apply, as no copyright is given on image" is utter nonsense - no notice is required under the 1976 Act; replaceability must also be a resounding no per NFCC#1; what, then, does "Unlikely" mean?)  Acdixon, I'm traveling and do not have time to take follow-through action on the image.  Эlcobbola  talk 12:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Majora's Mask FAR
Please comment at the Majora's Mask FAR when you get the chance.  Pagra shtak  04:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City Image
Question for ya. I asked Wehwalt a question on a unrelated image and the topic eventually got to this image, the one of the historic marker. I was under the assumption (possibly an incorrect one) that after the template was placed on the image, after discussing with Nyttend, Wehwalt and myself on MCQ and my talk that it was deemed "OK". With Wehwalt's concern, I thought it better to readdress it (after he suggested I speak to you). If it is not deemed "OK", I guess I have little to no choice than to remove it since I can't find an obvious copyright on the image (per the FAC discussion on the same image). I am kinda confused. If you would take a look and let me know, I would appreciate it. Take Care... Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 10:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did initially think it was OK, however, after I learned more about the definition of "publication" for copyright purposes I changed my mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I had hoped I was doing more than hinting that the license was not appropriate.  This is a very difficult image.  The brevity and succinctness of the text could almost cause one to view them as mere facts, not original authorship (Feist v. Rural held that, as facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original, and thus are not copyrightable).  Of course, compilations of facts may indeed possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively.  Does the presence of two facts or, say, the choice of "burning" instead of "razing" in "General David Hunter ordered the burning of this town on May 30, 1864" constitute sufficient originality?  I don't know.  There is, however, a certain leap from arranging phone numbers (Feist) to prose.  I always try to take a conservative stance, so I would leave it out.  Эlcobbola  talk 13:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was "George Washington slept here", I would say it was PD as copyright ineligible. This is a more complicated giving of information to the public and so I would agree, it should be left out.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Elcobbola: Sorry, I kinda suck at hinting...Aspergers and all. I can't "read" certain cues.  My goof.  I will cut that image from the page momentarily.


 * @Wehwalt: I do have an image that post office in town was "dedicated to service" by then President Carter and then Postmaster General William Bolger. Not really notable, all post offices have those, but it is kinda like a "George Washington slept here" plaque. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 13:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Image cut. It remains in Commons for people to look at though.  If you want it removed from there, I would have no issue with you nom'ing it for deletion over there. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 13:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to bring you into the fold on this one too, the two images that were up for the oppose (by Fascha Nua) have been cut. I addressed the one above and the other one was cut last night.  If you want to post on the FAC or here about that, feel free (not saying you have to though). -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 14:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've commented at the FAC. Эlcobbola  talk 15:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks :) -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 15:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Postage stamp images
Sorry to bother you, and I ought to know the answer to this, but could you remind me of the correct licensing for postage stamp images? The image I am interested in is File:Norway-Stamp-1935-Fridtjof Nansen.jpg which since it dates from 1935 may not be PD at all; in any event I am pretty sure the current Commons licence is wrong. Somewhere in the system there is a very useful essay on image licensing, I think written by you; if you could remind me of the link to that, I probably wouldn't have to ask so many questions. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect the redlink (not my doing) is now a more succinct answer than I could provide. Let me know if you want an explanation of the copyright issues.  This is the closest thing I can think of that I've written; I'm not aware, unfortunately, of other non-policy/guideline guides to licensing.  It's never a bother; by all means feel free to ask questions or suggest essays you'd like to see.  Эlcobbola  talk 13:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful answer - the redlink says it all, so far as the stamp is concerned. It was loaded to my article draft by another editor, removed by me pending enquiries. While on the subject of Nansen, can I ask your opinion on a couple of images that were in the article when I started my expansion? The are File:Fridtjof Nansen LOC 03377u.jpg and File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-09772, Fridjof Nansen.jpg. I am unsure of either. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Both images look good. Эlcobbola  talk 14:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Favour
As Jappalang sourced some of the images for it so might not be considered neutral (if Sandy's in Strict Mode), would you be able to do the image review for Featured article candidates/Brill Tramway/archive1 when you get the chance? There shouldn't be any problems—anything that seemed potentially problematic has been weeded out by now. There's one fair-use image, but I think there's an overwhelming case for including it. – iride  scent  20:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that! While I do agree that File:3rd duke governor madras.jpg would be unimpeachable on en-wiki, I'd rather keep it on Commons if possible; it's used in four articles (including a current FA), and FAs tend to be translated quite quickly so it's likely some of the other language projects will want it—the only other illustration we have of the man is this dubious quality sketch. The NPG have quite a few portraits of him in their collection, but none of them are online—besides, using NPG images leads to unpleasantness. – iride  scent  12:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, hosting on en.wiki and hosting on Commons isn't necessarily mutually exclusive. A local version could be used for our purposes and the Commons version retained for other projects to use as their quality standards, copyright policies, etc. deem appropriate.  Of course, I don't think action is necessary one way or another given the exceedingly remote likelihood of a 20-something artist living to their 90s.  As Commons tends to have waves of ultra conservationism and ultra liberalism (as opposed to a more rational middle ground), it was just a suggestion to avoid headaches altogether should it encounter the former.  In any case, I wholly agree that avoiding the NPG is wise.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Image question
Would it be possible to use this image in the Bexhill West Branch Line article under NFFU rules. The image is most likely under copyright (dates to between 1902 and 1969) and it is not possible to recreate it as the viaduct has been demolished. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In the article's current state, I don't believe that the image would pass several criteria. The height, the "seventeen arches" and the building materials (concrete block foundation with brick elsewhere) seem, to me, sufficient description to understand the structure (thus understanding is freely conveyed with prose - NFCC#1).  Uniqueness, if any, seems to come from the nature of the ground, so there may be weak support for an image detailing the construction used to overcome that engineering obstacle but, even then, I'm not sure that is significant enough to the understanding of the article's actual topic of the Bexhill West Branch Line itself (NFCC#8).  The article seems to be in an early stage, so perhaps there's forthcoming information that will establish support; however, I'm not currently able to see how omission of this image would be a determinant to a reader's understanding of the Bexhill West Branch Line.  Эlcobbola  talk 16:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)
Hi,

Per your request of Image sources for this article, I have made appropriate changes. I request you to kindly take a look. TIA   Perseus 71  talk 00:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Whistler Sliding Centre FA comments
Per your request, I removed the invalid images on Wikipedia for The Whistler Sliding Centre for FA. This was also noted in the comments. Chris (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/FC Barcelona/archive2
Hiya, could you reply to the comments I've given to your review above? Note that FCB.svg is not considered to be from 1910 according to user:Hammersoft. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 08:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Judd School
Hi Elcobbola, if you have the time would you mind giving the above article a quick image review? Most of the photos I took myself, but I've never uploaded images before so I'm not sure if the licences are correct. Also, the logo is non-free, and the 'Skinners Hall' photo was uploaded from flikr so I'm not sure about it. I'd really appreciate it, but don't worry if not. Thanks, Tom (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The images are largely perfectly; I only have issue with the crest (File:Judd School Logo.jpg):


 * The rationale essentially says its purpose is to help the reader identify the organization. Isn't that accomplished by the first sentence of the lead (i.e. a free analogue - WP:NFCC#1)?  I believe any reader of reasonable intelligence would find "The Judd School is a voluntary aided grammar school in Tonbridge, Kent" perfectly sufficient, unless perhaps there are numerous Judd Schools in Tonbridge, Kent.  From another angle, what percent of people in the world - or even in the UK or Kent itself - would actually have the prerequisite familiarity to readily associate it with the school?  I doubt I can even recall crests of the institutions I've attended.  Even ignoring replaceability, I'm concerned about its significance (NFCC#8).  There's not currently a single mention of the crest in the article, let alone critical discussion (e.g. why that particular animal's head was chosen, why "deus dat incrementum" was chosen, why certain colours/design elements where chosen and what the related symbolism and meaning of the aforementioned are).  Simply put, the crest appears merely decorative.


 * Now, all of that may be moot. The school was established in 1888.  If this crest existed and as was published before 1.1.1923, it would be PD in the United States.  If it was published between 1923 an 1977, it might be PD if certain conditions are met.  Do you have any information about the origin of the crest?  Эlcobbola  talk 14:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking!


 * Regards the crest: a very small percent I imagine! The boars head was from Sir Andrew Judd's family crest, and the entire design was just copied from Tonbridge School. However, I don't have a reliable source for this information. The crest certainly existed before 1923, as Tonbridge School was founded in the 16th century, I'm not sure I can prove this though.


 * What do you recommend? Tom (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If it were me, I'd try contacting the school itself . Publication is essentially "distribution of copies to the public"; as the direct question ("Do you happen to know whether copies of your crest were distributed to the public before 1.1.1923?") may seem rather odd, you might just try asking whether they know of any early publications (e.g. books) in which it appeared, or whether they could direct you to or provide other information on the crest.  Another approach might to be search around the internet.  Perhaps Google Books scanned a pre-1923 work which contained this logo, perhaps someone has listed a publication with this crest on an Auction site (eBay), etc.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just got back from Tonbridge Library, and I can't find any book that even mentions the crest. Its obvious that it was derived from Sir Andrew Judd's coat of arms but there is absolutely no way of proving this. I can't find any information, on the internet or in print, that details how the crest was designed, or why the school colours are what they are etc.
 * This book: http://books.google.com/books?id=C-AHAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+history+of+tonbridge+school&hl=en&ei=_3JlTIrbBJ-TONOzzJcN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false which would be the most likely to detail it, doesn't even mention it. I'm actually quite curious as to why not! I don't think the school will know, they don't even have a history section on their website, but I've shot off an email anyway.
 * Do you think we should remove it, because we won't be able to add any information about it? Tom (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Unused non-free images are deleted, so I'd leave it in the article for the time being in the hopes of receiving a helpful response from the school. If no such response comes after a reasonable period of time (e.g. a week for emails) or if you plan to bring the article to a review process (e.g. FAC), then I would indeed remove it.  I don't suppose the school has a carved (i.e. 3D - that is very important) version permanently installed in a public place?  Эlcobbola  talk 17:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not that I'm aware of. They've got it on the sign outside, but it isn't 3D and its not technically a public place. I'm hoping to take it to FAC once its had a good copyedit, but I'll hang on and see what the school say. If in the meantime I find it somewhere published before 1923, then we're in the clear?
 * Thanks again for reviewing, really appreciate it. Tom (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, then all will be well. Эlcobbola  talk 18:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion on image review
I could use a second opinion on my image review at this FAC. I'm uncertain on the status of two images. Nominator has removed the images in order to pass the candidacy, but I'd like to get clarity on the image status (as I'm sure would the nominator). Thanks for your attention.  Magic ♪piano 23:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maps are somewhat complex conceptually, so I apologize in advance for my wordiness. The first thing to understand is that facts, ideas, concepts, discoveries, etc. are not themselves eligible for copyright protection.  Copyright protection extends only to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression".  Data are not works of authorship.  For example, that the Berlin Wall began construction on August 13, 1961 isn't something that was authored.  Similarly, and relevant to our purposes here, that a volcanic field has an elevation of x metres, a diameter of y and/or geographic coordinates of z aren't aspects that have an author.


 * That said, data become eligible for copyright through their description, explanation, or illustration (i.e. an author committing data to a tangible medium in an orignal way). Maps are indeed such a visual manifestation of underlying data.  As the copyrightable aspect is the original illustration, however, one may still utilize the underlying data without violating copyright or creating a derivative work as long as the original visualization choices are not carried forward (e.g. the new work has different line weights, labels, colorization/texture, etc.).  So I do share your concerns about File:Mount Cayley volcanic field.png.  The creator of the derivative, for example, didn't even bother to move the interval numbers.  I don't agree with concerns about File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg.  The visual manifestation is based on a public domain map (NASA) and is entirely different than the copyrighted Canadian map.  That the volcanic belt as that particular elliptical shape, and that certain volcanoes are located at specific points therein are facts, not authorship, and thus not eligible for copyright protection under USC 17.  Эlcobbola  talk 14:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your detailed explanation; this should help me in future image reviews.  Magic ♪piano 16:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there someone that may have the time to recreate the MCVF map so it will not be problematic to use in articles? I don't have the ability to create great maps so I don't believe I'm the one to remake it.  Volcano guy  23:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken, I understand both and  to be skilled in the creation of maps.  Эlcobbola  talk 12:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC comments
I've repled to your comments here.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 00:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You can ring my bell, ring my bell
I've addressed your image concerns. I've withdrawn the 1915 image and substituted a (not so good) one from 1894 pending further research. I'll let you know what I hear from the people who have the album copy. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Stricken accordingly. Good luck.  Эlcobbola  talk 13:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * By means of a physical visit to the NPS archives in Philadelphia, I've come up with three more images, which Connormah is busy cropping and so forth. The raw images, including the typewritten (in 2 cases) comments that confirm them as Fed government photos are the first three images in my Commons gallery here.  Comments welcome.  They had lots of images including a bunch that said they were by specific photographers that I probably could have confirmed were NPS employees, but I settled for three, two recent and on with the copyright inscription on the photo (!).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * All three are fine from a copyright standpoint, of course, although File:Liberty Bell 1872.jpg (and thus its derivative) are incorrectly licensed. The US uses PMA only for unpublished, unregistered works.  As this was registered, it should be using PD-1923.  As an aside, I have to say File:Liberty Bell tour 1951-crop.jpg gave me quite a start - a Braunhemd at the Liberty Bell!?!  Эlcobbola  talk 12:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I need your help, please
On Featured article candidates/90377 Sedna/archive1. The image review has got hung up on a credited NASA image, which is also credited to CalTech. We wanted to know if a NASA image that was credited to both NASA and CalTech fell under the NASA public domain policy.  Serendi pod ous  18:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms
I have an image question, and I know from your activity on the FAC and FAR pages that you are keen on images. I've uploaded the coat of arms of Cubzac-les-Ponts. I have no idea about what kind of licence I should put. Could you please help me out? Cheers, Randomblue (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC).
 * French works generally enter the public domain 70 years after the author has died. If you can provide a source indicating that this image is a digitalization of a medieval design, then PD-Art or PD-old would be appropriate.  If you have no such source (the current one, for example, provides no date/authorship information), then you would need to use a non-free license (e.g. Non-free symbol) and an accompanying rationale, assuming it meets the non-free content criteria (which I personally believe it does not).  Note also that the Commons, where it is currently located, does not accept non-free content.  Эlcobbola  talk 21:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Gliding FAR
Hi Elcobbola! Would you mind revisiting the Gliding FAR (Featured article review/Gliding/archive1)? It looks like the main editor has addressed your concerns and is awaiting further comments. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping, Dana. There are still numerous issues; I've updated comments at the FAR.  Эlcobbola  talk 16:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response, and thanks again for all of your recent work at FAR - it is much appreciated! Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Image inquiry
Hi Elcobbola - is the licensing on File:Alexander Cameron Rutherford - Elliott And Fry.jpg, which I've recently uploaded correct? If I can calculate correctly, both creators have been dead for over 100 years, but I'd just like another assessment. Thanks. Connormah 23:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If those dates are correct, the license is correct (assuming it's unpublished - which should indeed be the assumption unless proven otherwise). The problem, however, is that the source is a link directly to the image (something that should never be done unless the image itself contains the information necessary to support the license - e.g. File:Liberty Bell 1872.jpg).  Where can we verify that these men are the authors and that those are their dates of death?  Эlcobbola  talk 14:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, I'll adjust the link. Connormah 01:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Image check
Ec, would you be able to add a second check at Featured article candidates/Sherlock Holmes Baffled/archive1? Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed some issues on the Commons side. It's now good to go.  Эlcobbola  talk 00:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much-- I like to check in with you when I don't know certain image reviewers' work ... it gives me a review on the reviewers :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. The ones to be cautious of are "reviews" that summarize image information; they're almost always superficial and mere mechanical exercise.  Эlcobbola  talk 01:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Image review request
Hi Elcobbola, I'm preparing Ezra Pound for FAC and thought I'd ask for a preliminary image review before I list. I'm not in a hurry; will be a day or so until it's fully ready to go. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Truthkeeper88, I've left comments on the article's talk page. Эlcobbola  talk 00:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Was worried about these - had a look at the files myself earlier and gulped. Responded on the talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Elcobbola, thanks for the review. I've decided not to bring to FAC until I can locate more information on the images we have, or new images with better licenses. I'll email the Sun Valley Center for the Arts; perhaps they have more information on File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg. Specifically what do I need to know? Publication dates if they exist, or whether a copyright holder exists? Also, if the PUF determines File:DorothyPound.jpg is not free, can it be used with FUR for the Dorothy Shakespear article only? Also, would an image such as this be allowable? First publication date was 1925. Thanks for your time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The best approach probably would be simply to ask for whatever information they have available. Particularly meaningful would be the author and date of first publication.  If they claim to hold the copyright (whether such belief is true or not), perhaps ask whether they'd be willing to freely license it.  Yes, I do believe a non-free File:DorothyPound.jpg would be appropriate for Dorothy Shakespear, assuming, of course, there is no free alternative available.  It would be very strange indeed for someone who had obtained some degree of notoriety before 1923 to not have had an image published somewhere; I suspect one would turn up with more research.  This image wouldn't be ok because it is was published in France (to use PD-US-1996, it must have been PD in the country of origin as of 1.1.1996.  Ezra, of course, died in 1972, so it won't be PD in France until 2042).  Эlcobbola  talk 14:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again thanks for your help with these images. I realized the image of the cantos couldn't be used because of the publication in Paris - although that page was also published in the 1970 biography. I did find a passport (File:EzraPound Passport.jpg); I hope it's okay to use. I've temporarily re-added File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg to the article to prevent the image being deleted and added to the FUR - in my view it is a valuable image. I don't think I can adequately convey in words the transformation from the boy in uniform to the crazy man in the mugshot. I'll send an e-mail to the Sun Valley center. So glad I had you look at these before FAC! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, File:EzraPound Passport.jpg doesn't work for the same reason the other passport image doesn't work. The physical document is property of the Department of State, but the photograph was not necessarily authored by the government.  Giving the photograph to the government for use in a passport is merely a transition of physical property, not intellectual property (similarly, when you purchase a book, you obtain ownership of the physical object; you don't, however, obtain ownership the copyrighted literature therein).  Even if copyrights were transferred, the government is allowed to hold transferred rights; it just can't create them itself.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What a shame! I've commented it out, and will remove from the article. How do I go about deleting the file? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On an online database I've found an image of Pound in Paris in the 1920s, attributed to National Archives. I sent them the image to perform a copyright search and in the response they've verified that There are no known copyright restrictions on the image. I can send you the entire email if necessary, but it's quite short. Would it be okay to upload? If so, which license would be best to use? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You should be safe to upload the image to English Wikipedia. (If it's from Paris, the statement likely applies to its United States status, as France is 70 years after author death.  So let's avoid the Commons for the time being.)  If you could, forward the correspondence to OTRS at permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org with "Ezra Pound" somewhere in the body (so I can search for it) and with the initial email with the attached image (so the Archive's statement can be connected to the work).  If things look good, I'll tag it and you'll be set.  Эlcobbola  talk 21:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've sent the entire conversation. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Let me know once you've uploaded the image and I'll add the ticket.  Эlcobbola  talk 22:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here it is: File:EzraPound Paris.png. I found it on a subscription database (Credo Reference) - not sure how to add the link. Thanks again for the help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added the sourcing (and other) information available from the ticket. Feel free to add any other information present at the Credo site (I'm not able to see it, as it needs a library login - I'm a bit too far removed from my university days and, even then, the only German cities are Munich and Oldenburg.  Schade.)  Эlcobbola  talk 22:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had to change the url - but the rest of the information is correct. Added publisher. Will send you a follow-up email regarding the url change. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Raid at Cabanatuan FAC
When I contacted the National Archives about images related to the event, they sent me a few of the 100+ photos they have on file. One of the images is exactly the same as the opening scene in File:RangersGuerillasBehindEnemyLinesRaidCabanatuanJan301945.ogv. The image is tagged with the same Signal Corps symbol that the Mucci image has. As I suggested on the FAC page, would it be sufficient to state on the videos' pages that the Signal Corps photographers were there to document the event through photos and video to cover the author issue? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize, Nehrams2020, for not getting back to the FAC (I missed it on my watchlist). I'll respond fully here to keep the FAC less cluttered.  At this stage, it's just a verifiability over truth issue; I'm hoping to get Ts crossed and Is dotted, as they should be in a FA.  If you still have that image and could upload/reference it in the video's summary page, that would be sufficient for me.  Even if not, however, I'm going to strike because the case seems so obvious.  The YouTube links resolve the sourcing issue, which was the real holdup.  (They are indeed copyvios, as they consist of more than just PD footage.  I realize there's potential conflict with WP:COPYVIO, but that's only in letter, not in spirit.  We need to document sourcing and I don't see any legitimate issue in cases of sourcing for extracted PD content.  Perhaps, instead of a link, say something like "PD material extracted from YouTube file aP3X239Q2WA".  That's verifiable and avoids linking to a copyvio.)  Эlcobbola  talk 14:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I figured that may of happened. I'll upload the image that I received, but it will probably be at the beginning of next week since I'm in the process of moving and currently don't have any Internet service (currently editing from family's house). That's a good idea for the source, I'd prefer to keep it in text form, rather than link to the copyrighted video. I'm still contacting the National Archives to see if I can get access to their 100+ images, but I'm trying to find a way to do it for free and bypass their fees. Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to review the images, your comments were helpful. This was the first FAC I worked on that had only free images, and although there were a few issues, they're much easier to address than defending non-free images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

killer7 FAC
Thanks for your review of the images at Featured article candidates/Killer7/archive2. I was wondering if you had any comments about the article as a whole, or whether you are willing to lend the article your support. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not a good person to review video games for content. My experience with that topic consists largely of having played Myst in the 90s (as an excuse to try out the then-new-fangled CD-ROM drive), and having played Durak on a long since discarded iPhone.  You might want to try asking .  Эlcobbola  talk 14:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks anyway. Regards, Axem Titanium (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Eva-nansen.jpg
Since I last asked for your guidance on the Fridtjof Nansen article images, I have added the above, which appears to be free of copyright in Norway. Can you let me know if it is OK to use it here? Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was worried you were going to ask about this image. Norway is a problem.  It can run into subsisting copyrights because it has long-standing copyright relations with the United States (since at least 1.1.1923) and the copyright term here (50 years) is shorter than the period between 1923 and restoration (1.1.1996 for Norway, so ca. 73) - 50 is indeed less than 73.   Thus, there exists a small possibility that it is copyrighted (if, for example, it was published/registered after 1.1.1923).  Long story short, the current information does not indicate the status in the US, and the non-U.S. copyrights guideline directs us to assume works are copyrighted in this circumstance.  Эlcobbola  talk 16:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the information. I will (with obvious regret) delete the image. There are more than a dozen valid images in the article, so I'm not unduly depressed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As a last throw of the dice, could I ask you to look at the foot of the Fridtjof Nansen talkpage, where some Flickr images of Nansen and Eva have been drawn to my notice? Do any of these, to your expert eye, look promising? I don't want to hold up the FAC nom for long, but an appropriate image can always be added later. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As a proponent of the concept of verifiability over truth, I have no issue with those images. If the National Library of Norway says they're CC-by 2.0, then they're CC-by 2.0 in the world of Wikipedia.  Эlcobbola  talk 21:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On the strength of that, I have uploaded File:EvaNansenskiing.jpg to Commons. It needs to be reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that its license is valid. Can you do this? I am not including it in the article until that point is clear. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The bot beat me to it . That should be all you need.  Эlcobbola  talk 21:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Image review
Hiya, could you be convinced to do an image review of FC Barcelona again? I know it's the third time, but I've added a tricky image which could use some expertise. Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 19:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Commented at the peer review. Эlcobbola  talk 15:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding crest, is a photo of a player with the crest on his shirt considered publication? See here Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 15:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not. To be publication, it must be distributed to the general public.  If the crest was copied, but then only distributed to a "closed" group (e.g. the team, managers, etc.), then it is considered a "limited publication" which is the same as no publication. If, however, they sold objects with the crest to the general public at the time, then it would be considered published.  Эlcobbola  talk 16:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI: I've responded to the PR comments. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 16:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC Image question
On the FAC for Kent, Ohio a question has arisen about the status of File:Kent city wards streets.png, in particular about its copyright status from the original map I made the file from. Any additional insight would be helpful. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

FAR reviews
There are a couple of new FARs that are probably going to be keeps, but need an image review first. Featured article review/Taiwanese aborigines/archive1 and Featured article review/0.999.../archive1 are the links for the two. Thanks in advance if you have the time/interest. Dana boomer (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Commented on both.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Princess Charlotte of Wales
Everyone's dead 70 years or more, in fact much more, so I don't think this one will be complicated. If you have a chance would you mind doing a pre-FAC check on it? Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there an open peer review, or do you just want comments on the talk page? Эlcobbola  talk 16:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk page is fine. I've asked User:DrKiernan to comment on the text and he's agreed, and he's one of our leading royalty experts.  I'm content doing it informally.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What does PMA mean?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PMA is Post Mortem Auctoris (after the author's death). Эlcobbola  talk 16:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of terms
Hi Ec. After responding to your comments at Featured article review/Taiwanese aborigines/archive1, an idea occurred to me: it might be useful to create a subpage in your userspace called User:Elcobbola/Explanation of terms. I think it would only take about an hour to make, and then you could add new terms from time to time as you do reviews... that page would be a one-stop resource to help people understand terms such as PMA, underlying distribution data, subsidiary source, und so weiter. You could link to it once at the top or bottom of your reviews. Saves time and trouble for everyone. Cheers. &bull; Ling.Nut 00:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yours is the first "complaint" in ages. You may find issues -- image or otherwise -- easier to address if you dispense with the sarcasm and hyperbole and temper your reactions with the understanding that reviewers volunteer their time because they want to see articles improve.  Your approach has been very disappointing, Ling.  Эlcobbola  talk 02:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Those diffs show neither sarcasm nor (especially) hyperbole. I see Wehwalt, in the thread immediately above this one, asking precisely the same question about PMA; why is mine the first complaint? Moreover, I looked at PMA in Wikipedia, dictionary.com, etc. These definitions are not so in-plain-sight as you would seem to suggest.
 * I think my reactions have been extremely mild and restrained, and extremely well within the bounds of fair play on Wikipedia.. in fact, the only thing I have done is simply question your facts... if that is offensive, well... there are two explanations: either I have been too offensive, or you have been too thin-skinned. Not sure which is Truth. In fact, I don't think there is a truth in this matter. It's all a matter of perception... However, if my words have somehow offended you, then I apologize. &bull; Ling.Nut 04:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've not been offended. As I said, I've been disappointed by your approach.  You appear to believe intertwining reasonable questions unintelligent nonsense allows the latter to be disregarded.  This, for example, is apparently only "What is PMA?".  Are you unable to grasp the difference between Wehwalt's polite question and your complaint "You do everyone a disservice by lapsing into jargon"?  How exactly do you believe that is merely factual ("simply question[ing my] facts")?  Those are rhetorical questions; I'm uninterested in a response. PMA, by the way, is front and center in the prominent guideline for these works; "underlying distribution data" and "supplemental license" are not copyright terms, but English - this isn't Simple Wikipedia.  That you perceive "Perhaps the fact that the pictures were taken in 1897 might be a tip-off?" and "This image was published in 1877... if it isn't PD, then PD does not exist" as devoid of sarcasm and hyperbole is lamentable, if genuine.  Эlcobbola  talk 13:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And I can only repeat, I think you have responded more than a little out of proportion. I guess that leaves us there.&bull; Ling.Nut 13:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Work for hire - UK
Hi Elcobbola. I was wondering. UK laws bestow the copyright of a work upon the employer if it was a "work for hire" (done in the course of employment). As such, would the works printed in Punch be considered "works for hire", and hence, are copyrighted for 70 years since publication instead (if so, should Commons template PD-UK-unknown be used)? Would this also apply to comics where different artists are employed? Jappalang (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just an add on, as far as I know, Punch prints only its artists' works (no freelancers or pieces commissioned from those outside). Jappalang (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not necessarily as simple as that. The underlying legislation is "Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary" (11(2)).  Problematic, of course, is the "subject to any agreement to the contrary", as it removes the notion of universal applicability.  Did certain illustrators, for example, have contracts that allowed them to retain copyrights?  So if you define "work for hire" as "done in the course of employment", then yes, they are; "done in the course of employment", however, does not necessarily mean the copyright transfered to the employer.


 * Whatever the case, however, I don't believe PD-UK-unknown would be appropriate, as the author, be it employee or employer (depending on the contract), is still a known entity (perhaps I'm incorrect, but I'm not aware of a section that indicates corporate copyright holders should be treated as anonymous holders). If Punch was an international organisation -- "an organisation the members of which include one or more states" (178) -- it might be subject to a certain miscellaneous provision:  "Copyright of which an international organisation is first owner by virtue of this section continues to subsist until the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made" (168(3)).  Эlcobbola  talk 15:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Image review, please?
Hi, Elcobbola, would you mind doing an image review on Featured article candidates/The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/archive1? There's only two, so it shouldn't take you that long, and from what Sandy said, ti appears to be the bottleneck in this one. Thanks in advance, or let me know if you can't/aren't interested. Courcelles 17:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Courcelles 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Image advice
I would appreciate a little advice on images. It is a real struggle to find suitable images for English cricterers, due to the difficulty with finding a publication date for them. I asked Brianboulton for advice and I think I'm a little clearer now. However, I thought I would ask for your opinion on this image from an auction catalogue. The picture is anonymous as far as I can see, but the company which published it went out of business in 1904, which can be verified quite easily from a couple of sources, including the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The picture itself is anonymous and would have been published in England. As I understand it, this image would be acceptable on Wikipedia. Would it also be OK on Commons? Any help is greatly appreciated! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The caveat in the PD-UK-Unknown license is the requirement that a "reasonable enquiry" must be performed. That a particular source neglects to mention an author is, of course, a separate notion from the author genuinely being unknown, and an effort must be made to confirm the latter.  That being the case, I am of of the opinion that it would not be acceptable on the Commons in the absence of such an enquiry.  If it was published before 1.1.1923, however, it is PD in the United States and indeed acceptable on English Wikipedia.  Эlcobbola  talk 14:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. In terms of an image like this, where it is most likely impossible to determine an author (and if they were identified, even unlikelier that their death was recorded), I take it that they would never be PD-UK until a ridiculous amount of time had passed? --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for what is again a too belated response (your query hit a strange location and got lost with the image above - I need to archive). I don't know of a correct answer or precedent from either "real life" or Wikipedia.  If it were me, I'd just treat it as non-free content and side-step the issue altogether.  Depending on how married one is to the concept of verifiability over truth, however, I suppose I wouldn't scoff at the assumption of an 18-year-old author who died at age 90.  That's of course somewhat extreme on both ends, but it leads to what I think is a very safe assumption.  One could perhaps draw some guidance from the United States statutes, which do not have the provision requiring "reasonable enquiry": for anonymous works (defined as "work[s] on the copies or phonorecords of which no natural person is identified as author"), the terms are either 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, if unpublished (17 USC § 302 (e)).  Again, however, I don't know that there really exists an answer.  Эlcobbola  talk 22:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

An image question
I've been working on Andalusian horse and have come across some images in Commons that I would like to use, but am unsure of their licensing. The four (all with the same situation) are:


 * File:Fotografias-de-caballos.jpg
 * File:Fotografo-caballos-pura-raza.jpg
 * File:Fotografo-de-caballos-pura-raza--español.jpg
 * File:Fotografo-de-caballos-pura-raza-andaluz.jpg

Apparently, when uploaded, they were on Flickr under a CC Attribution 2.0 Generic license. However, they are currently on Flickr under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license. Per Commons, non-commerical licensed images are not allowed. Does the change in Flickr status since the upload to Commons remove our right to use the images? If we're still allowed to use them, are we allowed to modify them (I want to remove the watermarks)?

Forgive me if this is a stupid question - I just want to get my ducks in line with this article, as I am planning to take it to FAC in the near future. Also, if you had the time, the rest of the images could probably use a quick check. I think they are all OK, but I usually miss something arcane (and sometimes something obvious!) in the licensing. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Flickr review templates appear legitimate (added by the bot and uploaded by an established user), so I don't see reason to doubt that the images were once (and thus always - Creative Commons licenses are not revocable) CC-by 2.0. To answer your question, a change in the Flickr license doesn't impact uploaded images iff they have had a valid Flickr review.  The CC-by 2.0 license does indeed allow derivative works (i.e. you may freely remove the watermarks or make any other alterations).  This, of course, is independent of possible ethical implications, if any, of holding the author to a license they may have chosen by mistake, or otherwise no longer wish to use.  It's a grey area and something on which I don't have an opinion, but it might be something to consider.  I'll gladly check over the article within the next day or two (apologies, I'm very short on time).  Эlcobbola  talk 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I probably won't end up using them then, due to possible ethical implications. It sucks though, because they're some of the nicest photos of that breed that we have. There's no hurry on checking the rest of the images, as I'm not planning to nominate the article until after Labor Day weekend (the first weekend in September). Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't let concerns of ethics weigh too heavily. After all, one could just as easily argue that it's as unethical to rescind a license as it is to use a rescinded license.  Do whatever you're comfortable with and what is, in your good judgment, best for the article.  Эlcobbola  talk 17:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Wintjiya Napaltjarri 2006 work.jpg
Hello Elcobbola. I am about to include the above image, which I have just uploaded, in an article to nominate at FAC: Wintjiya Napaltjarri. Would you be willing to check out the non-free fair-use rationale for me and see if you think it is valid and sufficient? I'd be grateful. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I do believe use of a non-free work in an article about its artist is valid conceptually. I don't think, however, that this work is supported.  The only discussion of her style is in relation to the Watanuma piece.  I don't really see discussion of style (e.g. shapes, colors, textures, subjects, etc.) outside of that particular work or even discussion of the iconography mentioned in the rationale.  That said, I don't see the contextual significance (NFCC#8).  Alternatively, however, use of Watanuma would supported, at least minimally (an artist article with so little style/technique discussion?)  That aside, minor issues are that 400x487 isn't really low resolution (ca. 300 is the rule of thumb, and this could easily be reduced without impairing its ability to convey information) and Non-free 2D art is the correct license for these images.  Эlcobbola  talk 12:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Unfortunately, as far as I know an image of Watanuma is not available. Ditto the prints held by the NGA. I could get an image of the NT award finalist. And yes, it is unfortunate that there is not more discussion of her actual technique etc. Will have another scour of the sources. Thank you very much for your help. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't this Watanuma? Эlcobbola  talk 15:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a watanuma, but probably not the watanuma. A common occurrence with Indigenous artists is that they create a large number of works with similar or identical titles, resulting from the fact that they repeatedly paint interpretations of a very small number (sometimes just one) dreaming for which they have ceremonial responsibility, or representations of one aspect of the country for which they are custodians. However, after some further research, I think I now have an adequate NFCC#8 for the work in question, when i finally located a text that discussed her symbols, and her specific colours, all of which are represented in this work. Thanks for your assistance. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Attribution Question
Wehwalt suggested I ask you a question regarding copyright and attribution. The discussion begins at Talk:Antonin_Scalia. My pursuit of an answer continues at WP:Media_copyright_questions.

You're my last try. If I'm unsuccessful here, I guess I'll have to give up. :-(

I don't want to repeat everything I've already said, but you should know that I have a legal mind. A copyright license is similar to a contract. The terms of the license must be spelled out. For example, if I write in the license that my work may be freely distributed as long as any use of the work is accompanied by the phrase "original work by Bbb23," the attribution condition in the license is fairly clear. However, if I write in the license that my work may be freely distributed as long as it's attributed in the manner I wish, no one would understand that. In a nutshell, that's why the description of the license in Wikipedia makes no sense to me. Thanks for any insight into this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, a copyright license is not similar to a contract, it is a contract. Contracts, of course, need not spell out terms - either literally (e.g. verbal contract) or figuratively (e.g. implied-in-fact contract).  It is important, then, to divorce what may merely be considered best practice ("absolute" specificity) with what is general/accepted/ordinary practice.  Also important is understanding that cc-by-2.0 is not a license, but a license summary (with all imprecision inherent thereto).  The real underlying license is here.  Attribution is addressed in §4(b), which provides the basis for the "manner specified" verbiage,  specifically "You must ... give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable..." (emphasis mine).  Эlcobbola  talk 14:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Others have pointed to another real license. However, I believe you're correct. You're the first to connect the dots for me. Starting with the Scalia picture, I had clicked on the Attribution 2.0 Generic link. However, I did not notice the line at the bottom of that page that says this is a summary with a link to the license from which you quote. I now have a much more complete legal document that makes some sense to me. Thanks.


 * One more question. When someone looks at the Scalia page (not the Scalia picture file itself), the author of the picture is not displayed. The only way you know the name of the author is by clicking on the picture. Do you believe that complies with the license? Why isn't it "reasonably practicable" to display the author's name with the display of the picture?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The license requires a licensee ("You") to "give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing". As a website is a navigable/interactive medium, a system which requires only a single click to access attribution information is reasonable in my judgment.  I do not believe that a person of reasonable intelligence exercising reasonable care/diligence would be unable to find the attribution information.  I, further, do not read "the extent reasonably practicable" as meaning "every extent reasonably practicable" and am thus content that there is compliance with the license.  As something of an analogue, it might be worth considering the numerous books which provide image credit in an appendix, as opposed to directly accompanying a given image in the body of the work (i.e. there seems to exist accepted precedent for some degree of separation).  Note, also, that when Wikipedia pages are exported to a new medium (e.g. the "Export to PDF" function), attribution information is extracted from the image summary and appended to the resulting document.  Эlcobbola  talk 17:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A reasonable conclusion, although I'm not sure I agree with it. One thing that bothers me is that most links are noticeable because they are colored or underlined (or both), whereas unless you move your mouse over the Scalia image, you don't even know it's clickable. Nor is there any indication that a user can click on the picture to obtain additional information. I also think it is reasonably practicable to do more, without pushing the phrase to its outer limits. All that said, it's a matter of interpretation, and I appreciate yours. Thanks again for helping me figure out the license terms and responding to my questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Contracts are always open to interpretation and reasonable people can indeed disagree. While I personally believe that we should credit authors in captions and/or provide more indication that an image is clickable, that is not the test.  The test is whether the attribution is reasonable, which is a distinct notion from, say, "fullest extent", best possible, etc.  Our current system is indeed merely adequate, but it is nevertheless reasonable (a perhaps relatively low threshold).  Эlcobbola  talk 17:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Rukai chief.jpg and Atayal.jpg

 * Image:Rukai chief.jpg and File:Atayal.jpg can confidently be attributed to Torii Ryūzō, who passed away in 1953. By the life-plus-70 standard, the imgs are not PD. However, they were taken/published in Japan somewhere around the turn of the century. So, then, are they PD by PD-US-1923-abroad, together with PD-Japan-oldphoto? &bull; Ling.Nut 09:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Those tags would be correct if it was indeed published before 1.1.1923. I'm not sure what is meant by "taken/published", however.  Be careful, as publication is not the same as creation ("taken"); it requires that a work be both copied and then distributed to the general public (distinct from distribution to a closed group, such as distributing copies of a manuscript to publishers or Oscar statuettes to actors).  A source, then, identifying that they are indeed published would be necessary to support those licenses.  Эlcobbola  talk 20:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * These images were published in departmental bulletins of the University of Tokyo. Tracking down individual images would be a nontrivial (let's say, daunting) task, since
 * I cannot read Japanese or Chinese, and
 * No one really takes the time to document such meta-info.
 * I mean, I'm sure if I went to the University and asked in person (probably requiring fluency in Japanese), I might be able to find the info. But using the Internet, and not being able to read Japanese... the odds are very much stacked against me.
 * However, many of the images found their way onto postcards that have been published and re-published for a century.. I do not know if these in particular are among them. Postcards are promiscuous; they are published by everyone and their granny. Tracking down a publisher.... would be... again, a formidable task. &bull; Ling.Nut 11:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need to go so far as to identify a publisher, only that publication occurred (and the date thereof, of course). For example, something like this -- a dated postcard -- would be perfectly acceptable sourcing.  Эlcobbola  talk 12:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sculpture copyright question
Can you weigh in Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests. There seems to be some confusion as to what constitutes "publication" of a sculpture that was created and installed in a public park in 1920. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded there. Эlcobbola  talk 00:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping
Hi Elcobbola, sorry to be a pain, but could you check back in at Featured article candidates/Rivadavia class battleship/archive1? Many thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for your opinion on non-free images (cartoons)
Hi Elcobbola. I have written Lat, an article on a prominent Southeast Asian cartoonist&mdash;indeed, a Biography of a Living Person. As he is an artist and much critical comment is available about his work, I have uploaded five instances for his article. If you have the time, could you appraise the use of images (free and non-free) in the article, giving your comments at Peer review/Lat/archive1‎? Comments on the article are also much welcomed; I plan to bring it to FAC. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to look it over, with the caveat that I might not be able to make time until next Monday (6. Sept). If you need/plan to go to FAC sooner than that, let me know and I'll see what I can do.  Эlcobbola  talk 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Next week is fine, Elcobbola. BrianBoulton is giving it a copy-edit.  I have a tendency for weird and convoluted sentences, especially in huge articles, so I am spending time to get it looked at by several others to weed out potential stumbling blocks before sending it to FAC.  Jappalang (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a ping to keep this from being archived for the moment. Jappalang (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I've ever managed to implement an archive bot successfully, so no need to worry there. I haven't forgotten this; it's just the type of thing for which I need an hour or two to spend on it, and getting that time together (as opposed to 15 minutes here and there) is a bit of a trick.  Эlcobbola  talk 14:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've now read it; I'll enter comments tomorrow.  I'm terribly sorry for my delay; deadlines changed on me.  Эlcobbola  talk 00:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, no problems. Thank you for your feedback; they are invaluable.  I have tried to address image A and E by rewriting the fair use rationales to show their specific purposes, which other images may not serve (although I think image E could be replaced with another political cartoon that has critical commentary, although that commentary is not yet in the article).  As for B, C, and D, I have a question on them.  Please revisit the peer review page when you are free again.  Thank you again!  Jappalang (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

RFA?
Are you interested in a requests for adminship, the tools could come in handy deleting unsourced fair use images here. Secret account 01:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support in a second, or even conom. Btw, look for an email from me,we have consent on some images for Shield nickel and I'm going to send an OTRS email I hope tonight.-  See below-Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Get Sandy to nom. Success=guaranteed. &bull; Ling.Nut 01:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that edit summary, and if Elc ever runs, I have dibs for more reasons than one! (And he doesn't need anyone's help to pass Rfa :) :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) And don't be shy about saying, "I don't plan to be involved in area x", and politely setting aside all questions about that area. &bull; Ling.Nut 01:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Jokes about needing a wheelbarrow and a rag of ether aside, here are concerns: That said, I'd only consider it after fairly substantial convincing that my concerns are incorrect/unfounded or are genuinely expected to be non-issues - that or the tri Elco/Ling/Malleus curmudgeon-ticket we discussed when this came up several years ago. In any case, I sincerely appreciate the offer and the support. Эlcobbola talk 20:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My edit count is low (I break 10 edits on good days). RfA seems to demand administrators with much more time to devote to the project. My edits drop even further during the months of the year in which I'm in Russia.  I still watch the account, of course, but I am not and will never be a highly active user.
 * Demonstrating "need" is perhaps difficult. I don't want to be involved in bureaucracy, politics or behavioral issues.  It's foreseeable that I could be convinced to participate in IfD/PUI, but I'd frankly much rather continue to focus my time on featured content.  In that regard, the inability to see deleted images that have since been transferred to the Commons (i.e. to obtain information lost in the move) is utterly vexing.  That ability is the only reason I would even consider adminship.
 * It's my understanding that I'm perceived as harsh/strict, and I'm the first to admit that I can be terse - especially in writing and especially in the English language. There's an expectation implied by typical comments at RfA that admins handle everyone with kids gloves.  I've not done that and I'm too old and too stubborn to begin.  In my view of the world, nonsense is to be called nonsense (civilly, of course), but that doesn't bode well for supports at RfA.
 * I don't think you're viewed as "strict"; I think you're viewed as the best. On need, I wouldn't worry, since your needs and area of expertise are so specialized.  And, even if someone does think you're "strict", they'd be hard-pressed to find an example where you were 1) wrong, or 2) uncivil.  I'd like to see you go for it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * May I weigh in here as well? Elcobbola, I do wish you'd run. You are not the "typical" candidate, but your history shows quite clearly where your interests lie, and the tools could be quite useful for you in those areas.  I think you are right that some feel that your interpretation of image policy is strict, but I'd argue that the strictness is necessary given WP's commitment to offering free content.   I haven't hung out at RFA enough lately to be able to give odds on how your candidacy would do, but I think you have a decent shot. If you feel the tools would be useful, I hope you agree to run. Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered that you include me in your Elcobbola/Malleus/Ling.Nut triumverate, but I think the truth is that you're the only one of us with any chance of getting through RfA. You have a good chance as well, because you're well-known to specialise in image licensing. Why not go for it? Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speciallist adminstrators usually has the best shot at RFA Secret account 00:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh. Just tell everyone up front that you wanna specialize in image-related areas, and you have little or no desire to delve into other areas. Deflect irrelevant questions very politely and obsequiously (you'll never have to be obsequious again). Get Sandy to nom. Get another heavy-hitter to co-nom (do you interact with Geometry guy?). Bob's your uncle, as they say. &bull; Ling.Nut 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * RFA actually passed an image specialist who didn't check the traditional boxes not two months ago, see Requests for adminship/MGA73. Now, granted you don't have the advantage of a checkuser flag on another project; but even someone like me who opposes slightly more than he ought can see a clear advantage to the project in giving you the tools; in the work you do at FAC, a sysop flag here would be a very nice compliment to your sysop flag on Commons. Given the mood at RFA at the moment, I'd say your chances are fairly good. Courcelles 12:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That "mood at RFA" could change at any moment though-- some marginal candidates are getting through. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, I got through somehow. Don't make me attack your manhood for not running. --Moni3 (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, don't run and delight in the comedic stylings of Moni or do run and get a decidedly un-manly suit of feathers? How ever am I to choose? :)  Эlcobbola  talk 15:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. This then is my obligatory insinuation that your testicles are hairless and can only be found with a magnifying glass, and perhaps they have retreated into your abdominal cavity. And your new name is Helga. --Moni3 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You say that as if hairless testicles are a bad thing; that that! And, what would you know, anyway? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no good or bad judgment here, only qualifications of masculinity. It is my general understanding, peripheral as it is, that large, hirsute testicles are more masculine than small hairless ones, and therefore preferable when proving one's manhood in say, a communal shower. Homoerotic overtones notwithstanding. I am attempting through subtle psychology to goad Helga into running for RfA out of shame and to save face. She will not know that she has been manipulated in such a way unless you call attention to it, Sandy. --Moni3 (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want me to be part of your coy plan, you should know better than to goad me with talk of testicles-- you surely know how I feel about them? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. An ode to their loveliness would illustrate it for me nicely. --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There once was a man called McCool
 * Found a red ring round the end of his tool
 * He went to the clinic
 * His Doctor, a cynic
 * Said, "That's only lipstick, you fool".
 * If you take the -ola from elcobbola, it's very close to Олья (Olya), which is the nickname for Ольга (Olga), which is, of course, the Russian form of Helga. Эlcobbola  talk 19:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Well, there you have it. You can face RfA, or you can face the wrath of Moni. I know what I'd be doing in my free time if I were you... &bull; Ling.Nut 15:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strike a bargain with Moni: if you do run, she is obligated to entertain you for life (we all benefit :) Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, Helga, so now that we've pulled out all the stops to entertain you and make you blush, let's get to work. I normally despise three co-noms, but Karanacs and I seem to have a fairly decent track record and you might want a third nom from an image or copyright person who can vouch for your acumen in that area. Who might that be? Moonriddengirl or anyone who worked on the Plagiarism dispatch (Kablammo?), or one of the other image reviewers (Stifle, Jappalang, Awadewit, et al)? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So much for dodging the issue. I'm not sold on the idea, in fact I'm about 55 percent against it.  Give me until 10. September to decide.  In the event I encounter either sufficient libation or head trauma as to lead me to the alternative conclusion, we can talk logistics then.  Эlcobbola  talk 20:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okey dokey-- better for me as well, since I'll have high-maintenance overseas guests 'til then. You Will Not Escape-- or at minimum, Moni will continue to entertain Helga :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's past September 10, what's your decision? Secret account 03:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, Secret, but no, I'm not interested at the moment. Эlcobbola  talk 20:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Shield nickels email
Hi, I have sent OTRS just now an email regarding five images of Shield nickels, taken by Howard Spindel, an authority in the field, which he has given consent for us to use. I hope you can help me jump the queue, this is my next FAC and may be nominated as early as tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC Review for Hong Kong
Hi, now that the review is over, I think I still have some question on the images in the article. I never got any responses on the fixes I added, so I still feel a little uneasy about them, but better than before about the images. Maybe except for File:Flag of Hong Kong.svg and File:Hong Kong SAR Regional Emblem.svg. I updated the file info on commons, but I'm not sure if I got them right this time. Also on File:Hong Kong Location.svg, I'm not sure what else to add since it already pointed out where User:Joowwww derivative the image from. I want to resolve any potential issues that will prevent the article from satisfying criteria 3 prior to the next nomination. Thanks, Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 01:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Tavatar, I'll do my best to comment on outstanding concerns, if any, on the article's talk page (assuming you haven't opened a peer review) by sometime tomorrow. Эlcobbola  talk 20:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

FC Barcelona FAC
All concerns adressed I believe. Sandman888 (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I'll be able to check back in sometime in the next 24 hours.  Эlcobbola  talk 02:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's only being one image used which you had a problem with, the others are removed, it's been through PUF and is FP so it should be good. Would you be willing to cap your comments as long text tend to put of reviewers? Sandman888 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Capping (as I know how to do it, anyway) involves adding a template, which can negatively impact the load time at FAC. Issues are indeed resolved, so I've moved the comments to the talk page.  Эlcobbola  talk 16:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid user Sporting1905 reverted the version meant for review due to a disagreement over flags. The picture of Franco replaced with another which needs review. Sandman888 (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Question for you
Can I assume that campaign fliers, etc that are distributed to the general public either free or at a nominal charge are "published" for purposes of copyright law? I have spent the day at the Nixon library taking photos of campaign materials from the 1946 and 1950 campaign. Of course they lack a copyright notice ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. Remuneration isn't required, only a transfer of ownership.  Эlcobbola  talk 02:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll get them uploaded soon. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Songs concerns
How to make two songs in the Selena article not violate the fair use rules, one is in english and one is in spanish. I'm fixing all the concerns but late. Thanks Secret account 01:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At the time I noted the concern -- and it may or may not still be the case -- the two clips had identical purpose statements. NFCC#3A precludes the use of multiple non-free items when one will suffice.  As these indicated the exact same purpose, they were indicating that one was redundant, thus the failure.  It may well have been lazy (i.e. copy and paste) rationale writing.  If each clip is indeed providing a unique understanding that the other does not, articulation and explanation of that point in the rationale would resolve the issue.  I don't believe, however, that one being Spanish and one being English is sufficiently meaningful ceteris paribus.  If there are different styles, there is probably support, but we don't need additional non-free content to understand she was a polyglot.  Эlcobbola  talk 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hate fair use anyways so I removed one, I'm going to try to contact the family to provide some free images of Selena I doubt they would object, but I can't find their contact information. Everything else with the FAC (with the exception of the prose, which I tried to fix but I'm mildly dylexsic so I can't copyedit it). Secret account 03:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Haruna
Would you have time to weigh in on images at Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Haruna/archive1? Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Featured article candidates/Eshmun Temple/archive1? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And another ... sorry for the abuse :) Featured article candidates/Daniel Sedin/archive2.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I'm really abusing: Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1  See here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Another: Featured article candidates/Battle of Quebec (1775)/archive1.  Should I point Jappalang to this list as well?  Sorry for the abuse, but image reviews by reviewers whose work I don't know are growing.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Japanese battleship Haruna and Battle of Quebec (1775) had issues (Quebec many), but I've fixed them on the Commons side. All are fine now.  Do you actually need me to comment at the FACs, or will this suffice? (I've very limited time, which is why I just fixed issues instead of the usual, lengthy oppose-debate-wait for fix process).  Эlcobbola  talk 00:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My main concern is to know which image reviews are thorough, for future reference, because of a number of new image reviewers. If you see serious deficiencies in a review, a note on the FAC will help.  Thanks so much ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, probably best to wait for a bigger sample set. Giving an all clear when there weren't issues to begin with doesn't necessarily say much. ;)  Эlcobbola  talk 01:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks-- I do hope that your review at Featured article candidates/Alboin/archive1 will be instructive to other reviewers! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Glad you reminded me; that's still on outstanding oppose.  I'll leave it at that.  Эlcobbola  talk 14:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC is backlogged again on mostly image issues; numerous new image reviewers are appearing, with less than thorough image reviews. This is happening on numerous FACs. If you have time to review and help others learn, I'd really appreciate it-- otherwise, I'll just have to let the backlog grow. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible I can look at them tonight. I've promised Jappalang I'd look at an article of his, so that is my priority.  There may be rain tonight, however, so that might be an excuse to waste time in front of a computer. ;)  Эlcobbola  talk 14:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If it rains, you might start with all of the older noms that appear to have been cleared by newer image reviewers. Some of them are ready for promotion and only image reviews are holding me up.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ambondro mahabo and FACs below it are fine, except Winter Olympic Games. I'll enter comments tomorrow (I hope - I put in 36 hours over the three day weekend and this one, being one day shorter, is looking to be 24).  Don't wait for me.  Эlcobbola  talk 02:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much: I've been spinning my wheels on very high profile articles today, so I didn't get to FAC, and so appreciate your help. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

two images in Taiwanese aborigines

 * I'm 99% sure those two images were published in 1900 (one source says 1902) in a book that was republished in 1996 in Mandarin Chinese. I am trying to get a copy of the book (Tanxian taiwan: niaoju longcang de Taiwan renleixue zhi lu 探險台灣: 鳥居龍藏的台灣人類學之旅 (Taiwan Expedition: Tori’i Ryuzo’s Travel of Anthropology in Taiwan). Translated by Yang Nanjun 楊南郡. Taipei: Yuanliu 遠流.) Tks &bull; Ling.Nut 00:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS Request
Any chance you can dig in the OTRS for permission for File:Neil Young - Per Ole Hagen.jpg? It should be present, from the author, Per Ole Hagen, but please notify me if you don't see anything - I'll inquire again. Thanks, Connormah (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (TPS comment) There's a ticket from Hagen dated 7/06, but the file name given is different from the one above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 05:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Connormah, the email references the image by the file name used on Hagen's site. It's uploaded to the Commons with a different file name, which is probably the reason the original volunteer didn't find it.  I can confirm that the referenced image is the same as the uploaded image (and I'll note that in the OTRS ticket), but the email does not give a specific enough license (no version number), so I can't add a tag.  Hagen should respond to the email he received from the volunteer, or send a new one referencing 2010070610041912 with a specific license.  Эlcobbola  talk 14:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help - has a reply been sent, or should I send a reply? Connormah (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reply, no. The note I put in the system flagged the original volunteer, who then added a license.  I disagree with this action, but it's not my ticket and I'm sick of bickering about image issues, so it is now what it is.  If you could elicit a response with an explicit license (including version number), it would be nice to do this properly.  Эlcobbola  talk 00:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Ashley-kirilow.jpg
Can I get your opinion on this image specifically for Munchausen by Internet? I found the FUR weak and it the BLP implications worry me.

Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe it irreparably fails NFCC#1. The current purpose "to illustrate the measures cancer hoaxsters, and those suffering from Munchausen by internet will go to perpetuate their hoaxes" could be accomplished with prose (do we really believe our readers are so unintelligent as not to understand shaved head and facial hair?).  Further, as a "condition" that still exists, a free image "could be created" (the test of NFCC#1); there's no need to use these images, especially as the subject was deemed not to be notable (!!!).  She probably shouldn't even be mentioned in the Munchausen article.  BLP-wise, it's in questionable compliance with WP:MUG: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light".  Is the Toronto Sun really qualified to make such a "diagnosis" (i.e. would it be considered "false")?  I don't work with medicine or BLPs, however, so my interpretation of that aspect is relatively uninformed.  Эlcobbola  talk 00:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more; we have no need for this image, and I just listed it for deletion. We don't have an article on this woman, yet we have an image that seems designed to say negative things about her by its mere existence. Courcelles 00:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"PD-Art" and rule of thumb
Hi Elcobbola, you seem to have a clue, therfor I am asking you. Say we have an painting from 1840 with a known author. Do you then need a source saying the author died there and then (say 1910) or do we assume that all paintings from before (1860?) are made by people that died before 1940 and are PD and apply PD-Art? Cheerio, Sandman888 (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the example of a work created in 1840 and assuming a country with a 70 year pma term, I would argue that it is not required to source the author's lifetime (the image itself still requires a source, of course). If we make the (absurd for the sake of conservatism) assumption that the author was 10 years of age when the work was created (i.e. born 1830), the author would need to have lived past the age of 110 in order for the image not to be public domain.  The statistical probability of that being so minuscule (especially with reasonable age-at-creation assumptions like 20 or 30 - i.e. born 1820 or 1810), a separate source for the date of death would perhaps be admirably thorough, but unnecessary.   One test policy-wise (WP:IUP) is that the summary contains the "necessary details to support the use of the image copyright tag".  Thus, in cases such as this, providing the author name and the date of creation is typically sufficient for one so inclined to verify the date of death (for example, this image has a source which does not identify the author's lifetime, but the information there allows one to Google lifespan information:, , etc.)


 * It's rare that we have to assume anything, as copyright law generally (depending on jurisdiction) sets forth the terms for works with known and unknown authors.  In the rare circumstance of a known author with an unknown date of death, common sense is really the only guide.  1840 works are probably safe, but I would argue that 1880 works are not.  The area in between gets greyer as the year becomes more recent.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you vmi. 1860 seems to be a reasonable rule of thumb. Sandman888 (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Image question at FAC
There is a good faith difference of opinion at Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1 regarding the use of File:SCPA Logo.PNG in the infobox of School for Creative and Performing Arts. Your opinion would be helpful. Kind thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Nasty Housecat, I've commented there. Эlcobbola  talk 14:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And another FAC request, if you're not totally overloaded
You and I had a discussion here previously about a NFCC image at Wintjiya Napaltjarri. The article is now at FAC, and the image has a revised non-free use rationale, reduced resolution, as well as article text that ties more closely to the image. It is one of only two images at the FAC, and the other should be simple. Any chance of a review...? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've commented at the FAC. Looks good.  Эlcobbola  talk 14:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. On an unrelated matter, Akira Kurosawa (Japanese film director) was archived yesterday at FAC with some outstanding concerns; significant amongst them was the extensive use of non-free content. This appears to have greatly upset the nominator, particularly when I boldly removed a number of the images from the article because I was certain they would never pass muster. I have opened a thread at the article talk page to try and get a ball-park consensus on the problem before anyone tries to take the thing back to FAC. If you'd like to put in your two cents worth of course it would be welcomed (by some, anyway). If you want to see how it looked before I stripped out what I saw as the worst offenders amongst the images, see this version. The current version still has a staggering number of NFCC images. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your concerns are absolutely correct; the first image alone is not low resolution (NFCC#3B), has no verifiable source (WP:IUP/NFCC#6/NFCC#10A), does not attribute a copyright holder (NFCC#10A), and has no detailed/specific rationale (NFCC#10C/WP:FURG) - issues repeated across numerous images, and that, of course, does not even touch the overuse issue. While I understand (to a degree) his frustration, that editor's comments don't leave me with any confidence that concerns will be given due consideration.  I'm thus reluctant to invest the considerable time to list all of the issues.  If the editor returns from his trip in a more impartial/receptive state of mind, I'll be happy to offer comments.  Эlcobbola  talk 21:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/HMS Princess Royal (1911)/archive2 - Bain collection
A brief input at the above, over the question of the PD status of an LoC Bain collection image, would be useful if you can spare a moment. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've commented there. The concern about the "no known" verbiage is a valid one, but I've seen Bain works kept at deletion requests time and time again.  I believe there exists consensus that they are acceptable.  Эlcobbola  talk 21:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry...
About our disagreement on Mount Kea. I'm frustrated because despite the 400+ edits and month of work I put into the article, it's still garnered such signifigant opposition in so short a time. I didn't mean to be snoddy; the palila and crow photographs are actually my favorite ones on the article, by spare chance. Again, sorry... Res Mar 23:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The photo hhas been removed. Res Mar 21:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
For sorting out the licensing/fair use rationale for File:Manchester Mark2.jpg. Images are just so damned frustrating! Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. The license had just gotten cut during the copyedit.  Эlcobbola  talk 19:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Free titlecard?
Please chime in at Template_talk:Did_you_know. Tks — Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Something's not right with that image.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 13:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Pound again
Hi Elcobbola, one last question about the images in Ezra Pound. Despite multiple emails and three phone calls to the Sun Valley Center for the Arts, I've haven't had a response to my query regarding the copyright of File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg. I suspect they don't hold copyright, but .. don't know what else to do. I've attempted to crop the image and write a Fair Use Rationale for its inclusion. When you have a chance, can you have a look. I think the rest of the images are now fine. Am about done with the article and will be submitting to FAC soon. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Truthkeeper, the images look fine for the most part. I am apprehensive about File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg; when I read he was "sent to the Cheltenham Military Academy where the boys wore Civil War-style uniforms and were taught Latin as well as military drills and rifle shooting", I find myself able to conceptualize what must have been a "prim and proper" youngster, a figure I'm then able to apply in juxtaposition with the mug shot.  I'm thus concerned about its replaceabilty with free prose (NFCC#1) and significance (NFCC#8), especially in the absence of discussion of Pound's appearance (although I've only skimmed, so perhaps I'm in err).  That said, I do think the contrast has meaning by virtue of being subjectively interesting, and I'm willing to concede (and, as an aged curmudgeon, lament) that some may require the actual visual.  Simply put, I wouldn't oppose it, but others may (and not illegitimately so).  I would suggest, however, cropping out Isabel to comply with the "an entire work is not used if a portion will suffice" condition of NFCC#3B.  Эlcobbola  talk 19:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll recrop - it was a pathetic cropping job anyway. I understand perfectly your point and thought about it as I was copyediting and polishing but, to some degree, believe many visitors to the page will look and not read (or perhaps only read selectively) and as such the contrast of the young uniformed boy to the mug-shot has merit. Nonetheless, if an oppose crops up I won't be surprised. Thanks so much for your guidance. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've finally spoken to someone at Sun Valley Center for the Arts. They do not hold copyright. E-mail to follow. Am changing the file accordingly. Can I submit another OTRS ticket for you to retrieve? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * By all means, just make sure "Ezra Pound" or something analogous is somewhere in the text so I can search for it. 18:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On its way. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's there, but you've stumped me; what would you like to be done with it? An OTRS ticket isn't needed to confirm an entity does not hold a copyright.  (Statements of "we do not hold the copyright" and "the work is not under copyright" are different notions, if that's perhaps the confusion).  Эlcobbola  talk 18:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we're both confused. You wrote on the discussion page that the Sun Valley Center should be attributed as copyright holder, but they're not. . So, where does that put us? The image has been published in a number of biographies, and copyright is unknown. Does it still need a FUR? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That was under the assumption that they, as the source, held the copyright. Thus, for attribution, just indicate that the copyright holder is unknown, but the work is in the Sun Valley Center collection.  It does indeed still need a FUR (they're always required unless the work can be confirmed to be free; in the absence of that support, a work should be assumed to be non-free).  Эlcobbola  talk 19:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have just spoken to the curator of the Pound Papers at the Yale Beineke Library. They hold the image, but not the copyright, but again, all I can prove is they don't hold copyright. So, the work cannot be confirmed to be free - (although there is a slight chance the publisher might know, so I'll run up that lead next). Again, thanks for the help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep bothering you about this. I've removed File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg for now, but have received a delete notice. I've just finished speaking with a editor at New Directions Publishing who told me they do not hold copyright to the image, nor does the Pound estate. Should receive confirmation regarding that via e-mail soon. Apparently the photographer has never been identified and the photograph has been published in various biographies. At this point I don't know what else can be done, but thought I'd pass on this last piece of information. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, forgot to notify you that I've nominated the article, so it needs a formal image review if you have time. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Another OTRS Request
Hi Elcobbola - I've negotiated a release of this image on Flickr, and the owner had mentioned that he/she has sent in an email to OTRS, but has not specified a license. Can you possibly check, and upload under the license specified? Thanks, as always. Connormah (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if you don't mind, could you verify File:KimCampbell.jpg, File:Canada lynx by Michael Zahra.jpg, and File:Canada lynx portrait by Michael Zahra.jpg? Thanks so much. Connormah (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a bug, but I noticed that Zino's Petrel is also at FAC and perhaps the image could help? No rush, though, thanks in advance. Connormah (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Connormah, this got lost amongst the other messages. I've exhausted my time for moment; I'll check into these when I'm free again.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, take your time. Connormah (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to be a bug, but just a reminder :) - no rush. Connormah (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet another opera (sorry!)
As you know, I like to try and solve image questions before rather than during FAC's so I wonder if you could check out the images on L'Orfeo, currently undergoing peer review. The article also includes a soundfile, one of those created by Trisdee na Patalung. At the recent FAC for Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, you dealt with an objection to a similar file by reference to USC 17 § 102. I imagine the same applies here. I'd be very grateful for your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You need never apologize for opera; I frequent them as often as my schedule will allow. Sound recording copyright is an utter nightmare; I recommended clarification of authorship/possession of copyright, as there may exist a wrinkle with USC 17 § 1101 (the recording is considered unauthorized if fixed without consent of the performers).  Эlcobbola  talk 19:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Photographers in captions
Hey, Helga. Question time: what's the guideline or policy for including the name of the photographer of an image of historical importance in the caption of the article? --Moni3 (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Привет Мони! WP:CREDITS is what you're looking for. Byline credits should only be used if the photographer is relevant to the subject, or if the photographer is independently notable.  Эlcobbola  Ольга talk 18:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC
 * Ok, thanks. For Birmingham campaign, in which two images of historical importance are used, an editor removed the credits from one of the images. It's been done before. Both images are world-famous, and the photographers gained some notability for the images they shot in Birmingham, among others. Before I enter into another name-calling, hair-pulling girl fight, just want to make sure I'm backed up by policy and some rule somewhere where no doubt everyone who reads it interprets it differently. --Moni3 (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It indeed all depends on the circumstance and the use of informed judgment and common sense.  To my reading, credit is appropriate for circumstances such as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, where the photo is itself notable and the primary driver of the photographer's (Joe Rosenthal) notability.  Essentially, if the credit assists the reader's understanding of the topic or related topics (i.e. a meaningfully related photographer), it should be included.  If you do break out in a girl fight, please, no more 80s music videos.  Эlcobbola  talk 18:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Image review request
Hi Elcobbola, if you have the time would you mind checking the images in Exelon Pavilions? It has 4 supports and no opposes in its FAC, and the images are all fairly straightforward (no fair use). If you can't, can you reccommend another image reviewer? Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've commented there. Эlcobbola  talk 00:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much - I read the thread above about making a run at RfA. If you ever decided to run, I would support. I am a fairly inactive admin here, but if you ever need an image that has been deleted here, let me know and I can email it to you. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly, Ruhrfisch - but be careful, I might take you up on that offer, and I need that ability far too often. Unless you fancy the colour orange. ;) Эlcobbola  talk 01:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant it as a serious offer - I am fairly busy in real life lately, but could probably help with a few such images a day as needed. If it became too much of a burden I would let you know. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course not... you do a great job :) I was concerned you might decide not to visit that particular FAC, considering some past struggles.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was meant in jest; suppose I needed to include a ":)".  Эlcobbola  talk 01:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The TPS are distracting me tonight; I can't figger which ends up, and have boatloads of work to catch up on :) I counted my emails, too (IRL and Wiki): I have 40 old e-mails to return !!!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're saying I shouldn't send you any more pictures of my "equipment"? Эlcobbola  talk 01:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * <running off to check my e-mail> Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)