User talk:WGFinley/Archive 13

Orphaned non-free image File:TrangBang.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:TrangBang.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Tip of the iceberg?
I saw File_talk:The_Terror_of_War.jpg and fear this may be just the tip of the iceberg with this editor; see. EEng 18:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, seems to have little understanding of public domain. --WGFinley (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * More to the point, he seems to have the idea that he, alone, has made a breakthrough discovery that all these famous photos and cartoons are PD. He's made scores if not hundreds of uploads like this both at enwp and Commons . Here  he exercises some particularly strange reasoning -- I can only surmise that he thinks the "country of origin" is Vietnam??? I'm not sure how to proceed but this can't go on, and something needs to be done about the uploads already done. Like a stopped clock he may even be right by accident in some of these cases, but his ideas about how to make a PD determination are naive. Here  he labors under the delusion that if a licensee of AP omits the copyright notice then AP loses its copyright.  EEng 03:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's going to be a mess to clean up. I'm involved here so I can't really take any admin action but this should probably go on AN/I or something. --WGFinley (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We should probably talk to him first. EEng 18:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good idea. If both of you would drop the combative attitude and the assumption that you know everything and I know nothing, we could actually have a lovely conversation. I am completely open to answering any good-faith questions you have and hearing about any possible holes in my reasoning about any of the images I've uploaded. Toohool (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Labeling people who disagree with you isn't a good way to start to have a discussion about finding an agreement. I've never said you don't know anything, I've said you seem to have a misunderstanding about WP policy when it comes to making PD claims. You're operating under the assumption that if anyone publishes an image without a copyright notice the image isn't subject to copyright, that's not true. It's if the owner publishes an image without it. The AP is a wire service and distributes content to those who license it from them, failure by one of those subscribers to properly credit an image doesn't invalidate AP's copyright. --WGFinley (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You've said twice that I have little understanding of public domain, I think it's fair to characterize that as thinking that I don't know anything. But anyway. You are suggesting that the distinction of when a copyright notice is required vs. when it is not comes down to "publication by the owner" vs. "publication by anyone else". I think that's the misunderstanding. The distinction really comes down to "authorized publication" vs. "unauthorized publication". Per the Compendium of Copyright Practices (§ 2203.2), "a notice was required for visually perceptible copies of a work published with the authority of the copyright owner". In contrast, per Copyright Circular 22, "Unauthorized publication without the copyright notice, or with a defective notice, does not affect the validity of the copyright in the work."
 * See for example Deward & Rich v. Bristol Saving & Loan: A publisher of a copyrighted book of clip art licensed some of that art to a bank for use in advertising, without any requirement to include a (legible) copyright notice. As a result, those images were ruled to be public domain. "By permitting such publication without notice the owner of the copyright had dedicated its copyright in the leaves to the public."
 * And by the way, for the images under discussion, we're not talking about a "failure by one of those subscribers", we're talking about a failure by all of the subscribers (as far as I've come across). Toohool (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hopeless. EEng 04:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I never once said you "have little understanding of public domain". I said you are misunderstanding it. Again, your misunderstanding is around publication. Please review this helpful article form Cornell Law, it states, "‘Publication’ was not explicitly defined in the Copyright Law before 1976, but the 1909 Act indirectly indicated that publication was when copies of the first authorized edition were placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority." You're finding subsequent uses of the original work, not the original publication. --WGFinley (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll just add for future reference, since it looks like this is going to be dealing with this for a while, that at https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html we find, "Images without a copyright notice may still be under copyright." <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You wrote those exact words in your first comment in this thread. But anyway. Where do you get the impression that we're talking about subsequent uses rather than the initial publication of the photo? The photograph was taken on June 8, 1972, and the newspapers I linked to as examples range from June 8 to June 10, 1972. (But even if they were subsequent uses, copyright notice was still required on every authorized copy. It sounds like you have in mind a rule that "notice was required on the first publication but not on subsequent publications," and that's not the case. See for example National Comics Publications v. Fawcett Publications: Plaintiff published some comic books with proper notice, but later licensed them to a newspaper syndicate, which published the same comics without a copyright notice. As a result, the copyright was ruled to be forfeited (unless the plaintiff could show that the syndicate had promised to include a copyright notice)). Toohool (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He's right about what you said, WGF. Unfortunately that's going to prolong this agony. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, I see where I said that now. It seems like you're more interested in looking for slights (I said that ages ago before even interacting with you) than trying to understand how wire services and publication work. I'd encourage you to engage with the community more and build a consensus as opposed to mass uploading images you feel are PD. Further, the right action to take would have been the edit the existing image that was there rather than duplicating it with a new one. Actions like that leave the impression of avoiding in engaging in consensus building and just wanting to do what you want. I think you'll have a rough time here with that approach. --WGFinley (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in slights, I'm trying to have a substantive conversation here. And you're entitled to your opinion about how a conversation should have been started, but the conversation is happening now and this is the time to make your argument. You've made some statements that seem me to be misunderstandings, and I've explained things and pointed to authoritative sources to contradict them. Would you care to respond to any of that? Or is there something else you can offer about "how wire services and publication work" that would shed light on the situation? Toohool (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point it's clear that won't be helpful. You're the one claiming PD, so you're the one who needs to show that it's PD and how you know that. I've asked a zillion times at Commons for you to detail the database searches you did, and how you arrived at them, but you won't do it. You just dodge and weave. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll say it again. Under the 1909 Copyright Act you would need to demonstrate the intitial publication of the work didn't assert the copyright. You can't do that. You're providing a sample of different papers that didn't do it but you haven't demonstrated AP initial release of the photo to the wires didn't indicate it was copyrighted. You would need that wire to show that as their transmittal of the photo to their subscribers was the initial publication of the work. Second, you are the one claiming that it is PD, it is up to you to demonstrate that it is as we've already demonstrated it is copyrighted by AP and a letter is on file with the Wikimedia Foundation granting permission to use the image. That is the safest means to utilize the image without being able to prove the copyright is not valid. --WGFinley (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what you said above, and I replied with sources showing that it is not the case that only the initial publication requires notice. Every authorized copy requires notice. Are you finding some fault in those sources? Or do you have some authoritative source that contradicts that? Toohool (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're lawyering. This is a community, not a court of law. If caselaw were to be considered that would be for the Foundation to determine, not editors. AP claims copyright of the image and refutes that it is public domain (hence, why would they give WP written permission to use it). Therefore, the best and cleanest way for WP to use this image is under Fair Use which is what the original image is conforming to. --WGFinley (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

TBAN appeal
HI, please see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Thanks, Shuki (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't see it. I likely would not get involved as I have not been working AE for a long time. --WGFinley (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations on, according to my popups, having precisely 5,000 edits.
Sixteen years in the making. Your lucky day! jp×g 02:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha, thanks! I have been pretty slow on the edit count and have taken many breaks. I appreciate the milestone! --WGFinley (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WGFinley reversing protection without consent of protecting admin. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 16:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. --WGFinley (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)