Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2017 November 14

= November 14 =

Why is colour scanning more expensive than b+w?
If I use a commercial scanning company, they charge more for oclour than for black-and-white. Is this just profiteering? Surely it's the same piece of equipment and it costs just as much/ little to use. Amisom (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a philosophy of pricing. Today CCDs and CMOS picture sensors include color, but storing the color information is up to 3 times the amount of memory. Only high speed equipment uses separate RGB channels. Mass scanning of documents may require a more expensive high speed machine. Printing the scan in color really increases the costs of ink or toner. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 12:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Automated download of Google Drive files
Hi, I've been sent a long list of musical training files in Google Drive, over 50 links in the format https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5IxHKz1ru_qZDItWEl6VGUyUFk/view

If I visit that page I can download an MP3, however is there a tool that will let me download the MP3s en messe or do I really need to click on every single link and download its file individually? Thanks for your time and help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.236.182 (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The downthemall add-on for firefox should do it. Other download managers are available. HenryFlower 09:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But random download managers won't necessarily download the files successfully since they aren't simple file links. The manager will need to understand Google Drive enough to know how to get the file instead of just getting the htm file that the link serves. (This includes your browser, if you right click or whatever to force download the above link, you'll just get a htm file.) Even worse if you need to be logged in to Google Drive to download the files although the comments of the OP make me think you shouldn't have to. For example, Free Download Manager 3.9.7 build 1638 (the latest Lite version ) will just download a HTML file with the above link. Jdownloader 2 unsurprisingly does get the MP3 file and would be one option. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

What level of permission
What level of permission do you have to get for an image to be counted as having been released into the public domain? I found a facebook post where someone had uploaded a set of photos to a museum’s page and said that they were free to be used. Does this mean they are now suitable for upload to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesandjo (talk • contribs) 12:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would ask at Media copyright questions, but here is some preliminary analysis.
 * You need the person who holds copyright to the photographs (assuming there is a single such person) to unequivocally state that they release the photographs in the public domain. While a Facebook post is probably a suitable place to make such a statement, the situation you describe might fail on multiple counts:


 * 1) Does the person really hold the copyrights?
 * 2) Does the statement unequivocally release under a PD (or at least Wikipedia-compatible CC license)? "Anyone, you can reuse the photographs" is probably not enough (you could argue that "anyone" refers actually only to the people in a particular FB group, or that that permission is intended to be revokable, etc.)
 * This sounds like a tricky question, so I encourage you to seek clarification (cf. above, at Media copyright questions). Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason this is tricky is because in English the phrase "free to use" could mean "no charge to use", or it could mean "no restrictions on use". ApLundell (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As a quick additionto Tigraan's excellent comment, I should point out you also need to consider any copyright over whatever is being depicted in the photo. Permissions from the copyright holder of the photo can't overide any copyright limitations over whatever is depicted and it's fairly likely any copyright holder of what's depicted belongs to someone other than the photographer (and probably the museum for that matter). While many museums depict things too old to have any copyright this is far from always the case. So if it's something which potentially has copyright, e.g. a 2D artwork (e.g. painting, mosaic, drawing, photo), 3D artwork (e.g. sculpture, architectural elements of the building, wax work, statue) you need to consider whether local law surrounding freedom of panorama means there are no copyright concerns or whether there could be. As Tigraan has said, for comments on any specific case, you should seek feedback in a suitable place. (Note in the particular case of 2D artwork, if the artwork itself is old enough to be in the public domain, and the photo is simply trying to accurately depict the artwork, the foundation has rejected any copyright that may exist outside the US, and US court rules have found there is no copyright under US law. So in that limited case, you don't generally have to worry about the photographers copyright. See When to use the PD-Art tag for some details.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)