User talk:Durin/Husnock images

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 26 November 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.


Contents

[edit] Subject of this page

I formally state that I am outraged by this page. It was formed without my knowledge and seems to be an attempt to draw other users against me over petty disputes regarding image uploads. Revert if you like, but this will remain in this page history. -Husnock 16:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I informed you of what I was doing and why. The idea that I would use this to draw other users against you is false. I have, prior to your posting links to this page, not told anyone about this page nor linked it anywhere. It is a workspace for me only. The only way this page would be seen is by people watching my edits, which I knew from recent experience that you were already doing. But, to my knowledge, no one else was at the time. --Durin 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Archives Images of ranks, medals, and German things

To prevent you from destroying the years of work I've done on Awards and decorations of the United States military and Nazi party paramilitary ranks please understand this: The Military Personnel Records Center has a huge database of rank insignia images, medals pictures and in College Park, Maryland, Archives II has a collection of graphics pertaining to World War II insignia and medals to include every insignia used by the Nazi Party and all Awards and decorations of Nazi Germany. As an employee of the National Archives and Records Administration, I am stating to you that these images are clearly under NARA and U.S. government owned. Furthermore, rank insignia and certian pictures of medals cannot be copyrighted by international law (we know because people have tried to tell use we cant have the images in thier database). If you doubt any of this, call 314-801-0800 and ask to speak to an Archivist.

Believe it or not...I dont think you're a bad person. I just think you have targeted me and I dont like it. -Husnock 16:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I have already reviewed a number of images from that source and have indicated they are clear. As I've noted before, I have reviewed your image edits, entirely inline with Wikipedia:Harassment where it says "(stalking} does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." I found problems with your images. I found enough problems over time to warrant more extensive review. I am conducting that review. It's not stalking, as Wikipedia:Harassment shows. I have conducted more than 2,000 edits (probably more than 3,000 by now) in support of adhering to copyright law on Wikipedia. For example, last spring I went through every single userbox in existence checking for fair use violations. This was more than 5,000 userboxes. My work on copyirghts in relation to you has been a minuscule piece of my overall effort. If that is targeting you, then so be it. I can't make it any clearer that I am not stalking you. Nevertheless, despite my repeated assertions to the contrary you insist on considering this stalking. I can't stop you from feeling like you are stalked. But, my conscience is absolutely clear. --Durin 18:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking your own rules

I see you post a notice that the page has been suspended but continue to post to it. I guess you meant to say it is suspended for everyone to edit, except you. Also, I see you have declared that the Navy does not have the rights to recreate images and call them thier own, even if the host nation from which they originate has no problem with that. Have you ever served in the Navy? I have performed over 5 cumlative years of sea and shore duty in Japan and Korea and have spoken to Public Affairs Officers and JAG officers, about the images which the Navy can or cannot post. Don't believe me? I will happily provide you with the phone number for the one star Admiral in charge of Commander Naval Forces Korea and the phone number for the Captain in charge of Commander Naval Forces Japan. But then, what do they know. -Husnock 20:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Per the suggested remedy, I continued my review of your images and agreed not to conduct any further work as a result of that review, instead leaving it to User:Zscout370. Whether or not I have served in the USN is irrelevant (I have, as a matter of fact, and longer than you). The Navy does not retain rights to the image. The original city that the seal and/or flag represents does. We need their release, not the Navy's. The Navy does not have any rights to release in slavish reproductions. Talking to an admiral, or several, would be useless within this context. If you can provide the phone numbers for the copyright authorities at the respective cities who hold the rights, that would be ideal. --Durin 20:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CNFJ Images

Knock yourself out on this one. I have talked to four JAG officers and three PAO officers. They all tell me that CNFJ has total rights and ownership on images released to them from the Japanese government. Under several agreements and treaties, the United States Navy owns these images as if they were thier own and can publish them and distribute them as they see fit. This is mainly so that they can post Japan related images in various publications, among them Navy Times. So, do you still state that they are wrong and you are right? If you *still* want further proof, then go right ahead and call the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs which is the authority that gave these images to the U.S. Navy. The phone number is +81 (0)3-3501-3405. So you see, I WILL give you want you want, it just has to be realistic and you have to give me time (I'm still prepared to draw a map to my ex's house if you want further verification of the ticklng picture as well ;-)). -Husnock 05:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NARA/USHMM images

Just a general word on copyright here (maybe you already know all this, in that case please ignore my comment):

  • Neither the NARA not the USHMM hold any copyright on images that in all likelyhood were taken in Nazi Germany by some most probably German photographer, such as e.g. Image:OldEichmann.jpg or Image:HLHimmler.jpg. Physical possession of a work does not equal holding the copyright!
  • It is just barely possible that such photos are PD in the U.S. (and only there) as "seized property", but we don't know for sure whether that's indeed the case. See Image talk:HLHimmler.jpg for some details. All such photographs are copyrighted normally (i.e. until 70 years after the photographer's death) in Germany. The photos of Heinrich Hoffmann, for instance, are all still copyrighted in Germany.
  • The "seized property" exception in U.S. copyright law does not apply to works where a private person held or holds the copyright, only to works where a foreign government would be the copyright holder. In Germany, however, the "Urheberrecht" always vests in the human creator of a work (who then can sign away or license some of his economic rights).

Lupo 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

    • Despite how folks may feel about em right now, I am still an employee of NARA and am a professional military historian. The photographs at Archives II in College Park, Maryland are the property of the United States government. Anyone can come in and fill out a form requesting to see them and then NARA provides them with a copy. In my 12 years of dealing with these photos and records, I have never heard a word about these belonging in any way to Germany or these being copyrighted by someone in Germany, nor do we inform Germany when they are provided nor pay any kind of fee to any agency or person other than NARA. These are part of a much broader collection known as the captured Berlin documents and property of NARA. Archivists can verify this by writing to Archives II at Aldepi Road or you can call 314-801-0800 and speak to an Archivist at the records center. Perhaps now folks can see a sliver of why I got so fired up...it sometimes seem like you hand people a full description of an image, who it belongs to, who to write to to verify it and even throw in a phone number. The response is then "No! You're wrong!" I don't know what else to say. -Husnock 14:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In this case, I happen to agree with Husnock. Not on technical grounds, but on general grounds. The images he has generally tagged from NARA are most likely from the now defunct Nazi government. Husnock's provided a contact point where this information can be verified. So, we have a source; NARA, and possibly the now defunct Nazi government. Since we can't contact the Nazi government, being that it doesn't exist, the next best source is the the agency releasing the photograph...which is NARA. Husnock's provided a contact point to verify the information. This is, to me, sufficient. On strictly technical grounds, Lupo I think is correct; we don't know if the source was a private citizen in each case or the Nazi government.
  • Please note that this case differs dramatically from cases such as Image:Flagosaka.JPG. This image is from the City of Osaka, Japan. What Husnock has provided is a release point from the United States Navy. The USN is not the original copyright holder of the image. We have no release statement from the City of Osaka releasing these images under a free license. What we have are assurances that the USN says they can be used...but we do not know under what terms. Since there is an active, functioning government that can be contacted regarding the status of this image, that is what should be done to gain release from the original copyright holder. Regardless, tagging this image under a free license and the ensuring argument that it has generated does nothing to help the encyclopedia. In fact, the image is currently not in use. Leaving it as fair use and including it in the article on Osaka leaves us within Wikipedia policy and immune from copyright violation claims. That helps the encyclopedia. Leaving us exposed to copyright concerns because we do not have a release statement from the original copyright holder does not help. In fact, quite the opposite. Husnock insists that the USN has the right to release this image. This stands in stark contrast to the lack of a release statement from the City of Osaka. If the USN has a right to release, then providing a release under free license statement by the City of Osaka should be trivial. Note that this same image was deleted from the Japanese Wikipedia (ja.wikipedia.org) because of problems with copyright. See Image:PrefSymbol-Osaka.png.
  • Husnock, please understand that the above is not addressed to you but to Lupo or any other readers here. I've stated all of this before to you and have failed to come to an understanding with you. You do not need to respond to the above. I already know you disagree with it, and I already know you conclude this is stalking you, insulting you, slandering you, etc. You do not need to re-iterate those attacks. Thank you. --Durin 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek ranks

You asked about the "discussion" over these ranks. I have absolutely no idea what so ever. These discussions took place on Wikipedia Commons, which is a site that I do not follow nor belong to. User:Coolcat is the expert regarding these images as he has created and uploaded dozens of these images to the article on Starfleet ranks. My general understanding was that since these are stripes, circles, and squares, they can be drawn by anyone and are not under copyright. You would have to ask Coolcat as that is the extent of my knowledge. -Husnock 16:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • You referred to discussions. I presumed you knew what they were. I'll remove the reference to them and my request until we identify what those discussions were. I've not been able to locate them, though I have tried.
  • I've previously disagreed with your interpretation of copyright on this issue; logos can and do contain stripes, circles, squares, etc. This does not prevent them from being copyrighted. For example, the Google logo contains Roman alphabet characters (not copyrightable), a particular font (Book Antiqua, which I believe is not copyrighted) and various colors. Each of these elements by themselves are not copyrighted. Put them together, and they can be copyrighted. Same applies to Star Trek ranks. Paramount created these images. The creative work is theirs. Even though it contains only elements which can not be copyrighted by themselves, the combination of them is most definitely copyrightable. I'm aware of [1] and intend on bringing discussion on whether to remove most of these images from Commons. Contrast with rank insignia at Rank_insignia_of_the_Galactic_Empire, almost all of which are tagged with a fair use tag. --Durin 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
logos are not a good example since the issue of trademark kicks in (eg the bass logo is in the public domain copyright wise but is still protected by trademark). The exact point at which enough creativity is added to shapes to make them posible to copyright is something of a grey area and not one I have had reason to really look into.Geni 23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
At Wikipedia, we err on the side of caution. We are focused on producing a free content encyclopedia, not one with questionable free content. Paramount created these images. I see no reason why somebody can not contact Paramount directly, gain a release under GFDL or a version of cc-by-sa and submit it to OTRS. --Durin 01:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
we are talking about the same Paramount that claims (and to a degree at least inforces) copyright on the Klingon language? Paramount will not release it's IP under a free lisence. I don't know of any company of its style that would.Geni 01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps. But, if we don't try the answer is guaranteed to be no :) --Durin 02:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't want to put opinions on record by emailing them. No. Accept that they will not release any IP they have or even think they have and work from there.Geni 02:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that while Cool Cat is the uploader of the images to the Commons, the original creator of the images (as mentioned by the uploads) is me. Around the time, I just drew the images and put them under a license I was told to use. Now that I know better, I feel the images at the Commons should be nuked (since the Commons cannot host fair use items). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • We should at least try to contact Paramount. I'll attempt that tomorrow. If they are to be nuked, perhaps an assemblage of them could be ported back to en.wikipedia and used under fair use. --Durin 02:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
don't email them. There is nothing to be gained by forceing the issue unless you have the money to do it court.Geni 02:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I made my feelings known about the images when they were put up for deletion before: nuke'em. If it is something that I drawn, just nuke the sucker. If it came from another website, then we will deal with that seperately. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys really saying that something lke this is protected by Paramount? I simply dont believe that circles, squares, and stripes are under a copyright. -Husnock 04:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The concept of a rectangle is PD, but the arrangement of it can be copyrighted (from what I been told). Sad but true. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am leaving this one to Coolcat as he is the main man for the Commons images. Be warned, he is very protective of this article and will fight to the Wiki-Death to prevent it from being purged or harmed. Good luck! -Husnock 09:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I speak to Cool Cat on IRC almost daily, so I know that for a fact. However, if it turns to be copyvios, then it needs to be nuked. (I know about the template and concept about military insignia being PD, but why? I looked at the Geneva Conventions and I do not see it at all). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice removal

I suggest removing that notice at the top of the article since its obvious Durin is continuing to update this page. It also appears that I will have internet the rest of the year unless something unexpected happen and can defend these images although I may need at least 7 - 8 months to research contact info on some images, espeically for those uploaded years ago. Believe it or not, the VALID concerns I am correcting. The parts that are simply untrue I am adding notes to. -Husnock 09:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The dispute resolution process is not complete. I am doing just as the notice on the top of the page says; suspending work as a result of the page. That does not mean I am suspending work on the page. I have made no edits to any images listed on this page for the better part of a week. As User:Nauticashades noted in the MfD for this page, this information is important to the dispute resolution. The dispute with regards to proper tagging of the images can not be resolved by ignoring the status of these images. --Durin 13:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I am actually trying to fix these images, believe it or not. and give every oune of contact info I can. I still have negative feelings about why this page was created and for what reasons but will fix those that are clearly wrong or need source information which can easily be given. I've still got the map to my ex's house, though. :-]
      • To the first part; excellent! This is precisely what I wanted all along. This dispute has raged and raged and raged but the core of it was and is correctly sourcing and licensing images. I don't have any problem with people disputing a particular sourcing/tagging. Such debates frequently occur and is no hard thing. It's just part of the regular work around here. Extending it into a much larger debate about me and making tons of accusations against me hasn't changed this core issue in any respect; through it all this issue has remained. You stated recently that I hate you. I don't hate you. I've been very upset that you have made so many baseless accusations against me, and still seem to believe that I am stalking your family in real life. This doesn't mean I hate you.
      • To the last sentence; I know it's a joke but it points to a larger issue. You don't need to reveal personal information about a contact point in order to gain proper sourcing/licensing of an image. As I've noted several times, this information can be sent to m:OTRS and they can then tag the image appropriately, filing the release information (including personal contact information) away for future reference if ever needed. --Durin 14:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/u/r/User_talk%7EDurin_Husnock_images_f225.html"