User talk:Jkelly/Archive07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#August 4 - Image:Body everywhere.jpg

Mib has responded by providing a secondary source. However there is already a secondary source listed on the picture's entry. What the picture needs is primary source evidence to justify the fair use tag that was originally in place - am I correct? John Smith's 00:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I also have some websites that refute the status of the picture. Take a look if you would like to learn more about the problems with them. [2][3] John Smith's 12:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion has got rather messy. I'm not sure what to do now. What's your opinion? John Smith's 22:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
What would happen after the discussion is moved? You said that it has been confirmed the picture is unfree, so what does that mean for the deletion process? I'm just a bit confused here, that's all. John Smith's 22:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok. The only issue is that I'm sure Mib isn't going to agree it isn't fair use. As he is an administrator, how can the issue be resolved?
On first glance, I'm not sure how it can be fair-use. After all, it doesn't really serve any purpose other than that people died during the Sino-Japanese war - during the Nanking Massacre if it is accepted to be part of those events. Any other picture indicating the deaths of Chinese could be used instead. John Smith's 22:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
As an administrator, what happens if Miborovsky refuses to admit the picture is not fair use? The same applies to those pictures that I listed on WP:IFD. Is there a different group of administrators that decide on what to do with pictures, or can he block/revert any deletion? I just have a bad feeling he isn't going to let this dispute go. He's making snide comments again, this time on WP:IFD. John Smith's 09:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think Miborovsky and myself have hit a stone wall. We can't agree, so we really need a more impartial view to help decide whether the picture is fair use or not. John Smith's 11:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC re use of computer icons

Hi, could you swing by Talk:Dark Castle if you have time? The discussion concerns use of software computer icons for identifying a product in addition to packaging art, which seems to be bordering on excessive. Thank you. Combination 10:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Correllian Nativist Church article...

hi there

i hope my revisions to the Correllian Nativist Church talk page have been helpful. When would it be appropriate for me to move the revisions to the actual article itself?

thanks, Htwicce333 19:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd say go ahead and be bold. Jkelly 19:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Image Image:Anti-War Exhibition in Place de l'Étoile Beirut.jpg

Jkelly, you deleted the copyrighted image Image:Anti-War Exhibition in Place de l'Étoile Beirut.jpg, citing "WP:CSD I3 -- incompatible license (no derivative use)," yet WP:CSD I3 says ""No commercial use" or "by permission" images uploaded after target date." The permission to use this image by the copyright holder has no such restrictions. This appears to be a disconnect -- would you please clarify? AdamKesher 02:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

...

why did you say that about my best article? it is awesome. it is one of the best i have done man.Brohanska 05:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Image

Please look at the history and discussion pertaining to Image:Gandhi Boer War 1899.jpg. All source information etc has been available since the day of uploading. Regards, 67.20.232.184 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

Hi. I responded to your original point on Image:Body everywhere.jpg. I can't see how it is fair use, because it shows alleged events of the Nanking Massacres, not a specific massacre, etc. It would be like taking a single picture of an athlete running a race, when others had been taken, and saying that because it showed a particular snap-shot of the race it couldn't be replaced. In reality, you could show another picture from a few seconds later. John Smith's 18:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Licorice

Judging from his/her contributions, this is probably a prankster to be blocked (nice try, though). In fact, in the article licorice there is a reference to Macedonia and to the licorice historian Alvin Hosenfeld, but this guy seems to have never existed and, therefore, we are probably dealing with a wiki hoax. Politis 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

Why have you listed

  • SLebanon-gasStation.jpg
  • EL-KHIAM-UN-PHOTO.jpg
  • IsraeliForeignMinistry-HumanitarianCorridors2006.jpg

as copyright problems? I received permission from the author of the images to use them on wikipedia! Didnt you read that on the image tagging? 82.29.227.171 21:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert the edits I made to the images? Do not vandalise the copyright material on the photographs understand? Mema435 22:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
As it clearly states on the image summary for the images you vandalised I asked for and received permission from the creator of the photographs via Flickr, the creator has waived their copyright. Did you not read that in the image summary? Mema435 22:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
So the images are incorrectly tagged meaning that you, instead of advising on tags, you report them all as 'copyright violations'? I will contact the creator of the images currently hosting on flickr and meantime tag them
This page is about public ownership of creative works. For use in relationship to public lands, see public domain (land). For the music album of the same name, see Tryad.
For how the public domain applies to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Public domain.
Public domain Portal

The public domain is a range of abstract materials – commonly referred to as intellectual property – which are not owned or controlled by anyone. The term indicates that these materials are therefore "public property", and available for anyone to use for any purpose. The laws of various countries define the scope of the public domain differently, making it necessary to specify which jurisdiction's public domain is being discussed. Furthermore, the public domain can be defined in contrast to several forms of intellectual property; the public domain in contrast to copyrighted works is different from the public domain in contrast to trademarks or patented works.

The public domain is most often discussed in contrast to works restricted by copyright. Under modern law, most original works of art, literature, music, etc. are covered by copyright from the time of their creation for a limited period of time (which varies by country). When the copyright expires, the work enters the public domain. Due to legislation providing extension of copyright, it is estimated that currently, of the all books found in the world's libraries, only about 15 percent are in the public domain, even though only 10 percent of all books are still in print; the remaining 75 percent are books abandoned by publishers, but which remain unavailable because they are still under copyright protection.[1]

The public domain can also be defined in contrast to trademarks. Names, logos, and other identifying marks used in commerce can be restricted as proprietary trademarks for a single business to use. Trademarks can be maintained indefinitely, but they can also lapse through disuse, negligence, or widespread misuse, and enter the public domain. It is possible, however, for a lapsed trademark to become proprietary again, leaving the public domain.

The public domain also contrasts with patents. New inventions can be registered and granted patents restricting others from using them without permission from the inventor. Like copyrights, patents last for a limited period of time, after which the inventions covered by them enter the public domain and can be used by anyone.

Intellectual property law
Primary rights
Sui generis rights
Other topics
edit box

No legal restriction on use

A creative work is said to be in the public domain if there are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large. For instance, a work may be in the public domain if no laws establish proprietary rights over the work, or if the work or its subject matter are specifically excluded from existing laws.

Because proprietary rights are founded in national laws, an item may be public domain in one jurisdiction but not another. For instance, some works of literature are public domain in the United States but not in the European Union and vice versa.

The underlying idea that is expressed or manifested in the creation of a work generally cannot be the subject of copyright law (see idea-expression divide). Mathematical formulae will therefore generally form part of the public domain, to the extent that their expression in the form of software is not covered by copyright; however, algorithms can be the subject of a software patent in some jurisdictions.[2][3]

Works created before the existence of copyright and patent laws also form part of the public domain. The Bible and the inventions of Archimedes are in the public domain. However, copyright may exist in translations or new formulations of these works.

Although "intellectual property" laws are not designed to prevent facts from entering the public domain, collections of facts organized or presented in a creative way, such as categorized lists, may be copyrighted. Collections of data with intuitive organization, such as alphabetized directories like telephone directories, are generally not copyrightable. In some countries copyright-like rights are granted for databases, even those containing mere facts. A sui generis database rights regime is in place in the European Union.[citation needed]

Works of the United States Government and various other governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain in their respective countries.[4] They may also be in the public domain in other countries as well.

Expiration

All copyrights and patents have always had a finite term, though the terms for copyrights and patents differ. When terms expire, the work or invention is released into public domain. In most countries, the term for patents is 20 years. A trademark registration may be renewed and remain in force indefinitely provided the trademark is used, but could otherwise become generic.

Copyrights are more complex than patents; generally, in current law, the copyright in a published work expires in all countries (except Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Samoa, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) when either of the following conditions are satisfied:[5]

  • The work was created and first published before January 1, 1923, or at least 95 years before January 1 of the current year, whichever is later; or
  • The last surviving author died at least 70 years before January 1 of the current year

but only provided that both of the following also hold:

  • No Berne Convention signatory has passed a perpetual copyright on the work; and
  • Neither the United States nor the European Union has passed a copyright term extension since these conditions were last updated. (This must be a condition because the exact numbers in the other conditions depend on the state of the law at any given moment.)

These conditions are based on the intersection of United States and European Union copyright law, which most other Berne Convention signatories recognize. Note that copyright term extension under U.S. tradition usually does not restore copyright to public domain works (hence the 1923 date), but European tradition does because the EU harmonization was based on the copyright term in Germany, which had already been extended to life plus 70.

United States law

 All or part of this article may be confusing or unclear.
Please help clarify the article. Suggestions may be on the talk page. (February 2007)

Copyright law in the United States has changed several times. Although it is held under Feist v. Rural that Congress does not have the power to re-copyright works that have fallen into the public domain, re-copyrighting has happened: "After World War I and after World War II, there were special amendments to the Copyright Act to permit for a limited time and under certain conditions the recapture of works that might have fallen into the public domain, principally by aliens of countries with which we had been at war."[6]

Works created by an agency of the United States government are public domain at the moment of creation.[7] Examples include military journalism, federal court opinions (but not necessarily state court opinions), congressional committee reports, and census data. However, works created by a contractor for the government are still subject to copyright. Even public domain documents may have their availability limited by laws limiting the spread of classified information.

Since 1978

Before 1978, unpublished works were not covered by the federal copyright act. Rather, they were covered under (perpetual) common law copyright. The Copyright Act of 1976, effective 1978, abolished common law copyright in the United States so that all works, published or unpublished, are now covered by federal statutory copyright. The claim that "pre-1923 works are in the public domain" is correct only for published works; unpublished works are under federal copyright for at least the life of the author plus 70 years. For a work made for hire, the copyright in a work created before 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or registered for copyright, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.[8] If the work was created before 1978 but first published on or before December 31, 2002, the work is covered by federal copyright until 2047.

1964 to 1977

Works published with notice of copyright or registered in unpublished form prior to January 1, 1964, had to be renewed during the 28th year of their first term of copyright to maintain copyright for a full 95-year term.[9]

Until the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the lack of a proper copyright notice would place an otherwise copyrightable work into the public domain, although for works published between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989, this could be prevented by registering the work with the Library of Congress within 5 years of publication. After March 1, 1989, an author's copyright in a work begins when it is fixed in a tangible form; neither publication nor registration is required, and a lack of a copyright notice does not place the work into the public domain.

Sound recordings

Sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, were generally covered by common law or in some cases by statutes enacted in certain states, not by federal copyright law. The 1976 Copyright Act, effective 1978, provides federal copyright for unpublished and published sound recordings fixed on or after February 15, 1972. Recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are still covered, to varying degrees, by common law or state statutes.[10] Any rights or remedies under state law for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are not annulled or limited by the 1976 Copyright Act until February 15, 2067.[11]

Term extensions

Critics of copyright term extensions have said that Congress has achieved a perpetual copyright term "on the installment plan."[12]

British law

British government works are restricted by either Crown Copyright or Parliamentary Copyright. Published Crown Copyright works become public domain at the end of the year 50 years after they were published, unless the author of the work held copyright and assigned it to the Crown. In that case, the copyright term is the usual life of author plus 70 years. Unpublished Crown Copyright documents become public domain at the end of the year 125 years after they were first created. However, under the legislation that created this rule, and abolished the traditional common law perpetual copyright of unpublished works, no unpublished works will become public domain until 50 years after the legislation came into effect. Since the legislation became law on 1 August 1989, no unpublished works will become public domain under this provision until 2039. Parliamentary Copyright documents become public domain at the end of the year 50 years after they were published. Crown Copyright is waived on some government works provided that certain conditions are met.

Laws of Canada, Australia, and other Commonwealth nations

These numbers reflect the most recent extensions of copyright in the United States and Europe. Canada and New Zealand have not, as of 2006, passed similar twenty-year extensions. Consequently, their copyright expiry times are still life of the author plus 50 years. Australia passed a 20-year copyright extension in 2004, but delayed its effect until 2005, and did not make it revive already-expired copyrights. Hence, in Australia works by authors who died before 1955 are still in the public domain.

As a result, works ranging from Peter Pan to the stories of H. P. Lovecraft are public domain in both countries. (The copyright status of Lovecraft's work is debatable, as no copyright renewals, which were necessary under the laws of that time, have been found. Also, two competing parties have independently claimed copyright ownership on his work.)

As with most other Commonwealth of Nations countries, Canada and Australia follow the general lead of the United Kingdom on copyright of government works. Both have a version of Crown Copyright which lasts for 50 years from publication. New Zealand also has Crown Copyright, but has a much greater time length, at 100 years from the date of publication. India has a government copyright of sixty years from publication, to coincide with its somewhat unusual life of the author plus sixty years term of copyright.

Thai law

According to Thai copyright law, the copyright term is the life of author plus 50 years.[13] When the author is a legal entity or an anonymous person, the copyright term is 50 years from the date of publication. Works of applied art (defined as drawings, paintings, sculpture, prints, architecture, photography, drafts, and models) have a copyright term of 25 years from publication.[14] Republication of works after the expiration of the copyright term does not reset the copyright term. Thai state documents are public domain,[15] but creative works produced by or commissioned by government offices are protected by copyright.[16]

Japanese law

Japanese copyright law does not mention public domain. Hence, even when some materials are said to be "in the public domain" there can be some use restrictions. In that case, the term copyright-free is sometimes used instead.

Main article: Cinema of Japan#Copyright status of Japanese films

Many pre-1953 both Japanese and non-Japanese films are considered to be in the public domain in Japan.[17]

Examples

Examples of inventions whose patents have expired include the inventions of Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison. Examples of works whose copyrights have expired include the works of Carlo Collodi, Mozart, and most of the works of Mark Twain, excluding the work first published in 2001, A Murder, a Mystery, and a Marriage. In the United States, the images of Frank Capra's classic film, It's a Wonderful Life (1946) entered into the public domain in 1974, because someone inadvertently failed to file a copyright renewal application with the Copyright Office during the 28th year after the film's release or publication. It wasn't until 1993 when Republic Pictures relied on the 1990 United States Supreme Court ruling in Stewart v. Abend to enforce its claim of copyright to portions of the film's sound track. As a result, only NBC is currently licensed to show the film on U.S. network television, the colourized versions have been withdrawn and Republic got exclusive video rights to the film (under license with Artisan Entertainment). Rights to It's a Wonderful Life now belong to Paramount Pictures.

Currently four shorts by the Three Stooges are in the public domain due to accidental failure to renew their copyrights in the '60s. These are Disorder in the Court, Brideless Groom, Malice in the Palace, and Sing a Song of Six Pants. Other features and films from the Stooges are known to be in public domain as well.

Several episodes of The Lucy Show are similarly in the public domain.[18]

Some works may never fully lapse into the public domain, such as the play Peter Pan by J. M. Barrie. While the copyright of this work expired in the United Kingdom in 1987, it has been granted special treatment under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Schedule 6)[4] that requires certain royalties to be paid for performances within the UK, so long as Great Ormond Street Hospital continues to exist. J. M. Barrie had bequeathed the rights to Peter Pan to the hospital in perpetuity as an endowment.

Disclaimer of interest

Globe icon
 The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Laws may make some types of works and inventions ineligible for monopoly; such works immediately enter the public domain upon publication. Many kinds of mental creations, such as publicized baseball statistics, are never covered by copyright. However, any special layout of baseball statistics, or the like, would be covered by copyright law. For example, while a phonebook is not covered by copyright law, any special method of laying out the information would be.

For example: U.S. copyright law, 17 U.S.C. § 105, releases all works created by the U.S. government into the public domain. U.S. patent applications containing a copyright notice must also include a disclaimer of certain exclusive rights as part of the terms of granting the patent to the invention (leaving open the question regarding copyright of patents with no such notice). Agreements that Germany signed at the end of World War I released such trademarks as "aspirin" and "heroin" into the public domain in many areas.

Another example would be Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Being an abstract idea it has therefore never been patentable. After Darwin constructed his theory, he did not disclose it for over a decade (see Development of Darwin's theory). He could have kept his manuscript in his desk drawer forever but once he published the idea, the idea itself entered public domain. However, the carrier of his ideas, in the form of a book titled The Origin of Species, was covered by copyright (though, since he died in 1882, the copyright has since expired).

Copyright

In the past, in some jurisdictions such as the USA, a work would enter the public domain with respect to copyright if it was released without a copyright notice. This was true prior to March 1, 1989 (according to the USA Copyright office), but is no longer the case. Any work (of certain, enumerated types) receives copyright as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium.

It is commonly believed by non-lawyers that it is impossible to put a work into the public domain. Although copyright law generally does not provide any statutory means to "abandon" copyright so that a work can enter the public domain, this does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult, only that the law is somewhat unclear. Congress may not have felt it necessary to codify this part of the law, because abandoning property (like a tract of land) to the public domain has traditionally been a matter of common law, rather than statute. (Alternatively, because copyright has traditionally been seen as a valuable right, one which required registration to achieve, it would not have made sense to contemplate someone abandoning it in 1976 and 1988.)

Statutory law

Computer Software Rental Amendments Act

There are several references to putting copyrighted work into the public domain. The first reference is actually in a statute passed by Congress, in the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–650, 104 Stat. 5089 (1990)). Although most of the Act was codified into Title 17 of the U.S. Code, there is a very interesting provision relating to "public domain shareware" which was not, and is therefore often overlooked.

Sec. 805. Recordation of Shareware (a) IN GENERAL- The Register of Copyrights is authorized, upon receipt of any document designated as pertaining to computer shareware and the fee prescribed by section 708 of title 17, United States Code, to record the document and return it with a certificate of recordation. (b) MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS; PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION- The Register of Copyrights is authorized to maintain current, separate records relating to the recordation of documents under subsection (a), and to compile and publish at periodic intervals information relating to such recordations. Such publications shall be offered for sale to the public at prices based on the cost of reproduction and distribution. (c) DEPOSIT OF COPIES IN LIBRARY OF CONGRESS- In the case of public domain computer shareware, at the election of the person recording a document under subsection (a), 2 complete copies of the best edition (as defined in section 101 of title 17, United States Code) of the computer shareware as embodied in machine-readable form may be deposited for the benefit of the Machine-Readable Collections Reading Room of the Library of Congress. (d) REGULATIONS- The Register of Copyrights is authorized to establish regulations not inconsistent with law for the administration of the functions of the Register under this section. All regulations established by the Register are subject to the approval of the Librarian of Congress.

One purpose of this legislation appears to be to allow "public domain shareware" to be filed at the Library of Congress, presumably so that the shareware would be more widely disseminated. Therefore, one way to release computer software into the public domain might be to make the filing and pay the $20 fee. This could have the effect of "certifying" that the author intended to release the software into the public domain. It does not seem that registration is necessary to release the software into the public domain, because the law does not state that public domain status is conferred by registration. Judicial rulings supports this conclusion, see below.

By comparing paragraph (a) and (c), one can see that Congress distinguishes "public domain" shareware as a special kind of shareware. Because this law was passed after the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, Congress was well aware that newly created computer programs (two years worth, since the Berne Act was passed) would automatically have copyright attached. Therefore, one reasonable inference is that Congress intended that authors of shareware would have the power to release their programs into the public domain. This interpretation is followed by the Copyright Office in 37 C.F.R. § 201.26.

Berne Convention Implementation Act
Main article: Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works

The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 states in section twelve that the Act "does not provide copyright protection for any work that is in the public domain." The congressional committee report explains that this means simply that the Act does not apply retroactively. Some interest groups lobbied heavily to make the Act retroactive in order to increase the U.S.'s negotiating leverage with other countries, because the U.S. often asks developing countries to allow the copyrighting of previously public-domain work.

Although the only part of the act that does mention "public domain" does not speak to whether authors have the right to dedicate their work to the public domain, the remainder of the committee report does not say that they intended copyright should be an indestructible form of property. Rather the language speaks to getting rid of formalities in order to comply with Berne (non-compliance had become a severe impediment in trade negotiations) and making registration and marking optional, but encouraged. A fair reading is that the Berne Act did not intend to take away author's right to dedicate works to the public domain, which they had (by default) under the 1976 Act.

Section 203 of the Copyright Act

Although there is support in the statutes for allowing work to be dedicated to the public domain, there cannot be an unlimited right to dedicate work to the public domain because of a quirk of U.S. copyright law which grants the author of a work the right to cancel "the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright" thirty-five years later, unless the work was originally a work for hire.[19]

It is unsettled how this section would mesh with a purported public domain dedication. Any of these interpretations are possible:

  • No effect. Any holder of a copyright can release it to the public domain. This interpretation is probably wrong, because then an author would lose the right to his "termination right," which in practical terms means a royalty. To prevent paying the royalty, a comic book company could release the copyright to the public domain but hold onto the trademark, which would suffice to prevent knock-off comics from being made. Because the Captain America case (Marvel v. Simon) showed that this termination right cannot be alienated before death, this interpretation is almost certainly wrong.
  • Some effect. An author may release his own work into the public domain, and a company holding a work for hire may release his work into the public domain. But a company which has purchased a copyright from an author (as was the case with most of the "Golden Age" comic book writers) cannot. Although the distinction of allowing an author to release his own work is not explicit in the statute, it may not be literally inconsistent (it is not a "transfer" or a "license," and it arguably is not a grant of a right under copyright), and this reading is necessary to comply with the 1990 Act discussed above, as well as the case law discussed below.
  • Strong effect. Only a company holding a work for hire can release the work into the public domain. Because of the references to "shareware" (above) and "programmers" (below), and the fact that many software companies in the 1980s were quite small (and thus did not have employees), this reading seems inconsistent with the intent of Congress.

Case law

Another form of support comes from the seminal case Computer Associates Int'l v. Altai, 982 F.2d 693. This case set the standard for determining copyright infringement of computer software and is still followed today. Moreover, it was decided by the Second Circuit appellate court, which is famous for handing down some of the most well-reasoned American copyright decisions. In this case, it discusses the public domain.

(c) Elements Taken from the Public Domain

Closely related to the non-protectability of scenes a faire, is material found in the public domain. Such material is free for the taking and cannot be appropriated by a single author even though it is included in a copyrighted work. ... We see no reason to make an exception to this rule for elements of a computer program that have entered the public domain by virtue of freely accessible program exchanges and the like. See 3 Nimmer Section 13.03 [F] ; see also Brown Bag Software, slip op. at 3732 (affirming the district court’s finding that “‘[p]laintiffs may not claim copyright protection of an . . . expression that is, if not standard, then commonplace in the computer software industry.’“). Thus, a court must also filter out this material from the allegedly infringed program before it makes the final inquiry in its substantial similarity analysis.

This decision holds that computer software may enter the public domain through "freely accessible program exchanges and the like," or by becoming "commonplace in the computer industry." Relying only on this decision, it is unclear whether an author can dedicate his work to the public domain simply by labeling it as such, or whether dedication to the public domain requires widespread dissemination.

This could make a distinction in a CyberPatrol-like case, where a software program is released, leading to litigation, and as part of a settlement the author assigns his copyright. If the author has the power to release his work into the public domain, there would be no way for the new owner to stop the circulation of the program. A court may look on an attempt to abuse the public domain in this way with disfavor, particularly if the program has not been widely disseminated. Either way, a fair reading is that an author may choose to release a computer program to the public domain if he can arrange for it to become popular and widely disseminated.

Treatise analysis

The treatise cited (Nimmer), holds in its most recent edition:

13.03[F][4]

It is axiomatic that material in the public domain is not protected by copyright, even when incorporated into a copyrighted work. ...

An enormous amount of public domain software exists in the computer industry, perhaps to a much greater extent than is true of other fields. Nationwide computer "bulletin boards" permit users to share and distribute programs. In addition, computer programming texts may contain examples of actual code that programmers are encouraged to copy.

Programmers often will build existing public domain software into their works. The courts thus must be careful to limit protection only to those elements of the program that represent the author's original work.

Although Computer Associates only mentioned the issue in passing, Nimmer observes that the public domain is particularly rich and valuable for computer programs. He seems to say that a computer program author who wishes to release his work into the public domain may either include it in a book as example code or post it on a "bulletin board" and encourage sharing and distribution. (Nimmer is the treatise most widely cited in copyright opinions, and is generally authoritative.)

Patent

With regard to patents, on the other hand, public use or publishing the details of an invention before applying for a patent will generally place an invention in the public domain and (in theory) prevent its subsequent patenting by anyone – an effective disclaimer. For example, a chemistry journal publishing a formula prevents patenting the formula by anyone. This tactic was commonly used by Bell Labs. The famous Bell Labs Technical Journal was sent free of charge to the library of the U.S. Patent Office to establish a base of prior art without the inconvenience, cost, and hassle of filing patent applications for inventions of no immediate monetary value. (Unix was famously described in this journal.) This is sometimes called "defensive disclosure" - one way to make sure you are not later accused of infringing a patent on your own invention. There is an exception to this rule, however: in U.S. (not European) law, an inventor may file a patent claim up to one year after publishing a description (but not, of course, if someone else published or used it first).

In practice, patent examiners only consider other patents and the books they have in their library for prior art, largely because the patent office has an elaborate classification system for inventions. This means that an increasing number of issued patents may be invalid, based upon prior art that was not brought to the examiner's attention. Once a patent is issued, it is very expensive to invalidate. Publishing a description on a website as a preemptive disclosure does very little in a practical sense to release an invention to the public domain; it might still be considered "patentable", although erroneously. However, anyone aware of an omitted prior art citation in an issued patent may submit it to the US Patent Office and request a "reexamination" of the patent during the enforceable period of the patent (that is, its life plus statute of limitations). This may result in loss of some or all of the patent on the invention, or it may backfire and actually strengthen the claims.

An applicant may also choose to file a Statutory Invention Registration, which has the same effect as a patent for prior art purposes. These SIRs are relatively expensive. These are used strategically by large companies to prevent competitors from obtaining a patent.

Section 102(c) says that an invention that has been "abandoned" cannot be patented. There is precious little case-law on this point. It is largely a dead letter.

If an inventor has an issued patent, there are several ways to release it to the public domain (other than simply letting it expire). First, he can fail to pay the maintenance fee the next time it is due, about every four years. Alternatively he can file a terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321 for a reasonable fee. The regulations explicitly say that the "patentee may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of the patent granted. Such disclaimer is binding upon the grantee and its successors or assigns." Usually this is used during the application process to prevent another patent from a "double patenting" invalidation. Lastly, he may grant a patent license to the world, although the issue of revocability may raise its head again.

Trade secret

If guarded properly, trade secrets are forever. A business may keep the formula to Coca-Cola a secret. However, once it is disclosed to the public, the former secret enters public domain, although an invention using the former secret may still be patentable in the United States if it is not barred by statute (including the on-sale bar)[5].

Some businesses choose to protect products, processes, and information by guarding them as trade secrets, rather than patenting them. Hershey Foods, Inc., for example, does not patent some of its processes, such as the recipe for Reese's, but rather maintains them as trade secrets, to prevent competitors from easily duplicating or learning from their invention disclosures, or from using the information after the patent lapses.

One risk, however, is that anyone may reverse engineer a product and thus discover (and copy and publish) all of its secrets, to the extent they are not covered by other laws (e.g. contract).

Trademark

Main article: Genericized trademark

A trademark registration is renewable. If a trademark owner wishes to do so, he may maintain a registration indefinitely by paying renewal fees, using the trademark and defending the registration.

However, a trademark or brand can become unenforceable if it becomes the generic term for a particular type of product or service – a process called "genericide." If a mark undergoes genericide, people are using the term generically, not as a trademark to exclusively identify the particular source of the product or service. One famous example is "thermos" in the United States.

Because trademarks are registered with governments, some countries or trademark registries may recognize a mark, while others may have determined that it is generic and not allowable as a trademark in that registry. For example, the drug "acetylsalicylic acid" (2-acetoxybenzoic acid) is better known as aspirin in the United States – a generic term. In Canada, however, "aspirin" is still a trademark of the German company Bayer. Bayer lost the trademark after World War I, when the mark was sold to an American firm. So many copycat products entered the marketplace during the war that it was deemed generic just three years later.[20]

Terms can be deemed "generic" in two ways. First, any potential mark can be deemed "generic" by a trademark registry, that refuses to register it. In this instance, the term has no secondary meaning that helps consumers identify the source of the product; the term serves no function as a "mark". Second, a mark, already in use, may be deemed generic by a court or registry after the mark is challenged as generic – this is known as "genericide". In this instance, the term previously had a secondary meaning, but lost its source-identifying function.

To avoid "genericide", a trademark owner must balance between trying to dominate the market, and dominating their market to such an extent that their product name defines the market. A manufacturer who invents an amazing breakthrough product which cannot be succinctly described in plain English (for example, a vacuum-insulated drinking flask) will likely find its product described by the trademark ("Thermos"). If the product continues to dominate the market, eventually the trademark will become generic ("thermos").

However, "genericide" is not an inevitable process. In the late 1980s "Nintendo" was becoming synonymous with home video game consoles but Nintendo was able to reverse this process through marketing campaigns. Xerox was also successful in avoiding its name becoming synonymous with the act of photocopying (although, in some languages (Russian) and countries (like India), it became generic).

Trademarks currently thought to be in danger of being generic include iPod, Jell-O, Band-Aid, Rollerblade, Google, Spam, Hoover, and Sheetrock. Google vigorously defends its trademark rights. Although Hormel has resigned itself to genericide [6], it still fights attempts by other companies to register "spam" as a trademark in relation to computer products [7].

When a trademark becomes generic, it is as if the mark were in the public domain.

Trademarks which have been genericized in particular places include: Formica, Escalator, Trampoline, Raisin Bran, Linoleum, Dry Ice, Shredded Wheat (generic in US), Mimeograph, Yo-Yo, Kerosene, Cornflakes, Cube Steak, Lanolin, and High Octane, (Source: Xerox ad, reprinted in Copyright, Patent, Trademark, ..., by Paul Goldstein, 5th ed., p. 245) as well as Aspirin (generic in the United States, but not in Canada), Allen wrench, Beaver Board, Masonite, Coke, Pablum, Styrofoam, Heroin, Bikini, Chyron, Crapper, Weedwhacker, Kleenex, Linux (generic in Australia) and Zipper.

Domain name

A domain name never enters public domain in the sense that copyrighted material does. It is closer in nature to a trademark, in that a failure to maintain it makes it available for others to use (with different standards to maintain it from those for a trademark). If another party registers a lapsed domain name, it is no longer available to the public, as would be the case with former intellectual property which has become public domain.

Public domain and the Internet

 This section does not cite any references or sources. (January 2008)
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

The term "public domain" is often poorly understood and has created significant legal controversy. Historically, most parties attempting to address public domain issues fell into two camps:

  1. Businesses and organizations who could devote staff to resolving legal conflicts through negotiation and the court system.
  2. Individuals and organizations using materials covered by the fair use doctrine, reducing the need for substantial governmental or corporate resources to track down individual offenders.

With the advent of the Internet, however, it became possible for anybody with access to this worldwide network to "post" copyrighted or otherwise-licensed materials freely and easily. This aggravated an already established but false belief that if something is available through a free source, it must be public domain. Once such material was available on the net, it could be perfectly copied among thousands or even millions of computers very quickly and essentially without cost.

Freely obtained does not mean free to republish

These factors have reinforced the false notion that "freely obtained" means "public domain." One could argue that the Internet is a publicly available domain, not licensed or controlled by any individual, company, or government; therefore, everything on the Internet is public domain. This specious argument ignores the fact that licensing rights are not dependent on the means of distribution or consumer acquisition. (If someone gives a person stolen merchandise, it is still stolen, even if the receiving party was not aware of it.) Chasing down copyright violations based on the idea that information is inherently free has become a primary focus of industries whose financial structure is based on their control of the distribution of such media.

(Almost) everything written down is copyrighted

Another complication is that publishing exclusively on the Internet has become extremely popular. In countries party to the Berne Convention, an author's original works are covered by copyright as soon as the work is put into a "fixed" form; no formal copyright notice or registration is necessary. But such laws were passed at a time when the focus was on materials that could not be as easily and cheaply reproduced as digital media, nor did they comprehend the ultimate impossibility of determining which set of electronic bits is original. Technically, any Internet posting (such as blogs or emails) could be considered copyrighted material unless explicitly stated otherwise.

The distribution of many types of Internet postings (particularly Usenet articles and messages sent to electronic mailing lists) inherently involves duplication. The act of posting such a work can therefore be taken to imply consent to a certain amount of copying, as dictated by the technical details of the manner of distribution. However, it does not necessarily imply total waiver of copyright.

Furthering the public domain with the Internet

Many people are using the Internet to contribute to the public domain, or make works in the public domain more accessible to more people. For example, Project Gutenberg and LibriVox coordinate the efforts of people who transcribe works in the public domain into electronic form. Some projects exist for the sole purpose of making material available into the public domain or under no-cost licenses. The IMSLP (International Music Score Library Project) is attempting to create a virtual library containing all public domain musical scores, as well as scores from composers who are willing to share their music with the world free of charge. The Eyebeam OpenLab creates software and hardware projects in the public domain, such as the work of the Graffiti Research Lab.

Note that there are many works that are not part of the public domain, but for which the owner of some proprietary rights has chosen not to enforce those rights, or to grant some subset of those rights to the public. See, for example, the Free Software Foundation which creates copyrighted software and licenses it without charge to the public for most uses under a class of license called "copyleft", forbidding only proprietary redistribution. Sometimes such work is inadvertently referred to as "public domain" in colloquial speech.

Note also that while some works (especially musical works) may be in the public domain, U.S. law considers performances or (some) transcriptions of those works to be derivative works, potentially subject to their own copyrights. Similarly, a film adaptation of a public-domain story (such as a fairy tale or a classic work of literature) may itself be copyrightable.

Kopimi

There is an established form of copyright antonym called kopimi, a wordplay on "copy me." Kopimi is not a license, it is simply a message that expresses the author's desire for people to modify and distribute the work.

Media in the public domain

Main article: Public domain film

There are hundreds of movies, cartoons and television shows that have entered into the public domain.

Some of these movies are considered classics, such as The Gold Rush (1925) starring Charlie Chaplin, A Star Is Born (1937), Carnival of Souls (1962) and Night of the Living Dead (1968).

The cartoons feature a majority of the cartoons produced by Paramount's Famous Studios animation company in the 1950s, including a significant number of Popeye cartoons.

Additionally, four shorts from The Three Stooges are in public domain, along with numerous other appearances featuring them (like their appearance on The Ed Wynn Show and a Simoniz commercial).

These works either did not include a proper copyright notice when published, or the copyright was not renewed and therefore the content is now in the public domain.

See also

Footnotes

  1. ^ Kevin Kelly. "Scan This Book!". New York Times, 14 May 2006.
  2. ^ Patentability of Mathematical Algorithms under US Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
  3. ^ USPTO Notice of Public Hearings and Request for Comments on Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions 1994
  4. ^ Copyright Office Basics: Publications Incorporating U.S. Government Works
  5. ^ Cornell University Copyright Information Center; updated January 1, 2007, accessed January 28, 2007[1]; Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States
  6. ^ Testimony of Dorothy Schrader, general counsel of the U.S. copyright office, hearing for House Resolution 1623, serial 100/50.
  7. ^ 17 U.S.C. § ch1 Subject matter and scope of copyright
  8. ^ 17 U.S.C. § ch3 Duration of Copyright
  9. ^ U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright: Provisions of the Law Dealing with the Length of Copyright Protection.
  10. ^ An exception to the 1976 Copyright Act's general abolition of common law copyright.
  11. ^ 17 U.S.C. § 301 Preemption with respect to other laws
  12. ^ Statement of Professor Peter Jaszi, The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995: Hearing on S.483 Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 104th Congress
  13. ^ พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗. Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (1994 A.D.), from Wikisource, in Thai. Section 4 governs copyright expiration terms
  14. ^ พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗. Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (1994 A.D.), from Wikisource, in Thai. Section 4, Article 22 states the copyright term for applied art works
  15. ^ พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗. Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (1994 A.D.), from Wikisource, in Thai. Article 7 governs works not copyrightable. The law refers specifically to Thai state rules, regulations, announcements, orders, explanations, and correspondence, and includes the constitution, laws, court decisions, examinations, and reports.
  16. ^ พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๗. Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (1994 A.D.), from Wikisource, in Thai. Article 14 states that any government office receives a copyright on creative works produced by it or produced for it under contract, unless other arrangements regarding copyright have been previously agreed to by those involved.
  17. ^ Paramount - Japanese court rules pre-1953 movies in public domain (2006-12-07). Retrieved on 2007-11-01.
  18. ^ "List of public domain The Lucy Show episodes"
  19. ^ U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 2
  20. ^ World of Molecules / Aspirin.

References

  • Fishman, Stephen, The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More. ISBN 0-87337-433-9

External links

 The external links in this article may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines.
Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links.

als:Gemeinfreiheit ar:ملكية عامة ast:Dominiu públicu az:İctimai mülkiyyət bar:Gmoafreiheit bs:Javno vlasništvo bg:Обществено достояние ca:Domini públic cs:Volné dílo da:Public domain de:Gemeinfreiheit el:Κοινό κτήμα es:Dominio público eo:Publika havaĵo eu:Jabetza publiko fa:مالکیت عمومی fo:Almenn ogn fr:Domaine public en droit de la propriété intellectuelle français gl:Dominio público gu:Public domain ko:퍼블릭 도메인 hr:Javno vlasništvo ig:Public domain id:Domain publik ia:Dominio public it:Pubblico dominio he:רשות הציבור jv:Domain umum la:Dominium publicum lb:Domaine public lt:Viešo naudojimo režimas li:Publiek domein hu:Közkincs mk:Јавен домен ms:Domain awam nl:Publiek domein ja:パブリックドメイン no:Offentlig eiendom nn:Offentleg eigedom pl:Domena publiczna pt:Domínio público ro:Domeniul public ru:Общественное достояние sq:Domen publik simple:Public domain sk:Public domain sl:Javna last sr:Јавно власништво sh:Javno vlasništvo fi:Public domain sv:Public domain tl:Pampublikong dominyo th:สาธารณสมบัติ vi:Phạm vi công cộng tr:Kamu malı uk:Суспільне надбання zh:公有领域 then ammend the copyright details on the foreign ministry image to that appearing here [8] Mema435 22:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I updated each image you wrongly labeled 'copyright violations' to read that the author has waived their rights. I will also ask them to send email ala [9]. It is a shame you didnt mention this before here where you raised the issue [10].
I updated the Israeli foreign ministry picture with a new tag and rationale per the IDF image- same law applies. Mema435 22:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I wrote to him/her saying: "Hello, Is it possible I can use some of your images for wikipedia articles? The articles are about bombing in lebanon on civilian areas. A problem is that only images available are press agency and they are restricted on wikipedia due to copyright. I'm hoping you can waive the copyright on some of your images to allow them to be uploaded to wikicommons- full credit to you as photographer and your web presence will be given. Is it possible?"
The user wrote back: "sure. be my guest. M" So they appear ok with it, then I wrote to them explaining where the images were: "That is very kind of you, thanks. I have placed some of the images you created in these articles: [11] and [12] You can of course remove or delete the image at any time and I will also do this for you if needed. Credit has been given to you as 'Masser' with a link to flickr. Thanks again"
Mema435 23:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I understand that and have written to them explaining and providing the link to [13] asking that they fill it in and send it off if they agree to the T&C. I'm pretty sure that UN picture is also ok and i notice that the UN picture of kofi annan is also UN picture so I will update the picture of the base with that rationale. Mema435 23:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand, the fair use policy states "we must permit some non-free material for critical commentary". There are no other images to represent the destruction of the base that im aware of that can do that nevermind any that are free. The photo in the UN article of the base prior to the attacks is probably also originally a UN photo. Mema435 23:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello again, the author has changed the license on the respective Flickr images to by-nc-sa CreativeCommons [14]. Is it ok to change the tags on the images hosted at wikipedia to CC-BY-SA? Mema435 13:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
To test this I put another image at Car&roadBeirut2006.jpg, please look it over and let me know if this is the way to proceed. Thank you. Mema435 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Great, Thanks for your help. Sorry for getting upset about the images. I understand it better now and have sourced a few more to put on commons- will plough ahead with that now. Mema435 17:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, the Masser photographer agreed to sharealike license for those specific photos so I uploaded them all again with correct licensing. Mema435 12:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Image Names

I think it is more in line wihtWikipedia guidelines to first ask permission befoe you upload somebod ele's photo to Wikimdia commons. You can do it legally, but it's uncourteous - and we reallyneed to try and pay each other respect and courtes. Lastly, rnaming the name of a photo that I, THE PHOTOGRAPHER, named, is bad form, because you were not thereand I was, and I named the photo perfectly what it should be named. I make a request, that you do not re name photos for which you WERE NOT AN EYEWITNESS. It's fine fr photos 100 years ago, etc., but that rally was NOT over Qana;Qana was just the straw that broke thecamel' back. I named it was most accuratl named. Thank you. --DavidShankBone 05:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have purposely licensed my photographs so that they can be edited and used by others. What I took exception to (in a garbled message when it was very late) was renaming an image--on a controversial topic--that wasn't an accurate name, and then re-uploading it onto that controversy's page. I don't grasp the value you saw in that; perhaps it was to put the date in. I don't think I would typically care--say, if you took my CompaySegundoHotelNacional.JPG and renamed it "CompanySegundoPlaying Guitar" or something. I apologize for my tone above and I purposely didn't edit it because it shows I was tired (and had come home after a night out...). But on some of the more controversial topics, you may want to think twice before renaming photos. Otherwise, after having looked at your contributions, I'd like to say, Keep up the good work.--DavidShankBone 16:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to upload any of my photos to Wikimedia Commons and you are welcome to put the dates in, as well. You can change the titles if you think there is a more accurate reflection of the photograph. Thanks again for your efforts on cleaning up the site; yes--add some images; landmarks and other features in the area you live is a fun project, I'm finding. For the first time since a 5th Grade class trip, I'm a New York tourist. --DavidShankBone 16:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't really taken a look at the Commons, but I will do so. I've enjoyed exploring buildings, trying to find nooks and crannies and artwork. I never replace photos (though I may shrink them if they aren't as good, and move them around). New York hospitals are on my list of "To Do", but taken from that same day was the Beth Israel Medical Center in Union Square: Image:UnionSquareBethIsrael.JPG Wait until I begin my authors series (a lot of authors do readings at bookstores here, and few of them have photos on their entries). I have a packed schedule this month. Gay Talese, Tommy Chong, Jennifer Egan, Wendy Williams.... --DavidShankBone 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

J Kelly eh?

Pardon me for asking, but your name popped up on the Wikipedia Signpost and I just have to ask: does the J by any chance stand for "Jennifer"? —this is messedrocker (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then you're not someone I know. —this is messedrocker (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: discussion

Are you in the proces of moving the discussions to the talk page? If so i will not revert you.. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nm, noticed you did it a couple of seconds after i sent message. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Randallflaggandmordreddt7.jpg

I reuploaded it under a different name. After howcheng deleted it, I discussed it with him, and he told me to reupload it for discussion. I have sent a message to artist Michael Whelan to see if having images is a problem. If it is, I will remove it. I have talked to him before so I know I should get a response.--CyberGhostface 23:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? That was made from a customizable template for images that don't follow the blanket preestablished categories.--CyberGhostface 23:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Image copyright problem with Image:QanaII.jpg

I formally asked for and received permission from the copyright holder to use that image. Now, just tell me what to do in order to keep it as i still have the permission? -- Szvest 09:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Benzmit

Howdy, thanks for the note the other day regarding tagging the recent uploads of Benzmit (talk • contribs). Unfortunately, it appears s/he is back at it again, with another 50 or so images, many of which are obviously not free, (they seem to all be tagged {{self2}}): see Image:Cardsharp1977-img427x600-11550098083.jpg or Image:New mann.jpg. I could go though them and list them at WP:PUI, however this seems like more an issue of willfully ignoring correct tags (s/he's been warned about this before) and fairly clear cut incorrect tagging. What would you suggest as a course of action? Many thanks, --TeaDrinker 08:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

General question about fair-use policy

I'm having some difficulty finding a photo for my FAC on Hilary Putnam. I have emailed him and asked for permission to use his image under the GDFL, bit have not received a response yet. Is it permissible to use a book-cover, as in the case of W.V.O. Quine, with a fair-use rationale of some sort??--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ketuanan Melayu

Someone mentioned your name in connection with this article's FAC and its images. Since the objector never bothered to respond to my request for clarification, I thought I'd drop you a line. Johnleemk | Talk 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to clarify the copyright status of the first image many moons ago (last year actually), but the source (Jeff Ooi) did not return my emails. I contacted the editors of Malaysiakini, who are connected to Ooi and the local journalism community, but they said they've never seen such a version of the photo before. Would it be safe to say that Ooi holds the copyright? I'll try to see if the textbook I scanned Image:Protest against Malayan Union.jpg from credits the copyright owner. As for Image:Gerakan celebrate after 1969 election.jpg, it likely belongs to the Gerakan party, since it came from their official website. I don't know how we can address Image:Bumi discount mod.jpg, but it depicts a typical real estate advertisement for the purposes of discussing economic policies, so I'm not sure how it could be substituted with text. Johnleemk | Talk 14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem

Hello again, you are the only admin ive encountered so far. Do you know what the procedure is when confronted with an edit war? There is a used here that is continually reverting despite opposition to his changes, I am using the user User Talk:RandomGalen to edit there and have tried to canvas some support for the nondeletion of the detail but the user continues to engage in edit warfare. Mema435 11:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

Incidentally, I'm tempted to write one of these things. A nice short one; "Please make sure that none of the images in your "best of Wikipedia" work are candidates for speedy deletion. It's really only about two minutes of effort." Jkelly 01:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but then how are you going to get image dummies like me to figure out which images are candidates for speedy deletion? <grin> It won't compute. Sandy 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical heraldry

I see you tagged the two images for deletion. They are the only two eastern coats of arms I could find on wiki. I found the source for the more critical one. What do I need to do here? Gimmetrow 01:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So you are basically saying I need to paint one myself and scan it? I bought up the two eastern images at the start of the FA, then again in the middle, and was told that "2-3 fair use images are fine." So I feel somewhat offended by this. Gimmetrow 01:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, you did post that immediately after commenting on my FAC. Sequence is not causality but I'm sure you understand the inference. Anyway, I have spent quite a bit of time going through the COA images here and commons, and haven't found anything else to work with. Some of the categories are my work-product, even. The difficulty with these arms is that they use the "robe of estate" or manteau; that alone is rare enough that I doubt heraldry software supports it. Then there would be the appropriate hat, etc.Gimmetrow 01:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I must say, the fair use policies and image tagging systems seem too inscrutably byzantine even for me. The pages are difficult to find and not well connected. I guess I'll try to find an image in a book published before 1923. That would work right? Would coats of arms of a state church fall under public domain as official seals of a state authority for certain Slavic countries? While I'm here, I asked on WP:AN for someone to review Image:GLKStamps.jpg after the clearing of fair use stamp images, but saw no response. It's been tagged for deletion three times, but the stamp people apparently don't like using {{Stamp}} for unofficial stamps. Uploader seems to think it is public domain, but I have doubts. Gimmetrow 03:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

While the Serbian image was serving double duty, I've removed both of the offending images. I had been trying to get mostly newer books since much changed in the 1960s and 1970s. It will take time for requests for older books to come through. I would rather not hold up the FAC for this, as it has adequate pictures at the moment. I guarantee any future images added to the article will be PD (probably PD-old), and will notify you for review if you wish.
I am also considering drawing/painting some images myself. If so, I would want attribution and the exclusion of derivative works. Before I put in the time painting, is there a license that guarantees attribution and forbids further modifications (except maybe cropping and lower-resolution images)? Gimmetrow 15:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Text is easy to change, the WP system couldn't have a non-derivative license there. It's unfortunate WP doesn't allow non-derivative licenses for images though. When you have a chance could you point me to some explanation of why? Next question, it turns out there are a few old polish heraldry books that were reprinted, some completely and some with plates of the original diagram pages. The original books are old; are they PD? What about reproductions of the complete pages in other books? Gimmetrow 21:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess Raul got tired seeing this in the FAC list. Thanks for the help. You were sort of there at the start of this article two months ago, too. Reminder is at the top of my talk page. Gimmetrow 06:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Harper

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Steveharper-outlook.jpg

What evidence would be sufficient?

CalgaryTower 02:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a scanned copy from the archives of the youth association (probably one of the few copies left in existence). The original is sitting on my shelf. CalgaryTower 03:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The original photograph belongs to the Alberta PC Youth Association. Couldn't say who the original photographer was (seeing as it was taken over 20 years ago), but photo itself is owned by the Alberta PC Youth, which does not assert any claims of ownership over it. You could contact the youth group directly for verification. CalgaryTower 03:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
If this continues to be unsatisfactory, perhaps you could suggest a better tag. CalgaryTower 03:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, you got it. The photographer released the rights to the youth group, who released the rights years and years ago (probably at least 10-15 years ago). The current youth president (Dave McColl) can be contacted at PC Alberta Calgary Office, Phone: 403-244-8528. CalgaryTower 03:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Jzg's page

Don't know if I should give any more mention to it on AN/I, but see also 64.34.168.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Garion96 (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bagan.png

Hi, the image is the Burmese characters for the city of Bagan in Burma. Thanks. Kirkland1 16:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Peacekeeping photos

Why did you replace the photos for the Peacekeeping article? As was stated on each image page, the UN permits non-commercial use that credits the UN (it states so here). --Tjss(Talk) 17:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Reality TV

Kelly, could you weigh in here with an opinion. I'd like to get an idea of a consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Reality_Telvision_Contestants --DavidShankBone 22:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A new guideline?

I would value your input on a topic I have raised at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Specifically, I have frequently encountered a set of issues on biographies of academics that are somewhat narrower and more specific than for generic "biographies of living persons". I am thinking that it might be time to propose a guideline about this, or maybe just an essay on the topic. But before I try to float that, I'm interested in what you think. LotLE×talk 05:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted thermographical images

Hi Jkelly,

Sorry I made a mistake uploading images. I reloaded the polar bear because I thougt I made a mistake with the naming. Before I started I mailed with Samsara, of the biology portal and he suggested the Creative Commons licence. I used this type of licence allready, because they are ment for low/no budget educational organisations.

I think the images add interesting information, specially about topics like: thermoregulation, cold-blooded, warm-blooded, energy-efficiëncy tools of nature.

What kind of licence from the list is prefered?

Greetings,

Arno

Hi Jkelly,

I think I understand the CC-problem. Thermographics are a little strange. The source is more like a database of temperatures (80.000 measurements) than an image. The jpg or bmp files are like extracts of this database. You can choose a lot of colorpalettes or even design your own palette and change the temperature scale. This means that you can extract lots of different jpg's from one single thermograph. If I make a collection of copyleft "unique" extracts, e.g. in the black-and-white or purple/yellow palette and don't put these images on www.nutscode.com, would that be sufficiënt?

Greetings,

Arno

Hello again,

We are the original creators of the "basefiles" (a lot of fun), it's a coproduction of two free-lancers. I'll check the pages were I put a thermograph and remove the image border and description. I can make a special wiki-page on www.nutscode.com, were I can put unique abstracts under a free to use licence. I'll have to make a selection though otherwise we create our own competition.

Greetings,

Re: Wikipedia

I really don't know. Revert if you'd like. --Pilotguy (roger that) 01:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Jkelly, thanks for your suggestion on the admin board. I posted a message on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics. The page has now been protected. Best wishes and happy editing. Travb (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks and question

Thanks for deleting my lemonade stand images. I never asked the individuals in those images for their permission to use the photos, but it was in a public setting. Could those images have been released into the public domain? Thanks!--Lord of the Ping 05:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

2005 Planets

I meant 2006, but 2005 is a good year too.

Hey man, I used to work at NASA. These days information is so abundant that my $800k paying salary at Nasa just rules. Anyway.

Are you Rkelly? PISS ON YA.

Hey man uhm but why did you post a warning on my talk page?

DO YOU NOT KNOW IM A GREAT PERSON? IM THE GREAT JOHN CHO, A GREAT ASSETT TO THE WIKIPEDIA COMMUNITY.

How dare you contradict my greatness!!

<3 ----John Cho 05:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Since 4 tidles my sig, 4 lines also are good.

It is also good for the next Fourth Reich (the next Third Reich.) Vierte Reich. Sieg heil.

Re : Talk:V for Vendetta (film)

I'm a bit amused by your latest reply at the talkpage, because it is something too trivial (pun not intended) to get into some form of dispute at WP:FAR. Furthermore most of the points at the trivia section are mere duplicates at other parts of the article, so I've fixed it in my spare time (use the diff comparison [15] to see what I mean). Hopefully that would be fine for all parties. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 08:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Perhaps I haven't got accustomed to this FAR thing, but I personally think like PR, FAR wouldn't actually garner much response on this sort of "trivial issues" (i.e. by precedent of FARC, people usually respond only with the threat of de-feature). By the time it goes through the meat-grinder (FARC), it would seem like an overkill, having personally came across other FAs that are much worse. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Christine Jennings

Thanks for the message. Please be aware that when I made that edit I was very aware that it could be controversial so I immediately contacted the user and alerted an administrator so they could deal with it. As it happens, they reverted the article to remove the controversial content. I'm reckless, but I'm not that reckless. The article is, I think, referring to this article in American Reporter. This is only available through the Google cache. Maybe Jennings has got in touch with them too, and they removed the article from their page? Can I use it as a reference? --Jim (Talk) 23:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JK. As I said on the Admin noticeboard, it appears that the information was added to the article en masse by an IP address in Tampa, so I begin to believe the argument that it was an attempt to libel Jennings. The IP address restored the stuff from American Reporter a couple of times in July and August. Interestingly, User:Johnjohnnyjr also restored the information at one point, and the only other edit he made was to Jan Schneider. Is this who Jennings is running against, by any chance?? Any way of working out what IP address Johnjohnnyjr was editing from? Either way, it looks like a lawyer or a banker is going to Congress, which will make a change... --Jim (Talk) 23:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you're right. In terms of preparation, would it be possible to make a category which would include all of the candidates for whatever is going on in November (I'm in Scotland, so don't know the ins and outs of American poltics). I guess semi-protection of all candidate pages would be against the spirit of WP, but this might work. Perhaps a mod could be made for Vandal Proof so that all articles in the "candidates" category would flag up when they were edited, so we could keep better track of them? --Jim (Talk) 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
LMFAO! The last edit to Jan Schneider was made by 72.77.137.119; see the diff. That IP also made this edit to Christine Jennings, and can be traced to... go on, have a guess.... pool-72-77-137-119.tampfl.dsl-w.verizon.net. ie, the same IP for the person claiming to be from Jenning's campaign earlier on... looks like WP is a political battleground already... --Jim (Talk) 00:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Cheers. I've created the category and added Schneider and Jennings to it. I've also put it a request at Vandal Proof to see if they can add the feature to their software. Do you know where I could get a list of precisely who the candidates are for the midterms? --Jim (Talk) 00:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks once again! One final question - do you know of a tool that allows one to add a category to aa batch of articles in one fell swoop? It would sure save a lot of time...
Wow, AWB looks neat - should certainly do the job. I doubt it will be too much bother, once the list is copied over from wikia. I might see if I can get some other editors to help share the load. Thanks one last time for all your help, Jim (Talk) 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up

Thanks for the heads up JKelly, have a wonderful day! Travb (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use magazine covers

I've been involved in the magazine covers "discussion" over on the Wikipedia talk:Fair use page, and there hasn't been any more comment for a while after the proposal by FastFission. I'm wanting to think that means we've come to sort of an agreement, and that we should look into some policy changes. How do we get that started? Lauren 20:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Qana photo - my message to ChrisO

Hey JKelly - here is what I wrote ChrisO about the Qana photo. Thanks for the revert.

Hey ChrisO - I'd appreciate if you left the image up. First, the rally was on 8/3 in reaction to the Qana bombing--although the protest didn't slice and dice the Israeli bombing campaigns (when do they?). Second, that page, as you know, has been something of a warzone itself and aside from the fact that tweaking it may incite tempers that have cooled, it is also remarkable that nobody tried to take it down before. Which means that it does carry some legitimacy with the editors on the page (I am not one; I only supplied the photo). --DavidShankBone 02:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this

User:NLOleson placed a POV tag on Religious pluralism. I then put a notice on his talk page that he should also place a reason for it on the talk page [16]. Nothing bad, and nothing to attack him, just hoping that he could post his reasons so we could improve the article. Since then he's been uncivil to me, and I've removed the content on my talk page [17] and [18], but no doubt he'll be back. I was wondering if you could take a look and see if there are any comments you could add. Thanks, -- Jeff3000 02:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User 999 seems to have exremely poor judgment and is overly emotional

I am surprised you would suggest him as a competent editor. He seems unaware of Wikipedia policies. I would assume you have not reviewed the relevant talk pages and Tom-the-hand comments, as surely you would not suggest 999 as any kind of competent editor if you had done so. Mattisse(talk) 02:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your image question to Telex

Hi, just happened to see your question to Telex re el:Εικόνα:Thessaloniki view.jpg and thought I'd answer for him as he's not much around these days. According to the image page on el.wiki it's own work by the Greek user who uploaded it there, el:User:SkarmoutsosV alias Βαγγέλης Σκαρμούτσος. I'd say that makes it safe to assume it's under GFDL, isn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Done. GFDL confirmed and uploaded on commons: Image:Thessaloniki view.jpg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Qana protest nyc.jpg

I'd have appreciated it if you could have asked me before you deleted the image. I'd already asked the photographer if he's willing for it to be licensed as CC-BY-SA, which he is - I do check these things before using them, you know!. -- ChrisO 07:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Another appeal for help on images

Hi, Jkelly. The images, copyright, and Fair Use issues still escape me. Where specifically do I deal with Image:Chavezsurvivescoup.JPG, which is taken from the BBC ? The BBC does not allow this, according to its webpage. Isn't there a faster way to deal with these sorts of things, considering the backlog on the Copyright page? I continue to come across images that were lifted from other webpages, and I don't know what to do with them. This is just one example. Here's another BBC example: October1993crisis.jpg‎ Thanks for any help, Sandy 12:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, JK. It really is a messed up situation, because none of these images have (or likely will have) valid Fair Use rationale, and we should be able to deal with this easier. I've just found another one, uploaded by the same editor (172). Image:R2157456581.jpg uploaded from Reuters. They are all taken from sources which make money off of their images and don't allow use of their copyright pics. Isn't there a faster way to get rid of multiple violations from the same user? Or should I do the same thing you did? And then, what is the next step? He will put up some Fair Use logic, and then where does it go next when they are clear copyright vios? Sandy 00:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

NAS placard

Query here for you in case you miss it; or we can discuss it elsewhere if you prefer. I'm keen to know how derivative work is being defined. News photographs of demonstrations often show placards, and show them in detail if they're controversial, which this one was, which is why it was photographed. There was a higher resolution version that I deliberately didn't download, though it was offered, in case it was such good quality that someone could, indeed, have made a poster out of it. So when does a photograph of a placard cease to be a derivative image of that placard i.e. what are the criteria that allow it to be claimed as largely or entirely the photographer's own work? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(from PUI) A professional journalist wouldn't ask for a release in those circumstances because that placards like this are on display is seen as a matter of public interest i.e. a news issue. However, I take your point about the second matter i.e. that a journalist claims their use is not an infringement, but we would be claiming no other use is one. However, what if there were a version in which the image did not feature so prominently, so that it could not be cropped in the way you describe? Also, separate issue, are there free licenses that allow use so long as not cropped? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
from SV's talk page) I've responded at PUI. In terms of the larger issue, we have a sort of haphazard approach to derivative works. If I take a picture of a busy street, and there's a poster in a storefront window, we tend to ignore it. But if I take a picture of a poster, and it is clear that the subject of the photograph is the poster, we tend to delete it. There are plenty of cases in between these two where we just try to come to some sort of reasonable decision after discussion. Jkelly 18:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, understood. There are other images of this demo and the person holding the placard that might be more acceptable for the reasons you outline. The subject of the image is not simply the placard but the fact of it at a demonstration, so the subject is both, and the reason for using it both. I'll find the other versions and e-mail you the links. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

CoA

It is the 1912 arms, I have read though the archive and no artist is listed, apprently the name of the artist wasn't that important to the Australian governemt. However it is an accurate and docmented picutre of the arms, which is more than I can say for the one commons (the colouring is wrong and the dimensions are a bit weird too), and does not cause any copyright issues as it is the 1912 original. --Peta 02:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I should also add that it is a requirement of the Australian Government that the arms be reproduced in the correct colours and proportions, so the commons version is really not a good alternative. Read this if you want the dull detials.--Peta 02:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The archive link on the image page provides those detail should someone want to sift through it again. I have found that you can't deep link into the archives.--Peta 02:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Coat of arms image for Australia

Hi, I just saw your comment to Peta re COA image - and I actually noticed on the diff that the image was coded incorrectly (which is no doubt why Peta changed it). If you change the code to

Image_coat = Australia coa.png|

this will work. Hope this helps :) - GIen 03:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Re : Edit summaries and the word vandalism

Hi! I received your msg, but you omitted to include an explanation as to what the reasoning and motivation was for you to send it at all. --Viogfernos 17:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Aforementioned user does not even give legitimate reason for the reinsertion of verification tags.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Viogfernos (talk • contribs)

Image information for Ron Saxton

Hello, I changed the picture for the Ron Saxton article after I recieved your message. The first picture was taken from the Oregon Secretary of State's office, but I don't have the exact link to the page the picture came from. Therefore, I found a more current photo and uploaded it with the proper information. The other one can be deleted as it is no longer in use. Davidpdx 07:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Need admin help!

Hi, Kelly. I need an admin to close a deletion discussion that has been going on a bit too long. The listing is here. It was five votes for merger, two to keep - so surely that's a consensus for merging. Joe has said he'll try and find someone, but in case he can't could you do it please? Thanks, John Smith's 21:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my last post is a bit redundantnow. Some people jumped in at the last minute so I think the consensus has been disturbed. Still if it hasn't been closed I'd appreciate you to process it. Thanks again, John Smith's 23:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well thanks anyway. To be honest, the article would be deleted quite soon anyway because there isn't much merging to do. Hopefully someone will come along and decide that most of the content has been merged or something. Otherwise I'll rename the thing to include all the WWII powers - that way it should be quite fair enough. John Smith's 23:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Great news! They've re-direct the page to "war crimes". My faith in wikipedia procedure has vastly increased. :) John Smith's 21:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Saxton Image

I'm a bit confused what your asking for. The image was taken from the Oregon Secretary of State's office. Is this not something that is acceptable? Please let me know specifically what your asking. Davidpdx 09:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have emailed the Oregon Secretary of State's office directly and will let you know the results when I get a reply. Davidpdx 17:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I really appreciate it. Hey, how did you recognise me? Funk Junkie 16:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right. Well, thanks again! Funk Junkie 18:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm mostly just adding the talk page points

Most of the pages have already been tagged. And on many of the talk pages, there are already comments that the article is POV or inaccurate or something like that. How does putting verify on pages that clearly need it be harmful, or adding to the talk page what they need to fix harm Wikipedia? I've been told that Wikipedia wants policies to be followed. Is that not true? GBYork 19:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional explanation

I'm adding that 999 (Talk) has already alienated my by the tactics he used on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber which shocked me. That's what got me interested in this. The whole nominated deteriorated into a mess with him making personal attacks on the nomination and administrative complaints being filed, and the page been spammed. That's when I realized that something not normal was going on regarding 999 (Talk). I am aware of another situation where he had the same effect, though fortunately an administrator was forceful enough to override him. Once 999 (Talk) stopped the irrational supporting of a page creater that he didn't need citations, the creator came arround and in a day or two his article was immensely improved. There is an admin named Georg or something (don't have his link right now -- I'll have to find it -- who weighed in on how distructive 999 (Talk) is. So that is why I disregard anything he says. GBYork 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please desist from personal attacks (i.e. "not normal", "irrational"). no personal attacks is a non-negotiable policy here at WP. -999 (Talk) 19:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You could be right

If the nomination for afd would just get over and if I don't have to deal with 999 (Talk) anymore I will be more rational. Frankly, I've seen behavior like 999 (Talk) before, but have never been directly messaged by someone like him.

I'm certainly willing to back off. I know from reading messages to others that show up on my radar that 999 (Talk) is leading others in a move to prevent any correction of articles he knows are faulty. I fault myself for falling into the trap, but he is a very dangerous and disruptive force. And he encourages authors to do the wrong thing, which harms them.

But I will take a breather as you advice. I'm sick of the whole thing anyway. GBYork 19:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing unhelpful or disruptive content

I feel this is an important practice in situations like this[19]. But how do you feel about including a link such as this[20] in your notice of the removal.

In the future, when people are looking through the archives it will help alot, and also aids in transparency today. I am seeking your opinion on the matter, not trying to sway your methods. HighInBC 21:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright law and Image:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg

I just contacted someone about this image and I found out what I suspected all along- that in a picture of a public event like a protest that even if a single poster is the centerpeice of the picture, the only thing that is necessary is the permission of the copyright holder of the photograph, the person who created the original poster is irrelevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert either, but the person I asked might fall into that category. I think that in normal cases, the creator of the original work would obviously be relevant. However, when someone creates a poster for a public event and someone takes a picture of that poster, then the photographer would generally be able to sell the photograph or do anything else he wants with it without contacting the original creator. Obviously this has its limits, the photographer would not be able to crop out everything else in the photograph and then sell the picture as an original of whatever is being displayed. However in the case of the picture that we talking about, it is clear that it falls in the case of the former and not the latter, so as long as we have the permission of the photographer then we are in the legal right. Since copyright law is generally part of federal law this does not change depending on the state jurisdiction. Although in the last 30 years this has gotten more complicated, by no stretch of the imagination would this be a cause of action).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the clarification. I thought you were suggesting the opposite.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats what I was implying when I said "generally part of federal law", and that it has gotten more complicated in the last 30 years.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfinished work FAC

Thanks for your comments on the FAC for unfinished work. It seems that Raul654 decided that the nomination had gotten stale and, after many additions to the article, I have renominated it. Please take a look to see if it meets your approval. Thanks, violet/riga (t) 13:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thessaloniki

I really can't find out the copyright status of the image; I've checked, and it's not indicated. I think it would be best for you to ask someone else to look into it now, as I have very limited internet access and time at the moment. Thanks :-/ --Telex 21:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

King Vegita and Hanuman Das keeping Separate

That is unlikely to happen. He followed me onto the pages in question, from Thoth (which he may have followed me onto), in a cabal of him, User:SynergeticMaggot and User:999 who almost forced me off Wikipedia altogether until SynergeticMaggot talked me into coming back in real life. They had 3 articles I had spent much time on deleted, and stripped much of the rest. I have to rewrite the articles to get them reincluded and he's likely to be following me there opposing it.

KV(Talk) 21:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I also had them userfied for you. So please stop complaining everywhere you go. And we're not a cabal. SynergeticMaggot 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


pics removed from richmond ca

why did you remove the pictures of glenn plummer and divine brown? you say it because there is no faur use rationale here, but that is simply untrue, they were obviously being used to illustrate the Saw II actor Glenn Plummer and the sex worker divine brown their celebrity status and works (or actions in the public light) i think its rather vandalistic to romoeve them without first mentioning it on the talk page, that is if your too uninterested to find the rationale or put it in instead of removing them you could have asked someone to do it for you in the mean time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.78.14 (talk • contribs) 71.142.78.14 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Qrc2006 23:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


even the mugshot? i mean thats nearly public domain, no one gets sued for that, they use it like hot cakes—Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs)

i suppose that is a rather extreme and uneccisary measure. Perhaps a better mode of action might be to deal simply with the Los Angeles County relevant statements since they are the relevant ones concerning the mugshot of Divine Brown and a precedant could be set to look into the individual county on a case-by-case fashion when a new county's mugshot is under consideration. thank you for your helpQrc2006 07:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply re 999

You have an opportunity to stand by your recommendation of 999 by voting Keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber. Mattisse(talk) 09:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


I really, really (!) don't appreciate censorship! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

You would be much more efective when you'll be ready to listen for once what I have to say concerning Skalic!

Just read this text under, and remove injust "protection" of Paul Skalic article


Paul Skalić

An Stbalbach user from believse Paul Skalic's nationality is controversal, although many distinctive slavists, linguists, croatists and other scientists think differently! Those "authoritative sources" mentioned by Stbalbach are Britannica and Encarta- but he is missing to point that these facts are actually very outdated hence there is, at least one very serious scientific work ( of mr. Zubrinic) that corroborate that Skalic is, in fact, really Croat. Also there is confirmation of Croatian Ministry of Science and Technology of that fact. On the end, I really don't know which "number of other editors" think same as he is. As I have seen, there was many controversy about this kind of text even before, so I think that you should remove this protection hence it is really unnecessary. It is only a new contribution to the evil blood between various editors, and not to mention that it seems that this looks like a censorship! If info. provided in the text is true/objective it would survive, if not... but that's the spirit of W.

Quote from Beebe

I have just noticed you have moved my quote from Beebe in the "Extinctions" article to Wikiquotes - which is fine - but I have added it to the Extinctions article again. If you don't think it is appropriate there - would you please let me know why? Many thanks, John Hill 01:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Beebe again

Thanks for your explanation on my Talk page. It makes sense to me - but how on earth do you find the quotes in Wikiquote? I have just given up trying - I must be missing something simple - which is not hard for me these days ;^)

Cheers, John Hill 06:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

images

By what right and for what reason are you renaming my photos in my namespace? Adam 03:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If possible. Adam 03:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor?

I need you to ban me. Indefinitely. (yes, I'm serious. I need to end the addiction). --FuriousFreddy 16:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know (sorry for the spaz). I just have this strong compulsion to edit articles anytime I see a mistake. It's almost unavoidable. I really should be trying to handle real-life problems...but...--FuriousFreddy 01:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sasha fundacion presskit.gif

Jkelly, howdy! Regarding the Sasha press kit picture: I produced and directed a biographic documentary film for Juan Carlos Plata, top goal scorer in the history of professional Guatemalan football (soccer). See the Biography on Film section at Juan Carlos Plata. The 94 minute film has an original soundtrack by DJ Sasha and the picture, was one of three publicity photos provided to me by Sasha's management at his agency Red Light. Hope this contribution gets this article closer to being a Featured Article. Any further questions, please drop me a line. -- Virgilrm 21:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Images on Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction article

Hi. I see you've removed all the images in this article. I belive that it is OK to use book covers as fair use to illustrate articles and there are very few Wiki articles with no images. I see you have a regular interplay with other Wikipedians on removing/altering their images so I'd be grateful for an expalnation of your logic. We can all learn and as a responsible Wikipedian I'd be happy to offer a siuitable description on the images. Tony 11:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Tony

Image:Dkilgour.jpg

Hi. This picture was questioned. I worked on Mr. Kilgour's campaign and I asked asked his permission personally. Dozens 19:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC) --Im confused, what should I have emailed to permissions AT wikimedia.org? Just simply that he gave me verbal acceptance. Sidenote, im sorta new and havent seen that guideline before. Where might I be able to familiarize myself better with those best practices? Dozens

Attacks by Viogfernos

Hi, I made the mistake of editing Francis Barrett, which Viogfernos had just done a fair bit of work on. I have also perhaps not behaved perfectly, saying "tush tush" in response to one of his insults left on my talk page. However he seems determined to cast me as the bad guy, and is now slandering me left, right and centre, accusing me of vandalism, and of being a spammer, a troll, and a "ne'r do well". He has completely rejected my attemps to draw a truce. He has reverted several constructive edits I have made, calling them "vandalism". I guess I'm asking for advice. I don't want to have to pussy-foot around him, and I don't want to waste huge amounts of time in edit wars or have my work arbitrarily reverted. I don't want to be painted as a miscreant either. What can I do now to resolve this problem, and what should I do in the future if I am insulted and vilified? Thanks again, Fuzzypeg☻ 00:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Fuzzypeg☻ 01:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't open the RFC immediately, but after further trouble I have opened it. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Viogfernos. I wonder if you might add your name to certify it? Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 00:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The RFC has been removed for lack of a second certification. I haven't heard a peep from Viogfernos for a while; I suppose I may as well just bide my time until he rears his head again? Or would you suggest I resubmit the RFC now? There's very little work involved this time, since I've already put it all together... Thanks Fuzzypeg☻ 22:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the KerkyraDimarheio.jpg.JPG ?

Hi when I click on the City hall picture in the Corfu article it tells me that KerkyraDimarheio.jpg.JPG does not exist. Please let me know. Dr.K. 20:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet it appears in the article and even you saw it. What's going on? Should I upload again? Dr.K. 20:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Dbuckner/Expert rebellion

You might find it of interest that you are labeled, by this page, as a user who is "discontented for [reasons] fundamentally similar [to] Wikipedia offers very little incentive for editors who wish to contribute to expert topics." AFAIK, you seem more or less still contented with Wikipedia. Just thought you might like to know. ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I will treasure the image/motto you put on my talk page. Much thanks and amusement. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See Before You Die images

I contacted the website through their contact form indicating that a user was uploading the pictures and claiming that they were free for any use. I asked them if they knew of such an activity, and if they approved of it, they had to e-mail permissions AT wikimedia DOT org. They wrote back (from site-manager-replay@SeeBeforeYouDie.net) to the permissions e-mail and a cc to me with the following e-mail:

Dear Wikipedia team,
Wikipedia user Dmwime got our permission to use images from See Before You Die inside Wikipedia.
In addition, any other Wikipedia user can use these images as long as a credit to See Before You Die will be added.
Regards,
BZ
See Before You Die.net

I don't know if permissions has received it or not, but it seems legit thus far. I've removed some of the urls in the pictures, but haven't completed them all. Is there anything else that needs to be done? -- Jeff3000 22:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Should I e-mail them again, telling them about the derivative use, and if they are ok with that? or just leave it be? -- Jeff3000 23:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

An images question

Hi, Jkelly, hope all is well. Another editor wants to nominate Tourette syndrome FAC (which I don't agree with yet, but it's not "my" article), and I've asked him to hold off. I was hoping, if you have time, you could take a look at the images there and see if they are up to snuff? If you have the time, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Sandy 05:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the look at TS. I saw you removed Howard, and I went ahead and removed Malraux. Sandy 22:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Help Desk question

Hi JKelly, I have read in various places that you are an expert on images. While answering questions on the help desk, I came across this question. I tried to play around with the image on one of the articles that it is linked to. But was unable to get it to a proper shape. Request your help to do so. In case the page is watched by any other people, please feel free to answer here or on the help desk. -- Lost(talk) 13:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The editor loaded a lower res image. I guess that was the problem. Works fine now -- Lost(talk) 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked

No worries. Thank you for taking the time to respond anyway. :)Apro 12 September 2006

No derivative images - speedy?

Hi. I've asked a question at CSD which you might be able to help with. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hi! Could you revert the recent edits made by this user on Alicia Keys page for me? By the way, I'd like to know how to revert edits as well as to warn users about this kind of edits. Thanks! Funk Junkie 18:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll take a read at that. Funk Junkie 18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Jill Kelly

Did you notice this little dig at you? [21] Jim Douglas 22:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And one more parting shot here [22]; he seems to have gotten bored with us, for now at least. Jim Douglas 22:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this

Hi Jkelly, I was wondering if you could take a look at the actions of a specific user User:RoddyYoung over the past month. He has an obsession with adding information about YouTube to random articles. The process started when he added a paragraph about Baha'i content on YouTube, which really has no Encyclopedic value, claiming that because thousands of people have downloaded a Baha'i video that it somehow becomes a fundamental aspect of the Baha'i Faith. After being blocked for a 3RR for adding the content he started adding an external link to Baha'i content. These links didn't really pass WP:EL (We did tell him that specific links in specific articles could work, but a generic link is useless). Since then, after much discussion, and a clear consensus (basically everybody but him) that the content nor the link was encyclopedic, he has gone on ramblings that have nothing to do with Wikipedia, but the importance of YouTube content. Many people have indicated to him that Wikipedia is not a forum, but his posts have gone to the point of being vandalism, in my mind. He has even posted the same unencyclopedic content on other pages multiple times for which he has quickly been reverted.

I think he believes that the Wikipedia page about the Baha'i Faith serves as a promotional tool for the religion, and we have indicated to him many many times that it doesn't and that his belief that YouTube is important to the Baha'i Faith is original research and needs some sources. We have even told him that if he likes the media so much, Wikipedia (and commons) has places were GFDL media can be uploaded, but he's stuck on including geneneric YouTube content.

I was wondering if you could take a look; I know it's long, and most of it is very hard to follow, but I don't know what else to do. His ramblings could just continue in the months ahead. Thanks. -- Jeff3000 21:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think so; he stopped going on these long diatribes. Thanks. -- Jeff3000 17:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

User:BADMINton

Hi JKelly. I've indefinitely blocked User:BADMINton. Wanted to let you know as a courtesy as you recently blocked and unblocked him. Some relevant discussion is at WP:ANI#User:BADMINton. Best regards -- Samir धर्म 04:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome, JKelly! I've checked out the tutorials and am enjoying participating in the Wikipedia community! jszack 12:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Image/printable version question

Hi, JK ... I asked this question at the Village Pump Technical section, but I'm not sure how responsive that forum is. Do you know of anyone who might be able to help me figure out this problem? I need to locate someone who understands the technical stuff, and what is causing the problem with the image/printable version combo. Thanks! Sandy 22:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, JK ... it's weird that all the rest print correctly. Maybe I shouldn't worry about it. Sandy 16:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Could use your help

Kelly, I know you are more concerned with images (me too), but my Floyd Abrams articles have been nominated for deletion. I explain the point behind them on the deletion page, but if you think this is important information I could sure use someone backing me up. I have spent so many countless hours working on it, that if it's deleted I'll have to taken an extended vacation from contributing, because I think it is very important. I'm all for deleting useless and vanity-fuelled articles, but this man is living history, and I took it upon myself to do this (after I read the book he gave me when I went to take his photograph for Wikipedia). I am writing a grant-proposal around the project; if it's deleted, well, that would hurt me a lot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Floyd_Abrams_and_the_Pentagon_Papers_case --DavidShankBone 03:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

John Smoke Johnson

THANK YOU for making a silk purse out of the sow's ear of a stub I originally wrote. My illness has prevented me from reviseing it and many other articles. Not that I am complaining when I see such a competent job done. More power to ye! Fergananim 13:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well

Well, J, I'm glad to see such images up and running, because I've being sujprised that there was'nt more on these areas on wiki. Does anyone know much about the Johnson family of the present day? Surely Sir William, Smoke and the others have present day descendeants? By the way, if you hav not read O' Toole's book yet, do so, as its well worth it. Fergananim 16:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thuja sutchuenensis photo

Hi Jkelly - this photo does meet the requirements of the WP:FUC. How should they be added? - MPF 10:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll do that. It is impossible to get a free use photo of the species, none exist (the one I had uploaded is the only photo in existence of the living plant; the species is not in cultivation anywhere as the Chinese authorities have not allowed export of seeds since it was rediscovered in 1999). - MPF 16:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Done; can you let me know if it needs anything more - MPF 22:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't stand for this

(prevent unfree image from rendering in userspace per WP:FUC -- sorry to intrude, thanks for understanding)

This image is from a website belonging to the Canadian government! The national archives! Leave me the fuck alone, man! NeoThe1 12:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please remember WP:CIVIL. And in case there's any doubt(!), that's intended for NeoThe1, not for JKelly. AnnH ♫ 23:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hitler

Hi, I haven't involved myself much in image copyright disputes so far, so I don't have your background knowledge or experience. If you're online, could you just check that I'm doing the right thing at Adolf Hitler. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 23:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Note

A request was made on WP:CVU relating to Wikipedia:Vandalism. I have protected the latter page in an earlier version to ward off a revert war; since you edited it recently, please take a look at the current situation. Thank you. >Radiant< 00:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have objected to: the edit starting the war, to the edit war itself and to the block. See my comments [here].--Blue Tie 04:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

PD-USSR

Could you maybe keep an eye on this? I'll be away for some time, and anyway, if I were to deprecate this tag, some people would go completely nuts. I have produced a proposal for a deprecated version (here, in the history of PD-USSR). I have also imported {{PD-Russia}} from the commons. I do believe PD-USSR should be deprecated prontissimo, otherwise we risk getting an influx of misguided copies from the commons. (P.S.: also see User:Lupo/Notes, where Physchim62 and me are trying to figure out what to do exactly with works published in the USSR outside of the RSFSR. Maybe we should just apply 70years p.m.a. to such works...) Lupo 07:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome

) --EngineerScotty 17:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:USA-E-Supreme-p176a.jpg

Image:USA-E-Supreme-p176a.jpg is based on a picture which resently has been deleted as a copyright violation, especially as the copyrightholder has asked that his pictures where not to be used. The fact that the picture in question was used in a 1954 publication which is now shown on ibiblio makes some people believe it is PD. see [[23]] for further writeup and links to deletions of even other versions of that picture. Agathoclea 17:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - that picture started to become a nightmare with its constant deletions and recreations. Agathoclea 17:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you take a further look at Vozas (talk · contribs) uploads. There is a large amount of clearly mislabeled licences (Actors as historical political posters). I have already reverted a number of articles s/he replaced a freeuse image with a fairuse, and have attempted to fix some of the sources but it is just too many for me, and not being an admin I don't have the power really to stopp the user from what he is doing.

Does ****** (pornographic actor) edit Wikipedia as Jkelly?

Surely Not! I always pictured you as a nice woman! Yours in jest, Fergananim 21:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Does ***** (pornographic actor) edit Wikipedia as Jkelly?

Surely not! I always thought you were a girl! Yours in jest, Fergananim 21:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Garbo image

Hi. I don't have access to a copy of the issue I scanned that from at the moment, but should be able to again next month, and can add a more detailed description then. (I didn't include such when I uploaded it as that wasn't common practice 3 years ago-- I'm glad we're getting more precise about details of sources.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation 00:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of logos in Betelgeuse incident

Hello, Jkelly. I am currently involved in a dispute with two editors about the use of the Gulf Oil logo in the Betelgeuse incident article. It seems to me that this logo does not significantly contribute to the article, and thus fails the eighth point of the Wikipedia fair-use policy. The Total logo has just recently been added to the article, and though I haven't yet said anything about it, I think this image also adds nothing significant. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter; the discussion is ongoing at Image talk:Gulf.png. Thank you for your time. —Bkell (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Ready for your turn in the barrel?

We're looking for more OTRS volunteers who would be willing to answer the Foundation's email. Your name came up as being an experienced, trustworthy person who stays cool and who might be able to cope long enough to serve out a 90 day rotation in the quicksand-bottomed, alligator-infested swamps of OTRS. We offer a barnstar to those who have successfully completed a rotation, though this will not make up for the psychic scars or the loss of political capital. Are you willing? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Help with Image licencing

Hi Jkelly, I was wondering if is possible for a copyright holder to allow reproduction of an image on wikipedia without releasing any rights, ie that it could not be used on any other website. If this is possible, is there a procedure for contacting the copyright holder and requesting use. thanks 213.105.178.25 19:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. We don't want that kind of licensing arrangement at all. Wikipedia is a project to build a free, reusable encyclopedia. We want material that can be used by anyone for any purpose one might imagine. You can find example requests for media with appropriate licensing at Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission. Jkelly 20:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, makes sense. Just have to find a similar 'free' one so, i suppose. 213.105.178.25 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to ask for help finding a suitable image. Many experienced Wikipedians know of a lot of non-obvious places to find freely-licensed or public domain media. Jkelly 20:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks: am looking to reproduce an image taken 30 yrs ago to publicize an ablum release. It was also used as a limited edition free print given away during a reissue of the album a few yrs back. Could this covered by fair use?
Anyway, sorry about the ip thing, typing this at work... 213.105.178.25 21:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem. If we really need to republish it (rather than link to it), it may well be something that would meet Wikipedia:Fair use. Take a look at the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria before uploading to make sure. Jkelly 21:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

New User

Hi. I just got a message from a new user (see my talk page) who wants to know "now what?" Can you give him some assistance? I'm not confident enough to know where/how to guide him

Thanks,

Septegram 18:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Wrote my first article? Worried about layout, etc. How to improve? AndrewChristian 14:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Curiosity with Image:Tagore3.jpg

Image:Tagore3.jpg was used as the lead image in Rabindranath Tagore. I know it was there when I last edited that article on Sept. 19, and I'm fairly sure I've checked the article since then too. The image is now gone; I don't recall any notice of pending deletion and couldn't find a recent record on WP:IFD. (An image by that name was deleted in 8 May 2006.) Without a record I'm not sure I could even ask at WP:DRV. I really don't know where else to look on WP to find out what happened to it. You seem to be the image specialist - could you check when you have a chance? Gimmetrow 21:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess that explains it. Is it customary, when commons images are up for deletion, that no notice is given to articles on other wikis that use the image? Seems like this could have been less abrupt. Gimmetrow 00:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Extirpation

You have recently changed Extirpation to a redirect to extinction. I am aware that it was merely a dicdef at the moment but shouldn't it be left as a stub until it can be expanded instead of redirecting? I know that the extinction article covers extirpation since it is a localized extinction but I would argue in that having the Extirpation article does no harm. Joelito (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Laika

Jkelly, can you please have a look at the Laika FARC, and let us know if there's anyway to save that image? User:Yomangani has made a great effort to save this article from FARC. Sandy 15:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Licenses

Thanks for doing something about that PD-USSR tag. Seems it is deprecated now—looks like someone other than me speaking up got that part of the job (finally!) done. (I hope re-sorting will now be peanuts compared to getting that tag deprecated, even if it will take some time.) Getting Carnildo to set up OrphanBot to deal with new uploads under this tag (also the redirects PD-Soviet and Sovietpd?) was a really good idea. Could we now also remove PD-Soviet from MediaWiki:Licenses? It makes no sense to keep a deprecated tag in the drop-down list of the upload screen... Lupo 08:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't touch

Erm, I didn't touch the Kelly page, or "The Pillows", whatever that is. Que es tu problema? .... Comment added at (15:50, 5 October 2006 by 63.87.123.73

Your history of contributions shows that you or somebody using your IP number did exactly that. You may wish to get and use a username. -- Hoary 16:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Zaparojdik

Hi, I see you've been "scolding" User:Zaparojdik over various image uploads. He's been blocked for the next few days (until the 15th [24]), so don't think he's ignoring you if you don't get an immediate response.--Tekleni 16:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Time for an application of that strange flying thing?

At it again: see this and this and this. How tedious. How about a touch more of this? -- Hoary 13:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Linking Weirdness

Hi. You were foolish kind enough to greet me when I first arrived at Wikipedia, so you now get to be the person to whom I go first for general questions. At Yellowikis there's a link to entitled "Yell" which points to a page with the heading Yell Group, but that page seems to be a complete copy of the page for Reading in the UK.
Any thoughts?
Septegram 22:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That was a weird one, and I didn't know what to do about it.
Septegram 22:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Stewart Farrar

Excellent job in coming up with those references and in what you've done to the article in general. Wow!

The Barnstar of Diligence
for excellent work in research and provision of original sources in a significant number of articles. Excellent work! - Alison✍ 17:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Image:Sakartvelolamazo.jpg

This file belongs to me personally, do I still have to specify a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosomk (talk • contribs)

  • I believe so, even if you took it yourself - Alison✍ 20:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not,but the authors are cool with me using them under free usage, I am not using them for comercial purposes. Sosomk 21:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Please help, i am don't have that much knowledge about the tags. Can you advise me? In addition, can you help me with Image:Bush-cowboy.jpg? thanks Sosomk 03:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing you need {{withPermission}} as you have permission of the owner. You've already got {{fairUseIn}} which is probably right but maybe not for user page space. I'll add the permission tag. - Alison✍ 04:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah - I see. Jkelly suggests the collage needs each of the images validated first and that fair use may not apply to userpages as it's not illustrating an article. S/he may be right - Alison✍ 04:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, i get it, please help me with [Image:Okruashvili t250w.jpg] if you find time for it. What type of rationale do i need for this? Sosomk 18:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your cordiality.

We may be on opposite sides in this war, but I appreciate the fact that you addressed me with manners and civility. Those are rare traits in Wikipedians - thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.231.159 (talk • contribs)

Re-evaluation co-counseling edit war

Hello J Kelly. Would you be so kind as to give me a perspective on whether the link to a website that publishes articles on re-evaluation co-counseling should be removed or not. The user Mark Thomas has consistently deleted the link whenever anyone has posted it. I think that this is due to his being a member of the organisation and being intolerant of criticism rather than for any of the reasons that he has offered which have looked rather spurious to me :see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Re-evaluation_Counseling Thanks JBennett 11:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC) J Bennett.

Sorry, the webpage is down at the momement due to being moved to a new host. I will let you know when it is back. In the meantime I will have to suffer the slightly abusive rants of Mr Thomas. JBennett 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

King Crimson

Please explain to me how using illustrative pictures of their album covers does not constitute fair use - especially when virtually every discography page or section on Wikipedia includes album covers, not to mention the album articles themselves... Leopold Bloom 23:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias

Hey Jkelly, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Help on images

Hey fellow wikiuser, I was told that you could help me out with pictures. I tend to focus on contributing to Armenian related articles mostly, and I possess an Armenian history book from where i`d like to upload useful pictures. I`m kinda clueless about how the picture system works. Could you please help me out. Appreciated :) Fedayee 03:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for help

Greetings. I feel like I'm in the middle of this, and I'm over my head. See User talk:Quadell#Image talk:Bldgoval.jpg, Image:Bldgoval.jpg, and Image talk:Bldgoval.jpg. I saw the image was listed as "replaceable fair use", and saw that someone had disputed that, so I went to investigate. I thought the {{permission}} tag was incorrect, and removed it. Now I'm not sure which way is up. Could you help? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Image Dispute

This same user has been logging on for about a month making wholesale changes without discussion. Considering my extensive attempts in the past to be civil and open to discussion with him just ignoring it, I think I am justified in suspecting he will suddenly change his tune. Thank you for your concern, but you should go through the history of the debate before lecturing me on WP:BITE. JHMM13 (T | C) 17:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. So that's what I'm doing. Venting personal frustrations. That's all that a mountain of evidence is. It has nothing to do with the fact that he can't back up his claims, continues to vandalize the Wake Forest University page, refuses for months to engage in discussion, and then the moment he does, chastises me for questioning his motives. I wish I could explain to you how infuriating it is to put forth an honest effort for months and be blamed for being a troublemaker. If you want to deal with this person, fine, I'm out. You are after all the heroic, unbiased bystander with no eye for the past. Unless you have a formal complaint against me, please do not ever contact me again. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Those darn images

Hi, Jk. A question about images has been raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tourette syndrome: at the request of one editor, I included an image which really adds little, and would rather include the image used at Adderall, but I'm not clear what the licensing tag on that image means. Can you help? Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 14:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ! Sandy (Talk) 16:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

JKelly, I'm sorry to trouble you again - the images in the TS article continue to be far more problematic than the darn text. Would you mind taking a look at this? It's still Greek to me. Thanks in advance, Sandy (Talk) 17:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:AmbassadorTheater(St. Louis).jpg

I just deleted this photograph that you tagged as public domain as a copyvio. Looking at this talk page, it is clear that you are engaged in repeated violations of our Wikipedia:Image use policy. This is a last warning. Don't upload any more images until you have a thorough understanding of our license and copyright rules. Any more potential copyright infringement will result in this account being blocked. Jkelly 20:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning noted; actually this is the reason why I have stopped uploading pictures in the past few weeks since I have not understood Wiki's copyright infringements and a lot of them have been deleted. Is this warning in regards to any of the older uploads that might come up down the line or is it just for any new ones that might occure dated 10/27/06? Granded I will not be uploading any more which have copyright infringements but I just want to understand the warning is not for any of the old ones. Regards. Mallaccaos 27 October 2006
Great, I will JKelly. Thanks for the offer. Mallaccaos 27 October 2006

Fair use images in lists

Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about an image

Hey Jkelly, under what tag do you think I'd be able upload this image (the 2nd one) with? Do you think I could safely say the image is PD? Also, could I do something similar to this? Thanks in advance, Khoikhoi 23:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks a lot. BTW, I think it's time to archive your talk page. :-) Khoikhoi 05:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)