User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2021/September

Image copyright

Thanks for the explanation and kind response, but sometimes it is difficult to define the origin of the image files from the media, they put tweets or firefighters, they don't put anything else, they probably take from social media. Given this difficulty in assigning licenses, I no longer put any photos or files if not taken by me, with my camera. I am not currently uploading anything to wikimedia anymore. Best Regards --Peter39c (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Uploading your own photos is probably the safest thing to do since only then can you be sure for the most part of a work's copyright status. You still have to be careful though in some cases if what you're photographing is a work created by another person because although you may own the copyright on the photo you take, the work you're photographing might be considered a derivative work as explained here and here. In such cases, there might be two copyrights that need to be considered (one for the photo you take and one for whatever you're photographing) which can complicate things greatly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance template from published article

Dear March/July, Thank you for your comments and explanations. There were two main points in yur message on Teahouse (forgive me if I use the wrong terminology - I'm still trying to find my way around the Wiki system). a. Removal of template regarding citations (Josef Josten biography). I have indeed checked all the sources: as inheritor of the family papers, I actually have hard copies of the books and newspaper cuttings. I agree it would be nice to quote online sources, but they are hard to find for events that happened 40+ years ago! I'll therefore remove the template, although I'll continue to look out for improved citations.

b. Uploaded photo. The photo concerned was "commissioned" by Josef (probably from a local camera shop) for use in various identity documents, so presumably he would have owned the copyright, which would then have passed to me as inheritor of his estate. I apologise if my use of the "my own work" category was misleading. However, that seemed the only place where I could assert ownership of the copyright. I'm not sure how one proves the case. Even if I can find a suitable photo which I actually took myself, how would I prove it?

(Incidentally, I was not surprised that you found the same photo uploaded on Julian Lewis' website: he collaborated with Josef on various projects, so Josef would have sent him a hard copy.) Best wishes, Honza Giles (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Honza GilesHonza Giles (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Honza Giles I'm not sure if you're asking some new questions or just clarifying certain things about Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1122#Removal of maintenance template from published article. Anyway, based on what you posted above, here's what I suggest.

1. Since you describe yourself as being the inheritor of his [Josten's] estate, you are almost certainly going to be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about him on Wikipedia; so, I strongly suggest you carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and follow the guidance given there. Although Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict-of-interest editing, it does highly discourage it because can can often lead to other more serious issues as well as problems with other editors. The more transparent you're about your connection to Josten and the closer you follow Wikipedia's guidelines with respect to conflict-of-interest editing, the less likely you're going to find yourself running into problems.
2. If you can verify what's written in the sources, you would normally be able to remove the maintenance template; however, I wouldn't suggest you doing so based upon your connection to Josten. My suggestion to you would be to start a discussion on Talk:Josef Josten and seek input from others. Another issue has to do with the way you've described the sources above. What you're describing are considered to be WP:PRIMARY sources and thus you need to very careful in how you use them. Wikipedia prefers WP:SECONDARY sources instead, particularly when it comes to interpretations or claims that might be somewhat contentious. Moreover, personal documents such as family papers would have very little value even if they're factually true if they aren't things that have been published and aren't somewhat reasonably accessible to others to allow verification. If Josten's personal papers and other writings were published and reviewed by third parties (e.g. scholars), then they would have encyclopedic value in a Wikipedia sense; if, on the other hand, they simply things passed down to you and that you have had the only access to, then they have almost no value in a Wikipedia sense. I'm not trying to be discouraging, but they wouldn't be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes and would more likely be treated as original research instead.
3. If you're not reasonably sure that Josten was the copyright holder of the image, then you probably can't upload it under a free license to Wikimedia Commons. If you do strongly believe he was and that copyright passed to upon his death, then you might be able to claim c:Template:PD-heirs depending on the particulars of the copyright laws of the country of origin of the photo. That's something you might want to ask about at c:COM:VPC. The fact that the same image was also published somewhere else, however, does make things more complicated, but perhaps there's a way to resolve that as well (i.e. Lewis verifies that the image came from Josten). Regardless, one thing you shouldn't try to do when it comes to image copyright is guess, unless it's really an educated guess that is almost certain to be correct; if you upload too many files to Commons with questionable licensing claims that leads to files being deleted, you might find your account blocked by a Commons administrator as a result. So, it's better to ask at c:COM:VPC if you've got any doubts. Just for reference, since Josten is dead, it might be possible to upload a photo of him locally to Wikipedia as non-free content per item 10 of WP:NFCI for primary identification purposes at the top of the article. You don't need the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder to do such a thing, but you will need be sure that the way you use the photo satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria. For images of deceased persons, the most troublesome of the ten criteria often is criterion #1; so, if you can clear that, then perhaps a non-free image would be allowed.

I'm going to ask a more experienced editor, who also happens to be an Wikipedia administrator, to take a look at this and provide additional feedback as needed. My suggestion to you would be to hold off on editing the Josten article just for a bit until he has had a chance to comment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Honza Giles: Marchjuly asked me to come here and have a look at this. Yes, I'm an administrator here. But, I want to make it exceptionally clear here that my role as an administrator has no bearing here. My voice has no more weight than yours does, and no more weight than Marchjuly's. We are all good faith Wikipedia editors. That's what matters. Now, to the topic at hand;

• I strongly concur with Marchjuly regarding conflict of interest issues here. While it is possible for an editor who has such a direct conflict of interest to write on things here, it is difficult to do and remain objective and neutral. Allow me to give you an example; you added this passage to the Josef Josten article. This is a decidedly non-neutral passage. In support of this passage, you gave a citation to a work that was apparently written by Josten himself. So we therefore have a situation where the article is speaking in glowing terms about the subject, and for proof that such glowing terms are warranted, we rely on the subject itself to verify this. It as is we were to say so-and-so is awesome and for proof we rely on so-and-so's words that they are awesome. I'm sure it's obvious to you why we can't do that. This is why we do not often rely on primary sources here to support such material.
• With regards to the image you have in your possession; it is frequently the case that professional photographers will allow uses of their commissioned work by their clients but retain copyrights to their work. I have worked with photographers and frequently found this to be the case. We apparently have no way of verifying if the photographer released their copyrights of the image to Josten, and therefore can not assert that the copyright to the work is, by right of inheritance, yours. I'm very sorry, but we can't accept the image under any license you would want to release it under as we can't verify that you in fact hold the copyrights to it. Copyright law can get quite arcane. This resource from Cornell shows a chart that helps navigate the dizzying array of potential circumstances. The one that seems to apply is "Published without copyright notice in a country that is a signatory to the Berne Convention or other 17 USC § 104A(h)(3) treaties and is not in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996 (but see special cases)". As such, we have to presume the work will remain in copyright at least until 2052 (presuming the photographer died in 1982, shortly after taking the photo).
• Marchjuly is quite right than since the Josten is no longer among the quick, a non-free image would be allowable and likely be able to pass our non-free content criteria. I cast about looking for such an image, but a cursory search returned nothing that I could verify was Josten. Perhaps you can find such an image?

I hope this helps to clarify matters. Please do not be dismayed by any of this. All of us started editing here at one point and had a learning curve before us. Marchjuly and myself are trying to help you, not offer resistance. If you have questions, certainly let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

File "Isaac B. Bersuker in 2008.png"

Hi Marchjuly, Thank you for your kind message and your explanation. Actually, as I can see from the draft, I succeeded to attach the needed file "Isaac B. Bersuker in 2008.png". Also, as you recommended, I provided the copyright information. The uploaded photo was used on the cover page of the book "The Jahn-Teller Effect and Beyond" (ISBN 978-9975-62-212-7) where I am listed as the copyright holder. The second holder of the copyright, James E. Boggs, died several years ago. Therefore, now I am the only holder of the copyright over the whole book and, in particular, over the photograph on its cover. Sincerely, vpolinger (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome vpolinger. Did you take the photo for the book cover or did someone else? If you didn't take the photo yourself and the person who did take the photo didn't transfer the copyright of the photo entirely to you, then you will most likely need that person to email their c:COM:CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT for license verification purposes. Even if they gave you permission to use the photo for the book cover, that doesn't mean they gave you permission to upload the photo to Commons and release it under a free license that Commons accepts. If you did take the photo yourself or the copyright was transferred to you, then you should email your CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT. Whomever the copyright holder is should understand what uploading a file to Commons means; basically, the copyright is agreeing to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the photo at anytime and use for any purpose (including commercial and derivative uses); moreover, once they upload the file to Commons, they can't really change their mind at a later date. Even if the file is deleted from Commons, people who have already download it will continue to be able to use it as they please as long as they adhere to the terms of the file's licensing. Uploading a file to Commons doesn't mean that you're transferring copyright ownership to Commons or the Wikimedia Foundation; it just means that you're making a version of the file freely available to others to re-use as they please. If you or the copyright holder doesn't want to give others the ability to use the photo as they please, you should request that the file be deleted from Commons asap per c:COM:CSD#G7.

Finally, just for reference, copyright ownership doesn't necessarily become void when a copyright holder dies. In many cases, copyright ownership is passed along to the deceased person's heirs as part of their estate; so, you might not automatically be the sole copyright holder just because James E. Boggs has died. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Golden Ticket Logo

There are two different files that require different discussions? Why did you add the jpg file to the png discussion after I explained to you the difference between the two logos? What is your issue with these files?—JlACEer (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The files and their respective used are related and its better to discuss them together in the same FFD instead of splitting them off into two separate discussion. I'm currently in the middle of posting a comment in the FFD which should clarify what I think the issues are. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Solomon Partners, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CVS.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)