User talk:Jameslwoodward
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself. The original talk page is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward
My formal name is James L. Woodward, but I prefer to be called "Jim"
_4.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted images on Norman Carton wikipedia page.[edit]
| Lengthy Discussion |
|---|
|
Hi Jim, My name is Jacob Carton, a son and heir of Norman Carton's paintings that I have tried to load on Wiki. I saw today an email sent today regarding Vycl1994 proposing to delete the 2 remaining images I loaded on this wikipage (File:0729 x EveningFlame crop1Sm.jpg and File:0890 x Regatta-crop1Sm.jpg) and learned that wiki has now deleted 10 images I had previously loaded on this wikipage and are numbered below under "List of 10" heading, 9 deletions by you and one deletion File:0709 x PocatelloSummer-crop1Sm.jpg by Gbawden. Will you please reply to my email jakecarton1199@gmail.com so that I can see your answers to my questions or at least explain to me in that reply how I can view your answers? On 4/1/20, I sent this email using “Create Release Email” tab in the Commons:OTSR generator... "I hereby affirm that I, Jacob Carton, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the following media:
I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Jacob Carton 2020-04-02 [generated using relgen.js]" In addition I believe I properly went through the process releasing my copyright authority to the Commons to load these 4 images:
Yet you deleted and Vycl1994 is proposing to delete I am asking for help as I either must be doing something technically wrong when I complete the Commons:OTSR form online and it is not registering and/or I have no knowledge of the criteria by which you are making these decisions and thus do not know how to prove that I own copyright and have authority to release it. I am asking you if you can explain,
LIST OF 10 DELETED BY WIKI SO FAR
Sincerely, Jacob Carton--JaCaw (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC) There are several problems here. First, it is OTRS, not "OTSR". I don't know if that led to a problem or not. Second, if you sent an email license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with a valid return address, you should have received a bot-generated reply immediately. Third, when you uploaded the paintings, you claimed that they were {{Own work}} when they are actually your father's work. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here. It also makes it difficult to believe anything you say here. Fourth, although I am not an OTRS volunteer, so I cannot see what you actually sent, the license you show above is untrue and invalid. You are not the creator of the works -- your father was. Unless your brother has died very recently, or your father explicitly willed the copyrights to you and not both of you, you are also not the sole owner of the copyrights to the various paintings. This incorrect affirmation means that we will look even more closely and skeptically at your uploads. Your questions:
Aslo please note that Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Norman Carton has been withdrawn. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC) . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I transposed the OTRS letters. I can assure you I went through the OTRS process because I clicked on the link provided by Wiki volunteers. I went throught the automated process for the first 11 images and only sent a manual email for the last 2 accepted images. I'm not sure what "a bot-generated reply" is but if it is a confirming email back to my email address, no I did not for the auto-generator tab. I did get a reply when I manually sent the email from my gmail account. Wiki did not inform me to look for this email in either case. Maybe my gmail account doesn't accept a bot-generated reply from Wiki's auto-generator? In any case, I'm not trying the auto-generated request anymore. It's strictly manual from now on. I respect your OTRS process and am not trying to avoid it. I'm a newbie to Wiki and not a regular technilogical practioner but also not a dunce. I am currently an agricultural worker in a remote location with poor and intermittent connection to the internet. I don't visit my talk page unless I get an email about a problem like Vycl1994 has been so kind to send. Does one have to visit the talk page regularly if they want to help build Wiki or should those people go away? Regarding this process, it's been a strange journey and it feels oddly defensive of Wiki volunteers to assume the worst without asking constructively for proof or say what you need from me... that I am an imposter, that they know the details of my Dad's will, that they know my relationship with my brother and how we have divided up my Dad's collection and copyrights, that I've been trying to claim I am the creator of my Dad's work. This makes no sense when he's been dead for 40 years so he no longer owns the works or copyrights and everything that I have written on his wiki page (image captions, bio, etc) is attributed to him and not me, just the opposite of these claims. Yes I am the creator of the images because I digitally photographed the art and the photographs I own. That was the only way to load them onto Wiki as digital photography didn't exist until after my Dad died in 1980. No, I didn't create the paintings and I don't believe I have ever tried to claim that. That would make no sense as I am openly writing on the wikipage my Dad was the creator and most of them are dated before I was born. I am just trying to respect his legacy. In fact, it was a Wiki volunteer who added the short section about my brother and me. As I have asked all along when I hear these "imposter" allegations, will somebody at Wiki please tell me the process to authenticate myself, to demonstrate securely my ownership of the paintings, to prove I own copyright when I own the art? If I want to load images on behalf of my brother (he owns those pieces of art) as his agent in the future, how do I demonstrate my agency to Wiki when my brother doesn't have a Wiki account? I hope you can see the "and/or" in this statement "I hereby affirm that I, Jacob Carton, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the following media" and be less aggressive in your threats and we can start over with a more civil and respectful discourse. Sincerely, Jacob Carton — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaCaw (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Let's see if I can knock off all of your questions:
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Thank you Jim for replying and clarifying, I appreciate your volunteer work and Wiki's capacity challenges. I will work through the manual OTRS process from now on, resubmitting the deleted images (technically modified) and and being careful to not claim myself as creator of the paintings but rather simply copyright owner although I'm not sure there is clarity how to do this in Wiki's multiple choice format if I can recall it in this moment. As I said earlier, I went through the auto-generated OTRS process for deleted photos I uploaded so I didn't get an opportunity to edit the auto-generated email, rather simply copy it into my records. In any case, it's possible Wiki nevber received it as I got no bot reply. I'm not sure if I got an answer to my earlier question so I will try to reframe it in the context of your recent explanation: If every copyright of the images and artworks that I have loaded on Wiki so far is either owned by me or jointly with my brother, there should be no problem (assuming I am Jacob Carton, etc..) even if they were deleted earlier? Are these issues I solely take up with OTRS? Sincerely, Jacob Carton--107.77.227.38 00:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC) BTW, I am checked "email" in the boxes you reference in answer#1 yet didn't get an email when Gbawden deleted an image and certainly not always when I am getting pings. For example, I got no email when you replied here. I do get emails when Vycl1994 proposes to delet my uploads. (Yes, I check spam folder).--107.77.227.38 01:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC) @JaCaw: You did not get an email from my reply above because I generally do not ping people who come here -- I assume that they will be back to see the reply. You should, however, get one from this. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC) |
JaCaw: As Jim has explained, uploads like File:C1959NormanCartona-cropSmall.jpg need to be tagged {{OTRS pending}}, not {{Own work}}. In addition, that file is File:NormanCartonc1959AtExhibita-cropSmall.jpg (which has already been deleted) under a different name. Vycl1994 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear and @Gbawden, Vycl1994: and Jim, I resubmitted an editted version of File:NormanCartonc1959AtExhibita-cropSmall.jpg through the manual OTRS process and got an email reply from a Wiki Commons moderator this morning that permission was approved. Now that it has made it through the OTRS process, probably for the first time, why is it now deleted. If you deleted a version of this file to start prior to OTRS process (which I did through auto-generate and it never went through), is it permanently banned from Wiki? Please advise how I can properly load this image? Sincerely, Jacob Carton--JaCaw (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)--
- JaCaw File:C1959NormanCartona-cropSmall.jpg has been approved by an OTRS reviewer. It is File:NormanCartonc1959AtExhibita-cropSmall.jpg that remains deleted. I simply wished to remind you to use {{OTRS pending}}. Now the OTRS process for that image is complete. Please use {{OTRS pending}}, not {{Own work}} for future uploads, if they are reproductions of any original work. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear Vycl1994 and Jim @Gbawden, Vycl1994:, It took me a few minutes to learn that the File:C1959NormanCartona-cropSmall.jpg was in the Wiki system even though the reference (link or tag?) to it was deleted off of the Norman Carton page and that I shouldn't assume it was deleted from the Wiki system and that I could upload it once it was approved. What still confuses me is when you instruct me to "use {{OTRS pending}}" instead of "{{Own work}}." I have no memory of using {{Own work}} when I manually sent the email to OTRS or when I loaded the revised image into Wiki yesterday. Where did I do that and in the future when do I do that? For example, do I write "OTRS pending" when I write my manual email to the OTRS moderator? I do not recall "OTRS pending" as an option when I upload an image to a wiki page or submit an image to OTRS for review. I do not want to mess up future uploads and fall into an old trap that I still can't see. Please help. Sincerely, Jacob Carton --JaCaw (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
First, note that nothing ever gets removed from the Wiki system -- files that are "deleted" are actually simply marked as non-public. It is therefore neither necessary nor permitted to upload a file more than once.
Second, when you are doing an upload, the second page asks you to pick one:
- This is my own work
- This is not my own work
When you are uploading your father's work, you must pick the second one. When you are finished with the upload, go the the file description and edit the licensing section. It should read:
- == {{int:license-header}} ==
- {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}}
- {{PermissionOTRS|ID=XXXXXX}}
Note -- replace the XXXXXX with the OTRS ticket number. When you save this, you will get a warning message saying that because you are not an OTRS member, you must be careful. Push "save" again. Also, check to see that the Author= line names your father and not you.
I note that you got an OTRS approval for File:C1959NormanCartona-cropSmall.jpg. In the file description, you claim that it is {{Own work}} -- that is, that you yourself were the actual photographer in 1959. If that is correct, then everything is fine. If that is not correct, then the image needs a license from the actual photographer. If you are an heir of the photographer (your mother, perhaps), then the license is OK, but you need to change the Author= line to name the actual photographer. If you are not an heir of the photographer, then the OTRS member should not have approved the image without a license from the photographer. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
File:Guru Rinpoche Gomkora.jpg[edit]
˜˜˜Mario Biondi Writer Unfortunately I am a real beast about talk pages, I do not know how to use them, so I do not even know if I am trying to answer in the right place and in the right way. (And please pardon my poor english: I speak another language.) Anyway. 1) The copyright to that photo surely belongs to me, it's a photo I have personally taken with at least 400 more in Eastern Buthan on the date and time stated in the relevant page. 2) It is the photo of a holy thangka exposed to the public worship in that festival. It is a thing especially made for the public to worship it. Does it have a copyright? Wikipedia is full of photos of thangkas. If I publish a photo of, let us say, a crosier of the Pope, a hat of Queen Elizabeth or the whig of Mr. Trump, should I take care of the copyright?
I really do not know, so please do what you deem correct. Ciao from Italy Mario Biondi writer (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Mario, your use of the talk page is excellent, and your English is fine, certainly much better than my French (which I studied for eight years a long time ago). The only thing I would suggest is that when the subject is a Deletion Request it is better to make any comments there -- see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guru Rinpoche Gomkora.jpg.
The problem with the image is, as you said, the tapestry has a copyright, so your image infringes on the rights of the creator(s) of the tapestry. Hats are utilitarian (useful objects), so they do not have copyrights. A crozier might or might not -- certainly a simple cross with two plain bars would not, but some complex croziers certainly would. Wigs, I don't know -- probably not.
Most of the objects in Category:Thangka appear to be old, but certainly any that are not out of copyright should be deleted. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
˜˜˜ Many thanks again. I repeat: Wiki must do what they deem correct accordingly with the copyright laws in the world and especially in Bhutan. (BTW, being from Italy, I myself speak italian and only a very bad french.) Mario Biondi writer (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Mario, sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you spoke French -- my guess was that your native language was Italian. I only meant to say that your English is much better than my French, which is my only second language. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Deletion of Campus Guns[edit]
Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Campus Guns.jpg: Where are you getting your information that there was any contract requiring newspapers to print AP photos with a copyright notice? There has been extensive discussion of this on this two other FFD's at enwp (1 2) and nobody has been able to come up with any evidence of such a contract. All the evidence is to the contrary, particularly the fact that no newspapers at the time were actually publishing AP photos with copyright notice (except for occasional instances of remarkable photos that the AP picked up from local newspapers). Toohool (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I cannot point to written evidence, but as one experienced in such things, I cannot imagine that there was not such a requirement. Without it, the first time a photo or story was printed inadvertently without notice, the work would be PD. That's silly -- the AP existed by being paid for the use of its photos and articles and if all of its product rapidly became PD, it would have no revenue. Also, I doubt very much that any newspapers in that era ran without a copyright notice, usually at the bottom of the masthead on the editorial page. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- It would be good if you had brought up these assumptions in the discussion, so they could be addressed, instead of closing the discussion unilaterally. In fact, most newspapers in that era ran without a copyright notice, including, for starters, all the examples that were linked on the file description page. Generally only the well-known big-city papers were copyrighted. Even in those papers, under the pre-1978 copyright law, a single copyright notice under the name of the newspaper/publisher only covered material for which the publisher owned the copyright, i.e. not wire-service or syndicated content.
- The AP's business model was based on the fact that their members got exclusive access to first publication of their content, i.e. while it was still news. They did not need copyright to protect that business model, because they convinced the Supreme Court to create the hot news doctrine, which provided protection for their work for the short time period where it had value. As the AP argued before the Supreme Court in 1942, news "has no value after it has once been published", hence why they apparently saw little need for the long-term protection provided by copyright (at least not enough need to justify dealing with the perceived burdens of registration and deposit, per one expert analysis from 1953). Toohool (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Any more thoughts on this? I hope I can provide any further information or citations that might help change your mind. Toohool (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- No, I am going to stick with Commons precedent. Two things affect that -- first, you are quoting case law from twenty years before the image in question. The uses of photography changed a lot in that time. Second, we frequently get people who want to have images on Commons that quote all sorts of things and make all sorts of assertions in order to accomplish their end. Until you get better known and established here it is unlikely that you will get much traction with theories that are different from our precedent. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Any more thoughts on this? I hope I can provide any further information or citations that might help change your mind. Toohool (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Deletion of File:Victor Vescovo at the Calypso Deep, Mediterranean Sea.jpg[edit]
Dear Jim: Apologies again for the incorrect upload procedures regarding "own work." I am new to upload procedures to the commons and (incorrectly) believed that 'own work' included those images for which I had full use rights and was a subject of the photograph. I am now clear on what it means, but there was no deliberate intent to be deceptive or not give proper credit. I admire the diligence and protections of the site, and those who enforce them. Thank you. Vlvescovo (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
COM:UNDEL in re: File:Eye chart in focus.jpg[edit]
(I write this on your talk page as the COM:UNDEL is closed to further comment.) I'm sorry. I did not mean to take the work of admins for granted; I had assumed that, as on English Wikipedia, users must, by policy, be notified of speedy deletions and of deletion discussions. If this is not the case, then I apologize for criticizing Moheen. Thank you for your work maintaining Commons. Best, Psiĥedelisto (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Question[edit]
You've deleted an unfree file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sheung Tak Memorial Alex chow.png. The uploader has essentially superseded that by doing a {{CSS image crop}} [1], which I find rather eyebrow-raising.
I can't say that I am too familiar with how FOP Hong Kong applies to the greater image File:Sheung_Tak_Memorial.jpg, but I think the above is not allowed (because it's derivative to the artwork itself).
Your thoughts? --Cold Season (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it is a violation, but since it appears only on WP:ZH, I don;t think there is anything we can do about it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
opinion[edit]
Hi, ِDear Jim, whats your opinion regarding This file, do you think its Derivative works or not? regards Déjà vu • ✉ 21:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the Addidas logo is OK -- no one would notice or care if it were not there, so it passes the test of de minimis. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Svenskt konstnärslexikon[edit]
Hi Jim. You closed this DR in April, but there is still a bunch of files left intact with the deletion templates in place on the file pages. What's the deal with those? Please check if they should also be deleted or mark them as "kept". Cheers, De728631 (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Deletion of File:UK Addiction Treatment Centres.png[edit]
Hi Jim, I have sent permissions for this to permissions-commons@wikimedia.com as requested, can show proof of the email sent on 16/04/2020 @ 12:58pm so can this be reinstated please, I am the original creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason4656 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Adding OTRS permission[edit]
Hope you aware that Special:AbuseFilter/69 tagging changes "Adding OTRS permission by non-OTRS member", as it`s also tag filter log for you. I`d like to suggest you to request OTRS permission on Meta, if you can spend time to contribute there. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
File:Vilen (singer) 4.jpg[edit]
Hello @Jameslwoodward: I notice one of uploaded files was deleted by you. Also I did provide all the source by which you could verify that the image is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. But I guess you have missed to check the source YouTube, I also used YouTube, License Review templates. Please do look into the matter and re-upload the file. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 17:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- I've fixed this issue for C1K98V. Source is under the CC-BY 3.0 license and all appears in order, so I've undeleted and performed the license review. Nick (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Photographs of flags[edit]
Hi, Jim! I'm sorry to bother you. I'd like to about hear your opinion about Category:Photographs_of_flags_of_Hungary_in_Miskolc. My guess except two File:Tizes Honved Regiment Flag.jpg and CoatOfArms CityHallBalcony Miskolc all other files are miscategorized, those are not Category:Photographs_of_flags_of_Hungary_in_Miskolc, or? Can I remove the flag photo category from the other 160 files? Related discusses here here. Also I d like to know your opinion about Category:Photographs_of_flags_of_Hungary_in_Pécs what I nominated for delete: formerly none of the files were fit to there, but the user (who created over 100! Photographs of flags of Hungary subcategories) cropped same 5MB photos to circa 100 KB size (none of these used) just to prove the category required...however my opinion still a dozen other photos in Pécs category (example all Pécs Ex-Moschee Gazi...) not flag photo? Thanks in advance for your reply! Sincerely, - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
help request re "Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International" license[edit]
Hi Jim- I'm worried that I may have misinterpreted the licensing for an image I copied from the Parker Library. When I checked its licensing, it appeared to me that I would be free to upload it to Commons. Here's the Creative Commons page for it. After I uploaded the images and did a ton of work filling out info templates on them, I got messages that make me think I may have got it wrong and wasted a lot of effort. Can you tell me if there's some way to make this license work for these images? Otherwise I may contact Cambridge University and see if they have some way to grant me permission directly. They give contact info for this at the bottom of the "more details" pop-up linked below the manuscript viewer I link above. Thanks in advance for any rescuing or advice you can provide. The images: File:Philip_II_and_Hugh_de_Boves_at_Battle_of_Bouvines.png & File:Philip_II_unhorsed_Battle_of_Bouvines.png Eric talk 20:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Ellin Beltz, Rybkovich, Yann, Didym: I got your names from deletion discussions we were all involved in, and am pinging you here to keep my perilous quest documented in one place after realizing that Jim is out of the office for a while. You both seem like you might be able to provide guidance on copyright issues. Hoping you might have a minute to take a look at my question above. Thanks in advance. Eric talk 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Eric: There are no "non-commercial" licenses on Commons.
- For simple (non-creative) reproduction of two-dimensional subject, use {{PD-scan}} or {{PD-scan-two}}.
- If the depicted subject is a creative work, it should have also its own permission (license tag)!
- For SVG representations of an ancient script, use {{PD-ancient-script}}.
- For technical images created as part of standard medical diagnostic procedures, use {{PD-medical}}.
- For photographs of old works taken by yourself, use the appropriate one of the following …
- {{PD-old-100}} for works by authors who died more than 100 years ago.
- {{PD-old-80}} for works by authors who died more than 80 years ago.
- {{PD-old-75}} for works by authors who died more than 75 years ago.
- {{PD-old-70}} for works by authors who died more than 70 years ago.
- {{PD-US}} for U.S. works published before 1 January 1925.
- {{PD-US-expired}} for non-U.S. works published before 1 January 1925.
- {{PD-1996}} for works that are in the public domain in their source countries on 1 January 1996.
- And finally, for photographs of old works (as above) taken by someone else, use {{PD-Art}}
- Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks a million, Ellin! Does it look like I got it right?: File:Philip_II_and_Hugh_de_Boves_at_Battle_of_Bouvines.png & File:Philip_II_unhorsed_Battle_of_Bouvines.png @Ellin Beltz: Eric talk 20:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Eric: Yup!! Perfect!
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Pending deletion request[edit]
Hi Jim,
since a couple of weeks, a deletion request concerning some of my uploads is pending:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Aguetul
Can this be deleted or partly deleted? I do not really know the procedure.
--Aguetul (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Infinite IP blocks?[edit]
Hi. Noticed that you have some infinite IP blocks. Was this purposeful or just artefact of actions? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Request to check two of my Flockr uploads[edit]
Good day Jameslwoodward! May I request for your verification of two Flickr files that I uploaded here: File:Young JV @ Adamson - Flickr.jpg and File:Young JV @ Adamson2 z Flickr.jpg? They were indicated as "PD" in Flickr, though there were warning tags on each of these uploads. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Picture licensing[edit]
Hello there. I saw there was a controversy regarding a non-PD painting that was ultimately removed from the site (the uploader having claimed that, as they had taken the photo of it, it fell under CC). And while the issue is over now and I have no intention on participating on it anyway, there's another thing -the opposite situation, sort of - that I've noticed and has been going on in my mind for a while now. I've seen there are many images of public domain paintings ('faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art') that are uploaded under licences other than PD, most often Creative Commons and as such, demanding attribution should the pictures be used elsewhere (examples here, here and here). And so, I wanted to ask if it's a legitimate practice and/or if these could later be re-licensed under PD-Art or similar. Thanks for your attention.--179.6.199.229 23:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)