User talk:Marchjuly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Re: Thank You[edit]

Hello Marchjuly,

Thank you for the information. I genuinely appreciation your constructive assistance and prompt responses. 2604:2000:C807:E800:3177:6C72:818F:BE7A (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 2604:2000:C807:E800:3177:6C72:818F:BE7A|2604:2000:C807:E800:3177:6C72:818F:BE7A. I’m not sure, but I think your posts is probably related to #Re: URGENT Copyright Consent Submitted above. If that’s the case, then you’re welcome. If not, then you’re still welcome, but you’re going to have to clarify what you’re referring to if you want additional help.
Finally, if you’re by chance Staciwilliams126 or some whose already registered for an account, please try to remember to login when you post because it makes it easier for other to know who they’re interacting with. It also will keep all your edits together under one account; thus helping to avoid any confusion trying to figure who made which edit when. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Clarity on COI[edit]

Hello Marchjuly,

My apologies about not being logged in. I think I'm okay and not in need of any further assistance. Thank you again and enjoy your weekend. Staciwilliams126 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It took a bit of digging, but I finally figured out where this all started. Things can get confusing when you’re posting from multiple accounts; so, it’s best to stick with one from here on out. Moreover, the advice other editors have been giving you about Wikipedia and conflict of interest editing is really only intended to be helpful. Some editors do try and use Wikipedia to promote themselves or their projects and it’s not always easy to explain to them why such things are not allowed. So, when an editor uses an obviously promotional username, refers to themselves as “we” or otherwise gives the impression of having some connection to what they’re writing about, conflict of interest is often brought up to try and clarify things before someone ends up getting their account blocked. Sometimes the attempts to explain COI might seem curt, but that’s usually to avoid any misunderstandings about the problems COI editing can and often does create. Moreover, there are other ways of being compensated to write about something that don’t involve a monetary payment; so, even being an “unpaid intern” can be viewed suspiciously.
Anyway, as long as you follow relevant policies and guidelines when you edit, you should have no problems; however, I still think it would be better to wait for someone else to write an article about the film if you’re connected to it in some way. If a boss or someone is asking you to write the article, you should try and explain to them that it might be better to simply let the article happen on its own than to try and get it created. Lots of people go to see movies, and some of these people are Wikipedia editors. So, it wouldn’t be totally unusual for someone totally unconnected to the film to go see the film, and then decide to write an Wikipedia article about it. In general, writing a proper Wikipedia can be hard, but writing about something you’re connected to is even harder because you might unintentionally move away from WP:NPOV. Most content found in external sources written by people connected to a subject matter tends to be written in a promotional tone not suitable for Wikipedia; so, problems occur when they try to recreate that content in a Wikipedia article. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: File: Old_Cabin_Camp_1930.jpg[edit]

Hello Marchjuly,

Thank you for taking the time to offer suggestions about my uploaded image File: Old_Cabin_Camp_1930.jpg. I could, indeed, use some help with these copyright guidelines.

Initially, I wrote the publisher of the book in which the image appears, asking for permission. Perhaps I did not phrase the request properly, but the publisher responded in the affirmative. Here is a copy of my exchange:

My request:

“I would like to use the photograph entitled “J. Monroe Thorington and Conrad Kain (centre) with companions. At ‘Old Cabin,' Dutch Creek, Southern Purcells, July 24, 1930” that was published as part of

Conrad Kain. Where the Clouds Can Go. ISBN: 978-1-897522-45-5

in a Wikipedia article about Peter Kaufmann-Bohren, a Swiss mountain guide.  

The use of the image would be entirely for educational, nonprofit purposes.”

Editor’s response:

You can use the photo for the Wikipedia article. We allow usage of photos for any non-commercial purposes provided there is accurate credit of where the photo is from and a credit of the book. Here is the information:

Photo: From the family of Enid Hurst Hansen, published in Where the Clouds Can Go (Rocky Mountain Books, 2009).”

Apparently Wikipedia does not accept such an approval. Or am I wrong on this point? If licenses are involved here, I will need some major help.

So I attempted to provide another rationale for posting the image. The non-free use category seemed to me the most logical choice, since the image is historically significant (deceased persons and historical event)and not depicted in any other extant photo (as far as I know), and significantly complements the understanding of the text (specific explorers and wilderness setting). The author (i.e., the photographer) is unknown and died more than 70 years ago, so I added the {{PD-old-70}} category to further support my rationale for the posting.

My deletion of some warnings was not meant maliciously: I thought I had remedied the problem, so I followed the instructions on the warnings to delete them if additional information was added to correct the rationale. I reduced the size of the photo myself, to retain the maximum qualify of the image, apparently not small enough. To me the image loses its usefulness if the faces of the individuals are not recognizable in the wilderness (thus cropping the image would not make sense). By the way, the image was sent to me by the publisher, who indicated no size restriction in the correspondence (above).

Drafting my article before officially placing it online in my sandbox works well for me. I also wanted to include the images in this “working draft” so that I can see how the final version will look. Using the free-use category apparently prevents me from doing this, since a link message appears in the image file. A warning prompted me to do this: “Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days;” you have assured me not to worry about deletion.

I’m still unclear which is the best/acceptable justification for posting the image.

• What is the best rationale for posting this image?

• Should I use only the {{PD-old-70}} and drop the free-use rationale?

• Do I need more justification for the free-use rationale, if I cite that rationale? (If I write out the rationale, should I put it in the Description Box? The Permission Box seems the more logical place, although I can’t seem to place sentences there.)

• Can some rationale be found to leave the image larger than the present reduced version?

• Can I put images in my sandbox version?

Sorry that this has become so complicated. But I am thankful for your help. P.dreher (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC) P.dreher

@P.dreher: Thank you for clarifying things. I'm assuming this has to do with my post at User talk:P.dreher#Non-free rationale for File:Old Cabin Camp 1930.jpg. For future reference, it's OK to respond to posts left on your user talk page by an another editor in the same discussion thread; in fact, it's probably better that you do this because it helps keep all parts of the discussion in one place and makes it easier for others to follow. It also helps things such as archiving, etc. since all parts of a discussion will be kept together.
Thanks for asking for permission from a copyright holder to use things their content on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you're correct about Wikipedia not accepting any type of "free" license which places restrictions on commercial or derivative use. There are various types of licenses which Wikipedia accepts, but pretty much all of them require that the original copyright holder agree to WP:CONSENT. Moreover, there has to be some way for Wikipedia (specifically a Wikimedia OTRS volunteer) to verify this consent, and usually this is done as explained at c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Please note that when a copyright holder agrees to release an image under a free license that Wikipedia accepts; they are not donating the image to Wikipedia or transferring copyright ownership to Wikipedia; they are only agreeing to release a particular version of the image under a license which makes it easier for others to freely use. They still retain their rights of copyright ownership over the image; the version they agree to release, however, is done so under a non-revocable license. This is why the actual copyright holder of the content can only do this, and why Wikipedia requires some formal verification of copyright ownership or copyright owner consent. A person writing a book about something may under some cases of fair use/ fair dealing be able to use a copyrighted image in their book, or they may have received permission to use the image in their book from the copyright holder. This, however, doesn't make them or their publishing company the copyright holder of the image; so, they can't release it under a free license suitable for Wikipedia's purposes even if they wanted to.
In some cases, Wikipedia might allow copyrighted to be uploaded as non-free content and used in articles, but each use of such content must comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is similar to the concept of fair use, but it's been purposely made to be much more restrictive. One of these restrictions has to do with size and resolution, while another has to do with location. Basically, non-free content can only be used in articles (i.e. in the article namespace); so, if the name of the Wikipedia page where you want to use the content begins with a prefix (e.g. "User:", "Talk:", "Draft:") as explained in WP:NS#In use, then the content can't be used per WP:NFCC#9 pretty much without exception; so, you can't write a valid non-free use rationale for such a non-free use regardless. Once you figure out an existing article to use the file, then you can work on writing a non-free use rationale, but in general the criterion you're going to most likely have the most trouble satisfying is WP:NFCC#8 (see WP:NFC#CS for more on that).
Image size and resolution is a bit more subjective as explained in WP:IMAGERES, but the basic idea is to ensure the image as at a sufficient resolution for the encyclopedic purpose its intended to serve. The bots that tagged the photo for reduction where doing so primarily based upon the size of the image, and the bots that actually reduced the image mainly reduce it to a size deemed appropriate per WP:NFCC#3. The bots aren't making a subjective judgement on how much detail the image requires. In my opinion, a photo like File:Old Cabin Camp 1930.jpg doesn't really need to be high resolution for the reader to for the way it's intended to be used, but you might feel differently. If that's the case, you can start a discussion at WP:FFD, or ask for feedback at WT:NFCC or WP:MCQ. Older unused versions of a non-free image usually end up deleted per WP:F5, but they aren't typically gone forever. They are only hidden from public view and can be restored at a later date if it turns out they are OK to be used.
The {{PD-old-70}} might be an acceptable license, but that will depend on a number of different things. For a photo to be truly public domain for Wikipedia's purposes, it needs to be within the public domain in both the United States (where the Wikimedia Foundation servers are found) and in the country of origin. It also depends upon when the photo was taken, who took it, when they died (if applicable) and when the photo was first published, etc. The file describes the photo as from the 1930s which most likely means it's not going to be old enough to be public domain just upon its age alone; the book it comes from was published in 2009 which is certainly not going to be old enough for public domain. The author is also unknown; so, there's no way to determine when they died and whether 70 years have passed since their death (i.e. 70 p.m.a) which makes it difficult to claim public domain for that reason. My feeling is that this is probably not going to be clearly PD one way or another ({{PD-US-expired}}) until probably 2025 assuming the photo was taken in 1930. It might be possible for this to be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}, but it's going to have to be clearly established that the photo was previously published prior to 1977 for the former and before 1963 for the latter. If you think this is the case, then you might want to ask about it at WP:MCQ.
Hopefully, I've been able to answer your questions and didn't confuse you even more. There are many experienced editors helping out at MCQ if you want some other opinions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Marchjuly,
Thanks so much for your prompt, detailed reply. I will certainly study your suggestions and see which rationale works best for the image. Best wishes, P.dreher— Preceding unsigned comment added by P.dreher (talkcontribs) 01:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)