User talk:JWilz12345

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, JWilz12345!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

03:24 [update]
Commons clock - made from this set [update]

Userboxes
This user's timezone is UTC+8. This user respects copyright, but sometimes it can be a major pain. This user is a license reviewer on Wikimedia Commons. (verify)

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4

Category:Sculptures by Luka Bihanych

Hi! All files in this category is NoFoP Ukraine. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Микола Василечко feel free to nominate those images of sculptures by yourself. I can't execute nominations as of the moment due to health reasons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Микола Василечко I suggest you nominate those sculptures by yourself. I may slow down in initiating more deletion requests vs. copyrighted sculptures as it has been lately gaining some attention from uploaders of nominated images. My latest realization: becoming a "FoP police" is directly contrary to my pro-FoP perspective and my FoP advocacy. Again, I'll leave the nominations of Luka Bihanych's sculptures to yourself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please help

Hello JWilz12345, I have a question about image copyright, hope you can help. This photo and this one are both in the Gardiner, Arthur Z. collection. The author says that the US government has copyrighted this material, I'm not sure if the General Lê Văn Kim.jpg file has the correct image tag; if so, then similar photos like this one and this one — also in the same collection — can be uploaded with the same PD-USGov tag, right? Thank you. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@CalCoWSpiBudSu unfortunately, copyright status of old photos is not my forte or my area of expertise/interest. Other editors may help you, just post your question at COM:Village Pump/Copyright. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

ok thank you. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Freedom of Panaroma

Hi JWilz,

While I appreciate (what I want to assume is a) drive for correctness with regards to the Freedom of Panorama rules applied world wide, your approach now comes across as rather aggressive. In your interpretations of the FOP rules, you often seem unaware of the spirit of the law in the countries in question, relying mainly on the literal text of the law but referencing other concepts or documents when convenient. Interpretations by national lawyers about those texts are then very much left out of the equation, and it is up to those whose photo is nominated for removal to show, within the 7-day removal nomination, that your personal interpretation is unjustified. That may still be okay for seasoned Wikipedians, but not for casual contributors to Commons: this is way over their heads.

I would therefore ask you to slow down a bit, and be a bit more careful in your general approach to this topic. What I would rather see is an approach where the outcome of your discussion and DR's does not depend on an individual (often inexperienced) user. We're not all seasoned Commoners here, and surely we aren't all use to fighting battles about legal stuff, and people panic slightly when they suddenly see your nomination for deletion: they don't understand what they're wrong and don't engage. Why not start a Commons:Wikiproject for instance, to get more clarity on the intepretation of rules for COM:FOP by country, working with interested users from those countries, before tackling this big project? You seem to be fighting ghosts almost at random now: I see a discussion about a mosque in Morocco in one place, and then one about a mural in Belgium in another. Surely there should be a more structured and better way to approach this? Wasn't this the whole intention when you started mapping the world's FOP on Meta? Ciell (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ciell here are responses to your concerns (which I will embrace):

1. The deletion requests I conduct are valid and not breaching Commons rules on deletion requests: I don't give very short reasons like "FoP abolished in Nigeria since 2023" which is totally ambiguous. In fact, majority of my nominations are already focused on public artworks of no-FoP countries since it is essentially risky to host recent public art from those countries, considering the legal reality of the clash with U.S. law, which does not provide FoP for public art. Wikimedia's servers are hosted in the U.S., and in theory there is no legal basis to host all post-1928 (that is per a minority view of users here, I think you are aware of that). If there is no FoP for public art in the U.S. in the first place, it is legally risky to host most post-1928 public art from around 110 no-FoP countries.
2. This doesn't mean I endorse the minority view of users here of totally shifting Wikimedia Commons to only follow U.S. FoP, since I still support the status quo of accepting FoP for monuments of 70+ countries, as I hate seeing Singapore's Merlion, The Netherlands' Nationaal Monument, Brazil's Statue of Christ the Redeemer, or U.K.'s Angel of the North and London Paddington Bear being deleted from Commons en masse (it's a big slap to Wikimedians in 70+ yes-FoP countries). However, with intermittent yet perennial discussions on FoP policy here erupting again from time to time, one can't ignore the possibility of that shift to U.S. FoP only policy identical to English Wikipedia approach, even if I oppose (and will still oppose, preferring the status quo of having Commons accept post-1928 monuments of 70+ yes-FoP countries).
3. I tend to respect the existing interpretations of lawyers from no-FoP countries, like Argentina, regarding some "de facto" exception; I never, ever nominated a single modern building from Argentina for deletion, as long as the lawyer's opinion still holds water and is not overturned by an Argentine court (but even if that court throws the lawyer's opinions in the wastebasket, I will instead leave the Argentine architectural FoP matter to other users). I also visited many past archives of FoP discussions, such as those relating to the legal commentaries on Japanese FoP regarding inadmissibility of commercial use of images of copyrighted Japanese monuments in the first Archive of Commons talk:Freedom of panorama. For most of other jurisdictions, there are no evidences of legal opinions. Even in our country, the w:en:Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines said in a February 2021 Zoom meeting between several Filipino Wikipedians and IPOPHL, that as long as there is no FoP provision in a copyright law, legal opinions do not hold water, as copyright laws are statutory rights and a legal privilege like FoP cannot be magically made existing through legal opinions only (at least this is the case for the Philippines).
4. I started the FoP page on Meta in hopes of many other Wikimedians going to continue furthering that advocacy, like trying to make steps to lobby for FoP introductions in their countries. It seems it only gained a few traction: only our country (the Philippines), South Africa, Ghana, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Georgia, Sudan, and Zambia have some form of FoP advocacy or movement. Of these, only South Africa is nearing the FoP goal, albeit awaiting their President's signature. The rest, the Philippines included, still at discussion and advocacy stages. This reduces my enthusiasm in FoP advocacy, considering the intermittent yet perennial discussions here regarding the current status quo FoP policy's possible clash with U.S. FoP law (not covering public art).
5. Regarding a potential WikiProject on FoP, that is something that is best left to more experienced users who have the ability to create a massive page with organized formatting, creative banners/headers/dividers, and coherent sentences. I cannot do this all alone; more users who can further the FoP advocacy are needed. "Who are those users" &ndash is something that I don't know, as I don't feel the enthusiasm or interest in furthering the FoP advocacy.

Nevertheless, I am open to some criticism from other users who may complain that my deletion requests are "sudden" and undetailed. My talk page is always open for such comments and criticisms (as long as constructive). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ciell: I have decided to stop opening more non-Philippine FoP deletion requests, inclusive of copyrighted artworks, for a week (7 days). This will hopefully provide ample time for uploaders to post questions or concerns here on my talk page about why their images of public artworks were suddenly nominated for deletion. I am not closing doors for a possible WikiProject FoP, but I need to fix my physical health and some of my personal problems for the meantime (still, I can entertain questions and concerns from "shocked" uploaders). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this extensive response JWilz, and for pausing your nominations for now.

In your #1 you mention that you deem the US national limitations in Freedom of Panorama to be applicable to the rest of the world: this is incorrect. Also, as mentioned in the thought document by WMF Legal I shared with you previously, the physical location of the servers has nothing to do with the determination of legal jurisdiction. We have 6 or 7 servers around the world, they switch often. This really is not of influence on the kind of content we can host.

About FOP advocacy: this is a long and often traveled road. I remember when we redesigned the EU copyright laws (2017-present, so still ongoing) they tried to introduce FOP as a general rule for all countries in the EU. This was dropped again in later versions of the new draft. If you are interested in lobby in general, there is a mailing list managed by the WMF Advocacy Team to receive updates and engage in discussions on the broader topics. It could be a place for you to find more interested people maybe? Ciell (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ciell seems it is a good thing that Wikimedia has 6 more servers in other countries. I have read somewhere in Meta that Singapore hosts a caching server of Wikimedia (and Singapore does provide adequate FoP for all 3D works up to monuments, which they still retained even in their revamped 2021 copyright law). Speaking of the advocacy, I may think of that after the FoP attempt here in the Philippines. It seems not appropriate to promote FoP advocacies in other countries if our country doesn't have FoP in the first place. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

But Freedom of Panorama is a local law, applied to a certain jurisdiction. The USA cannot enforce this local law to be applied to objects in other countries, this is beyond their jurisdiction.

More about the WMF servers is here, but again: where the servers situated are does not determine how we should manage copyrights. If anything, we would fall under Florida law because the WMF is registered there, but also this can heavily be disputed when it comes to managing our projects and their content. Ciell (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ciell a curious question: how about the local practice on English Wikipedia permitting images of copyrighted buildings of 100 no-FoP countries (including architecture)? The w:en:lex loci protectionis was frequently invoked in this case, in the theory that US judges nay use US FoP law for reproductions of images of French modern buildings, for instance. Note that this question and the resulting responses will be for my reference in understanding more about nuances of FoP in international stage, and doesn't necessarily mean possible proposal to change or abolish that local enwiki practice. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of a "WikiProject:Freedom of panorama", is it OK for this WikiProject to be hosted by Commons or some other wiki (like Meta-wiki)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

"Noinclude" code

Am I totally imagining it or wasn't the "noinclude" code suppose to be being added by a bot since at least a couple of months ago? Adamant1 (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1 perhaps ask the bot developer (Krd) about it. For now, manually add the categories with "noinclude tags" using source edit. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Torre Galfa, Milan, Italy.jpg

File:Torre Galfa, Milan, Italy.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Question on Creator template

Hello again, may I ask what the use of {{Creator}} is? I have seen this template used in Creator:Donald Trump; is this template intended to be used for "works" of/by Donald Trump (like photos he has personally taken, books he had written, etc.)? I am confused. Sanglahi86 (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86 for moral rights purposes in public domain works as well as for attribution purposes. Depends on what case is the image file; for example:

1. Creator templates like Creator:Benoît Prieur are for the attribution of images made by noteworthy Wikimedians (example: File:PhotoPanoramiqueUshuaiaArgentine.jpg).
2. Some creator templates give attribution to the authors of freely-licensed external files (e.g. files imported from Flickr or from some U.S. federal government agencies); for example, Creator:Carol M. Highsmith for her commercially-usable images of U.S. cityscapes and countryside.
3. Others, like Creator:Leonardo da Vinci and Creator:Heinz Rall, are to attribute the artists or architects of the works photographically reproduced by uploaders, regardless the copyright status of the depicted works of art. For example, File:Versöhnungskirche Sindelfingen-Goldberg 01.jpg (in Germany, which fortunately provides Freedom of Panorama). Moral rights (which are non-copyright restrictions) of artists and architects of their works, including those found in or owned by the public, last forever. Photography is one form of reproducing buildings and artworks, so to minimize harm to moral rights, attribution can be added.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. So if a photographer has a Wikipedia page (that makes him/her notable), then a user may create such a creator template for him/her? Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86 not necessarily, I think. Those who desire to have their photographic works properly attributed by reusers are more likely to create such templates for greater attention. This is just my opinion, however, and it may not reflect to the real motivations of multiple Wikimedians to use such templates for their images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Regards. Sanglahi86 (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

We Are Our Mountains

Hi! Read this: [1] Nemoralis (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nemoralis I suggest posting it on COM:Village pump/Copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)