User talk:Jameslwoodward: Difference between revisions

Archives
2009-10 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself.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"

Hi Jim, Where and how to the Olympic rings could have a copyright? According to en:Olympic symbols, they were created by Pierre de Coubertin (who died in 1937), and first used in 1914 for the first modern Olympic Games in Athens, so any possible copyright expired long ago. Additionally, I think these rings are too simple to get a copyright in most countries. The "Intellectual property" section mentions a trademark, but not a copyright. Yann (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, I did say "... it has expired". The question of whether the rings ever had a copyright is moot, but given the low ToO in France, I'm pretty sure they did. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that they ever had a copyright, but yes, the question is moot. WP article specifically says they are too simple to get a copyright. Yann (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jim, you closed this discussion as delete but the file is still available. Thank you for your time and effort. Best regards, HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was uploaded a second time out of process. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim. I saw that you deleted this file. Could you provide a rationale? It seems that the group's presence is still increasing according to sources and its presence is notable enough to warrant policies enacted by the White House. Overall, I just want to know if I did something wrong with creating this file so I can avoid any future mistakes. Thank you!--WMrapids (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that those who believed that the facts given on the map were unsubstantiated had the better side of the argument. I also note that the base map source was not named, so there it is probably a copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I want to be transparent and share that I also have this similar file. Are there any issues with this file? Again, there are sources that support the presence in these areas and I believe the file has been properly attributed to the other map files. WMrapids (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, colleague. I would like to know the reason for deleting a file that did not contain copyrighted images. The text and the ink stamp cannot be copyrighted, and the photo at the bottom was mine. — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I cannot read the text, it is certainly long enough to have a US copyright and probably a copyright in most other jurisdictions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a literary work, but a document in which the museum thanks the author of the exhibition for the work done. (It is enough to translate the title.) — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misunderstanding of copyright. All text, including computer programs, is copyrighted as a literary work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This blanket deletion is an absolutely arbitrary decision! You don't address at all the arguments of the keep proponents, who were in the majority. What does the architect have to do with the design of a shower? Why did you delete this photo? You, like the guy who submitted the deletion request, have definitely only dealt with the matter superficially, because there are two more photos of the shower, that are not nominated, what was also pointed out in the discussion. You act unprofessionally and smugly instead of putting your opinion forward for discussion. It is very doubtful whether other parts of the interior, such as the pool fittings, were planned by the architect, as he is usually not responsible for that. Better to do a major clear-cut than even to think about it? Im Fokus (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim. Just look up. May I expect answers to my questions from the noble Mr. Administrator after his lonely vacation? --Im Fokus (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think my closing comment covers it -- "Just as a sentence or two from a thousand page book has a copyright, so architectural details have an enforceable copyright which we must obey." It doesn't matter whether the interior details came from the architect or an interior designer, to the extent that they have design beyond mere utility, as these certainly do, they have a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the design of the spectator benches go beyond mere utility? Why are square shower cubicles just useful, but round ones are works of art? Your criterion opens all doors to arbitrariness. And your book comparison is also very flawed. If I only quote simple, everyday sentences from a book like "he went to the train station," "she slept late," "they laughed out loud" or if I only photograph the first quarter of each page in the longitudinal direction, so that the sentences are incomplete, then I can I also publish more than just two pages of a big book. Im Fokus (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a movie set is hardly a private place.... I mean, it is unfortunate that the nomination drew no other commentary, but that assertion is just wrong. Many if not most productions employ security teams for the specific purpose of keeping the general public off the set. This image seems pretty clearly to have been taken on the sly, during a movie shoot, without the knowledge or permission of the subjects. It seems to me that you closed the discussion based on your personal opinion and manifestly incorrect assumptions, as opposed to Commons policy. Just Step Sideways (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a beach -- while there probably were, as you say, security people to keep the public off the cameras, it was certainly visible from adjacent buildings and all sides. Also note that the US rules about private images are very loose. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Puta Images 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 gallery, 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. 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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Enhancing999 (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]