Problems with PHGCOM uploads at Wikimedia Commons: on 29 November 2008 PHG (who edits as PHGCOM on Commons) requested an amendment to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance and sought an end to his editing restrictions at English Wikipedia. [1] As the original case unfolded I looked into his image uploads at Wikimedia Commons, a sister WMF project, and documented dozens of copyright violations which were later deleted from that site, based upon my report. In light of PHGcom’s new request at English Wikipedia I reviewed his recent Commons uploads. What follows is a report on questionable uploads he made during the period 29 October 2008 – 29 November 2008.
This is prepared for three purposes: as initial research for three purposes:
- As background for the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
- To identify images for potential transwiki.
- For fellow Commons contributors to review and address Commons policy issues
Although PHGCOM’s Commons contributions are formally outside the scope of the English Wikipedia arbitration case, his attributions are at issue in the appeal, so his recent conduct at a sister project where he is not under restriction may indicate the likely result of granting his request.
Most of the images in this report would be viable candidates for transwiki to English Wikipedia, where policy follows the pre-1923 clause of U.S. copyright law instead of the author’s life plus seventy years standard under French law.
Due to prior involvement in this case and PHGcom’s allegations, I will be recusing from further work on this matter after publishing this report. If other editors determine that these issues are meritorious, please consider undertaking a more comprehensive review of his Commons uploads. This report covers only one month of PHGcom’s uploads.
Copyvio
On 22 November 2008, PHGcom uploaded Image:Gribeauval_guns_of_Bonaparte_in_the_Paris_insurrection_5_october_1795.jpg. He listed the date of the work as Early 19th century and attributed authorship to F. de Myrbach. He used the PD-Art licensing template, which states This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired.This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.
His listed source is here. [2] Yet this image does not come from the early nineteenth century. The artist’s full name is Felicien de Myrbach-Rheinfeld (1853-1940). [3] Since this French artist died less than 70 years ago the work is not public domain in its home country and not a valid upload to Wikimedia Commons.
Insufficient documentation to determine copyright status
At Wikimedia Commons it is the uploader’s responsibility to provide adequate documentation of public domain or copyleft status. Commons does not accept copyrighted material. PHGcom has been uploading images to Commons and failing to document that the author died before 1938. Late nineteenth century images are not necessarily public domain under French law, but PHGCOM’s uploads often presume that they are. Often he provides too little information to confirm or disprove the copyright status independently.
Example and analysis
Image:Brun_Fou_Tcheou.jpg is an image PHGCOM uploaded on 31 October 2008. He sources it to a commercial site which no longer hosts the image at the link he provided. [4] He lists the date of creation as circa 1885 and the author as Brun. Who is this Brun and was he or she still alive in 1938? My searches turn up red herrings. Christopher le Brun, Élisabeth-Louise Vigée-Le Brun, and Charles Le Brun all lived during the wrong eras. How do we even know this image dates from circa 1885? The demonstrated copyvio above is an image which PHG claims as created before the artist’s birth.
Earlier this year I brought a different copyright status problem to PHGCOM’s attention and he was uncooperative. Dozens of his uploads got deleted from Commons as a result. And after those deletions were done, PHGCOM stated his intention was not to comply with policy and copyright, but instead to reduce his source documentation on future improper uploads. [5]
Observe the contrast in documentation when PHGCOM knows he can prove a work is public domain. Image:Auguste_Regnault_de_Saint-Jean_d'Angely.jpg is a legitimate upload. For this PHGCOM supplies the artist’s full name and birth and death dates: Auguste_Regnault_de_Saint-Jean_d'Angely, painting by Adolphe Yvon (1817-1893).
For reasons which I will supply upon request, I strongly suspect that the group of his uploads which were deleted in March 2008 also constituted a deliberate attempt to evade copyright.
Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree
PHGCOM attributes a number of images to Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree without naming the edition or the page number. He claims all of these are nineteenth century works but does not specify the year and he claims all of these uploads are public domain. One example gives a suggestion of how trustworthy the group is.
PHGCOM Image:Canon_de_16_Gribeauval_pour_les_sieges.jpg attributes this image to the surname ‘’Auge’’. French Wikipedia lists a Claude_Augé, who passed away in 1924. But he was a lexicographer and editor, not an illustrator. He was probably not the author of this image. The Augé citation does put a time frame on the matter because the first Claude Augé edition of Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree was published in 1897. [6] After Claude Augé’s death he was succeeded in the business by Paul Augé who continued the work until the early 1960s (per Britannica). Bottom line: we don’t know which Augé to credit even if Augé was the artist. And if he wasn’t, we don’t automatically assume that an unnamed artist died within 40 years of the earliest possible date of publication. And most of the Augé encyclopedias were twentieth century works. In other words this public domain claim looks like bunk.
Other images from this group:
- Image:Hotchkiss_canon_revolver.jpg
- Image:Reffye_Canon_A_Balles.jpg
- Image:Culasse_systeme_De_Bange.jpg
- Image:Canon_de_5_de_Reffye_1870_1875.jpg
- Image:Lahitolle_canon_95mm_1875-1879.jpg
- Image:De_Bange_90mm_field_cannon_and_breech_system.jpg
- Image:Trigger_mechanism.jpg
- Image:General_Jacques_Duchesne.jpg
Randier "La Royale"
A smaller set of inadequate citations follow a similar theme to Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree. Identified only by a surname and an abbreviated book title without page number, year of publication, publisher name, or author, and claimed dates from circa 1880 to circa 1900. The images are very encyclopedic, but he hasn’t proven any of these are legitimate. And given his pattern of previous statements and behavior there’s no reason to trust his assurance.
- Image:La_Foudre_tending_torpedo_boats.jpg
- Image:Canonniere_Comete_(1884-1909).jpg
- Image:Canonniere_Le_Lutin_(1877-1897).jpg
- Image:Latour_Torpedo_Boat_45_at_Fuchow.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Unreliable sources
PHGCOM uploads other images from personal homepages and blogs, trusting whatever the amateur webmaster claims about them and asserting public domain although no original publication or authorship information is available.
Wordpress blog
This upload is sourced to a Wordpress blog. [7]
Comcast homepage
Sourced to a Comcast homepage. [8]
- Image:Montigny_Mitrailleuse.jpg
- Image:Chinese_officers_with_Montigny_Mitrailleuse.jpg
- Image:Magazine_plate_of_a_Montigny_Mitrailleuse.jpg
Personal homepage
Sourced here. [9]
Another personal homepage
Sourced here. [10]
Other misleading/missing documentation
Images d’Epinal
PHGCOM names the author as Images d'Epinal. See fr:Imagerie d'Épinal: this is not an author name but a type of French popular print. [11] Nor can we assume that an unnamed French artist who worked in 1885 was no longer alive in 1938.
Gillot
This caught my attention immediately because it is obviously a photochrom print—a type of manually colorized photography whose popularity peaked in the 1890s. I’ve restored 7 photochrom prints to featured picture on English Wikipedia. PHGCOM asserts the date only as nineteenth century, but the source website gives the date as 1896. The author is identified only as Gillot, and I couldn’t determine who that Gillot would be. To the best of my knowledge photochrom publication was practiced only in Europe and North America during the 1890s. Photochroms were in popular use for travel photography, with actual publication occurring in the photographer’s home country. So French copyright probably does apply. [12] More worrisome is the uploader’s date attribution, which gives the strong appearance of intentional vagueness to imply more credibility for the public domain claim than it actually deserves. We don’t know whether this Gillot was alive 42 years later.
Indecipherable
I cannot read Japanese, but the site has a layout like a personal homepage. After this many problems one gets jaded. [13] Note the bleedthrough text is in French: another indication the life plus 70 copyright rule ought to apply. That goes into effect from date of first publication, not from date of photography. Is there any way to tell from this attribution when the image was first published?
Followup: although neither the French nor the English Wikipedias provide an entry for the ship depicted in this particular photograph, after horizontal inversion and contrast adjustment part of the bleedthrough text on the opposite site of the scanned paper is legible as Le Brennus (1891). That correlates with French battleship Brennus (1891), which remained in service until 1919. Since this type of photograph could be taken at any time during the ship's working life, a conservative estimate is that both remained in service during the same era and this PHGCOM upload could have been photographed as late as World War I. In which case it isn't safe at all to assume public domain.
Conclusion
During the period 29 October 2008 – 29 November 2008 PHGCOM logged 174 uploads, of which 23 are listed as problematic in this report. This amounts to approximately 13% of the contributor’s uploads. His interests overall are highly encyclopedic and the other 87% of his uploads are very good. It took seven hours to research and write this report. He is a prolific editor and it would require much more time to review and evaluate the rest of his contribution history. It has been more than half a year since I last surveyed his Commons work.
In some ways this recreates the concerns of March 2008: although the images themselves have little commercial value, it is not our role as editors or administrators to attempt to evaluate evaluate risk for the Wikimedia Foundation. Our responsibility is to abide by policies and sourcing expectations—and sometimes that means foregoing images we would like to host. Wishful thinking cannot substitute for documentation. Encyclopedic value is not an excuse to cut corners. One of our larger goals is to earn the trust (and contributions) of leading scholars in academic fields, and it isn’t worth risking the credibility we’re attempting to establish to accept 13% dodgy uploads.
In March 2008 I advised PHGCOM to transwiki the group of images I was challenging: they could have remained at English Wikipedia under fair use rationales. He preferred to challenge my competence and integrity, so dozens of useful images got deleted. I wish he would accept advisement and upload pre-1923 public domain to the project that can host them locally. Thus far he has been impervious to feedback.
Due to his claims regarding me, I recuse from further action. Uninvolved Wikimedians are welcome to step in.
Feedback from PHG
Thank you Durova for the headup, and thank you for your encouraging message on my Talk Page ("I do want to say (although it's not pertinent to the appeal) how impressive the vast majority of your uploads are. You are close to being a great editor. The things you spotted at Les Invalides particularly are admirable." [14]).
- You pointed out that one of my images might be a copyvio since the author seems to have died in 1940. Thank you for finding the information, and my apologies for that oversight: I have placed a request for deletion at Commons.
- Several other images concern the old French encyclopedia Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree, published in 1897 (there is one at my familly's home to which I have access during holidays). You claim that the images in that encyclopedia might not all be free as some of the authors of the images might have died after 1937. Well, honestly I don't know: the Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree is a collective work, and most of the drawings do not have names attached or referenced to them. Your comments enlightened me on the fact that these same images would be OK on the English Wikipedia with a pre-1923 publication notice. Wonderful! I have started transferring these images to en:Wikipedia, requesting deletions from Commons at the same time:
- Image:Canon de 16 Gribeauval pour les sieges before 1923.jpg
- Image:Hotchkiss canon revolver before 1923.jpg
- Image:Reffye Canon A Balles before 1923.jpg
- Image:Culasse systeme De Bange before 1923.jpg
- Image:Canon de 5 de Reffye 1870 1875 before 1923.jpg
- Image:Lahitolle canon 95mm 1875-1879 before 1923.jpg
- Image:De Bange 90mm field cannon and breech system before 1923.jpg
- Image:Trigger mechanism bf 1923.jpg
- Image:General Jacques Duchesne bf 1923.jpg
- Per your suggestion, I have also started to transfer the other files to en:Wikipedia with a pre-1923 license, deleting them from Commons at the same time:
_bf_1923.jpg){kind=link}
_bf_1923.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- You also discuss about several of my drawings for which you obtained deletions back in April 2008. These were drawings I had made based on photographs of ancient artifacts (mostly ancient Greek), thinking that I could contribute valuable knowledge to Wikipedia without copyright issues. Nobody is perfect, and I didn't know that in fact this can be considered as derivative work. I am not a legal expert, but accepted that the images should be deleted. You seem to hold against me that I said that "I will probably redraw these contributions in the future without any link to the original photographs". Well, sorry, I am not a native speaker of English, but I think it means just that: drawing without any link to the original photographs, which means in a way that does not infringe on the photographer's artistic rights. From what I understandood of the discussion back then, and the advice given by other Wikipedians, this means drawing in a rather abstract way, without influence from the photographer's originality (in a way we often see in history books). Well, in any case, I didn't even bother making the exercise: I'd rather stay away from such litigations.
- As I said, I am not perfect. I am one of the largest uploaders to Wikipedia Commons (mainly photographs I take in museums around the world), and I occasionnaly upload images from old books. Sometimes the author might be unknown, or the exact shooting date. Please forgive me if you find some lapses sometimes, and do not hesitate to nominate for deletion images with issues. Best regards PHG ( talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Questions
- Aren't French Army/Navy photograph Public Domain as in the US? PHG ( talk) 18:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding the images from Randier "La Royale", would they be OK on En:Wikipedia under a pre-1923 license? If so, I am ready to delete them and transfer them to En:Wikipedia. PHG ( talk) 18:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I double-checked, but Randier in "La Royale" doesn't give credits or references for any of his numerous photographs. What do we do in such a case? PHG ( talk) 18:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a rule against downloading from personal homepages/blogs, even when the images are obviously Public Domain? Since it is often impossible to know the author, are these, again, acceptable on En:Wikipedia under the pre-1923 license? PHG ( talk) 18:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous, pseudonymous or collective work
User:Angusmclellan kindly pointed me to this which states that, under French copyright law: "if the work is anonymous, pseudonymous or collective, it is 70 years following the end of the year of publication of the work (unless the authors named themselves).". I guess that would properly cover uploads such as the Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree and other anonymous or collective work? What do you think? Cheers. PHG ( talk) 05:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Problems with PHGCOM uploads at Wikimedia Commons: on 29 November 2008 PHG (who edits as PHGCOM on Commons) requested an amendment to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance and sought an end to his editing restrictions at English Wikipedia. [1] As the original case unfolded I looked into his image uploads at Wikimedia Commons, a sister WMF project, and documented dozens of copyright violations which were later deleted from that site, based upon my report. In light of PHGcom’s new request at English Wikipedia I reviewed his recent Commons uploads. What follows is a report on questionable uploads he made during the period 29 October 2008 – 29 November 2008.
This is prepared for three purposes: as initial research for three purposes:
- As background for the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
- To identify images for potential transwiki.
- For fellow Commons contributors to review and address Commons policy issues
Although PHGCOM’s Commons contributions are formally outside the scope of the English Wikipedia arbitration case, his attributions are at issue in the appeal, so his recent conduct at a sister project where he is not under restriction may indicate the likely result of granting his request.
Most of the images in this report would be viable candidates for transwiki to English Wikipedia, where policy follows the pre-1923 clause of U.S. copyright law instead of the author’s life plus seventy years standard under French law.
Due to prior involvement in this case and PHGcom’s allegations, I will be recusing from further work on this matter after publishing this report. If other editors determine that these issues are meritorious, please consider undertaking a more comprehensive review of his Commons uploads. This report covers only one month of PHGcom’s uploads.
Copyvio
On 22 November 2008, PHGcom uploaded Image:Gribeauval_guns_of_Bonaparte_in_the_Paris_insurrection_5_october_1795.jpg. He listed the date of the work as Early 19th century and attributed authorship to F. de Myrbach. He used the PD-Art licensing template, which states This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired.This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.
His listed source is here. [2] Yet this image does not come from the early nineteenth century. The artist’s full name is Felicien de Myrbach-Rheinfeld (1853-1940). [3] Since this French artist died less than 70 years ago the work is not public domain in its home country and not a valid upload to Wikimedia Commons.
Insufficient documentation to determine copyright status
At Wikimedia Commons it is the uploader’s responsibility to provide adequate documentation of public domain or copyleft status. Commons does not accept copyrighted material. PHGcom has been uploading images to Commons and failing to document that the author died before 1938. Late nineteenth century images are not necessarily public domain under French law, but PHGCOM’s uploads often presume that they are. Often he provides too little information to confirm or disprove the copyright status independently.
Example and analysis
Image:Brun_Fou_Tcheou.jpg is an image PHGCOM uploaded on 31 October 2008. He sources it to a commercial site which no longer hosts the image at the link he provided. [4] He lists the date of creation as circa 1885 and the author as Brun. Who is this Brun and was he or she still alive in 1938? My searches turn up red herrings. Christopher le Brun, Élisabeth-Louise Vigée-Le Brun, and Charles Le Brun all lived during the wrong eras. How do we even know this image dates from circa 1885? The demonstrated copyvio above is an image which PHG claims as created before the artist’s birth.
Earlier this year I brought a different copyright status problem to PHGCOM’s attention and he was uncooperative. Dozens of his uploads got deleted from Commons as a result. And after those deletions were done, PHGCOM stated his intention was not to comply with policy and copyright, but instead to reduce his source documentation on future improper uploads. [5]
Observe the contrast in documentation when PHGCOM knows he can prove a work is public domain. Image:Auguste_Regnault_de_Saint-Jean_d'Angely.jpg is a legitimate upload. For this PHGCOM supplies the artist’s full name and birth and death dates: Auguste_Regnault_de_Saint-Jean_d'Angely, painting by Adolphe Yvon (1817-1893).
For reasons which I will supply upon request, I strongly suspect that the group of his uploads which were deleted in March 2008 also constituted a deliberate attempt to evade copyright.
Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree
PHGCOM attributes a number of images to Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree without naming the edition or the page number. He claims all of these are nineteenth century works but does not specify the year and he claims all of these uploads are public domain. One example gives a suggestion of how trustworthy the group is.
PHGCOM Image:Canon_de_16_Gribeauval_pour_les_sieges.jpg attributes this image to the surname ‘’Auge’’. French Wikipedia lists a Claude_Augé, who passed away in 1924. But he was a lexicographer and editor, not an illustrator. He was probably not the author of this image. The Augé citation does put a time frame on the matter because the first Claude Augé edition of Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree was published in 1897. [6] After Claude Augé’s death he was succeeded in the business by Paul Augé who continued the work until the early 1960s (per Britannica). Bottom line: we don’t know which Augé to credit even if Augé was the artist. And if he wasn’t, we don’t automatically assume that an unnamed artist died within 40 years of the earliest possible date of publication. And most of the Augé encyclopedias were twentieth century works. In other words this public domain claim looks like bunk.
Other images from this group:
- Image:Hotchkiss_canon_revolver.jpg
- Image:Reffye_Canon_A_Balles.jpg
- Image:Culasse_systeme_De_Bange.jpg
- Image:Canon_de_5_de_Reffye_1870_1875.jpg
- Image:Lahitolle_canon_95mm_1875-1879.jpg
- Image:De_Bange_90mm_field_cannon_and_breech_system.jpg
- Image:Trigger_mechanism.jpg
- Image:General_Jacques_Duchesne.jpg
Randier "La Royale"
A smaller set of inadequate citations follow a similar theme to Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree. Identified only by a surname and an abbreviated book title without page number, year of publication, publisher name, or author, and claimed dates from circa 1880 to circa 1900. The images are very encyclopedic, but he hasn’t proven any of these are legitimate. And given his pattern of previous statements and behavior there’s no reason to trust his assurance.
- Image:La_Foudre_tending_torpedo_boats.jpg
- Image:Canonniere_Comete_(1884-1909).jpg
- Image:Canonniere_Le_Lutin_(1877-1897).jpg
- Image:Latour_Torpedo_Boat_45_at_Fuchow.jpg
Unreliable sources
PHGCOM uploads other images from personal homepages and blogs, trusting whatever the amateur webmaster claims about them and asserting public domain although no original publication or authorship information is available.
Wordpress blog
This upload is sourced to a Wordpress blog. [7]
Comcast homepage
Sourced to a Comcast homepage. [8]
- Image:Montigny_Mitrailleuse.jpg
- Image:Chinese_officers_with_Montigny_Mitrailleuse.jpg
- Image:Magazine_plate_of_a_Montigny_Mitrailleuse.jpg
Personal homepage
Sourced here. [9]
Another personal homepage
Sourced here. [10]
Other misleading/missing documentation
Images d’Epinal
PHGCOM names the author as Images d'Epinal. See fr:Imagerie d'Épinal: this is not an author name but a type of French popular print. [11] Nor can we assume that an unnamed French artist who worked in 1885 was no longer alive in 1938.
Gillot
This caught my attention immediately because it is obviously a photochrom print—a type of manually colorized photography whose popularity peaked in the 1890s. I’ve restored 7 photochrom prints to featured picture on English Wikipedia. PHGCOM asserts the date only as nineteenth century, but the source website gives the date as 1896. The author is identified only as Gillot, and I couldn’t determine who that Gillot would be. To the best of my knowledge photochrom publication was practiced only in Europe and North America during the 1890s. Photochroms were in popular use for travel photography, with actual publication occurring in the photographer’s home country. So French copyright probably does apply. [12] More worrisome is the uploader’s date attribution, which gives the strong appearance of intentional vagueness to imply more credibility for the public domain claim than it actually deserves. We don’t know whether this Gillot was alive 42 years later.
Indecipherable
I cannot read Japanese, but the site has a layout like a personal homepage. After this many problems one gets jaded. [13] Note the bleedthrough text is in French: another indication the life plus 70 copyright rule ought to apply. That goes into effect from date of first publication, not from date of photography. Is there any way to tell from this attribution when the image was first published?
Followup: although neither the French nor the English Wikipedias provide an entry for the ship depicted in this particular photograph, after horizontal inversion and contrast adjustment part of the bleedthrough text on the opposite site of the scanned paper is legible as Le Brennus (1891). That correlates with French battleship Brennus (1891), which remained in service until 1919. Since this type of photograph could be taken at any time during the ship's working life, a conservative estimate is that both remained in service during the same era and this PHGCOM upload could have been photographed as late as World War I. In which case it isn't safe at all to assume public domain.
Conclusion
During the period 29 October 2008 – 29 November 2008 PHGCOM logged 174 uploads, of which 23 are listed as problematic in this report. This amounts to approximately 13% of the contributor’s uploads. His interests overall are highly encyclopedic and the other 87% of his uploads are very good. It took seven hours to research and write this report. He is a prolific editor and it would require much more time to review and evaluate the rest of his contribution history. It has been more than half a year since I last surveyed his Commons work.
In some ways this recreates the concerns of March 2008: although the images themselves have little commercial value, it is not our role as editors or administrators to attempt to evaluate evaluate risk for the Wikimedia Foundation. Our responsibility is to abide by policies and sourcing expectations—and sometimes that means foregoing images we would like to host. Wishful thinking cannot substitute for documentation. Encyclopedic value is not an excuse to cut corners. One of our larger goals is to earn the trust (and contributions) of leading scholars in academic fields, and it isn’t worth risking the credibility we’re attempting to establish to accept 13% dodgy uploads.
In March 2008 I advised PHGCOM to transwiki the group of images I was challenging: they could have remained at English Wikipedia under fair use rationales. He preferred to challenge my competence and integrity, so dozens of useful images got deleted. I wish he would accept advisement and upload pre-1923 public domain to the project that can host them locally. Thus far he has been impervious to feedback.
Due to his claims regarding me, I recuse from further action. Uninvolved Wikimedians are welcome to step in.
Feedback from PHG
Thank you Durova for the headup, and thank you for your encouraging message on my Talk Page ("I do want to say (although it's not pertinent to the appeal) how impressive the vast majority of your uploads are. You are close to being a great editor. The things you spotted at Les Invalides particularly are admirable." [14]).
- You pointed out that one of my images might be a copyvio since the author seems to have died in 1940. Thank you for finding the information, and my apologies for that oversight: I have placed a request for deletion at Commons.
- Several other images concern the old French encyclopedia Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree, published in 1897 (there is one at my familly's home to which I have access during holidays). You claim that the images in that encyclopedia might not all be free as some of the authors of the images might have died after 1937. Well, honestly I don't know: the Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree is a collective work, and most of the drawings do not have names attached or referenced to them. Your comments enlightened me on the fact that these same images would be OK on the English Wikipedia with a pre-1923 publication notice. Wonderful! I have started transferring these images to en:Wikipedia, requesting deletions from Commons at the same time:
- Image:Canon de 16 Gribeauval pour les sieges before 1923.jpg
- Image:Hotchkiss canon revolver before 1923.jpg
- Image:Reffye Canon A Balles before 1923.jpg
- Image:Culasse systeme De Bange before 1923.jpg
- Image:Canon de 5 de Reffye 1870 1875 before 1923.jpg
- Image:Lahitolle canon 95mm 1875-1879 before 1923.jpg
- Image:De Bange 90mm field cannon and breech system before 1923.jpg
- Image:Trigger mechanism bf 1923.jpg
- Image:General Jacques Duchesne bf 1923.jpg
- Per your suggestion, I have also started to transfer the other files to en:Wikipedia with a pre-1923 license, deleting them from Commons at the same time:
- You also discuss about several of my drawings for which you obtained deletions back in April 2008. These were drawings I had made based on photographs of ancient artifacts (mostly ancient Greek), thinking that I could contribute valuable knowledge to Wikipedia without copyright issues. Nobody is perfect, and I didn't know that in fact this can be considered as derivative work. I am not a legal expert, but accepted that the images should be deleted. You seem to hold against me that I said that "I will probably redraw these contributions in the future without any link to the original photographs". Well, sorry, I am not a native speaker of English, but I think it means just that: drawing without any link to the original photographs, which means in a way that does not infringe on the photographer's artistic rights. From what I understandood of the discussion back then, and the advice given by other Wikipedians, this means drawing in a rather abstract way, without influence from the photographer's originality (in a way we often see in history books). Well, in any case, I didn't even bother making the exercise: I'd rather stay away from such litigations.
- As I said, I am not perfect. I am one of the largest uploaders to Wikipedia Commons (mainly photographs I take in museums around the world), and I occasionnaly upload images from old books. Sometimes the author might be unknown, or the exact shooting date. Please forgive me if you find some lapses sometimes, and do not hesitate to nominate for deletion images with issues. Best regards PHG ( talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Questions
- Aren't French Army/Navy photograph Public Domain as in the US? PHG ( talk) 18:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding the images from Randier "La Royale", would they be OK on En:Wikipedia under a pre-1923 license? If so, I am ready to delete them and transfer them to En:Wikipedia. PHG ( talk) 18:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I double-checked, but Randier in "La Royale" doesn't give credits or references for any of his numerous photographs. What do we do in such a case? PHG ( talk) 18:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a rule against downloading from personal homepages/blogs, even when the images are obviously Public Domain? Since it is often impossible to know the author, are these, again, acceptable on En:Wikipedia under the pre-1923 license? PHG ( talk) 18:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous, pseudonymous or collective work
User:Angusmclellan kindly pointed me to this which states that, under French copyright law: "if the work is anonymous, pseudonymous or collective, it is 70 years following the end of the year of publication of the work (unless the authors named themselves).". I guess that would properly cover uploads such as the Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree and other anonymous or collective work? What do you think? Cheers. PHG ( talk) 05:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)