User talk:Clindberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_Tennessee

Welcome to the Commons, Clindberg!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ 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. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. 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. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

URAA for Vichy state assets

Hi Carl, Could you please give your opinion about the application of URAA for Vichy state assets? I think there is no way that the current French state to claim a copyright once owned by the Vichy state, and that therefore, as much below the significant doubt required by policies, URAA should not apply. others disagree. What do you think? Yann (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I would have to think the current French government would be a successor. While from a practical standpoint I can't imagine the current government trying to protect those works, I would have to think they would technically own any such copyrights, if they ever had a reason to do something with a particular work. Did the wartime extensions apply to those works? I can't remember the cutoff date something had to be published by to get them. Anonymous works would have been 50 years from publication on the URAA date, plus extensions if they existed -- if none, then it would have been PD in France before the URAA. I do wonder if France would give those extensions to such works. The URAA would apply to government works -- I don't think the Berne Convention allowed the US to avoid restoring such works in general, as much as I dislike that. On more solid ground though, I would have to think the U.S. copyright was technically owned by the Alien Property Custodian, since it was a work from an enemy state. As such, that probably would trigger the URAA exception, for any such works which would be owned by a government today. If it was an official portrait, there is also a decent chance it was simultaneously published in the US at the time, but that usually requires some evidence. But odds are the APC exception applied to that work to avoid restoration in the US, meaning it's also PD there. I certainly don't think we should delete it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:AsYouWish13#Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Pinky Monkey.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:AsYouWish13#Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Pinky Monkey.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Carl. Perhaps you can help sort this out? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2023 voting is open!

2022 Picture of the Year: Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), Little Egret (Egretta garzetta) and Gadwall (Mareca strepera) in Nepal.

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2023 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighteenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2023) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and top 5% of most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 14 October 2024, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2022 Picture of the Year contest.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much for your opinion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Icones Orchidacearum Malayensium‎, learned, measured and well conceived as always. I am aware of the huge number of issues open on Commons at any given moment that would benefit from more expertise, and I hope that the ping did not come across as pushy or inappropriate. Felix QW (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Shells by Edward Weston

Hi Carl, What do you think about the licenses for these images, i.e. File:Shells, 1927, by Edward Weston.jpg and others here: Category:Photographs by Edward Weston? We don't have evidence of publication before 1929, but seeing what the source says, it was certainly published without a notice, and evidently the copyright wasn't renewed. Evidence of lack of notice can also be seen here: File:Nude (Charis, Santa Monica), v2.jpg. Could you please confirm that if at least one copy was published without a notice, that is sufficient for the work to be in the public domain. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

If only a "relative few" copies were distributed without notice, copyright was not lost. I think court rulings over that have been in the 1 to 2 percent range. If he was selling copies at the time (sounds like early prints of that "Shells" one do exist), then they were published. That particular copy sounds like it was not sold by the artist until the 1950s, so lack of notice on that one would not have mattered until then, if ever. For things like File:Nude (Charis, Santa Monica), v2.jpg, not sure. The original photo was from 1936, so could not have been published before 1929. That particular print was made by his son posthumously, so well after 1958. It sounds like there was an auction of many of that type of print in 2014, per the {{Cole Weston}} article, so if this was one of those, the lack of notice on that particular copy means nothing. But certainly Weston's works should have been published, so if there are no renewal records, they would be OK. That is probably the easiest case to make, but I have not done any copyright searches. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I have searched for copyright renewals for artworks from 1958 to 1966 (covering works from 1930 to 1938), and I have found only one so far, by ShawBarton, Inc., it seems about a reproduction made by his son. I have documented that in Category:Photographs by Edward Weston. It is not clear to me what this renewal is for, as I can't find any artwork called Roar of the sea, Point Lobos. There was an exhibition in 1932 in SF (cf. Group f/64), but I can't find a catalog, or even list of the exhibited artworks. Any idea? Yann (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Shaw Barton made calendars.[1] They have a ton of registrations there, all of which say they were color reproductions. Per Cole Weston, it seems he was the color photographer (and specifically took photos of that area of California), while Edward Weston used black and white. So, that is likely a Cole Weston photograph used on a calendar, possibly as a work for hire. Not an Edward Weston photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)