User talk:Clindberg

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?)

File:Могила Алаторцева.JPG

Hi Clindberg. There's no FOP in Russia for 3D works of art per COM:FOP Russia so I'm wondering whether Commons can keep this. I guess it could be argued that a gravestone is utilitarian, but I believe the engravings or photos appearing on such stones could be considered eligible for copyright protection. Could the chess related imagery on this stone be considered incidental? They could be blurred I guess, but the deceased was a professional chess player which seems to be the point of that engraving. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If the gravestone wasn't carved, but a broken bit of rock, it would not be a sculpture. The design on the front is of course copyrightable, as are the photos. The photos are de minimis though (if not expired themselves), and the design in front can be argued is "incidental" (reason 3 on the Commons:de minimis page). The subject is the entire gravesite, and that carved bit is unavoidably part of the scene. A photo focusing on that part would indeed be derivative. It seems pretty much just like the example in Ets-Hokins, where a label on the bottle does not cause a photo of the entire bottle to be derivative. The design in the middle would seem to be just like a label, copyrightable if you focus on it, but incidental on a photo of the entire thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Understand and thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

A general view of Line B with the battleships at anchor during the Naval Review or King's Review of the Fleet at Spithead.

Hi Carl, See NMM entry here and compare with File:A general view of Line B with the battleships at anchor during the Naval Review or Kings Review of the Fleet at Spithead (4793355124).jpg. Ships identified as Queen 1902 (HMS); King Edward VII (1903) Britannia (1904) Dominion 1903 (HMS). Some sources clainm this to be in the Thames, but I think its Spithead. Broichmore (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. I'm not sure if the ships were previously (mis)identified at the old source that way, or what. Don't think we should change the source, since that is where the license and image came from, but certainly mention the other source. In looking, there were two naval reviews in Spithead that summer, one in early June, and one in late July (I think the King was in attendance at the latter). In between, in slightly earlier July, there was apparently a review in the estuary of the Thames. It's possible someone (maybe me?) used a description of one of the other reviews to identify ships. If your description is accurate, and no reason to think it isn't, then it was the late July review at Spithead (which would make sense titled "King's Review"). I would presume I found the ships identified elsewhere and just copied the info, but don't remember. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at something I've written?

Commons:So you want to upload a photo someone else took: I've been trying to create a page that would cover the bulk of the questions that we get on the help desk about uploading a copyrighted photo taken by someone else. Could you have a look and see if there's anything you think I got wrong, or if you think there is anything more that ought to be spelled out in an overview like this? Thanks in advance for any attention you can give to this. - Jmabel ! talk 03:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open!

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you voted in Round 1 of the 2022 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in the second round. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) 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 were 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.

In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2022.

Round 2 will end at 18 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)