User talk:Josve05a

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Josve05a.

This is the user talk page of Josve05a, where you can send messages and comments to Josve05a.

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

• Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
• Put new text under old text.
• New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
• Click here to start a new topic.

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day. The latest archive is located at Archive 15.

File:Homeland party logo.jpg

Hi, I saw this file was deleted a day ago. I am struggling to understand the reasoning here. You state 'this is creative enough to be copyrighted in the UK'. Does that mean all other political party logos, such as 'File:Reform UK BBC Logo.svg' and 'File:Flag of Patriotic Alternative.svg' also fall under the same reasoning? If not, please could you clarify what makes those different from this case?

Many thanks Rocky2459 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

An arrow (which is just a rectangle and a triangle; as in File:Reform UK BBC Logo.svg) is too simple to qualify for copyright protection (see {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-simple}}}), while a more creatively designed emblem, such as the stylised depiction of a castle in the Homeland Party logo, can meet the threshold. The subject matter is irrelevant — what matters is the level of creative expression in the design. In the same way, a single word cannot be copyrighted, but a book can. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for the quick reply. Interesting.

One final question: I can see an example of a logo that seems to meet the threshold for copyright protection you described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hope_not_hate.svg

Would that qualify for deletion as a result, or is there a different set of rules that apply for that particular case? If so, could those rules not also apply in this case? Rocky2459 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

That file is not hosted on Wikimedia Commons, but on the English Wikipedia. It does not claim to be freely licensed or public domain. Instead, it is used there under the English Wikipedia's policy on non-free content, specifically under a "fair use" rationale. Commons does not permit fair use files at all, everything here must be freely licensed and usable for any purpose (including commercial use and derivative works). English Wikipedia, however, allows limited non-free use of low-resolution images when no free equivalent exists and when the image is used in a way that meets their non-free content criteria (see en:Wikipedia:Non-free_content). That is why the "Hope not Hate" logo can be hosted locally on English Wikipedia but not here on Commons, and why the Homeland Party logo, which met the copyright threshold in the UK, had to be deleted from Commons. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Ahhh, that explains it. Many thanks for clarifying. Rocky2459 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Free license permission obtained by https://ttsreader.com

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ttsreader_gazi-ya-ar.ogv

I have the permission that was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org da parte di https://ttsreader.com nelle persone di Amiel Rieger e Ronen Rabinovici. Posso avere un aiuto per la licenza libera? Grazie infinite da Al*from*Lig, Italia. 176.201.47.1 16:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Then it is in the queue to be reviewed by a VRT agent - there is currently a slight backlog on responding to tickets, so it may take a few days. I just did the "first response" asking for clarifications. If it is accepted, a VRT agent will note that on the file page. If not, a VRT agent will reply to the person who emailed. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Question about photo you deleted

Hi Jonatan. You recently deleted this photo: 21:19, 18 August 2025 Josve05a talk contribs deleted page File:Friederike Baer.png

I an a novice user here, so I am not sure of the process. But the photo was taken by Baer's son-in-law, who was credited under the photo and whose permission I had to use it. Can you help me understand what I need to do to use the image.

Thank you. Winterabend Eliswinterabend (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! Since the image were published elsewhere online prior to the upload here (and the fact that you are not the copyright holder), we can't simply "trust" your word - we need COM:EVIDENCE that the copyright holder wishes to icense this work under a free license. They can email the volunteer response team to supply this, preferable using the form here: Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator.

If you are the copyright holder, please email our permissions verification team (VRT).→

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, there were no credit to the photographer on the description page of the photo, instead it stated "own work" and your username as the author. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:This Is Fine (meme).png

I see you completely ignored my extensively reasoning. You didn't even mention it. I find this... interesting. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I did not ignore your reasoning. I read it carefully, along with everyone else's. In closing, I’m not required to re-summarize each individual argument, but rather to weigh the overall discussion, assess whether there is substantial similarity under copyright law, and decide if consensus or legal arguments supports deletion. I mentioned those whose arguments I felt carried the decision, not every argument made in the discussion.

On the legal points you raised:

• Simply sharing the idea of "a dog in a room on fire" is not copyrightable in itself; copyright protects expression, not ideas or stock themes.
• The fact that the AI prompt described a similar scene doesn't make the output a derivative work. Describing an idea is not infringement unless the resulting image reproduces protectable details.
• The filename doesn't determine copyright status; titles and short phrases aren't copyrightable.
• The AI image doesn't copy the original's protectable expression (style, layout, specific character design, text, coffee cup, etc.). What's left are generic elements, which the law treats as unprotectable.

That's why I concluded this file doesn't meet the legal threshold for a derivative work, and why the arguments by others pointing out lack of substantial similarity carried more weight. That doesn't mean your reasoning was dismissed. It was part of the balance I had to strike. Not everything is a conspiracy. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Or were you referring to the arguments about COM:SCOPE? I didn’t give those much weight, as the discussion centered primarily on COM:DW. Since some participants did see a valid scope, I leaned toward an inclusionist approach on that point - I'm totally open for a new DR to be primarily focused on that aspect. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

And yet, I covered all of those things.

• the image file name is "This is Fine (meme).png" so it is clearly intended as a derivation of the original comic.
• the original comic has a dog sitting at a table looking unconcerned with flames surrounding them, saying "this is fine". So, now let's look at the prompt that generated this: "an orange-brown anthropomorphic dog sitting in a chair at a table in a room that is engulfed in flames, happy dog sitting on chair at a table viewed from the side, dog with a hat, room is burning with fire all across the room" That is literally a description of the original comic.
• In the image description, the author wrote "Note: if the coffee cup on the table is important, I could add it...I added it but it was too large and also makes it less realistic if it's not a water bowl. This meme version is about being more realistic so it's probably best to not add it and neither the speech bubble. Further improvements or recreations can be made and uploaded as new version." Basically, he derived it off the comic.

You didn't cover any of those things. You instead, ignored it. Then you forbade anyone but an admin from reopening the DR. Clearly, you believe admins are the only ones who can give valid reasons for reopening a closed discussion.

It's not a conspiracy, indeed. Conspiracy indicates a plurality. You closed it alone - it's a very bad precedent and incredibly poor judgement. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The decision I came to was based on the discussion as a whole and my interpretation of the law. You may not agree with my assessment, but that doesn't mean your points were ignored. I considered the filename, the prompt, and the uploader's description, but in my view none of those are decisive for determining whether something is a derivative work under U.S. copyright law. Copyright attaches to protectable expression, not titles, ideas written in words, or a description of a concept. My judgment was that the image did not cross into substantial similarity with the original comic's protectable elements, and therefore did not constitute a derivative work. Other participants made arguments consistent with that view, which is why they were highlighted in the close. It also seems you are conflating two different things: that a work can be inspired by or "derived from" another in a colloquial sense without that making it a legally infringing derivative work under copyright law.

• A title doesn't determine copyright status. Names and short phrases are not copyrightable, and the filename alone isn't sufficient evidence that something is a infringing derivative work.
• A textual description of a scene is not itself protectable expression. It only matters whether the resulting image reproduces substantial protectable elements of the comic. In my view, it did not.
• The uploader acknowledging inspiration does not override the legal test. What matters is whether the final image shares substantial similarity with the original's protected expression (style, character design, composition, etc.), which I found it does not.

The file was kept. Either another uninvolved admin could have re-opened the discussion if my close were totally out of line with the law and the discussion, or the file can be re-nominated if you feel not all arguments for deletion were considered. That's how the process works. As for reopening, I only noted that it should be done by an uninvolved admin to avoid wheel-warring, not that admins are the only ones whose opinions matter. Since a closure is an admin action, such things should only be reverted by another admin.

Finally, I would ask you to moderate your tone. Saying this was "incredibly poor judgement" is bordering on incivility. Disagreement with a close is fine and part of the process but framing it as a personal failing is not. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

My dispute is that you have forbade anyone other than an admin from reopening the discussion. You imposed your views and they were badly informed, and your judgement in closing the discussion and disallowing it from being reopened other than anyone other than an admin was extremely poor. In doing so, we cannot even open a new discussion with the arguments you ignored.

In terms of my comments on your judgement being poor in closing this discussion, this is nothing personal - I am speaking to your actions, not you as a person. I might say the same to you when you said I implied or stated this is a conspiracy - I never said such a thing and this is quite incivil for you to say so in its own right.

Nowhere in your argument did you mention the fact that the AI prompt literally described the "This is Fine" meme, which showed it was clearly intended to be derived from the original comic. The filename showed intent that it was clearly intended to be derivative.

Interestingly, your justification to me is not anywhere in the closure reasoning. You clearly and deliberately ignored my reasoning, and I was quite involved in the discussion. That is poor judgement by the closing admin. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

First, regarding your statement that I "forbade anyone other than an admin from reopening the discussion": that was not my intent. My point was procedural, because closing a DR is an admin action, reopening to avoid wheel-warring is normally done by another uninvolved admin. I have no hard feelings (that was my intent to convey) if another admin chooses to reopen the discussion. Non-admins are still welcome to re-nominate the file or present new arguments on the talk page, and an uninvolved admin can then decide whether reopening is appropriate.

You also wrote that I "imposed [my] views and they were badly informed and that "we cannot even open a new discussion with the arguments you ignored". Normally, closing comments are much shorter. In this case, I chose to address a few points in more depth. The fact that I did not respond to every single argument individually does not mean that relevant points were not considered in reaching the decision. The closure considered multiple contributors’ arguments and applied the legal standard for derivative works under US copyright law. Relevant points, including the filename, prompt, and uploader’s description, were considered and weighed against the law; they were not ignored.

Regarding your claim that I "clearly and deliberately ignored" the AI prompt describing the "This is Fine" meme and the filename: as stated in my closure, the image "references the concept behind the meme", and I considered both the filename and prompt. My assessment was that these elements were not legally decisive, because copyright protects specific expression, not ideas, general scenes, or intent alone.

While you may disagree with the outcome, all I can say at this point post-closure is that the relevant arguments were considered. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I merely came to register my concerns with your closure directly. I think I've said everything that needs to be said. I am glad that the image might be brought forward for deletion in future - I have no intention of doing so. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, that's well-taken -- appreciate you sharing your concerns. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)