User talk:Adamant1

---

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated furry

I kindly request that you add your AI deletion requests to the appropriate category next time. Otherwise, it becomes harder for people to find Trade (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Trade: I usually add categories, but I wasn't sure which ones would be appropriate in this case since I don't usually work in the area. Although I see now that there's a category specifically for AI artwork. So I'll be sure to add it next time. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Adamant1, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, A1Cafel (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

A1Cafel (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@A1Cafel: Thanks. You to. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Flickr2Commons

Saberia informar o problema que houve com o Flickr2? Estou tentando baixar imagens, mas sem êxito. Luiz79 (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Luiz79: I don't use it. So I can't really say if it's working or not either way. You might ask about it on the Village pump or Commons talk:Flickr2Commons though. Sorry. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Antonio Carbonati

Hi, I replied to you about Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Etchings by Antonio Carbonati. Please tag me in your answers to see the notification Moxmarco (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Nice uploads

I just wanted to say that I like all of your postcard uploads. Thank you for contributing them and taking the time to share them.--SDudley (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Voting twice

I don’t know if you’ve noticed but you voted twice on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hyju. Don’t do this again. Dronebogus (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notice. That can happen when the conversation is just a wall of text by one user. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

A “please” might have been nice. I’m sure it wasn’t done intentionally. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Ebay coin/ token photo licensed as PD (Public Domain)

Your upload here: File:Brown's Cigars & Tobacco token front.jpg

I looked at the link you provided, but I do not see any license. Could you provide a link to Ebay's policy related to individual account owner's posting their own photos or scans? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ooligan: The coin was created in 1910 and the photograph is to generic itself to be copyrighted. Usually in those cases we just assume PD-US-expired is appropriate. Like for example the many scans of postcards that are copied from places like eBay and Flickr even though the person who did the scan might (usually wrongly) think their version is copyrighted. Although if you want to ask for clarification about it on the Village pump be my guest. I'm not going to lose sleep over it if the rules end up being different for coins then postcards or photographs of other items where that seems to be how we do things. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Adamant1, thanks for the explanation. It seems like there is great potential to upload many more quality photos from Ebay. Again, thank you. -- Ooligan (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Obscenity debate

FWIW, I reread your comments and you actually did cite your source properly. I apologise, I missed the bit where you did so. Overall, a well reasoned argument… with a source! Definitely not bullshitting. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

AI art

My understanding is that generative art uses an existing corpus of images to generate the images. If this is the case, then if any non-free images were used to train the dataset, would that potentially make the artwork a derivative artwork? In that case, I’m curious how Commins could accept the artwork… I mean, we don’t allow fair use images for similar reasons, right?

It follows if this is true that if we don’t know the service that generated the image, then we can’t know its dataset (and similarly if we do know the service and don’t know the dataset) and thus we can’t determine if the images used to train the service were all free! And if we do know the service and we do know the dataset, and it includes non-free images then we would not be able to use any images generated from the service.

Does this make sense? Is this a reasonable conclusion? Thought I’d get your take as you seem to have a good handle on this matter. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's more complicated than that. It's presumably analogous to the issue of a human artist creating an "imaginary" image of a real person, building, etc. Here are a few cases:

• Copyrighted monument or building in a country with no freedom of panorama (e.g. the Memorial of Rebirth in Bucharest, or the Fondation Louis Vuitton in Paris): there is presumably no way to create a "free" image of this. Any image that identifiably shows this monument/building is going to violate the sculptor/architect's copyright.
• A building that is itself either in the public domain or where FoP allows images (e.g. the White House in Washington, D.C. or the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth: if a human were to be drawing this, they could, in principal, either (a) draw from life, (b) draw from one copyrighted image, (c) draw from one uncopyrighted or free-licensed image, or (d) draw from a variety of images, some of them copyrighted. Clearly case (a) and (assuming any licenses are complied with) case (c) are fine, and equally clearly case (b) is not. Case (d) is the tricky one, and it is exactly analogous to what will typically happen with generative AI unless a prompt steers it toward working from some particular source. The question is always going to be: was it unduly influenced by one unacknowledged source (or a small number of unacknowledged sources). Note that without some criterion like that, no one could draw (for example) a picture of the White House because we've all seen (and presumably been influenced by) numerous copyrighted images of the White House.2

There are other cases, but I think that shows why this is complicated. - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2: I pretty much agree with Jmabel's points. An AI generated image of say something like an otherwise copyrighted building in a country without FOP would obviously be copyrighted. I've also seen plenty of instances where the backgrounds in images are clearly cropped from previous photographs, which I assume were in the original training set. I assume they would be copyrighted also.

You can get into some grey with images that are based on original IPs though. It's not really clear to me where the line is with something that is clearly based on exiting characters or stories but might not be a 1/1 recreation of either one. Like with File:Sonic Diffusion art of anthropomorphic cat in rain.png. That image was clearly based on the Sonic cartoon universe and looks a lot like several characters in it. Although I can't point to exactly which one and when I nominated it for deletion @Prototyperspective: argued that something being based on preexisting characters does not make it a problem. So who knows. Although I'd argue the risk to reward makes it not worth keeping images like that one, because really, what's being gained eductionally by keeping that image on Commons? Absolutely nothing.

There's also other things to consider besides purely copyright. For instance the inherent lack of a source with anything generated by AI. Although certain people would argue that AI generated artwork is no different then something created in Photoshop. The source of an image is clearly different then what software it was created with. We certainly can't say the source of a photograph is Photoshop. So I don't why it would be acceptable to cite an AI generator as the source of AI generated image. At least with someone uploading a drawing they made in Photoshop you can ask what they based their artwork on. In the case of AI artwork there's no way to do that since the training data isn't available to the public.

I think people wrongly conflate a human work being inspired by past experiences, with how AI art generators create duratives by combining multiple previous works into an original. The word "original" doing a lot of heavy lifting of course. Although I don't think the risk is worth the benefit in most cases anyway. As a lot of the AI generated images people upload to here aren't even worth the processing cycles that were used to create them. It's not like we to allow for everything just to host the 1% that are (or might be) educational either. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

A brief note since I was mentioned; in the DR I agreed that this image you linked here should probably be deleted…I just said that basing it on pre-existing characters is not a problem, otherwise all contents of Category:Middle-earth fan art would need to be deleted since they're based on characters of Tolkien's universe (mainly the books).

The source of an AI image is the user tasking the AI where AI play the major role but both AI prompter / prompt engineer and the software should be named I think. If LAION-5B is all StableDiffusion uses, that dataset is public. The tools learn to 'understand' what is in the image via attached texts so new texts creates new visuals that match them starting from random noise; artists usually don't specify their inspirations and they usually if not always don't know them all anymore either since their learning stretches back to when they where infants where they learned how objects look like and were later influenced by lots of different copyrighted works somewhere in the back of their mind to different degrees in respect to the new artwork they created. Diffusion from random noise is not combining previous works into a new original similar to cut-and-pasting parts of existing images, it's a small-sized AI, no images included, that has learned the concepts in the images and creates it anew. If you deliberately write a prompt that is just the name of a character from a film franchise, it'll likely create a copyvio; but otherwise people can use these tools to create anything imaginable using its lexicon of terms it understands. There are large risks with cutting down on general purpose tools as useful and general as these. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: Just to clarify, I wasn't saying images based on pre-existing characters is a problem in general, I was saying the specific images that I nominated for deletion are problem because they are based on pre-exiting characters. Images based on pre-existing characters are a problem when they are close enough to the original to be duratives and not when they aren't. Know one claimed otherwise. I certainly haven't and nowhere have I said images based on pre-exiting characters in general should be nominated for deletion or otherwise don't belong on Commons. I think those specific images are close enough to characters in the Sonic franchise to justify deleting them though. I'm sure you get the difference.

Random noise is not combining previous works into a new original similar to cut-and-pasting parts of existing images I can't speak for other AI image generators, but I've generated thousands of images with DALL-E at this point and it clearly crops images from original photographs if you have it generate the same scene enough times or if what your asking it generate is "niche" enough that it was only trained on a small set of images to begin with. Usually it will add other elements to the scene that are clearly AI generated, but that doesn't mean the cropped photographs aren't recreations of the original photographs in the training set or copyrighted. There's nothing inherent to diffusion models that would keep an AI image generator from doing that either. Like if it's only trained on 5 images to begin with then sure it's going to "learn to 'understand' what is in the image via attached texts" or whatever, but the resulting image will still be heavily based on the 5 original photographs regardless. You act like if someone asks an AI generator for an image of a spaceship landing on Mars that it will partially (or largely) be based on images of cats eating kibble cat food. That's not how they work. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Adamant1, Prototyperspective and Jmablel thank you for your respectful and informative responses. The issue is definitely more complex than I had first realised! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

[cross-posted] On the derivative character drawing thing: usually (maybe always?) no problem if it's based on a verbal description of a character; another matter if it's based on another drawing or other image. So, my own image of Gandalf based solely on Tolkien's text would be fine, but if a Tolkien drawing is still in copyright then anything derived from that would be a problem. - Jmabel ! talk 19:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Adamant1 so... what is the threshold at which the AI generated image no longer becomes a copyright infringement problem? One thing I would have thought would that we need to actually need to see the training data set used to generate the AI image. If we don't know that, then we cannot know if the image is truly free, at least that's what I would have thought. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

JFYI you don't decide that even if you thought much about it and think it's an important interesting subject to you. Copyright law decides that and everything so far shows these are not infringing copyright even if a few artists allege that and fail.

And no, it does not cut and paste parts of images which it doesn't have packaged with the software. If you prompt specifically something for which it, roughly speaking, only had seen one image matching the concept, it'll look similar to that one, just like you can use your skills to draw portraits to draw one exactly like a painting that already exists. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

JFYI you don't decide that even if you thought much about it and think it's an important interesting subject to you. I could say the same about literally every comment you've ever made related to AI artwork. 99% of what you write is pure speculation and conjecture. Even the article you linked to in defense of your personal opinion that the law decided AI artwork can't be copyrighted says nobody knows what the copyright status is or will be. The difference between you and me is that I'm more then to admit that it's all speculation at this point and that there multiple opinions about it out there, all of which have their pros and cons. Whereas all you do is act like your opinion that AI artwork can't be copyrighted no matter what is the correct, god given truth and that anyone who disagrees with you is just ignorant about the topic.

That really goes for your general attitude about this to. Your response to me saying AI generators cut and paste parts of the images that they are trained on sometimes is another example of that. What actual evidence do you have that they don't do that sometimes outside of using just making false analogies to how human's create art? Because I haven't seen any and you'll sit here all day speculating about this and then attack anyone everyone else for doing the same exact thing. So again, what evidence do you have that AI art generators don't cut and paste parts of images that there are trained on when generating images sometimes? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll be surprised if courts rule that the question of whether Image A infringes on the copyright of Image B is going to be in any way affected by whether Image A was created by generative AI, and astounded if they not only make a distinction but allow more leeway to AI. It can be very difficult to tell whether an image created by a human infringes on a particular copyright, and I think all of us who follow court rulings in this area are sometimes surprised in one direction, sometimes in the other. In general, Commons approach has been to be pretty conservative: we tend not to host a user-made image that we think is at all likely to infringe a copyright; I think we go beyond just "is it more likely than not to infringe" to "would it be reasonable to consider it an infringement". I don't see us having any reason to apply a different standard to AI-generated artwork in terms of judging likely copyright infringements. (Keep in mind: except in the rare case where there has been a legal ruling, these are always judgement calls in terms of what we think a court would say.)

The trickier issue is one of scope. We seem to be forming a consensus that (with the possible exception of images that are specifically hosted as examples of the capability of generative AI) the hurdle for generative AI to be considered in scope is at least as high as that for user-created non-photographic art, and possibly higher. There are a handful of users (Prototyperspective clearly being one of them) who seem to want a more generous scope for generative AI, but I think it's safe to say that among those of us who have been discussion this, at least two thirds of the participants either opt for "same standard as user-created art" or something even stricter. - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Jmabel whilst the copyright status under law is still somewhat unclear, I think ((as you already say) Commons needs to have a position on this matter. The question I have is how to know what that position is? We seem to have some fairly clear guidelines around derived non-generated images, could we come up with guidelines around AI generated images? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2: Since this is on someone else's talk page, I was trying to stay mostly away from things that are just a matter of my own opinion, but as far as works that derive from copyrighted works, and in terms only of possible copyright infringement, I'd ignore the fact that generative AI was involved. As I said above, my guess is that in terms of infringement, I'd be surprised if courts decide that the involvement of generative AI has any bearing. Scope is a separate matter. My own take would probably to treat them the same way we treat user-generated illustrations, which is to say a pretty high bar for being in scope, but not an outright ban. - Jmabel ! talk 02:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Photographs from Angola

Hi ! I assumed good faith from the Flickr uploader. Do you think it's better if we don't? I can make a batch deletion. Sintegrity (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sintegrity: Hi, it's probably better not to just assume good faith when it comes to images from Flickr since people routinely upload other people's photographs there. If you want to deal with the images that are left through a batch deletion request that would be appreciated though. Otherwise one of us can just continue nominating them for deletion in smaller DRs, whatever. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I prefere not to bother you with this job, because I've uploaded many of them >.< Sintegrity (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done ;) Sintegrity (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Logos_of_colleges_in_the_United_States

Logos of colleges in the United States has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Astros4477 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

To check

Good morning. I report the photos uploaded by this user Punzogabriele. According to information published by this user, the photos are copied from various websites (www.beweb.chiesacattolica.it - santiebeati.it - www.heiligenlexikon.de/ - www.italia.it/it/campania/benevento/luoghi-della-cultura/archivio-di-stato---benevento), perhaps in violation of the owners' rights. I ask you to check. Thank you. Croberto68 (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Postcardcatfinder

Hello Andamant1, did you know my tool Postcardcatfinder. Finally I wrote the documentation. Maybe it will help you. Best regards --sk (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I couldn't really figure it out when I tried it a while ago but I've been meaning to use it again at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

At the moment you flooded the Category:Postcards with new images. How did you find this images? A special search query? I have also some stored under User:Stefan_Kühn/Postcards#New_images. - It will take a little time to sort all this postcards. But thanks for your work. --sk (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Using the special search for JPG files with the word "postcard" in the description from Wikiproject Postcards. It was at like 58 thousand results a few months ago and I've gotten it down to about 45 thousand at this point. There's a lot of other stuff mixed in though. Hence why I've dumping files in the main postcard category. It helps seperate things. I'm actually planning on going through and better categorizing them sometime this week. Any help would be appreciated though. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Andamant1, I have collect also some raw searches strings under User:Stefan_Kühn/Postcards#Todo. Maybe there is also some inspiration for you. I will help you to clean out the "Unsorted postcard". --sk (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm planning on creating a separate "todo" page for the Wikiproject at some point where we can put stuff like that. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Unsorted postcards

Hi. Thanks for your work. An issue: I've noticed multiple instances of you adding category "unsorted postcard" on files that are not postcards. Tobacco cards are not postcards. Not everything photographed by Detroit Publishing is a postcard. Thanks for your attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message. That can happen because I'm putting files there from a raw search for uncategorized files containing the word "postcard" and unfortunately there's a lot of files containing the word that aren't actually postcards to begin with. Which is one of the reasons I'm doing it. The unsorted postcards category is only a temporary place holder though and I review images I put there pretty regularly. Plus I check any images in the category that are moved by someone else. So things like that will be fixed. Except I will say that there's a wider issue already with "normal" images by Detroit Publishing Company being mixed in with ones of postcards to begin with and that's something that needs broader work on. Any help is appreciated though. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Question: Many modern images from digital cameras had also in the description "postcard". And they are not postcards.

• 
  the "old postcard" look
• 
  "Postcard Perfection".
• 
  Another postcard from Rottingdean!

Should we create a c:Category:Postcard in description but image is not a postcard. I would like to mark this images (Maybe other cat name). So we can exclude this images from future raw search ( -incategory:"..." ). --sk (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Stefan Kühn: That would be a good idea. I was actually planning on renaming the images at some point but that might be a better way to deal with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

So go ahead. Take a name for this new category. You are a native speaker in English. You should find the best name for this category. --sk (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Stefan Kühn: I went with Category:Images misdescribed as postcards. Hopefully that works. It can always be changed later if need be. I kind of like the idea of having other categories for other types of misdescribed images though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• You have twice added "Publicity photos misdescribed as postcards" to File:Lee Meriwether as Catwoman 1966.jpg (I removed it the first time). Who misidentified it as a postcard, and in what context? If that happened on Wikimedia, I don't see evidence of it. Where did you get the information that someone somewhere misidentified it as a postcard, and why does that misidentification need to be have a category on Wikimedia? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  If you search in Commons like Catwoman postcards -insource:"Postcards of" you will normally only get postcard without some category "Postcards of New York" or so. But in this images of Catwomen is the phrase "is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles.". So in every search this image is included. With this new category we can exclude images like this. --sk (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: The reason I'm adding the category is because of essentially what Stefan Kühn has said. There's a paragraph in the licensing description of a lot of files containing the word "postcard" that screws with search results if we want to find uncategorized images of postcards. Although in those cases adding "Publicity photos misdescribed as postcards" is just temporary because I'm going through and cleaning up the text, but it at least helps us to know which files are legitimately postcards or just contain the word "postcard" in the meantime. It's kind of a pain to go through the search results and do it without manually without adding "Publicity photos misdescribed as postcards" first though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• I'm growing to really dislike that category, since in the examples I see, no one is now nor has ever misidentified the media as a postcard. No one. If a the word "postcard" in a lengthy canned discussion of US copyright law is giving you false hits when you search for "postcard", perhaps your objection is with the canned explanation, and maybe you could move or remove or reword that. Your user talk page is not a postcard - but the word "postcard" appears multiple times here, so maybe you should add the misidentified as a postcard category to your user talk page? Seriously, I generally appreciate your work, but I doubt the best way to go about this is to add a category that makes a FALSE claim to a large number of images. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (⧼r⧽) 15:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • What is your planned process? Is the category intended as something very short term while you are doing edits, or do you plan to leave it? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Right now I'm using it as a short term category so I can systematically edit the files in AutoWikiBrowser. I'll probably delete it after I'm done, but its the most efficient way to do things at this point. It should be fairly short term work depending on how time I can devote to it over the next couple of weeks. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll trust you on that. Meanwhile since it's intended as a temporary maintenance category, may I suggest making this a hidden category {{Hiddencat}}? Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for the suggestion. I added it to the other categories to just for the heck of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Good work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

File:San Policarpo interno.pdf

Dear Adamant1 - I beg your pardon, could you help me? I wanted to propose my own file for deletion (no correct copyright, it was a mistaky).... I was not able to complete the procedure correctly, it is the first time I try. Could you take look to my contribution and fix my mistakes? It would be great, sorry, sorry - And I guess the same problems with copyright might concern most files in the category  :-( Greetings LucaLuca (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@LucaLuca: It looks like everything is fine with the DR. Except you didn't add the maintenance categories, but that's not a super big issue. I'll probably nominate the other images of the church for deletion at some point when I have the time. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, --LucaLuca (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey

I appreciate your good sense and reasonable viewpoints in ANU. Your views are helpful in working out fair decisions. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2: Thanks. That's very kind of you. I appreciate the good sense and reasonableness on your end also. Both are extremely rare on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Publicity photos misdescribed as postcards

You have been adding "Publicity photos misdescribed as postcards" but at File:1963 Ron Cochran News Program Set Desk ABC Commentator Anchor Press Photo.jpg and others, the only mention of a postcard is in the copyright quote of what a perceptible copy is: "The year may be omitted when a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles." RAN (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@RAN: Yeah, I'm aware. The quote is exactly why I've been putting the images in the category. I already explained it above, but I've been going through and removing the quote from the files using AutoWikiBrowser so they don't show up searches for postcards. Doing so with a temporary maintenance category is the easiest way to do that for various reasons that I don't feel the need to get into. Suffice to say, I know what I'm doing and I have valid reasons for making the edits. Ones that's I've already explained and people seem to support. So what's the actual issue here? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

So in which way are you going to edit these files? I mean the word "Postcard" may appear there for a reason. Will you delete it anyway? Are you entitled to do this? Is it the best solution to your problem? You added lots of files by User:Aristeas to that category because he uses that word in his credits template. Wouldn't it be better to contact the user first? --Sitacuisses (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sitacuisses: I assume your talking about the files in Category:Photographs misdescribed as postcards (licensing templates). In that case I'll probably just leave the images as is for now since the text seems to be part of a template further upstream that isn't editable. As to the general questions,

• 1. It depends on the situation. Sometimes it's better to just delete the text, sometimes it isn't. No two situations are the same.
• 2. I think I am "entitled" to do it. I made a request to have similar text removed on the bot request board a month ago and no one objected to it at the time. I've also not received any objections since then. Even though as you can see multiple people have asked me about it, including admins. So I don't see why I wouldn't be.
• 3. It's the best solution to the problem that I and User:Stefan Kühn have come up with. There might be a better one, but we've both spent a lot of time editing in the area, that's what we came up with, and no one has proposed an alternative. It's not like there aren't maintenance categories already either. So I don't really see what the issue with how we are doing it is. I don't personally think the text is necessary in most cases. Although I've gone out of my to preserve any information about the files that might be useful.

Hopefully that's adequate. Of course there are multiple ways to do things on here and there's usually not a "best" way to do things across the board either. But I am open to any suggestions if you or anyone else has an alternative. Otherwise I plan to stick to how I'm currently doing things. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Ugh. Many thanks to Sitacuisses for making me aware of this funny situation! @Adamant1: In what way are my photos which you have added to Category:Photographs misdescribed as postcards (licensing templates) “misdescribed as postcards”? The licensing template just mentions the use of any of these photos for a postcard as an example (because several photos by me have been used for postcards by several re-users, e.g. by welfare and social facilities); it does not “describe” the photos as postcards. Therefore it seems obvious to me that the category does not apply to my photos. Could you please remove my photos again from your category? Or should I do it myself? Best, – Aristeas (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

PS1: Or you could rename your category to something describing the situation better; e.g. “Category:Files which are no postcards but use licensing templates using the word ‘postcard’”. That would indeed apply to my photos and I would have no objections. – Aristeas (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

PS2: Could you also please point us to a concise description of “the problem that I and User:Stefan Kühn have come up with”? Your statement above seems to assume that everybody already knows everything about that problem, but that’s not the case and we don’t have the time to browse all your edits just in order to understand what you are trying to do. – Aristeas (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aristeas: I have zero problem with using a different name for the category, but it follows the whole "Images misdescribed" thing of similar maintenance categories and I'm trying to keep things as uniform as possible to help organize it all. Plus, you have to admit that “Category:Files which are no postcards but use licensing templates using the word ‘postcard’” is a little convoluted. I don't see how it matters anyway since it's a hidden category to begin with either. That said, I'm more then willing to use a different name for the category if it makes sense and can follow how the other maintenance categories are named. Just as a side to that, although you uploaded the images, by doing so you agreed to have the community edit them and that inherently be in a way that you disagree with sometimes. Again, that's not to say I'm not open to renaming the category or doing some other solution, but it should at least be in a way that we can all agree on and doesn't make it harder for me or anyone else to keep track of things.

To your second PS, both User:Stefan Kühn and I have described the issue several times now, both on this talk page and in other places, and I don't feel like rehashing it. But to summarize, there's a special search here for JPEG files containing the word "postcard" either in their file name or descriptions, but aren't organized in a category for images of postcards. At one point it contained 52 thousands images, a lot of them not being actual images of postcards, and I've gotten it down to roughly 27,000 at this point. Anyway, things like the template in attached to your photograph pollutes the results. Therefore making it essentially impossible to find images of actual postcards. But adding Category:Photographs misdescribed as postcards (licensing templates) to the files is essentially a way to exclude them from the results. Since it includes the files in a category for postcards without being categorized in the process. I'm sure there might be a better way to do it, but as I've said, that's the one me and Stefan Kühn came up with. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The more I read, the more I'm convinced that this is an unproportional and unsustainable effort which you will have to explain again and again, but it's not the best solution. If your search doesn't work, you need to modify your search approach rather than delete words from tens of thousands of file descriptions. It should be sufficient to add some template/unique keyword to those files and modify your search in such a way that it doesn't show files which contain that keyword. I'm not an expert for the details of the advanced search feature, but I guess there are some pages where you can ask for help, like Commons:Village pump or en:Help talk:Searching. Make sure that the template or category name you add for that purpose is self-explanatory and unobtrusive. --Sitacuisses (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I can understand why you'd have that impression as someone who hasn't worked in the area for months like Stefan Kühn and I have. I'll probably modify the search to exclude certain things at some point, but there's hundreds of variations of the text and it wouldn't be practical to exclude them all. It's not like I didn't think of that though. I'll probably do it with the text in the template of your files at some point, but I'm still going through the images.

I'm aware of the village pump and help desk. I did actually ask in several places if the text in some instances could be removed by a bot or through AutoWikiBrowser and no one objected to it in either instance even though both conversations were open for weeks. So I don't think there's an issue with the edits per say. Although I agree that the maintenance categories aren't a sustainable long-term solution, but nowhere have I said they were meant to be one. Like I said, I will probably add an expectation to the search for certain sentences at some point, but it's just not there because of how many images and different versions of the text are left to be sorted through. Get back to me in a couple weeks or a month and that's probably what I'll do once I'm done organizing things though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You may have noticed by now that many people don't understand what you're doing at all, so if nobody objected your requests it may have been a combination of lack of understanding and COM:AGF. --Sitacuisses (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You'd have to agree that there's a difference between a couple of random people on my talk page not understanding something after the fact versus anyone having a problem with what I'm doing, it actually being, and me not being clear about what what I was doing in the original discussions. They aren't the same thing and I was pretty clear what my intent was when I made the original requests. Just because you don't understand it a month later doesn't have any bearing on that or automatically make it an issue, and I certainly haven't seen you give me a reason why it would be one. Let alone propose a solution. Be my guest though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm having trouble following this, and I realize it wasn't written for me, but Adamant1, are you saying that if the word "postcard" appears anywhere on a file page of a file that isn't a postcard, then it should be called "misdescribed as a postcard"? This template also mentions greeting cards, jewelry, etc. Does that make the image also misdescribed a greeting card, as jewelry etc.? If not, could you make a succinct statement as to why you are singling out "postcard" and what exactly is the problem you are trying to solve here? Again, I may be quite confused, so it may be that even the premise of my questions is wrong; if so, please clarify that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I'm mainly focusing on the word "postcard" so the images won't show up in this search for uncategorized images of postcards. Although I think the text is totally redundant and unhelpful to begin with outside of screwing with search results for uncategorized postcards, but I'm mainly editing and filtering it out just for that. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: couldn't you come up with a more innocuously named maintenance cat (or not even a cat, just a template that is used strictly as a tag and does not even produce any visible text, just an HTML comment), and adjust the search accordingly? - Jmabel ! talk 22:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I could. At least when it comes to a less innocuously named maintenance cat. I had actually planned on doing that or just removing thre category all together depending on the circumstances once things are more sorted out. I don't think its at that point though since there's still like 40 different versions of the text and I don't think there's a one size fits all solution here. I'm not sure how the template would work though, but I'm happy to look into it once things are at a more managable point. Probably in a week or two once I get down to less then 10,000 results since it won't load anymore past that. I'm not going implement something completely different now if it turns out there's no reason to once I've sorted things out though. Except maybe for changing the name of the category but it should be better then the current one and I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Feel free to make a suggestion if you have one though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

ANU

Hi, There is a thread concerning you on COM:ANU#Adamant1. Yann (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a note

Hi, I want to let you know that I reverted your "postcard" revert. Broichmore was right. If there are JPG and TIFF files of the same image they should not be in separate categories. That is the reasoning behind having Category:TIFF images with categorized JPGs and Category:LC TIF images with categorized JPGs‎ and Category:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs‎. It is my belief and also Jmabel's that Fæ (who uploaded these images before he was "driven off") would not have wanted the TIFF and JPG files in the same category. Infrogmation first alerted me to this during the time Fæ was uploading massive numbers of images. Although no one seems to be able to point to a formal "discussion" about this, other editors seem to agree in that they comply with this category arrangement. Krok6kola (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Krok6kola: I'm not going to push the issue since the whole thing just seems super petty and mundane to me, but Broichmore was the one who uploaded the images originally. So this has nothing to do with Fæ. Except for them coming up with the idea except specifically for images related to the Library of Congress, which these have nothing to do with. There's no reason what-so-ever that decision should have broader application to all TIFF images that are uploaded here, in perpetuity, or that are uploaded by other users and have nothing to do with the Library of Congress. Especially considering the lack of a formal "discussion" about it. At the end of the day we are here to curate images, which inherently includes putting them in relevant categories. It's at the back bone of the project and at least IMO anything that gets in the way of that goes against the projects goals. More so considering there has apparently been no discussion about it in this case, out of one conversation where at least a few people said they thought TIFFs should be able to go into categories regardless.

And just a note to @Jmabel: since he seems hung up on it, that's one of the reasons why I would call removing the categories vandalism. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism "vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose." I don't see how intentionally creating a scenario where it makes it harder for re-users to find an image, reverting some categorizing said image, and then continuing to do the revert while refusing to discuss them on your talk page doesn't "deliberately obstruct or defeat the project's purpose." Especially since again, there's apparently been no broader conversation about doing it that way out of files specifically related to the Fae or the Library of Congress and Commons:Categories certainly doesn't say anything about it. Although as I've said I'm not going to push the issue beyond what I have since it's extremely biennial to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not (refreshingly) not Wikipedia. Krok6kola (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The question is which approach actually aids the most discovery of the "correct" image by the largest number of people. I personally think that half-hiding TIFFs where there is an available version of the image in a more web-friendly format is a plus, not a minus. Again, I welcome a proper discussion of this as a policy/guideline issue, but users slagging each other over it is another matter. - Jmabel ! talk 19:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Shouldn't the person who thinks it's the proper way to do things be the one to discuss turning it into a policy/guideline though? Commons:Categories is a thing and an official policy in the meantime and there's no reason to ignore it over something that clearly hasn't been discussed. @Krok6kola: true, but I think at least according to @Jmabel: we inherit a lot of their guidelines and policies, at least in spirit if not officially. I see no reason the definition of "vandalism" would be that different here then on Wikipedia regardless. Although admittedly Commons:Vandalism is rather sparse on the details. Who knows though, maybe it is. But I can only go off of the definitions I have available to me and at least @Jmabel: (if no one else) thinks policies transfer between projects. So..... --Adamant1 (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It's been a longstanding consensus among at least a large number of the people who import a lot of GLAM content. Yes, it would appear that one of the few formal discussions of it dealt with certain NARA/LOC content, but the basis for the conclusions there does not seem to me to have had anything to do with the origin of the content beyond it coming from a GLAM, and there have been many years of edits by many people going the same direction. I think it would be a reasonable thing do discuss and while you are right that, in principle, it probably should have had a more formal discussion before being treated as anything like a guideline, I think that the current informal consensus runs more in Broichmore's direction than yours, so, really, it would make just as much sense for you to propose that people stop doing this as for someone to propose that this become a formal policy. - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I have zero problem with proposing people stop doing it in theory. I probably would have done that if not for the petty, uncooperative way Broichmore dealt with it. I do think it's generally on the person who continues an edit war by claiming their edits are fine because they uploaded the images to further discuss things though. Otherwise, really why would I or else anyone care about their opinion? Admittedly this isn't a court, but I think the burden of proof that it was OK to remove the categories was on Broichmore regardless and one of the ways they could have done that is by starting a conversation about it on the Village pump. I don't see much use in me doing that simply to be like "Hey, is it cool to categorize images?" That seems like a no brainer. Especially since I was recently criticized on ANU for asking to many questions. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

A Farewell to Arms and Derivative Works

Hello! I noticed you posted a comment over on this deletion request. You are right that the work gets its own copyright, and in this case that copyright had expired in 1960. However under subsequent court rulings, including Stewart v. Abend, the derivative works are subject to the copyright of the original since they are utilizing that original works' ideas. The most famous example of this is It's a Wonderful Life which is in the public domain, but its source material is not. The derivative is then restricted in its re-use until both it and the original are public domain. In the case of A Farewell to Arms that will be public domain next year thus freeing up re-use on Commons of both the book and the 1932 film. SDudley (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrong category, please remove

Hello @Adamant1,

why do you sort many of my pictures into the "Category:Photographs misdescribed as postcards (licensing templates)". This word does not appear at all in the image description. I only asked for the following in the "Using this image" section: "If you use this image in printed media (e.g. in a book, for a postcard, etc.), please send me a sample copy. Thank you very much!". But this has nothing to do with the image description. So could you please remove this category from all my pictures, as this category is completely wrong.

Many thanks in advance and best regards --Joachim Köhler (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Joachim Köhler: I've already explained it pretty thoroughly in conversations about it above this one that your free to read through. I don't really feel like repeating myself about it. Except to say that it's hidden anyway and will be removed once I'm done with what I'm doing. Although I'm open to a name for the category that better describes things in the meantime. I have yet to see anyone present one though, but that would be one option on your end if you think it's that much of a problem. Otherwise, like I've said it will dealt with once I'm done. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Adamant1,

Thank you for your answer. I have already read the explanations before I wrote this request here. But the more I read, the less I understood. However, I suspect that the problem is not the name of the category, but the query, i.e. the search for the corresponding files. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on Wikidata queries (although I do know a bit about SQL queries). But if I have understood the problem correctly, then you would have to restrict the query to the "Description" section and search for the term postcard in the most common languages. I have no idea whether this would solve your problem. You can only ask the experts how to query this correctly.

Best regards --Joachim Köhler (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh. I guess I just assumed that if you have read through the explanations before then you would have known the category is temporary and that I'm going to remove it from the files when I'm done with what I'm doing. As far as I know this isn't a thing to do with Wikidata queries. Although I didn't come up with the custom search I'm using to find uncategorized images of postcards originally. Regardless, what I'll probably do when I'm done sorting everything out is exclude certain templates from the search if it's possible. I'm not at that point yet though and I'd prefer if things stay how they are until I'm done. Otherwise it just screws up what I'm doing. It's not like there aren't maintenance categories or that those categories are 100% descriptive of their purpose to begin with anyway. Often times I don't understand them myself, but yet, I'm not out there asking for them to be removed from the files they have been added to either. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: should he feel free to remove this category? Because, if not, then it is misnamed. - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I don't think he should because it will screw up what I'm using it for. I've said above multiple times now that people who think it is misnamed can propose a better one and I'll move the images. I don't see you or anyone else giving me another name for the category though. Even though your the ones who seem to have a problem with it. Personally, I think it's fine and this whole thing is being way over discussed. How many files are there in Category:PD textlogo that aren't technically "only simple geometric shapes or text" and where is anyone being burned at the stake about it? Regardless, propose a name and I'll create another category, but I think the current one is fine for now and there isn't a name that will satisfy everyone or be totally, 100% perfectly descriptive anyway. Like seriously, why not just let me finish what I'm doing and deal with it on my own like I said I'm in the process of doing? You can't honestly tell me it's that much of an issue that it's worth all this overwrought concern trolling over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

"Photographs possibly misdescribed a postcards (licensing templates)". "Temp cat for Adamant1's postcard template check". Etc. The cat name shouldn't say they are "misdescribed" if that is only TBD. - Jmabel ! talk

It's not TBD though. The templates in the files contain the word "postcard" and category filters them out of a search for uncategorized images of postcards, which is the whole point. Although I "misdescribed" isn't optimal language, but then no one has proposed an alternative either. So...really at the end of the day I rather just exclude templates containing the word "postcard" from the search. I just haven't quite gotten there yet. I really don't appreciate people acting like how I'm currently doing it is an issue without actually saying why or proposing an alternative though. It really comes off like "I just don't like it." --Adamant1 (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: and @Joachim Köhler: I created Category:Temporary maintenance category for files containing images of photographs containing the word "postcard", but in the file name or description, not in the template and Category:Temporary maintenance category for files containing images of photographs containing templates containing the word "postcard" hopefully they are more descriptive. Although I think the names are absolutely Fing trash, but I guess on other people for concern trolling about it without coming up with better names. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

}} and