User talk:Magog the Ogre

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34

Your offer to help explain decisions

I've been engaged in a discussion with Fastily on his talk page with regards to "Flag of the Royal Military College of Canada.svg". To summarise my take on the discussion, 1. The image is traced (copied) from a website depicting ©2014 Royal Military Colleges Club of Canada, 2. The Canadian Armed Forces manual dealing with flags and their use states under para. 43 that all current CAF flags are held under copyright (excerpt at deletion discussion). The legal explanation for how PD50 does not always apply were included at a page Fastily deleted ( copyhere). I don't want to unduly impinge upon your time, but I was wondering, since you've said that Fastily is your friend and that 'you almost always side with him', if you'd be able to explain to me what I'm missing here, namely why a reverse onus appears to have been applied in this case (proving a work is copyrighted vice proving it is PD), and why in this case official claims to copyright are not 'good enough' to cause some sort of doubt. Also, to be clear I have no problem with the Admin in question, I simply don't understand the decision. Thank you very much for any time you're willing to offer. trackratte (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from forum shopping. This isn't doing anything to help your case. -FASTILY 21:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Any user "who feels like Fastily didn't give a proper response is free to ask me on my talk page for clarification on anything...As I almost always agree with Fastily, this should rarely present a problem"-Magog the Ogre
This isn't forum shopping, if it were, I wouldn't be making this request here, to someone who has already stated that they nearly always agree with you. I think you misunderstand the point of this exercise. It isn't to get a different answer, it's to have the answer explained. I've asked you point blank twice now, to which you've never responded. You've also asked me to 'stop bothering you' and to 'stop wasting your time'. A number of things are unclear to me, for example, why you appear to apply a reverse onus, why you closed a discussion by saying 'no arguments or sources presented' when I provided 3 arguments and roughly 30 sources, why you disregard evidence of copyright, why you assume PD when zero evidence of PD was presented, why you keep accusing me of presenting an essay (more a simple collection of sourced quotes actually) as official policy, etc. Fully realising you don't feel you have enough time to 'waste' on me, I thought I'd take up Magog's offer if it still stands.
Also, you accuse me of 'revenge seeking', and 'not helping my case'. This is not the way I see things. "Commons is a collaborative project, and not a battleground where there are victors & losers. When one person loses, we all do". trackratte (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yikes, Trackratte. You and Fry were doing an absolutely fantastic job of talking right past each other, and that's about all I can ascertain, despite having stared at it for a good ten minutes. Can you please give me the TL;DR version outlining:

• Your argument
• Fry's argument
• Why your argument is valid, and Fry's is not.

Also, please don't say "I don't agree with the decision, therefore we have to delete." Obstinance on the part of one party is not reason enough to invoke the precautionary principle. Rather, we invoke the precautionary principle when the law is clear that there is doubt. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The reasoning underlying PD as I understand it:

1. This image is a user made rendition-->not a copy or a derivative work.

2. Flag is too old-->PD 50.

3. The Berne Convention bans perpetual copyright.

The reasoning underlying copyright as I understand it:

1. The page source states "Image of the crest traced from [1]" --> ie image was copied from a website with a "©2014 Royal Military Colleges Club of Canada" disclaimer (no indication image is PD in source).

2. Para 43 of the Canadian Armed Forces manual governing military flags and their use (A-AD-200-000/AG-000) states "Current CF flags are protected under copyright" (full paragraph quoted at outset of deletion discussion). This is a current CF flag.

3. Just because it's user made, doesn't mean it's PD. See here for sources I quoted explaining derivative works.

4. PD 50 does not always apply for Crown Copyright, particularly those involving prerogative (ie depicting the Crown). See here for primary and secondary sources.

5. Discussions on perpetual copyright not entirely relevant (point is if this image is presently under copyright). Plus, see section 7 of the Convention ("the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed")

My understanding of Commons policy is that proof of copyright is generally not even required, however explicit proof of PD is, especially where an element of doubt is introduced. Also, to reiterate, my intent here is not to necessarily have a decision changed, but primarily to explain why a reverse onus appears to have been used. Thanks for all of your time. trackratte (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

My response to each of your points above:

1. This is a problem if the site drew the image with sufficient originality on its own. That is, it might be a problem under the representation section of COM:COA. I wish you had focused more on this point in the discussion (I am not pointing fingers, only making a statement). I invite User:Fastily to comment if he thinks there is sufficient cause to reopen the DR on this basis.

2. I believe the CAF manual does not create copyright law, but only reports on it. In order to know the PD status of a work, we should look at the law it is referring to. We can refer to their statements, but only as the opinion of an expert, not as their own authority. When they state "current CF flags", I presume they are talking about flags that were created recently, unless they state otherwise.

3. This is a rehash of #1.

4. You may have a good point here, but you've provided a general statement. It doesn't quote the law in its original so that we can make a determination of when such a condition might apply, nor does give any examples of where it has occurred previously. Please provide these so that we can make a proper determination.

5. This is part of the same issues as #4.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time. I approached this whole process from the perspective that an image must be proven PD, and not the other way around.

So, the references to copyright lasting beyond the normal 50 years (Section 12 of the Copyright Law being the quote of actual law in its original) was simply to say that PD50 does not always apply (which was the only evidence offered to show PD), and that this by itself is not enough to counteract copyright claims. And you're absolutely right, the CAF manual does not create copyright law, I was using it simply to show that the copyright owner claims copyright, and simply outlined reliable, expert, secondary sources to show how this claim is legal.

That all being said, if images are assumed to be PD unless absolutely proven to be copyrighted, and copyright claims by the owner and copyright disclaimers on the source website are not enough, then I suppose it was a moot exercise to begin with ha. trackratte (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You haven't even bothered to show where prerogative copyright applies. The point of the precautionary principle is to avoid having people upload works where the status is unclear, not to go back and delete images uploaded in good faith with good reason to believe they are public domain, and for which we still have good reason to state that there is no reasonable doubt that they are in the public domain.

I'm sorry, you're going to have to do better than that. By the standard of doubt you're raising, Commons couldn't host images from 1909-1922 because of the 9th circuit court decision. But we don't work that way. We believe something is PD when the law states it is so, and if there is an exception to the clearly established rule, yes, it is your responsibility to find it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In my mind, when the source is not PD, and the copyright owner explicitly claims copyright, and such a copyright is supported by Section 12 of the Copyright Act (direct reading and legal expert interpretation and case-law), then that is a cause of significant doubt.

Your reference to reasonable doubt and the processes employed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lifchus ("burden of proof rests on the prosecution throughout the trial and never shifts to the accused"), would only apply to legal proceeding where there is a prosecution and a defence, which I'm to understand runs counter to COM:DR ("the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept"). My only point was that the only sourced argument for 'keep' was PD50, to which I showed does not always apply. Ie if the burden of proof is on those wishing to keep the file, then PD50 is not proof by itself.

In any event, that wasn't my primary question, since it grossly affects how I see everything here, it's simply this: Is a file assumed PD and need to be proven copyright, or is a file assumed copyrighted until proven PD? Is the burden of proof with those who wish to keep the file, or is it with those who present evidence showing copyright?

As I'm sure you can appreciate, the answer to those two questions drastically changes the entire scope of copyright discussions and DR requests. I apologise if I'm out of the loop so to speak on what rules users are generally operating under. I only have the Official Guidelines and Policies to read to 'get up to speed' on here. COM:DR, "consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy" being one of these official policies that I've been operating under. COM:DW ("It doesn't matter if a drawing of a copyrighted character's likeness is created entirely by the uploader without any other reference than the uploader's memory. A non-free copyrighted work simply cannot be rendered free without the consent of the copyright holder, not by photographing, drawing nor sculpting") being another one that I was operating under in good-faith, which Fry has alerted me runs counter to consensus and what has been applied here in the past.

Once again, my thanks for taking the time to bring me up to speed here. trackratte (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for adding even more stuff for you to read, but you asked me about where crown prerogative copyright would apply. So, under the Copyright Act, any time a work is created by or under the direction of the Government of Canada, Crown Copyright automatically applies. Prerogative comes into play when the Crown is granted as part of those arms:

• "Only a few prerogative powers are exercised personally by the Queen or her representatives...in Canada these powers include: ... grants of coats of arms, flags and heraldry (the Canadian Heraldic Authority) [and] use of the Crown in symbols and of the title “Royal” for organizations"[2].
• "A grant of Arms is an honour from the Crown and an exercise of the Royal Prerogative", and "The use of the two Royal Crowns was approved personally by The Queen".[3]
• "Coats of arms thus developed as grants of honour received from a sovereign exercising his or her personal prerogative". [4]
• And "prerogative right...is not subject to the usual statutory copyright term. The royal prerogative is referenced at the start of section 12 of the Copyright Act - the section is 'without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown'".[5]

So anytime a grant of Arms is created for a state organisation that depicts the physical Crown itself, the personal prerogative of the Sovereign is used to make that legally happen. I'm not saying that section 12 is always or automatically invoked, I'm saying that PD50 does not constitute proof of PD in the rare and limited case of State Arms depicting the physical Crown. trackratte (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Trackratte: just because someone claims copyright does not make the claim valid. We have plenty of Commons precedence for this - I've seen us ignore copyright claims by The Smithsonian Institute (PD-USGov), the District of Columbia (also PD-USGov), and anything PD-art. Do you have good reason to believe that the Crown is specifically claiming a prerogative in this instance? Because I don't see that - instead, I see what is an incorrect copyright statement.

As for the links you provided (thank you!), those are not necessarily copyright prerogatives; they refer to any royal prerogative. The prerogative in this case appears suspiciously like a non-copyright restriction. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! And seriously, if you're annoyed with the conversation just let me know and I'll stop hassling you. I just enjoy the discussion. Also, I cleaned up those links and added some more reliable ones here.

Royal prerogative is a general grouping of powers within the Canadian legal system, and do not change simply based on the specific legal realm in which they are applied. For example, one of the above quotes from a law journal speaks about prerogative and its specific application to copyright law, even going so far as to point out the exact legal instrument which explicitly legislates copyright prerogative (Section 12 of the Copyright Act) and quoting it. Whether the Crown applies this prerogative is simply based on whether or not they would even post a takedown notice to Commons, however, as the sources illustrate, such a notice would be completely legal. Akin to COM:PCP where if we were to only accept that copyright applies to this case if and only when the organisation legally applies it, and not before.

The core argument being on whether PD50 is proof of PD in this case. Which in standard copyright cases it is, it is even proof enough in 99.9% of all Crown Copyright cases, which is why I think there is so much resistance here, since it is the norm which is nearly univerally applied in Canada and is completely unheard of in most circles. However, any works depicting the Crown cannot legally be created without prerogative (ie personal approval of the head of state), to which Crown copyright is automatically created on publication by a Crown agency.

And as we can see from Canadian legislation, "No enactment is binding on Her Majesty or affects Her Majesty or Her Majesty's rights or prerogatives in any manner, except as mentioned or referred to in the enactment", where the Copyright Act itself outlines in Section 12 how prerogative works are "not subject to the usual statutory copyright term".

So my main concern is simply what proof do those wishing to keep the file have that this file is PD (COM:EVID)? trackratte (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not tired of your posting on my page. But to be honest, I am becoming a bit wary of the fact that you keep posting the same argument over and over while ignoring all statements to the contrary. I've already told you what COM:EVID means and why it doesn't apply. I'm not going to repeat it again just because you can't seem to acknowledge the statement. Technically, anything is possible, but that doesn't mean we never upload any work, ever, because there is some remote possibility that there is a valid copyright claim over the work.

As for the prerogative, it appears that the crown has the right to overrule any copyright law if it chooses. However, unless it explicitly chooses, the item has fallen into the public domain. Unless I see a specific text showing the queen has claimed perpetual copyright prerogative to override the legislation, I will be forced to trust the legislation. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

From a Copyright Board of Canada decision by Justice Vancise, et al, "[55] Therefore, as a matter of statutory interpretation, when reading section 12 in the context of the Act, the terms “without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown” must be read to mean those rights and prerogatives as they relate to Crown copyright. We therefore find that section 12 relates exclusively to matters of copyright and cannot be read to infer any intent on behalf of Parliament to maintain Crown immunity." --> This landmark decision was made in 2012 that the Crown does not have the "right to overrule any copyright law it chooses", but only with regards to certain types of Crown copyright.

From In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law published by Irwin Law: "section 12 provides for Crown copyright and preserves the pre-statutory Crown prerogative" (p.552), and "That said, section 12 begins by preserving historical copyright privileges, which pre-exist the copyright legislation. Section 12 is introduced with the important caveat that it is “[w]ithout prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown.” This residue preserves the traditional royal prerogative to print certain works" (p.553). --> Prerogative cannot "override the legislation", the prerogative is 'preserved' and is part of the legislation itself. Saying prerogative is being used to override the legislation is akin to saying that it is overriding itself. So, in this case I fail to see how being 'forced to trust the legislation' means the ignorance of the former aspects of the section in preference for the latter.

If you require 'a specific text showing the crown claims copyright', which may be perfectly fair, why then do you not require a specific text showing this specific image to be PD? Maybe because PD50 is thought of as automatic, and the prerogative as not. However, prerogative copyright is automatically used in the creation/publication of an image depicting the Crown. If it were not, the subsequent image would be illegal.

Please do not construe this as an argument, but as a dialectic discussion towards a 'truth'. Cheers. trackratte (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see the the Crown oftentimes claims copyright under the aegis of existing legislation. How do we know what it claims copyright over? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

According to Canadian copyright law, the Crown automatically claims copyright on any work created by, or under the direction of, the Crown (ie state). Crown copyright in unpublished works is perpetual, but lasts for only 50 years after the year of official publication.

Crown prerogative copyright however, is notoriously fuzzy (which is why there has been a substantial movement in Canada over the past several decades by copyright experts and stakeholders to get rid of it entirely). For example, from the Irwin Law reference above, "... section 12 of the Copyright Act should be amended. The provision should be re-drafted to elucidate its scope and application...The royal prerogative makes it difficult for users to ascertain what types of materials are covered in this perpetual printing right" (p.555).

However, just because 'there is no exhaustive list of the categories of works that are covered under the royal prerogative' (Rex v. Bellman, 1938, 3 DLR 548), that does not mean that we do not have any list at all, as in fact we do. For example, "[o]ne of the royal prerogatives of the Crown is the ability to grant such arms to institutions and individuals" (Canada's Constitutional Monarchy, Nathan Tildridge, 2011, p.169), and the "royal prerogative of granting coats of arms, badges, and flags" (The Crown and Canadian Federalism, M. Jackson, 2013, p. 37). And where "a right to certain works by prerogative amounts to a perpetual term of copyright protection" (Invisible Crown: The First Principle of Canadian Government, David Smith, 2013, p. 77).

So, whenever a work is created 'by or under the direction of the crown', this work is automatically protected by Crown copyright, and when such a creation is a legal product of the prerogative, then 'a right to this work by prerogative amounts to a perpetual term of copyright protection'.

Long story short, "How do we know what it claims [prerogative] copyright over?". We don't. An exhaustive list simply does not exist. However, we do know, conclusively, that state arms are part of this list. Whether such a legal right would ever be exercised in the form of a take down notice is a completely different story, which would be a valid discussion for an outside agency to have if they wished to weigh the risks, however such a discussion is beyond the scope of Commons due to official policy. - trackratte (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I also found this:

The common law has determined the contents of the Crown prerogative. It is now possible to propose a current non-exhaustive contents list: a. Foreign affairs, b. War and peace, c. Treaty-making, d. Other acts of state in matters of foreign affairs, and e. Defence and the armed forces. Other powers and privileges considered Crown prerogatives include those respecting passports, power of mercy, diplomatic appointments, public inquires, hiring and dismissal of public servants, administration and disposal of public lands, copyright, armorial bearings, and honours and titles. (Crown Law, Paul Lordon, 1991, pp. 75-105 as referenced in A-LG-007-SLA/AF-002, 2008, p.7)

trackratte (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to say, I think that the precautionary principle wasn't made for situations like this. It was made in order to force uploaders to provide a rationale showing something is free so that Wikimedia wouldn't be full of "maybe it's free, maybe it's not" works. It wasn't made for times when the lawmakers couldn't get their act together and pass a law in a way that even copyright lawyers could understand.

In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, I say we host the darned things if they are legally questionable, just like we did with URAA images until the Supreme Court clarified the law and said we couldn't. The only exception should be a time when the law is unambiguous that Crown Prerogative applies to a work.

If that means we have to create a new template like {{Canada Crown Prerogative}} which states that "hey, we're not 100% sure about the copyright status of this, use at your own risk," then so be it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems sensible enough, although to be clear, the ambiguity within expert circles is due to the lack of an 'exhaustive list', and not with whether or not coats of arms and copyright fall under the prerogative, as they clearly do. Although there is a movement amongst stakeholders that they shouldn't be.

In any event, I think that your proposal is a suitable solution in the interim, since I think we have a responsibility to provide as much info as possible "as a public service" to the end user regarding possible problems with reuse, somewhat akin to why we would apply trademark templates as well.

Also, to bring it back to the original reason why I started this whole process in the first place, I finally received an email from IntellectualProperty-Proprieteintellectuelle@forces.gc.ca regarding the Flag of the Royal Military College of Canada.svg stating:

Firstly, Zscout370 is not the author of the RMC Flag and therefore has no authority to release it to any organization. That individual may be under the mistaken belief that because they have translated the flag into an alternate form (e.g. a vector image) that it is their original work and they are free to distribute it. This is incorrect. A digital version of the flag is an unoriginal derivative work which cannot be used without the permission of the owner of the underlying work - in this case DND.

Although they do conflate Commons with Wikipedia and go on about Trademark as well. I sent the email to OTRS, which I apologies in advance if I wasn't correct to do so. The point being that the Department seems to believe that they could enforce their copyright on a military badge (from the Arms) even though it's over 50 years old. Although they do go on to say that "As previously stated, the department does not generally take issue with public, non-commercial use such as the posting on Wikipedia for information purposes", and don't seem to understand why anyone would have issue with the file on Wikipedia (as I mentioned the distinction between Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons seems lost on them). trackratte (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

In line with your suggestion, I threw something together at my sandbox. I obviously have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to templating, but maybe something like this is what you had in mind? trackratte (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment

You know, I'm really not that surprised at your accusation of supposed ad hominem hypocrisy, but I am surprised at your accusation I never ever address the nominating reasons when I participate in DRs. That's in direct conflict with almost every DR I've participated in, and especially quite a few where I have very aggressively and successfully addressed the issues surrounding a file both in favour and opposition to it's deletion. If you're going to make a claim like that, you really should make sure it's true. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I will come up with a list soon. I assure you that it will be quite long. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

About File:NOA MOON enforet © Simon Vanrie.jpg

Resolved

Hello, about this photo uploaded last week : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NOA_MOON_enforet_%C2%A9_Simon_Vanrie.jpg

Simon Vanrie (the owner and author) has sent the email to permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org Please tell me if it's ok ;-) I think so because the warning is not there anymore, but as it's my very first upload I'm not sure.

Thanks for the follow up !

K — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kheops42 (talk • contribs) 09:50, May 27, 2014‎ (UTC)

[EDIT] OK we got the confirmation email. [/EDIT] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kheops42 (talk • contribs) 09:59, May 27, 2014‎ (UTC)

Problem with Template:PD-Art

Hi Magog, I just noticed that you changed Template:PD-Art last January, a few months after I changed it. Unfortunately, you changed it in such a way that it doesn't make any sense. It currently reads:

The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain. In other jurisdictions, re-use of this content may be restricted; see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for details.

Because you removed the language referring to the United States, the wording "in other jurisdictions" now has no referrent. Additionally, I think the current language gives the false impression that these works are known to be in the public domain throughout the world, which is not the case. I don't know how to deal with this, but it certainly needs to be revisited, as it's very confusing and misleading at the moment. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dcoetzee: so we add the phrase "in the United States"? That doesn't seem like a terribly difficult solution. And the reason I removed the last statement is because you were making the demonstrably untrue statement that such works are absolutely in the PD in the United States. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stuartzs

I have opened this SPI over on enwp you may like to keep an eye on it as the same editors have been uploading copyvios here. Thanks LGA _talk^edits 00:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Now confirmed; do I need to start a SPI here as well ? LGA _talk^edits 22:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@LGA: I've contacted DRoD privately to have him forward me the information. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@LGA: I've blocked Stuartzs. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, should the same apply to the sock accounts :

KobieTale (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Stko123 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

BBibble (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

DasGib (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Viz44 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

MistyEye (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Statdata (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

as well ? LGA _talk^edits 05:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• In case you missed it but Stuartzs‎‎ has left you a message at User talk:Stuartzs‎‎. LGA _talk^edits 22:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks; I hadn't seen it due to watchlist clutter. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

To be fair.

Even though the users edits are a high COI, the image File:NE corner 2014-05-30 10-17.jpg was a much higher resolution than the Herald image; I think it may genuinely be the user's own work. B137 (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As I stated on the user's talk page, the user can prove his or her identity (i.e., the designer) and the rights to the image through OTRS. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

excluding subcatories at the OgreBot

Hello Magog, Did you consider to add the option to your bot to exclude subcategories? I am not exactly aware if it is possible already, but as far I know it is not. The reason why I am posting you this is that at the following page there is a category connected to a subcategory, that doesn't fit into the topic of the page by the User Pingelig: Pingelig/Recent Uploads/Canton of Thurgau

The pages are supposed to collect all the images of the Canton of Thurgau, a region in Switzerland. But there is a company called Stadler Rail which is very important internationally. Now, since there are many pictures added to the category of Stadler Rail which are not taken in the Canton of Thurgau, it would be nice, if this category could be removed from the Bot. --Sevku (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Nordlicht8/Equestriansports: opt-out Category:Racing silks

Hi, can you please opt-out the category Category:Racing silks for User:Nordlicht8/Equestriansports? Thank you! --Nordlicht8 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

{{PD-in}} bug report

Hi, Magog... what an amazing series of templates! Fantastic work... just a quick bug report - I've tried finding the source of the error myself, but have been unable to so far. For works of cinema that are not PD in Europe, something seems to be going wrong with the interaction of {{PD-in/layout}} and {{PD-in/Europe}}, where {{PD-in/Europe}} ends up getting an additional "style="background:#66ff66"|Public domain", so maybe something is wrong with the order of the switch statement... or I could be totally wrong. Anyway, you can see the behavoir on, for example, File:Bride_gip.jpg and navigating to Europe. As an aside, I removed what looked like a wayward asterisk, but of course that's tangential. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That was an old project I undertook when I had more free time on my hands. It was going along quite well until I realized that, at the time, Mediawiki simply could not handle that depth of templating. It was taking like 30 seconds to render. Unfortunately, I abandoned it.

Small aside: To be frank, I now also find it difficult to care as much when we already tolerate copyright violations on Commons, to the extent that sourcing and permission requirements are all but ignored, and even our own administrators explicitly flout the law and Commons policy. I realize this is not a good excuse, as end-users absolutely care, but it is how I feel.

However, I would be happy to assist you if you wanted to take it up. Now that we have Lua scripting, it should again be feasible. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Magog! I will consider it, but just need to learn Lua... I'll ping you to take you up on the offer to assist if and when I get around to it. I understand your frustrations, too... but I hope that they are manageable in light of the huge collaborative effort that, despite disagreements and despite mistakes, and perhaps in fits and starts, is taking place here, and making the world just a little better. We have too many disheartened contributors, both here and on enWiki and each time I see something like this (just the most recent example in my mind), it is deeply saddening. Thanks again, Storkk (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Permission

I had already sent e-mail with permission to OTRS about imageFile:Espírito Eugênia-Aspásia.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luidje (talk • contribs) 21:35, June 8, 2014‎ (UTC)

In that case, could you please mark the image with the corerct OTRS ticket, or, if you don't have one yet, with {{OTRS pending}}? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you, very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luidje (talk • contribs) 21:40, June 8, 2014‎ (UTC)

I mark with {{OTRS pending}}, becouse I don't have ticket yet. Sincerely,

Luidje (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

message at AniteSpike

Hello, Magog the Ogre. You have new messages at BrunoMed's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--AniteSpike (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Pozdrav Ameru!!!

These three pictures "image within an image" (File:Images of London.JPG, File:City of Zagreb.JPG, File:Images of Rijeka.JPG) are exclusively my pictures including File:Subtitle Workshop.JPG

Thanks!!!--BrunoMed (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)