User talk:Nlavecchia58

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As a rule, free images are preferred over non-free images when the subject of an article is a living person. You will need to provide compelling reasons why we should use the image above and File:Jack Melick Las Vegas 1966.jpg rather than locate images that may be freely licensed for any use. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have restored the maintenance tag to File:Melick and Morgan Reno 1960.jpg. This is an image usable by Wikipedia only under fair use guidelines, and it is not currently in use in any articles.

The rules for image uploads can be tricky on Wikipedia. For instance, "is used by his permission for the sole purpose of a Wiki biographical article on his life" means the image is not under a free license, because it cannot be used for any purposes. If the image were under free license, it could be reproduced and reused by other parties with no more than attribution due back to the rights holder.

I strongly recommend that you do not upload any more images until you have gotten assistance from an experienced user who can explain the guidelines to you. —C.Fred (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest upload, File:Jack Melick 2012.jpg, contains contradictory licensing terms:

1. "He owns the picture and reserves all rights."
2. "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version"

Which license term holds? Unless we get confirmation from Melick, we must assume it's the first one. —C.Fred (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...And I see from this edit that you've confirmed it's the first one. Please be aware that this image is under the very restrictive non-free image rules and likely cannot be used in an article about Melick. —C.Fred (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because for some reason, the only way to upload the photo was to select some sort of license that releases all rights. I am in the process of going back through to delete all contradictions. However, the images were freely givcen to me by the owner. No payment was made or required, so they are in no respect "non-free." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlavecchia58 (talk • contribs)

"Non-free" has less to do with how you got the images than how others may use them. Effectively, there is no "for use on Wikipedia only" license. Either the image is free for use by the readers or it isn't. If Mr. Melick is reserving all rights to the images, than the image is non-free. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are tagging the photos I am uploading of Mr. Melick. Of course these photos are not in use because they have not been linked to the article I am writing yet!!! Are you saying that to publish an article on this celebrity figure, he has to relinquish all rights to his image???? I'm sure the estates of Stan Kenton, Guy Lombardo, or Bill Evans, for example, did agree to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlavecchia58 (talk • contribs) (copied from User talk:C.Fred)

Let's see. The image in Stan Kenton is under the Creative Commons 3.0 license, released by the photographer. The image of Guy Lombardo was purchased by the Library of Congress and, per the photographer's wishes, entered the public domain in 2010. The image of Bill Evans was licensed by the photographer under GFDL and CC 3.0. So, yes, the rightsholders of those photographs did give those images away for free use. —C.Fred (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is a surprise. Okay, I will fix all these as I need to use them for the article which is in progress.

Or make a low-res crop of certain of the images and get Mr. Melick to release those versions under Creative Commons license. Then, it's a low-res version, so his future commercial use of the image is protected, while the image is freely available for use within Wikipedia and derivative projects. —C.Fred (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These already are low-res crops of original photos.There appear to be a couple versions of Creative Commons license. Which one do you recommend?

For images I take and upload, I use CC-BY-SA 3.0. See File:I-20 GA 402 bridge sign.JPG, for example. —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Nlavecchia58 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So anyway, what exactly would the code look like for a third party? Nlavecchia58 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All photos have been updated to release to the public domain. Do you mind removing those warnings you attached to my files? I will be using the links in his bio. Nlavecchia58 (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a GFDL license tag now on File:Pianist Jack Melick Summer 1966.jpg. Can you confirm these two things, please:

1. Melick has personally placed the images under that license (since he owns copyright to the image).
2. Melick is aware that the license permits unlimited reuse, including commercial reuse.

Wikipedia is skeptical when third parties license others' works for them under free licenses; it's possible that other editors may contact Melick to verify that he has donated the pictures. —C.Fred (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am a writer, not a copyright attorney. He has given me all the photos for use as I see fit in organizing his biography. I am ready to post the article in Wiki, and use these image links to support the article about him. I feel fairly confident that Wiki would judge he is a noteworthy character. I'm finding this stunning enough to believe that the simple use of some photographs can be so difficult. If the GFDL permits unlimited commercial re-use then that is not the way we want to go. Which Common License will be acceptable in the Wiki community for posting a simple biography of a very interesting and even historical celebrity?

• CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licenses are acceptable. However, they also permit third-party commercial use and creation of derivative works. That's the very definition of a free license. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• If the image is NOT under a free license, as a general rule it can't be used on Wikipedia. There's a
  fair use exception; however, fair use images are normally not permitted in articles about living people, because they are normally replaceable - a user could take a photo of the person and publish it under a free license. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yes, this is what C.Fred has been explaining. I'll just update with the new license. Nlavecchia58 (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All photos have been released to the public domain. Nlavecchia58 (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jack Melick Orchestra at Oberlin 1949.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  OTRS pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NtheP (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC) And to avoid quadrupling the length of your talk page the same applies to[reply]

• File:Jack Melick 2012.jpg
• File:Jack Melick Las Vegas 1966.jpg
• File:Jack Melick Yokohama 1953.jpg
• File:Pianist Jack Melick Summer 1966.jpg
• File:Jack Melick Japan 1965.jpg
• File:Melick and Morgan Reno 1960.jpg
• File:Jack Melick Boston 1957.jpg
• File:Palmer Orch featuring Jack Melick 1955.jpg
• File:Melick and Umeki Japan 1952.jpg
• File:Melick Show Japan 1953.jpg

I don't doubt that you have permission but we have to be sure that the owner of the copyright (not the subject) has granted permission. One email can cover all of them. NtheP (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The owner of the photos and copyright holder, Mr. John T. Melick, Jr. is currently entertaining a group on a cruise ship. I will do my best to get him to forward you an email granting permission to publish his photographs. He may or may not be able to forward that permission by 1/22/13. I attempted to read your image use policy. As I am only a humble writer, and not a copyright attorney or nuclear physicist, I was really unable to assimilate this very complex policy. I do not believe the photos I have uploaded, nor the way I have uploaded them, nor the spirit in which I have uploaded them for use in his own bio, violates your policies in any respect.Nlavecchia58 (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me be very clear, I am not questioning your motives or conduct in the slightest and believe it or not I am trying to help make sure that these images are correctly licensed (and I'm not a copyright lawyer either). In a nutshell the image use policy is that all images must have their copyright status clearly stated and proven. So for images like these Wikipedia must have received explicit consent from the copyright holder that they agree to these images being released into the public domain. Ok so you've spoken to John Melick and he's told you it's ok, that's fine but you need to prove that said conversation took place. I'm afraid that "your word s your bond" isn't enough hence the request for an email.

Now the other concern is that John Melick is not the copyright holder of these photos. In the vast majority of cases the copyright is held by the photographer not the subject of the photos and it is the rights of the photographer that have to be protected. I know this can be quite a difficult concept to get to grips with but even if a friend takes a snapshot of me and gives it to me, I still don't own the copyright on the photo unless my friend expressly transfers that copyright to me. That applies even if there is never any intention by either of us to do anything with the photo except stick it in an album and reminisce over it 30, 40, 50 years later. You've been quite correct and honest about identifying the authors as best you can and for something like File:Jack Melick Orchestra at Oberlin 1949.jpg where a friend took the image I doubt there is ever likely to be an issue but something like File:Palmer Orch featuring Jack Melick 1955.jpg where the image was taken by a staff member at the Hollywood Palladium is more problematic as the photographer or the Palladium could claim that their copyright is being infringed. Now the risk may be minimal but Wikipedia works on worst possible case and therefore is very insistent, any doubts about copyright and the images do not get posted. As a fellow editor I find it as frustrating as you are doing, great images that would really help to illustrate articles are unusable because of doubts over copyright or inability to obtain the necessary permissions. And it's even more frustrating when, as you have done, you have acted conscientiously about the uploads, but I'm afraid we're caught in the middle of the ongoing struggle with the hordes of people who think anything they find on the internet is public domain (because they can see it) and therefore commit copyright violation and commit Wikipedia to risk of allegations of copyright theft to a huge scale by uploading images. NtheP (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the patient and thoughtful response. These would all be classified as works-for-hire. If you ask a friend to take a picture of you, or hire a photographer to do it, it is a work-for-hire. As you know, the hirer is the owner of any work-for-hire, not the photographer, UNLESS there is a specific written agreement to the contrary. When you walk into a portrait studio, you sign an agreement that states the photographer owns all copyrights so that they can charge you ad nauseum to reproduce your own image. In this case, no such agreements exist. Jack was the one who requested/commissioned them, except perhaps the Palladium and Boston photos. And in those cases, I have cropped/altered the photos significantly from the originals. In any case, every one of these photos was taken at least 50 years ago, and every one of the photographers is long dead, including the staff members who would have been involved at the Palladium and Boston. It would be impossible for Mr. Melick to garner any written confirmation of ownership on largely candid photos that have existed in his personal collection for more than 50 years!!! I have cut and pasted the suggested consent email from your prior posting and sent it to Melick including the links to the actual photos for reference. He will forward that email to the appropriate email address testifying that he owns the copyrights and releases them for free use. Wiki are free to do with that email as they will. If I must cut all the photos from the article, that's fine. It'll sure make for a far more boring article and ironically the Wiki community itself is the one that suffers.Nlavecchia58 (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if they were created as works for hire, great then Jack's release will do. If that covers the majority then we may just have to live without the others. NtheP (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Jack Melick Orchestra at Oberlin 1949.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jack Melick Orchestra at Oberlin 1949.jpg, which you've attributed to "Evidence: Will be provided on request"; awaiting OTRS ticket since January. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  OTRS pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Melick responded in January via email to "[email protected]." He is the sole owner of this photograph. Please take the time to research before posting. This was handled 7 months go. Please see the January conversation with a prior editor. This issue has been resolved, and Mr. Melick has submitted the required statement of ownership and release via email. Please remove the "tag for deletion" as soon as possible. Nlavecchia58 (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jack Melick Orchestra at Oberlin 1949.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  OTRS pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys do we have a learning disability here???? Jack Melick - the owner of these images - sent an email to [email protected] on January 21, 2013 stating his full ownership and has already published it under a free license. Mr. Melick, nor I, can help it if you guys can't keep track of your email. This issue was resolved in January, and I will forward that email to you AGAIN. SEE IF YOU CAN AVOID LOSING IT THIS TIME!!!!! Nlavecchia58 (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the following received from YOU in February of this year....

From: Permissions <[email protected]> Date: February 28, 2013 7:50:31 PM CST To: Jack Melick <[email protected]> Cc: Nick LaVecchia <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ticket#2013012110008775] URGENT: Copyright permissions to Wikipedia

Dear Jack Melick,

Thank you for your email. Our response follows your message.

21/01/2013 - 15:02 - Jack Melick escribió:

I hereby affirm that I, John T. Melick, Jr., am the sole owner/copyright holder of the photos found at these links that were uploaded to Wikipedia by my biographer, Nick LaVecchia (nlavecchia58):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jack Melick 2012.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jack Melick Las Vegas 1966.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jack Melick Yokohama 1953.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pianist Jack Melick Summer 1966.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jack Melick Japan 1965.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Melick and Morgan Reno 1960.jpg http://en.wkipedia.org/wiki/File:Jack Melick Orchestra at Oberlin 1949.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jack Melick Boston 1957.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Palmer Orch featuring Jack Melick 1955.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Melick and Umeki Japan 1952.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Melick Show Japan 1953.jpg

I agree to publish these photos under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Sincerely,John T. Melick, Jr.8030 Frankford Road, Apt. 415Dallas, Texas 75252 Copyright holder

January XX, 2013

We have received the permission for the photos and have made the necessary modifications to the pages of the images.

Thank you for providing this to us, and for your contribution to Wikipedia.

Yours sincerely, Alan Lorenzo

-- Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/ --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on https://www.wikimediafoundation.org/ Nlavecchia58 (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Mr. Melick to forward this email AGAIN from his email address. Nlavecchia58 (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed OTRS to find out why this image wasn't tagged by an OTRS volunteer when the ticket was processed in January. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Melick and Umeki Japan 1952.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

The file File:Melick Show Japan 1953.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

The file File:Jack Melick Japan 1965.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jack Melick is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Melick until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Roy17 (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]