Commons:Help desk/Archive/2008/01

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Tagging a page for deletion

At wikisource, if we look at recent changes and see a page that was created as vandalism or as a test, or is otherwise not appropriate, we tag the page with {{sdelete}}. That doesn't seem to work here. What should I use? The two pages I thought should be deleted are:

Thanks. Cowardly Lion 03:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's {{Speedydelete}} here, but I also created {{Sdelete}} to redirect to that from now on. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Cowardly Lion 11:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I upload next picture

in the page are saying that this material are GNU licenced, can I upload this picture and put this licence--Motopark 09:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It states that the article (i.e. the text) is GFDL licensed (because it is taken from English Wikipedia). It doesn't say anything about the photograph. It seems highly unlikely that a studio photographer or film studio would license a professional studio photograph or still frame from a motion picture under a free licence. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it definitly wasn't released under the GFDL (and re-releasing something like this under a free license is extremely unlikely). It may be public domain, but some proof would be needed. Rocket000 15:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Video hochladen

hallo, ich mach's mit mit der Muttersprache mal einfach: Ich will ein Video (Ausschnitt aus einer Lesung von George-Arthur Goldschmidt) wikigerecht konvertieren. Ich benutze Premiere CS 3 für meine Zwecke. ffmpeg2theora-0.20 habe ich auf meinen Desktop gespeichert - nix passiert bei Doppelklick - außer einem schnellen Fenster :-) viele Grüße herzlichen Dank für die Hilfe Hans Peter Schaefer

Ich habe dafür ein einfaches Tutorial für unsere Windowsfreunde geschrieben. Solltest du davon etwas nicht verstehen, frag einfach auf meiner "deutschen" Diskussionsseite nach. --Niabot 03:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

In reviewing an article with my daughter re Presidential Primarys the following image popped up: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Series_of_an_ejaculating_penis.JPG WHY? and does this need to go farther or can you explain the problem? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.47.136.167 (talk • contribs)

It's called the first amendment pal. We have explicit pictures. If one was in an article wrongly, it's because it's a wiki anyone can edit, someone added it in. It happens. -Nard 02:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
To further explain this issue, it is worth noting that Wikimedia Commons is effectively the image library used by Wikimedia Foundation projects including Wikipedia. As you'll no doubt appreciate, Wikipedia, in attempting to create an encyclopedia, does include material some might consider offensive, see Wikipedia:Profanity. Part of the success of Wikipedia is based upon the concept that anyone can edit. This means that unfortunately articles are sometimes the subject of vandalism and sometimes images are included where their use is not appropriate to shock readers. However, there are a number of processes in place to attempt to minimise this. Adambro 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Description Missing

So I carefully fill in the system-generated template, which seems to work, yet my pictures are marked "Description missing" and I keep getting a message "Please consider adding the "information" template to your previous uploads. Thank you!". What am I doing wrong, and why is it not obvious to me? Chemical Engineer 16:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess you mean the text that says: "Please consider adding the {{information}} template to your previous uploads. Thank you!" Nevermind about that message, it is not personally for you. It is shown to all users as a part of a campaign to promote the use of that template. Samulili 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You are reprimanding me for putting double quotes instead of curly brackets around the word "information". I did this because it generated the template, so I changed them to quotes. I see from your post that there is a "nowiki" tag to suppress this. Sorry, I did not know.Chemical Engineer 18:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why in "gallery" mode it adds description missing to your uploads. That shouldn't be happening. -Nard 16:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it does that (in the gallery, that is) for everyone, myself included, actually because you use {{Information}}, perhaps because that template conditionally transcludes {{Description missing}}. This seems to just be a flaw of the gallery tool. As long as your images are not in Category:Media lacking a description (you'd see it at the bottom of the image description page), you're fine. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me it would be helpful if this was removed from the gallery tool. It can't just be me it worries. Chemical Engineer 18:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Half Cast Prophet has a subcat Category:Paora Hawea which in itself is a redirect link back to the first cat - thus creating an unpleasant linkjerk circle. What is the correct procedure to cut this and retain a category redirect? Ingolfson 09:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think it is useful to keep the other category, the best way is to do this. --rimshottalk 14:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Ingolfson 16:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Transfering photos from en.wikipedia

I am wanting to transfer this image and others like it to wikimedia commons. Should I copy-paste the permission information or use something else? Thanks PGPirate 16:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Best practice is to use the Commons Helper tool which will do most of the work for you. You'll need to check the image page for any errors and also make sure you add appropriate categories. Regards. Adambro 17:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have looked at the :en: helpfile link on that page and done a heavy edit. I think that everything is explained now. The tool is easier to use than to describe!
Further comments welcome. ClemRutter 10:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

i need your help

i am new to this site,how do i post some photos of me and my dog?can people but theire own photos?i am just learning the laptop too!weite soon candyisme thank you —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.80.229.165 (talk • contribs)

Please read Commons:Project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Names of living people

Should names and email addresses of potentially living people, as in Image:PGPgui1.png, always be blurred out? Or do we not need to worry? Is there any policy on this? -- Ddxc 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case, it's data that the individuals themselves have chosen to publish on publicly accessible PGP keyservers, so I don't think there are any privacy concerns here. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Which licence for photos of pages from facsimile editions?

I took photos of the first page of every play in the First Folio (1623) of Shakespeare's plays. See

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:First_Folio

where every photo except the one of the title page comes from me. I could have scanned them, but the facsimile edition was quite expensive, and I didn't want to open the book flat and risk damaging it.

I tagged them all with {{PD-old}}. However, having looked at licences used by other people for similar image uploads, I wonder if I should have used {{PD-art}} instead. Please advise. Thanks. Cowardly Lion 15:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

{{PD-art}} is mainly used when the reproductions were created by a third party. For uploads where you have created the reproduction yourself, {{PD-old}} is fine. If you live in a country where it is not yet widely accepted that there is nothing copyrightable about a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional public domain work with no visible elements of originality or creativity, you might wish to add a note saying that you waive any copyright you may have earned in reproducing the work. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Is that accepted in the UK? Cowardly Lion 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
People are arguing about that at Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and its talk page. I think essentially it boils down to different assumptions regarding the reproduction and what constitutes a faithful reproduction. I've yet to see anyone offer up a good explanation of how creating a copy of a work creates a new work. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that link. I've added a note to my uploads, just to remove any doubt about the status. Cowardly Lion 12:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, the photo you have taken of the old image gets copyright protection in its own right, and to be on the safe side you should personally license or release that. The old image itself is of course PD-Old. The best approach is to list both separately, as I've done on Image:The Boy's Own Paper, front page, 11 April 1891.jpg. (ps PD-Art is never used for photos taken in the UK). --MichaelMaggs 12:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

source on images

what happens is thar the picture I took its from my own personal archive, what do I put on source? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Larissa Dourado (talk • contribs) 20:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you took the picture yourself, you can write "own work" or "self-made". --rimshottalk 20:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
If your "archive" consists of work by other people Commons generally cannot use the image unless you have written copyright permission or the copyright has expired. If you have any doubts it is best to ask. -Nard 20:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Replacing a picture

I'd like to update a picture (specifically this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Languages_of_Europe_no_legend.png) but the system says that I'm too new to update it and suggests that I should look for help at Help Desk. That's why I here. I don't want to vandalise wiki and I think there's no conflict in the license either so I'd like someone to update the file with this slightly modified one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Languages_of_Europe_no_legend_update.png) if it's possible. And I think and hope it is. Thanks! Nyiz 23:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the two images in question are Image:Languages of Europe no legend.png (first link) and Image:Languages of Europe no legend update.png. Someone else with more experience than me may be better able to assist here. — Giggy 23:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I would love to, but I'm afraid ;) Rocket000 01:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
So noone can help? What is the minimum amount of time I have to be registered to be able to replace the pic? Nyiz 19:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Four days, if I remember correctly. I can update the file for you. Can you precise the nature of the update (what mistakes about Hungarians)? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
In the current picture one county of Hungary (Békés) is associated with the romanian language which is completely untrue. Also, if you compare the original pictrue with the updated one you can see that Upper Hungary (northeastern corner of Hungary) is also associated with the romanians which is again untrue. Even more the majority of the Romanian-Hungarian and Ukrainian-Hungarian border area is inhabited mostly (definately more than 50%) by Hungarians. These are the mistakes I've corrected. Nyiz 00:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. Can you please check if everything is all right? Also, I copy-pasted your explanations on the talk page. Thanks for your corrections. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems that everything is OK. Thank you for your help! Nyiz 19:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

change title of image

I mistyped when adding an image. Is there a way to correct a title once an image is moved to Wikipedia Commons? [Image:Buttterfield Elementary School Lake Elsinorefront.JPG]DavidPickett 17:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Upload the image again, with the correct name, then add {{badname|Image:Correct Name}} to the badly named image. --rimshottalk 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. I think I have it right, now.DavidPickett 20:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Maximum length of a file (upload) page name?

I'm writing a book about Wikipedia, in which I say that "The best image name is a fairly long description". To which my editor asked - what's the maximum length? I don't know, so I'm asking. John Broughton 22:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know for sure but I've never heard of it being an issue. I did some tests and the limit is likely around 255 characters (including the file ending I suppose). This is valid and generally I don't think anyone would need to have a longer filename.
Fred J (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! (and thanks for the quick response) John Broughton 22:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
And be sure to include something about the worst image names (e.g. Image:1.jpg and Image:Image.jpg) [Edit: and the one above] ;) Rocket000 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bildlizenz

Kann mir einer sagen, ob das Bild Image:Leonard Bernstein 1971.jpg wie im Text steht gemeinfrei ist, oder es doch unter einer anderen Lizenz steht? Ich dachte, da das Bild auf Commons existiert, ist es frei, jedoch tun sich bei der angegebenen Lizenz Widersprüche auf, die ich allein nicht klären kann. Weiß da einer mehr? Gruß--87.161.87.58 16:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Die Library of Congress sagt es ist frei, das kann man erstmal so glauben. Wenn nicht, dann kannst du dem Text folgen der in dem Kasten steht: die Bilder sind gemeinfrei, sofern sie von Angestellten des U.S. News & World Report erstellt wurden. Bei diesem Bild trifft das zu (Marion S. Trikosko). --rimshottalk 18:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

DOF questions

I found an interesting photograph which I am unable to upload here due to licensing -- however, I think it is a great image to ask some DOF and other camera related questions about. The image is here and has been given the name of JACKASS!!! This road is part of the place I called home for more than 40 years and I happen to know quite a bit about driving in these kinds of conditions. One of the first things that is not obvious from this photograph is that Michigan has a "No Fault Insurance" thingie which in this case means that if both drivers are insured -- if the person with the car rear ends the car in the image, the car with the camera is at fault. The ability to see out of your back window is not as important as not hitting the car in front of you.

So here is my DOF question. Is there enough information here to be able to determine the distance between the car and the camera?

To make the problem even better, there is either a 4 second rule or a 4 second suggestion in which vehicles keep a 4 second reaction space between them while in operation. It is a good rule but this distance is a little elastic, due to the measurement of it including time as well, for many people who drive on the roads in my home state. If an accurate distance can be determined between the two cars, it should be possible to determine how fast the cars would be going for that distance to be 4 seconds of reaction time.

And, in the case that you are wondering, that is an expressway and tends to get cleared of snow more often than the other roads there and when I was born, the license plates used to say "Winter Wonderland". Sometimes it still is. Today, for instance, I am wondering who the jackass is, the subject or the photographer -- carol 01:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

carol, I think you would be a very interesting person to meet. Rocket000 02:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that most people are disappointed. Especially lately. And here is the most important thing, everyone is interesting.
This DOF problem is a great physics, photography, law, driving ethics and a lot of other subjects story problem though. Every year Michigan drivers share these roads and highways (where experience is the best teacher but not always with the safe distance part....) with recently licensed drivers. My first snowfall, me and my proud vehicle made a 180 degree spin while on the exit ramp -- exiting an expressway that looked a lot like that. This was before the ABS braking system and my little bit of experience with that, I still prefer experience that you survive. -- carol 04:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You might have better luck asking at the Wikipedia Reference Desk for Science. This page is mostly for people who need help using Commons. Powers 16:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I have been watching some things here for a while and DOF is a common problem here. -- carol 03:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
A common Commons problem. I'm not an expert in photography by any means, but I don't think you could determine the distance based on the camera settings used... Actually, maybe there is a way? I mean, we have cameras that can self-focus on an object, right? They probably using some radio wave device to measure the distance first. That length has to be converted to the appropriate settings somehow, so that formula could be reversed. But I don't really know how that works :) Rocket000 04:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The Aperture is f/4 and the Focal Length is 41.6 mm. The English Wikipedia page is for focal length is here and the DOF formula is here. -- carol 02:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. So who's the jackass. :) Rocket000 05:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Some cameras record focus distance data in EXIF. This one states 'Focus Distance Upper: 24,71' (meters?). Now to determine the distance of the car, it's actually more accurate to look at the size of the car on the image. Say the car takes 500 pixels in width, which is, let's say 1/3 of the image sensor size. Let's say the horizontal size of the sensor is 1/2". So the size of the rear of the car on the focal plane is 1/6" (1/3 of 1/2") viz. 4mm. The focal length is 41.6mm. You can take the car manufacturer for exact information, but let's assume that the rear end of the car's width is 1.8 meter. Now 1.8/distance = 4mm/41.6mm which gives a distance of about 18 meters. Now you just have to get the correct figures :-) Gil-Estel ♄ 08:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We've neglected the shift in the focal plane caused by the object being at a finite distance. This is a good approximation because the object distance is much larger than the focal length. We've also assumed that the rear of the car is perfectly parallel to the focal plane and that the lens suffers no severe distorsion. Gil-Estel ♄ 08:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I never considered that way to measure the distance, it makes sense though. Using that distance, and after fumbling around with premature unit conversion and other blunders -- I came up with a speed of 10.23 miles/hour. One time, I was on that road (a little before that and going in the other direction); there is a fork and the road splits into US-23 and I-94 -- I was taking the forked US-23 which had the curve and the more exit like conditions. The snow was perhaps 7 or 8 inches deeper and the conditions were such that there was only three 'ruts' carved into the road that were shared by the two lanes. I was probably driving between 25 and 35 miles per hour and I was terrified. A truck, a semi, not the shorter kind, was behind me and about that enraged with me that I was going that slowly. The stress of driving in those conditions and even in the conditions in this more current photograph is incredible and everyone (I think) gets their own little rage and later elation from it. Even looking at that photograph, I felt the photographers rage and was feeling a little enraged at the photographer myself.
Real weather is so cool like that. Thanks! -- carol 11:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

delistlist

Where is the QI delistlist? -- carol 10:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have one. Once QI, always QI (I think). Rocket000 05:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Username change

How do I make a change on my user name? Thanks!!

Request at Commons:changing username. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Using republished pictures from a Web site

I found a delightful gallery of mathematicians at UConn. I have not yet contacted their webmaster for permission but I am almost sure they would be happy to let us use "their" pictures since each portrait links here. My question is would getting permission be good enough, since they don't own the pictures in the first place? Not that anyone involved would (and most of the people are long dead), but I do not want the pictures to get deleted by some bot for lack of copyright permission.--24.63.115.69 04:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a nice gallery. If they don't own the copyrights to the images, then the permission is not their's to give. Asking them wouldn't do any good. You would have to figure out who the copyright holder of each image is then find out what the copyright status is. And remember, the permission isn't just for Wikipedia use, or even Wikimedia use, but free use for everyone. Rocket000 05:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

duplicate image

I uploaded an image to en wiki which I discover has been loaded here by someone from a different language wiki, with a different name in that language. How do we sort this so that there is only image? The simplest solution would seem to be to accept the foreign name, though it will be pretty meaningless on en? Sandpiper 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the image at en should be deleted. If the image's at Commons, I don't see the point to keeping a local version. --Boricuæddie 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
yes, I agree. I only discovered it was here already because I was moving pictures. Its just irritating if it now exists under a different name, though I expect the original was also poorly chosen. Sandpiper 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
There is the {{rename|Suggested rename.ext}} template and I read a rumor of a software that will change the name to the suggested name someday. The rename template is nice because you can see in the preview if your suggestion is already being used (red letters indicates that it isn't being used). I have done this for several images -- a typical situation I have used the template in would be where the name of a plant or flower is not the species shown in the image. -- carol 00:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

?

quando e que foi abolida a pena de irradiação —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Aires rua (talk • contribs) Patrícia msg 15:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Olá Aires rua, não entendi a sua questão. Esta página dedica-se a responder a questões sobre o Commons e o seu funcionamento. Se tiver dúvidas pode contactar-me na minha página de discussão. Patrícia msg 15:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

a 'wird' about Image:Stimmen einer Mundharmonika.JPG

My small goal was to move images which had been categorized as Category:Instruments into the proper subcategories if they existed. Then I encountered Image:Stimmen einer Mundharmonika.JPG and Image:Stimmen einer Mundharmonika2.JPG. I used some translating software to try to determine what the description was.

The description:

Das stimmen einer Mundharmonika. Auf einem Stimmtisch wird die Platte aufgespannt und durch abfeilen der Tonzunge gestimmt. Die hintere Platte ist die Musterplatte nach der gestimmt wird.

The translation:

The vote of a harmonica. On a Stimmtisch the plate and extending through the file off Tonzunge motion. The rear plate is the pattern after the panel voted.

I want to say that the image is of the construction of a harmonica and categorize it as 'Musical instruments', but I feel a little wird about that after trying to interpret the translation.

Thanks for this and all of the rest of the help -- carol 04:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's about tuning a harmonica. There is a Category:Harmonicas. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I had no idea that they made (or attempt to make) acoustic music in Germany. Weird. -- carol 12:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Weird indeed. Acoustic (I presume you mean non-electronic, I still haven't heard non-acoustic music yet; somehow, my ears are just not up to the task) music is made all over the world. Strange that the Germans do it, too. ;-) Lupo 12:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You've never (not) heard 4′33″? —LX (talk, contribs) 23:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Where does one start;-? Lupo have you not witnessed the Music of the Spheres, and Harmonices Mundi 1619 I assume its author, that the great German scholar Kepler, was playing his Mundharmonika while he pondered on Harmonices Mundi. ClemRutter 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just uploaded the image Image:Norwegian Gloster Gladiator - Kristian Fredrik Schye.jpg‎, but its not in my Gallery. Why is this?

I can find it just fine by looking at my contribution, but its not in my gallery.Manxruler 01:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Evidently there was just a delay for some reason. All's well in the world.

Want to request the guy to attach a picture in email

I had another request, sorry. This guy has a low quality picture on his website. I want to get a high quality version of the same which is available here on another website. How do I get this nicer picture? I couldnt find an example of this in the email templates. Can he say that he owns the copyright to that image on the other website as well and then I could use the generic email template? I wonder if he can say "This picture of me found on this other website is also owned by me. I release this picture for a free license etc.". --Matt57 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity wants to keep ownership of image

I contacted a celebrity for a picture and he says he wants to keep the ownership of the picture. Whats the best license under which to do this? Any pre formatted request for this that I can use? --Matt57 15:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Most licenses allow the copyright holder to retain the ownership in some way. All free licenses require attribution of the author. However all free licenses also grant anybody the right to modify, sell and use the image for any purpose. On the other hand, free licenses do not impact personality rights, which limit some rights granted by the free license. It just depends on what you call ownership. See also Commons:Email templates -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll check out that template page. I should have been more clear. Saying it another way: The GDFL license is just "Free for all". What is the 'minimal' license with which we can still use it in Wikipedia (but not 'Fair use' type because those get deleted eventually by someone) but the celebrity still retains maximum ownership in that, to limit the number of people who can reuse the image? Thats what he's worried about, he wants to retain rights to the image. Maybe its not possible to keep people from reusing the image elsewhere, according to the licenses that are allowed. From here, it looks like to me that the CC or CC-by-SA are the only licenses that can be used. The other one is "GDFL". So.. the CC or CC/by SA is the minimal license that would work, yes? So in another way, how can I get this guy's picture and use it here while him still retaining maximum rights to the image? --Matt57 16:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of other free licences to choose from, for example those listed at Commons:Copyright tags#Other free tags. In fact, choice of licensing on Commons is not limited to any specific set of licences, but extends to any and all licences which allow the subject works to "be used by anyone, for any purpose" (from Commons' licensing policy). Of course this is not compatible with the desire to "keep people from reusing the image".
CC-by-sa and GFDL both require redistributed and derivative works to be (1) attributed and (2) licensed in the same manner as the original. Thus, they are relatively restrictive from the perspective of those wishing to reuse it, whilst ensuring the greatest level of continued freedom for the subject work. CC-by and BSD-type licences give more freedoms to those wishing to reuse the work, but do not guarantee that derivatives stay free.
Also note that it's usually not the subject of a photograph, but the photographer who holds the copyright and that it is only the copyright holder who may issue a valid licence. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. From the links you gave, I was able to get a CC-by-SA 3.0 license for this issue. --Matt57 06:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Before 1923 in the US or anywhere in the world?

Hi, I'm from Wikisource, and I'm interested in uploading a lot of original book illustrations here to add them to the relevant books at Wikisource. In some cases that would mean a photo I took myself of a page from a usually but not always modern edition of a nineteenth-century novel with the original illustrations. In other cases, I find them on websites, but know that they are just scans of the illustrations that were part of the original publication in the nineteenth century, or by a long-dead author, and hence in the public domain.

I saved to my hard disk the illustrations from Cecily Parsley's Nursery Rhymes by Beatrix Potter (1866-1943), which I found here at Project Gutenberg. It says here that it's not copyrighted in the United States. I want to upload the images here so that I can add them to Cecily Parsley's Nursery Rhymes at Wikisource. The book was first published in 1922, so I figured that would be okay. I've picked up the impression (whether rightly or wrongly) at Wikisource that if a book was published anywhere in the world before 1923, it is considered to be in the public domain in the USA, and that Wikisource is mainly concerned with USA copyright laws in determining whether or not something is in the public domain.

However, when I came here and clicked the upload button, I had to choose a licence, and expected to choose the one that said published before 1923. However, it said published in the US before 1923, and I can't state with certainty that that is the case. I know that this book was published in the UK by Frederick Warne & Co, in 1922, but I don't know if the first US appearance of the book was at the same time or a year or two later. Since Beatrix Potter died in December 1943, her works won't be automatically PD until 2014, as far as I know.

Does it have to be published in the US before 1923, or will anywhere in the world before 1923 do? Can I upload these pictures, and, if so, which licence should I choose? Thanks. Cowardly Lion 21:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Commons' rule is that an image must be freely licensed in both the source country and in the U.S., or be in the public domain in both countries. See COM:L. Before 1923 makes the work only PD in the U.S., the 1923 date does not apply anywhere else. The work by Potter is not in the public domain in the UK (its source country), so you cannot upload it here. See also s:User talk:BirgitteSB#Images.3F for this. Lupo 22:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I understand. I'll give up the idea until January 2014, then! By the way, does that mean that some of these images should be deleted from Commons? Cowardly Lion 23:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hm. Looks like. I suppose Frederick Warne & Co, Inc., New York[1] was the U.S. office of this British publisher, and that they published the book also in the UK. Hence simultaneously U.S. and UK work, hence a UK work in the UK and a U.S. work in the U.S. Still copyrighted in the UK until the end of 2013. Could be moved back to en-WP or en-WS, though, as it is PD in the U.S. Lupo 23:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The British Library has it as Frederick Warne & Co, London & New York, 1904. Lupo 13:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Further comments on these Beatrix Potter images at Commons:Deletion requests/Beatrix Potter, please. Lupo 14:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the Spanish law re. PD?

There are no tags for Spain listed on the on the copyright tags page. I would think that anything 100+ years or older would be PD for Spain but can anyone clarify this? BrokenSphere 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

See Commons:Licensing#Spain. If it's more than 100 years old, the generic {{PD-old}} should do. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Postal card licensing

Hello, I have those postal cards from the 1940's. What is the license situation for those? Thank you very much.

It's depend on country of origin and author. Could you please provide more details? --EugeneZelenko 15:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Apologies, but I am a complete virgin when it comes to using Wikipedia - it took me long enough just to figure out how to post this question!

Am trying to find out if I can use this image:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:CarthageElectrumCoin250BCE.jpg

In a printed commercial product (in this case, card game packaging).

I can't figure out how to contact the person who uploaded the photo, and I can't work out from the licences whether I can use the image in such a way.

Can anyone help? UniversalHead 04:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The licences for that image are GFDL or CC-by-sa. You may select one of these licences. The conditions for GFDL are here, the conditions for CC-by-sa are here. Regards Christian NurtschTM 13:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This page is also written to help you with your question: Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. Samulili 16:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Panama, Canal zone - licensing status?

I don't see any listing for Panama at the licensing page. I've found a beautiful panorama of Colon shot from the canal. Public domain under U.S. law (place of publication); does U.S. law apply to the location of photography also? And in case it doesn't, would a 1913 image be public domain in Panama? Durova 07:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The canal zone was sovereign US territory from November 18, 1903-October 1 1979, after which control was gradually ceded back to Panama. During this period people born there were US citizens. It doesn't seem too far of a stretch to assume US copyright law applied during this period. And yes, country of first publication usually controls the copyright status. -Nard 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyrights for German media prior to 1920 but not yet 100 years old

I can't tell from Commons:Licensing#Germany and I don't understand what's outlined at Wikipedia:Bildrechte what the status of these is. Specifically I'm interested in photos or media dated to around World War I. BrokenSphere 18:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing special about them. PD in the U.S. if also published before 1923. If published later, may be copyrighted in the U.S., in particular, if still copyrighted in Germany in 1996 (i.e., if the author died after 1925). In Germany, a copyright term of 70 years after the death of the author applies. Lupo 22:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Could I assume US publication if it's in a US repository? Authorship may be hard if not impossible to determine. BrokenSphere 22:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hilfe mit Lizenzerwerb

Entschuldigung aber ich möchte ein Bild (nämlich das auf der seite htp://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/00233/wien_uebersicht_DW__233664g.jpg) hochladen und weiß überhaupt nicht wie ich jetzt dese Prozedere angehen soll. Müss ich denen schreiben oder wie oder was? ich hab es nämlich schon einmal versucht und dann wurde es gelöscht.

danke im voraus —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacky89 (talk • contribs) 12:56, January 16, 2008

Kontakt mit der Welt aufzunehmen ist vermutlich die einzige Möglichkeit, um die Erlaubnis zu bekommen, es weiter zu verwenden. Allerdings akzeptiert Commons nur freie Lizenzen und es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass der Verlag bzw. die Presseagentur das Bild unter einer solchen freigibt. Einen Versuch ist es natürlich wert. Siehe dir dazu auch Commons:Emailvorlagen an. Grüße, Christian NurtschTM 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Wie soll ich dannjetzt vorgehen... bei den vorlagen ist nämlich keine dabei.

English Wikipedia Login

Hi. I tried to log on to Wikipedia but I got an HTP 500 error. What should I do? Is this only temporary? When should I be able to get back on? I am asking commons because it is the largest English wiki project that I've registered on. Should I be able to log back on again after I work on stuff here? Or should I check now? Thanks. AstroImager001 23:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has seized up, no-one has been able to edit in half an hour according to recent changes. Only log entries have occured, though this hasn't worked for 15 minutes. I suggest just waiting now. Woodym555 23:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems to have been resolved now. Woodym555 23:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Digging myself into a hole

Hi I'm new to Commons and seme to be getting myself into a tangle. I've managed to duplicate a file and can't seem to get the right bit of info onto either. One picture has all the info and permissions, but not a user friendly file name. Now I've re-uploaded "a new version of this file" with a better file name but I can't seem to get the permission info stuff onto the right page. Help! Image:DD-SD-00-00903.jpg and Image:10th Mountain Divsion sweep Somali village.jpg‎ are the cuplrits. (You know that feelign when you're just trying to do what you think will be a five minute job and two hours later you're still fiddling around??) --Mathardy 01:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

D'oh :) I see what happened. I put the right info on the well-named one and deleted the badly-named one.
The easiest thing to do in a case like that is click "edit" at the top of the page and just cut and paste all the description from one to another.
Let us know if you need help with anything else. cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor's summary: Bot: Requesting source information.

Not sure what to do?

The imagine I submitted is a photo I've taken at memory hill cemetery, Milledgeville. It is a burial marker denoting slave graves. For the past three years, I have adopted this imagine as my icon and to publish its story on the web. I thought it to be unique enough to enter on your website. More information is available on my website: http://www.your-inner-voice.com/slaverychain.html

The marker has been there since American slavery. There are several of them and as best as I know, there are no claims to ownership or copywrite violations, with regard to this imagine.

I did not create the object but for sure there is no one alive today who could have or know who created it. For that matter, I am for sure, it was one of my ancestors:-)

Not sure what to do? help me if you can...Art Thomas, (email removed)

Hi Chef4u31061,
Unfortunately copyright these days exists regardless of whether or not authors claim it. Unless you know who the author is and that they have given up their copyright claim, we have to assume it is copyrighted. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
(We try to only host things that we know to be free rather than things that we have no evidence are not free.) pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Metadatos

¿Cómo se borran los metadatos?--FCPB 01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Bain Collection?

I want to upload this image: [2], but I'm not 100% it meets the licensing restrictions. Is it OK? What license should I specify for it? RoySmith 04:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't retrieve the image, but tou should be good with images from that collection. You can use this for the licensing. BrokenSphere 05:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. RoySmith 14:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Are those images free?

I'm seeking for pictures or illustrations of sperm cells, and I found 2 possible sources:

Which one of them is free? Where else can I find a free image of sperm..?
I need it for a userbox such as "This user had won the sperm race" =) Yuval Y § Chat § 16:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think i found the winner - - but I'd like to find other competitors =) Yuval Y § Chat § 16:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

CC-BY only

Is it possible to upload a file and license it ONLY under a Creative Commons license? As the copyright explanation page mentions, the GFDL is cumbersome for images, and I would prefer not to dual-license and simply post my works under Creative Commons only TheBilly 18:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I personally prefer licensing my works only under a CC license; they're much better for images than the GFDL, and they are easier to understand. --Boricuæddie 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hm...I think I see. I guess I was confused by the upload form. I thought from the wording of the choices that they all implied dual licensing ("GFDL, CC-BY 3.0") but I guess it just means "'Own work, attribution required' corresponds to this choice of licenses" TheBilly 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the upload form seems confusing. But just ignore it; simply tag your image with {{self|cc-by-3.0}}, or any other Creative Commons license. --Boricuæddie 18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Intersting - it seems you can't go CC only from [3] (unless I've missed something) - anyone else in favour of changing this? — Giggy 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
_o/ Samulili 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Added CC-BY-SA-3.0 and CC-BY-3.0 single licensing options. Lupo 23:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Just curious as to why they are listed under "good" practices and not "better" or "best"? Is it because they don't give any licensing options? I think CC-BY should replace GFDL/CC-BY 3.0. What exactly is the difference between that and just CC-BY? If I choose the CC-BY option isn't the situation the same? Derivatives can still be GFDL since it requires attribution. There may be some special reason people would want the dual-license (like in order to specify how they are to be attributed if not GFDL), but I don't think this needs to be one of our 3 "best" options. Rocket000 06:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you trying to say that you don't want to be told what is good and best for you? -- carol 08:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I do what I want. ;) I'm talking about what we recommend to users that are unsure of what to use. It's not what's good or best for them, but for our project. (Hopefully, both are true, though.) Rocket000 10:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not much of a fan of opinion posing as fact either, so when I translated the form to Swedish, I took the liberty of grouping the licences as follows:
  • Highest level of freedom for recipient: PD
  • Higher level of freedom for recipient (multiple licences): GFDL (copyleft)/CC-by, GFDL (copyleft)/CC-by-sa (copyleft)
  • High level of freedom for the recipient: CC-by, CC-by-sa (copyleft), GFDL (copyleft)
—LX (talk, contribs) 10:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not really a matter of posing opinion as fact—I do think we should be vocal about what licenses we prefer—I was just questioning if it does indeed reflect what we prefer and I see no reason why CC-BY 3.0 shouldn't replace GFDL/CC-BY 3.0. I would reorder that list as CC-BY is right under PD. Rocket000 10:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair point. I think the reason I ordered them this way was that CC-by requires attribution (but then again, that requirement is just about impossible to shake off for PD-self too in many jurisdictions). (I guess the "freeness scale" is also a bit subjective, really.) I might change that (and probably remove the CC-by/GFDL combo; it is pretty meaningless).
Not sure about "being vocal about what we prefer"; at this stage, I don't think there is a clear consensus. I've seen some users lobby others to put all their works into the public domain. I've seen others encouraging dual-licensing (primarily as an alternative to GFDL only), and I know others see the GFDL as fundamentally flawed and avoid using it even as an alternative. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason for including GFDL dual-licensing is because of uncertainty about how CC-licensed works interact with GFDL text. Now hopefully in the near future this will be a moot point because CC & FSF will get together and make it not matter. Until then though I think it would be better to keep the dual licensing tags. Look if nothing else, they don't hurt, and they may do some good. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for resetting the tabs. -- carol 14:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that any CC-SA should be dual-licensed with GFDL. I don't think there's any compatibility issues with just CC-BY, but who knows?
I didn't mean we need a consensus on what we think is the ideal license, I just meant we should try to give unexperienced users the best options of all those ideals. Not to say PD is better than CC-BY, or CC-SA is a better copyleft than GFDL, but give the best options for whatever conditions they may want. Kinda like how the CC website does. Usually it's the most popular licenses, people wanting more usually know enough to find those specialized licenses on their own. Rocket000 15:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I was told that the Debian cabal had determined that CC-SA was the license which was most similar to GFDL. The Debian cabal spends years discussing these ideological points, in so much that I rely heavily on rumors to determine what they think at any given point in the millennium in question. Is it productive to reproduce their efforts to determine licensing issues? It should be not such a task for people to understand that the words of the document are freely pastable but the images, upon downloading or screenshotting need to be looked into for permissions, restrictions and stuff. None of that is different except it the information is available via internet and web pages now instead of the books and papers it used to be only true for. Even before scanning to digital or to paper, cutting the image from the book -- I suggest that it was somewhat obvious that a misdeed was occurring. If my teachers caught me (or us, as they were consistent) copying text word for word for our own reports and other assignments, we were 'caught'. It was easy to understand at the secondary school level, and it even made sense to me before I had the teacher who had been caught and kicked off the college basketball team -- although, for an interest spin that was very effective. -- carol 02:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Rocket000, we give people all the flexibility they want, but that doesn't mean we should put every conceivable option in a drop down list, right? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I was actually hinting towards less options. Rocket000 11:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Image upload help needed

I have been a Wikipedia editor since October 2006, but I have never uploaded an image anywhere.

I have a proposed file name (MilkyWayLombergKepler.jpg) for this image which is specified here as free to use. I found {{PD-NASA}} and Category:Milky Way Galaxy and have an edit summary

(Jon Lomberg painting of Milky Way Galaxy used by NASA as background for Kepler Mission details. Category:Milky Way Galaxy.)

and details for the {{Information}} template below:

Description Painting of Milky Way galaxy used as background for diagram of Kepler Mission search space.
Date Commissioned ~1992 by Smithsonian Institution for display in National Air and Space Museum.
Source http://kepler.nasa.gov/media/images/LombergA1024.jpg
Author Painting by Jon Lomberg, Kepler mission diagram added by NASA.
Permission
(Reusing this file)		 Quote on http://kepler.nasa.gov/media/art.html#lomberg page with image link: “Downloadable Images—Kepler Art: Below are some illustrations for the Kepler Mission that you are free to use in any publication.”

but I don't know how to upload an image to Commons. Source/choose file on Upload work from a government source searched my own computer, which is not where the image is. Would someone please tell me what I haven't been able to find on the help pages? Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 02:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The image has to be on your own machine. basically, what you do is go to the source, and save the image locally. If you save it using your name (MilkyWayLombergKepler.jpg) then when you browse for it you won't have to rename it at that point. I would suggest retaining the A1024 part of the name but that's a style choice. You may find Commons:First_steps helpful if you haven't yet read it, especially Commons:First_steps/Upload_form which is "how to upload a file". Hope that helps, if not, ask again. You may also want to try asking on the IRC channel for real time help if you're stuck. There are lots of people who will be glad to give you a hand. Thanks for your efforts and good luck! It's fun and easy once you get the hang of it. ++Lar: t/c 03:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The instructions on the kepler site say "In general, if you click on the the image or the title underneath the image, you will download a high resolution JPEG or animation file. Use the save feature of your browers to capture the file." That doesn't seem to have happened: I clicked on the image and it appeared in a tab as one expects, but I don't know what "the save feature" is and my computer doesn't find any .jpg files except those which came with it at the purchase point.
I can do what I've done (the red tape, so to speak) but download and upload seem to be over my head. Athaenara 06:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: I did read the "first steps" pages before posting, and I very much appreciate your reply and suggestions, including retaining the original LombergA1024.jpg filename. I just don't seem to be able to apply it. Athaenara 06:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The exact details of how to save a file locally depend on what sort of machine and OS and browser you are running. For me, typically, (I run win XP and firefox but this is generally the same for most win versions and for IE as well as firefox) I get to where I am viewing the image I want to save... then I right click on the image and select "save image as..." from the popup menu. That gives a dialog box where I can specify where to save the image and under what name. (that is "the save feature of my browser", essentially) I hope that helps... if not, it may be best if you are still stuck to work with someone on IRC. Best of luck! ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
After your last bit of detail, I was able to follow through — many thanks, Lar! Athaenara ✉ 06:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous plants

Which plants are indigenous in the Mossel Bay area of the Western Cape?

This isn't a general reference desk. You may wish to try w:WP:Reference desk. — Giggy 06:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Leonardo da Vinci's Horse.jpg

Hi, I noticed that the image Image:Leonardo da Vinci's Horse.jpg was deleted by User:Zirland 11 hours after User:G.dallorto informed me on my talkpage because it was marked as a copyright violation. I’m not often on Commons and I cannot see anymore who marked it as such and therefore cannot ask him/here for a clarification, but I’m quite doubtful it is one.

Could anybody here maybe explain to me how this image can be a copyright violation? As:

  • I shot the image myself, noted it and discussed it as such, and released it under the terms of the GFDL.
  • The statue is at a publicly accessible place in Milan.
  • The designer of the statue is dead since 1519.
  • The makers donated the statue to the city of Milan.

Unless I’m missing something, could someone assist me in getting the image and the links from the various wiki’s to it restored? Thanks --Van helsing 13:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I now see that the reason given was "no license", I however can not phantom I forgot that. Could someone please have a look and see if that was "trolled" away? Thanks. --Van helsing 14:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I understood statue was created by modern sculptors (only based on Leonardo da Vinci designs). Italy doesn't have Commons:Freedom of panorama and this is reason for deletion. --EugeneZelenko 15:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, that’s it. Elaborate answer on the subject from User:G.dallorto here. --Van helsing 15:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting...a derivative work of a PD design may not attract a new copyright...but in the case of creative sculpture it is best to err on the side of caution. -Nard 00:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Using a company PR photo

A publicly traded company (PepsiCo) issues a press release, accompanied by a hi-resolution photo of the company CEO. Can the photo be used in Wikipedia, even at a lower resolution? If so, what should be the licensing type and associated rationale? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by PVSBond (talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See Commons:Licensing... Depends on what license they gave it... if it's some sort of free license like GFDL, CC, or public domain then bring it here rather than to just one wikipedia. If not, you can use it on some but not all wikis if you can construct a fair use rationale. See w:WP:FU for more on that. Most PR stuff is not freely licensed so be careful to check. PS don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~ ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose, commercially or noncommercially in modified or unmodified form. This is usually not the case with images published by corporations for publicity purposes. Wikimedia Commons cannot accept content under fair use justifications either. See Commons:Licensing.
The English language edition of Wikipedia does not allow non-free images of living people with a fair use rationale, as these are considered replaceable. See Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2, point 12. For other language editions of Wikipedia which allow non-free content under fair use provisions, consult their individual policies and guidelines. See meta:Fair use#Allowed. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Upload direct from URL?

If I have a URL pointing directly to an image, is there any way to upload via that (i.e. using wget, or something similar)? It seems like an un-needed extra step to download the image to my hard drive then upload it from there. RoySmith 23:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, nope. Even wget deposits its gettings at the computer which the command was issued from -- at least that is the feeling that I get from the little part of the manpage that I read. -- carol 08:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It is possible for Mediawiki to do 'upload from URL', but that option is turned off for all Wikimedia wikis. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Really? I thought that this was just wiki to wiki.... -- carol 10:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd thing in the uploads today 14:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been uploading some images from English Wikipedia -- the upload history is saying Special:Contributions instead of my User name. I do not have a problem with this so much as I was just wondering what the heck was going on and if anyone else was having this trouble and if it was going to be permanent? Thanks -- carol 14:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cropping an image

Who can I ask to remove an ugly black stripe (caused by scanning) from an image, if the uploader does NOT allow me to put a {crop} template on it's page ? - Erik Baas 22:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Because there's a really ugly black border, caused by lousy scanning on the left and right sides of the picture. Sure, it's easy to have 2,000,000+ images when you don't care at all about the quality... - Erik Baas 23:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
But that's how he wants the picture. -Nard 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
But it is not his picture anymore. Besides, I don't think he wants it to be like that, it just came out of his scanner this lousy... - Erik Baas 23:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Download it. Crop it. Upload it as Image:original image name (cropped).jpg. Hesperian 10:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Uploading image from Flickr

I want to upload image from Flickr. How can I upload image? --Otolemur crassicaudatus 10:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Use this link and follow the instructions ;) --Christian NurtschTM 13:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot help, please

Hi! Would it be possible to get bot or tool help with this row of edits?: The image Image:StoutFigure30type60type above the waist.jpg and its siblings (all "stout"/"slender" and "medium" images of the same kind) in category:women need to be moved to a more specific category, for example category: standing women or maybe to an own, new category like category: female figure. By the way, is this the best place to ask for this kind of help or is there a more specific place? Best reg, Jorva 19:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe useful to leave a note at Commons:Bots or the talk page, request someone to take up this task. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try there. Jorva 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Change permission of all my images

Hi, i want to change permission of all my images and maybe another fields. There are a lot, can i change all of them simultaneously? Thanks --Alfonso 22:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to flat-out change them, it is not allowed. If you are going to add licences, it is okay. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:43, 22 January 2008 (GMT)
I am not sure that all my images have same license, so i want to change all of them if it could be. Also i want to put same author and source field. How i could do? --Alfonso 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Point is that you can't revoke license (== made conditions less free). However you may change to less restrictive licenses, for example change from {{Cc-by-sa}} to {{Cc-by}} or {{PD-self}}. Or add another free license. --EugeneZelenko 15:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think all may pictures are {{PD-self}} but i am not sure and i want to to write all of them with this license to be sure, also i want to change author that is a common field to all my pictures. The problem is how to do this globally and not one by one. --Alfonso 18:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Alfonso as with above I suggest contacting a bot operator and try and talk them into helping you. there's no easy way currently to mass-edit all your uploads. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Clock UT+6 30.png

The image doesn't load. I've tried purging both the page on the wiki and the image source on the server. 84.108.245.222 00:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted - thanks for the find. — Giggy 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How to download

I am sure I am completely missing something. How does one download an image to be used in a graphic project?

Sharon

You just click on the image (on its description page) so that the full version comes up. Right click that and choose "Save File" (or similar). Remember to check the license on the description page first, to see if attribution is required etc. — Giggy 03:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikis were down

Today, this wiki and english wikipedia (which seem to be housed in Tampa, FL) were down for me for about an hour between 9:30 and 10:30 UTC. I was curious so I looked at the recent uploads and the wiki seemed to be accessible for others.

What was the problem and who did it affect? -- carol 11:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

after i have uploaded an image, do i have to place it into a specific gallery, if so, how do i do this?

Kpresley 01:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You should at least add it to a category, and adding it to a gallery is usually good too. See Commons:First steps/Sorting. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

hey guys

i'm really not sure why you cited me for copyright violations for images uploaded by me here--one was an album cover of my cd--of which i own the copyright and the other was a live concert picture of me--please tell me how to resolve —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Levavaran (talk • contribs) 14:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you to upload cover and picture (do you take it? or own copyrights?) in highest resolution possible and use Commons:Email templates. --EugeneZelenko 15:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Upload-Probleme

Hallo, seit zwei Tagen versuche ich vergeblich, eine OGG-Datei (11,5 MB) hochzuladen. Jedoch erscheint nach mehreren Minuten entweder ein leerer weißer Bildschirm oder eine solche Fehlermeldung:

Was kann ich nur tun? :-( Gruß --Фантом 17:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be a bug in the software, it can't handle such big files or that particular OGG file, or the file has some corruption.
Ich mache mal ein versuch in Deutch... Es kann ein Bug in der Software sein, oder die Datei ist zu gross, oder gerade diesen OGG ist nicht unterstütz, oder die Datei ist irgendwie korrupt. Ich weiss nicht was du tun sollst. Vielleicht kannst du die Datei in kleineren Datein aufteilen, um zu sehen falls es dann funktioniert?
Fred J (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Ich verstehe das nicht, the maximum file size is 20 MB, so actually there should be no problems with my file. :-( And I have uploaded much bigger files (that one for example) without any trouble. --Фантом 14:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

uploading pdf files

Hello, I'm a contributor of de.wikinews.org. Some of the most active users there are planning a meeting (one in real live, not online). To prepare this meeting togehter, a place to store PDF files is needed. Since the posibillity to upload files is switched off on de.wikinews.org itself, it would be good to know if uploading those files is accepted here on Commons (if they are meeting other requirements like being put under a free licence etc.).

Thanks for your answer(s) in advance, --Mg22 22:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, yes, PDF files are accepted on Commons, see Commons:File types. You can store your files in Category:Wikinews or an appropriate sub-category. --GeorgHH • talk   00:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Good afternoon, thank you for your helpful reply, I forwarded the information to the Wikinews community. Best regards, --Mg22 11:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to add this to any appropriate Fyrom articles but what license?

Hello.Please look at this ForecastMK.The weather forecast according to FYROM TV as broadcast every night in 20:30 Greek time.It shows Greek,Bulgarian,Serb and Albanian territory as Fyrom territory.I want to add it anywhere appropriate.I don't get the license tag required but its something that interests Greeks,Bulgarians,Serbs and Albanians as all those 3 countries are being attacked by this.I don't get what license tag is required for something to go in the commons like this as i found it in a forum from someone who print screened or photographed the image on tv but guys you seem to know what license if any appropriate exists.Megistias 12:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons can only accept content that is either in the public domain or which the copyright holder (in this case, the television station) has published under a licence which allows anyone to use and redistribute it for commercial or noncommercial purposes in original or modified form. Screenshots of non-free contents can not be accepted. See Commons:Licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Turns out the starting source was this.SOCIETY FOR MACEDONIAN STUDIESFrom the Greek SOCIETY FOR MACEDONIAN STUDIESofficial site .Its to be found in the first pageMegistias 12:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Any difference regardig licensing?Megistias 14:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't read Greek. Do you have any reason to believe that the image has been published under a free licence? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
No i cant understand it either(i can read Greek i dont get the license) its just part on one of their "pamphlets".Is the image licensed in their responsibility?Could we use it since its one their platform?Megistias 16:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Isnt it 'fair use' (i.e. demonstration of something other than what's depicted, in this case daily irredentism).The Society for Macedonian studies uses it for this reason.Its to show irredentism whilst they(Fyrom) are doing it througt the weather forecast.Megistias 19:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
If the map was originally produced by a TV station, then the TV station holds the copyright, and it's not really relevant how anyone else has used it after that, as only the copyright holder can issue a licence. Commons cannot accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions, and I really don't see any reason to believe that this would be a freely licensed work. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
How about this? Can i reduce resolution and size to exhibit it like this fellow has done?IraqwarMegistias 20:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
No, like I said, Commons cannot accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thankou.Megistias 09:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"ownership information" of GFDL-licensed images in galleries?

Is it necessary to add “ownership information” like here to GFDL-licensed images in galleries at commons or in articles at wikipedia?? --Aconcagua 10:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, same as all this GFDL text. Rocket000 11:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :-) --Aconcagua 19:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem in uploading image

I want to upload this image[4]. It from another website. I am not sure of the copyright. I am not well-versed in uploading image. Please help. --Otolemur crassicaudatus 17:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a link to the page where you found the image so the text that goes with it can be evaluated? At first guess though, it's probably not free if it's taken by someone that works for Northrup-Grumman. Too bad, it's a sweet image. So give us more info if you can, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 17:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I found this image in this google search and this is the link to the page. --Otolemur crassicaudatus 18:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The image file name is "J-UCAS-on-Deck.jpg". --Otolemur crassicaudatus 18:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Regrettably... "Copyright © 2008 Northrop Grumman Corporation. All Rights Reserved" is at the bottom of the page. The image is not eligible here unless NG waives that. You could try writing them and asking, explaining what you want the image for. There is boilerplate text you can use here: Commons:Email_templates ... Good luck, sorry the answer isn't better. ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Aidar-Kul.JPG

Well, the question (or better the problem I have) is: Why is the transferred file "missing sources"? Was the upload here not allowed? --منش‎ 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Commonshelper not working

I get the following error after it receives an image to process on both Firefox and IE:

Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Can't connect to MySQL server on 'sql' (4) in /home/magnus/public_html/database_functions.php on line 27

Could not connect to mysql : Can't connect to MySQL server on 'sql' (4)

Is anyone else getting this? --BrokenSphere 17:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The toolserver is generally broken at the moment. It would be nice if it could spit out more helpful error messages when this happens, which seems to be quite often... —LX (talk, contribs) 19:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Are there alternatives to use for migration or just wait until it's running again? BrokenSphere 19:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Buildings

Hi! I'd like to upload some pictures of buildings. In my country (Hungary) 1999/LXXVI allows for taking pictures in public places. May I upload the photos under CC license into Commons? Samat 12:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(2) For purposes of scientific or educational lectures as well as instruction, the picture ... may be used without the authorization of the author and paying remuneration to him. - I think this means that the images may only be used for educational purposes, and not for commercial purposes. To use the image on commons, commercial usage must be possible. Therefore, I think that you may not upload the images, unless the buildings are very old (the architect has been dead for more than 70 years). --rimshottalk 12:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. If the user has taken the images him- or herself, he or she may upload them under a CC license. §68(1) is relevant here (covers buildings and artwork in public places). §68(2) is an additional free use for works not in a public place, limited to educational uses. See also COM:FOP#Hungary. And in the U.S., such photos are ok by 17 USC 120. Lupo 12:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You're right of course, I only looked into COM:L, not COM:FOP. --rimshottalk 13:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I know, that it is alowed in Hungary according to §68(1), but Commons is an international page in the U.S., and some countries don't allow it. Are my pictures under hungarian law in Commons? Samat 12:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

See COM:L: our rule is that an image must be ok in the U.S. and in the country of origin. Lupo 13:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers! Samat 13:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem

I can't see the thumbnail of this image I recently uploaded: Image:Orville Wright at Ft. Myer.jpg. Any suggestions? Thanks. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Got it, thanks. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem with png file and firefox

I've placed this image:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pembury-Tavern-map.png

...onto this wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/London_8

Now for some reason this image is working with Internet Explorer, but not with firefox. If I look at the direct URL of the image:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Pembury-Tavern-map.png

...IE shows the image, but firefox reports:

"The connection was reset
The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading."

Is this a problem with PNGs? a temporary problem with caching? Does everyone else see the same? I guess maybe the old corporate firewall could be playing tricks on me.

-- Harry Wood 10:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Works fine for me in Opera as well as Firefox - I guess you are right in thinking that it's either the firewall or some caching problem. The firewall seems more likely. --rimshottalk 10:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It's working fine for me now too. Weird. -- Harry Wood 15:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Public Domain Photos

Sorry, I looked and looked for help on crediting using photos that are noted as public domain. Is there standard verbiage to note the photo is from Wikimedia and it is public domain? 209.165.168.2 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For general instructions on reusing content from Commons elsewhere, see Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. Someone might be able to give more specific instructions if you mention the image you have in mind. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Media of the day

How does that work? Is there a nomination process or can you just change the media to a different one?--THUGCHILDz 00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no nomination process, so I assume that you can just change them. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Image Licensing

Hi,

You probably get this question on a constant basis, but I was wondering if someone could clarify this for me?

Many of the images on this website have been released to the public domain, does this allow me to save the image, upload it to my webserver, and then incorporate it into any webpage I choose?


If this is allowed, is a link back to the source required?

Many Thanks, James

If the image has been released or fallen into the public domain, then you may do with it whatever you please, unless it is illegal for some other reason than copyright, of course. You don't even need to name the source, but you should probably do it any way, out of courtesy. Not all images here are in the public domain, however, many are under other licenses that bear some more restrictions. For fuller information, read here. --rimshottalk 17:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2008/01&oldid=71024806"