This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
On English Wikipedia I would discuss a questionable template at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Is there a corresponding forum on Commons? The template I have in mind is Template:PD-EEA. According to the cited legal notice, EEA content may be re-used, but it doesn’t say anything about modification. (I am not even clear that it permits re-distribution.) To my mind this is not even free use, much less public domain. —teb728tc00:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK the only separate XfD process here is for categories; everything else goes to COM:DR. P.S.: It might be from one of my opt-in Gadgets, but I see a “Nominate for deletion” link under “Tools” in the sidebar on the template page; this should handily tag the page, notify its creator, and create the discussion subpage, all from filling in one small form.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I would like the file to be deleted from Wikimedia Commons, as I believe I cannot find nor provide adequate information on the author and any copyright claims on the image. I have not declared this as my own work and have cited the author's name and website, but I still think it is my duty to submit this so there are no possible future issues with this image.
I have a question about the file File:Cover of Muse by Mary Novik.jpg. It asserts that the file is in the public domain but this book released in 2013 and according to the publisher's website, is still available for purchase. I'm not sure if they were referring to the painting used in the book's cover or not, so I just wanted to ask a question about this. I know that typically book covers do not fall under public domain but I don't know if this is different for book covers that use paintings. I was going to use this in the book's article, but I'm going to upload a different file with a non-fair use template (to Wikipedia, not commons) just in case. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I've also asked the author on his main Wikipedia page. I figure that it's usually just safer to upload covers as non fair use as a CYA type of deal. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I find that assertion extremely unlikely: AFAICT the background image is not an old painting but a photo-composite. The copyright page (as previewed at Amazon) says “Cover images: (woman) Malgorzata Maj/Trevillion Images; (Avignon) created from a photograph by Richard Susanto/Shutterstock.com”—so even if the design itself were below the TOO (which I don’t think it is) the included imagery is still presumably copyrighted. I’d have tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyvio, but that might be a little rash … since it‘s been here a year and a half, I don’t suppose another week will hurt.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I am developing a website based for customers in the United States, the business is owned by a client in the United Kingdom. I am located in the United States.
My question is: are all images on public commons sites available for use on a commercial level regardless of where the business address is located.
Thank you so much for you time to help me understand the rules/laws so that I do not break any.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodi Huckaby (talk • contribs)
All images on the Commons can certainly be used for commercial purposes in USA in the country of their origin. In other countries their copyright status may be different, for instance, images that are in public domain in USA and in the country of origin in some cases may not in public domain in other countries. However such situations are rare. So, if you are going to do your business only in USA any images from the Commons are ok. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
In theory all images on Commons can be used in the USA. In practice, the fallout over the URAA arguments have left a lot of works that are most likely in copyright in the US that are marked with PD licenses. Moreover, I think it worth noting that many works on Commons are licensed, and the GFDL or CC-BY-SA demand requirements that may not fit his needs, and that we don't have model releases, making use of most pictures of people problematic. (It's certainly something I'm watching in my own potential commercial uses.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
While people here have given comments that are in good faith, and intended to be useful, the 'correct' answer is that the standard disclaimer applies... while volunteers attempt to ensure that all material is legal and meets our rules, we cannot be held responsible for ensuring that, and it is the responsibility of reusers to verify the copyright status of any images that they intend to reuse (especially for commercial purposes). Revent (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the publication of images depicting National Trust Properties
The taking of pictures on National Trust Property and publication of said pictures is protected by a UK bylaw (1965). Which infers that such pictures cannot be published (in any format) without the express permission of the National Trust.
See NT claimed photographic access rights via the link below:
In particular: "Images taken at NT properties may not be submitted to photo libraries, agencies or on-line providers or provided directly to image buyers."
I assume that [commons.wikipedia.org] is for all intents and purposes a "photo library" even though it is intended for free and open use.
I have searched on [commons.wikipedia.org] but have not been able to locate a statement from the National Trust that permits the publication of these images or their republication under commons license agreements. I also notice that the majority of these images have been reproduced from Flickr and geograph.org which also do not have specific permission.
I wish to reuse many of these images under the CCL and GNU Free Documentation License agreements on my own website but do not wish to break the access rights stipulated by the National Trust.
Any advice on this matter would be appreciated.
Thanks
Steve
I don't think Commons would have any problems accepting such photos because it falls under non-copyright restrictions. The section from the byelaws is:
Hawking
17. No unauthorised person shall on Trust Property sell or offer or expose for sale any commodity, or article or for the purpose of trade or reward take any photograph.
which to me implies that if you don't receive any payment for the photo yourself then there's no violation. A separate section forbids taking photos inside their buildings without permission. --ghouston (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
62 Representation of certain artistic works on public display.
(1)This section applies to—
(a)buildings, and
(b)sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
which to me implies that you can still take (and retain copyright of) pictures of the inside the premises as they are open to the public.
Most of the photographs of NT buildings on Commons are covered by freedom of panorama. In theory, the NT could write to Commons or the WMF and ask that other images taken by the public inside their buildings are removed (it's a debatable area of copyright, despite the quote from the copyright act above), however in the light of the fact that where they allow the general public to take photographs in their properties, they appear to neither inform, nor agree contractual conditions on the photographers (such as not posting the images with unrestricted licenses on Flickr, or uploading to Commons), they seem uninterested in enforcing possible arcane rights.
Rather than talking hypothetically, you could try writing to Tim Parker, pointing out that Wikimedia encourages our volunteers to take photographs of their properties as part of the well respected global Wiki Loves Monuments programme, and ask him to confirm this is a good thing and that the NT has no interest in challenging copyright for any Commons photographs taken for the benefit of public knowledge.
Don't forget to publish the letter and any replies on Commons so it clears up any future doubts... --Fæ (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I wrote to the NT, of which I am a member, a couple of years ago. They were quite adamant that taking photos for personal use was fine, but that publishing any photos taken on NT property was strictly not allowed. Thus, all interior photos (of which there are many at Wikipedia) were a contravention of the terms of admittance to that property. When I pointed out there were many already here, the NT copyright office said they would "turn a blind eye to past infringements". What you are supposed to do, they told me, is to request use of an image from the NT official image library. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Typical behaviour of public administrations: creating nonsense rules contrary to their mandate, and having to turn a blind eye, as they can't really force anyone to apply them... :( I have seen the same in France. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
They also told me, however, that they were in a "long-running dispute with Wikipedia" over image use. But they would give no further details and I've never seen any public discussion, or even admission, about this. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Good news then. Having a long history of turning a blind eye, and being on the record as saying that, makes it virtually risk free for volunteers to upload their photos. If the NT wanted to take an unpaid Wikimedia volunteer to court for damages, with this background it would be a non starter. Of course we can be nice, if the NT ask then we can have a deletion request and test the evidence in more detail. --Fæ (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It was a "blind eye" only for past infringements. But I have seen frequent transgressions since, all apparently unchallenged. I felt that I could not reasonably upload any and "plead ignorance", having deliberately asked them Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess a lot of National Trust buildings are quite old and would be in the public domain. For such buildings it seems to me that the only issue for unpaid photographers is the banning of taking photographs inside a building. It's not a problem for Commons hosting the files (since Commons didn't take any photos, so hasn't broken the byelaw, and besides that is out of reach in the USA.) However it seems that in theory the National Trust could take a UK photographer to court and have them fined 20 GBP (or whatever the current amount is, if acts of parliament have changed it.) --ghouston (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The best thing would be to ask them about images uploaded from an anon account, and suggest that either they issue public take down notices to set a precedent (it being impossible to sue a ghost) or our advice to volunteers will always be to ignore all NT restrictive statements unless written by a named lawyer, as they both misunderstand copyright and fail to comply with The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015. --Fæ (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the byelaw gives them any right to make take down requests, especially against a 3rd party that didn't take the original photo. --ghouston (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a difference between what is legal for Commons to host, and what is legal for a specific person to upload. We are only required to honor copyrights, as we are not actually (as an 'entity') taking any images... it is the responsibility of an uploader to ensure that they are not violating their local laws or non-copyright restrictions in uploading an image. If you explicitly or implicitly agreed to a non-copyright restriction that would prevent you from uploading an image to Commons then you should not do so, even if it would be legal for us to host it (and even if if would not be deleted once uploaded). That you should not do so is the only response that we can 'responsibly' give. Similarly, if an image is under copyright in your local jurisdiction, you should not upload it even if it would be legal on Commons. Revent (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
So uploaders, who can remain anonymous and wholly untraceable, can simply ignore your advice and upload whatever they want. Commons won't get any trouble over it. Or, at least, not until they are challenged by a copyright holder to take an image down. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to upload a new version of my file PI2G_1F.jpg in the category:Gendarmerie mobile, made a mistake while renaming the new file and ended up with a wrong update. Now apparently, I can't update again.
Is there a way to cancel my first update and let me correct it again with the right file?
If not. Is there a way to remove both files (warning, I have uploaded another file named PI2G_1FD. Please don't delete that one !)
I can't think of any reason you shouldn't be able to upload another version. Near the bottom of the page File:PI2G 1F.jpg should be a link "Upload a new version of this file". Are you saying you tried that and it didn't work? - Jmabel ! talk23:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello @Jmabel: . Thanks for your quick answer. I think the reason the link "Upload a new version of this file" didn't appear is I had probably logged-out before trying to upload the new version ! My mistake, sorry. Since, as I mentioned in my first post, I have in the meantime uploaded the final version of the file (and the only version I would like to see online), under the name PI2G_1FD, would it be possible for you to altogether remove both versions of PI2G_1F so that no confusion would be possible in the future? Again, sorry for the mistake and many thanks for your help. Sincerely, Bruno--Domenjod (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll do it. In the future, if you want something deleted within a day or so after uploading it, just tag it with {{Speedy}} and ask for it as a courtesy deletion for an accidental upload. - Jmabel ! talk17:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC).
I've used this cute little thing a few times over the past years thinking that someone would respond. Then I've forgotten all about those issues and nobody ever did, so now I don't know how to retrace my tracks. Should I make a list from now on? Am I being silly? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
If you need some general help, you can ask here. Or we can suggest specific pages for more specialized help, such as for admin or OTRS help, etc. The template named «Template:Help» with the cute image is not a request for help. It is just a template that display that cute image, and since 2012 it links to a redirection, that in turn links to the page «Help:Contents». You would use that template if you wanted to display that image and link to that redirection in a cryptic way. No particular response should be expected to the fact that that image is displayed. You may have been looking for the template «Template:Helpme», which is a request for help and may attract responses. It can be used when a user wants to draw attention to the fact that they need help somewhere, in particular on some little visited page, although it should not be used every time a user participates in a discussion. I guess it can be mostly useful for new users who do not know where to ask a question about a topic. For more experienced users, it may be more efficient to ask the question on an active discussion page dealing with the topic in question or on the Village Pump. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Zu löschen ist das keinesfalls. Ich würde empfehlen, die Gesichter zu verpixeln // Nope, there's no need to delete the image. However, I'd recommend to pixelize the faces. Greets -- Milad A380talk?19:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Deseo publicar varios articulos
Hola
Deseo contribuir publicando varios artículos de mi especialidad, pero tengo dos problemas.
1- no se acepta subir .doc .rtf. .xps y no sé qué hacer. Mis artículos tienen contenido, imágenes y bibliografía.
2- Intenté publicar uno hace tiempo y lo borraron. No entendí. Al leer el por qué, muy bien podría habérseme enviado un mensaje que dijera que el artículo estaría oculto hasta que reuniera las correcciones que se recomendarían. No entiendo cómo un artículo sobre una canción de Bon Jovi es enciclopédico pero una biografía de una personaje desconocido para la historia de un país se deseche tan pronto.
That's probably the easiest way (on a Windows system), but it will add destructive compression if it's a JPEG file. Better to use a tool like jpegtran (or upload the original and ask someone else to do so). —LX (talk, contribs)20:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The was uploaded by somebody else. Is there tool inside commons or better do it within some windows application like Paint? This is the file. --Erik den yngre (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
In the past I have released my images under CC-BY-SA or some dual-license. Now I wish to release certain of them into the public domain with {{CC0}}. I know that we should not remove licenses but since those licenses would no longer be binding (since I would have given up the copyright) can I just replace the license templates with the CC0? BethNaught (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. You can't revoke a license and impose more restrictive terms (e.g. adding a share-alike requirement to a CC-by image), but you can always choose to waive additional rights. A file description page with both a CC-by-sa tag and a CC0 tag would be self-contradictory, as a work can't be both in the public domain (not protected by copyright) and covered by a free copyright license (which depends on copyright protection), so I recommend removing the CC-by-sa tag. It may be helpful to add a notice (e.g. to the permission field of the information template) noting that the file was previously available under a free copyright license before being released into the public domain, though. —LX (talk, contribs)13:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there.
I am trying to upload an image and each time it comes back with the message 'Internal error: Bad token'
Can someone explain to me what that is and how to correct it please?
Thank you Viarasp (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
sound problem with a video file, thought we fixed it but nope
This week, students from Wiki Learning- Tec de Monterrey uploaded a video about contributing files to Commons shown here to the right. Intitally, they (we, Im involved as an advisor) uploaded the files without the soundtrack. I told them to upload a new version of the file, with the soundtrack. Both versions appear on the page, but if you click on the main thumbnail, you get the version with no sound. If I click specifically on the new version, I get the sound. Anyone know how to fix this?Thelmadatter (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Transcode status shows errors. It looks like Mediawiki is unable to handle the codecs used. Can you upload the file using something else than OPUS audio codec (Vorbis for example)? MKFI (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:MKFI. (ping User:VGrigas (WMF)) I asked a student studying sound engineering to see if he could fix the problem and he uploaded a new version of the file. When I clicked on the main thumbnail earlier, the sound worked but it indicates that the file is over 73 hours long! However, just now I tried to play it and all I get is a blank screen. I have to click on the version below (there are now four) to get it to play. No different than before, as far as the ability to play.Thelmadatter (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Does someone have the original video as .mp4 or .mov or whichever file it exported as? If so, can you share it with me on dropbox? I'll see if I can re-upload it. VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
new article for Wikipedia
I have already added an article for Wikipedia in German. Now I would like to add the same article (U.E.P. Union of European Paratroopers) in English. How do I do this (I have forgotten the process that I underwent before). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doitsuno ookami (talk • contribs)
Hello. I uplaoded the file [1]. However, in .gif format the colors are a bit off in some places. So I then uploaded a png version where the colors are good, which is here: [2]. I would like to delete the first one and have this second one under the file name which the first one is currently under. Can an admin or someone with powers step in to make these changes? (Lilic (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)).
Thanks, that's probably a good one and I'll add it, though it still doesn't really address the actual type of mask. - Jmabel ! talk18:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
This is Wikimedia Commons, so we really have no idea who you would talk to at Facebook. But copyrights to images on Facebook are normally held by whoever made the image, so it is unlikely anyone at Facebook can help you with any rights issues. - Jmabel ! talk17:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
How to caste vote for monthly challenge
Hi,
I am a new to wikimedia commons, i know the process of uploading images in monthly challenge but how can i caste my vote for any image there. How to vote for an image in commons monthly challenge.
Hello, I ran into a problem with this photo. The original here has balanced lighting, but on some resolutions Commons rendered a much darker version of it (see this resolution for example). Tried reuploading as a new version (which didn't work). Is there anything I can do to make sure the photo is rendered correctly in all resolutions? Thanks Oriaaaass~commonswiki (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
When I tried to upload the pdf file I saw an the end the error message: <api-error-internal_api_error_MWException>. Is it my mistake? --Averaver (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello...I would like to include a passport photo that I found through genealogy research with a new article that I am creating. It was found through research on ancestry.com of the National Archives holdings. The subject of the photo passed away in 1961. Would I be free to use this on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oedivanth (talk • contribs)
Salve,
io avrei bisogno di utilizzare alcune immagini presenti su commons.wikimedia.org per una pubblicazione a stampa. La pubblicazione del volume avverrà negli USA. Posso usare le immagini? Se sì, come le devo citare? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avgvstvsc (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
All images here should, in principle, be usable (although of course we cannot vouch for everything always being correct). As for citing, that would vary from one image to another -- they are not all licensed the same way -- so you would have to ask more specifically about individual images. - Jmabel ! talk16:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@Terenen: : For free on some website is not the same as free content in our project scope. See the Wikipedia article Gratis versus libre. The photo is not out of copyright, so it is not free unless the copyright holder did publish the photo under a free license. The Olympiacos website does not say something of a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
dear friend @Martin H.: :, thanks for the answer, but, still, what i can do? can i edit in the file and type something that is enough to make the file to have licence? --Terenen (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The photo depicts (among other things) many other photos. You presumably won't be able to get permissions on the photos within the photo, which might be a problem. - Jmabel ! talk19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Possibly should not have been. I don't know the status of the underlying photo of Shalit. It might be a public-domain photo. It is surprising to see no explanation. - Jmabel ! talk16:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
As of 7/14, I cannot load any Wiki pages on Chrome browser Version 20.0.1132.47.
Receive the following error screen:
Invalid Server Certificate
You attempted to reach www.wikipedia.org, but the server presented an invalid certificate.
You cannot proceed because the website operator has requested heightened security for this domain.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.67.139 (talk • contribs)
@68.4.67.139: You probably need to update Google Chrome, that version is extremely old. Most likely, the security certificates have recently expired, since it's almost exactly three years to the month since that version was released. Revent (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
People keep bulk deleting my uploads. This is surprisingly infuriating. What to do?
Twice now, more than a hundred of my uploads have been deleted with no notice, and no questions asked. There is no copyright issue, and these images are original work. I know what the copyright policy is, and I follow it. I also include the appropriate citation and copyright information. This is maddening enough that I'm probably never going to contribute to any of the wikimedia projects again, unless something can be done to prevent these mass deletions. I put a ton of time into contributing to these projects and it all just gets deleted in a moment because someone didn't take the time to look into the matter or send me a message! What if anything can be done to prevent this happening again? I wasted a couple hours the first time getting the images undeleted, but it's not worth my time to do this again and again. If wikimedia doesn't want good faith contributions that follow all of the rules, they won't get them. Nate Wessel (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry that you encounter problems, but at least some of your uploads need a formal written permission. This is the case where they were published elsewhere previously, and if you are not the copyright holder. Another solution is to add a free license (like CC-BY or CC-BY-SA) at the source. Then the files can be undeleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
There IS a free license at the source for most of these. Like I said, I think I know what I'm doing here. Other users are deleting my files without even looking at the 'source'. More than a hundred images were deleted, and many of them are not even from a 'source'. They are original work that is very much my own. These images were deleted indiscriminately. I'm trying to prevent people from bulk-deleting images that are correctly uploaded and sourced. That is what I'm asking about. Nate Wessel (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Nate Wessel: : I took great care in checking which images to delete with my batch script. I've left uploads that were clearly yours (credited to your website, CincyMaps) untouched while nominating those of others (your partner's work and copyrighted material from transit agencies) for deletion. As I said on your Wikipedia talk page, try going through OTRS with your partner's permission in order to re-upload the images here while retaining the current non-commercial license on the website. SounderBruce15:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: : I wasn't asking you and I'm not going to explain again why you're wrong. My question here is how I can avoid dealing with people like you. I find this whole thing extremely unpleasant. People like you are the reason more people don't contribute. You're not being helpful, you're being a bully. Nate Wessel (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Nate Wessel: : If some of them were your partner's work rather than yours, you absolutely do have to go through OTRS for those. We only need this to happen once: an email from that partner indicating that you have a general permission to upload his/her images. Once we have that, you'll get an OTRS ticket number that you can use on all such images to clarify the permission. I'd recommend doing the same on your images if they are published elsewhere before being published on Commons: it's not absolutely necessary, but it will minimize future hassle. - Jmabel ! talk17:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: From the couple I looked at, it appears that they were uploaded as CC-BY-SA-4.0, but under a -NC license at the source, though it is stated at http://meddlingwithnature.com/about/ "Any content uploaded elsewhere on the internet by anyone affiliated with meddling with nature is available under the license given there. Just use whichever is least restrictive." I don't think, however, that that is a clear enough statement to allow one contributor there to relicense another contributor's image here (which is apparently what was done) without verification that they have explicit permission to do so. Revent (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Nate Wessel: Please read, and reflect upon, COM:EVID and COM:PRP, and then please reconsider the text on your user page. You should understand, people lie (or are grossly mistaken) about copyright on Commons CONSTANTLY. Thus, specific evidence is required for any previously published work. It is surprisingly common for a person to create a 'throwaway' account named after a person they want to write about... though named after that person, it is not them, and cannot license that persons works. People try this constantly. While this would presumably not be the case with you, we cannot assume that. We need verification per COM:OTRS or a clear license statement at location where the work was previously published. This isn't for 'our sake', but to protect copyright holders and reusers. Revent (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
So this guy uploads a bunch of files, fails to give the proper individual source for each, and then refers to me and others as bastards when we do proper deletions and copyvio tagging. File:Mantis silhouette 4.jpg, which you've recently restored, would fail a license review at the moment as it doesn't have a direct source showing a free license. Is the uploader going to slow down shifting blame and having a temper tantrum long enough to give each individual source on each image? I don't feel comfortable restoring images that aren't properly sourced. I also don't feel much like helping out people with bad attitudes who resort to false blame and name-calling. INeverCry18:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I rather doubt that anyone uploads stuff looking to have it deleted. If the licence isn't clear unless there's a per-source link (rather than a site) then we tell them that and hopefully someone will have the patience to do the dull tedious legwork that is an inherent part of running a site like this. Admin is more than just the fun of blocking famous accounts. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
These files were restored before, so I believe that the license was right. At the very least, speedy deletion was not appropriate. It is true that the source need fixing. @Bike756 and Nate Wessel: Could you help please? @Green Giant: What do you think? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I recall deleting 198 files in a deletion requests that was open for 17 days. We are all volunteers and we all make significant contributions to Wikimedia in our spare time. I don't particularly like the insinuation that files were "deleted with no notice, and no questions asked" because a notice was left on the user talk page and he participated in the deletion discussion. I also don't like the suggestion that admins don't like restoring files because when, thirty days after the deletion request was begun, the license was changed at the source so that it didn't include an -NC component, I manually restored all 198 files. I think this time all of these files should be license-reviewed to avoid this being repeated, and the uploader should request license reviews to any future uploads. Green Giant (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I've decided that it's not worth my time and energy to continue to try to contribute to this project. Whatever y'all decide to do with the images, I'm checking out. This has not been a welcoming community at all, I'm not having fun, and I don't feel even in the tiniest way that my contributions are valued here. Thank you to those of you who tried to help me restore the images, and who asked questions instead of passing judgements. Nate Wessel (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
wrong Flickr link
I corrected the Flickr link to this picture.
Will a real live person go by and verify that it has the correct license?
Hi, does "Wikimedia Commons" have more stringent copyright requirements than Wikipedia? Is it possible that an image may be eligible for the latter but not the former? 109.152.147.13301:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, it was English Wikipedia that I was referring to. I think, though unfortunately I cannot now recall specific examples, that the following scenario sometimes happens:
Person uploads a valid picture to Wikipedia.
Later, someone else thinks it would be a good idea to move it to "Commons".
Then, someone at "Commons" assesses that the copyright status is not suitable and deletes the image from Commons, but never restores it to Wikipedia.
If you notice one, I guess you can ask for it to be undeleted on Wikipedia. The biggest cause of such deletions is probably the Commons rule that files must be free in their source country as well as the USA, whereas the English Wikipedia only requires free in the USA. In many countries this excludes photographs of copyrighted buildings and other structures. --ghouston (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking along the lines of some way of making people here aware of this potential issue, in order to prevent it happening in the first place. 86.152.161.23212:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a very old topic. Decisions have been made a long time ago. Fair use is in texts. An isolated file cannot be fair use, and images are uploaded as isolated files and risk deletion even on wp.--Havang(nl) (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
So how do you include a "fair use" image in a Wikipedia article without uploading it as an "isolated file"? There's no other way to do it, is there? 86.152.161.23220:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
If it's uploaded locally to English Wikipedia and correctly tagged with a fair use rationale that identifies the context in which it is used, then it is not isolated. The reason Commons can't host fair use content is that the fair use exception from copyright protection depends on the context in which content is used, and Commons, being a general-purpose media repository, has no such context. Similarly, fair use media files that are removed from English Wikipedia articles for editorial reasons are deleted. —LX (talk, contribs)21:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Very few people would know about the "do not move" template. I think that people deleting files here, who presumably are admins or experienced/trained users, should take some responsibility for ensuring that they are not breaking articles in the Wikipedia that the image was originally sourced from. 86.152.161.23220:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
You asked how incorrect moves from English Wikipedia leading to deletions on Commons can be prevented. Adding that template is such a way. The template is there to create awareness. If you think too few people are aware of the template, what do you propose? Dumping the responsibility onto Commons administrators is not going to work. Commons administrators cannot restore files on other projects, nor can they be expected to be familiar with restoration request procedures or local upload policies on over 280 language editions of Wikipedia and over 500 other Wikimedia projects. The responsibility here is (1) with those who upload files locally to tag them correctly (2) with those who transfer files to Commons to transfer them correctly and only if the files are within Commons' project scope and (3) with administrators on other projects who delete files that have been tagged as moved to Commons to review that the move was done correctly. —LX (talk, contribs)21:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Seconding what LX said. If you are uploading to an individual Wikipedia, you should know why you are uploading there instead of to Commons, and tag accordingly. - Jmabel ! talk22:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
'Thirding' (lol). It is the responsibility of contributors of content that they did not themselves create (to Commons, or to any other project) to themselves ensure that they are complying with the legalities and the policies of the project they are contributing to. The problem of editors transferring files from other projects to Commons without accurately assessing if those files are allowed on Commons is something that we can only 'effectively' deal with locally, by deleting the problematic files. The transferring user, and the local administrator who actually deletes the file, should ensure that it is allowable here. It's not 'ideal' (to push the responsibility onto them) but it is 'realistic'... we have to delete content that is not allowed here, and cannot undelete it at the source wiki. Revent (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Per the above comments, it is the responsibility of the uploader and the transferer to check that a file complies with Commons policies. However, if a file is found to be potentially acceptable on another particular wiki, then you can request temporary undeletion by any Commons admin to allow transfer from Commons. If a file was transferred from another wiki and was subsequently deleted on Commons, you can always request that it be restored on that other wiki by an admin there. If and when it is finished, there will be a fair use bot to handle transfer back in certain such cases. Personally I think the whole free and non-free situation could be managed better by unifying the unfree content located on 100+ Wikimedia wikis into a single NonFreeWiki, so any uploader would have a simple choice between a free repository and an unfree one. That would also solve the current massive copyright violation taking place on dozens of Wikimedia wikis that have unfree files but no Exemption Doctrine Policy (something the WMF required to happen 8 years ago but have chosen to ignore). Just my tuppence worth of opinion. Green Giant (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I generally pick these up through Flickr because (1) there's a generally good tool, even if it messed up this time and (2) the copyright status is clear. There's a lot on the Seattle Municipal Archives web site where it's not clear.
My images are all licensed Creative Commons so I have no issues with them being used on Wiki* projects. Over the years pictures of mine have appeared on various pages on Wikipedia, for example, normally added from Flickr.
I was a little surprised to see almost half of my Flickr archive has been uploaded to the commons. Some of the images are things like family photos or pictures of my dog and the majority of them don't appear to be in use on any Wiki pages.
What is the value in bulk uploading images like this? Are these bots or humans doing it? Again the images are CC so I don't care about copyright but I'm trying to understand why the bulk collection of my images is considered desirable or necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.128.35 (talk • contribs)
Yes, provided of course that the Flickr uploader has the legitimate right to issue such a license. See Commons:Flickr files for details. In this case, the depicted work is clearly prehistoric, and the photo is taken with the same camera as the Flickr user's other uploads, so I'm not sure why User:Jarekt tagged File:Wandjina at mt elizabeth.jpg as missing permission. —LX (talk, contribs)15:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, LX and Jarekt. There is one more file, that I uploaded from Flickr yesterday, with the same license, that were tagged for deletion; [5]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again for the help, LX. I uploaded five images from Flickr yesterday, and planned for a few more; intending to have enough to make an image gallery for the Wikipedia article Wandjina. But trying to get things done here on Commons, or on Wikipedia, is too frustrating; and no doubt as much for the administrators who try to fix up my mistakes as for me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Picture deletion request
This picture has a public domain licensing tag, when it is obviously a false statement. The picture is from 1975 and thus it does not pass the threshold of 70 years from publication. Hansi667 (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there some reason you didn't nominate it for deletion in the normal manner? Or do you just not know how to do that? - Jmabel ! talk21:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hola. Soy bastante novato. He subido la foto Baños1 a Commons y después al artículo Baños de la Encina. Pero parece que he hecho mal algo en relación con el Copyright y la borrarán si no lo arreglo.
--Matias1948W (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
La problema no está con el copyright, sino que Vd. no ha seleccionado ninguna licencia. ¿Puede alguién ayudarle? Yo estoy viajando, y solo hay unos pocos minutos. [The problem is not with the copyright but that he hasn't selected a license. Could someone help him? I'm traveling, and only have a few minutes on here.] - Jmabel ! talk16:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like to ask for help with a picture I uploaded at wikimedia commons 7 days ago: The file "FuD.jpg" was created by the staff of the Trier Center for Digital Humanities (as I mentioned in the file descripion). As I work for this institution now, I could upload thie picture, couldn´t I? I have no idea, why there are any copyright difficulties with it
As I already told you, you need to send a permission, or the legal department of your organisation has to do it. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Newbie question: After uploading an Image jpg to Commons, how does this file then get inserted in the correct page on Wikipedia? Can an Administration Volunteer complete this function? I am registered but unconfirmed and I do not have a working knowledge of HTML. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liber8tor (talk • contribs) 01:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Commons is not directly concerned with how images are used on sister sites; a better place to ask for advice would be the help desk at that particular project (you don’t say which language of Wikipedia you mean) or the article’s discussion page. One way to to learn the necessary code (it’s not exactly HTML we use, but a sort of shorthand) is to find a similarly situated image in another article and copy the corresponding line to where you want it, substituting the filename of your image for the one that appeared in the other article (likewise your caption, if any). That said, if you let us know which picture you want to place and where, I or someone else here will be glad to help. The coding details will depend on the language and whether the image will be free-standing, in a gallery, or embedded in an infobox or some other kind of template.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I had uploaded an svg file from OpenClipArt.org and it was successful.
But later, when I tried to upload some other svg files, which I had stitched together (borrowed from commons), error message flashed (multiple times) This file might be corrupt, or have the wrong extension. What should I do? aGastya✉ Message Me! (: 15:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Ivan Milenin here. I am a member that had followed the Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons policies for the past few years to improve my mistakes in the editing parts, such as, making templates, adding flags to an appropriate information, such as FIFA World Cup, adding reliable sources, uploading images, etc., for the past few years. I am writing to you for uploading pictures on international actors and actresses, international soccer players, coaches, musicians, some other types of images; with my mistake. The reason I am writing some help, is because, let's say I had uploaded some images on the actors and actresses, such as Ian James Corlett, and then I just honestly explained that I did not own the picture, and uploaded it, with some vague sources, and somehow, the picture got deleted. I didn't understand at first, but soon, I had realized that I didn't follow the steps onto uploading pictures based upon their own work, or uploading with sources and permits other authors. I found an image of Michael Bay with a picture shown on the infobox that is a work by the other author on a different website. To tell you the truth, I'm still unsure on how to upload an image that is by own work, or work by someone else. If you have a reply, a question, or concerns, please leave a reply on this box, or my talk page. With warm thanks, Ivan Milenin.
I understand some parts of uploading images, so that makes sense I cannot upload images that doesn't belong to me without someone else's permission, but I'm still flustered. I'm not sure if the policy's correct, but I can at least ask you one question. I wonder if I ask the other author's permission to use and publish on Commons for some important people? If you say that would be a correct way to do so, I would thank you, but if you thank that's not a correct way, let me know. Thank you. --Ivan Milenin (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if the copyright owner (usually the photographer) is willing to issue a free licence for an image, there’s a facility to verify and record the permission. Please see OTRS for detailed instructions and a sample consent letter.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Do note that just permission to post on Commons is not enough. They must provide an appropriate free license (CC-BY-SA is pretty much the most restrictive license we accept); of course, it's OK if they provide something even less restrictive, or release the image into the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk06:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I am now 50% ready and confused. The only thing that I'm worried about is: Should I just send an email to the author in order release it under free license such as CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or public domain, or somehow send it to Commons or the author following the email template to send it for the request of the pictures. To my thoughts "the last part of the sentence was hard for me to think". If you have a reply that I would highly recommend, please send it as soon as possible. Thanks. --Ivan Milenin (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I have scanned two nineteenth century luggage labels which show different spellings in use at the time of the town of Cullompton. I am not the author, but I am pretty sure that the copyright will have lapsed on them. However, they were not published as such, and I don't know the exact date. Can someone please help!?
These labels consist of one word and one acronym. They are clearly below the threshold of originality and as such have never been protected by copyright. Use {{Pd-text}} on them. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I would like to know if the images of this site (http://collecting.wikidot.com) are freely uploadable in wikimedia commons (obviously, adding all needed information about sources and licence).
Looking at the bottom of the pages you can see this sentence: "Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License".
Looking randomly at the pages containing images, I don't see other licence informations.
Ich habe in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia im Artikel über Glogonj das Wappen hinzugefügt. Von einer Internetseite über den Ort. Das Wappen ist eigentlich allgemein öffentlich. Bitte nicht löschen.
As an admin I dearly love the Delinker but it does not have an option to universally delink files, only universally replace files. An universal remove would be useful in the rare case a file to be deleted is actually in such wide use that manual link removal would be a chore. Do we have some obscure link eater function or does it not exist? --Pitke (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Das hatte ich nicht impliziert. Ich wollte Dir nur einen kurzen Weg zu den kompetenten deutschen Kollegen aufzeigen, bei denen ich mir immer guten Rat hole. -- Maxxl² - talk20:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, explanation by example helps, thanks. EBNF would be certain but this should work. The topic in question is the Summary appearing below a picture. I had hoped to find a link or title such as "Summary, syntax and semantics" but every reader will have another idea of a name for something. By the way, what is the significance of the - sign after the en description in the example? Thanks again, PeterEasthope (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I don’t see any hyphens there. Do you mean the ellipsis (…) on the line immediately below the English description? It just indicates that more language-specific description templates can be included; it‘s not part of the syntax.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
uploading a group of files
The last time I tried uploading a group of files at once (this was a few days ago), it still wanted to give each file the same name (IIRC). I could fix this if I knew what order the uploaded files were in, but I don't know that. Is there a way to fix this problem, or a way to work around it, other than uploading each file individually? Bubba73 (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
What kind of page, and on what topic? Since the purpose of Commons is to be a media repository, the only kind of pages you'll find here are pages providing context and structure to the media files (such as galleries and categories) and pages supporting the project itself (user pages, policies, talk pages and so on). —LX (talk, contribs)21:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Inserting Photos
Hi Guys,
I have a photo upload question for you. My mother, Kathleen Andrews is on Wikipedia as the First Female Bus Driver, Dispatcher and First Women in Management for the City of Edmonton. I would like to upload a photo of her taken in 1978 in front of her bus. The photo was found in the Provincial Archives of Edmonton so it is free domain. How do I go about uploading this photo?
Here on Commons, we only host content that can be freely used by anyone for any purpose. Therefore, Commons can only accept two types of content:
Content whose copyright holder has explicitly agreed to allow anyone to use it for any purpose by publishing it under a free license
Content that is not protected by copyright – in other words: content that is in the public domain
I've never heard of "free domain" before, but there is no reason to believe that a photo is covered by a free license or in the public domain simply because it was found in an archive. Most likely, you cannot upload the photo unless you can obtain permission from the copyright holder to publish it under a free license. —LX (talk, contribs)21:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Skylaa: archival material on the Alberta Culture website (assuming that’s what you mean, as opposed to the City’s archives) is not generally in the public domain unless it’s old enough for the copyright to have expired. (For photos taken after 1948 that means 50 years after the photographer’s death or, if anonymous or under Crown copyright, the earlier of 50 years after the first publication or 75 years after the taking.) See the copyright page, where the government offers a similar licence to the CC-NC-ND, for personal & educational use only and without modification, which is not sufficient to be hosted here. The photo will need an explicit release as LX describes above; you could try the permission-request contacts on the Alberta Culture page, but first please read the detailed instructions for obtaining consent at COM:OTRS. Note that the archive will only be able to give permission if they hold all the rights; if they’ve published the picture under a limited licence you could be out of luck until 2054 or even later. But it can’t hurt to ask.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Category hierarchy for things named after people
If I have a category for something named after someone (or several people) who also have categories, which (the thing or the people) should be the parent cat and which should be the subcat(s)? DMacks (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure; there are divided opinions on whether we should have categories containing only one item (FWIW they don’t generally bother me at all, especially if there’s any likelihood that more files will be added in future), but if I read you right you’d be adding a named-after subcat as well, which makes two items, certainly enough to start with.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm in the process of diffusing the giant generic Category:Name reactions and friends into specific subcats based on who they are named after (the "name" of the "name reactions"). The issue of a cat with one item was exactly my concern. I hadn't thought of the subcat I'd be creating as a second item beyond the person's file I might find (the files I'm subcat'ing are currently not tagged with the people at all). Thanks! DMacks (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
i know it is under a free licence Attribution 3.0 United States (CC BY 3.0 US)
i have requested undeletion and it has not happened here is the entire undeletion conversation
I am requesting restoration of the file i can understand why you would delete the image but this specific image is from here http://www.fsf.org/windows8 i have checked the image license on the image it says this work produced by the free software foundation is under CC By 3.0 U.S license. I am very sure this image is under a free license approved by Wikimedia commons here is the license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
That's just my opinion. I don't have any ability to restore images or any special influence with administrators. --ghouston (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Source information
When I type {own} in the source box, I receive a pink notification window that says I have to include a source. I'm already doing this. Where am I going wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWTCA92024 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It is taken from a source that gives no indication of offering any rights. Is there some basis on which you think it is either public domain or free-licensed? - Jmabel ! talk15:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hard to say. The issue isn't his death date, but the author's (photographer's) death date. I believe that in the Netherlands, after 89 years if it was truly anonymous, it would now be public domain but someone else may know better. But imagine the case where the photographer was 26 at the time and lived to be 90; then they would only have died 25 years ago and copyright would certainly still apply.
Also, in terms of sorting this out: "Internet" is not a meaningful source: where does this come from (URL)? - Jmabel ! talk16:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Done Yann (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
a few times over the past years thinking that someone would respond. Then I've forgotten all about those issues and nobody ever did, so now I don't know how to retrace my tracks. Should I make a list from now on? Am I being silly? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Serbia_Ethnic_Map_2011.gif){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Serbia_Ethnic_Map_2011_rightcolors.png){kind=link}
.jpg)
Comment Help to restore them would be nice. @INeverCry: ? Yann (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rock_art_painting_of.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}