Commons:Help desk/Archive/2007/04

PD: This seems too easy...

I'm developing a set of articles on Wikipedia dealing with the 1800's and early 1900's. I looked through the various PD licenses and saw this: "{{PD-US }}— for images (originally) published in the United States before 1923..." The image on this page was originally published around 1879. That means I can upload it here with no lingering questions or doubts, right? Thanks! Haus 19:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. However, if you have some proof that the author died before 1937 (70 years ago), the tag {{PD-old}} is preferred, since this tag applies world wide. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that you can obviously only use {{PD-US}} for work first published in the United States. Do not forget to mention for each image you upload the source: We must be able to confirm that the tag is correct. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... thanks a million! Haus 20:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember that a "published image" means it was widely available. But even unpublished works can be copyright-free after a certain period of time. I don't know the specifics, but there is plenty of information online. --Iamunknown 23:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename picture

I took the picture Image:Paprika.jpg and uploaded it a while ago. I thought it was a paprika plant, but it seems it's a citrus plant, not paprika. If someone is certain it's a citrus plant, can an admin rename the file, or if not, can someone delete it? Entheta 14:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you find out it's a different plant, feel free to reupload it under a new name and then tag the old one with {{New_name.jpg}} so an admin deletes it. Unfortunately we can't rename files. Thanks, Yonatan ^talk 14:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll try to find out which one it is. Entheta 14:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with a bunch of suspicious pictures

I just came across Mo7areb (talk · contribs) who seems to upload pictures gathered from random websites. Some of them are not obviously copyvios (but they lack license information, see Image:Cat eating plant.jpg or Image:Nature7.jpg). Others are clearly marked by websites (e.g. Image:Bedtime1.jpg, Image:Lion Mate 800x600.jpg, Image:AnimalMutants2.jpg). Siebrand already made an attempt to educate that user on their talk page several days ago, unsuccessfully it seems. – In my opinion, given the pattern, none of the images should be given the benefit of doubt, but that may just be me. What's the recommended course of action in such cases? Rl 08:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to delete them all. The correct place to report such users is COM:AN/U. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rl 11:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing. Today's edition: Other's PD & combination of derivative works

As far as I understand it, according to the licences help page, derivative work of public domain images should be under the licence tag {{PD-username}}. I've tried (also for another image), but it doesn't seem to work. How should I license it then?

In the case of Image:Map of Virginia & USA highlighting Charlottesville.png, the image actually combines derivative work of two original images. How do I license that? Thanks!! --Ibn Battuta 20:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose {{PD-user|username}} should be. --Kareha 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives of public domain images can be tagged {{PD-Art}} if the original is in the public domain due to it being old or {{X}} if it's because it's a derivative of a work that is released under the X license. Say the original was released under {{Cc-by-2.5}}, the tag on a derivative of it would be {{cc-by-2.5}}. We could probably help you better if you gave us a link to the image. Thanks, Yonatan ^talk 06:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kareha! Yes, that's it!! @ Yonatan(h): ~shrug~ I've already linked twice to the respective image in my initial request, not sure what else you're looking for? --Ibn Battuta 07:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I missed it. ;) Yonatan ^talk 07:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll get yet more explicit next time ;o) ... anyways, any ideas how to license such a "combined" work? (As you can see, the image is currently licensed under the username of the user whose image makes up for the larger part of the combined image - but only after downscaling the other! So both users are probably equally entitled to being named/ getting their name in the license or whatever...) Thanks, Ibn Battuta 21:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Image:Map of Virginia highlighting Charlottesville City.svg is Public Domain, there's no legal obligation whatsoever on derivatives of it. You should still cite it and its author as a matter of good practice, but it has no effect on what license you put on your derived work. On the other hand, Image:Map of USA VA.svg is not PD, so you have to choose one (or more) of the licenses that it's provided under, to decide the status of your image. In other words, your image can be {{GFDL}}, {{CC-BY-SA}}, or {{CC-BY}}, or some combination of those. Also, I believe that if you chose to use the second source under its CC-BY image, although you're obligated to credit the author, you'd be free to release your image under any license you wanted, including PD (which would mean that later users of your image would not be legally obligated to credit the earlier author, which almost seems like a circumvention of CC-BY, but IANAL as they say).

One annoying detail is that Image:Map of USA VA.svg doesn't actually identify who the author is who you're required to credit. I guess you have to assume it's the uploader, User:Huebi, but that's not always a correct assumption. --Davepape 22:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I must have overlooked that!! Okay, is this okay now? (Unfortunately, the original uploader - User:Huebi - is inactive, so there doesn't seem to be a way of finding out whether he's in fact the author or not.)--Ibn Battuta 04:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move Image

Please move Image:Hypermetropia2.svg to Image:Hypermetropia.svg because I reduced the large border. Also, I made this image to supersede: Image:Hypermetropia.png

Thanks CryptWizard 09:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --EugeneZelenko 14:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transferring from Wikipedia

I've uploaded four images to the English Wikipedia, User:Liftarn moved two of them here. How do I move the other two here? Also, the two that User:Liftarn moved here are not in my gallery of uploaded files. How do I put those in my gallery?

The two that have not been moved are: Image:.22lr_ratshot.jpg and Image:.25 ACP.jpg

The two that are not in my gallery are: Image:MP25 1.jpg and Image:MP25 3.jpg --DanMP5 22:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use this tool. It speeds up transwiking images here. V60 ^{VCTalk · VContribs} 23:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your second question about placing images in your gallery, you can't. It's simply a list of the images you uploaded to Commons, not anyone else's, so the images Liftarn moved here would be in his gallery. V60 ^{VCTalk · VContribs} 23:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the other two images. Can I safely put the two that Liftarn uploaded in my userpage picture gallery (here), noting that liftarn uploaded them but I created them? --DanMP5 02:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you meant the gallery that the toolserver automatically generates. But if it's your userpage gallery generated manually, then yes, it can be safely added. V60 ^{VCTalk · VContribs} 15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did mean the toolserver gallery at first. But anyway, I added the other two to my userpage gallery and everything is fine now.--DanMP5 03:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for pointing out that nice tooL![reply]

Photo received by email from owner, how do I place this online?

Sorry if this is a tedious or already-answered question. I find the labyrinth of templates and help FAQs here to be somewhat difficult to follow!

I noticed that the Wikipedia page for Ken Livingstone lacked a good photo, so I emailed the office of the Mayor of London and asked for a good photo for use in Wikipedia. The manager there emailed one over. Now in simple terms, how do I go about placing this online and ensuring it doesn't immediately get squashed as being unapproved. I can't seem to find the place where one states something has been email-approved.

thanks for your help! 81.158.84.37 09:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Commons:Licensing. The licensing terms are very strict here, and the image must be released under a free license by the Mayor himself. If he releases it copyright, then you may only upload to Wikipedia, and tag the image as copyright. V60 ^{VCTalk · VContribs} 23:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. In simple terms, how do I go about tagging it as copyright please? Thanks. 81.158.84.37 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the summary box, just put {{LICENSE HERE}}, where that is the template that contains the tag, for example {{logo}}. That is on Wikipedia, not Commons. V60 ^{VCTalk · VContribs} 00:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you tag a file for deletion?

I have twice uploaded a picture file, and both times the name came out wrong. How do I tag the "bad name" files for deletion. I can't find any way to do it.

HowardMorland HowardMorland 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add {{Badname}} to the image description page. Preferably, upload the image under the correct name first, then use {{badname|Image:correctname.jpg}}, where correctname.jpg is the name of the new, correct upload. --Davepape 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving category names?

While adding categories to some of my pictures, I found Category:Car park and was rather surprised to find it under that name. Is it possible to rename the category to something like Category:Car parks, since most other such Commons categories are plural in name? And if so, how do I propose it? Thanks! Nyttend 18:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For uncontroversial moves like this, please go to user:orgullobot/commands. You can request category moves there. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

images for possible use

I'm not sure if we can use these, but these images by NASA are great! http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-034 129.120.22.131 21:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may upload these images, since they are in the public domain: {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. V60 ^{VCTalk · VContribs} 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video file size limit?

Does anyone have any ideas what the file size limit if for Ogg video uploading? Thanks in advance. Netscott 00:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The file size limit in general (on Commons) is 20 MB. --Davepape 00:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got something good thats larger we can possibly manually upload it. --Gmaxwell 00:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to trim it down to size with the proper encode settings. It's video I made for the Levitron article. Netscott 02:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I managed to upload the video but the player seems to choke on the buffering part of the process. I have downloaded the video and played it fine on my computer so there shouldn't be a problem. Thanks for answering my questions. Netscott 07:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitespace in SVGs (and images in general)

(I may have asked this earlier, but I can't find my post. I apologize if this is a re-post.)

In the creation and conversion of images, how should I deal with whitespace (or, more frequently, empty transparent space) around the edges of images (for example, this one)? Is it ideal to crop them as close as possible, or should I leave an empty border around it for aesthetics? Thanks! MithrandirMage 01:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its up to you. I rather have an empty border around it though. Terence Ong 06:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to tag a file

I have twice uploaded a picture file, and both times the name came out wrong. How do I tag the "bad name" files for deletion. I can't find any way to do it.

Howard Morland

Please put {{bad name|Image:<Correct name>}} on images with incorrect names. --EugeneZelenko 15:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain because the publisher has ceased to exist?

Image:Alban Berg.jpg has just been uploaded with the claim that it's public domain because the publisher of the book it was taken from is no longer in existence. That isn't actually a valid PD claim, is it? —An gr 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this image, that claim is obviously false - as the uploader claims to have permission from "Leksikografski zavod Miroslava Krleže (the succeror of the LZJ)." If it has a successor, the copyright would have transferred to them. In the abstract case, where a company legally ceases to exist and is not replaced by something else - I'm not sure.--Nilfanion 19:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it as lacking a proper license. —An gr 19:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just one of several with the same claim. I'm sending the lot of them to COM:DEL. --Davepape 06:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing an image from wikimedia

Hi,

If publishing an image taken from wikipedia, in this case a picture of Diamantina in Brazil, waht credit line should be given in the book? I have tried to find the answer on this site, but sadly to no avail, help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

tommy t

Hi. There is no general rule for this, but you can generally credit them by their Wikimedia Commons username, unless they state a real name under which they want to be creditted. Please note that most images on Wikimedia Commons are copyrighted. They are under a free license however, but you must comply with the terms of the license. If you can point to excact image, we might be able to help you further. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(From my talk page -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The picture is the main one on the Diamantina, Minas Gerais page (people on street with colourful houses and hillside behind). It states in the licensing section:

Public domain I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

In case this is not legally possible: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such ::conditions are required by law.

Many thanks for your help with this. tommy t

It is public domain, you don't need to credit anyone (unless this is required by the copyright law of your country). However, as courtesy you may credit the author and link back to Wikimedia Commons. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbnails and large version problem

Hi there. For some reason thumbnails are not appearing on the Maps of Japan page. Some thumbnails are displayed but some are not.

Also, when I try to download some of the large resolution versions of the files I am presented with the following error:

   * Unable to forward this request at this time.
This request could not be forwarded to the origin server or to any parent caches. The most likely cause for this error is that:
   * The cache administrator does not allow this cache to make direct connections to origin servers, and
   * All configured parent caches are currently unreachable.

For example, clicking on the image on Image:Japan_Akita_large.png takes me to [1] which gives me the error above.

Thanks in advance for any assistance, Bobo12345 11:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move file request

Just started to upload to comms, been uploading to wikipedia direct before now. As my account is new I cannot upload a edited version of an image i made. The original image is Image:Apple-book.svg and I have uploaded a new version at Image:Apple-book1.svg can someone please upload the new version over the original version. Thanks, Richtom80 11:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --EugeneZelenko 14:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation: Forking images and User pages

Two unrelated questions, 'hope that's ok:


This is my first time here, and I wanted to modify an existing CC-licensed Wikimedia Commons image and upload it under a new name (it was the basis image for a simulated effect). See images at right. I couldn't find any useful documentation on how to "fork" an image, either about preserving the edit history, linking back to the original, the structure/syntax of the "Original File History" section, etc. It also seemed like the format of the {{Information}} box was a bit underspecified (do I list both authors? The most recent? The first?), etc. I couldn't find anything that answered these questions, so I just winged it, but did I miss something?		Anamorphic-digital sound+cue.jpg (modified)

Is there an easy way to redirect comments (etc.) to my Wikipedia User Page? Or is that a fool's errand? I don't see any real documentation on the social aspects of user pages, and it seems like with Wikipedia (various languages), Wikimedia Commons, meta.wikimedia.org, etc., it can get unmanageable fast. I see that wikimedia commons has an email-based watchlist feature, so that makes it a bit easier, but is there a way to keep it under control?

Thanks. Jhawkinson 15:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Your upload looks OK to me. I don't think there is any guideline on exactly what to be included on a derivate work, but common sense suggests that at the minimum the author(s) should be mentioned, and indeed most licenses have this as a requirement. It is of course essential to provide a link to the original work. If you do that, I don't think you will have any problem.
-- No, there is currently no easy way to do that. / Fred Chess 09:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

automatically making links right

When uploading images of plants I found that often links has been made not right. For example on page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Magnolia you see that almost all subjects fall under the letter M. Only for 'Magnolia stellata' and 'Magnolia zenii' the links on those pages are made as [[Category:Magnolia|stellata]] instead of only [[Category:Magnolia]]. In some case I have changed manually many links, but I would like that that can be done automatically. Is that possible? --Wouterhagens 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no built-in automatic way to do that. Try posting a request at commons:bots and a bot writer may do it if they think it is not too hard. I think it could be useful. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

search window has disappeared

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Newimages

The same to me the last two days. I work in monobook and have IE. See screenshot. In classic it is still visible.Rasbak 08:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The feature has apparently been turned off by the developers so if they see it fit to turn it back on in the future, they will. Yonatan ^talk 09:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BOO.... what a loss! --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:School_ip.svg

Hi, I recently created this vector image using inkscape(i'm not that familar with inkscape, I created the image to get the hang of using inkscape) but I'm having trouble making the background transparent. Can any one help me? Thanks.--Lwarf 11:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading - My filename gets changed as I upload

I keep trying to upload a file to the name

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Little_Boy_Internal_Components_(no_labels).gif

but it comes up under the name

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Image-Little_Boy_Internal_Components_(no_labels).gif

There is an extra "Image-" in there which I did not put. Where did that come from? In the destination filename box, I put this

Image:Little_Boy_Internal_Components_(no_labels).gif

Please respond to my talk page. HowardMorland 13:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered the user on his talk page. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what to do when there's no OTRS ticket on an email permission?

Example: Image:Congdon-headshot.PNG. Uploader says there's permission, copy of the purported (probably valid) email is there in the image data. But no OTRS ticket. How to handle this? — coel acan — 22:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the perfect instance, you would ask the uploader to forward a copy of the e-mail to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org. If the uploader no longer has permission, then they will need to send another e-mail. The permission, "Feel free to use this one: [image URL]," however, is insufficient. Best practice is to ask the copyright owner to fill out the explicit declaration of consent at Commons:Email templates. The uploader may need to re-request permission with that attached to the e-mail. --Iamunknown 23:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images from ESCAP

Hi, I was wondering whether United nations/ESCAP images are public domain. The Copyright notice says that, The material contained in this site is copyright of the United Nations. Any uncredited article or information on this Web Site may be copied, summarized or translated into any language providing acknowledgement of its use is made.

So, by providing attribution, can we use unaccredited photos from this site in public domain, as suggested by the site? --Ragib 12:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know anything about commercial use, or other derivate works than those specified. So unless we know for sure that they are allowed, we cannot use the images on Commons :( -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how does the supreme court force government official to do what it has mandated in a decision?

People visible in pictures

One question I've been asking myself a couple of times: If individuals are visible in a picture and clearly recognizable, do you have to ask for their permission to publish these pictures (take this image for example)? -Wutschwlllm 17:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not in that example. For more info, see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. --MichaelMaggs 20:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy right logo needed?

Do you need to place a some rights reserved logo on the piece you are doing, if thats the type of photo that is being used? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.14.10 (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, see Category:License tags. V60 ^{干什么？ · VContribs} 01:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of photo of baby wheel found on Wikipedia "baby hatches" site

Hello,

Can we use this photo please? It is for a short article on baby hatches that we plan to run in the quarterly magazine produced by Wesley Mission, Sydney, Australia. The article itself will rely on and cite current news reports ad Wikipedia for its information. We hope to run the photo at about one-sixth of an A4 page size. Our magazine is distributed to supporters of the Mission in Sydney. The Mission is a church-basd charity organisation. The article will run in a section where we cover news around the world on religion and social justice issues.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Regards - Dinoo Kelleghan, Public Affairs Officer, Wesley Mission, Sydney, Australia, dinoo.kelleghan@wesleymission.org.au

There are three such photos at Baby hatch. en:Image:Babyklappe.jpg is claimed to be freely useable as long as the source is attributed, but I would check back at the source (contact details) for this one. (I don't know if we have a (semi-)formal release for this one. It doesn't have an OTRS tag.) Then there is an image (Image:Foundling wheel Santo Spirito.jpg by Richard J. Casimir) licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, and finally an image (Image:Innocenti.jpg by User:Richardfabi) that was released by the photographer into the public domain. See the license statements on these image description pages. Lupo 10:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked?

A freind wishing to load a fewOrchid images (at my suggestion) created an account under the name Orchis using my computer an e-mail address. I received an e-mail asking me to confirm that this is my accounts e-mail address.I missed this and the notice has now expired. I can no longer upload images. What do I do now? Can you help please? I'm really stuck.Best wishes from IrelandNotafly 07:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a confirmed email address in order to upload. If you can edit here, you should be able to upload. What happens when you try? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some filenames wrong

Please help us: after my request User:Marco Busdraghi has recently uploaded some images of a rare and endemic plant of Sardinia, Centaurea horrida, but some photos of this plant show Astragalus terracianoi, a different species. He was confused because A. terracianoi is associated with C. horrida in the same environment with a similar habitus and a not expert in botanic can confuse these species. So, we need to rename this file:

Thanks a lot --gian_d 15:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please upload images under new name and put {{Bad name}} on old ones. --EugeneZelenko 15:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! but I used the template {{Duplicate}} because I'm not the original uploader. The author knows the context. Thanks --gian_d 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Procedure Question

Hi, I proposed a template for deletion Template:MMP-Katowice in good faith believing it to be unnecessary. A load of people immediately pounced wanting it kept. Fair enough. Amongst the comments though was a user who is an administrator. He posted a strongly worded "keep" comment and also seemed to be personally annoyed at me for suggesting this template. However, the same administrator also decided to close the discussion and unsurprisingly kept the template.

Is this acceptable? Shouldn't an independent administrator who has no investment in the discussion decide when is an appropriate time to close the discussion and also perform the analysis of the comments?

Just to be clear, I have no interest if this specific template is ultimately kept or not. I am just concerned about the process that was used in deciding. Thank you --ksfan 21:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The request was open for 7 days (the standard minimum time). As consensus was extremely clear, the closing 'keep' was appropriate. In case you are wondering "do we have a policy against admins closing debates they have voted in" - no, we do not.

As for admins closing debates that they are involved in, in general this is not a good look, I agree. The appropriateness depends on the issues in the discussion. If an administrator did act inappropriately, it could be brought to our attention and reviewed. Another factor is that because we have so many deletion discussions and so few administrators who work on them, sometimes there is a backlog of up to two months before a discussion is closed. So the appropriateness of closing a debate one has participated in needs to be balanced against the shortage of admin attention in general.

I don't know if there is some history of involvement between you and tsca. Maybe you just caught him/her in a bad moment.

On the basis of this discussion alone, I don't feel that there is any need for further action. How do you feel about it? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated IEEE-488 needs move

Hi. I uploaded Image:IEEE-448-new.png as a corrected version of Image:IEEE-448.png. Someone at the Wikipedia article w:IEEE-488 pointed out that the number of pins actually shown was wrong. Unfortunately, the Wiki Commons system thinks I'm too much of a noob to let me replace an existing file. Could someone please move the "new" file and overwrite the old one? Thanks. --DragonHawk 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Kareha 19:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Verne scans

I was trying to find some pictures to illustrate Category:Robur le Conquérant and found two sources:

Zvi states as copyright notice:

Français : Ces illustrations sont mises à la disposition de tous et chacun, dans la mesure que vous référencez notre travail.

English: These illustrations are in the disposition of each and every one, in the only measure that you refer to our work.

which would be Template:Attribution if they allow modifications.

The Smithsonian states:

Unauthorized commercial publication or exploitation of text, images or content of this website is specifically prohibited. Anyone wishing to use any of these files or images for commercial use, publication, or any purpose other than fair use as defined by law, must request and receive prior written permission from the Smithsonian Institution. Permission for such use is granted on a case-by-case basis at the sole discretion of Smithsonian's Office of Product Development and Licensing. A usage fee may be assessed depending on the type and nature of the proposed use.

In both cases, the pictures are scans from the work of en:Léon Benett (1838-1917). I understand that scanning and posting are not enough to warrant a new copyright (Zvi Har'El's site however also distributes plates collecting several illustrations). Just in case, I have uploaded some pictures from Zvi Har'El's site, but the Smithsonian ones are crispier and bigger. The licences I set are Template:PD-Art.

Should I upload the better pictures? Should I change the licenses? --Error 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple uploads

I have uploaded a few files: ScillonianCross.svg and Scillonian_Cross.svg - both of which had errors in, so could they please be removed (my account is apparently too immature to be able to do this) - and finally the correct file, ScillonianCross_real.svg which could someone please rename to ScillonianCross.svg. Thank you kindly. Severecci 23:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --EugeneZelenko 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update Picture Totalphuette rear.jpg

Hallo, I´m an new user so I can´t update pictures by myself. Please could anyone move "Totalphuette rear mod.jpg" to "Totalphuette rear" as a new version? I improved my own picture by rotating the canvas and changing the contrast. -- Gsigsi 13:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Need 2nd opinion on old images

I've started to question the PD-ness of two images I've uploaded, and would appreciate a second, more experienced opinion. I know nothing about who originally took the photos.

Image:Manwel-dimech.jpg was likely taken before 1910 and certainly before 1921. It was taken in en:Malta which was part of the British Empire at the time.

Image:Henk-sneevliet.gif was likely taken 1905-1910 in the Netherlands.

I'm leaning towards deleting them here, but using them as "fair use" images for the biography articles on English WikiPedia. Any guidance would be appreciated. Cheers. Haus 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They look pretty old to me, so it seems as if it's still PD. V60 ^{干什么？ · VContribs} 19:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Vishwin60. I've done some more reading, and I guess it doesn't matter what country they were originally published in, they are PD-US. So unless anybody has any other advice, I'll leave them in. Haus 19:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it sort of does. It seems like the US is the only country to do this, and from what I've heard from Russia, they copyright everything. V60 ^{干什么？ · VContribs} 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Commons does in fact allow such material, please indicate clearly and visibly in the descriptions that this material is probably still copyrighted (author's lifetime plus 70 years). Wikipedias like the German Wikipedia will not allow such material. Thanks, Ibn Battuta 05:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PD-US applies only to U.S. works. Neither of these two images is a U.S. work. We can only keep them if you can determine that their copyright has expired under Dutch law or the law in effect in Malta. If the photographers are known, the images would be in the clear if the photographers dfied more than 70 years ago. Lupo 12:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

debating photographers?

I've a question about a photograph, which has nothing to do with technical Commons stuff. Is there something like a discussion page for photographers or something alike? --Ibn Battuta 15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing specific, but you can always ask a question or discuss a photograph on Commons:Village pump

BranchesofChristianity.svg

I modified the file, BranchesofChristianity.svg, the earlier version of which I uploaded yesterday. I was unable to upload the new version with the same name. I uploaded the new version as BranchesofChristianity2.svg. Please replace the earlier version of the file with the newer one. -SynKobiety 02:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --EugeneZelenko 14:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange image link

Someone (anon IP) added the following image link to an English Wikipedia article (Alpide belt): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/map-bms/thumb/b/b8/Alpide_Belt.jpg/300px-Alpide_Belt.jpg

Where can I find the full version of this image, and how do I use it on the English Wikipedia? I'm a fairly experienced WP editor, 3500+ edits thus far, but have never come across such a link before.

Also, how do I make proper links to articles on en.wikipedia.org in posts here (like this post)? I would have thought that something like [[en:Alpide belt]] would be the right way, but those links are not being displayed in the preview here. So I have changed them to full URLs, which appear to be working.

Thanks for your help. --Seattle Skier 01:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See map-bms:Image:Alpide_Belt.jpg. You could deduce this for address: Wikipedia is project name, map-bms is language code, Alpide_Belt.jpg is image name. --EugeneZelenko 15:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had not realized that "map-bms" was actually an Indonesian language or a Wikipedia project name. I thought all such language codes were only 2 letters, but clearly some can be longer. --Seattle Skier 20:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

identical material twice on Commons

Image:Austmap.png und Image:As-map.png are identical. I dimly remember that that's usually a reason to request deletion for one of them... --Ibn Battuta 05:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just place {{Duplicate}} on one of them. I think will be good idea to keep oldest one, it's more likely that older image is used me extensively. --EugeneZelenko 15:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, that's it! As for which one to delete: I'd like to check the usage of each, but I only get error messages. Any prospects of getting that bug fixed soon? --Ibn Battuta 15:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error messages? I don't... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, seems to be fixed! BTW, why did you proposed Austmap for deletion? It's actually used 3 times more than the other one. Any particular reasons, or just so? :o) --Ibn Battuta 03:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this image free?

Can someone tell me is Image:BBC World.png licensed properly? --MKay 13:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be {{Logo}} and removed from Commons. --EugeneZelenko 14:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I delete the image, Dantadd blocked the user for two hours for uploading multiple copyvios. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also thankyou for bringing this to our attention. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal warning templates?

Are there any vandal warning templates (Like the ones on Wikipedia) over here on Commons? -Mschel 17:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here - Commons:Message templates, happy to help, took me a while to find them! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image upload did not work.

I just uploaded my first image (Image:Army Flag of Georgia.svg) , when I whent to the image page I did not see the picture. Could someone tell me what I did wrong? -Mschel 21:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images of User:Ottow ([2])

Tha pictures I have posted are mine. I have the original films (Neg and slides) Your process is so complicated -I am not a professional of licencing procedures or laws- that I don't care. Delete my contributions for Wikipedia is over for me. Thank you. --Otto 13:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC) —the preceding unsigned comment is by Ottow (talk • contribs) Svencb 18:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all my images, please. I quit. --Otto 19:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Images do not appear athough they are there

When uploading images I had a problem that it did not work properly. Although I did not change anything it finally worked but the result is that on page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Actinidia_chinensis two thumbnails give a questionmark. When you click on the one of Image:Actinidia_chinensis_B.jpg you get the page with the image, when you click on the Image:Actinidia_chinensis_D.jpg you get the page with a questionmark for the image. If you click on that questionmark you get the full image. What can I do to solve this problem? Thanks, Wouterhagens 08:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to delete Image:Actinidia_chinensis_B.jpg in the gallery of page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Actinidia_chinensis and later put it back again. I have tried to upload the images again (as new version with the same filename) but without positive result. --Wouterhagens 19:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check now. I just purged the thumbnails, as described in Commons:FAQ under "my thumbnail is wrong", and that fixed it for me. --Davepape 00:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dave. It is now right. I will remember the FAQ "my thumbnail is wrong".--Wouterhagens 12:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autographs/signatures.

What are the copyright status of autographs/signatures of living or recently deceased persons? I'm not refering to signed pictures, just signatures on paper. I see that there are some uploaded on english Wikipedia[3] [4] [5], but I don't find many here on commons so I wonder if I'm allowed to upload autographs. Entheta 18:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone deleted the baseball card below, so does anyone know about signatures? Entheta 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(On a side note, aren't baseball cards copyrighted? If so, Image:Tom evans autograph.jpg looks like a copyvio) Entheta 18:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an easy question to answer (and I am not a lawyer). I found no definitive answers by doing a web search, although I did find discussions where lawyers simply refused to answer the question. Therefore, let's assume that an autograph can be copyrighted. This means that an autograph is in the public domain in the United States (based on s:Help:Public domain) if it was:

created before 1904 (120 years ago) and never published;
published before 1924 (100 years ago);
published in the United States...
- before 1923;
- 1923–1977 without copyright notice (essentially, a statement that it is copyrighted somewhere on the autographed document);
- 1978–1989 with neither copyright notice nor copyright registration.
not published in the United States, but published elsewhere...
- before 1 July 1909.

That means that virtually every autograph published before 1909 and many before 1989 has fallen into the public domain even if they were copyrightable. Regarding whether the remaining autographs are copyrightable, I have no idea. —Pathoschild 21:01:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Updated Battersby station layout needs move

Hi. New user here. I created a newer version of the image Image:Battersbystationlayout.png, and the new version is located at Image:Battersbystationlayoutnew.png. I request it be moved over the old version. Thanks --Simmo676 22:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You can go to the old version and click "Upload a new version of this file". That will replace it with the new one, while the old one will be stored in a cache. Entheta 23:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the option to do that. I believe it's because I'm too new a user from what I read, so I don't yet have the ability to upload new versions, hence I require someone to move it for me. --Simmo676 11:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since so much time has passed since the request was made, I gained permissions to upload new version myself, so I did so, and added the duplicate tag to the other.--Simmo676 17:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags Of the World

Is there a file with the .svg files for each ISO country in the world. I am building a montage and don't want to download each one individually.

Are those maps PD?

1) Published in book in Poland, 1928. 2) Translated to French in 1929. 3) Amateur online English translation from few years back. Can any of those be uploaed as PD to Commons?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say without context, but assuming those are maps from the 1920s, they're probably not PD outside of Poland. (I have no idea about their status within Poland.) Poland was a member of the Berne Convention (BC) from January 28, 1920 on.[6] It ratified the Rome Act of the BC on November 21, 1935.[7] It did not accede to the Brussels Act of 1948, nor to the Stockholm Act of 1967. From August 4, 1990 on, Poland adhered to the administrative procedures of the Paris Act of the BC (1971), which it ratified on October 22, 1994. I do not know about the status of Poland's adherence to the BC during WWII and the Cold War (1939 - early 1990s). But even if Poland should have formally quit the BC, Polish works would have remained copyrighted in other BC countries per article 35 of the BC. Hence I think 70 years p.m.a. applies to Polish works. AFAIK maps are generally considered joint works of all the people who contributed in their drawing. Any indication that all these people died more than 70 years ago? Lupo 10:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost password

Hi,

I tried to log in here on commons, but the login failed. I can't find any link to get my password e-mailed to me. Can someone help? Thanks. Eurosong 87.74.29.169 17:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next to the login button there should be a button that says "Email Password". Click it and fill out any forms it gives you. -Mschel 03:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW you need to sign up for an account here, if you haven't done so yet. Your login at another Wikimedia site (eg Wikipedia) won't work here (...yet). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grouping pictures of a series?

I have uploaded a few of a series of images starting with 2007 wasp nests in curtain.jpg. I used galleries on the image pages to indicate that they are related. Is there a better, suggested way of doing this? Creating a separate category would be overkill, no? Maybe a separate page? If so, how would I name it? Rl 08:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures on Wikipedia

If the image is already uploaded on Wikipedia but in a different language, does that mean I can upload it onto Commons without violating any copyright laws, as they are under Wikimedia in general? Please contact me on my talk page. Thanks --Pizza1512 13:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a picture uploaded in error

How do I delete a picture I uploaded in error? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Morna (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 April 2007

Just add {{speedydeletion|<reason>}} on image description page. --EugeneZelenko 14:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

max file size

How big may files be to upload them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spanky Ham (talk • contribs) at 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20 MB last time I checked. If you have larger files, you can either split them up, recompress them, or ask Eloquence to upload them. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin-UK Can you help please

Hi sorry to bother you, on Merlin-UK/gallery for Fri Feb 23 03:10:59 GMT 2007 there are only two images, although some 70+ were posted at that time, because these images didn't show, similar images were uploaded later that day and now we have apparent duplicates all over the place - the whole thing looks messy and is causing some irritation to other users - is it possible to delete all images posted at this time the list is as follows:

Thanks Merlin-UK 21:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the images are duplicates only with different names, please tag the images that can be deleted with {{Bad name}} (typing {{Bad name|Image:Example.jpg}}, for Image:Example.jpg use the name of the correct image.) --GeorgHH 18:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also User talk:Merlin-UK - cross referencing all those files would take too long. As it is the uploader requesting the deletions, I can mark them with a speedydelete and refer to this page?. Deadstar 10:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the first dozen or so. I think we can delete them all, without you having to tag them. / Fred Chess 12:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done with teamwork! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted! Thanks to both of you :) Deadstar 12:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all very much for your invaluable help... Merlin-UK 10:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skipping the upload messages

How do I skip the numerous upload warnings and messages when I click the commons:upload button to the left? I just want the button to take me to the upload form. Nichalp 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just type in Special:Upload in the search box to get to the old upload form that we have used for a very long time. V60 ^{干什么？ · VContribs} 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the last big listed link on that page. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add something to monobook.js/css so that the link appears? Nichalp 12:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTCHA

Is this CAPTCHA system used on this site free software? If so, where can I download it and find documentation?

Thank you

Yes it is. Please see mw:Extension:ConfirmEdit. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken numbering in template

The numbering templates in all languages appear to be broken (1, 3, 4, 5...) on the Image:BauchOrgane_wn.png page, no idea why, is it just my browser? Atropos235 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really really odd! I will open a bug report. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fixed now? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image not visible, tried purge

I came across Image:Circle sign 66.svg on Wikipedia after finding it didn't display the image. w:Image talk:Circle sign 66.svg says: "How come the circle sign 66 isn't shows? Nextbarker 05:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)nextbarker" so apparently it's been like this for a while. The same user's comment on the Commons talk page for the file indicates it worked on 22 November 2006, but not Dec 28. I went to Circle signs and tried purging the five blank images there, which seemed to work for those, but it didn't work when I tried http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Circle_sign_66.svg&action=purge . What do I do about this image? Thanks :) --Strangerer 04:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image looks fine to me... did you clear your cache? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, that did the trick. Thanks. :) --Strangerer 17:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures in USA

Whats up with pictures who whas released in USA before 1964. Are they free to use and can I upload them to Commons? I found this sentence here [[8]]!--Ticketautomat 14:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alles Material, das in den USA vor dem 1. Januar 1923 veröffentlicht wurde, ist Public Domain (gemeinfrei).
Alles, was vor dem 1. Januar 1964 veröffentlicht wurde, ist Public Domain, sofern das Copyright nicht verlängert wurde (hier findet sich eine Datenbank für Bücher und Karten).
Alles, was vor dem 1. März 1989 ohne Copyright-Vermerk ("©", "Copyright" or "Copr." sowie das Jahr der Veröffentlichung und der Inhaber des Copyrights) veröffentlicht wurde, ist Public Domain.

Courtesy (quick) translation:

Any material published in the US before 1923 is PD.
Anything published before 1964 is PD, except when the copyright has been renewed.
Anything published before 1/march/1989 without the (C) logo (C, year of first publication, and copyright holder) is public domain.

Michelet-密是力 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mention in itself appears clear to me: before 1964=PD, unless the copyright depot has been reiterated. Now, how do you prove this? Michelet-密是力 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the licensing of derivative works of CC-BY-2.0?

The images in question are Image:Early portable tv.jpg, licensed under the CC-BY-2.0, and a derivative of the work Image:TV Antik copy.jpg, released into the public domain. Cc-by-2.0 says that you make share and remix (make derivative works, I assume?) the work as long as you attribute the author in a way that does not suggest the author endorses your work. So would this situation be legally correct: "X is a derivative work of Y created by Z", when X is PD and Y is CC-BY-2.0? --Iamunknown 22:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the derivative work is required to credit the author of the original, but because it's not CC-BY-SA, the second author is free to choose a different license. I've added the required credit. Note that, besides violating the CC-BY license, the way the second image was uploaded without credit meant it could have been deleted for being unsourced. --Davepape 17:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use and model release...

I'm looking to upload a picture of some fireworks taken by me in 2006 in California, but I'm not sure about the copyright laws regarding it. It was a public display (free of charge, paid for by the city) So I would assume that classifies it as "entirely my own work", but is there anyone more knowledgeable who could help me out here? Riffraffselbow 06:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your work (taking the picture) may be placed under a free licence, but the firework is an artistic creation, protected as such. Taking a picture of it probably has the same copyright status than taking a picture of a building, but I don't know what the legislation is in California. Michelet-密是力 07:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Circle of Fifths Diagram

My account is too new, but I've upgraded the image:Circle_of_fifths.svg, and put it under image:Circle_of_fifths2.svg. It needs to be moved to the correct filename. I changed the graphics from b and # to the more recognizable musical formatting. Thanks.

When you upgrade a picture, it is better to use the link "upload a new version of the file". Simply do it, and put the {{Duplicate}} tag on the new version, so it won't be used and may eventually be deleted. Michelet-密是力 06:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respond to my messages

Hello, could you please tell me how to respond my messages. Thank uou.

Clic on the "edit section" link above the message, and type your answer. Michelet-密是力 06:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shahbag Map01.svg

Image:Shahbag Map01.svg - this file show nothing. Can someone delete it? Aditya Kabir 06:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done probably an aborted import from en: Michelet-密是力 07:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does my page get listen in Wikipedia?

All images uploaded to Commons will automatically become usable at Wikipedia. -Mschel 14:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to Existing Picture.

Hi. My account is "too new" for me to effect this correction. The file at Hydrogen-fluoride-solid-2D-dimensions.png is not a correct picture. I've uploaded Hydrogen-fluoride-solid-2D-dimensions-rev2.png which is correct. Please use it to replace the former file. thanks. (Comments explaining why are included in the Hydrogen-fluoride-solid-2D-dimensions-rev2.png upload.)

Done. --GeorgHH 17:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which licence for the source code of a drawing, graph or animation which must be able to be reproduced and improved?

I tried to find an anwser to this easy question but did not find a question until now. The broad spirit of the GPL for softwares source code or GFDL for documentation or even CC is to let people improve a source code or source text with the constraint of keeping traceability of the former work.

But concerning images, figures, graphs, animations this spirit doesn't survive even in Wikipedia. Let me take an example with the very nice image from de:User:DemonDeLuxe on the Foucault pendulum. This image was spread on many Wikipedia concerning the Foucault Pendulum, but a discussion on the English page stated that such a motion did not correspond to a classical Foucault pendulum, because the trajectory cannot go through the center when it is let with a null speed. Unfortunately DemonDeLuxe died in 2006 (I read the bad news recently) and my request, asking him to redraw with more conventional initial conditions and according to the equations on the French page, was vain.

Also, as I don't know how the image was done (there is no details on its description page even if it is a huge work with the shadow and mirror), I could not rework the drawing. Thus, I started to do my own animations from scratch using Gnuplot and the last animation has been elected on the English page too ; but such a work cannot be done in one evening.

Animation of Foucault pendulum (Panthéon, Paris)

It needs additional work with new ideas when they come. Wikipedia is a very nice place for such a slow process of maturation. And with Gnuplot, I found the way to keep the source code of the intermediate drawings. If you look at the description of the main source Gnuplot code of this gallery, you can even access to a former code with a simpler animation. If you want to reproduce the drawing just do the command gnuplot foucault-anim.gp and you will get one the gif file. It could be useful if you want to translate the cardinal signs (as mentioned in the English discussion) in other languages.

Thus here are my questions:

I used the GPL licence for the source code of the Gnuplot drawings (the images themselves are under GFDL an CC). Any idea of a better licence?
I would like to create a Category of reproducible drawings. Ideas for better name ? Drawings with source code included ?
Provisional list of softwares permitting easy reproducibility and traceability of graphs:

Gnuplot
Blender no but Povray yes.
?

IMHO, that thing is simply an output from a graphic program. The program is GPL, so the output should be GPL as well (?)

anyway, CC is irrelevant, because once the program is written, there is no artistic creation involved in creating the picture, it's automatic. The thing to keep in the licence page is indeed the source program and an indication of the possible execution environment. Michelet-密是力 16:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, thus I was right with the GPL licence for the Gnuplot script. The image itself can be used elsewhere and therefore should be licensed as any other image from wikipedia, i.e GFDL or CC. It is only if someone wants to modify it that the GPL license forces the 'artist' to keep the former source codes with name, version etc.

Also, you did not anwser on the name of the new category that I could create. Did somebody already propose something?

Additional question. Any idea how to get the thumb of the gallery in the description page of the image? Yesterday, two of them did not come. Tonight only one is missing, but still missing. At each new version, it lasts a week to come out or never come. How can I help the 'ImageMagick convert' to be activated again? --Nbrouard 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pages Rhinoceros Iguana and Cyclura cornuta refer to the same thing

I recently uploaded an image of a rhinoceros iguana, which I took at Frankfurt Zoo. I'm not well up on animals, but someone came along after me and added the name Cyclura cornuta to my image, and added the image to the page Cyclura cornuta. I looked around, and discovered that there is also a page called Rhinoceros Iguana, and that both pages are in Category:Cyclura. From the Rhinoceros Iguana article at en, I get the impression that "Rhinoceros Iguana" and "Cyclura cornuta" are exactly the same thing, so there should only be one page, but while I know about merging at en, I'm not sure what to do here. Thanks. ElinorD 23:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons:Language policy#Summary of proposals, they should be merged to the latin binomial i.e. "Cyclura cornuta". Cheers. Zzyzx11 02:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and merged them. —An gr 05:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ElinorD 07:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

licensing for combination of images

Sorry, another one of them licensing questions...

Could someone have a quick look at Image:Tasmania southern coast 1916.jpg to check whether it's licensed correctly? I've combined a PD map and a GFDL map, so am I correct to license the result as a GFDL? (Or shouldn't I be combining such images in the first place?) Something keeps telling me I shouldn't be licensing the PD map as a GFDL, but what do I do then with the GFDL? How can I license one part of the image under PD and the other part under GFDL? ... Appreciative of your help is confused Ibn Battuta 06:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically correct, given the licences, but practically (1) the locator excerpt could IMHO be considered as "PD-ineligible", considering its size, (2) you may ask the original contributor whether dropping the GFDL licence on your derivative work is OK. Michelet-密是力 09:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would it take for an "okay" from the original contributor? Would he need to send an e-mail to permissions, or would a license change by a registered Commons user be seen as sufficient? (The original contributor is a user at the English Wikipedia. While this user page pretty clearly suggests that he also has a Commons account, it's of course no absolute "proof" that both the English Wikipedia user and the Commons user are in fact identical.) Thanks, Ibn Battuta 10:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just ask him to confirm in your image description that the "PD" is OK. Michelet-密是力 11:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as "he should edit using his Commons account" (please correct me if I'm wrong) - thanks for your help!! --Ibn Battuta 16:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NuclearBlast.gif

hi there,
this image got deleted 20 min after upload by User:Szczepan1990 without leaving a message; ATM he doesn't answer my questions. The Image ist obtained from http://www.progpoweruk.com/2007/images/NuclearBlastLOGO.gif but no copyvio since it is a logo and PD-ineligible IMHO. I would like to know if it's prohibited on commons. -Codeispoetry 12:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs from non-public places

I actually have two questions:

If a person takes a photograph in a non-public place despite not being allowed to do so, what is the status of the image? Does the photographer still own the copyright? Do other laws prevent the image from being used?
What constitutes a public place? Does it have to do with ownership?

Paul_012 ^(talk) 12:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self Research on Dexamethasone for brain cancer therapy:Current Lung & Brain cancer Patient

I am a cancer patient that wants to upload a file on Dexamethasone. I am currently taking 4mg., 4 times a day, and let me tell you, I feel like I could run a 26K marathon!! I am averaging 4-5 hours of sleep @ night, and cannot stay still. I have some medical background and am somewhat familiar with prescription drugs, and their uses. I am currrently taking 6 prescription drugs, and 3 Herbal ones. I know that even the word "METH" in the Script is as it says, METH. I feel like 16mg. daily beore Radiation treatment is way too high. I am having clotting problems,(just from inducing the contrast for the brain MRI yesterday), I have some bruising on my wrists and the inside of my arms, and my gastro-system is suffering! I already have G.E.R.D., so maybe someone can help me just upload the entire file on this drug. I am not familiar enough to navigate through all of the steps right now, as I can hardly sit here to type what I am typing. So, forgive me if I ramble on, "It's the medicine". Any help would be greatly appreciated. I am enclosing my SBC e-mail address in case someone can be of help. With many thanks, Darla_wd <email removed>

Done - sent an e-mail on the odd chance that this isn't spam. Yonatan ^talk 13:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a picture

I need to delete Photo 005.jpg because I uploaded again it with a proper title HMP_Verne.jpg How do I go about this? Bennelliott 15:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For next time, you should add {{Image:HMP_Verne.jpg}} to Image:Photo 005.jpg and an admin will delete it for you. This time I deleted it myself for you. Yonatan ^talk 15:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to rename a misspelled cat?

Due to misspelling Category:Science and Tecnology from Argentina should be renamed as proposed to Category:Science and Technology from Argentina. The creator of this cat has voiced his consent [9]. The cat is already tagged with Category:Requested moves as are a lot of other categories.
But COM:FAQ says categories can't be moved/renamed. Is this true or is it only possible for admins? How to proceed? -- Túrelio 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are only 3 images, the simplest thing is to just create the new cat, manually re-categorize the pictures, and tag the old one {{Badname}}. --Davepape 17:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done moved to Category:Science and technology in Argentina. -- Editor at Large • talk 17:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Túrelio 18:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:190px-Avital.jpg

This pic is Fair use in hewiki but uploaded here as free use. could you delete it please? 82.166.130.219 19:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, in the future you can contact me at he:User:Yonatanh. Yonatan ^talk 19:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian copyright

I'm just reading up on copyright at Commons:Licensing#Australia, where it says regarding non-government works:

For previously unpublished works, the copyright cannot expire less than 70 years after the first publication of the work.

The link to austlii doesn't clarify much either.

How can unpublished works have a first publication date? Bren Barnes 00:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand from the link - the unpublished part only affects literary, dramatic or musical works and not artistic works (ie. photographs) meaning it doesn't really matter for most of our uses. However, what it means is that technically if a work is never published, performed, broadcast, etc. the copyright holder's copyrights subsist until 70 years from the day that it is finally published. This means if I'm Australian and I write an essay for school and never publish, perform, broadcast, etc. it then the copyright on it will last forever (or until 70 years from the day my grand-grand child decides to publish it) It seems like the law there regarding photographs is life of author + 70 years but I'm sure pfctdayelise will be able to give you a better answer. IANAL Yonatan ^talk 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific work in mind? It's easier to talk about a specific case.

How can unpublished works have a first publication date? My reading is that if it doesn't have a first publication date, it's still under copyright. If it was never published, how did you find out about or access the work? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to respond my messages. Please help!

Hello, can you, please, explain to me how to respond my messages. Thank you. Mila. Mbz1 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC) mbz1[reply]

Hi, once you click on the new messages link you are brought to your talk page. Personally I prefer to receive responses from people on my talk page so I'd appreciate if you respond on my talk page (the little talk thing next to my name also links to it). Thanks, Yonatan ^talk 01:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

‎Image:Enzyme-temperture.svg

‎Image:Enzyme-temperture.svg & Image:Enzyme-temperture1.svg are bad version of a graph I have made. Can someone delete them?Gal m 20:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. When your account is > 4 days old, you can upload new files over the top of the old ones.

Also, please don't use {{Attribution}} for self-made works. It is better to use a specific license. I recommend {{CC-BY-2.5}} (Creative Commons Attribution). --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation?

Oh no, I'm afraid that once again I don't find the page I'm looking for--i.e. the page to discuss potential copyright violations! Maybe we could insert a clearly visible link someone near the top of this page? Thanks!

Okay, my real "problem" is that I don't see how this picture can be no copyright violation. I've asked in the German Wikipedia, and they've told me that the mural itself is a copyright violation of Kordas' famous Che portrait. And as there seems to be no information about freedom of panorama in Cuba, it's quite likely that taking a picture of the mural would consist in a copyright violation even if the first one didn't exist. In short: I don't see how we could keep this image. --Ibn Battuta 06:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the page to discuss potential copyright violations" is called commons:deletion requests. :P Bringing them here is OK, too.

Anyway I deleted this in accordance with Che Guevara/deleted images. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image movement

Can someone perform following two steps? Thanks.

. Delete Image:Kannada Cinema Clap.png (Reason: I, the creator, have uploaded a newer version in different name)
. Move Image:Kannada Cinema Clap1.png to Image:Kannada Cinema Clap.png

Thank you, - KNM 01:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Matt314 06:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of anonymity

How does one go about proving anonymous authorship? I'm interested in a graphic that is available from (at least) three online sources:

None of these appears to provide copyright information. I can't be sure, however, since they're in languages I don't read. How can I be sure whether the graphic is in the public domain?

Thanks. –Cúthalion (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous won't make it public domain anyway, you still have to wait 50 to 70 years after publication date. Michelet-密是力 06:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, bottom line, if it's circulating freely around the internet with no indication of authorship, that means it's copyrighted and you can't use it? –Cúthalion (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But note that these images even do have authorship and copyright information. The artist is Anke Eissmann, and the copyright statement is here. Lupo 13:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Not reading German, I'll take your word for it. –Cúthalion (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to upload Fair use images

Is it possible to upload Fair use images on wikicommons? Or should I head back to en.wiki?--Anupamsr 14:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course possible, but the image will get deleted right away :-). (Stupid joke, I know.) Commons does not host "fair use" material. Over at en-WP, make sure you do provide a detailed "fair use" rationale addressing all four points of fair use for all the articles the image is used in. Lupo 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making svg copies of existing maps.

Bitmaps How old must a British OS map be before it is acceptable to scan and paste? What copyright statement should be used? What is the status of copy of a 1909 OS Map reproduced in a 1994 book reprinted in 2004?

Scans of Russian Military Maps What is the thinking about using a scan of Russian Military Map of the same area of the UK?

SVG If I take a British OS map(1981 from survey 1969-68), scan it and automatically bitmap trace it into a SVG? What is the status of the SVG?

If I take a British OS map(1981 from survey 1969-68), place it on my graphics tablet, and use it to help me get a correct outline (Say for 'Rivers of Kent'). What is the status?

Or take a scan and use that as a background layer, then use it to help me get a correct outline?

If I use a printout from Google Earth for the same purpose?

If I use an hand drawn map copyrighted in 1966, but not acknowledging OS copyright, published by a County Council who does own a OS licence, as my base image?

ClemRutter 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scans of old maps may be OK if the map is more thant 70 years old, though at that time, the drawing was often signed. Anything younger will be copyrighted, and cannot be uploaded on commons without the rightholder's authorisation. It may be arguable whether modern maps are "artistic creations" or mere technical drawings, but they are explicitely covered by the Berne convention, which settles the matter. Michelet-密是力 05:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the answer to Question 1. I am trying to open up the debate, to set down a definitive statement for anyone who is attempting to create a svg map, of any UK location where virtually all maps rely at some point on a OS survey. ClemRutter 16:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "OS survey" (whatever it is) is probably not a problem for artistic creation, but might be for "sui generis" rights attached to the corresponding database. In short: if this organism has spent time to collect data, the information is protected as such, whatever its manifestation. But the "sui generis" protection is limited to 15 years (in France?) and only apply to "significant upload", so that day-to-day creation of svg maps based on available data (without copy of artistic work) should (IMHO) be OK. Wait wor a second advice, though. Michelet-密是力 18:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S-> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey#Criticisms_of_Ordnance_Survey ClemRutter 20:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty years ago- as a student- I was taught always to put the statement on any hand drawn map, "Based on OS map"-and as a student my university would have a licence from the OS to allow that. In producing walks leaflets- I did the same, on the tenuous grounds that the Local Authority has a licence for derivatives of OS Works and they may stock them at their tourist outlets. I understood that the problem was with the survey work, that they used to produce the date that was then drawn up. Other times I paid the 2.50UKP to publish a run of 100 leaflets with a self drawn map- traced from a OS map. Following the 50 year rule, that OS seems to apply- the statement 'Based on OS surveys done before 1957'would appear to satisfy 'sui generis', and OS rights, This includes the '1 in to the mile New Popular Edition' but not later. This leaves us with contour lines in 'feet'and a silly scale of 1:63360. TheFile:Bassenthwaite Lakecrop.jpg Bassenthwaite Lake Image has the statement This work is in the public domain because it is an Ordnance Survey map over 50 years old. Ordnance Survey maps are covered by crown copyright which in this case expires 50 years after publication. Ordnance Survey does however ask that they be credited and that the date of publication be given. Any ancillary rights gained through the creation of the electronic version are granted as freely usable under any circumstances. But this does not address the issue of generating a .svg demonstrating Motorways- or Housing in the 1970. All UK Atlases and Maps acknowledge OS copyright. Is a way forward for Wiki to apply for an exemption?

Latifa's photo?

Hi guys, I've been trying to attach a photo of Latifa to the article I wrote about her in wikipedia but it's always deleted. I work in her offcial site and I have her permission to use her photos in wiki projects, I am not sure what copyrights tag I should use, could someone help? Bashari 09:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use Commons:Email templates. You could ask to release image under any free license (GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, etc.) --EugeneZelenko 14:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I upload this poster?

I want to upload a work by Alfons Maria Mucha (d. 1939). His works are copyrighted in the Life+70 world (he was Czech). However, this poster was made in 1909, when Mucha was in the United States, advertising an American stage actress. I believe that, as a poster, it fits the definition of publication under U.S. law. So: a work by a foreign national, created and published in the United States in 1909. What copyright tag should I use? Is it PD-US, PD worldwide or is it not uploadable under Commons guidelines? grendel|khan 15:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it was first published in the US before 1923, it might be OK.

Fred Chess 19:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get something a little more definite than "might be"? grendel|khan 21:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay: {{PD-US}}. Happy uploading, V60 ^{干什么？ · VContribs} 22:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Size

Newbie here. I was about to attempt to upload an image (my own) and the Upload page suggested uploading the highest resolution image that I have. I scanned the 35mm slide at 4000 dpi, resulting in a 50 mb .tiff file. I then edited it a bit, and saved it as a 5176X3176 pixel .jpg file, resulting in a 19 meg file. Typically I would have reduced the size and saved it as a 800X600 pixel .jpg file in the 200-300 kb file size. Do you want the large .jpg image? what is your preferred photo image size? Chuckzeiler 16:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19 MB falls within our limits and we would really like it :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative works question

I recently had the opportunity to visit the set of Jericho, an American TV show. While I was there, I took quite a few pictures. Before I upload more, I am wondering if any of them fall under Commons:Derivative works. The set is obviously closed to the public. Everyone there knew I was taking pictures and didn't say anything (if that is even worth something). See Category:Jericho (TV series) for the images in question. All images were actually taken on the set, except for the library and clinic which are on private property, but accessible to anyone. Thanks. --PS2pcGAMER 07:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They all look fine to me. You haven't taken any pictures of anything in which copyright is likely to subsist, and the question of permission to take photos on private property is between you and the property owners; Commons typically does not get involved with that. But it sounds as if you had at least implied permission anyway. --MichaelMaggs 09:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to take pictures for private use is OK, but this does not give permission for "commercial use" required on wikipedia. And Commons can be involved in that, insofar as this organisation is responsible for publishing the picture under a potentially litigeous licence. Was there anything posted at the entrance about taking pictures for commercial uses? Michelet-密是力 18:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice any signs regarding photography. I have intentionally not uploaded pictures that contain details of unaired episodes, because I feel that would be rude. --PS2pcGAMER 00:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any other opinions? Thanks! --PS2pcGAMER 07:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly encourage you to upload these pictures here. I like the show. ;) Regardless of that fact, we currently do not get involved with the question of whether you had permission to take photos or not and even if we did it seems, as MichaelMaggs said, that you at least had implied permission. Maybe we should get involved with this as Michele feels but we currently do not and if we were to change this, there'd need to be a discussion first. Yonatan ^talk 00:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and start uploading the rest. Micheletb suggested I contact CBS, but I haven't had a chance to do so yet. Unless there are objections, I probably won't bother as it seems unnecessary. --PS2pcGAMER 10:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Il Sung

I have taken a picture of a poster published by the government of North Korea. The poster was on display in a hotel room in Pyongyang and the poster was a portrait of Kim Il Sung. Can I upload my picture to the Commons? I can’t find any information on what copyright laws would be applicable in this case. Masae 11:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'll be derivative work. --EugeneZelenko 15:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The poster itself was protected by law on artistic property, so you can't use freely a picture of it. (you can for private use, of course - mmm - given that it's in north corea, I'm not so sure, though...) Michelet-密是力 18:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading government-owned photos

I work for the Government of Yukon, and have recently edited two articles relating to Yukon. (Herschel Island and Forty Mile.) I would like to upload some photos for these articles, but am a bit confused about your copyright rules, and could use your help in interpreting them. Can I upload government-owned photos to the Commons? We have no problem sharing them, and would like very much for Wikipedia to have current images of places (particularly historic sites) in the territory.

Hello, if you are sure that the governement allows the use of the images by anybody, for any purpose, including commercial and derivative use, please send an email from a government address to Commons:OTRS at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, where you refer to the images and that the government allows them to be used by anybody, for any purpose, including commercial and derivative use. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix bad upload

I'm trying to fix a problem with Image:US flag 13 stars – Betsy Ross.svg where it doesn't render properly at icon size (22x20px, specifically). In a rather boneheaded move, I uploaded a new version with a bad filename: Image:Image-US flag 13 stars – Betsy Ross.svg. I'd like to request that an admin here move that version to the correct name, replacing the current version there. I can't do very much on commons - I just created the account today - but I am an admin on en Wikipedia. Please see en:Template talk:Country data United States for a discussion of the problem that I am trying to fix with the modified SVG file. Thanks, Andrwsc 23:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded the file and tagged your file with {{Bad name}}. An admin should delete that file shortly. I'll look into the issue on the Wikipedia page you linked. V60 ^{干什么？ · VContribs} 00:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State Highway shields

What is the copyright status? There seem to be a lot of them on commons, but aren't they done by the states? Why are they treated like public domain? Thanks :) - cohesion 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are based off of the MUTCD, which is published by the U.S. Government. Because of this, they are PD. V60 ^{干什么？ · VContribs} 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are federal signs though, I was wondering about state ones. - cohesion 01:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/2006/12 may be of some interest. --MichaelMaggs 05:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are pre-1953 Japaneses films ok for us ?

Many public domain movies sources on the internet (like archive.org or publicdomainmovies.info) does publish pre-1953 Japaneses movies. The English language wikipedia does categorize those movies in en:Category:Public_domain_films (see for instance en:Rashomon (film) ou en:Ikiru), which category page says, right on the header : "Pre-1953 Japanese films have also passed into public domain.".

But I didn't found any picture from one of those movies on commons. So I started to wonder if they are ok for us or not.

This has a large impact for us, because if they are PD, we can illustrate many articles, on all WP, about the history of cinema and the greatest Japanese movie makers, including Akira Kurosawa and Yasujirō Ozu.

Here is what I've found in English language internet resources :

Before 1970, the Japanese copyright law, (focused on director's intellectual property more than producers') was : the property remains 38 years after director's death, after that the movie is public domain.
The 1970's Japanese copyright law used to protect copyright on published movies for 50 years after first publication (that's not creator lifetime, the focus is now on producing companies' IP, and companies don't die).
In 2003, an amendment to the Japanese Copyright Law was ruled that extended this delay by 20 years, from 50 years to 70 years after first publication (this amendment was enacted the 1st January 2004). See :
So now we have this : http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl2_2.html#cl2_2+S4 ("Article 54"), but WIPO still refers to the old "publication + 50 years" law : http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs_new/en/jp/jp001en.html#JD_JP001_54 : « Copyright in cinematographic works shall continue to subsist until the end of a period of 50 years following the making public of the work or the creation of the work if it has not been made public within the period of 50 years following its creation. »
A Japanese court as stated that movies that had already reached public domain before the 2003 extension remains public domain. This may (or not) means 2003 - 50 years = all Japaneses movies published before 1953 (not sure if it's 1953 included or "up to 1952 included", see the link above : since the 2003's amendment only enacted the 1st January 2004, it may be that even 1953's movies are PD). See :
1. http://www.law.washington.edu/Casrip/Newsletter/Vol14/newsv14i1Mitani.html
2. http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/japanese%20court%20rules%20pre-1953%20movies%20in%20public%20domain_1002318

Anyway the two "Public Domain Japan" licenses we have don't allow uploading pictures from movies : Template:PD-Japan and Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto.

So it appears that pre-1953 (and maybe pre-1954) Japanese movies may be -or may not be- ok for us (but : does this apply worldwide ? ie. for pre-53 Japanese movies' diffusion in US ?), and then we need a special "Japan PD" license for motion pictures, right ? Also, looks like ja:1953年問題 (日本) details this question. We need a native Japanese speaker to explains us the content of this article in relation to our problem, I guess. The main question, for movies published before 1953, is : "which law apply to them" (ie. the pre-1970, the 1970-2003 or the present one (post 2003)) ?". Benjamin.pineau 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update : more infos here (Japanese), there and there. There's a trial ongoing to figure out if those works are protected by the pre-1970 / 1971 law (public domain 38 years after author's death) or by the 1971/2003 laws (50 years, then 70 years after first show in public). Benjamin.pineau 16:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update : the Toho vs. Cosmo case was judged. On September 14, 2007, the Tokyo District Court settled that Akira Kurosawa works won't be public domain until December 31, 2036 (the end of the 38th civil year after AK death, per the pre-1970 copyright law). Here are references, from three different sources, in Japanese: eiga.com, Asahi Shimbun, Nikkei Inc.; if you prefer articles in English, see [10], [11], or [12]. Benjamin.pineau 13:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flinfo tool

The flinfo tool is down. Do we have a backup or something else that makes it easy to create image pages with Flickr info? - Peregrine Fisher 01:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move image please

I tried to upload a new version of the image Stereoprojzero.svg, but the uploader would not let me because my account is too new. It suggested that I upload under a different name (Stereoprojzeronew.svg) and then ask here for someone to move it to Stereoprojzero.svg. Can someone please do this for me? Joshuardavis 13:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --EugeneZelenko 14:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image from TMZ or YouTube?

If a movie is on TMZ and YouTube, can I take a screen capture and post it? If it is on youtube and TMZ (both), isnt that public domain? What is the syntax I need to include with the image if i upload it from this source?

That's generally not allowed. Publicly viewable is not the same as public domain. See Commons:Licensing for more information. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also against the youtube TOS.Geni 14:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

40px thumbnail of Smiley_head_happy.svg

I've tweaked the Image:Smiley_head_happy.svg several days ago, but the 40px version doesn't want to refresh. It's used in many (more than 200) places in Russian Wikipedia, so I don't want to change it manually. Can anybody solve the problem? — Kalan 06:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange, but now it's all ok. — Kalan 19:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could next time to go to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?w=40&f=Smiley_head_happy.svg to regenerate the thumbnail. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get someone to change the punctuation of a template?

The template {{PD-US}} refers to the United States as the "US". I know this isn't the Wikipedia but the manual of style there says that United States should be abbreviated as "U.S." (note the periods). Can this be changed? Is there a precedent, guideline, or policy for something like this? Dismas 12:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used in a lot of places and thus will put some load on the job log, let's get consensus on the talk page first so it doesn't get changed multiple times? Myself, I'd just change US to United States to avoid having to decide which (US or U.S.) is right. :) ++Lar: t/c

The reason why it is wrong is because I rewrote it a few days ago. To make sure it is accurate, I have corrected the "US" to say "U.S.".

Fred Chess 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload a modifed work ?

I translated a map from wikimedia commons. On the upload page [13], what do I have to choose ? It is not entirely my own work, since it's only a translated version. But I sure modified it, so does "Transfer a work" applies, since I do not transfer it unchanged ?

The map is : Image:Map-Sinitic_Languages.gif

Thank you. (Gohu1er 19:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You can choose the "It is from somewhere else" link, which takes you to Special:Upload. Choose the same license as the original work (which in this case is {{Cc-by-1.0}}) and make sure you credit the original authors. Hope that helps, and if you have more questions feel free to ask! -- Editor at Large • talk 20:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. But now I have another question :) How do I fill the Author and Source fields ? In fact, how is a modified image considered ? Is it my work, from a source, in that case I would write : Author : (Me) ; Source : (original author of the map), or the author is still the original author, in that case I would write Author : (original author), but what do I write in Source, and what if I want to claim the credit for the translation (for example, to be internationally recognized for being such a good translator), where should I write my name ? In the description field ? Thank you. (Gohu1er 20:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Depending on how much you have modified the image, you can say "Own work, based on work by <x>" or "<x>, modifications by <your username>". In source you fill in the original source image on Commons. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing

How do I put images I've uploaded into categories? I know which category they should be in. but I don't know how to put them there. Franz T. Speeling 07:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information is on the description page of the image. Edit the image information (click on "modify") and add [[category:cat_name]] anywhere in the page. Edit and look at Image:Mona Lisa.jpg, for instance, to see how it works. Michelet-密是力 08:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbnail corrupted on upload.wikimedia.org

The 300-pixel thumbnail [14] on upload.wikimedia.org seems to be corrupted; it's a blank PNG image. I have worked around the problem in the referring page by asking for 301 pixels in the thumbnail, as the 301-pixel thumbnail [15] seems to be OK. Please see Image:2007-02-20_time_zones.svg for the original SVG image. Can someone fix the corrupted image? (And better yet, fix the server so that it doesn't generate corrupted images like that?) Thanks. Eubulides 08:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a very unclear copyright status

this gallery of pictures states:

"all the pictures and drawings contained in this site are Copyright (c) 2005 by M.Luisa Giliberti, and are freely redistributable along with this copyright notice or a link to www.winterfell.altervista.org"

I can understand that is a very complex form of saying is a {{Attribution}} license: Copyrighted, but freely usable given the copyright holder is credited.

Is that right? Is that a valid license for commons? Must I contact the author before trying to upload any?

thanks! --Fernando Estel 10:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What seems to be missing is the right to modify (even crop or resize) so at first glance, perhaps not suitable for commons. I'd recommend writing the copyright holder using one of our standard template letters as a starting point and asking for an additional license that is commmons compatible. I may be mistaken but that's my read. ++Lar: t/c 10:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that, as Fan art, the pictures might be considered derivatives of George R. R. Martin's work and not allowed on Commons. --Davepape 13:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia error: where to report?

See: Image:Gottlieb-The_Watch.jpg. Newer version is larger, but in upload history both images have the same resolution. A.J. 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are a different size partly because the new digital reproduction has twice the resolution than the archived digital reproduction; when I opened them in Photoshop, however, it seems that the older one is also smaller than the newer one; I'm not sure where or if to report that. Someone else know? --Iamunknown 21:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]