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.
I recently uploaded four images for [[Category:High Glanau]]. The owner (of the property) would like these images removed. The open day at which I took the images specified that photography was permitted only with the permission of the owner, and only for personal use. I was in error in posting them, as they then become available for public use, which is not what the owner intended. Can they be removed. KJP1 (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
@KJP1: Maybe an administrator will see your message here and delete the files, but your request has a better chance if you use the method with the speedydelete template. You can obtain speedy deletion of your recently uploaded files by inserting the template Speedydelete on the description page of each file. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I've made some uploads. I'd appreciate it if somebody could check my licensing though, to make sure I've done it right. Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@FollowTheTortoise: That's actually rather confusing as to what comes from where. In particular: what is the source for the outline map of England? I presume it came from somewhere in particular online, and that should be linked. - Jmabel ! talk00:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
So, for instance, would "Country boundaries from ONS Geography, combined authority boundaries from ONS Geography and lower-tier local authority boundaries from ONS Geography" suffice? If so, where should I put this information? In the description section? The source section? Thanks a lot for your help! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Something went wrong when I uploaded the files "Botbrug-1964 01.jpg" and "Botbrug-1964 02.jpg". They should have been named "Botbrug-1964.jpg" and "Schip Schorpioen 1964" respectively. Can someone do this for me? Sijtze Reurich (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Linking to license if reproducing in a print format
Attribution requirements for the CC BY-SA 4.0 license state 3(a)(1)(A)(v) that one must include a "URI...to the Licensed Material" AND one must include a "URI...to...this Public License" 3(a)(1)(C). If reproducing in a print format, this would require writing out two URL's, which can be lengthy. However, when linking to a CC licensed image, an abbreviated version of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license appears on that same webpage, which includes a link to the human-readable summary of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. Further, the CC BY-SA 4.0 license states 3(a)(2): "it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." Question: If reproducing a CC licensed image in a print format, would it be considered "reasonable" and thus "satisfy the conditions" to include ONLY the URL of the image (showing the abbreviated version of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license on that same webpage, with a link to the human-readable summary of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license)? Or must one still include a second URL to the standalone CC BY-SA 4.0 license? Thank you, --Brjpps12 (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Yes, I would include ONLY the URL of a Wikimedia Creative Commons image, as in the example you gave (or as in the second Flickr example you gave), because as you noted, they both lead to the Creative Commons license. Gratefully, Brjpps12 (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I want to know the reason for deleting the image
I want to know why the image I uploaded has been deleted. I want to improve it so that it won't be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 瓜江崇 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
You can see the deletion reason by clicking on the red link in your log. In this case, the reason appears to be that the image was a copy of an image from the internet and you did not provide the proof that you are the original author or the owner of the copyright of that image. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
For privacy reasons I'd like the exif data on my 2 latest uploaded file removed. My reason is that these 2 are historic pictures which's authors died, so they are the authors and not me. I improved my wikicommons uploads licence tag skills so the last picture, so both are better tagged now, if it was your purpose to use exif data.
Therefore I'd please like the exif/metadata attached to my 2 latest updates removed to not expose my priviate info.
Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvaBrandon2000 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Is BBC Radio programme content under Creative Commons?
I'm wanting to upload a clip from a BBC Radio 4 original programme and wondering if anyone knows about the permissions? Is it Creative Commons, and if so, which Creative Commons license do I file it as? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandavirabeth (talk • contribs) 00:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think BBC broadcast recordings are under a free license. That sadly includes unofficial recordings taken from radio receiver. Unless the content is free, the recordings are not free. I doubt that BBC would release their content under a free license compatible with Commons. While it is not truly commercial station (there are no ads and it is paid from listeners fees periodically), they still have all rights reserved for their content and thus the content is copyrighted. Whether the license is free or not, I don't know, but I highly doubt that it is free. I guess BBC content is protected by copyright and shall not be reproduced publicly without a proper license. Polda18 (discussion • contributions) 05:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The issue is, it is quite difficult to just reverse image search it to find it's first publication, the Watertown Daily Times article about the statues dedication only includes an illustration of the statue, and does not include the photo. This photo was provided by a historical society, does that make it easier / harder? Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk14:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Lallint: There is at least a fair chance that the historical society knows the provenance of the photo, and might know about pre-1927 publication. You'd need to contact them and ask- Jmabel ! talk19:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
contact contributor
Simple question from new user. How do I contact a contributor with a genuine query?
One way is contacting them on their talk/discussion page (usually takes form of User talk:Example), or if you want to contact them more privately, many of them have an option to be contacted via email. Just go to their user page or user talk page and on the left sidebar, there is a link labeled as "Send email". Click it and you can compose an email. Also, take a look at COM:SIGN. Polda18 (discussion • contributions) 05:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Submit a Profile page for Wikipedia
Hi there,
I was wondering how I can upload a Wikipedia page? Who do I contact for this.
For help on Wikipedia, go to Wikipedia. This is Wikimedia Commons, we give advice for free media upload and stuff around WM Commons here instead. Also, please see COM:SIGN. As for the question, I don't even know what you want to do. Establish a new Wikimedia project or make a new language for a Wikimedia project? For an entirely new WM project, I guess Meta-wiki is a way to go, for a new language for an existing Wikimedia project, see Wikimedia Incubator. Polda18 (discussion • contributions) 11:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@KatjaScius2022 On a technical level, you don't upload Wikipedia pages as a file, you write them in your web browser. Assuming you're talking about the English language version of Wikipedia, starting points for getting into it are:
@Peyton dodson 5 and El Grafo: If the image is well-described, I don't see why not. Do we have an abundance of such photos? E.g. Bedrooms in Ohio doesn't seem to be very representative, it certainly could use some more contemporary in-use ones (although I am not sure bedrooms in Ohio differ in any significant way from bedrooms in say Indiana). Of course, we should know the year, country, the type of room, and the type of family (small children? pensioners? single?) or person (gender? age?) living there. –LPfi (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
License verification
How can I be sure that an image uploaded to commons really has the license it displays? Is the license verified independently each time or is it taken upon the word of the uploader? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.243.159.138 (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
You can't know for sure from the license displayed on the info page of an image on Commons. But usually someone does the verification and if that verification fails, they eighter change the license template or nominate the file for deletion. The prior is suitable for licenses compatible with Commons, the later is suitable for copyvios. Also, take a look at COM:SIGN. Polda18 (discussion • contributions) 06:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The verification is very often of the type "does this sound trustworthy?" so it is no guarantee. Some files have a Commons:VRT ticket number, which means somebody has made a trustworthy claim by e-mail correspondence, and you can ask about it from the VRT volunteers, who have access to it. Many files from Flickr and similar services have a trusted volunteer's confirmation that the licence claim agrees to the one there.
However, it is very hard to verify any claim on copyright watertightly. If I bought the rights to a work from John Doe and then licensed it on Commons, how can anybody know that John Doe had the rights to it to begin with? And if I upload my "own" photo, how do you know it wasn't my brother's, who had borrowed my camera? If you need to be sure, you need to do your own research, perhaps contacting the uploader or claimed source.
What exactly is wrong? I can see that there is a suspicion for a copyvio, and the image is not categorized. You asked for help, but didn't provide information on what kind of help.
For pages on Wikimedia projects, you see the list towards the end of the file description page ("global usage"). For external sites using the "instant Commons" feature, there may be a note somewhere. For external pages just linking it, you won't find all of them, but some search engines allow asking for links to a specified page, but images can be accessed by many filenames, so it is not necessarily easy. A search for copies might also work (some search engines have that feature, to be used e.g. to find copyright violations). –LPfi (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
How to show the latest version of file through a link?
I have used a tree onion image from this website in writing my book chapter but I need your permission to include the same. The photograph is taken by H. Zell. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.90.69.116 (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons uses Creative Commons license most of the time, everything you find here is free to use by anyone in anything. Unless you find a file that is a copyvio (which hasn't been deleted yet) or a file that lacks a license information (which is deleted 7 days after publication), everything you see here is something you can use freely. The only requirement may be, depending on license, to specify the source and original author (CC BY or CC BY-SA license for example requires you to specify origin and author). See COM:License for more information. You'll also find a lot of Public Domain content here (eighter PD or CC0). That means that copyright eighter expired or author gave their copyright up entirely. That content is then free to use and you don't even have to include authorship or origin (but morally speaking, you still should). No need to ask for permission. Polda18 (discussion • contributions) 11:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Someone here may be able to tell you something more specific if you give a URL or wikilink to the file page in question instead of just "The photograph is taken by H. Zell." - Jmabel ! talk15:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Uploading of images with CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 depicting works older than 100 years
Several public institutions offer digitized images of old books, that is, books printed 100s of years ago. One such institution in particular is the Bavarian State Library. It offers its images with a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
Can CC BY-NC-SA images of such old such books be included in Wikipedia articles or not?
My understanding of Wikimedia's stance is that: it does not permit the CC BY-NC-SA license per se, but there are exemptions. Is that correct?
I do, however, find several files on Wikimedia Commons sourced from the Bavarian state library's website:
I'm not sure what copyright status is issued for ditigal scans and photos of old books in Germany, but I would say that these clasify as faithful photographic representations of an artwork (yes, books, especially books like this, are an artwork), and thus are deemed as the same thing. Being so old, the books probably never even had any kind of copyright protection. Probably the best bet would be contact the institution about this and see. Polda18 (discussion • contributions) 11:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Polda18 :) I'm still curious to understand Wikimedia's policy here though. Since they don't allow "NC" licenses, does this mean all previously uploaded images from e.g. the Bavarian State Library need to be deleted? I think the library is very clear with the license they've chosen. 'wɪnd (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
User:'wɪnd I'd like to teach you a german word: "Schutzrechtsberühmung". It can roughly be translated as "Proprietary right vocation". This is a case if a party (often a german GLAM) claims a copyright, that it actually does not have. A book of more than 100 years of age is in the public domain, which can be translated into a cc-zero license. BSL however tries to tell you, they are the copyright owner and publish the work as cc-4.0 and then opt for the NC option. You can ignore that. And you will sleep better, if you do not try to explain this to BSL. Because they did it with wilful intent. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Ich habe Fehler gemacht, da ich noch sehr unerfahren bin. Bitte um Entschuldigung.
Dennoch benötige ich Hilfe.
Hier sind verschiedene Bilder hochgeladen:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wolfgang_Baark.jpg
Die betreffende Person, Wolfgang Baark, hat mich angesprochen, das veraltete Bild (lange Haare) zu ändern. Ich habe dazu ein neues von ihm aufgenommen und falsch hochgeladen.
Was ist jetzt zu tun? Das jetzt gezeigte Bild soll gelöscht werden und durch das neue (gelber Hintergrund) ersetzt werden. Ausschließlich das neue.
Wer hilft mir dabei, oder wer kann das übernehmen?
Die Fotos sind beide von mir persönlich aufgenommen.
I made mistakes because I'm still very inexperienced. Excuse me.
Still I need help.
Various images are uploaded here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wolfgang_Baark.jpg
The person in question, Wolfgang Baark, approached me about changing the outdated image (long hair). I recorded a new one from him and uploaded it incorrectly.
What has to be done now? The image now shown should be deleted and replaced by the new one (yellow background). Only the new one.
Who will help me, or who can take over?
The photos are both taken by me personally.
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. Bahnmoeller (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Is this image ok to upload?
The statue depicted in this photo (here) is housed in the North Carolina Museum of Art. This particular photo is no longer on any website of the NCMA; mediastorehouse, selling several media based on this photo (prints, canvas, etc) says: "Purchased with funds from the North Carolina State Art Society (Robert F. Phifer Bequest); out of copyright" (here). Does that mean that this particular image - not their own art prints - is free to use? Deiadameian (talk) 9:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
On the wiki of the "Le Sip Français", it is the bad logo (it has just been changed). So I wonder if, before putting the new logo in the InfoBox, I should contact the site that put the logo online to get their authorization. I obviously don't want to break one of the 5 principles of Wikipedia but, for a simple logo, do copyright laws apply?
Thank you for enlightening me on this subject,
Writer 1029 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer 1029 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Writer 1029: Copyright laws always apply; the question is whether the logo is copyrightable.
Also, it would be useful if you could link a page (presumably off-wiki) that shows the logo you would like to upload. - Jmabel ! talk19:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Writer 1029: There is something called "Treshold of originality" (COM:TOO). Each country has slightly different rules for TOO, so make sure to read rules for country of the logo origin (in this case it's going to be France most likely). If you're unsure, post a link to the logo you want to upload (presumably off-wiki, best would be the original website) and experienced users may tell you if it is below TOO or not. If the logo is not below TOO, there is still a way it can get its way to Commons, and that is through COM:VRT, basically the copyright holders have to mail consent to the VRT legal team to which the logo is then approved to be uploaded to Commons. Otherwise, the logo is not free to use and shouldn't be uploaded to Commons, but could be uploaded to some Wikipedias (not all of them) with a written Fair Use (COM:FU) rationale. Polda18 (discussion • contributions) 06:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, Pinging @Morelisator whose sole contribution to Commons was to upload File:Logo-Le-Slip-Francais.png, which also has a questionable claim of {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, while also asserting {{PD-Textlogo}} (which I'm not sure is correct, but which contradicts the license: you can't offer a CC-BY-SA license for a PD image).
I have my doubts about hosting either of these. And I still don't know what page is referred to as the wiki of the "Le S[l]ip Français". There is no en:Le Slip Français. Are we talking about fr:Le Slip Français or something else? If the latter, then even if these cannot be hosted on Commons, it should be possible to do non-free use on fr-wiki (without involving Commons) under fr:Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur. - Jmabel ! talk16:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Responding to request to delete
Someone nominated a photo I put on the entry about my grandfather, George L. Cross, for deletion. I can't find any reason for the nomination, so I can't respond. Where do I find that? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoPaul7 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@GeoPaul7: I assume that this is about File:George Lynn Cross.jpg. The anonymous person who nominated it for deletion was a bit cryptic about the reason for nomination -- they just wrote "own work" -- but presumably what they meant was that they didn't believe the photo was your own work (and, I would add, from the style of the photo I doubt that it was taken 17 January 2017, a doubt readily confirmed when I go to the article about him and see that he died in 1998). So the question would be: who actually took the photo? What is the accurate basis to say it is either free-licensed or in the public domain? Clearly it is not your own work from 2017, so it's not at all clear what is the basis for the license you granted.
NOTE that physical possession of a photo by no means gives you a copyright: otherwise, if ten copies existed, there would be ten copyright-owners. However, if the photo was taken by (for example) a member of your family and you are the heir to that person's intellectual property, we can sort this out with a license such as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}.
Offhand, it looks like similar issues apply to your two other uploads, but let's try to sort this one out first. - Jmabel ! talk21:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
(ec) @GeoPaul7: Hi, and welcome. File:George Lynn Cross.jpg was nominated for deletion because "Own work", which makes little sense. I see that you posted to Commons:Deletion requests/File:George Lynn Cross.jpg. I could guess that the IP was used by the actual copyright holder, the circa 1958 photographer or their heir. What makes you think that person transferred copyright ownership to your grandfather, the subject? Please send proof of such transfer in writing (as required by US copyright law) via VRT. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me21:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Also: even if this cannot be hosted on Commons, a low-resolution version can probably be hosted directly on at least the English-language Wikipedia and used there. - Jmabel ! talk03:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Correcting errors in filenames, descriptions etc of two images;
Attribution to original author for adapted image (in upload wizard)
Hi. I would have guessed this is a pretty common question, but I couldn't find the answer anywhere. I took an image from commons which is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. I changed a little bit (cropped 50% away and added maybe 5% new content) to use it in a different wikipedia article. In the upload wizard, do I choose "this is my own work" or "not my own work"? If it counts as my own, where do I put the attribution to the original author in the uplaod wizard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerandereKönich (talk • contribs) 12:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
You choose "this is not my own work". Then three input fields will appear "source", "author" and "license". In license you enter "{{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}", in source the original file and in author yourself and the original author. You can tidy that up after upload. --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
My concern regarding this image is this isn't the uploader's own work, as the person claiming to be the author put the name Dubba_DD as the author. When I searched the name, this photographer social media shows up: [1]Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
If a picture that is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license and that is labeled as BadJPEG in Wikimedia Commons, could it be deleted and changed to a png-file that has added information and original "bad artifacts" are removed? CC 4.0 license doesn't give the right for deletion (only for share, remix, attribution, and share alike). So why a bad picture can't be deleted from Wikipedia and replaced with a better one? Share alike means in Finnish "distribute as the same kind" but the new picture is not this kind of bad and it has alterations. In Commons/Licensing help instructions is said: "We can't accept works from others without their explicit permission." Explicit means "clear and exact" (Cambridge Dictionary). This person (uses pseudonym) hasn't given personally any clear and exact information about these things. And he has not made any contributions to Wikipedia for many years. And CC licensing terms are not clear and exact. (There are tons of texts to explain them). So is it 70 years or some countries 100 years when we can delete this bad picture and replace it with a better one? Do I have to check Chinese law, because Chinese Wiki uses also this picture? In "https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Image_administration" there is only help for the administrator, but no help at all for the majority (e.g. how to contact an administrator). There is also a page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload/Replace_this_image" which restricts altering the picture to CC 3.0 and earlier. So I guess I have to draw a new map and end up almost the same as the original but much better quality? This question is exact and clear and long. And this is the exact threshold for a newcomer to use Wikimedia. Jari Rauma (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
By the way, everyone sees that the original map is copied from some other map, but somehow CC grants licenses to copied works. Jari Rauma (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
First of all, SA (Share-Alike) only requires to keep the license, not that the image should not be altered. That is ND (No-Derivates), which on its own isn't accepted on Commons. If you found a clean PNG version of the file with the CC BY-SA license, go ahead and upload it, and make sure to correctly attribute the original author and of course include the corresponding license attributed to the image. Or you can make an SVG version of the image, if the image consists of mostly simpler shapes that could be very easily and very efficiently described with mathematical geometry expressions that make up the SVG file. You may find Inkscape a good editor to convert simple raster images to vector. If you're not quite experienced in redrawing JPEG/PNG images to vector format, someone else may do it. And you didn't even link to the file you want to replace, so we can only make assumptions on what you really want to do just based on your question. Polda18 (discussion • contributions) 11:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. It took a long time for a Finn to realize that share-alike and no-derivates are different things. The legal text differs from normal language because synonyms can be defined strangely. Personally, I find png superior in line art, and I wouldn’t want to promote Inkscape, which only stands out in images that are zoomed. This map image cannot be found on Wikimedia. Disclosing an image could reveal the identity of its uploader. The image itself is simple and contains only outlines and a few place names. In order to be useful for a Wikipedia page, a few place names should be added to it. I use Photoshop to remove clutter from the image. It will take a few minutes. A much more cumbersome process is getting it over the threshold of Wikimedia. Maybe a week. Jari Rauma (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Actually, SVG is the best choice for maps, because it's scalable and you won't lose any quality by interpolating vector definitions. Interpolating bitmap grid actually degrades the quality in both directions, both with enlarging and shrinking. For something that is made of geometric objects, like a map, a vector format is best solution. Polda18 (discussion • contributions) 11:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons.
@Kiarashkhatib77 and Kiava: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload a smaller (<50,000 bytes or <2,000,000 pixels) jpg photo as a new user. The photo you tried to upload is smaller, and you indicated it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads a smaller photo, it is a copyright violation taken from the web. If you took the photo yourself, please upload the full-size original of it per COM:HR, including EXIF metadata. If you did not take the photo, please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept it as-is, and have the photographer post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such work on their website or social media presence or send the photo and permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you. If you can't get a compliant license, the photo may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. If you use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid that filter. See also COM:SIGN. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me21:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
publicar mi biografia
necesito publicar mi biografia fui jugador du futbol profecional y necesito hacer una publicacion con equipos que integre y nombre de mi famillia completo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cancha llena (talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This is Wikimedia Commons where we host free media for Wikipedia and other such projects. We specialise in collecting free media rather, and also most Wikipedias will strongly discourage you from writing there about yourself. If you are really notable, somebody else will write a Wikipedia article about you in due time, or a professional publisher will accept and publish your biography. But there is nothing we here can do for you. De728631 (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This is a help desk for the use of Wikimedia Commons and partially also for other Wikimedia projects, but it is not a general information forum. I think you would be best advised to google your topic to get some answers. De728631 (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Map of Mexico 1628 by Juan Gomez de Trasmonte public domain?
1958 is the opinion of User:Lokal Profil expressed in 2014 on the Wikidata page. 1957 is the opinion of User:Kingofthedead expressed in 2016 on the Commons category page. The article on en.wikipedia, in its history, hesitated between the two dates based on various sources. The current version there is the opinion of User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers expressed in 2019. You can review the various sources in the Wikipedia article history and decide which you prefer or you can ask those users to debate it and evaluate who wins the debate. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Isn't it better in such cases to use "1957 or 1958"? I don't know how the infobox arbitrates between values on Wikidata with the same rank, or whether it can use a "or" statement. –LPfi (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes. The other birth date should be added to Wikidata and both alternatives be given their best sources. Ideally the code regarding birth year in Template:Wikidata Infobox/core and module:WikidataIB would handle the two dates (with equal rank) in a sensible way. Otherwise the dates should be manually overridden, which doesn't seem possible with the current template. I think manual override would be reasonably easy to allow, but we want things fixed at Wikidata instead. I haven't been working with advanced MediaWiki templates, modules and the Wikidata API, so while I mostly understand the code, I am not going to fix it. –LPfi (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Rbollich: I have no idea what you mean hear by a "narrative". Are you talking about uploading to Commons, or something else? To upload to Commons, most beginners find it simplest to use Special:UploadWizard. - Jmabel ! talk15:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Sailors Crossing the Equator "Line Crossing Ceremony"
I have both my father's "summons' and his certificate (the certificate is framed under glass and I'm not sure how good of a picture it would be because of the reflection) the only copy shown on your site is one from the 1970s. The one I have is from 1944, from my father, Philip W. Smith, during WWII and his certificate says that their destination was bound south for the Equator and "Censored". According to this, he was with the Patrol Squadron 94 and I know that he ended up in South America and was a gunner and radioman on a PBY. I do not know of any other info other than this (I have only seen pictures of him, the guys he was with hanging out on the beach, and his plane)but I was wondering if you would be interested in copies of the matching certificate and summons since it seems that none of the ones you show on your site is a set. I would appreciate hearing from you either way.
I have used your site for many things and I thank you for all of the info you do provide. Please let me know if you are interested and if so, maybe I can find someone who can photograph the certificate without distortion since it's been framed and under glass for many, many years. I've never seen it out of the frame and I'm 61. I believe it was done sometime right after the war.
We are very interested, yes. I assume USA is the relevant jurisdiction, that the artist was anonymous and that the certificate never was published. Normally that would mean it would enter the public domain 120 years after creation, i.e. 2064, even if anonymous ("orphan work"). Absurd, yes. However, the certificate may have been created as official duties of federal employees, and thus never have been copyrighted. That would mean you could upload a photo. Depending on how it was framed, it might be possible to remove the glass (or the certificate, from the back) and get a good photo or scan. The right lighting helps if you need to take a photo through the glass; perhaps you have a photographer among your acquaintances, with some experience of taking such photos. –LPfi (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I am Luis Muro and I am a Peruvian scientist working for the Field Museum of Natural History Chicago. We are preparing a museum exhibition which will be accompanied by a catalog. For this later, we would love to have a few images from Wikimedia to be included in the catalog, which will be distributed both physically and digitally. We want to make sure that the images we are selecting are free of restriction. This is part of an educational project run by a museum institution. Photos we are interested in are of archaeological and historical sites such as Tikal, Stonehedge, the Giza Pyramids, and Göbekli Tepe.
Many thanks for any information you can kindly provide
@LuisMuroYno Every image at commons has its descripiton page, every description page has a license section. All information can be found there. There may be restricitons based on personality rights and trade marks. You will have to research that yourself. As for the copyright, you can use the Http://lizenzhinweisgenerator.de to automatically genereate a valid attribution for an image. You can also try to ask the authors of the images for an individual license, if the license(s) offered at the description page do not meet your needs. C.Suthorn (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Penguinair: If they are uncontroversial changes (e.g. correcting "termal" to "thermal"), just feel free. If they are more potentially controversial, then I suggest creating a derivative version under a new filename, and linking the two with {{Derivative works}} and {{Derived from}}, respectively. - Jmabel ! talk17:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Not controversial (example you have is one of them). However, when I go to the edit tab for the image, all I see is the header information (shown below), and not the full SVG text that I am trying to replace. If I try to append the SVG text to the end, it simply shows the original when I click on the preview tab. It looks like I am not being taken to the edit page for the image itself...
@Penguinair: That would be caused by the fact that when you edit the file page, you're actually editing description rather than the file itself. Download the file, open it in your SVG editor (I use Inkscape) or open it in a text editor, do necessary changes, and upload the modified file as a new revision by clicking a link below the file upload history, labeled as "Upload new revision of this file" (or something like that, I've got my interface in a different language). It should prompt you to select the file to upload it (it should be the same format, just to note). The file will then be processed and added into the file history, and current file will change to the new version. Polda18 (discussion • contributions) 18:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Энциклопедия228: The hyperlink did not "[l]ead directly to the source material, not the nonews.co home page." ("Вести непосредственно на материал-источник, а не главную страницу nonews.co.") — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me13:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
So yeah, it is Creative Commons, more specifically CC BY 4.0 International. Performed a Google Translate into English on the page and following points are violated:
2. The hyperlink must meet the following conditions:
2.1. Lead directly to the source material, not the nonews.co home page.
make sure to include a correct license tag to the file description under the License heading. For Creative Commons Attribution 4.0, it is {{Cc-by-4.0}}.
A PDF of a page with 1400 images works fine. The images are all 32x32 pixel and need to be rendered thumbs in server cache. So the number of images is not the issue. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@De728631: I'm not at all sure "in religious clothing" is appropriate, it was definitely a costume worn for comic effect. Would we describe the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence as "in religious clothing"? - Jmabel ! talk21:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Are you sure it was meant for comic effect only? Even if so, it still looks like some original type of religious clothing other than what those "sisters" use to wear, so I don't see why it shouldn't be in that category. De728631 (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Haha, that explains a lot. Anyhow, I still think we can leave it in the "religious clothing" category because the clothing as such seems to be original even though the priest was fake. De728631 (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Гм. Вам говорят, что по этой ссылке никто кроме вас этого изображения не видит, поскольку оно находится в вашем внутреннем гугл-пространстве. Чтобы увидели, надо загружать на общедоступные хостинги, например, https://imgur.com/ Но если вы сделали на улице фото чужого постера, его сюда в любом случае загружать нельзя, пока не получите разрешение автора. --Xunks (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Работа
Как можно устроиться к Вам на работу в качестве проверенного пользователя и участника. Я буду редактировать. Помогать Википедии. Защищать страницы от вандализма и т.д. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emtsev Nazar (talk • contribs) 11:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
How can I get a job with you as a verified user and contributor. I will be editing. Assist Wikipedia. Protect pages from vandalism, etc.
You become a verified user after a while automatically, there's no need to ask for such permission. Everyone here does their editing job in their spare time, it's not a paid job. Just be brave and start editing.
Вы становитесь верифицированным пользователем через некоторое время автоматически, нет необходимости просить такого разрешения. Все здесь занимаются редактированием в свободное время, это не оплачиваемая работа. Просто будьте смелее и начинайте редактировать.
I recently attempted to upload an image to WC. It appears to be established, but it doesn't appear on my uploads. Can you tell me what happened? I want to post it on a Wikipedia article Three of a Kind (novella collection).
Dear Asclepias - I'm not certain as to the point you are making. True, I have not contributed to WC for a number of years. But will the image for Three of a Kind be available for posting on Wikipedia? No link is available to access the image so far. Can you help? CerroFerro (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The link to Three of a Kind (novella collection).jpg uploaded 10 May 2022 17:20 UTC is currently near the top on your en.wikipedia logs linked in the first reply. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I am trying to get the image posted with the option: Wiki USE THIS FILE, so I get access it as a Thumb image for the wikipedia article in question. Do I need to upload again? The problem is that the correct title has already been established, but it clearly has not been authorized by Commons for use on Wikipedia. Confused. --CerroFerro (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@CerroFerro: Hello. You can use the image as-is at the English Wikipedia, and you don't need to get "authorization" from Commons to use any images. In fact, Commons cannot even host this file because it has a fair use rationale. So, you just need to insert the file into the appropriate article like [[File:Three of a Kind (novella collection).jpg|thumb|1943 book cover]]. De728631 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
David Junès (1874-1938)
Bonjour,
La page David Junès (1874-1938) a été créée par mes soins.
Je ne sais si je pourrai apporter une ou deux illustrations, c'est peu probable, je viens vers vous à la recherche de précisions (au cas où vous pourriez me les apporter)
Est-il interdit, est il autorisé (sous quelles conditions) de verser en fichier dans Wikicommons une éventuelle photo de reproduction de tableaux ?
J'imagine que la réponse est négative, mais d'un autre côté :
le peintre est dans le domaine public,
et, la page wiki « Photographie d'oeuvres d'art » est ambiguë, disant que celui qui photographie en copie conforme une œuvre n'a pas de droit...
Je pense photographier les deux reproductions de tableaux suivantes : Rabbins d'une part, ou/et Boussaadia d'autre part
Rabbins, tableau reproduit p. 89 de l'ouvrage de
Feriel Ben Mahmoud et Michèle Brun, Tunisie : un siècle d'images (1857-1956), Paris,Éditions Place des Victoires, 2012, 255 p. (ISBN 978-2-8099-0711-7), p. 45 et 89.
et Boussaadia, gouache sur papier, 34 cm x 26 cm, signée en bas à gauche, avec mention « Tunis 1925 », présentée dans l'exposition Lumières tunisiennes et reproduite dans le catalogue de celle-ci (Collectif, Lumières tunisiennes : Pavillon des Arts, Paris, 19 mai au 3 septembre 1995, Paris, Paris Musées/Association française d'action artistique, 1995, 142 p. ISBN 978-2-879-00224-8).
bien attentivement--Raidfox (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
David Junès (1874-1938)
Hello, The David Junès (1874-1938) page was created by me. I don't know if I will be able to bring one or two illustrations, it is unlikely, I come to you in search of details (in case you can bring them to me) Is it prohibited, is it authorized (under what conditions) to file in Wikicommons a possible photo of reproduction of paintings?
I imagine the answer is negative, but on the other hand:
the painter is in the public domain, and, the wiki page "Photography of works of art" is ambiguous, saying that whoever photographs a work in carbon copy has no right...
I am thinking of photographing the following two reproductions of paintings: Rabbis on the one hand, or/and Boussaadia on the other hand
Rabbis, table reproduced p. 89 of the book by Feriel Ben Mahmoud and Michèle Brun, Tunisia: a century of images (1857-1956), Paris, Editions Place des Victoires, 2012, 255 p. (ISBN 978-2-8099-0711-7), p. 45 and 89.
and Boussaadia, gouache on paper, 34 cm x 26 cm, signed lower left, with mention "Tunis 1925", presented in the Tunisian Lights exhibition and reproduced in its catalog (Collective, Tunisian Lights: Pavillon des Arts, Paris, May 19 to September 3, 1995, Paris, Paris Musées/French Association for Artistic Action, 1995, 142 p. ISBN 978-2-879-00224-8). well carefully
@Raidfox: Salut et bienvenue. David Junès est décédé en 1938. Par COM:FRANCE, son droit d'auteur dure jusqu'en 1938+70+6+8 ans +152+120 jours=30 septembre 2022. Veuillez patienter jusqu'après ce jour.
Hi, and welcome. David Junès died in 1938. Per COM:FRANCE, his copyright lasts through 1938+70+6+8 years +152+120 days=30 September 2022. Please wait until after that day. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me12:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Aren't the dates also in France counted from the end of the year, thus free after 31 December 2022? Also, what about the US rights? –LPfi (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: In France, it's deathyear+70. The older law that had deathyear+50+extension(s) does not apply. Commons uses it to determine what the status was in 1996 and the status in the U.S. per the URAA, e.g. 1936+1+50+8.3=1995.3=ok for URAA. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Le cas est un peu complexe à cause des règles de la politique interne de Wikimedia Commons, qui demande de tenir compte directement des lois du pays d'origine de chaque tableau (il s'agit du pays où s'est faite la première publication du tableau) en plus de la loi étatsunienne, qui elle-même implique de tenir compte indirectement de la loi du pays d'origine mais selon des critères différents. Ça peut aussi se compliquer légèrement du fait que vous souhaitez faire des reproductions de reproductions. Je vais tenter d'exposer ça de façon simple et concise, mais je ne suis pas certain d'y arriver.
En ce qui concerne le pays de première publication, je suppose que pour certains tableaux c'est la Tunisie et que pour certains autres c'est la France. En Tunisie, le droit d'auteur patrimonial dure 50 ans après la mort de l'auteur et en France il dure 70 ans après la mort de l'auteur. Dans le cas de David Junès (1874-1938), tout va bien sous cet aspect, puisque le droit d'auteur sur ses oeuvres a donc expiré en Tunisie (depuis 1989) et en France (depuis 2009). Selon que vous conclurez qu'un tableau en particulier a été publié à l'origine en Tunisie ou en France, vous pouvez utiliser sur Commons le modèle PD-Tunisia pour un tableau qui a d'abord été publié en Tunisie ou le modèle PD-old-80 pour un tableau qui a d'abord été publié en France.
En ce qui concerne le droit étatsunien, tout tableau qui a été publié avant 1927 est considéré par Commons comme ayant un droit d'auteur expiré aux États-Unis. Pour tout tableau publié avant 1927, vous pouvez utiliser sur Commons le modèle PD-US-expired. Toutefois, pour un tableau publié après 1926, ça se complique, car pour déterminer leur statut de droit d'auteur aux États-Unis, il faut déterminer si le tableau était encore protégé par droit d'auteur en 1996 dans son pays de première publication. Il faudra donc distinguer entre les tableaux tunisiens et les tableaux français. Puisque le droit d'auteur sur toutes les oeuvres a expiré en 1989 en Tunisie, tous les tableaux publiés à l'origine en Tunisie sont libres aux États-Unis. Sur Commons, les tableaux publiés après 1926 en Tunisie peuvent utiliser le modèle PD-1996. Mais puisqu'en France le doit d'auteur sur tous les tableaux n'a expiré qu'en 2009, les tableaux publiés après 1926 en France sont encore protégés par droit d'auteur aux États-Unis. Pour ces tableaux, vous pouvez choisir de ne pas les verser sur Commons ou, si vous choisissez de les verser sur Commons, vous utiliserez le modèle Not-PD-US-URAA.
Enfin, en ce qui concerne les reproductions de reproductions de tableaux, Commons les accepte, mais les reproductions peuvent être protégées par droit d'auteur dans certains pays et Commons leur ajoute donc un bandeau d'avertissement de la série PD-Art-two.
Résumons avec trois exemples. Pour une reproduction d'un tableau publié d'abord en Tunisie avant 1927, on pourra indiquer sur Commons son statut avec la forme {{PD-Art-two|PD-Tunisia|PD-US-expired}}. Pour une reproduction d'un tableau publié d'abord en Tunisie après 1926, on pourra indiquer sur Commons son statut avec la forme {{PD-Art-two|PD-Tunisia|PD-1996}}. Pour une reproduction d'un tableau publié d'abord en France avant 1927, on pourra indiquer sur Commons son statut avec la forme {{PD-Art-two|PD-old-80|PD-US-expired}}.
Bonsoir Asclepias, recevez ma gratitude pour votre réponse, quelque temps me sera probablement nécessaire la comprendre, je lirai cela demain à tête reposée. La tonalité de votre dernier paragraphe semble indiquer que quelque chose est possible. Bonne soirée Raidfox (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
David Junès, Boussaadia, gouache sur papier, 34 cm x 26 cm, signée en bas à gauche, avec mention « Tunis 1925 » Bonjour, je viens de verser ce fichier, j'espère que je n'ai pas fait d'erreur. J'attends de voir si tout va bien pour illustrer prochainement la page David Junès avec ce fichier. Cordialement Raidfox (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Bonjour Raidfox, Je réalise que dans ma réponse précédente je n'avais presque pas développé le sujet des reproductions, qui constituait la question de départ. Mais vous pouvez consulter la page Commons:Quand utiliser le bandeau PD-Art, qui traite ce sujet de manière très détaillée.
Pour ce qui est du fichier «File:David Junès, Boussaadia, gouache sur papier, 34x26 cm, Tunis, 1925.jpg», le problème est que la version actuelle de la page de description du fichier laisse entendre que le fait d'avoir reproduit la reproduction du catalogue vous donnerait des droits d'auteur sur cette image du tableau (vous avez inscrit votre pseudonyme dans le champ «auteur» et vous avez placé une licence CC BY-SA 4.0). Or, cela n'est pas possible sur Commons. En effet, la raison même pour laquelle Wikimedia accepte les reproductions de reproductions est précisément parce que Wikimedia considère qu'une reproduction photographique d'un tableau ne donne pas de droits d'auteur (du moins pas aux États-Unis, bien que cela puisse être différent dans certains autres pays). Ainsi, par exemple, Wikimedia accepte que vous versiez sur Commons une reproduction de la reproduction contenue dans le catalogue Lumières tunisiennes parce que Wikimedia considère que le photographe qui a fait la photo du tableau pour le catalogue n'a pas de droits d'auteur aux États-Unis sur cette reproduction photographique. Pour la même raison, Wikimedia considère qu'un utilisateur de Commons qui verse sur Commons une reproduction de cette reproduction n'a pas non plus de droits d'auteur sur l'image.
En conséquence, vous pouvez faire l'une ou l'autre des choses suivantes. Si vous êtes d'accord avec la politique de Wikimedia sur le fait qu'une reproduction d'un tableau du domaine public ne devrait pas donner de droits d'auteur, le plus simple serait d'enlever la licence CC BY-SA 4.0 et, dans le champ «auteur», de remplacer votre pseudonyme par le nom de David Junès (en tant qu'auteur du tableau). La mention du catalogue irait dans le champ «source». Par contre, si vous n'êtes pas d'accord avec la politique de Wikimedia et que vous estimez plutôt qu'une reproduction d'un tableau du domaine public devrait donner des droits d'auteur, la solution serait de demander la suppression du fichier de Commons.
Bonjour Asclépias , je m'en remets à vous, bien entendu et vous sais gré de votre attention : je viens de renseigner champ auteur : David Junès et d'enlever la licence CC By Sa 4 0. Le fichier est-il admissible à présent ? Est ce que cela peut tenir, compte tenu que j'ai photographié une photo qui est dans un livre (voir réf ci dessus) ? En théorie je comprendrais bien que oui, cela revient à copier fidèlement une copie fidèle d'un texte de Balzac ou autre domaine public. Cordialement Raidfox (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Oui, c'est bon pour Commons. La question qui vous préoccupe, celle des reproductions, n'est en effet pas facile lorsqu'on l'aborde. La page Commons:Quand utiliser le bandeau PD-Art tente de résumer le sujet et la page Commons:Réutilisation de photographies PD-Art tente de résumer dans quels pays les reproductions pourraient être librement utilisées ou pas. Sur Commons, dont les serveurs sont situés aux États-Unis, Wikimedia considère qu'il n'y a pas de problème. En Europe, il se pourrait que la situation dépende de la manière dont chaque pays transposera la directive européenne à ce sujet. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
De nouveau je vous fais signe pour la question suivante : dans l'optique où nous nous rallions tous au fait qu'une reproduction d'un tableau du domaine public ne devrait pas donner de droits d'auteur, nous n'avons pas à nommer le photographe qui a pris la photo éditée que j'ai photographiée? Ce premier photographe, son nom figure dans le livre utilisé.
Ou bien il convient de le mentionner -tout comme nous avons mentionné le titre du livre? mais alors où ?- il s'appelle Christophe Walter
Je pense que ce serait en effet une bonne pratique de le mentionner. Peut-être dans la description générale ou dans la source. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Bonsoir Asclepias, je viens de verser le deuxième fichier que je prévoyais, une autre oeuvre de David Junès en vue d'illustrer prochainement sa page Wikipédia - il est probable que j'ai commis des erreurs d'édition
Bonjour Asclepias, après avoir illustré hier la page David Junès avec les deux fichiers de tableaux récemment créés, je reçois ce message que je ne sais pas déchiffrer (j'ai aussi illustré la page Wiki Souccot avec le tableau Rabbins)
Bonjour de nouveau, pardon de vous avoir dérangé(e), je craignais quelque chose mais le traducteur google m'indique que c'est un message de bienvenue. Je n'ai hélas d'ami traducteur arabe dans mon entourage pour créer la page Wiki en arabe Raidfox (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming! But as per Wikipedia policy, all page must have relevant information. Also, then how to get that person image. It's like a known business person whom i can't contact as he is out of my reach, certainly. All images have some authorities so should we not update the page if identity belongs to user. As i have to right use digital identity (Informational not promotional) regardless of who created it. Knowledgebase6162 (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Knowledgebase6162: If you want to upload a photo of that person on Commons, you have to find one that meets the license requirements. Best option would be to find one under Creative Commons compatible license that allows derivatives and commercial usage for free (CC0/PD, CC BY or CC BY-SA). You can obviously upload one of your own if you happen to have one, under compatible license. Otherwise you can only upload a lower resolution of that copyrighted photo onto some Wikipedias under Fair Use, and you have to write a Fair Use rationale for the specific usage. Most of Wikipedias do utilize the use of Fair Use or similar law, but you'll find that some don't, and that's because those Wikipedias are mostly used in countries that do not have a law similar to Fair Use and such use is forbidden (like Czech Wikipedia for example). Because Commons is a centralized media storage, Fair Use material isn't allowed here, because that would make the Fair Use material accessible on other wikis as well, including those that do not allow Fair Use. If you don't have a photo of that person and there's no other free photo available, you can take an opportunity on some type of event this person is going to be at, ask them if you could take a picture of them (of course tell them it's for Wikipedia), and if they say yes, you can then take a picture and upload it to Commons. If they say no, well, you can't do anything. Always make sure to follow principles of law. If that person doesn't wish to be photographed and published online by someone else, you gotta respect that. See COM:PERSON. Polda18 (discussion • contributions) 11:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Knowledgebase6162: What Polda18 posted above about "fair use" is referred to as non-free content on English Wikipedia. Things are bit more complicated than "writing a Fair Use rationale for the specific usage" when it comes to English Wikipedia. There are actually ten non-free content use criteria that need to be satisfied for each use of a non-free file and "writing a Fair Use rationale" is just one (actually just part of one) of the ten criteria. English Wikipedia pretty much never allows non-free images of still living persons to be used in articles per non-free content use criterion #1; so, if the photo you want to upload is of someone still living, then you won't be able to use it on English Wikipedia per English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Allowing fair use is the exception. Some 50 Wikipedias have an EDP allowing non-free files, while there are 285 Wikipedias with 1000+ articles (326 Wikipedias in total). Of those 50, several discourage or forbid non-free images of living people. –LPfi (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
When users uploading their photos, they don't know what risks they are currently facing and how they are addressing these risks
For those unfamiliar with the law, they may have caused themselves unnecessary trouble by uploading photos. Because they never thought someone would do something illegal with their photos, even someone would to report a traffic violation via uploaders by uploading the vehicle's photo with its license plate so that the fined person will sue them for invading privacy. No one wants to go to court on something like that. To take an another example, to upload someone photo, if he/she only granted the photographer permission to photograph his/her portrait but not grant anyone to upload to Commons, then he/she may sue the uploader for the damages.
Above issues go far beyond anything actually said in the policies on Commons. Can somebody spread some light on this?--Kai3952 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there's much you can do when it comes to stuff like this. I'm sure many people who upload their "own work" to Commons don't bother reading through pages like COM:L, COM:REUSE, COM:NCR or COM:LRV. You can try to explain things to them if you want (I've done this before: some users don't care while others end up requesting their uploads be deleted per COM:CSD#G7) if you catch them fast enough, but ultimately it's responsibility of the uploader to understand what it means to upload something to Commons. Even if you were to put all kinds of disclaimers on the upload page and required uploaders to check boxes stating they understand what it means to upload their work to Commons, many probably wouldn't even bother to read what's written and just check whatever box there is just so that they can use the file a quickly as possible. Not many people bother to read all of the small print on a form or application whenever they sign up for something. Not many people bother to click on the "Terms of Use" link located above the "Publish changes" button the first time they edit some Wikipedia or Commons page. You can't make such people do things they're not really inclined to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
No you cannot. There are too many ways you can get into or avoid trouble, and those vary somewhat between jurisdictions. Mostly you can avoid trouble just by thinking twice. If the scenarios described above were common, I think there would be more discussion about actual cases here on Commons.
I don't blame people for not reading all linked info. The typical case on the net: a friend wanted to share a newspaper subscription with me (a mainstream paper, subscription valid for five persons). On registration the newspaper asked me to read their privacy policy, "as they value my privacy". It was 40 pages, not including related services and embedded third-party content! After such experiences, you are not too inclined to click terms of use and similar links, and just click either "back" or "I have read", depending on personality or urgency.
@Excellenc1: Hi, and welcome. We provide both for use by all WMF projects and beyond. You may argue for deletion at COM:DR, but will probably be unsuccessful if they are COM:INUSE. You may argue to prefer one over the other at talk pages like those for articles on English and French Wikipedias. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me11:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Excellenc1: Expanding on what Jeff said: we often host multiple similar images. That's OK. It lets the individual Wikipedias (and other reusers) make their own choice. - Jmabel ! talk15:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Віктор Ченцов.jpg
Dear friends!
This photo was taken from official website of the University of Customs and Finance. The person, who is on this page is not against this photo to use it in article about him. I asked it via e-mail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razzhyvin (talk • contribs) 10:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Razzhyvin, our policy COM:L requires that copyrighted uploads to Commons are to be released under a free license, which allows other people to use them, not only Wikipedia. So, if the depicted person is also to photographer or rightsholder, he needs state that and his intend to release the image under the choosen free license towards permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (ORTS). --Túrelio (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I have been in contact with a poet who is notable and should have a WP page but does not. She has provided me with a photo, self-taken, that she's willing to provide with a suitable (e.g. CC-BY) license. She's not confident in using technology. If I upload it, how do I arrange for someone from the VRT to contact her for confirmation (or is there a better way to do this)? Thanks in advance for any advice, -- — soupvector (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
is a photograph (in my possession) from an unidentified NY studio from 1950 still in copyright or can it be used on a wikipedia page?
˜˜˜˜
Nadja1968 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadja1968 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Nadja1968: Not enough information there to give an answer. Was there a copyright notice? If not, then it's simple: {{PD-US-no notice}}. At that time, the U.S. required explicit notice of copyright. If there is a copyright notice it gets more complicated. Have a look at Commons:Hirtle chart and ask here if that still leaves you with any questions. - Jmabel ! talk14:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Image deletion
Hi there,
A while back, I created and uploaded an image that is now obsolete/incorrect. So, I uploaded an updated version, but accidentally left something important out.
I put in a deletion request for both images April 19th, and the discussion period was opened and I believe is resolved. I would like these deleted so I can upload the fully correct version and not have multiple incorrect versions. Are these able to be deleted now by an Admin?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OSMTH-OSMTJ_Splits_updated.pnghttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OSTMH-OSMTJ_Timeline.jpg
Thanks. I figured out how to update the file per your suggestion. However, I dont know how to remove the image from the page. I asked about it on the wikipedia help desk several weeks ago and they said I had to go to commons, so each side is telling me I have to go to the other side. Sorry for my confusion. I appreciate your help. Vespercirrus (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Vespercirrus: Well, actually, it looks like you didn't work out how to update per my suggestion. Instead, you created a totally new file File:OSMTH-OSMTJ Splits, Simplified (2).png. In the future: use the "Upload a new version of this file" link.
I can see you are a bit out of your depth here, I'll do my best to follow this up and make it as it should be. - Jmabel ! talk 23:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC) OK, you did make the change in Wikipedia. I'll close out the deletion requests. - Jmabel ! talk23:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Does there exist, or can there be made to exist, a simple workflow that removes private EXIF metadata from images as it seems to be a common use case that several people are inadvertently loading private metadata and then requiring the whole metadata to be be deleted. It doesn't affect me personally too much ... though I have to accept my images will sometimes be categorising what cellphone I use which I might see as a possible privacy issue. Anyway does such a simple - ideally one-click action exist for creating a new version of an image and revdel'ing the previous one? thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean by "private EXIF metadata"? Most (cheap) cameras (and smartphones) do not save EXIF data, that is considered private by Wikimedia Commons standards. There would be camera vendor and model, location and date time, all of which are used for categories and SDC by bots. If the EXIF contains a copyright notice, than it has been entered into the camera by the fotographer intentionally. There a smartphone apps that remove EXIF data from images for use in social media. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
If the model is uncommon, it can probably be used to identify the camera and thereby an individual, especially in combination with defects in the sensor (which are common, and vary individually). Time and location can be sensitive in some contexts. Removing time and location or hiding defects by some kind of smoothing all degrade the usability of the image, so shouldn't be done routinely, and Commons cannot know what data is sensitive. EXIF data (and the photo) can be processed to remove or adjust most sensitive information before upload, and then revision delete isn't needed. The problem is that good tools for that aren't in widespread use.
An additional problem is the Upload Wizard, which warns about EXIF data regardless of what data is present, and even when EXIF data has been removed (does "exiv2 delete" miss something crucial?). It should show the data that is present and allow deleting any of it, ideally highlighting potentially problematic info with little value for Commons.
Useful reply. And I think it highlights that people are using the upload wizard and only retrospectively checking the EXIF data which is displayed on commons, becoming somewhat appalled at what is there, and requesting deletion. So catching this at the upload wizard would be desirable. thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
There are three "portions" of EXIF data. Portion one is visible on the description page, portion two can be seen on the decription page if you click "view more", portion three is only available, if you download the originally uploaded file. The thumbs only contain a small part of the EXIF. Wikimedia is one of only few online services that do not cut EXIF data from uploaded files (the "download original" version of the file).
Cetero censeo that the WebStatement meta data should be shown on the description page and included into thumb files and audio and video files should show their metadata on the description page (MW does extract this metadata from video files, it only is not shown online and in thumbs) --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Treatment of language-specific images
I recently created and uploaded two SVG images of compass roses, one with English-language abbreviations, another with Spanish-language abbreviations. I hope to add more languages down the line, and I wanted to take this moment to ask to see if there is anything I should be doing differently with regards to treating the files as a multi-language set. (Is there a way to group them? Am I setting relatively decent metadata?) Cheers, —jameslucas▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄20:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
You can specify the language of text elements in the SVG and thereby create a multilingual SVG file. MediaWiki will then show it in the preferred language of the user (as determined by the software) if present, otherwise in English. Check if your tool can help you with this. –LPfi (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, LPfi. Looks like that feature is limited to very plain text so is not suitable for this image set, but researching it set me onto a helpful track. I found File:Aldebaran-Sun comparison-en.svg, which uses a custom template to create a gallery of thumbnails sorted by language. That was very easy to parallel. —jameslucas▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄23:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
So i was stupid about 3 years ago and got banned. I have changed since 2018 and i would like to be unbanned. Please... also on the Gulf War page Dick Chenney was not vice president during that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theiphonegeekyt (talk • contribs) 00:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I am looking to get a status update on Ticket#2022050510007933. Wanted to see if it's still being processed and how I will be notified once it's approved.
I am looking to upload a photo of the Albanian politician and activist Abaz Çelkupa, however, I am unsure if it is within copyright and free of use. For context, the image can be found with a simple search on Google images and is linked to this site: https://adsh.al/s/durresi/item/15711, where it was uploaded by a contributor to the site. It is thus easy for the public to find and save. The photo itself was also taken in 1912 and so it has been over 100 years. However, the same image can be found on the Albanian General Directorate of Archives website where it can be saved for personal use although with a fee. I am concerned that the individual who posted it on the other site may have obtained it from the Albanian archive website and that using the image without paying the fee may breach copyright laws. Some help and information in regards to the matter would be of help and greatly appreciated.
To upload it, you must know that it is has a suitable licence or that it is in the public domain. If it was published in 1912 and the author's identity was never published, then it should be in the public domain both in Albania and in the USA. If the author's name was told at publication, then it is under copyright for 70 years after the author's death, which might not yet have passed. If it was published later, the status depends on the year of publication and other circumstances. So, we need more information. –LPfi (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
/* Нет изображения */ новая тема
Добрый день! Я добавила изображение на вики склад, добавила этот файл на свою страницу на викимедиа, но изображение не открывается, я вижу только название файла, подскажите как правильно добавлять изображение на викимедиа? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inzilya Safargaleeva (talk • contribs) 19:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure if I am allowed to upload a certain image to Wikimedia Commons. The image isn't mine, but the licensing agreement appears to allow us to upload it.
So, I was reading an article and saw a low quality image on it. I looked online and found the same image in far higher quality. Now, the images themselves are almost completely identical. The only noticeable differences are a slight contrast in color, and the latter image having a higher resolution. Can I upload this image and replace the original one? I'm quite confident in saying that the original image doesn't infringe any rules, but I don't know if the higher quality one would.
@AquaAlien: Typically that's fine, but there are some exceptions. It would be very useful if you would link the file page of the image in question. - Jmabel ! talk03:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@AquaAlien: This is one of the exceptions. Note that this image is on the English-language Wikipedia, not Commons, and is there as non-free use on a fair use basis, something Commons does not allow. It is deliberately low resolution to minimize any possible infringement of copyright. So, no, in this particular case you cannot upload a higher-resolution version. - Jmabel ! talk15:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
category:Lambs has a few "Lambs in country" categories directly below it, but for other topics I have usually seen these collected in a "by country" category, which in this case would be category:Lambs by country, which presently does not exist. I am reluctant to attempt this reorganisation myself. Perhaps someone with an interest could look at it. By the way, is there a better place for me to note these issues, such as this one and also #Dandelions, above? I am aware that categories have "discussion" pages, but I am not sure if anyone monitors these. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
This really can go either way. When there are very few subcats, and especially when there are very few "by country" subcats, we don't usually break out an intermediate category to organize them. (They probably should all be sorted under "*COUNTRY_NAME", though, the way that was done for Category:Lambs in the Netherlands, not the weird mixture they are right now.) If this got up to, say, eight of these I would definitely break out an intermediate category, but there would be nothing wrong with doing that now. - Jmabel ! talk15:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jmabel: OK, thanks. May I ask what the significance is of the asterisk? I can see that it causes the "~ in country" subcategories to sort together, but why an asterisk? Is it an arbitrary choice, or does it have some special meaning? (Apologies if I asked this question before; if I did then I cannot remember the answer.) ITookSomePhotos (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Ho bisogno di aiuto per inserire come si deve in Commons il file in oggetto. Si tratta della riproduzione fotografica di un foglio dattiloscritto con la prima pagina di una lettera che fu scritta da don Lorenzo Milani nel 1965 e che lui diffuse mandandone copia a molti giornali dell'epoca. Il foglio in oggetto è agli atti della corte d'assise di Roma ed è stata pubblicata in un libro a cura dello storico Sergio Tanzarella. Il libro è: Lorenzo Milani (2017) Lettera ai cappellani militari Lettera ai giudici, Il pozzo di Giacobbe, Trapani, a cura di Sergio Tanzarella. Io ho scannerizzato la pagina 22 di questo libro.
--Loris.viezzer (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I need help getting the file in question properly into Commons. It is a photographic reproduction of a typewritten sheet with the first page of a letter that was written by Don Lorenzo Milani in 1965 and which he disseminated by sending copies to many newspapers of the time. The sheet in question is in the records of the assize court of Rome and was published in a book by the historian Sergio Tanzarella. The book is: Lorenzo Milani (2017) Letter to the military chaplains Letter to the judges, Jacob's Well, Trapani, edited by Sergio Tanzarella. I have scanned page 22 of this book.
@Loris.viezzer: Ciao e benvenuto. it:Lorenzo Milani era un italiano morto nel 1967. Secondo COM:Italy, il suo copyright dura fino al 1967+70=2037. Anche dopo il 2037 il primo foglio della lettera (probabilmente scritto in Italia) sarebbe ancora OOS.
I think you can wait till beginning of July. If the category is still empty then it can be nominated for deletion. There is a large delay with deletion requests anyway. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, ich fordere sie unverzüglich auf meinen Namen in jeglicher Form mit WIKIMEDIA COMMONS zu löschen, ansonsten werde ich sie zivil und möglicherweise strafrechtlich anzeigen.
die 2020 gelöscht wurden. Was bitte soll noch gelöscht werden? Deine Drohung mit zivil- und strafrechtlichen Konsequenzen ist ja ganz amüsant, sowas haben wir hier des öfteren. --Achim55 (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Hunter Armstrong Profile Picture Update
Hi I represent Hunter Armstrong and I was trying to update his profile picture to be more professional. Can you help me make sure that I can update it without further infringing upon your copyright rules? I apologize as this is my first time doing this and did not know the extent to which I needed to fill things out!
Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanStappOSG (talk • contribs) 17:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@EvanStappOSG: The deletion comment of File:Hunter Wiki.jpg mentions a webpage that includes a photo by Jack Spitser/Spitser Photography. So, if your file was the same photo, presumably the file was missing sufficient evidence that Jack Spitser/Spitser Photography had licensed the photo with a free license. If you need more details about the deletion, you can contact the deleting administrator. If the photo has a free license, please see Commons:VRT for how Jack Spitser/Spitser Photography can send to Wikimedia a confirmation of that license. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleting file from Port Taranaki Wikipedia page
Hi,
I am trying to delete a graph and message that is on our Port Taranaki webpage. The graph is above a passage that says - Shipping volumes at Port Taranaki by quarter. Can someone help me do this?
You've asked this on Wikimedia Commons. Commons has no role in editing a Wikipedia article.
I assume you are referring to en:Port Taranaki. Technically, you would remove this by removing "[[File:PortTaranaki-TEU.svg|thumb|Shipping volumes at Port Taranaki, by quarter]]" from the wikitext. However, when you say our Port Taranaki webpage, that suggests that you are connected to the Port, and given that the graph shows declining volumes (which are mentioned in the article) I strongly suggest that you read en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before editing that article. - Jmabel ! talk00:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Structured data 'depicts' not saving?
Been trying to upload some images for articles I'm writing and was tagging some of the things depicted in the image. But after doing so, they disappear. The image's history shows my having made the edits to the page but the actual wikidata structured data labels I tagged aren't showing up. Any idea why this is?
Ok, that's odd. I had already tried opening the page in other browsers (than chrome) to make sure it wasn't a browser cache thing. In firefox and edge, the labels still didn't show. But I figured I'd try purging the cache just to make sure and voila! now I can see those labels in chrome and firefox. Tried it again and any time I make changes to the labels, all labels disappear and I have to purge the cache to make them visible again. Not sure why but I guess it kinda works now. Thanks!
Just to clarify, it's a bug that after making any edits, the wiki servers' cache for the page needs to be purged for the structured data labels to show? It's not something I can do something about on my end?
Is it possible to move this file to Wikimedia Commons? Now it is uploaded to the Ru-Wiki under the principle of fair use, but I want to know: is this photo and its «colleagues» (described here) in the public domain?--Futbollo (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Футболло: I believe that as an anonymous work in Russia before 1952, it is not copyrighted under Russian law. I'm less sure of its status under U.S. law (which is relevant because of the location of our servers). You might do better to ask this (and any other copyright questions) at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk21:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I am trying to add county seals to county pages in NC. I just realized that the copyright (Government) does not include county made designs. I was wondering if there is another copyright I could use to for these images or if they could be deleted if there is no way to fix them?
Hi DiscoA340. As explained in en:WP:PD#US government works, things like this created by US federal government employees as part of their official duties are generally considered to be within the public domain under US copyright law. The same, however, can't automatically be said for state, county or municipal employees. Some states like California and Florida do have laws stating that works created by their employees fall within the public domain, but most states don't and it shouldn't be assumed otherwise just because they are "public" officials. Since these all seem to be for North Carolina counties, it's probably best to assume that they're copyrightable and that copyright is owned by the counties themselves as explained here and then try to work from there by contacting the counties themselves or the state government. It might possible for some of these seals to be so old that they are no longer protected by copyright, but you would need to demonstrate that the first publication of the seal was prior to January 1, 1927. It's not so much when the county itself was founded, but rather when the seal was officially adopted and first publically used. Finally, the files you uploaded are incorrectly licensed and can't really be kept as such. You can request they be deleted yourself per COM:CSD#G7, but you'll need to do that fairly soon if you want then to be speedily deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
In addition, the first publication needed a copyright notice if it was before 1977. Otherwise there are in the public domain, but it might be tricky to prove it. Yann (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Publication of county seals in the US without copyright notice before 1977 can be inferred from documents they or their departments issued on their letterheads before 1977 and then sent to any person or entity. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me13:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both for replying to my issue. I have requested for them to be speedily deleted and I removed them from their respected county pages. Sorry for causing inconvenience. I was wondering if there is another way to get county seals uploaded without being copyrighted? Thanks again @Marchjuly@Yann@Jeff G.! DiscoA340 (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@DiscoA340: You're welcome. If you have physical access to those counties or their clerks' or sheriffs' offices, you may be able to lay your hands on such documents and rescind your speedy deletion requests. Local libraries' reference desk personnel may be able to help you in your search. You may send private proof via VRT. What I wrote above applies to all US state, territory, county, and local municipality governments because of the formalities required by US copyright laws prior to 1977. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me16:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Wouldn't this apply to only the first instance of publication? Would a copyright notice also be needed for each subsequent publication? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm adding a picture for a Wikipedia article, and I want to know what would the Usage/ Release rights for a scanned image from a funeral pamphlet? I have a physical copy of the document with me, but the person who made it and the person who took the picture has long since passed and I'm not fully sure what license I should mark it as in the Wikimedia upload. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chokobox (talk • contribs) 19:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Under the Category:Pompeii Regio IX, I want to sort the unnamed structures by Pompeii address. Example: IX 1.12, IX 11.3, IX 11.10 but Wikimedia is sorting alphabetically grouping the 1.12 address with the two 11.X addresses. I tried using the data-sort-type="number" piped before the number. Example [[Category:Pompeii Regio IX|data-sort-type="number"|1.12. But it didn't seem to work. Any ideas? Mharrsch (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Editing "infobox" data
Category:Kingston, Isle of Wight referred to this place as a "village", which is hardly correct. It is in fact no more than a hamlet. I have changed the instances of "village" that I know how to change, but the content in the box at the right of the page is apparently automatically generated by a "Wikidata Infobox" directive. As well as the word "village", the grammar and capitalisation of the "village in Isle of Wight" heading is incorrect, and the note "different from Kingston" is weird/confusing. I don't know where the underlying content comes from or how to change it. Any ideas? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Thanks. I have changed "village" to "hamlet". I don't know what I should do about the weird note "Different from Kingston". On the Wikidata page, the corresponding entry has a link on "Kingston", although target of that link doesn't look immediately useful. At Category:Kingston, Isle of Wight there is not even any link, and no information about what other Kingston(s) are meant, or might exist, so it seems kinda pointless. Shall I just delete this "Different from" field?? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Good edit, but that wasn't quite the point. @ITookSomePhotos is talking about the different from (P1889) property on Wikidata. In this case, that's basically an indirect link to the "Kingston" disambiguation pages in the different Wikipedias (e.g. en:Kingston). I haven't seen it being used like this before. El Grafo (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I've added the Commons link to the disambig item, so now it links to Category:Kingston, which I think is useful. I originally thought it could be removed completely, since I don't think it's normal to link to disambig pages using the 'different from' property, but maybe it's OK for now. (Please ping me if you want me to look back at this, since I'm not watching this page.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Thanks, the link gives this field more purpose. Personally, I still think that the "different from" presentation is a bit odd, not least because the linked list actually includes the same Kingston! ITookSomePhotos (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Often I mass upload government works such as my local Fort Drum using flickr2commons, but because they mark their works under Public Domain rather than US Government Work I am always required to manually change the licenses. Is there a bot similar to Cat-a-lot but for licenses? I know you have to manually request access if so, because it is very dangerous. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk00:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Lallint: Just to clarify: are you saying these are works of the federal government? Because if not, then US Government Work is wrong.
It worked! Thanks, I uploaded 1st Brigade Combat Team files in mass as a test using flickr2commons and used VisualFileChange to replace all of the no license templates with PD-UsArmy templates, and it worked. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk15:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Resolved
Photograph of Alan Shields work
Hello, I posted a photograph I took on my phone of an Alan Shields Painting painting but it was flagged with the following warning:
This media file is a derivative work incorporating another work or works. While the source of this file has been identified, essential source information for all work incorporated in this file is missing. The author and source of all incorporated works must be given so that the copyright status can be verified. Edit the file description page to add source information.
Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this notice was added and the uploader was notified on 18 May 2022.
Usage of this tag: For categorisation purposes, always use {{Dw no source since}}. If you didn't use an automated tool, notify the uploader by using:.
Hi Chainsawpunk. See my replies to your questions at File talk:Alan Shields J + K 1972.jpg and en:WP:THQ#Images for more details, but the concern has to do with the copyright status of the artwork you've photographed and not with the copyright status of the photo you took. When you take a photo of someone else's copyrighted work, you've may have created a derivative work and both copyrights need to be considered. Moreover, in many cases, taking a photo of someone else's 2D copyrighted work is not considered sufficient enough to generate a new copyright for the photo. In either case, the copyright of whatever is photographed isn't canceled out by simply photographing it. Anyway, my initial tagging of the file with {{Dw-nsd}} was an error, which I fixed shortly thereafter. The file is now being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan Shields J + K 1972.jpg, and you're welcome to comment there if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Can I use Artwork-Template with the simple uploader form ?
I already have an Artwork-Template filled in. Can I use it to upload a photograph of an artwork?
I used the field: |source = original creation by uploader to indicate the status of the image itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix Borchers (talk • contribs) 13:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi. My Grandfather was Rabbi Leo Jung. I would like to add a photograph of him to his Wiki page. I have uploaded the photo. What do I do next? Thank you very much. Anne Etra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etra77 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Etra77: adding it is easy—[[File:Grandpa Jung and President Truman.jpg|thumb|CAPTION GOES HERE]]—, but I see a few problems. Presumably this is not your "own work" dating from 18 May 2022; it is someone else's work (who's?) dating from some date circa 1950. You say you are granting a license, but only the copyright-holder can grant a license. Do you own the copyright and, if so, on what basis? Is it even copyrighted (if it is an official U.S. government photo, it is almost certainly in the public domain)? I'm not sure whether or not this picture can be used on Commons (it's going to depend on the answers to those questions), but in the worst case it could be uploaded to the English-language Wikipedia (not to Commons) and used in the article under their policy en:Wikipedia:Non-free content (there is no analogous policy on Commons).
Sorry this is complicated. Using a photo that you didn't take yourself is almost always a bit complicated. - Jmabel ! talk15:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you so much for your help. You are correct, I did not take that photo (I was negative 9 years old at the time!) and no idea who did. It's in the family old photo box. What is the difference between Commons and English-Language Wiki? Etra77 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Etra77: I'm guessing that the non-free use on Wikipedia is the way you are going to have to go here. As for the difference, I could go on at any length, but the short answer is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Commons is a repository of public-domain and freely licensed media.
There are basically three ways I see that we could, in theory, be able to host that picture on Commons:
If it were taken by a U.S. government photographer, it would be public domain and we could use {{PD-USGov}}.
If it was published before 1978 with no copyright notice, it would be public domain and we could use {{PD-US-no notice}}.
If it was taken by an ancestor of yours, and you were the heir to that person's intellectual property, then you could use {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}.
However, from what you are saying, none of those are known to be the case, and the copyright of the image is either unknown or "orphaned" (held by someone we don't even know how to identify and contact). That means there is no way to conform to Commons' licensing requirements.
Request for translation from German to English of a Commons image file proposed for deletion
Here is the file: [3]. I want to check if any additional information from the German text on this image can better inform me about this proposed file deletion. Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The German is accurately translated in the description on that file page. It has no bearing on the grounds for proposed deletion: if this is the work of a known German artist who died less than 70 years ago, then it's still copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk20:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Uploading Images of Football Player Wade Manning
I am trying to upload images of Wade Manning to his Wikipedia page. I did not create his page but I have his images.
Full Disclosure: Wade Manning is my cousin and all the images I tried to upload were given to me (Yelle Hughes) to upload on his page which contains no images.
This is only the second time that I have edited a page and unsure of the rules on the relationships between the subjects and the editors.
The images that I am providing will be for anyone in the public for free use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YelleH (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@YelleH: just in case it is unclear: Ruslik is asking that because we need to sort out the copyright ownership before we can tell you what steps will be needed. - Jmabel ! talk21:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Screenshot I did not take of US government work
What are the usage rights for a screenshot of a US government livestream where I did not take the screenshot myself? Specifically, I would like to upload the screenshot of U.S. Rep Pete Stauber from this article, but I assume that someone at NPR took the screenshot, or at least I definitely did not take it. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the taking the screenshot gains any copyrights, but the image in the background behind Stauber could be problematic. I'd recommend against it. - Jmabel ! talk02:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I am looking for a tool that will show me how many views all of my collective contributions have had in any given period. Any suggestions would be helpful. --Don (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a bug that makes the structured data invisible in certain cases. I don't know whether this is related, but it might be. In that case the data is there. Visiting the file with "?action=purge" added to the URL may make it reappear. –LPfi (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I revisited the page and saw no change. (Even with Ctrl-F5 "cache-refresh page reload")
When I loaded the URL with ?action=purge", the problem was resolved.
Today I happened to come across File:Spread and Evolution of Denisovans.jpg, which I had edited in 2014 to correct a couple of spelling mistakes. I noticed that while I had corrected the spellings, I had also miscolored extensive regions of the sea, and apparently not noticed at the time. So I redid my spelling corrections, and re-uploaded the new version. I see that in today's upload, the sea is once more miscolored (the Indian and South Atlantic Oceans are much paler than the Pacific and Mediterranean). There is no such miscoloring in the version on my PC. I happened to use a different editor - in 2014 I used PaintShopPro, today I used Pinta.
I cannot explain this. I feel that as I caused the problem, I ought to fix it. But I've no idea how. Maproom (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Looks like you've figured it out? The map seems quite good now, I can see how the ocean color was grayed out in the file history, and it's now back to the original color. Also, to link to a file, you can use [[:File:Example.svg]] syntax (notice the colon at the start, that will supress image display on the page and instead create a text link). I already did that for you. Polda18 (discussion • contributions) 13:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
@Maproom: Just to clarify, you can also make an SVG version of the map (SVG is a vector image format). Just drag the JPG into your SVG editor (I use Inkscape), redraw the map, delete the original JPG from the SVG file, save and upload as a completely new file through Upload Wizard. Don't forget to properly credit original author and use {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} and {{GFDL}} (original licenses) in the License section of the file description. Polda18 (discussion • contributions) 13:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to you all. I haven't figured anything out, or changed anything since posting above; so I guess it was a caching issue. I knew there was a way to provide a link to a map image, thank you for reminding me what it is. I know that a map like that one would be much better as a well-constructed SVG; but I've learned not to create new images derived from images already on Commons, as explained in the last paragraph of my user page. Maproom (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've never had issues with the Upload Wizard, so that's what I'm using. As far as licensing, all you have to do is to copy the templates that are included in the own work template in the original (do not copy the License section one by one, only look up the template names used in it and use them, in this case the ones stated above). If you don't want to do the SVG conversion, I'll do it. Polda18 (discussion • contributions) 05:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Suppression d'image
Bonjour. J'ai aujourd'hui importé par erreur deux images (de mon propre travail) que je n'ai pas modifié avant post. Ces images (de mes véhicules personnels) contiennent des informations personnelles que je souhaiterait ne pas communiquer (plaques minéralogiques). Ainsi, n'ayant compris comment supprimer ces images, je souhaiterais savoir comment le faire.
Hello. Today I mistakenly uploaded two images (of my own work) that I didn't edit before post. These images (of my personal vehicles) contain personal information that I would like not to communicate (number plates). So, having not figured out how to delete these images, I would like to know how to do it.
Hi! I need help deciding if I am able to upload the image of a book cover; the publish has a webpage on their permissions (here:https://press.princeton.edu/permissions) but I still can't really tell ( I am uploading on behalf of the author, but I don't think they own the copyright to the cover art).
@Cprice061: The short of it is, if it's copyrighted, then "no" under those permissions. But some book covers aren't copyrightable, so a link to the image would be useful so we can work that out. - Jmabel ! talk21:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
upload error
I try to upload images with the upload wizard. Contributions to your award "Wiki loves earth". But none of theses pictures are accepted. Each file is marked with a (!). I have no explanation for this strange behaviour.
Best regards, Joachim Müller-Klink — Preceding unsigned comment added by Textat kommunikation (talk • contribs) 22:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@Textat kommunikation: Hi, and welcome. I can find no record of any attempted upload by you. It would help to know which "Wiki loves earth" link you were using, from which page. Please try to give precise details of the problem you encountered (what were you doing; on which page; what happened, what did any error messages say?). Where relevant, please give diffs. See also COM:SIGN. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me02:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Accessioning issue within split frame virtual network
Hi, I’m having an issue with media file accessioning within a split frame virtual network. I’ve tried reconfiguring browser settings to account for encryption phase discrepancies, which hasn’t seemed to resolve the problem. Can anyone help? Thanks. Democary (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@Democary: Hi, and welcome. Please try to give precise details of the problem you encountered (what were you doing; on which page; what happened, what did any error messages say?). — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me10:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Справка о участии
Здравствуйте, я участница творческого конкурса научных видеороликов и фотографий в рамках Всероссийского фестиваля науки в 2022 году. Меня зовут Гайдукова Алина Александровна. Я студентка СамГТУ кафедрфы "Технология и организация общественного питания". Будет ли возможно получить справку о участии в конкурсе для отчетности? Моя почта: gajdukova-abk.ru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Гайдукова Алина (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Participation Help
Hello, I am a participant in the creative competition of scientific videos and photos as part of the All-Russian Science Festival in 2022. My name is Gaidukova Alina Alexandrovna. I am a student of the SamGTU department "Technology and organization of public catering". Will it be possible to obtain a certificate of participation in the competition for reporting? My mail: gajdukova-abk.ru
@Гайдукова Алина: I would think you would have to contact the people running the All-Russian Science Festival. This page is for help in using Wikimedia Commons, which has nothing to do with that. - Jmabel ! talk15:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Upload photos from Google Photos of a house for Open Street Map
Is it okay to upload photos from Google Photos to Wikimedia Commons of a house to link a house in open street map to images of a house? If so, is there a seamless way to move photos from Google Photos to Wikimedia Commons without downloading all of the photos and uploading each once one at a time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScientistBuilder (talk • contribs) 16:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
1) Yeah, if you took the photos, usually it’s OK, though be sure to respect personality rights and take a look at Commons:Freedom of panorama to make sure you’re not infringing copyright on the buildings or so.
If you mean photos someone else took, no, it’s not OK, unless that person licenses the images under a license compatible with Wikimedia Commons.
Hey, I want to show you all a little problem I'm having with Template:Update. I found a problem with a map, and the map needs updating.[4] When you add that to a page, you get a message saying "Please notify the uploader with {{subst:update-note|" etc. So I notify the uploader. But the uploader thinks I'm making a request for volunteer work from them. [5] Can I just ignore the whole thing about "Please notify"? I don't want to deal with these people; I just want it to be clear that there needs to be an update to the image at some point (maybe ten years from now). Thanks for any guidance. Maybe "Please notify" should be removed. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Hi, and welcome. Generally, uploaders are the individuals with sufficient access to source materials to generate updates of substance most easily, so it is best to keep that text in the note. However, you don't have to notify uploaders who don't want to be notified, the folks who contribute to Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop can also be consulted for removal of spots and whatnot, and any text you create as a result of substitution of a template can be modified to better serve your purposes. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me20:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Which species is it really? I could not find anything saying these species names are synonyms, but some kind of taxonomic confusion along those lines remains a possibility as well. 98.170.164.8807:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Bonjour à vous. Je suis troublé par l’impossibilité de placer des notes sur cette image jpg. Cela ne m'est jamais arrivé !
Un fois ce problème résolu, il faudra aussi résoudre celui de l’apposition de notes sur les gif animés : des fois on peu (ce me semble) et des fois non. C'est bien dommage ne ne pas pouvoir utiliser ce merveilleux dispositif qu'est annotator sur de tels fichiers !
In english :
Hello to you. I am troubled by the impossibility of placing notes on this jpg image. This has never happened to me!
Once this problem has been solved, it will also be necessary to solve that of affixing notes to animated gifs: sometimes we can (it seems to me) and sometimes not. It's a pity not to be able to use this wonderful device that is annotator on such files! Sincerely, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Salut Bernard. This is actually a PNG image but that shouldn't be a problem for using the annotator. It is in fact strange that the preview thumbnail does show the annotations but the "add notes" button is missing on the main file page. Also, you did add annotations to that file in the past. It might be some malfunction, so does anybody else have an idea what this is about? De728631 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
ich möchte das Logo hochladen für einen Unternehmenseintrag, bin mir aber nicht sicher, welche Lizenz ich dafür angeben muss.
Ich habe die Datei vom Unternehmen selbst und darf sie verwenden.
@HarrietBouv: Das kommt of das Logo selbst an. Wenn die Gestaltung sehr einfach ist, also nur Text und/oder simple Grafikelemente, dann ist das Logo meistens gemeinfrei, und du kannst die Lizenz {{PD-textlogo}} verwenden. Falls das Logo allerdings komplizierte Muster oder Zeichnungen enthält, brauchen wir eine Freigabe direkt durch den Urheber per E-Mail (siehe dazu COM:VRT). Dabei reicht es dann auch nicht, dass die Verwendung auf Wikipedia gestattet wird, sondern alle Dateien, die auf Commons hochgeladen werden, müssen für jedermann und für alle Anwendungen frei verwendbar sein.
Um die Lizenzfrage zu klären, wäre also sehr hilfreich, wenn wir das Logo vorher im Original sehen könnten, z. B. auf der Webseite der betreffenden Firma. De728631 (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome. Per en:Mercury (element), it conducts electricity as a solid or liquid, it behaves as a metal when solid (below 234.3210 K (−38.8290 °C, −37.8922 °F)), and its atomic number of 80 puts it in d-block. It is poisonous to us humans, so please do not touch it. See also COM:SIGN and en:WP:HD, and note that the help desk is not for homework. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me05:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
If someone treats category page as "photograph", is this against policy?
If someone believes that they are right about adding "Category:Taiwan photographs taken on 20XX-XX-XX" on the category page (they mistakenly thinks that category page is photograph), and happens over and over again, is this against policy?--Kai3952 (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
PS: If that category in question contains only photographs from Taiwan taken on a single day though, it is totally valid to put the category itself into a parent "Category:Taiwan photographs taken on 20XX-XX-XX". De728631 (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Not every inclusion in a category is an is-a relationship. For example, if we put a house owned by a given person in the category for that person, we are not saying that the house is the person. - Jmabel ! talk20:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I need assistance
I am suffering from a brain disease that affects my cognative abilities, thus my ability to read and concentrate.
I am trying to figure out how to make some changes or add a new page, but I fear I do not posses the ability to do so.
Therefore I will paste the concerns I have hare, and hope that someone will be able to assist me.
Forgotten, Morgan Dean Egger, Father of two and one on the way when he died.[edit source]
MORGAN DEAN EGGER
So new to all of this but trying to figure out how it all works. It seems to me, the best place to start is to simply tell my story, and hopefully someone will guide me to the right place.
As the daughter of a man that died while working on the Pipeline in Alaska, it is important for me to correct the record. Or, maybe it is a matter of updating a record that is long forgotten.
My father lived in California with my mother, Brother, and Myself. He worked for Texas Instruments.I was four years old. Mom was pregnant with my youngest sister. We all lived in California. Wanting to make a better living, my father went to Alaska to work on the Pipeline. I am not sure how long he was there or how often he came back to California to visit. What I do know is that on April 4th, 1970, my father died in Alaska in a helicopter accident that was related to his work on the pipeline.
I can not remember why or when it started, but at some point, in my life I knew it was not okay to talk to my mom about, ask about, or even mention my father. This leaves a daughter wondering so many things.
Recently, I received a diagnosis with an illness that shortens my timeline. (It can affect my brain an cognitive abilities between treatments) How much it shortens it is an unknown, as the disease/syndrome is something that research is relatively new to discovering.
For some reason, as the end of days grow closer, I am not concerned with my own legacy. It is my father’s legacy that concerns me. I suppose at the age of 55, I have had the opportunity to create my own legacy. However, my father dying at the age of twenty-seven never got the chance to do so. As I become sicker and grow closer to my end, I long to know more about my dad. As such, I was pleased to see the Wikipedia link called “List of pipeline accidents” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents). I But it saddened me to see that it did not include those that had lost their lives working on the pipeline, which by the was often an extremely dangerous job.
I guess what I am trying to say/ask is if there is anyone that is willing to help me to update the record, or the add an additional page that reflects the men/women that gave their lives to this debacle, I would be grateful — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLEsCreations (talk • contribs) 13:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Is there a way to query for images based on attributes such as type, featuredness, location, category, size?
In particular, I want to download every featured image, but they’re all spread out across multiple pages. Is there an API or so that can list image pages and get the media URL for each image page? Thanks. Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
There is an API, that you can query, for example for all members of Category:Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons. The result is in JSON or XML.
Why would you do that? It has already been done. Someone stole all the featured pictures and is selling them at Alamy. If you buy all, you may get a disount.
The way to query Commons for pictures with attributes like type, featueredness, location, category, size and more is SDC (Structured Data Commons) and sparql. Only someone needs to add all the SDC to the ~90 million media files at commons.
In Taiwan, many occupants of flats and houses have converted balconies into bedrooms in order to create more space for sleeping. For example, this photograph shows they have converted their balcony into a bedroom, but I question whether it can be considered a balcony?--Kai3952 (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@SylvanGreen: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload a smaller (<50,000 bytes or <2,000,000 pixels) jpg photo as a new user. The photo you tried to upload is smaller, and you indicated it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads a smaller photo, it is a copyright violation taken from the web. If you took the photo yourself, please upload the full-size original of it per COM:HR, including EXIF metadata. If you did not take the photo, please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept it as-is, and have the photographer post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such work on their website or social media presence or send the photo and permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you. If you can't get a compliant license, the photo may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. If you use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid that filter. See also COM:ITALY and COM:SIGN. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me19:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Fotoğraf Yüklerken Oluşan Telif Hakkı İçin Nasıl Lisanslama Yapılır?
Wikimedia Commons a kendi çalışmam olarak bir fotoğraf yüklemeye çalıştım. Fakat aynı fotoğrafın bir web sitesinde de yayınlandığını belirterek telif nedeniyle yüklediğim fotoğraf silindi. Herkese açık bir web sitesinde bulunan fotoğrafı yüklerken "lisanslama" bölümündeki hangi seçeneği seçmem gerekiyor? Bir de daha önce silinen bir "daha önce silinen fotoğrafı yeniden yüklemeye çalışıyorsunuz" uyarısı alıyorum. Bu sorunu nasıl aşarım? Şimdiden teşekkürler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yazar5077 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
How to Licensing for Copyright Occurred While Uploading Photos?
I tried to upload a photo as my own work to Wikimedia Commons. However, the photo I uploaded due to copyright was deleted, stating that the same photo was also published on a website. Which option in the "licensing" section should I choose when uploading a photo from a public website? I also get a previously deleted "You are trying to reload a previously deleted photo" warning. How do I overcome this problem? Thanks in advance.
https://www.kimnereli.net/berkcan-biratan.html web sitesi tarafından telif hakkı olduğunu anladım. Bu web sitesinin URL girerek VE CC BY-SA 4.0 lisanslama ile tekrar fotoğrafı yüklemek istiyorum. Bu durumda "daha önce silinen fotoğraf ve dosya adı" uyarısı veriyor. Bu fotoğrafı doğru şekilde nasıl yükleyebilirim? Yazar5077 (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I understand that it is copyrighted by the website https://www.kimnereli.net/berkcan-biratan.html. I want to upload the photo again by entering the URL of this website AND with CC BY-SA 4.0 licensing. In this case, it gives a "previously deleted photo and file name" warning. How can I upload this photo correctly?
@Yazar5077: Fotoğrafı kendiniz çektiyseniz, lütfen EXIF meta verileri de dahil olmak üzere COM:HR/tr uyarınca tam boyutlu orijinalini yükleyin ve bu web sitesiyle kendi çalışmaları olarak yayınlamak için yaptığınız sözleşmeyi açıklayın. Fotoğrafı siz çekmediyseniz, neden olduğu gibi kabul edemediğimizi öğrenmek için lütfen Commons:Licensing/tr bölümüne bakın ve fotoğrafçının bu tür çalışmalar için Commons:Licensing uyumlu iznini web sitelerinde veya sosyal medya hesaplarında yayınlamasını sağlayın veya fotoğrafı ve izni VRT/tr aracılığıyla karbon kopyasıyla birlikte size gönderin. Uyumlu bir lisans alamazsanız, fotoğraf en:WP:F ile uyumlu olarak İngilizce Wikipedia'ya yüklenebilir çünkü burada Adil Kullanıma izin vermiyoruz.
If you took the photo yourself, please upload the full-size original of it per COM:HR, including EXIF metadata and explain your agreement with that website to publish it as their own work. If you did not take the photo, please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept it as-is, and have the photographer post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such work on their website or social media presence or send the photo and permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you. If you can't get a compliant license, the photo may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me10:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Page Deletion
Why have you deleted my write up on Zyropathy? This means your system is rudimentary and does not promote progress. It is very unfortunate to note that I have lost respect for your organisation for your constricted and constipated ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.161.81.28 (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Here at Wikimedia Commons (which is for free licensed media, not "write up"s), this question is your only edit, and nothing you have done under this ip address has been deleted. Possibly you are thinking of something you did somewhere else, or something someone else did somewhere? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Help with county seal copyright (Continued)
I was wondering if uploading county seal images from this site (NCpedia) is acceptable for copyright as it is an online library and not related to each county and might mean that they had to find sufficient copyright for each image too? Thanks! DiscoA340 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help. Since it's acceptable to use that copyright for those images. I will now add the missing seals to the county pages that need it. Have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
For doing that on en-wiki: note that this is low-resolution & indicates the specific article in which in which it is to be used. - Jmabel ! talk00:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
It depends on the nature of what is needed. We're all volunteers here. People tend to step in where they think they can be useful. - Jmabel ! talk00:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I am registered and would like to upload my photo to Wiki Loves Earth. Where can I do that? This has been a very frustrating experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhotoPley (talk • contribs) 09:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm wondering if there are any particular tools/applications etc that can be recommended for modifying photos (cropping, fixing lighting etc) before uploading them using a Chromebook? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jonschmidt1: What do you mean your picture is on a photo wall? Is it a physical wall or a digital wall on some website? Or the photo wall with branding is on the picture? If you have the original picture (either the negative or a developed copy somewhere so you can make a digital scan or develop the negative and make a digital scan, or you have digital copy already, you should be able to upload the picture. Branding behind the photo subject shouldn't qualify as copyright infringement. If it is a wall containing number of photos (either a digital website wall or a physical wall), that's a different story and you shouldn't generally upload content made by someone else. And of course the branding shouldn't be present if it isn't actually part of the image. Also, it would be quite useful if you told us if your photo was licensed under a free license that Commons require (either Public Domain, or Creative Commons Attribution or Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike - CC BY or CC BY-SA), in other words created completely from your own will and not sponsored by the film award organization, or you've got paid for the photo and you don't actually own the copyrights for the image, even you took it (because you took it for them, you got paid for the job, and one of their conditions were your work is licensed under their name and they hold copyrights for the photo). Logos are generally not allowed as they're often subject for copyright protection and thus non-free to use. You may occasionally see some logo here and then on Commons, that may be because the logo was actually released under a free license or the logo is in public domain for being below threshold of originality (COM:TOO), or was released in public domain for another reason (government issued logo, creator of the logo or owner decided to release it in public domain, etc.), so it's not strictly prohibited, it's just mentioned to be cautious of copyright status. If your photo doesn't primarily portray the logo, but the logo just so happens to be behind the subject (it may help if the logo is out of focus a little, in other words slightly blurred), then I don't think it counts as copyright infringement. Polda18 (discussion • contributions) 11:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Basically, if the logos are incidental to the image, then they can be considered de minimis, much as if there were a logo on someone's clothing. - Jmabel ! talk14:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
As long as you are not blocked, you can start a new account. However, in most circumstances you should not be operating both your new account and an old one. - Jmabel ! talk18:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
On top of that, every time you delete my photos without any logical evidence, what is your problem?
I have the authorization from the organization and assure that I will not infringe any intellectual property rights, knowing that I abide by all the laws of the DMCA and also the source of the image is the official website of the National Resistance Front in Afghanistan which itself has a license from the DMCA — Preceding unsigned comment added by EBUBAKIR (talk • contribs) 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
And just writing "I have the authorization from the organization and assure that I will not infringe any intellectual property rights, knowing that I abide by all the laws of the DMCA and also the source of the image is the official website of the National Resistance Front in Afghanistan which itself has a license from the DMCA" does not eliminate the need for a license, as per COM:L. So, if the rightsholder for this image is willing to release it under a free license, such as CC-BY[6] or CC-BY-SA[7], he should confirm this per email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org .--Túrelio (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Plus, it makes no sense to say someone has "a license from the DMCA". The law doesn't grant licenses. - Jmabel ! talk23:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
May I upload a PDF file with a text, if I created the file myself, and I am the author of the text, too?
Thank you for the answer in advance! -- Wikicim (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Commons is primarily a media repository (also a repository for certain types of datasets). There are very few texts that belong here, unless they are significant published works now in the public domain. In short, an original primarily textual work almost never belongs here. - Jmabel ! talk22:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: When you go to a Wikipedia from Mobile, than is in the top of the Main Page written "Wikipedia" (wordmark/logo). And I want that in crhwiki and ugwiki there write "Wikipedia" in there language (Crimean Tatar in crhwiki and Uyghur in ugwiki) and in this files are written "Wikipedia" in there language. I did uploaded the files and what I need to do now? TayfunEt. (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jasonrdunne: If I understand you correctly, the answer is no. You just purchased the right to use them for your character in a game, right? You presumably did not purchase the copyright for the art and become the sole owner of the intellectual property, right? They can still sell these icons to someone else, any number of times; you cannot. Just like when you buy a book, you are not buying the right to publish an edition of your own. - Jmabel ! talk04:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Real US GDP per capita in 5 epocs: 1790 - 1929 - 1933 - 1945 - 1947 - 2020
[[File:Real US GDP per capita in 5 epocs.svg|thumb|Real US GDP per capita in 5 epocs: 1790 - 1929 - 1933 - 1945 - 1947 - 2020]]
I just uploaded a new version of this file, so the fifth "epoc" ends in 2020 and is labeled "1.9%". In the previous version of this file, the fifth "epoc" ends in 2019 and is labeled "2%".
However, the Wikiversity article displays the old version with the last epoc labeled "2%", not the new one labeled "1.9%". This happens with both Safari and Firefox under macOS 11.6.6. A search for information led me to a similar complaint from 2017, which described how to clear cache. That didn't work for me. This discussion also linked to Wikimedia:Wikimedia servers. Does Commmons reside on multiple mirrors, that may not be updated? Or maybe if I wait until tomorrow, it will be updated? I didn't find the word "mirror", so I'm confused. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Я нашёл в интернете обложку книги империум:философия истории и политики и хочу её загрузить в качестве иллюстрации на страницу про неё,но передо мной встал вопрос:как узнать распространяется ли на неё авторское право? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiralex (talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Generally, any recent image that includes a certain minimum of creativity is automatically copyrighted. So, this book cover is copyrighted and non-free because of the photograph of the sword that was combined with the rather simple title text. Please do not upload it here. De728631 (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Real US GDP per capita in 5 epocs: 1790 - 1929 - 1933 - 1945 - 1947 - 2020
[[File:Real US GDP per capita in 5 epocs.svg|thumb|Real US GDP per capita in 5 epocs: 1790 - 1929 - 1933 - 1945 - 1947 - 2020]]
I just uploaded a new version of this file, so the fifth "epoc" ends in 2020 and is labeled "1.9%". In the previous version of this file, the fifth "epoc" ends in 2019 and is labeled "2%".
However, the Wikiversity article displays the old version with the last epoc labeled "2%", not the new one labeled "1.9%". This happens with both Safari and Firefox under macOS 11.6.6. A search for information led me to a similar complaint from 2017, which described how to clear cache. That didn't work for me. This discussion also linked to Wikimedia:Wikimedia servers. Does Commmons reside on multiple mirrors, that may not be updated? Or maybe if I wait until tomorrow, it will be updated? I didn't find the word "mirror", so I'm confused. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm still very much trying to learn to guidelines of Commons. I came across this image of artist Katt Both taken by Lotte Stam-Beese on Los Angeles County Museum's website. The caption on the image says that the museum believes this work to be in public domain. So I uploaded it to commons in hopes of using it on wikipedia articles of Katt Both and Lotte Stam-Beese -- but I cannot figure out what the appropriate license text is and how to go about adding it. I would appreciate any advice. SleepyWhippet (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
@SleepyWhippet: Where does it say on the museum's website that this photo is within the public domain? Although the website does state Nearly 20,000 images of artworks the museum believes to be in the public domain are available to download on this site. Other images may be protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. By using any of these images you agree to LACMA's Terms of Use., that's seems to be just a boilerplate statement applying to this the images found on the museum's website in general, and not this particular image. For Commons to keep this, it would need to be within the public domain within both the US and the country of first publication. Photos first published in the US prior to Janaury 1, 1927, are now in the public domain as of January 1 2022, but that means anything published in 1927 would have to wait (I think) until Janaury 1, 2023 before it's in the public domain. This also appears to have not been first published in the US, but in Germany. That would mean that the photo would also need to be within the public domain per COM:GERMANY. The standard term for copyrighted work first published in Germany by a known author is 70 years p.m.a., which means life of the author plus 70 years. Given that en:Lotte Stam-Beese who took the photo died in 1988, it's would seem to be still under copyright protection until Janaury 1, 2059. German copyright law does not seem to mean 70 years from when the photo was first published (or taken), but 70 years after the death of the author. For this reason, I think File:Hannes Meyer 1928.png which is attributed to a Hermann Bunzel might also not be OK for Commons depending upon when Bunzel died. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
@Whitestuff111: But note that if the logo is copyrighted (which it almost certainly is if it reaches the threshold of originality for copyright in your country) then it can be on Commons only if the copyright-holder (which might be either the designer or the company) issues an appropriate free license. Some Wikipedias (notably the English-language Wikipedia) make provisions for non-free content; Commons does not. If you need to go the non-free route, that would involve uploading the image directly to the relevant Wikipedia, not to Commons, and would using en:Template:Non-free logo rather than (or in addition to) the usual {{Information}} template. See en:File:Ballardnewstribunelogo.jpg for an example of such usage. - Jmabel ! talk14:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think you need any previous contributions to upload it. What we need (if it isn't very simple) is the copyright holder licensing it with an acceptable licence, such as CC-BY-SA 4.0. Check with somebody with the powers to license it and use the procedure at Commons:VRT. It may be that the copyright is tranfered to your company, but it might also still stay with the author (who might need to be mentioned on the file description page). –LPfi (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Reclaiming duplicate with higher-quality upload
I recently had deleted a duplicate of this file here. However, the duplicate, filename Vice Adm. Karl L. Schultz.jpg, has an upload of higher quality (2400×3000-ish) compared to the current one (500px-ish) despite being uploaded at a later date. Is there a way to temporarily restore that duplicate or upload that higher-quality image to the original version?
@SuperWIKI: when you say you recently "had deleted" it, do you mean that you performed the deletion, tagged it with some particular template, or what? Also, can you give a time range? With that info, an admin can probably find it in your logs or your deleted contributions. Without that, it's an awful lot to try to look at.
I've tried my best to find public domain images (preferably high quality, but really any quality) of author and theologian C. S. Lewis. Unfortunately, I cannot find anything. Does anyone know where there are free images of Lewis?
I have just come across two related nude images that have had repeated overwrites over the years. Some of the overwrites improve resolution (so could be kept) while others change colour detail and cropping (so should have been uploaded as a new file). Some of the higher resolution versions are of the recoloured versions instead of the original (so should probably be deleted). What is the best way to unpick this mess while preserving good versions under a different file name? File:Lilith (John Collier painting).jpg and File:John Collier - Lilith.JPG. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
{{ping|QuickQuokka|| Assuming it is unauthorized graffiti rather than an authorized mural, we are usually pretty loose about that. But please don't take offense if someone decides to delete it. - Jmabel ! talk15:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I found no copyright information on the website, which means that the default copyright applies: all rights reserved. As only the copyright holder can choose a license, you would need to get someone from the school district (or whoever holds the copyright) to release the image under a free license. --rimshottalk19:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Looks like the logo is simple enough to be considered below COM:TOO, but I don't know, the bird head kind of spoils it a bit. Does anybody here know or could guess if the logo can be considered below TOO? Text is fairly simple, the only part I'm concerned about is the head. Polda18 (discussion • contributions) 06:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Czech laws do not utilize something like Fair Use, which is the reason why Czech Wikipedia cannot accept non-free content, as well as few other Wikipedias. Although, there are a lot of Wikipedias that allow non-free content under fair use rationale. Turns out Fair Use compatible laws are fairly common. I'm not sure if one might be able to upload it to other Wikipedias that allow non-free content as well, of course under relevant fair use rationale. I for example cannot upload anything copyrighted from my country even on English Wikipedia under fair use rationale, because we don't use it. That would be considered a copyright infringement, fair use isn't applicable to Czech copyrights. Polda18 (discussion • contributions) 05:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Done; next time, to change file name, please ensure that the description is correct (using an "edit" link") and then use RenameLink, or {{Rename}} (if you can't use JavaScript). — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
_in_Zuoying_District,_Kaohsiung_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Rabbins,_f%C3%AAte_de_Souccot.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2-14_CAV_Fire_Support_Coordination_Exercise_Image_3_of_19.jpg){kind=link}
Resolved
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poster_from_the_Reichstag_elections_in_Germany,_1928.jpg){kind=link}
bk.ru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Гайдукова Алина (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:ChinaLuanJinan.png&diff=657749432&oldid=657749274){kind=link}
_in_Zuoying_District,_Kaohsiung_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}