Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
introduction
Help desk Village pump
copyrightproposals
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note


  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 

Turkey Beypazarı district Hırkatepe Village pump. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


January 29[edit]

How Google Photos is outflanking Wikimedia Commons[edit]

I've uploaded perhaps two thousand images to Wikimedia Commons, and could have uploaded thousands more, except the uploading process via the Upload Wizard is, as everybody knows, time-consuming and slow. I visited Italy and took 800 photos on my Android smartphone (which has time & location data via Google Maps). I clicked on 'share' and Google linked time and place data with each photo, eliminating the description & uploading fuss; Google shares it extensively with whoever it wants, and can use these images for their own marketing purposes. Google emailed me that my shared images were seen over 500 times over a few months. What does this mean for Wikimedia Commons? My sense is that it is both a problem and an opportunity, the problem being that over time Wikimedia Commons may become less relevant as the Google databases quickly eclipse the Commons ones, and also an opportunity in that it may be possible to somehow work with Google to import their images to Commons -- that is, to get Google to share their shared images.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You too can do bulk upload to WC without Wizard Commons:Guide to batch uploading. Also, Google images are not free to use. Google is a different horse. P.g.champion (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Sheesh I checked out the Commons:Guide to batch uploading and simply trying to read the instructions is intimidating.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@P.g.champion: Yes, obviously but there is no reason why in principle we can't have a tool to import freely-licensed work or somesuch. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The weak point is, that there many images on other sites that 'declare' they are freely-licensed when they clearly are not. So we should not automatically import them without human over-sight. P.g.champion (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, our goals differ. That said, our goals could be better met by imitating some of Google Photo's software features. For example Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories has nearly 200,000 pictures, and similar numbers of pictures could get better categories if Commons were able to convert long-lat to location cats.
I wouldn't recommend imports from GP in the way we get pictures from libraries and museums, but uploaders with accounts at both sites ought to be able to import their own from GP with metadata conversion. Of course, that's a bigger software job than merely reading coordinates and assigning a country or city or Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system zone. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tomwsulcer: Forget it. While the upload wizard allows you to upload multiple files, it would have been very doable for it to also allow a zip archive to be uploaded. But it won't accept it. Commons is broken in so many places, I see no way to fix it. Such a shame. - Alexis Jazz 17:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
How is it supposed to allow you fill out separate forms for every images in a zip archive? Uploading multiple images with the same description is problematic; uploading so many that not being able to upload a zip file is exceedingly so. And zip files have directories and subdirectories, and various OSs feel free to add hidden files in there, and it's another potential security hole. Between the development work and the UI work, I can't see it being high on the list to do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hidden files and other rubbish are no argument. Any directory structure would be removed and only files with acceptable extension would be shown. Filtering automatically generated thumbnails isn't hard either. If the files already have a sensible filename (or a sensible filename for Commons can be aquired some other way) there is no problem. I do agree in the sense that the upload wizard has such massive problems that anything like this would indeed be at the bottom of the list. If such a list exists at all, I doubt anything has been done about the upload wizard in years. - Alexis Jazz 03:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Claim it's simple all you want, but I still see a dozen potential problems. The problems with "only files with acceptable extension" should be clear to someone complaining that .mp4 files aren't accepted. If it's important to you, write the code, or at least a very narrow implementable specification.
And no, a sensible filename is not "no problem". The filename is of marginal importance; all the descriptive text, infoboxes, license tags, etc. are what are really important.
It doesn't really look like a solution for a problem that Commons has. Commons doesn't really need more uncategorized, undescribed images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
There was some discussion of adding support for zip file uploads back in 2010 on the wikitech-l mailing list. Some of that discussion spawned the Commons:Restricted uploads proposal, but in the end both ideas seem to have died from lack of interest. Kaldari (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Prosfilaes, I apologize - I obviously meant magic number. Or maybe I didn't. The current upload wizard selects by extension, even refusing picture.jpe while allowing the same file if it's renamed to picture.jpg. So if one would simply discard all files from an archive the same (not very smart) way the upload wizard refuses them now, it would take care of most of the issues.
If the files in the archive have a good descriptive filename, that can also take care of the description. License tags are important, but if you want to upload 800 photos that all have the same license, again, it doesn't have to be a problem.
It's not that important to me. It's just something that isn't insanely hard to support, even if it would be made accessible only to trusted users who understand they still need to provide descriptions and categories somehow. I'm personally not familiar with the code base. Say I actually would write that code. Then what? Same reason it's pointless to write any specification. - Alexis Jazz 12:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I have to say, it’s the first time I read that feature request (Uploading a bunch of pictures by sending an archive of them). It’s a bit unclear to me how that’s going to help − could you clarify what root problem you are encountering that would be addressed by this? Typically, if you have stability issues with UW when uploading multiple files, I’m not sure UW would work better with being shipped a ZIP of 800 files (that I expect would weigh several hundreds MBs?) Jean-Fred (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tomwsulcer: If Upload Wizard does not work for you, many tools may make your life easier, see Commons:Upload tools − the desktop application VicuñaUploader is, I understand, a go-to solution these days. Also, since you are using an Android Smartphone as your main device, you may be interested in the Android mobile app (I actually have a friend who takes pictures with his camera and uploads them from his tablet using the app − he finds it much easier). Jean-Fred (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jean-Frédéric: Okay thanks Jean-Frédéric I'll try to do the Android app when I get some free time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Google certainly abuses its market dominance to push all its products and kill the competition across the board, it's no mistery. Hundreds millions of Android users are enslaved by Google in return of some candy, e.g. to provide photos and other data about businesses to be used on Google Maps, Google advertising and so on. --Nemo 16:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Google has its own scope (like COM:SCOPE), does it? Also, I am not sure why it's the concern for Wikimedia Commons, whose mission is (way?) different from others, like free licensing and all that. BTW, I use Google Photos and Flickr... but not much. George Ho (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Organisations on Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Generally speaking accounts operated by multiple people representing an organisation (such as the Swiss National Library) aren't discouraged on Wikimedia Commons, but I have seen organisational accounts get blocked in the past (mostly by INeverCry/Daphne Lantier, but also other administrators) which gave me the impression that such role accounts aren't both actively encouraged or discouraged. Personally I would prefer that if companies want to donate their images to Wikimedia Commons that they should be able to do so, so I would like to suggest this to be acceptable (for non-promotional accounts) by default, but before proposing this I want to know if there are currently any restrictions on these organizational accounts, and if the content they produce follows different copyright rules than those of individual photographers. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The advice continues to be that though role accounts exist, the questions and limitations this raises are not worth the hassle for any large upload project.
Past cases raised questions like:
  • Shared accounts where the project means using COM:GWT, which means the account needs to apply for special rights. This raises the question of how will the organization act transparently to ensure only the authorized person uses those rights?
  • How will the role account be managed over time? Specifically if serious problems are raised a year or two down the line, perhaps with mass deletions that need to be examined, then who will be the organizational contact responsible. In practice a year or two later, we find that nobody in the current organization has a clue about the Wikimedia Commons project, and cannot answer questions about copyright because nobody has the time or can get legal permission to do so.
  • Wikimedia projects value transparency, if the role account is shared, will there be a transparent way to log who uses it? Frankly I have never seen this done, which means role accounts tend to be deliberately opaque for reasons that can never make sense for our open project.
I know that the WMF and some affiliates use role accounts. In my view, they should not. The reasons for having them are weak and ill thought out, invariably just a way of avoiding basic ethical accountability and good governance. -- (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I would say that User:Swiss National Library is a good example of a role account operated by multiple people, and they always sign with the current operator, maybe a technical feature can be added where edits by role accounts could be attributed to a name. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and the easiest way of doing that in the least bureaucratic way, is for them all to have their own official project use only accounts, like User:John Smith (SNL).
With respect to this example, I see 3 named people (not accounts), with access to this account and they are all named as concurrently "managing" it. By looking at this example edit, I cannot tell who made it. That's not easy for accountability, and I don't see why fellow contributors have to spend time investigating a one-off bureaucracy to work out who might have made the edit.
Looking at the history (which I was part of), Emmanuel Engelhart (EE) requested GWT rights for this account in 2014 when he was their Wikimedian in Residence, which was a fine decision by a bureaucrat at the time. The rights have stayed with the account ever since, though EE's name no longer appears on the user page, so presumably they are not coordinating its use any more. This means that Commons has given this important right indefinitely to a group, without any process of review, or expectation that the right would need to be reapplied for at any point in the future. In these circumstances, I would rather recommend that rights like these be granted for a specified project time, which could be extended on request, or expire otherwise. As you might expect, this has been suggested to the Bureaucrats in the past as good practice, it's in the archives somewhere. -- (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
corporate accounts work on German wikipedia. i do not see much evidence of abuse. so why all the english drama? it's all very tiresome, and leads to biting of good faith GLAMs and their exit from collaboration. i.e. commons has been harmed by enforcement of "user name", whatever the philosophical justification may have been. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
There are more serious issues around time consuming complexity, bureaucracy and the risk of being publicly embarrassed due to poor copyright review or lack of resources to ensure reliable implementation in their own archives to worry a GLAM employee. When it comes to managing accounts, if we just said "please avoid role accounts", hardly any GLAMs would care, they would just follow the rules. In many ways, giving lots of choices creates more problems than it solves. -- (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
"risk of being publicly embarrassed" , you mean for the GLAM for openly collaborating with commons? the GLAMs only care when they get whipsawed by the amateur policy warring, and their items get deleted rather than collaborating to clarify licenses. simplification rarely has a consensus. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

MPEG-2 patents have expired[edit]

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/PatentList.aspxJustin (koavf)TCM 23:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hooray!!! ...Um, the MPEG-2 patents are still active in the Philippines and Malaysia. May we allow MPEG-2 content made in those countries? George Ho (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
True. And no, not yet. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
In the Philippines, a patent is protected for twenty years; in Malaysia, twenty years from filing date. Still, that's awesome for the US. IMHO, MPEG-2 would be not be appropriate for Extended Uploader rights at this time. How about treating access to an edit filter on MPEG-2 as a separate right, i.e. "MPEG-2 Uploader", for an indefinite amount of time until the last patent expires in each of both countries? --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why we are obliged to reject MPEG-2 content made in those countries. There are policy reasons to generally reject patented formats, and practical reasons to reject formats where patents make them hard to handle; but there's no rule of the shorter term in play, nor is there any relevance to the file; parts of the encoding and decoding processes are patented, but that's not part of the file. We should absolutely not make it a stumbling block on our users that a format now patent-free is restricted in a few places; there's a lot more concern about uploading copyrighted images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
To search for "MPEG-2" (with dash) and "MPEG2" (w/o dash), Malaysian Patent database and Philippine patent database are best to find. At the Philippine one, "Abstract" is more helpful to use for broader search; typing "MPEG-2" at ABSTRACT will result in two records. George Ho (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to do this. It's very hard to tell whether these things are relevant to our implementation of MPEG-2 (which may change), and it's likely you're missing some things that may or may not be (and may or may not be asserted to be) relevant to our usage.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

February 15[edit]

Structured Data on Commons - What gets stored where[edit]

Greetings,

Another month, another round of feedback needed for Structured Data on Commons. This request is pretty significant, as it deals with what file metadata gets stored where between the three future mediums: text in Mediawiki here on Commons, Wikibase (the Wikidata software) stored here on Commons, or in Wikibase on Wikidata itself.

You can find the discussion by following this link. It will be open formally for two weeks, but no decisions will be made at or by that time as this is part of the information-gathering process.

If you have not subscribed to the SDC newsletter yet and would like to get the new issue going out in March, you can sign up at any time. If you would like to get short talk page messages about new SDC feedback requests, IRC office hours, and other invitations to participate, you can sign up for that as well.

Thank you for your time. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Reminder[edit]

There is one week left for this discussion, so now is the time to participate. Thanks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

February 16[edit]

End of Wikipedia Zero[edit]

FYI. No clear dates yet, but we're probably talking months or more. --Nemo 13:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That's sad, I know a lot of people in the Kingdom of Thailand that really liked the service, well too bad, it touched so many lives. ☹ --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking for examples of alternative business models for organisations considering open licensing[edit]

Hi all

I'm compiling a guide for UN agencies on the steps to implement open licensing.

The piece I'm really missing is alternative business models to those which require traditional copyright. This include publishing books, images and other multimedia licensing and also data.

If you know of any existing compilations of information and/or any examples of organisations which have working business models please brain dump below and I will organise it.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you clarify how the business model matters to UNO publications? There are some examples in https://creativecommons.org/tag/publishing/ and other places on creativecommons.org. There are many publishers using CC or copyleft licenses, but it also depends whether you're thinking fiction, academic, other non-fiction, ... E.g. in Italy http://www.ledizioni.it/ . --Nemo 20:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC) --Nemo 20:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
There is Pixabay, which hosts user-submitted content under a CC0 license (release into public domain). They have ads and I don't know if they only make enough money to host the site or if it is a profit-making business. Although it does NOT use open licensing (so may not be what you're looking for), a business that doesn't rely on traditional "limited-rights" licenses are the subscription-based websites Storyblocks (images), Videoblocks (for videos, motion graphics), and Audioblocks (songs, sound effects). For a monthly subscription fee, you can download unlimited content and use it royalty-free, in perpetuity, and without geographic limitations, subject to a few conditions: you can't resell/relicense the content (but can use it within other content, like using a clip/image in a video), you can't use content from the site in logos/trademarks, and images with models can't be used in an offensive manner (subject to terms of model release). See this link for details about the licenses (full terms of license). AHeneen (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

February 18[edit]

Como contactar con los administradores de la imagen[edit]

Buenas, necesito ayuda. Quiero saber el origen de esta imagen: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planta_(pie)#/media/File:Pies_de_Hombre.jpg Me gustaría saber su origen, quien es la persona de la imagen. Como puedo contactar con el que la publicó?? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.154.78.159 (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Pies de Hombre.jpg es un imagen de ARTPOP-4-6L. puedes contactarlo en User talk:ARTPOP-4-6L.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: they “puedes contactarlo”, but do you really expect a reaction? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi It's not likely, but it's not impossible.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Google Images and direct links[edit]

It will be curious to see what's the effect of the recent Google Images changes. The agreement with Getty might be used to convey some Google traffic towards "curated" content à la Knowledge Graph, rather than let people visit other websites. The removal of direct links to original files might result in a bigger share of visits going to file descriptions on Wikimedia Commons and other Wikimedia wikis rather than to the files themselves. There might also be some changes to the frequency of copyvio uploads of thumbnails downloaded from Google Images results (though I believe most of those were through the cross-wiki upload). --Nemo 16:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Does complex collage avoid copyright?[edit]

File:Pastel portrait of John Ure Primrose by Stephen C Dickson.jpg

Curious as to whether User:Stephencdickson's File:Pastel portrait of John Ure Primrose by Stephen C Dickson.jpg is permissible under Commons use of copyrighted images. It appears to be an old photo as can be seen at http://www.thegallantpioneers.co.uk/images/SirJohnUre.jpg, cut out as a collage on a new background with some pastel effects added over the top. Is this enough complexity and original creation to avoid any copyright problems that would arise from using the original photo? --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused. That page says the photo taken with a Canon EOS 450D. It does appear to be a creative work (not just some photoshop filter), but would it be free from the copyright of the photo it seems to be based on? (assuming that photo is not in the public domain yet) IMHO, this case is right on the edge. It seems like even a slight change to the angle has been made. Out of courtesy it should mention the photo it's based on. One could argue that if a painter had been in the same room where this man was posing for the camera, this could very well have been the result, independent of the photo. Of course, the painter wasn't in that room and it's right on the edge. - Alexis Jazz 17:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Not a liminal case, it fails COM:DW. Several past DRs for similar derivative types have come to the same conclusion. -- (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@: By liminal case you mean a case that's on the edge, do I understand that correctly? And by "it fails DW", do you mean it fails to be a DW because it's just a copy and has no copyright of its own at all, or do you mean it fails to be a DW because it is completely original and does not depend on the copyright of the photo? I would disagree with the former, I do believe this work has at least some copyright of it's own. I'm not fully sure if copyrights from the photo would be an issue or not. I'm talking about the legal side though, the rules on Commons may lead to different conclusions. - Alexis Jazz 17:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes.
WRT DW, the digital image may have copyright of its own so long as the process is not fully automated, but the copyright status of the original source is part of the derivative. You would need to absorb DW and have a browse through past cases to appreciate its interpretation. Wikimedia Commons has a conservative but fairly sophisticated interpretation of these legal terms. -- (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I still don't really understand if you are saying the image is a DW or not. Maybe I'm missing something. Legally the question would probably be: is the work just inspired by the other work or is it really based on it? When I look at it that way, I think it's on the edge. It's either heavily inspired by, or quite loosely based on. I am personally leaning towards being based on, but I do not find it a clean-cut case. - Alexis Jazz 20:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The works are redone as pastel images and the only "collage" is that I use a standard shaded grey pastel background... I would point out that other parties on Wikipedia/Wikimedia encouraged me to use the technique and I do not see it as "borderline! in any way. They are original works of art necessarily based upon what I can find historically as they obviously cannot sit for me. I studied copyright law for three years so if you think this is a breach please point me to the relevant clause in the law. I know it does NOT breach copyright which is ther whole POINT of me using this rather elaborate and time consuming technique--Stephencdickson (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC) As to the "canon" image I photograph eachj work individually...as pastel smudges if you scan--Stephencdickson (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If it's based on another work, the copyright of that work applies in addition to that of your derivative. As there doesn't seem like there's any question regarding whether or not it was based on that other work, it's a pretty straightforward case of DW. Regardless, it seems this is probably all moot. Based on this page, it seems highly likely (granted, not quite 100%) that this image is from before 1923 and thus quite likely in the public domain. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The question is: is it really based on it or just inspired by? You could make a work that is clearly inspired by another work without it being a DW. The photo was published in this 1924 book but it may have been published before that. - Alexis Jazz 00:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Stephencdickson: I imagine there are people who would be able to (perhaps you as well) to make a picture from this person from a completely different angle, just by looking at a photograph. Or with completely different lighting. In such a case, there would never be any question: it would obviously be a completely new original work. I do not judge how creative you are or how much work you have put into this - I just wonder if, were the author of the photograph to sue you, there would be any chance they could win. And I think such a case would not be completely hopeless. I wouldn't say they would win for sure either. This is like rephrasing copyrighted works for Wikipedia. Generally if you rephrase it in such a manner it can't be recognized as the original work anymore you'll get away with it. However, if you rephrase a complete Harry Potter book, you won't get away with it. Even if every single word is different. You get some copyright on your new version, but you will also depend on the copyright of the original. I do wonder who suggested this technique to you and in what context, do you have a link? - Alexis Jazz 00:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the on-line image in its own right was a copy of an earlier newspaper image from around 1900... certainly copyright expired if it was ever copyright in the first place (you must remember not every image is originally copyright - see the various British Copyright acts)...the whole point of the technique is that it is created as an art work based on what I can find and SPECIFICALLY avoiding UK copyright (All images are UK created). As said, I have also had specific requests from other wikimedia/wikipedia authors and senior editors to use the technique to "fill gaps". Each picture takes around two hours and there is absolutely no use of photoshop in the method. The finished works are photographed then published on Wikimedia. I truly do not understand why you query this. If you read the law it certainly has NOTHING to do with being in the same room when the work was done. If you look at the history of art "portrayals" are more often than not conjectural, based on whatever information was available. I presume you are not an artist or art historian. The "rephrasing" argument is nonsense and misunderstands artistic copyright. It is original artwork--Stephencdickson (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
"there is absolutely no use of photoshop in the method" - what is your method here? Zooming in on your John Ure Primrose portrait, I'm seeing what looks like pixelisation across a lot of the image, particularly the top of the head and the collar. Are you printing a found digital image onto paper and applying pastels over the top? --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I came across another of these just now. @Stephencdickson: I'm curious about the context of other parties on Wikipedia/Wikimedia encouraged me to use the technique. Could you provide a link? I don't doubt it -- I'm just interested to see the conversation and/or who provided that advice, as maybe they have some insight I'm missing. It's not a crucial detail, though. That said, I'm struggling to see some of these as something other than derivative work that would need to consider the copyright of the original. I think the commitment to the project and the time/skill you put into this are admirable, but I don't see how -- legally speaking -- this would be any different from rotoscoping, animating, applying photoshop filters, or any other more basic technique that creates an alternative version of an existing work. There's enough originality for you to have your own copyright on this, of course, but the original would still be applicable too (unless it has expired, as in my comments above). In addition to the one that started this thread, File:Pastel portrait of John Ure Primrose by Stephen C Dickson.jpg and Ure's portrait, there's also:

this portrait and File:Pastel portrait of Sir William Gray by Stephen C Dickson (after Alan Sutherland).jpg
this and File:Pastel portrait of Sir William Pearce by Stephen C Dickson.jpg
this portrait and File:Pastel portrait of Sir William Bilsland by Stephen C Dickson.jpg
Maybe better suited for VP/Copyright? — Rhododendrites talk |  01:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Source?[edit]

Waterfalls near Algeciras GWW.jpg

In the description under the only mentions George Washington Wilson. I suspect this comes from https://www.abdn.ac.uk/news/3984/ , but if so the source should be atributed. The date is certainly not in 2012. Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's also found on http://campo-old-photos.blogspot.nl/ and https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-waterfalls-near-algeciras-gww-153124258.html. - Alexis Jazz 22:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The first one is good, but the second one tries to make money out of PD pictures. Really? Can all the pictures be uploaded from the first source? All are old.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of University of Aberdeen website:
George Washington Wilson and Co., captured images from all over Britain, recording everything from the natural grandeur of Fingal's Cave on the Isle of Staffa to the bustle of London's Oxford Street. Wilson had a staff of photographers including his son, Charles Wilson, who with senior staff photographer Fred Hardie, toured the colonial townships of South Africa. Dispatched to capture images of Australia in 1892, Hardie also travelled through Queensland, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. These tours provide a vivid picture of gold miners and early settlers at work and play, and of the native or aboriginal way of life. The company invested in sourcing independent photographer to capture the western Mediterranean, where they took images of Gibraltar and the south of Spain, Morocco and Tangiers.
Not an original George picture.
Could the UK wikimedia chapter contact the Aberdeen University and maybe ask for picture donation? The picture are public domain anyway, but they can get name recognition that way.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Donation is already made in 2012.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Most of the G.W.W. pictures around Gibraltar are sourced from http://gibraltarphotos.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/1870s-gibraltar-old-photographs-by.html from Neville Chipolina, but this is no longer present and I cant find an archived version. I think these pictures have moved to http://gibmaps.blogspot.nl/2012/02/ . Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
welcome to the metadata cleanup fun. there are thousands of PD photos without sourcing, or have general link (not deeplink) and since we did not archive sources, rotted sources. your image source may be here [1] (bing images outperformed google for this one) right size but no archive to see if right time. upload date = date is an upload wizard fault; hard to imput date taken, even if so inclined. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Does it matter? We have the original source (glass plates) in the University of Aberdeen. You can upload directy but only with limited resolution. I suspect someone uploaded the pictures from around Gibraltar and maybe payed for them (with license conditions?, not our problem). It could also be taken from original prints somewhere in localy. 'George Washington Wilson and Co.' was a business selling prints. I see however see no 'print' defects (discoulouring, etc). Whatever way it comes to us it is PD. From the Gibraltar source we at least get some more precise dating than the university. Maybe the solution is to mention several sources, including the university one. The reader can then get the full resolution picture with payment. I would like more information about the 'independent photographer' the compagny used, but the anonimity (no signature) licences it as compagny work (70 years after publication).Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I will stop here. I already have a duplicate file File:1890s+G+Washington+Wilson+-+From+Campamento.jpg with a small difference: 392 kB instead of 396 kB.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

February 19[edit]

Images with wrong geo coordinates (panoramio)[edit]

I have recently found several images uploaded (by a bot) from panoramio, which have wrong coordinates or assigned municipality, or both. I know they are wrong, but don't know the correct ones. Is there any tag/category/reporting page, where they could be listed in the hope that someone knoweldgeable of that region will fix them? I've found this in the archive: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2017/06#Images_with_wrong_geo_coordinates but that doesn't give an answer to this case. Thanks. JiriMatejicek (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Good question, and I do not have the answers, but I would probably for now remove the bad coordinates. --oSeveno (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, there is indeed Category:Media with erroneous locations, but that's more for technical errors in the location templates … --El Grafo (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I routinely remove or correct bad geolocation taken from EXIF metadata in filepages of photos from either Panoramio or elsewhence. I never felt any other care needs to be taken. -- Tuválkin 20:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
If I don't know the correct ones, I can only remove them. On the other hand, if the current coordinates are near the real location, they may serve as a hint to proper localization. JiriMatejicek (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Template {{Camera location}} includes a handy "|prec=" argument (expressed in meters) that allows us to add a precision parameter to the indicated coordinates. I presume other geolocation templates have also this option. -- Tuválkin 15:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Tax offices (duplicate category)[edit]

There are two categories which in my view cover the same thing. Should they be unified? And how? Unfortunately, it's not just a different name, they are in different top categories: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tax_offices listed under https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Offices, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Inland_revenue_offices listed under https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Office_buildings. JiriMatejicek (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@JiriMatejicek: It's not that simple. Inland revenue office is just one kind of tax office. Here in the US, the Internal Revenue Service and most states have income tax offices; and states, counties, and municipalities have various real estate, school, sales, sale and use, unemployment, etc. tax offices, not all of which occupy entire buildings.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. In our country, it's not that complicated. However, it seems to me that the term Inland revenue office is specific to the UK ad related countries. So, I would move the Czech items into Tax offices. Is there any way to rename a category (other than moving all its contents to a new one)? JiriMatejicek (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@JiriMatejicek: Yes, please see Commons:Rename a category. Also, please remember that offices are generally smaller than buildings.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_with_geo-coordinates_needing_categories

  • It would be easier to categorize if people could choose photos from regions they know. The map tools should help, but none of them seems to work - the Google tool returns just blank page, the OSM tool opens a map with a note "sorry, no data to show". JiriMatejicek (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There are almost 190 000 images in this category (!). Images without categories are pretty useless. Except for 'temporary state', e.g. when people upload a bunch of images and categorize them later, I consider this an extreme sloppiness. Instead of listing them in this category and waiting for (other) people to categorize them, wouldn't it be useful/possible to send an automated message (say, after a week) to the uploader asking them to please categorize their uploads? The uploaders obviously know the best where the images should belong. JiriMatejicek (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There are numerous images whose name starts with the name of the place. Therefore, it would be convenient to put them in the respective category as a group. Unfortunately, the Cat-a-lot tool doesn't work, as there is no 'old' category. Is there any other way to put more images into a gategory at once? JiriMatejicek (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Cat a lot works, but you need to use copy instead of move. Rudolphous (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. JiriMatejicek (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The map tools worked before (Google Earth still works for me), so the idea was that you would zoom on areas that you know and sort those images. Another idea was to download all the coordinates, compare them to the country boundaries, assign country to each and sort them into categories like Category:Media of Russia to be categorised, etc. --Jarekt (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I can map all files to countries when desired. Rudolphous (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Confused about the validity of an applied license on Commons[edit]

Ron-Zacapa-XO.jpg

The file File:Ron-Zacapa-XO.jpg is a Featured picture, Picture of the day and a Quality image here on Commons. The photographer claims authorship and is the uploader of the file. It is a photograph of a bottle of rum with a label. I would normally assume that there is an authorship involved for both the design of the bottle and the design of the label. Also I would assume that the name of the rum is a protected brand name and the use of the name of the producer also being protected by copyright law.

How come the image is licensed as CC-BY-SA-3.0 and has the photographer/uploader as author? Is this image not at least a derivative work? As I understand it:

  • A derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work). The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent in form from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality to be original and thus protected by copyright. (Source: w:Derivative work)

Also, I would like to understand how this image meets the originality requirement Shouldn't it contain contain sufficient new expression? Does this image and if so, how? Besides that, how does this image meet the lawful works requirement? Is the authorship of the photographed object in the Public Domain? Is it a case of a submitted OTRS?

Again, I am trying to broaden my knowledge of permitted licenses on Commons. And I am assuming that I just don't get why this photo is allowed on Commons under the license of CC-BY-SA-3.0. So, can anyone help me out? Thanks. --oSeveno (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Trademark is non-copyright. However, per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Product_packaging the bottle-design may be eligible for copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Just verifying: You mean to say: All trademarks are non-copyright? Right? Okay, I get that. And the logo of the brand is made up of plain font, so that's not protected either. But the design of the bottle may be protected by copyright law. In that case, shouldn't the file page clearly state on what ground the use of the bottle is permitted? Otherwise it could be nominated for immediate removal, right? --oSeveno (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@OSeveno: Yes, the file description page should clearly state on what ground the use of the bottle is permitted.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the design of the bottle, COM:UA is probably the relevant section of our rules. No 100% clear answer there, though … --El Grafo (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@OSeveno: a few of things. (1) I think you have misunderstood when you say "All trademarks are non-copyright." More accurately, the fact that something is trademarked says nothing either way about whether or not it is copyrighted (and vice versa). Trademark and copyright are two independent branches of intellectual property rights law. (2) We do have {{trademark}} to mark an image where trademark issues might arise (especially where it might not be instantly obvious). (3) You say, "shouldn't the file page clearly state on what ground the use of the bottle is permitted?" Possibly, but we don't usually say explicitly that each object in a photo is not copyrightable in its own right. For example, if I take a picture of a boy and his dog, I don't explain why the boy and the dog (and the grass, and the tree, and the sky) don't raise copyright issues. - Jmabel ! talk 16:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
How does this 3D work apply on this decision tree?
In the case of boy and dog, there is obviously no need for such explanation. However, the image questioned by OSeveno is a photo of someone else's creative work, which very likely _is_ a subject of copyright issues. I'm not an expert to have an answer, but as an amendment to the discussion, see the heading at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Beer_bottles and duscission at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Woodchuck_Hard_Cider.jpg JiriMatejicek (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Licensing/en#cite note-1 (s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.) - Alexis Jazz 21:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Interesting amendment, but a different case - copyright of the photo (Skyy) vs. copyright of the object in the photo (Ron-Zacapa). JiriMatejicek (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank for the replies. Personally, I believe the photograph doesn't sufficiently meet the originality requirement, since I believe we need to weigh the amount of originality in the creation of the photograph versus the amount of originality of the design of the bottle. There are (at least) two authors involved. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality to be original and thus protected by copyright. How else can the photographer claim artist value of the photograph? Don't tell me that the application of light, contrast and sharpness is sufficient to create a new authorship. Remember, the photographer claims full authorship, a not as it being a derivative work. Or is the bottle an object from the category called useful articles? Also, remember this is a 3D object. Again, I am just trying to gain a better understanding of the matter. --oSeveno (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-08[edit]

22:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Mount Cook National Park and Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park[edit]

Mount Cook National Park is situated in Queensland, Australia, but if you watch this category you can found there a lot of picture from Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park, New Zealand. Could anyone mark these categories, so that people wouldn't be wrong? There is someone who could clean this up? Tournasol7 (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Like on enwiki, make Category:Mount Cook National Park a disambiguation and move the Australian one to Category:Mount Cook National Park, Australia? --ghouston (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tournasol7, Ghouston: That should work.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Done. 77 of the 85 files in Mount Cook National Park were from NZ. --ghouston (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

February 20[edit]

3D objects can now be uploaded to Commons[edit]

Asad Al-Lat statue destroyed in the ancient city of Palmyra

Greetings Commons.

Commons now supports the uploading of 3D objects in the STL file format. 3D files will show a static preview image when viewing, and an interactive viewer will load when that preview image is clicked.

To upload a 3D file, log in (or create a new account) and click the “Upload file” link on the left of the page. When viewing 3D files, please make sure you have the MediaViewer enabled to use the interactive 3D features.

Please help us test the feature and upload your 3d objects. There are a few bugs the team is tracking. One issue we have is that you can't embed models in other wikis just yet. That involves enabling the 3D extension on all wikis, which should be resolved shortly. [9] Other bug reports are welcome. Please ping me if you need help filing a Phabricator task.

For more information on the feature, you can read the help documentation and the technical documentation on how the MediaWiki extension works.

The first object to be uploaded is a 3D model of a Asad Al-Lat statue that was destroyed by Daesh terrorists in the ancient city of Palmyra, Syria along with most of the main world heritage ruins in the city. The image is tagged with #NEWPALMIRA in honor of Bassel Khartabil.

You can search for all uploaded 3D objects by using "filetype:3d" in your searches. [10]

There will be a larger Wikimedia blog post coming up soon to announce this to the rest of the world. :) CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@CKoerner (WMF): could you remove political slur from the caption, please? I am no more a supporter of the bigots than you probably are, but let’s not turn Commons to an overt propaganda vehicle. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: My apologies, I merely copied the description provided unaware of its context. Please edit to your liking. I trust your judgement. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@CKoerner (WMF): Congratulations, and thanks to everyone who's made this possible! I've just uploaded File:WikipediaGlobeOnePiece.stl and File:Wikipedia globe letters indent.stl. They still need better categorization and some more information; probably also some license info corrections! For example, they're very much "derived works". I'll add some information in the next few minutes, including a link to the github repo with source files. --Slashme (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Amazing, is there some way to see all the .stl files available on Commons? John Cummings (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings:: Special:NewFiles lets you filter to just 3D files: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:NewFiles?user=&mediatype%5B%5D=3D&start=&end=&wpFormIdentifier=specialnewimages&limit=50&offset= – but that's only going to show "all" 3D files for a short period, once they're being actively uploaded. Same way there's no way to see all JPEGs or all GIFs. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jdforrester (WMF): It would be nice if we could filter Special:ListFiles like we can Special:NewFiles.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Understood. There's T94709 to add category-based filtering to ListFiles, and T32608 which proposes merging ListFiles with NewFiles, but I don't think there's a proposal to add those kinds of filters from NewFiles to ListFiles yet. Would you like to file one? Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jdforrester (WMF): ✓ Done in phab:T187974.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think there's a bug, perhaps somebody can confirm? If you enable the preference "Place categories above content, but below image on file description pages" in Preferences, Gadgets, Interface: Files and categories, then go to the an STL file description page, then click any category link just below the image, it takes you to the media viewer instead of the category. --ghouston (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Not just the gadget (which BTW, shouldn't insert itself within 'fullImagelink' element, but position itself as a sibling after it). Filed phab:T188102. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

February 22[edit]

Take down pictures of Old John - highest point in Leicestershire[edit]

I think that we should consider taking all these photos down in protest. According to the BBC, Bradgate Park are claiming that the image of Old John is a trademark. They seem very confused over their understanding of the law but they are bullying semi-professional artists to pay 100 pounds but ignoring Facebook, Twitter and other commercial social media aggregators - and Wikipedia. In my opinion this is an unfair extension of UK law to legalise what would otherwise be demanding money with menaces. According to the trust's interpretation of the law we should take down every picture that may include a pic of Old John on Wikipedia in all languages and on commons. I suggest that we comply with their unreasonable request in protest. Discuss this on here and on en:wiki Old John talk page, and then raise an RFC to gain consensus. I am going to check that Bradgate Park mean what they say, but if we allow this example then every chancer in the UK is going to run round trademarking items and removing freedom of panorama. Roger Bamkin aka Victuallers (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Usually we "ignore" trademarks (Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions#Trademark_law), i.e. just put a {{trademark}} on the image page. Could you please add a link to BBC's demand. If their interpretation of law holds water, then there's a nc restriction on this tower, at least for the U.K. @Lawyers: how about re-use in other countries? --Túrelio (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Searched by myself:
I assume it is this trademark? --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the trade mark link. This surely does not infringe "our" freedom of panorama. If this were true then I could sketch any landmark and claim a trademark and de facto copyright over any image of it. Surely we cannot allow this to happen. The trademark ownere are claiming that artistic works of a publically viewable landmark (that is owned by the people) cannot be made without permission. IMO this is a claim that we are breaking. They say we are not commercial but we are. IMO we need to stand up to this misuse of the law (that could infringe freedom of panorama - what we rely on in many cases). Victuallers (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Commons may be considered to be not commercial, but that's rather irrelevant. Our licensing policy requires absolutely that all uploads have to be free for commercial use. Uploading nc-restricted material to Commons is no-go. --Túrelio (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Victuallers, trademark and copyright law are separate things. See this article for discussion of copyright and trademark concerns for buildings. They may have a trademark but that doesn't mean they will succeed in court for any particular usage case. But this isn't relevant to Commons. Lots of our images cannot be used for certain commercial purposes, including photos of identifiable people, and in the US they even have property rights which make it hard to use a photo of a property for commercial purposes. The law is what it is, and I don't think Commons/Wikipedia removing images/articles is a suitable way to protest. -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Its an interesting and dispassionate read. It talks a lot about copyright which we I'm used to seeing discussed here and a bit about trademarks of buildings. It seems to say that trademarking the phrase "The Gherkin" can be a trademark but the idea of the shape of a building being a trademark is on the legal frontier. The gherkin may manage it but its a new design, and it will be tricky as novelty will be required. The building in question here was built in 1784 and trademark is merely decades old and has, up to now not been used with such a broad (laissez faire?) interpretation to include any rendition of the building. Interesting about US property rights, but I do not think they exist in the UK. The link you shared makes in plain that the EC still believes in freedom of panorama (although its under threat). The WMF have campaigned to make sure that we do not use this right. You say that some images cannot be used commercially and I can think of a few (clearly stated on the image), but in this case I an concerned about our normal photos of UK landscapes and buildings (e.g. geograph) and they are all able to be used commercially. Thats why its says cc-by-sa - all over them (and why its so tricky to find new images!!). I agree that the law is what it is (as with all a=a or b=b statements).... however I believe that these people are extending the law in a very ambitious way. That is not their aim, but it could be the result. Wikipedians have in the past agreed that withdrawing our services is a good way to protest. Do you have a realistic alternative? Victuallers (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
If I stick a "CC BY-SA" on my photo of a building or person or product or landscape, all I am doing is saying that wrt the copyright rights that I, as a photographer, hold, I will permit you to use this photo for commercial purposes. I have not and cannot give away rights that other people hold, if they are a subject of the photo or they own rights to the building/sculpture/artwork/product/etc. So don't read the lack of "-NC" in a CC licence as meaning "you are permitted to use this commercially". It only says that the photographer has given you a permit in so far as their copyright claim is concerned. For the non-copyright concerns, Commons makes it clear that any re-user is doing so at their own risk and should take legal advise as to whether there are other rightsholders they need to clear with. The presence of a template is a friendly reminder but we don't guarantee to add all necessary templates, and the law varies from country to country.
The article I linked is a little out-of-date and there was a time when we were concerned the EU might harmonise copyright law and move towards the French model with no Freedom of Panorama. I don't think it is accurate to say the EU believes in FoP, more that they have given up aiming for harmonious law in this area. I helped campaign against this EU move -- that picture was used in some photography websites and WMF protests and many of us wrote to our MEPs.
People make claims all the time. Have they actually taken an artist/photographer to court over this? Or just made a threat? From a quick look at the news articles, the charity seems to justify itself exploiting trademark law because they think they are a good cause. We saw that wrongheaded thinking with some UK MEPs who initially thought the EU FoP changes were good in that they protected artists works from being exploited commercially by others. But really the "artists" were firms of highly paid architects, who's architectural livelihood is well protected by copyright law, and who, when asked, weren't asking for this extra source of income either. As you say, the charity doesn't morally have any right to money earned images of this historic 1784 building.
If you feel strongly about it, have you written to them to ask them to change their minds? Bad local press could well negate any gains they make. Seems to me that people using the image in their business logo or selling paintings is all ways to get extra publicity for your landmark, and that ultimately will encourage people to visit. -- Colin (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Instead of deleting those images which nobody will notice, I will be happy to update all of them to Not Old John tower. As far as I can tell, Not Old John tower does not infringe on any trademark or copyright. This would also notify anyone who hotlinks the image from Commons. - Alexis Jazz 16:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I've heard of something similar. The "3-dimensional shape" of the Sydney Opera House was trademarked in 2013, apparently as a way to get a monopoly over various types of souvenirs.[14] --ghouston (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
rather than a black out, i would suggest an image for their article which include some white out such as File:Louvre_Pyramid_-_censored_copyright.jpg, with a big controversy section like w:Atomium. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

User Kumgam[edit]

I want to bring up Special:Contributions/Kumgam, not sure what is the right thing to do here, but at least it seems prudent to disable the files until we have a proof that the persons are OK with their image being used. Syced (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Warning: NSFW, if you are thinking of clicking through. - Jmabel ! talk 16:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Syced: This is why we have {{personality}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Not exactly.. If the woman did not consent to this being published it would be a severe invasion of her privacy. {{personality}} doesn't even come close to covering that. Given the history of the user though, it's most likely just another copyvio. - Alexis Jazz 21:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I searched the web using the Google-Images function, but didn't find hits for the remaining 2 GIFs. --Túrelio (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Túrelio: I've done the same, I even searched for several individual frames. The GIF was probably generated from a full-length video that either originates from a paysite or thumbnails were not generated for the scenes that we see. - Alexis Jazz 21:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I would say given that other uploads of this user were deleted as unsourced, there are strong suspicions that the uploader took the films themselves, and we do not see any consent of the model, this is a speedy deletion material.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Globally locked by Tegel for socking and trolling – the local one-month block is now moot. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Where is the SVG icon for the Visual Editor pencil[edit]

VisualEditor bi-directional switching pencil icon in wikitext.png

Hi all

I really need to find this pencil icon as an .svg for some instructions I'm writing but can't find it anywhere (its not in the VE icons category), any ideas?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


I found it :) OOjs UI icon edit-ltr.svg

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Inferences from metadata?[edit]

I want to ease back into doing some OTRS submissions work.

I'm looking at File:Miska Fredman 2.jpg. The file statement claims it is "own work". I think I have seen situations where the metadata will identify that an image was taken using the self timer. I don't see that included in this metadata. Can someone who knows enough about metadata tell me whether I can make inferences from that observation? In other words, does the lack of seeing that, provide evidence that it was not taken using a self timer or is it the case (as I suspect) but nothing definitive can be concluded.

If the subject claimed to have taken the photo, is there any reason to not accept this claim? (for reference ticket:2018021310009617)--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Asking someone to take your photo does not always mean that the copyright is transferred to the person that operates the shutter. The person that composes the photo gets the credit. US passport photos are not copyrightable since the US government specifies how the image should be composed, demands a specific background, and demands specific lighting, even though you may go to Costco or Walmart to have the image taken. Many professional photographers had multiple assistants that operated the shutter, for instance Andy Warhol, but the copyright went to the person that composed the image, Warhol. RAN (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I am well aware of that, but that's not relevant to this issue. When a person claims to hold the copyright and is the subject of the photo there are two fundamental ways this can happen. They can ask someone else to take the photo and arrange to have the copyright transferred or they can take a selfie, either the usual way with a phone or using a self timer or remote triggering device. In this instance, there is no claim that another person took the photo and transferred the copyright. The subject claims to have taken the photo. If true, they clearly own the copyright — my question is whether their claim should be accepted or challenged.--Sphilbrick (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my question is still unanswered. Does anyone know if use of a self-timer will always be reflected in the EXIF, which would mean that this assertion of copyright should be rejected? I'm inclined to AGF and accept the claim, but I don't want to if someone knows that it's impossible.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: It won't yet on Mediawiki, I have requested that it will in phab:T187322.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

February 23[edit]

Celebrity photo ID[edit]

Can anyone identify this woman? File:Mercedes-Benz Carousel of Hope Gala 2014 (15333164848).jpg. Thanks. Animalparty (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That would appear to be DJ Tanner Candace Cameron-Bure. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  01:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I knew she looked familiar. Animalparty (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Sailor NeptuneSMCACT37.png[edit]

Not sure how this slipped in under the radar, as it's almost certainly a copyright violation. It's been on Commons since February 19, uploader claims it's his/her own work. Surprised nobody's nominated it for deletion yet. AshFriday (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@AshFriday: I tagged it as a copyvio, and Túrelio deleted it. You could tag the next one yourself.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Query about licence[edit]

I want to upload some images on commons that was clicked by my friend. He gave me permission to upload on Wikimedia commons. So guide me which license is applicable here? Is COM:OTRS applicable?--Godric ki Kothri talk 10:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Godric ki Kothri: Please have your friend send permission via OTRS, or they can upload directly or send the images to our photosubmissions queue.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
What's the "photosubmissions queue"? New to me, and I don't quickly find that with a search. - Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: photosubmission@wikimedia.org --Sphilbrick (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Is that documented somewhere? How is anyone supposed to learn about it? I search and that and find nothing; it's not at all clear what someone should send in such an email. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The only place I know for sure it is documented is at en:WP:Contact us - Licensing. The last paragraph. No idea if it is documented anywhere else. It is a rather low trafficked queue. --Majora (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Centuries and decades[edit]

I'm concerned about the various categories we have for decades and centuries like:

There are two problems:

  1. The 20th century began on Jan 1 1901 and ran to Dec 31 2000, not 1900-1999. The period from Jan 1 1900 to Dec 31 1999 is the "1900s".
  2. "1900s" is ambiguous. Does it mean the decade that started in 1900, or the century? The more common meaning is the century, but it used on Commons for decades.

I'm not immediately sure how to fix either issue.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  • There is no consistency as to whether people consider a century to begin in x000 or x001. Obviously, the latter is more technically correct (there was no Year 0), but the former is more common, and I think it's fine that we follow the more common convention.
  • Similarly, as long as we are consistent, I see nothing wrong with "1900s" for the decade. I don't see a clearer way to write it without being awfully verbose. - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    • There may be no consistency in what people believe, but some of them are wrong. Also, a 1999 church is a "1900s" church. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
      • It is not correct to say the year 1900 was part of the 20th century. It doesn't matter if people believe that to be the case or not ;)
      • "The 1900s" typically refers to a one hundred year period, not a decade. Even more so when you go further back - if you see "1700s" in a textbook, you can be absolutely certain its referring to the century. So why on earth would Commons use it for a decade. That means we really need to add "decade" somehow. Yes its awkward. But its not misleading then.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

February 24[edit]

Media viewer will not die[edit]

I recently enabled the media viewer. More fool me.

Now, after I disable it it, keeps being spontaneously re-enabled. How can I be rid of it for good? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

When I enabled it to check out some of the STL files it did the same to me. Going into preferences/appearance and unchecking it there fixed it for me. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
So it seems. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I think clicking 3D file forces MediaViewer to be enabled. It can be turned off via Preferences, but there's alternative kill command for your Special:MyPage/common.js or global.js:
// No MediaViewer
mw.config.set("wgMediaViewerOnClick", false);
Maybe MediaViewer should be just 1-time-enabled when someone click 3D files, instead of (looks-like) permanently re-enabling them. PS: This was the chunk that caused SuperProtect. — regards, Revi 16:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:1963 asalto.png[edit]

This image is from a train robbery near Caracas, Venezuela, on September 29, 1963. Since the public domain status for pictures and other audiovisual works starts 60 years after its publication, I would like to request the undeletion of the image on September 29, 2023, once it is deleted.--Jamez42 (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It will be PD in the US 95 years from publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

February 25[edit]

Editing text in SVG file?[edit]

Newbie question (which I couldn't find an answer to in FAQ, SVG help, other pages - probably because it is so fundamental):

Situation: I'd like to help out by editing text in SVG files. For example File:Endocrine miscelaneous en.svg I'd like to change the 2nd "Atrial" to "Brain" aka fix the 'typo'.

Question: How do I edit the text in SVG files; can I do it directly in the web browser on Commons? Or, do I need to download the original file, edit it using an image editor, and then do the whole upload process? Thank you for all advice, links to help pages, etc! --Treetear (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Treetear: SVG files are generally text, so you should be able to download, edit in a text editor, and upload overwrite.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Jeff G.: I assume even Notepad would work as a text editor for such simple edits? Also, in my example file above, I assume the text is not stored as text but as "path"? Because I cannot seem to edit it the text in the downloaded file, or even highlight the text in the browser.
What is the procedure to convert path --> text, is it manually editing the file in an image editor? --Treetear (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@Treetear: For that, you will probably want to use Inkscape and save as a regular SVG file.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Special:Upload in languages other than English[edit]

Special:Upload is heavily customized in Commons. Among other things, the "Licensing" dropdown must be translated to a language to make it actually usable. If MediaWiki:Licenses is not translated to a language, then the form is unusable in that language because you cannot upload a file without specifying a license explicitly?

Is it possible to make it at least basically usable without an explicit translation? For example, to make it fall back to English? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)