Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007/08

Village Pump archives

+	J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D
2004	Not available								09	10	11	12
2005	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2006	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2007	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2008	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2009	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2010	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2011	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2012	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2013	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2014	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2015	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2016	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2017	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2018	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2019	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2020	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2021	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2022	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2023	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2024	01	02	03	04	Not available yet

The cunning proposal

A month ago, the Community voted a proposal in order to change the existing rule to Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. The alleged motive was to make real the de-adminship of inactive administrators.

However, if you read the warning message, you discover that de-adminship don't exist anymore, except for honest administrators:

If you resign your adminship voluntary because you don't need it, you can request to have it back on COM:AN and can get it back in 24 hours (if no-one objects), so you don't have to go through the full RfA process.

With this passage, we are certain to keep inactive administrators who wait “to be awaken” in order to support propaganda in Commons. --Juiced lemon 19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's wrong, go and fix it. It is a proposed message, not an already sent one. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to change it but do you really think there would not be an objection if someone who had been inactive wanted to return without any explanation? I for one would be there quite quickly (I'd maybe argue about the "24 hours" bit) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that I have not found any document about resigning of administrators. In my opinion, in the absence of any special (and official) measure, resigning is necessarily definitive. I mean that the former administrator is like an ordinary user, and can still become administrator by the same way.

So, I don't understand why we would mention a roundabout way to become administrator in the warning message. --Juiced lemon 14:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK - there is a possible policy update here. In it there is mention of those who request removal of the tools voluntarily because they are away for a while for example. The suggestion is that, if they wish to return, the first opyion is to state that on the Admin board. If there are no objections a 'crat could restore the rights. However I can't see someone just saying "oh yes I'll have them back" without explanation, good reason and a good track record not getting an objection.

The warning message that you refer to is part of the de-admin through inactivity process which will affect about 25% of our current admins. These are people who have worked hard on the project in the past - it may be that they will get the warning and decide to return, it may be that they will relinquish the rights. However there is the option to "request" the return of the rights if no one objects. If I can make it clearer I will try --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Return to Adminship, an administrator can request the removal of rights. However, the resultant status in unclear. In my opinion, the administrator would have to choose between 2 options:

• resignation: the removal of rights is definitive, and the administrator becomes an ordinary user
• suspension: the removal of rights is temporary, and the administrator keeps the administrator status.

I think that the de-adminship policy concern all inactive administrators, including “suspended” administrators, which have not currently the administrator rights, but who can get back them quickly.

More, I don't understand why that would be a problem, for a former administrator, to follow the normal process if he want to be administrator again. A comeback can be planned, so an urgency process is unjustified.

Therefore, there are no reasons to speak about resignation in the warning message. I searched for “resign” in Commons:Administrators/Adminship policy and there was “no match”. --Juiced lemon 10:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• reset

OK - I think we may be confusing two issues here.

1. Inactive admins - will be approached about loosing admin rights after 5 months without inadequate admin actions as defined by the policy. If they do not respond they will have the rights removed and be "ordinary" users again. If they say they wish to keep them they get another six months in which to become active or just loose the rights. I'm guessing if any of these returned and asked for them back someone would object and it would go to an RfA.

1. Admins who request removal of their rights (resign) for whatever reason (Nilfanion is an recent example). Assuming they decide to return to the project actively within a reasonable period (& those are issues that need to be addressed in the policy proposal the idea is that they are given an option to request the rights again (they have been "ordinary" users for their absence - I see nothing about suspending rights anywhere). This would only be done if no one objects (within an agreed period). Using Nilfanion as an example I certainly would not object if they were to return within say a six month period and request the return of their rights - they have been active, valued contributors to the project. There are no examples to hand but if someone who the community had doubts about merely asked for the rights I am sure someone would object and the decision would go to full RfA.

As to the lack of the word "resign" I used the words "request removal of rights". Is there something I am missing here or is this clearer? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Admins who request removal of their rights for whatever reason, but temporarily, are still administrators, and are a fortiori inactive. Therefore, there are inactive administrators, and the de-adminship policy concerns them as well as other Commons administrators.

Your answer justifies my title choice for this section. Several persons disagree this policy. Normally, they could propose to repeal it (by voting), but they had found a trick to make it unenforceable:

“Request the removal of rights to prevent definitive removal of rights.”

They had just to dare.

This edit on 12:06, 16 June 2007 demonstrates that the trick was ready shortly after the end of the poll.

Concerning User:Nilfanion, you had to think about such case before the poll, and to suggest some amendments to the proposal. Now, the Commons community has made it a policy, and to try to corrupt it is improper. --Juiced lemon 21:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK - no idea where you get the idea that an admin without admin rights is still an admin of any sort - they are not in my book nor in generated lists.

Where did you find the phrase - “Request the removal of rights to prevent definitive removal of rights.”?

And I have no idea what the rest of your post means - regarding Nilfanion & "corrupting the policy"? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't become a policeman because you get an uniform, a badge, and a pistol, but because you have followed some recruitment process.

Similarly, the adminship status and the computer tools for administrators are two different things. If a bureaucrat grants the administrator tools to an user by mistake, the user doesn't become an administrator for all that. The de-adminship policy concerns the adminship status, so it doesn't matter if the administrator has or hasn't the administrators' tools. --Juiced lemon 11:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Right - someone please correct me if my understanding is wrong. De-adminship refers to status and tools in my opinion. I certainly intended it to do so when I drew up the change in policy. If you are de-admin'd through policy or your own request then you have neither status or tools, am I missing something? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator tools can be granted to administrators, or to other users in special cases. If you are not a policeman, and that you are wearing policeman uniform and badge, I think real policemen will try to arrest you. Similarly in Commons, de-adminship refers to status, then refers to tools as a result (except for special cases). --Juiced lemon 12:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Summing-up

I'm confused here, I've read through the discussion and I'm not actually clear what the objection to changing our policy is. To my way of thinking, we have a lot of inactive admins, and we should reduce the number of admins we have that don't actually do anything. It is within our power as a community to do this, as long as we do it in a fair and transparent way. Juiced, can you please restate what you see as the issue with the community deciding that we need a process to deadmin inactive admins, or what the issue with the current suggested process is? Please do so succinctly, in a non argumentative way, phrased in a way that does not suggest that those that disagree with you are stupid, ill intentioned, or otherwise inferior to you, and assuming good faith about everyone involved. (note that use of the word "cunning" itself casts aspersions) ++Lar: t/c 13:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the confusion results mainly from hazy concepts and terminology. So, I go to list some assertions:

1. Administrator status is a function status which is granted to Commons users according to rules.

2. Users with administrator status have access to extra software features on the Commons web site, called “administrator tools”.

3. In some special cases, users without administrator status can use the “administrator tools”. In the other hand, “administrator tools” can be withdrawn to users with administrator status. Therefore, administrator status and access to administrator tools have to be considered and recorded separatly.

In Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, I read:

...inactive administrators may have their access removed.

That refers probably to “access to administrator tools”.

According to this policy, any sysop inactive on Commons will be desysoped.

That refers probably to “administrator status”.

Even if you read the whole text, you cannot determine for a certainty if the policy aim to withdraw “access to administrator tools” or the “administrator status”.

In the first case, administrators who have not “access to administrator tools” escape to the implementation of the inactivity policy. In the second case, every inactive administrator is affected.

This is not a subtle difference, since there was several attemps to add a text in the policy, then in the warning message, suggesting to inactive administrators the removal of “access to administrator tools” in order to escape to the de-adminship.

My proposals:

a) We must not suggest to inactive administrators any way to by-pass the de-adminship policy. If such way exists, they may find it themselves, and the Commons Community is not bound to maintain it.

b) The wording of the de-adminship policy need a review, maybe a new voting.

c) That doesn't prevent to send the warning messages, assuming we can get some consensus about the text.

--Juiced lemon 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Whence the distinction between "access to administrator tools" and "administrator status"? I admit beforehand that I mightn't be fully up to speed, but what "administrator tools" are available to people who do not have "administrator status" in your proposals? If you are an admin you have the "status" (not my preferred way of looking at it, too humble for that I suppose) which comes from being able to use your "acces to adminstrator tools". NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 02:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Since your mother tongue most definitely isn't English, why don't you try to explain in another language? Scrolling back I saw Herbythyme was about as confused as I am about the distinction you make between tools and status. Regarding that English isn't my mother tongue either, but that it is Herbythyme's, it probably has nothing to do with my understanding of English, although I might be wrong. NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 02:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a massive distinction we can't sort out. But I do see the distinction. Suppose I am BRION, or RobChurch, or whoever. Then, because I am a developer, I have access to the Administrator tools any time I want them... all I have to do is turn the bit on, and delete, rename, you name it, to my hearts content... but I'm not a Commons Administrator because I didn't go through the Commons process to become one. I'm just some godlike abusive (Hi BRION! :) ) developer. If I've been naughty using the tools, I am a developer that people are going to be annoyed with. Similarily for stewards who turn up here, due to some call for them to handle some pressing emergency (that no admin was aware of) and give themselves temporary access to the tools... They too have tools access but they are not Adminstrators. (well Cary is, but he got it the normal way, and that doesn't dilute the example).

So there's a difference there. But I assert that it's a special case, and that it doesn't matter, and that we can handle it with special case verbiage, because in the other direction, there is no difference. No one who is an admin doesn't have access to the tools (assuming they can log in, anyway)... It's not meaningful to speak of taking away access to the tools for admins. At least not here and not permanently ... on the English Wikipedia they sometimes sanction admins to not use tools for some period of time, etc. But we don't do that here. So in my view, if we confine the discussion to those admins that were selected by our process, and special case the rest, the distinction drops away. ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is important, since administrators can request “the removal of rights when taking a break from Commons” (Return to Adminship). Therefore, the list of inactive administrators is not identical to the list of inactive administrators with “access to administrator tools”.

Then, the de-adminship policy doesn't state clearly what is its purpose:

• either the loss of the administrator status for the inactive administrators,
• either only the withdrawal of “access to administrators tools”.

If an administrator lose the administrator status, he can regain it only in accordance with the normal process. But if a steward withdraw “access to administrators tools” to an administrator, he can get back it in a 24h-delay.

My opinion is that the de-adminship policy concerns only the administrator status because if the administrator can get back the tools in a 24h-delay, this is not really a “de-adminship policy”.

The issue is that some users don't agree; in particular, user:Fred J tried to add a section to the policy, according to its personal interpretation. --Juiced lemon 15:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• reset

A steward/developer can give themselves the tools anytime they like period - no delays or anything. Under the proposals an ordinary user who was an admin who let go of the tools of their own free will may request their return by placing a message on the admin board. If there were to be no objections the ordinary user might be given the tools back (& become an administrator again - I dislike the word "status") without an RfA. If there were objections there would have to be an RfA. That is how I see it and however I look at it I cannot seem to make it as sinister and complicated as Juiced Lemon. (Even tho English is my native language it has failed me in the past and is under threat at present!). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the regaining option from the warning message. I thought that other users (and admins) would agree but they didn't.

@Herby: Don't worry -- if people don't want to understand, they never will.

Fred J 23:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It also reduces security risks to remove privileges which are not needed. An admin which is not active in Commons is less likely to notice if someone else starts using the account. (SEWilco 12:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

An Image

Hi. I don't know how to expand an image on the top of my user page, so it could fit on 17'' or 19'' sreen. For now it is too narrow. Thanks, --Janezdrilc 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What is your screen resolution? I've known that 17-19" screens are 1280 x 1024 pixels. (→O - RLY?) 19:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there are people, like myself, whose screen is only 1024 pixels wide - they might not appreciate very wide images. --rimshot^talk 22:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And some have screens 640 pixels wide. Anyone reading this on a cell phone just say "Ick". (SEWilco 13:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

What's going on with my pictures?

Hello! I've got some troubles with a few pictures. I uploaded various pictures of Léonce Perret last year but Rama deleted all of these a few days ago. I don't really understand why. These pictures have been taken in France and USA between 1880 and 1935 by the Perret’s family. My grand father (being the only heir) inherited and proposed me to release the pictures into the public domain. There is absolutely no copyright on it. So what can I do to put back those pictures in the Commons? --Ajor933 03:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The date of the taking of a photograph is irrelevant to its status in these juridictions, as you would know if you had cared to read the documentation of the subject.

Can you provide the name of the photographers, the date of his death, and acertain that your grandfather holds the rights on the photographs ?

Also, would you please explain how it happens that some of your so-called "photographs" are in fact advertising posters of the time ? I also find it curious that the photographs were taken in very different times and places, and are distinctly scanned from some printed source like a book, rather than from a photographic positive or negative. Rama 08:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, what I can prove for sure is that my grandfather holds the right of those pictures. Isn't it enough?

And I don't really get what you mean by "advertising posters" and "taken in very different times and places", these pictures come from a photo album located in Paris in my grandfather's desk! He allowed Daniel Taillé (the author of Léonce Perret cinématographiste) to put some of the pictures in his book, but that doesn't mean my grandfather lost the rights on his photos, right? I scanned the photos from this book because I thought it didn't matter from where I scanned the photos as long as the rights are held by my granfather.

Now, does he have to send an email to Wikimedia Commons to prove that he holds the rights and want to release them in the public domain? --Ajor933 07:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes scanning the original would be preferable, both for quality and to make your copyright claims more convincing.

Some of the images you uploaded are advertising posters. I very much doubt that your grandfather holds the rights on these. In any case, for each photograph you upload, you should provide information on the author (his name and date of death); if applicable, explain why your grandfather holds the copyright, and provide a statement by your grandfather that the photographs are released under a free licence. Rama 11:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also stress that the fact that your grandfather possesses an album by no means makes him holder of rights of any sort on the images. Rama 11:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So if I understood what you mean, you won't cancel your deletions unless my grandfather send an email to Wikimedia explaining why he's the rights holder of these pictures with some informations about the members of his family who took the photos. I think this is a bit complicated and that you should trust a bit more what I say. But if he has to do that, he'll do it.

About the advertising poster, I would like to check which picture you're talking about because I don't know what you mean. It may be a mistake, but you deleted it before asking me, so I can't even check. --Ajor933 06:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't cancel the deletion unless information is provided for every single image including

• Who took the photograph
• Date of death of the photographer
• Why your grand-father inherited the rights on the image
• A statement by your grand-father granting a Free licence for the image.

In any case, uploading scans of the original photographs would be preferable for several reasons explained above.

Regarding the posters, I assume that you can look it up in your family album. I am not restoring potential copyright violations for the sake of it. Rama 09:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm feeling sharp.

I'm not sure when it hit the live site, but we are now sharpening thumbnails. This corrects the long standing issue of all thumbnails looking blurry. The results are quite an improvement over what we had before, and as a photographer I am personally delighted. My work no longer looks like blurry crud on the image pages (except for those images which are blurry crud)! Images which were uploaded in the past will need to be purged to see the impact of the new sharpening on the image page thumbs. --Gmaxwell 05:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and purged all the featured pictures.. the rest will get purged over time. --Gmaxwell 06:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the software goes too far - take a look at the over sharpening of a couple recent shots I uploaded: Image:Rain cloud swifts creek 0107.jpg, Image:Musca domestica on black eyed susan.jpg --Fir0002 www 06:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The first looks okay to me except for the ridge white halo which exists at full resolution, and the second doesn't look terrible. As I purged the featured pictures I looked at all of them before and after and the only one that struck me as worse off was Image:IceBlockNearJoekullsarlon.jpg and a couple of Moondigger's images.

In general it appears that the images which are over-sharpened as thumbs are the ones whos full resolution versions are over-sharpened. The solution there is "don't do that". In the past it might have been justifiable to over-sharpen the full resolution image just to make the thumbs look okay, but that's terrible for reuse, so you shouldn't do that... There isn't going to be a perfect value for all images. I think we're not aggressive enough for many images (esp. at smaller thumb sizes), though obviously there are counter examples. I believe our current sharpening is still less aggressive than other sites like flickr. --Gmaxwell 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

July 31st 2007

Regions of Belgium

Categorization “by location” is mainly based on political divisions, division of the World in sovereign States (voir Commons:Territorial division of the World), and administrative divisions of States.

Implemented to Belgium, this principle leads to use the regions of Belgium as a first level subdivision (Category:Regions of Belgium). I intended to use categories, named according to the official names of these regions. However, some users (Flemish ones, I think) disagree.

The following table shows the name of these 3 regions in English, and in the 3 main languages of Belgium.

English:	Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium#Regions	Flemish Region	Walloon Region	Brussels-Capital Region
Français :	Régions de Belgique	Région flamande	Région wallonne	Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
Nederlands:	Gewest (België)	Vlaams Gewest	Waals Gewest Wallonië	Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest
Deutsch:	Politische Gliederung Belgiens#Die Regionen	Flämische Region Flandern	Wallonische Region Wallonien	Region Brüssel-Hauptstadt

What do you think about ? Concerning the Flemish Region in particular, you can give your opinion in the following pages:

• Commons:Categories for discussion#Category:Flanders
• Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Flemish Region

--Juiced lemon 18:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention the Atlas of Wallonia and the Atlas of Flanders which is followed now (short names) and the discussion in Category talk:Flanders. --Foroa 18:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that “Flanders” is an exact synomym of “Flemish Region”, “Wallonia” an exact synonym of “Walloon Region”?

Then, the 3 categories (in Commons) for regions of Belgium are Category:Flanders, Category:Wallonia and Category:Brussels-Capital Region? --Juiced lemon 19:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

When people need to ask even this sort of basic questions, one starts wondering why they even think they are able to propose meaningful category changes...

@JL: In our mind yes. The communities have jurisdiction on more abstract and personal things such as culture, language, education that cover a slightly different and mixed areal distribution (for example de French speaking people of Brussels belong to the French community), but I doubt that you will ever find a trace of that in the categories. Only few insiders in Belgium know the detailed differences between communities and regional competences. On the Flemish side, there is one single government that manages region and commmunity. Most people in Belgium try to stay away as far as possible from the region/community complexity. The Flemish community/regional government used to have Yves Leterme as minister president, so he belongs to both community and region (and his parents are from Comines, a Walloon vilaage with facilities, his father french speaking, his mother flemish). Yves Leterme is trying to form a new federal government and should become the Belgian prime minister, so he should change in another category, along with the politicians that hover from one government to another. No wonder that we don't want that type of changing attributions too much reflected in the categories.--Foroa 06:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Another result of our state complexity is that in your current list of provinces, Brussels is not covered, although to me it is a pseudo-province.

Belgium receives many visits of international politicians as they cannot believe nor understand the Belgian multi-cultural solutions with the many minorities before seeing it with their own eyes. --Foroa 06:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny upload bug

What's going on here?

In case the bug disappears, there's an "error displaying thumbnail" error, and I don't know why.... Adam Cuerden 02:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the image is too large. It must be pretty close to the size limit in that case. It's a pity, really, as the scan is impeccable. Maybe you can upload a version with a cropped portrait, at full resolution and a version of the whole page with a lower resolution. Let me first try uploading a grayscale version, though. --rimshot^talk 09:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, didn't work either. --rimshot^talk 09:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a size limit when thumbnailing PNG files. I think the limit is 10 or 12 million pixels, this file is 12.8 million pixels, so the thumbnail cannot be generated by the Wikimedia servers. /90.229.135.239 10:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I've got it, then: I've recropped it a bit tighter. Adam Cuerden 12:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to bring up a potential GFDL headache

But I was looking for a version of GFDL-en or GFDL-user that has disclaimers and I can't find it. Someone edited {{GFDL-user-en}} to remove the disclaimers, even though the doc for {{GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers}} implies it is supposed to have them. What's going on? GFDL-user-en is supposed to have disclaimers, yes? In which case whoever made the edit removing them should be thrashed around a bit for GFDL compliance reasons. -N 10:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That change was in error, I've reverted it. Thanks. --Gmaxwell 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

August 1 2007

Are we allowed to do this??

Is what is written here: User:Fcb981/attribution acceptable? Can a photographer demand that the attribution of the image be to the photographers demands even to the extent of declaring that the "text of the attribution must be of an area at least 50% that of the reproduction size of the photograph" ? --Fir0002 www 06:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A photographer is certainly allowed to demand anything about the photos to which he has the copyright. More specifically, a photographer using a CC-BY-2.5 license has the right to specify how the attribution must be provided. I quote the license in question: "Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." The question remains whether this is acceptable on Commons. I lean to yes, because (1) these requirements do not hold for wikipedia, (2) everyone is allowed to use the photos, even if the attribution requirements are rather strict. --rimshot^talk 09:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's totally ridiculous. Read the full legal code, not the human summary:

(4b)If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied [...]. Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner...

(8e) This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You.

That requirement is totally unreasonable. Attribution appropriate to the medium for web use is more like a caption + link credit. Not a text watermark over half the image! Kind of ruins the potential for derivative works! --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, the human-readable summary is quite misleading in that case. --rimshot^talk 11:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree: there comes a point when the author's name splashed over 50% of the image may actually render the image itself useless (seeing as how the attribution is supposed to be within the area of the photograph). Anrie 15:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So is anyone going to actually question this user? --Tom (talk - email) 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Put it up for deletion if you want. -N 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the whole attribution on 50% of the image part. He states his intentions extremely clearly:

Because required attribution is the only way that I can prevent commercial use of my photos...

Commercial use is required by commons and while he is using an accepted license here, his attribution requirements breech commons policy. Cburnett 05:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Fcb981. I nominated all of his images for deletion because it effectively prohibits commercial use and is "wikimedia only". A double ding against requirements of licenses. Cburnett 05:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoops!

Forgot to give my image a name... it's just DSCN0211.JPG. Is there a way to rename it or do I have to re-upload and delete the old? FireFly5 07:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently, you have to reupload to the new name, and then tag the old image with {{bad name|Image:new image name.ext}}. I know it's a pain, but this is the only solution until we get a new MediaWiki feature implemented. (→O - RLY?) 08:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks. FireFly5 16:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

August 3 2007

CfD Help

I tried following the instructions at COM:CFD for adding a new discussion. But it does not work. Can someone who knows the procedure fix the instructions and the cfd templates. /90.229.135.239 15:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Systematic error in country maps!

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but it is rather important to get some attention. There is systematic error in .svg maps of countries, made by User:Rei-artur. Kosovo is depicted as independent state, which is not the case, and this can be easily seen in the article on English Wikipedia (or elsewhere). I want to point out that these maps are being used in literally hundreds of wikis, so it is very important to act quickly, and correct this mistake. I have already contacted Rei-artur, and asked him to make changes in his maps, but I think that this mistake is to big to wait, and we need to swap these maps at once - I'm sure that there are older maps which are accurate. I'm not familiar with the procedures on Commons, so I ask the administrators here to help. Thanks. -- Obradovic Goran 23:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please provide links to images that you think are wrong. -Mardus 00:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Finding good maps/licensing of google map

Hi, I'm wanting to draw the path of a hiking trail in northern Sweden (Kungsleden) but I'm having trouble finding a good map under an adequate license. Google maps (either maps or satellite view) would be perfect for this, but I'm assuming license won't be good for commons? Do you know of any good source for maps? They seem achingly difficult to find! --Nattfodd 23:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you find anything useful in Category:Maps of Sweden? --rimshot^talk 12:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. Sweden_cia_old.png is the best I can find there and many relevant lakes/rivers are missing, as well as some cities that provide good references for the trail, and resolution is quite low... I was hoping for something better. --Nattfodd 12:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of NASA World Wind program? It's similar to Google Earth, but free/libre. I don't know what their coverage of Sweden would be like. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I use Demis.nl to get pretty good maps of Sweden (or any other country), www.demis.nl. Thuresson 11:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Press photo of Dean and Trixie Koontz

Hi, I found a picture on this web site here that I wanted to use for the Dean Koontz and Trixie Koontz article on wikipedia here. I emailed the website requesting permission and recieved a response that says this:

Hello Cindy! Glad you found the site. I actually don't own the picture, I found it on Google and asked the site I got it from. I do think it is one of the best pictures of them as well! I honestly don't remember what site it was I got it from (it's been so long!), but they had said that it was a press photo and that it was free for the taking. So I would say that you shouldn't have to track them down. Thank you for asking though, it's good to know there are still people who respect copyrights :D Regards, Amanda

So... is that sufficient as permission? (and I can upload the picture and forward the email)... or do I need to try something else?CindyBo 00:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Regrettably, not necessarily. Press sometimes grant permissions that are too restrictive for our purposes, and informal permissions aren't transitive. You need to track down the original owner if you can. Did you try searching with Google images? Good luck! ++Lar: t/c 01:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep trying. I did do an image search and found the same picture on ebay used by an Australian bookstore, but I doubt that they're the original owners either.CindyBo 02:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Images and articles

I would like to find out what goes on in this site a bit more and hopefully contribute a bit. I contribute to the English Wikipedia and have a basic understaning of that, but with this site is it a case of uploading images and then creating an article full of images relating to a certain topic, for example this article from Wikipedia but without the information. If so I would be happy to pitch in and start creating and taking more images as I will be going out today to take some more. --Adam.J.W.C. 04:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Or another example my user page from Wikipedia.--Adam.J.W.C. 04:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Adam! It's great that you want to help out. :) There are lots of different things to do here. You can concentrate on taking great photographs and uploading your own work, or you create galleries (as you said), or you can help monitor other people's uploads, check for legitimate licenses and sources, or help sort and describe our existing files. You can also help check image quality by taking part in Featured pictures or Quality images (kind of equivalent to "good articles"). Commons:Welcome also has a list of some tasks. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

4 August 2007

Hi. I'm new to the Commons (I hang out more at the 'pedia) so please be patient. I haven't seen this question, so I'll ask it here.

I can't get the flag (or COA) of Bangladesh to display on the page, either here or at WP; this includes both Firefox and IE. I was at the National insignia page, and noticed that neither flag nor COA display. In order to see if there was even a link, I had to edit the section, and copy the wikilink into the search bar, which brought me to the image page; still no pic! I had to click on the blue image link on the image page to see the picture. I went to the Bangladesh page over at WP, no images there either. Incidentally, the little thumb of the flag doesn't appear on the British Commonwealth page either.

This seems to happen to some other images on WP/WM too: they don't appear in the articles, but on the img page; or don't appear on either page, but only when you click on the blue link. It is also not limited to SVG files, but to JPGs as well.

Can someone with more than my half-click of technical knowhow tell me what gives? Thanks. --SigPig 04:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Does the image appear as a red X? --Digon3 ^talk 17:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania Awards

Hi all, you are welcomed to join the Wikimania Awards activity. For more information, see Wikimania Awards for more information. --H.T. Chien (Discuss|Contributions) 08:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

URGENT CHANGE TO HEADER BAR ON EVERY PAGE

(Sorry about the all caps.) Please update the Wikimedia Awards notice bar, to reflect the fact the submission page is now closed, will be open in an hour or two, and that the deadline will be extended? See foundation-l post. -- Zanimum 18:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What good is attribution without a name ?

What good is it putting your work under an attribution license if you don't give a name? I have found lots of pictures on the Commons where nothing but a cryptic username is given, and no further information as to the author, not even on their user pages, nor do they want to receive e-mails. Of course everyone is free to hide their real identity on the internet, but doing so renders the principle of a free license quite useless, especially when you go beyond electronic media. I have designed a brochure intended for publication under a Creative Commons license, and it's no fun having to reproduce strings like "xyz234" (an arbitrary example) as an acknowledgement to the author of a picture. And what if you change your username next year? Will the author "xyz234" then be considered as dead, from a legal point of view, and who will inherit the copyright? I think everyone who wants their work to be attributed should give at least something that can be interpreted as a name of a human being. Daniel Fuchs 14:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if one cannot deduct the real name from the username, a username can be quite useful to identify a person, especially when the username is used on various projects. A simple google search for the pseudonym can reveal a lot. Also, perhaps people chose to reveal their identity later, or can be identified after their death by others. I see no contradiction in attribution to pseudonyms. And if the people cannot be identified, no harm is done. Then the username is simply another word for anonymous. Longbow4u 15:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If people want their work to be attributed to a username, the licences enable them to specify that manner of attribution. If they want a real name, a trading name or other name to be used for attribution purposes, then they can specify that. I can't see that potential third-party users of work should be able to dictate to creators how they should be attributed (although of course merely pseudonymous attributions always complicate the establishment of expiry of copyright post mortem). Man vyi 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are quite right, but still it seems to me that a license that cannot be legally pursued is pointless, and how could anyone prove that he or she really is the Wikimedia user "xyz234", if this user never gave a clue as to his or her identity? I would not dictate anyone how to attribute their work, but if one doesn't want to reveal his or her identity, I consider it better to put your work in the public domain.--Daniel Fuchs 10:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it not the same problem for editing articles? Should all projects require that people use their real names? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume the claim can't be persued. Remember firstly we're only talking about civil cases so beyond resonable doubt is not required. If for example, your username is resonably unique and you provide evidence that you've used it and are known by it in a number of place perhaps with e-mail records of you using that username. Along with evidence that you own the copyright of the photo (e.g. if you took a number of photos that day you could show photos taken before and after along with evidence you owned a camera that is the same models as that in the metadata along with evidence you were in the location where the photo was taken on the date it was taken and maybe even describe more detail about when and where the photo was taken). You would probably have a resonable case... Even if you can't win (and who really knows until it's gone to court), the vast majority of people and organisations are likely to be frightened into submission if you contact them (perhaps from xyz234@...) and ask them why they aren't compling with the license even more so if you provide some of the evidence I mentioned that could be used in a legal case. Remember that if they aren't compling with the license, they're pretty SOL anyway. I would assume in some jurisdictions, even if you aren't able to convince the court your User:xyz234 and you therefore don't win any damages, the violator is still likely to be ordered to comply with the license. Heck you may even win court costs without proving your identity Nil Einne 19:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't locate the problem? Samulili 19:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone speak Farsi?

Category:Mehdi Zein-aldin (zeinoldin) contains a large number of photos of one particular person. I have no way of knowing how plausible the copyright notes are, or what the descriptions say. What's standard operating procedure in this sort of case? grendel|khan 16:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk to User:Kaveh ;) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have some concerns. Firstly, from User talk:Iriq8yw it appears that sajed.ir where I think most of these may have been taken from is only GFDL, no CC so they can't be dual licensed. Secondly, some postal stamps were taken from there but they are unlikely to be copyrighted by sajed.ir. This makes one wonder if sajed.ir had permission to license any of those photos under GFDL... However Kaveh was the one who dealt with the stamps so I guess he/she will know what to do Nil Einne 19:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-Generic}}

[1]

I intend to apply the above change to every PD template out there. There are variations on the existing templates which make them hard to follow. Some don't have the countries flag for example. -- Cat ^chi? 11:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The above diff shows an edit which changes {{PD-Albania-exempt}} from being a table to invoking {{PD-Generic}} with some named parameters. {{PD-Generic}} needs documentation which describes its parameters and usage. (SEWilco 16:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

What about things like {{PD-because}} and {{PD-NASA}}? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not every PD tag is country-specific... --Iamunknown 06:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete pages

(in particular, categories and galleries)

• in Commons:Deletion guidelines: Categories are not deleted, but redirected.
• in Commons:Rename a category: ...is it likely that a new user might ever try to use this category by accident? With translations, variations in capitalisation and number, or just simple synonymy, the answer is yes. Therefore such categories should not be deleted, but instead marked like this:

#REDIRECT [[:Category:Newcategoryname]]

Though, some administrators don't follow this policy. Why?

Examples:

• when the contents of category is moved with a bot, the original category is deleted. This is a real problem, since there are many categories with inappropriate contents, but with a correct name, so they can be immediatly reused.
• empty pages or categories: removing the contents of any page is very easy, and sometimes it's only the result of some image deletions for copyright reasons. That doesn't mean that the page will not be reused. Category:Musicians from Guatemala was deleted only a few hours after I had created.

I notice also unreasonable delays for the undeletion of pages, which are unjustifiable since the purpose of such request is to preserve the history of the deleted page, that is the application of the GFDL licence: the requester could as well immediatly recreate the page.

Examples:

• Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Category:Musicians from Guatemala, since July, 21
• Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Category:Maps of Flemish Brabant, since July, 28

Why are undeletions not immediate?

I think that many users (not administrators, of course) are bothered by the disrespect of the deletion policy, so I ask to administrators to take care to apply it. --Juiced lemon 13:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not an answer to your why some admins don't follow the policy, but: I wonder how the policy came to be and if the writer of that policy knew how much category redirects are broken? Samulili 16:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The writer(s) of the policy didn't take responsability for the maintenance in Commons. Broken redirections can be repaired. When a bot moves the contents of a category, it can immediatly repair the broken links, assuming suitable programming. --Juiced lemon 09:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I might have misunderstood this discussion, but the problem with category redirects is not to move the category in the first place. The problem is that the redirected categories remain as duplicates for the "real" categories. These redirects needs to be maintained by regularly moving images from them to the real categories. Now there are thousands of images in redirect categories instead of in the real categories. Is there any bot that do maintain these redirects by regularly checking them and moving images from them? /90.229.135.239 12:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am completely against cat redirects and seecat and the likes. Category aggregation doesn't work anyway and a lot of redirects become obsolete or double/triple indirects. Moreover, they give the impression to the users using them that the category is valid, which is actually not true (because it doesn't shows a red link in the picture's cat fields). That's why I am very happy that the move bot removes the source cat as well. Cats include very little intellectual content and heavy cat discussions should not happen on the cats itself but in a broader frame. If one wants absolutely to use redirects to cats, then it can be done through articles/galleries. I will come definitively back on this issue later. So I am happy that at least a part of useless cats are deleted automatically. Otherwise, there would be more lose cats hanging around then we have stars in the universe.

I don't care that undelete takes some time; for cats it is not worth it: quicker to make a new one in stead of bumping extra work to other people. In general, I don't care about quick undelete. If you decide to delete it, then it is gone. If you make it too easy to delete/undelete, those decisions will be taken too lightly and in the end, the process will become a caroussel. If you don't care, we will end with things we delete a little bit, delete almost and delete permanently. Administrators have other work enough that's much more essential. --Foroa 17:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

After some thinking, maybe we should have a way to put an image on hold till author and rights issues are resolved. In that case, the system should for example only display thumbnails. That would avoid hasty deletions. --Foroa 08:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Permission from Nikola Gruev

Hi! Just a short note to people more aware of the permissions/licenses. Please see Template:NGruev and Template talk:NGruev and give some advice if you can. There are 160 photos from Mr Gruev's Galleries, uploaded to the Commons from 2004 till today: should they be deleted/replaced or the permission is still valid? Thanks. --5ko 01:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

PD US and PD Canada

Hi I've uploaded many pre 1949 PD Canada images to wikipedia and a couple of various images to Commons, most recently Image:New Westminster sketch 1865.jpg. Is that licenced okay? And should all Public Domain pictures regardless of country be uploaded only to Commons? I don't quite understand the policy yet. A picture that is PD in Canada isn't neccessarily PD in the States and vice versa, so how does that affect where it should be uploaded to?CindyBo 08:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I found the answer myself, most of my Wikipedia images are like this one here created in the 1910's and PD in Canada... but because I don't know when they were "published" they may be copyrighted in the States and therefore cannot go to Commons as the copyright laws of both countries have to apply? Yes?CindyBo 10:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh, if they were never registered for copyright in the US and it is reasonable to assume it was published you should be ok. My advice is find out as much as you can about the image, upload it, use the best tag and write out as much as you know on the image page. If anybody objects they can try to get it deleted. Just because someone may object to the PD status of your image shouldn't stop you from uploading it. As long as you believe in good faith the image is PD and have evidence backing that up, if it were me I wouldn't let possible objections stop you from uploading. -N 17:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ommayad7.jpg, a PD-art image or a photo of a 3D work?

This stone mosaic image was uploaded originally on ar.wiki. The object is hundreds of years old. The image was found on the web, and posted there for some time, then an edit war started overthe use of PD-art tage used ; Some argued that the visible outer surface is what really matters, not the depth of the stones used to construct the work, neither the gaps and irregularities between the colored stones as it does not count, that only one surface of the stone represents the work; the other 3d surfaces of the same stones used are not intended to be part of the work. They argued that the original work was intended to give a final 2D effect, and stone mosaic should be treated as the thin golden mosaic in Christ mosaic. Others argued that stone mosaic is not a 2D subject and hence , Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp would not apply, as the ruling was based on real 2D painting work, not stone mosaic, as the gaps and irregularities between the colored stones would cast a moving shadow if the light direction was shifted from one corner to the other. They think the case would apply (1) if the image was painted over the stones, and (2) if the stones where really flattened into an exact 100% 2D surface. They believe that as the 3D color stones were arranged to give the final image similar to the use of colored LEGO blocks to create an image, then the PD-Art should not be applied as the actual material elements used are not 2D. To solve the argument, one of the guys on ar.wiki uploaded the image here on commons and left me and MichaelMaggs a note to check the facts.

MichaelMaggs thinks that the work should be treated as 2D. My self, I do need to keep the same distance between me and all parties, back on ar.wiki, involved in the edit war, so I leave the issue to you guys.

Can we treat the mosaic as a 2D work and hence be able to apply Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp case?--Tarawneh 03:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but generally speaking I think the Stone-mosaic-is-3D-faction [b]could[/b] have a point in certain cases. In this case however, I would argue that the uploaded image is of such low resolution and overall quality that any "3D-detail" the real mosaic could possibly show is blurred into oblivion and as such no "artistic work" can be derived from perspective, angle, lighting or whatever. Any other would-be 2D representation with the same scale or level of detail would be (largely) equivalent. Mind the following however: IIRC the quoted case is based on the assumption that maximum effort was made to create the best possible 2D-copy of the debated work of art and experts agreed that the creators of the copy had succeeded in that - making it easy for the judge to assume that it was indeed nothing other than "just a copy" of a PD-Old work of art. Had the creators of the copy not made the best possible copy (such as a sloppy photograph, badly lighted from a slightly off-center angle or such) the verdict might well have gone the other way as no two sloppy pictures would really look the same and hence the creator could claim "artistic value" in the exact manner of his/her sloppyness. If I'm correct in that assumption we should not only ask ourselfs how 2D or 3D this picture is, but also how sloppy or how "perfect" a 2D-copy it is. Pudding4brains 15:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A mosaic is plain (2D) and has no 3D structure besides of the insignificant hight differences of the stones that do not represent a voluntary part of the artistic work. These little differences are random and therefore mosaic qualify for {{PD-Art}}. --ALE! ¿…? 16:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position on the discussion, but there really isn't anything in Bridgeman v Corel which would support your argument, the decision in that case was very narrowly crafted. I see that we appear to have quite a few Wikipedian created images of the nearby area. The image in dispute is very low quality. Could we possibly get a better image and avoid a difficult discussion by just getting a replacement photograph?--Gmaxwell 16:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And this is? a) A wellknow legal fact? b) Your opinion as a well-informed legal professional? c) Your personal layman opinion presented as abolute truth? - Please clarify, as I/we don't know this ... Pudding4brains 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.... Ar.wiki went through all kinds of arguments such as the low resolution and insignificant 3D level differences. What they need is a legal answer; Low resolution image is not the issue; the resolution has nothing to do with the legal status of the images. The real issue is the stone mosaic it self. If it was considered a 2D-work then the images are free. If it was considered 3D-work then low, or high resolution images are copyrighted. --Tarawneh 17:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The reality is that the only binding 'legal answer' would be a decision by a court. This situation is not clearly inside the language of the precident established in bridgeman, so it could possibly go either way. You're wasting our time demanding a firm legal answer on something like this since anyone who would give you such advice who isn't your hired attorney would be just acting like a hot-head. In matters such as this we'd be much better off to avoid the issue, either by producing our own version which is clear of problems (and higher quality) or by putting off dealing with the matter in favor of working on other issues which are more clear. --Gmaxwell 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the point

The "Bridgeman" excludes reproduction of 2D art not because it is 2D, but because the reproduction is considered as a technical matter, not an artistical one (which excludes the possibility of artistical property rights as described in the Berne convention). The same can be applied to mosaics, as long as all the photo frame includes all the mosaic pane, without framing adjustments.

But here, the mosaic pane is not "faithfuly reproduced": the frame of the photograph here seems to have been selected on an artistical basis, which may be considered as an artistical activity, giving way to artistical property rights - the "Bridgeman" decision would not apply 100%. This is the relevant issue in that case. IMHO, there is no real artistic activity involved, but this is my opinion, and it may be argued. Michelet-密是力 18:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. --Gmaxwell 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, to make sure that no one waists any more time in an irrelevant issues to commons; I will answer ar.wiki that the image might be free, or might not, depending on the artistic work involved. And let them start a new edit war to decide if the image is actually artistic or not. --Tarawneh 19:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The frame of the photography is irrelevant. If a work of art is in the public domain, any part of this work of art is in the public domain.

Concerning the mosaic, the picture doesn't disclose any relief or light effects. In my opinion, the image is not an artistic representation of the mosaic, and therefore it is in the public domain. --Juiced lemon 21:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

ACK --Historiograf 03:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Annoyance of uploading

Is there any way to adjust my personal settings so that uploading files isn't so annoying. I can understand the need for new users to have to go through all the introductory information, but why does everyone have to? It's like watching a DVD you purchased that forces you to watch "preview" ads for movies that flopped in the theatre years ago.

The latest new annoyance is that when I select a license tag and go to click upload, the license agreement pops into view right where the upload button was. I end up clicking on a link other than the upload button as a result, and have to go back to the previous page then to upload. I don't need to see the license agrrment every time I upload because I know what the license agreement says. I also don't need the links to jump around every time I try to upload a file.

While all of these "features" may be helpful to totally new and inexperienced contributors, they make the process irritating for regular contributors like myself. PLEASE, is there a way to adjust my personal settings so that I don't have to suffer each time I upload files? --EncycloPetey 00:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Then don't use the drop down menu; I never do. Its easy to memorize the various templates. --Tom (talk - email) 00:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, but when people start doing that it means that any automated features built into the License pull-down menu will not be included in the page. Rather than encouraging the automatic formatting, this encourages users to rely on their own skill to add the information by hand in order to avoid the pulldown menu headaches. Do you really think that's a good idea to encourage addition of all that information by hand? --EncycloPetey 03:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE TURN THIS "FEATURE" OFF! I thought commons:upload was bad. Then it was giant icons warning about copyvios. Now it's dynamically shifting key elements of the page when using it. Just when I thought commons couldn't get any more annoying to use, "you guys" one up yourselves. If this license preview ABSOLUTELY MUST REMAIN then please put that after the "Upload file" button. Cburnett 02:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, I think this is a MediaWiki thing, not a Commons thing. So take it easy with the rage, eh? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me then. It's hard to figure where to assign blame for making life unnecessarily annoying. Last time around you got, IMO, overly defensive that it was offensive. I do apologize for coming off as a loud-mouthed, arrogant, selfish prick. It's annoyance causing frustration meeting people who basically call these annoyances "a necessary evil" to attempt to counter all those evil copyvio-lators out there. On which point I completely disagree with, but I digress. Cburnett 05:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you won't believe me, but we actually don't conspire just to annoy everyone to the maximum possible. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, emergent behavior then. In the end, conspiracy or not doesn't change the state of reality.  :) Cburnett 02:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You guys (and others) may like to use this Javascript script to replace the upload link with one to a much simplified form. However use the form at your own risk. MediaWiki talk:Replaceuploadlink.js --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

At "your own risk"? What does that mean? Like it will format my hard drive or something? Seriously, what risk do you speak of? Cburnett 05:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no risk like that. I mean the risk that you miss some information that is written on the long form and not the 'experienced' one. Just, you know, don't be annoyed that we didn't tell you, when you chose to opt out of the telling. That's all. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that your warning of risk is now moot since the experienced "uselang" no longer works... Cburnett 02:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Event start time

After discussion at Commons talk:Geocoding#Enhancement to Location on how to label images along the time coordinate, I'd like to request addition of Event start time and Event end time as optional parameters to {{Information}} (the template generally used to describe an image). The existing Date is generally used to identify the date of publication, not of the event pictured. Usually only Event start time would be used for photographs, but a span of time is needed for items such as a map which shows a military campaign, or a set of three photos showing the growth of a frontier town over a week. Separate event time templates could be used instead, if the village prefers that. (SEWilco 12:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Support. It should support date output in ISO 8601 format, from templated input, using a template like Start date, on Wikipedia-EN. And let's add the necessary hCalendar mark-up to {{Information}}, while we're at it (per the above discussion). Andy Mabbett 14:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If we're modifying the template, could we also add modifications and, perhaps, comments. As for the current proposal, I'd combine them to "date of event" - You could always fill in 1837-1848 as the event date, there's no reason to have two fields Adam Cuerden 16:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There is a reason to have two fields: So they can be in a standard format which search engines can detect. (SEWilco 06:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

Well... we'll have uses putting in dates like "Thu Aug 2 07:32:04 EDT 2007" and other random forms, we can't hope to automatically convert those to something machine readable. So the proposal will need to include a standard date format. --Gmaxwell 11:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes - note the aforesaid "Template start date" on Wikipedia-EN. Andy Mabbett 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem like this poor template is in danger of getting overloaded? Man, we need structured data :(

Isn't event start/end info on images kind of the wrong approach - since all images from that event will have the same values. It seems like the start/end info should be somehow attached to events (categories representing events?), not images from events.

Also can't other versions be used for "modifications" info? And what kind of info should "Comments" have? How is it different to "Description"? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all pictures are of an "event" (other than that the picture being taken is an event in itself), but all pictures have a date (even if we don't know what it is). Some events might last, say, a week, but pictures might be time-stamped to the minute. Andy Mabbett 16:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A map which shows the flow of the Battle of the Bulge (16 December 1944 – 25 January 1945) might have those start and end times. Individual photos of events during the Battle would have their own time labels. (SEWilco 16:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

Not much discussion. Nobody reading, or nobody cares? (207.195.192.163 20:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

Just wondering if you really need to add historical information (end date) at the media level: this seems information at the article level and is maybe not to be repeated in all the related media files. On the other hand, I am wondering, since a majority of pictures contain exif files, if the time information cannot be extracted and autogenerated by default or when no date is provided in the date field. Just my two cents.

It might be interesting to define all the dates one really need at the media level and have an agreement on that. I would say:

• date of target object creation (example painting of that year): optional field because not always available to the photographer
• date when the image was created: mandatory, might be extracted from exif or elsewhere
• download date: automatic in Wiki

--Foroa 08:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Using images under LGPL?

What are my obligations when I create an image that includes an LGPL image? Cheers, bdesham ★ 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• The derivative will generally retain the same licensing as the original. -N 01:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Or GPL. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Is that due to the weird linking clause in the LGPL? -N 13:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

August 4 2007

licence notes

I'm sorry. Which color and size of the font I must use at my talk page to describe, that I DO NOT WANT TO PRINT {{self|cc-by-sa}} on EVERY image I upload? Is I look like a bot to print some text 5,000 times again and again? Or this is a lesson of typing? Why I could not put a single licence for all my photos till Earth exists? #!George Shuklin 20:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Some bots do the notification about missing license templates. So it doesn't matter how big you write, the bot won't understand. It looks like all your uploads are tagged now. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Is any way to set a single licence to every future upload from my account? #!George Shuklin 18:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that exists because most people upload under a mix of licences - {{PD-Old}}, [[:Template:|{{}}]], etc. It migtht lead to mis-categorising. Adam Cuerden 20:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How about default licence in description box? Or, may be (ad absurdum) better to force users to type licence text every time (with copypaste protection)? #!George Shuklin 22:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry George but we don't have any technical means to do what you're describing. It could be a useful thing but currently there's no way to do it. Everyone either chooses a license from the selector or writes one in manually. I know the bot messages are a pain, but you're welcome to delete them afterwards. We kind of hope that people prefer to get notified and just quickly fix the image rather than the chance it gets deleted later because the license wasn't clear. People understandably get annoyed about that too, so maybe a little annoyance earlier is better than a big annoyance later? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What if he opens a bot for himself putting {{self|cc-by-sa}} on the images that he for got to put it. --Steinninn 11:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked this user's gallery and all the images now have templates, so I think he's fixed them by now. So he could set up a bot (or rather, a bot could be set up, that users could request for them), but it seems a bit overkill to me. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Double-checking

A picture of printed material like Image:Pasaporteargentino.jpg isn't a separate, self-copyrightable image, is it? Doesn't the copyright holder of the printed matter own all reproductions of it (barring passage of time, etc.)? 76.22.4.86 00:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Passports are generally not under copyright. They are international treaty documents with very simple designs, and most national governments (but not state governments) make official documents (but not photos) public domain. -N 01:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Is {{Pd-self}} the proper license tag, though? All passport images I checked were tagged with this template. Doesn't that require having the copyright in the first place? Shouldn't it rather be PD Ineligible or PD XXX Government? --rimshot^talk 17:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The photograph itself might be PD-self, while different permissions might apply to the object which was being photographed... AnonMoos 05:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work, though? In that case, the permission of the original holds. --rimshot^talk 21:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Make MediaWiki:Sharedupload link to the current language

I got inspired from the japanese Wikipedia to make this change on the Icelandic wikipedia. This way, when they click on "description page on commons" they get the Icelandic interface. I looked other random languages, and didn't find one that uses this nice feature. Not even the big ones like de and fr. Is there any way to mass update the MediaWiki:Sharedupload so that every language on every systerproject has this? This is how the english one would look like, but I don't see any reason to add it there, since english is the default language: [{{fullurl:commons:Image:{{PAGENAME}}|uselang=en}} descriptin page there]. --Steinninn 01:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a really cool idea, nice work! I wonder if we can ask the devs to make that work automatically rather than making the change manually on 500 wikis. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I opened a bug for it: bugzilla:10827. It is not really perfect since the lang pref will only last for one page, so I'm not sure, but I think it should be better than nothing. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is a mural a two-dimensional work of art?

Hi, I understand that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art by long dead people cannot be copyright. I am interested in the mural of Achilles' ambush of Troilus in the Etruscan Tomb of the Bulls. The second image at [2] displays the picture I am interested in and I'm trying to work out whether the photograph is subject to copyright when it displays a 2-dimensional work of art that is part of a 3-dimensional room. I'm also having difficulty in telling whether there is a three dimensional feature at the top of the image in question. Could someone more experienced in these matters please advise? --Peter cohen 20:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a mural counts as two-dimensional work (as long as the photograph is taken straight-on, not at some artistic angle or something), and your example should be fine. I agree it's hard to tell whether the lines at the top are architectural or painted, but on balance they appear to be painted.--Pharos 01:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now uploaded a better version too. --Peter cohen 23:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

CIA World Fact Book URLs

Most of the images in Category:PD CIA WF, such as Image:Southern_Ocean.png, contain a URL to the live site, however the site has moved to:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook

Old URL do not map to the new pages, instead the user is sent to the entry page. Can a bot go through and change all the links? Jayvdb 01:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got a script working on it now. There's only ~ 230 links, so it shouldn't take long. --Davepape 02:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Jayvdb 05:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Coolpix, WAV, and Audacity

So, I've recently downloaded Audacity, hoping to be able to convert the short WAV files recorded on my Nikon Coolpix camera to OGG files. It tells me "Audacity did not recognize this type of file. If it is uncompressed, try importing it with 'Import Raw'."

I don't really know whether it is compressed (though I believe WAV usually isn't), but "Import Raw" requires that I know various properties (I don't even know whether this is PCM, ADPCM, or what, let alone subtler details). Does anyone have some helpful suggestions for me? - Jmabel | talk 04:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Do the files play in Windows Media Player? In that case, you can use WMP to find out more about the file format, in the menu file -> properties. You can of course try other audio players, especially if you are not on Windows - most of them have this kind of option. If all else fails, gspot will very often give information about file formats. --rimshot^talk 09:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, they are fine in WMP. I'll follow this up. - Jmabel | talk 18:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

When I load it in WMP, bit rate and codec properties are both blank. - Jmabel | talk 18:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

GSpot says PCM, 7872 Hz, 63 kb/s, but when I give those properties to Audacity (I'm assuming 16-bit PCM) it goes much too fast, and extremely low fidelity compared to the original. Maybe I just need to try various possibilities & see if something works. - Jmabel | talk 18:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha! It's 8-bit PCM. - Jmabel | talk 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Image version

I know I can link to older versions of an image (e.g. [3]), however I would like to embed an old version of an image. Is this possible? If not it would be good to have syntax like File:Flag of Albania.svg;1 to select the initial version. Cheers, Jayvdb 05:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not possible, sorry. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Use outside wikipedia

I may have misunderstood the licensing and upload processes, but is a phrase like "If you want to use my graphic outside Wikipedia, and its resolution or license doesn't satisfy you, write to me". I thought images on commons had to be available outside wikipedia, and even for commercial use.

The images I found it attached to are Image:BXVI CoA like gfx PioM.svg and Image:Coabxvi.png --Barliner 09:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That phrase does not restrict your rights. You can use the images that are there under the license they have been given, also outside Wikipedia. You can also use them commercially. The phrase just says that if you want to use them with a different license, or if you want to have a higher resolution, you can contact the author. Commons does not forbid multi-licensing, as long as one of the licenses is acceptable ;)--rimshot^talk 09:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thats an acceptable way to do an additional license... Having said that I'd favour fulling translating that notice to the English idiom (it doesn't quite scan correctly).--Nilfanion 11:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucracy

Some times ago I wanted to add an image to your wiki. I asked the permission to the owner. I filled up the form. I uploaded the image (Image:Proofstep.gif)

Some times later it was told me in the most cryptic manner that there was a problem with the grants. Since there was no problem with the grants. And that everything was mentioned on the page I was a bit amazed. I asked on wikipedia. A very kind person answered that I hadn't filled the right part of the form. He helped me to fill it. I found it a bit strange to have to repeat twice the same information (namely the authorization) but anyway it was done.

And today I have just noticed that, despite of my careful attempt to fill correctly the form, the picture has been deleted. It was a beautiful picture. With some interest I think but for my own part I don't want to spend again an hour or two to try to guess what the ununderstandable bureaucrats of this wiki want. Too much work. I regret. I deeply regret but I give up. And I promise I will never try to add something on this wiki.

FL

This one shouldn't have gone (the CC-PD permission is clearly on the website => no need for a permission email). Restored.--Nilfanion 11:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for our mistake. Thankyou for letting us know and giving us the chance to fix it. The problem was caused by a bot that has not yet been trained to read. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Copyrighted Package"

New user Mtec (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) has (as apparently just about all edits, see contributions) tagged a lot of images for speedy deletion using the reason "copyrighted package"... all of the images I spot checked (for example my image Image:CornNuts Dscn0266 crop.jpg) are indeed images of product packaging. However I see no discussion of whether this is a legitimate reason... when I uploaded my image and discussed it with others, the theory that was advanced was that images of copyrighted things are not themselves violations of the copyright of the package. Has this been discussed anywhere and has there been a change in policy? We have a LOT of images of this sort, not just the hundreds that Mtec tagged. I'd like to understand what should be done here. Note that Mtec had no discussion at all on his page prior to now, and this seems to be his or her only contribution so far. ++Lar: t/c 10:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of procedure, I fear this should be in one or more deletion debates. Substantively, regarding the Coke cans, since we have Image:Coca-Cola_logo.svg it's not logical to delete the picture of a Coke can. William Avery 11:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a trademark, not a copyright, which is different. I'm guessing the assertion is that since the manufacturer copyrighted the package artwork itself (which often use trademarked logos but do not necessarily have to) then an image, even one illustrating the product, rather than trying to reproduce the packaging, is a copyvio. Note that there have been other recent deletions along these lines... for example File:Brazilian Twix.jpg. I don't know how extensive these deletions are, I just found these in spot checks. But if every copyrighted packaging image is deleted, even not including ones where the copyrighted package or design is incidental to the image, rather than the topic, we are going to lose a lot of images. I think that is incorrect, and that these images are not really copyvios. Worse, though, is that we alrady have lost some, and that these images all being tagged as speedy is a big job to undo if we decide that's the right thing to do. I find it unfortunate that this user apparently hasn't discussed this anywhere (although maybe I missed it). Sure, a deletion debate seems a good idea, better late than never. Of course if consensus is that this is the correct action, then so be it (and many of the images would then be something that one could advance a fair use argument for, on, for example, en:wp... I know my image is used there, since I added it to w:Corn Nuts .... I see some of these images are already getting deleted. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Polarlys (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) deleted a shedful, citing Commons:Derivative_works. (and NOT the reason given by the original taggger) However these packages are clearly industrial design, not art, in my view. See here for more on this. Good faith action, but I think, incorrect. ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored the ones I deleted, please discuss images like Image:Corny Schoko.jpg. ;-) --Polarlys 12:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely packaging, there is no question about that. And although there is no (c) symbol present on the packaging, the packaging is presumably copyrighted by the manufacturer, since it is not necessary to use (c) to have a copyright. However it's, in my view, industrial design, and the representation of the package is not infringing usage. That's presumably true (or false) for all of the images tagged by Mtec, as a class. Note that since the speedy is contested, I have asked him or her to convert all of the tags to regular deletion requests, per policy. ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But once you concede that the manufacturer has a copyright on the packaging it's case over. William Avery 12:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There is some difference between copying an objet and publishing a picture of this object. --Juiced lemon 13:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely what I think. Which is what this section of the Derivative Works page seems to be addressing. If we had to remove every image that contained anything copyrighted, we'd be pretty barren of images for any category that wasn't 100% nature/wilderness related I suspect. These images have (some of them) been here a long time. So it would be good to have a reasoned, rational discussion about this, and determine what the right course is, rather than having them speedied. I'm not going to insist they have to stay if consensus (or legal opinion) is that they infringe, that's not how we do things here, but I am not sure that a massive speedy tagging by a new user with (apparently) few or no other contributions is the best approach to getting to the right answer. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe we have any copyrighted money on Commons unless it's got a release from the copyrightholder, as exists for the Euro coins. Read the licence tag on that coin image. The section of the Derivative Works page cited is specifically about things that are not copyrightable. William Avery 14:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree here, the package design is separable from the utilitarian function (i.e. a bag of nuts is still a bag of nuts even if it had different imagery on it). As such, I believe the section you cite does not apply to this case. I'm inclined to agree with the original user that the packaging can't be the focus of an image without invoking fair use, and hence can't be used here. As to the contention that there would be nothing left, I'd disagree. Many designs are utilitarian (e.g. cars, beds, tools, phones, etc.) but that's not the same as product packaging. In addition, the de minimis principle asserts that copyright doesn't follow if the copied portion is too minor to be significant (e.g. a poster in the background of a photo). Dragons flight 17:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I did look at the tagging on that coin image and I actually think that the image is not eligible for being housed here, as the ECB license places restrictions on image modifications, which is not allowable in a freely licensed image. So it's not the example I would use... (perhaps it should be nominated for deletion, actually) and I was agreeing with Juiced lemon's sentiment, not his example. Again, this is apparently quite a pervasive problem, there are a LOT of images here that depict products. Speedy is not the way to go till we get to an answer we all accept. At that point, the deletion guidelines may well need modification to clarify this. I have reviewed the section I cited and I'm not sure I necessarily agree with your interpretation of what it means but I am not a lawyer. ++Lar: t/c 14:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nor me. :-) William Avery 14:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure if images like this and this are only packaging. These packages have photos and draws suitable to be copyrighted since it is a result of a intellectual effort to try to make the product more tempting. Lugusto • ※ 18:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but they are not exact copies. But again, you will find various discussions. E.g. in the Netherlands, there once was a case of Dior against Evora. Dior tried to prevent Evora of importing its products. (try a google search on Dior/Evora). First, it used trade mark laws, but with no success. Finally, it tried to bring a charge against Evora based, claiming copyright violation. Indeed, Evora publish photo's of Dior's parfums in its brochures (as every shop publishes pictures of packages in its commercial folders, isn't it). It was judged that Evora could indeed use image of those parfums, as long as there's no damage inflicted on the other party... Anyway, this is a simplification, and it was based on some technicalities in the Dutch law, so I don't really know the details.

So... this is yet another way issues like this are judged, in yet another country.... --LimoWreck 18:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a "fair use" rationale, not linked to the questin whether package covers are copyrighted. I agree with User:Dragons_flight and I believe strongly that these should be deleted as derivative works. Samulili 19:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it really "fair use"? Fair use is the direct reproduction of a copyrighted object. I think the right is more akin to freedom of panorama, which is another exception to copyright law. US law contains an exemption similar to the mentioned Dutch one for pictures of objects in advertising (17 USC 113): "In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports." (the words "lawful reproduction" refers to genuine as opposed to counterfeit goods). In reality I don't see how this isn't freedom of panorama for useful objects. It says you can make and display pictures of copyrighted articles for commercial purposes. -N 19:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"... in connection with advertisements or commentaries ... [or] news reports" appears to be rather more limited than the general sense of freedom normally asked for here. In particular, it does not appear to allow showing images for their own sake, i.e. when not connected with commentary or a commercial purpose. Dragons flight 20:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly the whole point. You state "showing images for their own sake". The whole issue is that they are *not* shown for their own sake; they're shown as part of another, user-made photograph of objects. E.g., showing a glass filled with a beer, and next to it the bottle, obviously also displays the label on the bottle. A shelf with cans is bound to have various labels visible. Most people will agree that a simple scan of the label probably can't be used on commons, but these photographs here just show images, part of images, or sometimes even just some drawings and colour, as part of a larger picture, not the paper wrapper alone... And that's an issue that's unclear ;-) --LimoWreck 20:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As per the start of the thread, I am focused on things like Image:CornNuts_Dscn0266_crop.jpg and Image:Corny_Schoko.jpg where showing the packaging is not incidental to the picture, but rather it is the whole point of the picture. Those are the images I think are problematic. Dragons flight 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

@Samulili: not really, it would be a "fair use" rationale if it was about exact reproductions of an original work of art. Note, that I don't want to justify nor reject something by showing that Dutch case; it's merely another example that it's not just a simple black/white issue. There's indeed something that "feels" related to the panorama freedom, and there are various other issue. There is room for interpretation ;-) Also note, that most of use sometimes get confused between the copyright and trade mark issues...: even the use of an image in PD can be limited due to trade mark limitations. Well even the use of "words" (i.e. the article names in Wikipedia articles) may be if they are protected brand names. But does trademark issues are not really related to the image licenses... so we shouldn't get confused on that distinction. --LimoWreck 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with that is that it specifies a limited number of purposes for which the images may be used, so they aren't wholly free. William Avery 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I admit I don't know all the exact legal terms of US copyright law. However, what ever the Dutch case was and whatever the similar situation is called in the US, it is such an limitation/exception to copyright that it does not make the image we host "free" - that is it can't be used for all purposes as far as copyright is concerned. Samulili 19:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your examples. For the purposes of copyright there is nothing special about packaging in itself. Where the photographs or other artwork appear eligible for copyright a licence of some sort from the copyrightholder would be necessary. Image:Hawflakes-newpck.jpg and Image:Gum.jpg seem to me to be examples of packaging that would not be sufficiently original for copyright in the US. William Avery 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am seeing a consensus forming here that we have been wrong for several years in allowing these images here, and that these images should all be deleted, and further that policy needs to be clarified in this area to avoid folks wasting effort in future. Is that fairly characterising where we stand? Many of the images clearly would qualify for fair use to illustrate articles about the items, if in fact they were found to be unfree... but that's not directly relevant except inasmuch as it would be nice to have them around briefly so volunteers who are not admins could move them. I wonder though, if we should be seeking legal opinion of our counsel? Thanks for everyone's input... Further thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

PS I left our counsel a note ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In general, a photograph that happens to include all or part of a copyrighted image or a trademark does not raise significant intellectual property issues. Occasionally, copyright or trademark holders attempt to assert claims regarding such photographs -- these are best responded to on a case-by-case basis. It is, in my view, a bad idea to be pro-actively policing photographs that happen to include a copyrighted work or a trademark, absent some evidence of an actual claim or dispute. MikeGodwin 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above reply from the foundation's legal counsel, and despite the consensus that appeared to be forming, I am going to strongly lobby that we should keep all of these images, and undo their tagging and or deletions despite their containing materials that might possibly be copyrighted, absent specific claims from the copyright holders which should be dealt with on a case by case basis. (even the claim may not itself be reason to delete, it depends on the nature of the assertion.) ++Lar: t/c 13:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked for clarification User talk:MikeGodwin#Clarification (I'll mention it on wikipedia if we get no response in a few days) Nil Einne 19:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Lar. I think Mike's reply did not address the actual issue here. He's talking about "a photograph that happens to include all or part of a copyrighted image" but that's not what we're dealing with here. The point of Image:CornNuts Dscn0266 crop.jpg is largely to show the copyrighted images on the packages, it's no happenstance. A related issue is that Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg can perhaps be called a free image in some sense but when you intentionally use it to display copyrighted images it is not. Haukurth 15:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tag

Hi there. I am relatively new to Commons, so I don't know it this is the right place to ask this question but, what is the tag for a duplicate image between here and Wikipedia (the one that goes something like "Commons now has an image named --.jpg. This image (Wikipedia) can be deleted immediately)? Thanks Soxrock 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Thanks to UCinternational, I know now. Good day to you all Soxrock 13:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

BDSM flags copyright question

The design in image Image:Leather, Latex, and BDSM pride.svg was originally copyrighted by the designer, and released for non-commercial use only. For commercial use, he demanded that you buy a license from his company. However, the commercial-use restrictions in fact haven't been enforced in decades, and the company now seems long-defunct. The flag is often treated as if it were in the public domain as a practical matter, but it would probably be rather difficult to come up with a good factual legal argument as to why the flag formally has a copyright status which is "free" in the sense required by Wikipedia Commons...

Also, there's the alternative "BDSM rights flag". On the website ( http://www.bdsmrights.com/flag ) the creator says "If you support the above statement on human rights and anti-discrimination, you may use the BDSM Rights Flag design on your own websites, publications, T-shirts, mugs, whatever - whether for personal use or for commercial gain." -- which would seem to indicate that he only grants rights to those who share his points of view (which again, would not really be free" in the sense required by Wikipedia Commons). On the other hand, the creator of the rights flag personally uploaded an image of the flag to Wikipedia under a public domain license (see en:Image:BDSMrightsFlag166x100.png). So does that mean the flag is public domain after all, or only that one particular 166x100 image?

Thoughts appreciated... AnonMoos 18:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• The rights flag sounds like it is "free" enough according to our definitions. The creator released it into the PD on Wikipedia and allows anyone to use it for any purpose. I suspect his statement on his website wasn't exclusive (ie computer speak "IF you support anti-discrimination THEN you may use the image) but rather inviting (If you are against discrimination please use this image). No opinion on the BDSM flag. -N 00:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I uploaded Image:BDSM-rights-flag-Tanos.svg, and then informed the author (Tanos) using a site-internal "memo" on one of his discussion forums, and he memoed me back giving a thumbs-up. I don't think anything more formal is really needed in this particular case. AnonMoos 17:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

How to reproduce scientific images

I was examining non-free images on the English-language Wikipedia today. If a non-free image is replaceable, we at the English-language Wikipedia generally replace it. But scientific images, as you can imagine, may only be replaced if the original data is accessible. It is really unfortunate that the European Space Agency only provides their imagery for non-commercial use, and that their data is not readily accessible.

That said, I came across one image in particular and decided to investigate its providence. It is w:Image:NO2 pollution europe hires.jpg, a map indicating the mean tropospheric nitrogen dioxide vertical column density between January 2003 and June 2004. Now, we have great maps on Commons, and we have great programmers. I am sure that, if we had the original data, we could round up a few willing folks and produce a free image. (Relying on the excellent provision in most copyright laws that facts and sets of data are not copyrightable.) The problem is that the data is not available ... at least to the general public.

By investigating the image, I eventually came to http://www.temis.nl/. That site is very product-oriented—it is set up as to (mainly) advertise what atmospheric-related data its operators can provide. That said, on this page, set up to mention its potential uses and potential users, it does not necessarily indicate that one must pay a fee to receive this data.

I would love to work on replacing a new class of non-free content—that is, scientific data-related images—where we could. Does anyone have any ideas as to the next step? Contacting the ESA, TEMIS? Does anyone have a connection with those agencies, or know anyone connected with those agencies? --Iamunknown 16:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

ESA are very lame about this. We really need to harass them about their licensing terms.

Are you sure that 'sets of data' are not copyrightable? I thought that in fact they were...

I suggest you post to the commons-l mailing list about this (or if you like, I can post this message). I think it needs some more discussion than the VP can handle. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Facts aren't copyrightable, only creativity. Thus, if the sets of data only includes data, and the eloquent prose used to describe the data is left untouched, I don't see why this should be a problem. Anrie 07:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sets of facts may be protected under database right in certain countries. That's an entirely different matter though. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We aren't going to violate their database right, just extract some data from it. And if they've released the database to us, then it isn't a violation. -N 19:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, a whole new field of intellectual property for me to explore. >_> I don't think I've ever even heard of database rights previously... --Iamunknown 05:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If commons-l is a better place to discuss it, then feel free to take it there.  :-) --05:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Redundant?

Hi, I noticed that Template:Redundant is now, apparently, redundant. Which is both fine and funny, except that there are >500 pages still using it. Major cleanup seems to be required. --Magnus Manske 09:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. {{Sofixit}}? (more of a joke than to be taken seriously, although...? I wish this was the only backlog...) Cheers! Siebrand 09:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What are actually the most critical backlogs? I would like to add them to Commons:Announcements. / Fred J 01:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Fake flag}}

{{Fake flag}} has created after a discussion on Portuguese Wikipedia to warn users that the displayed image isn't the genuine soccer team logo. I'm in doubt what is the most wrong thing: the result of this deletion debate (IMHO the derivative flags using geometrical figures are or copyvio or plagiarism if used to try to replace the genuine logos) or another Wikimedia project ruling decisions for Wikimedia Commons. Lugusto • ※ 02:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Any guidelines or customs about naming/using disambiguation pages?

I've looked around for such guidance at Commons, but have found none. (I'm assuming that the guidance at en:WP:Disambiguation and en:WP:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) is only for en). Someone just moved Sierra Nevada to Sierra Nevada, USA and created a Sierra Nevada, Spain --- I'm trying to figure out if this is a good thing to do, and if the new names are ok. Any help or suggestions are welcome. Hike395 05:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Something weird

I overwrote the original version of this image with a higher-resolution version. It uploaded just fine, but when I went to the Wikipedia article it's used on (Marion Ross), the new version wasn't showing up--it still showed the older version (which was noticeably pixelated because it was being upsized). Finally, I tried typing in a new image size (219px rather than 220), and that made the new version finally show up. However, whenever I try to revert to 220 and do a Preview, it goes back to showing the old, pixelated version. Why is this happening? It's not a big issue or anything, but I'm really curious about why it's doing that. --CrazyLegsKC 06:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems fine now - I guess it was just server lag that was keeping the English article from updating to the newest picture. Anrie 07:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's displaying the right picture now because I have it set at 219px, but it still reverts to the old one when I preview it set to 220. Did you try that yourself to see if it behaved the same way for you? If not, I think you should, because it is really weird. --07:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not quite server lag, I think, but some part of the system is sometimes slow to replace existing thumbnails. Since 219px is not an existing thumbnail, it created it from scratch. Since 220px already existed, it pulled the one it already had instead of generating a new one. There are a couple of tricks to try and force it to regenerate all thumbnails but it will also happen eventually. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tried all the tricks in the book to no avail. Guess we'll have to wait for the eventually... Lycaon 09:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, I am under the impression that a new upload from an existing image is not propagated through the system at all, because from the outside (parameters, file name, ...) nothing has been changed. The system keeps caches of the images at frequently used sizes (220 pix in this case) to avoid the burden of rescaling all the time.

I think that it ends up correctly, but I have only seen two cases like this, and one of them got deleted. --Foroa 15:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's "cache lag", but it can be happening at any of several different locations, from your web-browser's cache directory on your own computer's local hard drive, to new thumbnails not being generated by the Wikimedia software (not to mention caching that could occur at intermediate locations with Akamai type technology). You can use "?action=purge" in the URL (i.e. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Marion_Ross_at_the_1992_Emmy_Awards_cropped.jpg&action=purge ) to try to ensure that the Wikimedia software is fully up to date on the new image upload, but if the problem is elsewhere that won't solve it. AnonMoos 17:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Replacing climate diagrams

Hello! During the next time – though this is a flexible term :-) – I will go to upload several climate diagrams in the W+L format for German locations. Most of the existing ones will be obsolete by incorrect data, missing references or something like that, some will just be obsolete by standardizing. (This applies to those in W+L format, not to those in other formats!) Usually I would like to upload them all with standardized file names (those I create them with and which define the content of the file more clearly than the old ones), but this will cause deletion requests for all the old files (at least those with incorrect data or missing references should not be used any longer IMHO). On the other hand I would like to reduce work for the admins as much as possible, but just overwriting the old files seems not a good solution for me (1. because of the file names, 2. because I would ignore good arguments for keeping those old ones, though I can't think about any good argument at the moment). For information: On 7th July and on 9th August I marked 6 diagrams with deletion tags because of incorrect data or missing references after uploading new diagrams. In future this could apply to a lot of those diagrams which were uploaded by User:Hedwig in Washington. Any advice? -- JörgM 12:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

PD-art-life-50 and PD-old-50

What is the status of w:Template:PD-art-life-50 and w:Template:PD-old-50 on commons? As I read here they were not in use on commons before September 2006. Now there is Template:PD-old-50, but Template:PD-art-life-50 does not yet exist. Nevertheless they are being uploaded e.g. using the commonshelper (through google: PD-art-life-50). Should they both be on commons, knowing that their copyrightstatus does not apply to countries that have a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years (but can be used on all language wiki's anyway) and the commons claims only to use absolutely free images? Or does the fact that many of the servers of wikimedia are located in the US make it possible to use these licences too on the commons? -- Hardscarf 08:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)I replaced this question from the Commons:Help desk, where I asked it fist.

Could be replaced by {{PD-art|PD-old-50}}. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that they can be as Commons as long as the copyrights in both the United States and the country of publication are expired (for information further than that provided in COM:L, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag). It is unfortunate that they cannot legally be puslished in other countries (where the rule of the shorter term is not respected and copyright expires only 70pma). --Iamunknown 05:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And that limits the usefulness of these uploads quite a bit. I thought we went by the 70-years rule? Furthermore, it looks like some cleanup is needed. Just a few quick examples:

• Image:Georgia O'Keefe UVa.jpg would actually be {{PD-Old}}, as the photographer died in 1930, if we could show that the image was published before 1923. Note that this is a studio photo taken in 1915, but that doesn't mean it was published back then. Also note that the UVa claims copyright.[4]
• Image:Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown.jpg has no real source, no photographer, and no date. I don't see why the tag should apply at all.
• Same for Image:Iron Maiden of Nuremberg.jpg. Why would this be a U.S. work?
• While Image:Chamberlain.jpg may indeed be PD, why 50 years?
• Ditto for Image:Monte Cassino.jpg: seems to be a U.S. military image, so why 50 years?
• Image:RansRealm.jpg: when did this Peter Hurd die?
• Image:Henri Lebesgue.jpeg: no photographer, no date. Taken from a UK web site.
• Image:Joan Vollmer.jpg: no source, no nothing.
• Image:PabloIglesias.jpg: publication date? Photographer's death year?

Blergh. The good new is: there are only 163 images in this category. Lupo 14:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, since this is basically PD-US + Old-50, as other people have observed, it should be used only for U.S. works to convey additional information, as on Image:1922 0121 krazykat det 650.jpg (the author died 1944). Lupo 14:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Unanswered query at talk:Images for cleanup

Can someone tackle this, please! - MPF 00:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Answered. -N 01:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

James Coburn

In looking at the entry regarding actor James Coburn, I notice that the movie "Duck you Sucker" which was a spaghetti western is not listed to his credit. Can you explain why? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.208.88.51 (talk • contribs)

• Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel a media or gallery needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikimedia Commons is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any media and gallery by simply following the Edit link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.. -N 01:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• It could be because the movie has a number of different names: w:A Fistful of Dynamite. --rimshot^talk 09:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoops

I think I managed to upload a picture over one with the same name. I just uploaded Image:Robert Kennicott.jpg and didn't realizing another version already existed until after I'd hit save. Sorry! How do I fix it and rename one of the images?CindyBo 07:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, but how do I get the other version back? Do I reupload it under a new name?CindyBo 11:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is all that would be necessary. Be sure to cite your source and properly license the image as well. --Tom (talk - email) 12:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You bet, thanks Tom.CindyBo 13:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Technical question about the upload box

How can you make the upload description box to have automatically the Information template? We could use it on ro.wp --Alex:D 13:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at function loadAutoInformationTemplate in MediaWiki:Upload.js. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with sources

People who check the validity of the pictures uploaded on Commons seem to expect a complete url pointing to the original picture. A source just mentionning the original site is considered as insufficient. But these urls directly pointing to the pictures are not reliable on the long term for various reasons :

1. the format of the url may change (especially true with dynamic websites, script-based galleries, etc.)
2. the url could show an error 404 instead of the original picture, but the picture still exists on the original site
3. the original page could simply disappear together with the original image

The two latest cases lead to this situation : the picture is suddenly considered as invalid due to the fact the source is no more accessible, ending up with a nice "no source" banner on the description page (that could be the case for many pictures in a few years). What's the official policy in that case (I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, I am interested in any link on that topic) ? Dake 13:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think will be good idea to use part of functionality of User:FlickreviewR in such cases (check if same file exists on given URL). --EugeneZelenko 14:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it has been discussed extensively before and it is a tricky problem. I am not sure a bot can really solve this problem because most webpages don't have structured licensing info like Flickr. But the 'trusted users' method could definitely be extended, develop a queue for images with web sources to be checked. And then we have this problem how do we "prove" it? Take screenshots? Trust the trusted users? (As time goes on this becomes harder and harder.) keep copies somewhere else? ... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There's always the Wayback Machine. Of course it doesn't archive *all* pages, so you'd have to get lucky in that regard, but it's better than nothing. --rimshot^talk 08:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask someone with a toolserver account to set up a Wikimedia Wayback on Request machine. ;) pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What would that entail, exactly? The Wayback machine depends on archiving. Would we want a process that went to every newly uploaded image and validated that the link worked at that time, ala FlickrReviewer, for all images? We'd have to take images of the screen, as you say, or take images of the HTML as it was at the time. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A bot could look at image descriptions and if a URL is given which points to an exact copy of the donated image, the bot could cryptographically sign the image to certify that the URL at one time did point to the provided image. Lack of a signature would not be proof the image did not come from that URL (such as when a URL points to a page which includes the image rather than being a URL to the image file). The signature would merely help show that at one time a URL did point to that image. (SEWilco 13:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Citation of source

The preceding discussion has wandered off to technical archiving topics rather than sourcing. A URL to a source should be treated similarly to a library location code. It is a convenience in finding the source material, but your not being able to find the source does not mean that the citation is wrong or that the source never existed. The library might have moved the book to storage or that copy might have been destroyed, but your being able to find the book is not proof that it never existed. The description of the source should be detailed enough to find a copy of the source. (SEWilco 13:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Even if the image doesn't exit at the given url, the reader would still be able to contact the webmaster (if he/she can't find the image themselves somewhere else on the website) and say "Hi, I'm looking for an image that was originally hosted here ("insert URL")." The original filename and directory in this case ought to make it easier for a webmaster to find the original image.

Ideally the URL shouldn't lead directly to the image, but to the page on which the image appears (or both), since this is usually where image information can be found. Anrie 07:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why

Every pitcure must be in Wikimedia Commons! Why? Why? This is so difficult, hard job! You can use just Wikimedia Commons pitcures in templates! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.235.53.121 (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide link to relevant discussion? --EugeneZelenko 14:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Some Wikis have local uploading disabled. -N 21:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's true. One example is the Spanish Wikipedia. I imagine it must be really annoying for the Spanish Wikipedia editors having to having to get an account here just to upload one image for a single article. BTW, I don't have a problem with it; I don't like to edit the Spanish Wikipedia, anyway. --Boricuaeddie 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking then that the file upload link in the Spanish Wikipedia interface could just link to a file upload page here in Commons, with ?uselang=es in the address string... -Mardus 00:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I see they do do that - would that mean that signed-in users at the Spanish Wikipedia can upload files at the Commons without having an accout here? (We're considering a similar decision at the Afrikaans Wikipedia.) Anrie 07:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

24 July

Does w:NPA apply in commons?

I wonder if such expressions are acceptable here. --One half 3544 21:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In general en:Wikipedia policies are not directly applicable here. But we do have standards of behaviour. I would agree that "GTFO" is probably not an appropriate response by a user. I will warn the user and make a suggestion about how to resolve the underlying issue. If this recurs, I suggest you mention it at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. This user is a prolific uploader with at least one image selected as a "quality image" so may be a bit frustrated. ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

He is responding to a bot message. He wrote further up on this page. The real problem is how can we help solve the cause of his frustration, not just ask him to phrase it more politely, you know? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas? I see the stuff further up on the page and short of wiring in a default license somehow (or crafting a special url that has that field already defaulting to the preferred license) I'm not sure what to suggest. We all get these warnings and while it may well be frustrating, GTFO at a bot probably isn't going to solve anything. I did try dinking around with encoded URLs for the special:upload page but didn't see anything useful (yet). ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just ask the user to make sure he select the correct licence tag each time - as is expected of all uploaders. It's the job of the uploader to make sure his images check all the boxes, not another user's. Anrie 07:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

5 August 2007

Growth Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons (multilingual) by number of media files

Milestone	Project (dates milestones reached, in order of reaching them)
1,750,000	(11 August)
1,700,000	(late July 2007)
1,600,000	(1 July 2007)
1,500,000	news item (25 May 2007)
1,000,000	press release (30 November 2006)
600,000	news item (15 May 2006)
500,000	(25 March 2006)
100,000	press release (24 May 2005)
1,000	news item (5 October 2004)
0	news item (7 September 2004)

Source

Siebrand 13:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

At this increase rate, there will be 100,000,000 files in Commons on end of 2011. The issue is: “How will we manage these files?” --Juiced lemon 21:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, by then the bots may be advanced enough to do most of the work for us. :) --Tom (talk - email) 22:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

@Juiced lemon: I'd much rather have an even higher growth. Compared to other image sites (let's say the top 3), 100M is not that much even at this moment in time - we would remain a marginal project. By 2011 I'd sure hope we have over 1,000,000,000 images. My current opinion is that Commons has not even really started to take off as a project (outside, but even inside, WMF). The explosion of uploads is yet to come. Cheers! Siebrand 09:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OMG. When you put it that way, it's really scary. :) How will we ever cope? We're so underprepared. But I suppose it was ever thus. This is a good aim to keep in mind for future planning. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes we need to be remembered of the magnitude of the promise. We will cope - eventually. Have faith and keep on doing what you are good at and like doing. Keep on making constructive proposals that are w:SMART. Automate where possible. Improve templates, educate new users as early as possible in their carreer. Shameless COM:WL plug: did you check the contributions of 10 new users today using COM:WL?! ;) Cheers! Siebrand 18:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Second Life

Moved to Commons:Help desk. Siebrand 09:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

NavFrame Does not work properly in the Commons

• Does anyone know why the JavaScript NavFrame "show" button does not appear here on the commons? It works just fine in wikipedia and both pages have the exact same wording, but it does not work how it is suppose to here. Perhaps there is something wrong with the MediaWiki:Common.js? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Digon3 ^talk 16:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here on Commons the code is in MediaWiki:Monobook.js, so it only worked for the monobook skin. But something has changed so it does not work at all. The hidable navigation boxes worked on June 21 (when I made this edit), but on July 11 (when Emijrp made this edit) it was broken. So something happened between those dates. Probably in the monobook.js file, but possibly by some conflicting addition to the Common.js file or some other js file. It might be a good idea have the code in the common.js file so that it works for other skins too. I think Commons has users with good JS skills who can fix the current code here or decide if it is better to use the code from English Wikipedia. /~~

15 August 2007

Content that should perhaps be moved (or at least copied)

Image:Schneider-Eddie August 1911-1940 c1930b.jpg has an awful lot of text content. It borders on being a combination of a non-image page for Commons and a large part of an encyclopedia article. I suspect this should not all be sitting in a picture caption on Commons. Any suggestions on whether (and how) to disarticulate it? - Jmabel | talk 20:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Much if not all of this text appears to be in Eddie_August_Schneider so I think it could be safely deleted. Have you contacted the uploader? ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I contacted the uploader. I don't intend to follow this up further, not really my area, I posted here mainly as an FYI. - Jmabel | talk 20:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Meet our photographers

• Is there someplace that we can provide a link to this on the main page, welcome page, and maybe the community portal? Meet our photographers showcases a selection of the highly skilled photographers who choose to use open content licenses and donate their work to the Wikimedia Commons. Each photographer on this page has contributed at least 10 Featured Pictures, which is quite a feat. It is intended to impress journalists rather than Wikimedians. --Digon3 ^talk 20:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters"

Why doesn't Image:Map of administrative regions in Israel.png get a thumbnail? BenB4 03:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Because as a matter of intentional policy for over a year now, PNG and GIF images with dimensions greater than about 12 megapixels are not resized. At 3300x6318, that image has about 20 megapixels. AnonMoos 07:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jacob Georg Christian Adler Reisebemerkungen auf einer Reise nach Rom-Titelblatt.gif

My upload attempt towards Image:Jacob Georg Christian Adler Reisebemerkungen auf einer Reise nach Rom-Titelblatt.gif does not work. At first, I did a copy of the google page which turned out blank. Then, I did a photograph from the computer display of a book title located at

http://books.google.de/books?id=9NgFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PP7&dq=adler+reise+nach+rom#PPP7,M1. 

I have been uploading hundreds of photos this way but this time it just doesn't work (message: file corrupt). Could someone please

• explain the reason and/or
• upload it for me?

In case the file is lost, this would be a possible text:

DescriptionVillage pump/Archive/2007/08	Deutsch: Titelblatt des Buches Reisebemerkungen auf einer Reise nach Rom von Jacob Georg Christian Adler
Date	1784
Source	Google Buchsuche
Author
Permission (Reusing this file)	PD-Art

Thanks a lot, -- Mattes 19:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I uploaded it just now as Image:Jacob Georg Christian Adler Reisebemerkungen auf einer Reise nach Rom-Titelblatt.jpg. I changed the licensing tag to PD-Old, as I think that's more appropriate. I don't know why your original upload didn't work. I see there's a bit of a frame at the bottom and the right. I'll re-upload a better crop (took a screenshot) in the next hour. Anrie 06:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. I hope the size is okay, I had to zoom out a bit to fit it in for the screenshot. If you have a high resolution (and can fit it in in one go), you might want to retry. Anrie 06:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your efforts - it turned out just fine!!! -- Mattes 07:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What was the problem here? Right-clicking on the image at the Google page, choosing "Save image..." and then uploading worked just fine. No need to do screenshots and the like. Full title page in 575×1000px at Image:Jakob Georg Christian Adler Reisebemerkungen auf einer Reise nach Rom-Titelblatt.png. Lupo 09:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I tried it with right-clicking, too, but in FF 1.5 and IE 6 I just get a "cleardot.gif" of 1×1px ... Regards -- JörgM 20:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I used FF 2.0.0.6. Maybe time to upgrade to the current version? ;-) Lupo 08:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Video conversion help needed

I tried all the different software for converting my mp4 video to ogg. All I could manage was conversion without either audio or video (using ffmpeg2theora). Can someone help me with this conversion? The current audio file is at Image:TamilFolkMusicInFuneral.ogg. -- Sundar 07:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I managed to do it myself using the same software in Windows! Now, can someone rotate the frames anti-clockwise by 90 degrees? -- Sundar 08:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you managed it yourself. Otherwise, I would have proposed the software w:MediaCoder (Windows OS). This makes conversion pretty easy. I do not know if the encoding page is already updated to include this software. It is free software, too. Longbow4u 12:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Longbow. I've now used your said tool and fixed the frame orientation as well. Now, I have to upload the edited file. -- Sundar 03:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Template:PD-Polishsymbol

There's a mistake in Template:PD-Polishsymbol. The template references a wrong part of a Polish law. The mistake has been noted on the template's talk page in March, but nobody reacted to this. Since it's protected, I can't fix it myself. As the talk page says, "Article 4, case 4" should be replaced with "Article 4, case 2". If you understand Polish, you may want to check Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych for reference. Kpalion 01:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your attention. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Drag and zoom in 360 degrees panoramas

I have uploaded a 360 degrees panorama on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Huldenberg_kerk_panoramic360.jpg What I do for myself on my Macintosh computer is to convert such an image to a Cubic Quicktime VR Movie (extention .mov) with the program CubicConverter. Then I have something that can be viewed as panoramas in http://www.panoramas.dk/7-wonders/index.html

What I would like is to upload in addition of the jpg file of the panorama also the movie in a format acceptable for Wiki-Commons and that enables to drag and zoom in the panorama. What are the possibilities and how to do that? Thanks --Wouter 22:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The only 'movie' format we accept is Ogg. I am not sure if it's possible to convert Quicktime to Ogg but I suppose it must be. Try Help:Converting video. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the "click and drag" function in quicktime is something that is supported by either the OGG format or wikipedia commons. But thats just what I think. Notwist 10:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

On the page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Converting_video I have given my experience under the title ffmpeg2theora and MPlayer OS X do not work. Indeed what Notwist is saying, with the experience now, I don't think that the "click and drag" function is supported within Wikipedia Commons. --Wouter 22:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The MOV files he's talking about aren't movies, so they can't be converted to theora. Apple just throws everything into that file extension... If there is demand we could offer a panorama viewer, like PTViewer, in the future. (you can see ptviewer on a sample image here. --Gmaxwell 22:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be a very good thing to have a panorama viewer available!! Gregory do you have an idea when it will be in the future? --Wouter 08:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Logos in free images

Hello! I'm not sure if there is any template for this but i randomly tried Template:Logos which did not exist. My thought is that images that contain non-free logos but are licensed under a free license should also have some kind of notification that these logos are still protected. I thought of this while seeing , an image of the Windows Vista upgrade pack. It is in the public domain, but it would still not be OK to for example cut out the vista logo in the image and use for marketing my own business?

Just a thought. Regards Notwist 10:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You can use {{Trademark}} for that purpose. --rimshot^talk 12:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's clear derivative work. File must be deleted. --EugeneZelenko 14:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not quite as clear as you make it out to be. I don't think it was a very good idea to delete the image just as it is being discussed. Whether the Microsoft logo itself can be copyrighted is currently under discussion. The Vista logo is very probably copyrightable (and copyrighted), but it might be incidental to the picture. We cannot tell, as it was deleted without any discussion whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I might have agreed on deleting the picture in a deletion discussion, I just don't think this was a case for a speedy deletion. If we have any decision on packaging, in particular packaging with logos, could you point me to it?--rimshot^talk 16:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

---

There's July discussion on somewhat the same topic directly above, under heading "Copyrighted Package"... AnonMoos 10:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I was only looking the in the archive ... --rimshot^talk 12:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

19 August 2007

Automatic redirection with a template

How can I create an automatic redirection with a template, like Template:Alternative category? It doesn't work at the moment: see Category:Messier 104. Thanks for help.--Juiced lemon 09:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what a Category Redirect is for? If you want to make a real redirect, #REDIRECT [[newname]] works on categories as well. This kind of redirect does not work if there is anything else on the page besides the redirect link. --rimshot^talk 10:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have directly placed the #redirect command in Category:Messier 104, and I have added the character “a” in the page. The redirection works, but the character is not displayed.

I want to categorize this kind of redirection for maintenance purposes. --Juiced lemon 10:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried subst:ing the template? At least in theory, it should work. --rimshot^talk 11:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging of categories

Hi, I think Category:Kotor and Category:Kotor, Montenegro should be merged but I do not know which name should apply neither the procedure to follow. Poulos 14:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Sorry maybe there is a better place to ask this kind of things but I don't know where it would be either.

Looks like en:Kotor doesn't have ambiguity, so you could move all related content there. You could use MediaWiki:Cat-a-lot.js for this purpose. Then change Category:Kotor, Montenegro to {{category redirect|Kotor}}. --EugeneZelenko 14:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm going to do that. Poulos 14:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

need good high res pictures from Switzerland

The organization commitee for Wikipedia Day Berne 2007 is looking for good high res pictures about Switzerland here. Everybody is allowed to nominate images! Thx --Ikiwaner 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Moral rights disclaimer

Moral rights are the whole reason for the debate behind the Creative Commons 3.0 licenses. We cannot change the text of the 3.0 licenses (though we can lobby Creative Commons to alter it in a future version). However, we could add a explicit moral rights disclaimer to all new works created by Wikimedians. Furthermore, we could make this a default addition to all new {{Self}} uploads.

I'm not really that familiar with the legal text that would be required; but we could add a switch like moral-waiver=yes to {{Self}}, then all new uploads from Commons:Upload and Special:Upload using self could have this added by default. This means that no existing uploads will have this term added. This is probably a good step to make on CC-3.0, and in addition would clarify moral rights on all other licenses.--Nilfanion 00:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If I remember right, in an earlier lengthy discussion about CC-3.0 (on Commons talk:Licensing) there was an IMHO undisputed statement that you can't waive moral rights and that a license might even become invalid by waiving or disclaiming moral rights. Even Jimbo seems to think that way[5]. -- Túrelio 08:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If we do this, we would end up with say something like: "This image is licensed under these licenses: A, B. In addition, the author waives all his moral rights associated with this image". The license itself is exactly the same, the author is just saying they are waiving their moral rights to the fullest extent possible under applicable law (which may be not possible at all of course), as an extra statement with no direct relation to copyright.--Nilfanion 11:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the use in waiving ones moral rights? Moral rights grants you the right that the work will not be used in a way defamatory to you. Who would want that? / Fred J 11:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is commons policy that images we accept must allow all kinds of modifications. Even ones the author will not like. It could easily be argued that a really ugly touched up version is defamatory to the reputation of the original author. The purpose of our own licensing demands is to protect the downstream freedom of re-users... and that includes the freedom to be reasonable secure against expensive and time wasting litigation, just because someone doesn't like your derivative.

Túrelio, Jimmy did not claim the license release would become invalid by waiving moral rights, and even if that were a risk we can be robust against it by making the moral rights release a separate agreement which a court could invalidate independently.

In concept I think Nilfanion's idea is great. CC-By-*3.0 is already set up in a way which allows one to waive the license requirement for moral rights through a separate agreement. --Gmaxwell 13:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As I didn't follow the CC-3.0 discussion lately, has there been any final consensus here or a binding decision by the foundation about "conditions" (like the proposed default MR disclaimer) for the acceptance of CC 3.0 on Commons? -- Túrelio 14:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"It could easily be argued that a really ugly touched up version is defamatory to the reputation of the original author." -- no, that is unrealistic and not at all the idea of the moral right disclaimer. / Fred J 15:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales doesn't seem to have a problem with the terms of the CC-By-*3.0, besides even though not explicitly mentioned, the older CC-by licenses nor the GFDL do not waive the moral rights, hence the affected party could still take legal action Madmax32 10:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow this link to the latest discussion thread about CC 3.0 on Commons talk:Licensing. -- Túrelio 08:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We can certainly implement a more limited disclaimer. CC found it necessary to explicitly state in 3.0 that moral rights were waived to an extent sufficient to allow derivative works (Japan was the example used). If their legal analysis is correct, and I see no reason to doubt it, it would only be logical to add and enforce a similar waiver in addition to the standard GFDL and other cc licenses... after all that type of moral rights could be equating to an ND restriction. And certainly, there are some who would want to use the full waiver - so we might as well implement it; just not necessary make it the default (for now).--Nilfanion 10:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why bother I would ask? Since the 'moral rights' are set out by individual laws and cases in various counties and states, they are independent of copyright status, just like personality rights, etc, I mean a photo of the Queen of England may be Public domain but under British (and others) law you can't do anything you want with it, also consider the fact that the owner of the copyright of an image cannot waive rights of others depicted in the image (just like personality rights) Madmax32 10:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Flickr

Ok, I am having a hard time understanding what makes Flickr images "free use". I sent a message to Erik, who controls the Flickr images. Here's the message (I have yet to get a reply)

"Hi there Erik. Now, I'm sure you've probably been asked this question a thousand times or so, but what if at Flickr the uploader decides to declare "ownership" of the picture, i.e., they put a copyright on it? Are they allowed to do that at Flickr, or are those images, when uploaded, released into the public domain. And, if they are allowed to copyright them, then what happens to them on Commons? Do they suddenly become fair use, subject to deletion from the Commons and all subsequent places they are, and not allowed back on Wikipedia unless no free use alternative can be found? Thanks"

I only ask because, and it may be getting into the message a bit, but how can you allow "iffy" images, i.e, images that can have their copyright changed to make them "fair use" technically. Thanks for your help Soxrock 22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Soxrock,

Flickr allows users to put their images under free licenses. By default they are "all rights reserved". If you look at this example, underneath the heading "Additional information" you can see a line that says "Some rights reserved" as a link, and some icons. The icons and link tell you which license the image is available under. In this case it is Attribution ShareAlike, CC-BY-SA. (We only accept two of the Creative Commons licenses: CC-BY and CC-BY-SA.)

Even when an author releases a work under a free license, they still always retain copyright of their work.

It is true that a user on Flickr could change their images from using a free license, back to "all rights reserved", or an unacceptable license. Legally, a free license cannot be revoked, so our use of the image is legally OK if it actually was valid at some time. However to respect Flickr users' wishes we will probably delete such images on request.

We now have a review system where each image from Flickr is independently confirmed to be available under a free license. This solves the problem of figuring out if the license was ever valid in the first place. For more information about this system, have a look at Commons:Flickr images. If you have any more questions, please ask. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks much for the response. It was just a bit confusing to me that a free content repository would accept images that could at one time or another not be "free" content. Again, thanks Soxrock 00:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a Commons:Flickr FAQ would be in order...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wikiswing.gif

This image is listed as being copyright by the Foundation as it includes the Wikipedia globe. However it is not made for the Foundation and I can't imagine it being used by them. With the exception of nl and lt it is being used on userpages, in violation of en's policy on non-free images on user pages. What do we do with what amounts to wikipedia logo fan art? Secretlondon 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If en.wp wants to remove all WMF images in en.wp userspace, they can go for it. I don't see that Commons is going to do anything about it. To date there has been implicit acceptance of WMF "fan art". If they decide they no longer want us to accept it, I am sure they will let us know and we will act on that decision at that time. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Image not showing up in galleries

Besides not being a good choice of image name (which I'll note and move on) Image:Art.jpg seems not to show up in category pages. Anyone understand what is going on? - Jmabel | talk 18:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Second. I cannot see it in gallery in Mozilla 1.7.13, Win XP.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. But isn't that also a derivative work of this sculpture? And isn't this a recent sculpture and thus copyrighted? The U.S. does not have freedom of panorama for sculptures. Lupo 06:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it by regenerating the 120px thumbnail. you guys may like this script: MediaWiki:ThumbnailPurger.js. It adds useful links to the toolbox for images. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Secure and unsecure commons

I stumbled upon https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/User:Jeff_G. declaring that commons is avaibable with SSL protected data exchange (which is more secure for users).

Is that a (official) project? Is there any page to get more information (Can anybody use it and how? Is it slower in access for the user? To what extent does this effect the Server? Is that somehow promoted anywhere?)

BTW Why are Wikimedia pages not equipped with SSL in the first place? BFN, -- Mattes 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

SSL connections take a great deal of computing power to set up. On a computer not equipped with SSL acceleration hardware, it's on the order of one to two seconds. Doesn't sound like much, but when you multiply it by the thousands of users Wikipedia has, it starts to add up. --Carnildo 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But why not just secure the login page? Thats where it would be needed the most. --Digon3 ^talk 12:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet again a copyright paranoia

Could you do something with this crazy bot? I type by myself PD-old for images. What exactly this bot wants from me? (at my talk page). #!George Shuklin 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Where it says source you should say where you got the picture, ie. the name of the book from which you scanned it, the url of the webpage you got it from, something like that. Then the bot'll stop harassing you. Anrie 20:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, unless you are more than 103 years old, you are not the author of images like Image:Порт Артур. Углубленный западный бассейн.jpg, if, indeed, they are from 1904, as you claim. Supplying us with the source will allow any user to verify the date and the author of the image. Anrie 20:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I put a complete description. This is a Нива journal for 1904. I put a PD-old licence label. And THIS image is created by me. My work (image recovering/retoching) is NOT an object of author rights (in Russian law terms, at least). But this image created by ME. What's wrong with description? In any case, if I make an incorrect description, why this image is marked for deleting? Some time i've thinks, that wikimedia is not a best place for images, due overagressive bots and language discrimination... #!George Shuklin 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you got the picture from a Нива journal from 1904 you need to state that as the source. Scanning in a picture from a journal does not make you the author of the picture, the author is the person who took/draw the picture originally. Anrie 05:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Imagesdenormandie

Hello! The website http://www.imagesdenormandie.com states: "Ces images sont en copyleft. Vous pouvez utiliser librement et gratuitement ces photos en citant notre site comme auteur." I would like to know:

• can I upload images from this website to commons?
• if yes, which license applies?

Cicero 21:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Rough Translation "images are in copyleft. You can use freely and free these photographs by quoting our site as author." So yes, you can upload these to the commons by using the license {{attribution|www.imagesdenormandie.com}}. --Digon3 ^talk 21:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your answer. Cicero 22:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyvios? (derivative works)

I'm inclined to believe these are derivative works of nintendo artwork. Comments?

And while we're at it, from the same user Image:Matsuri-chan.png is derivative work of Strawberry Marshmallow, and I'm unsure of Image:Sleevedvsunsleevedcards.jpg, Image:Holofoil-4card.jpg -- Drini 15:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are photos of Magic The Gathering cards in various poses - as illustrations perhaps? And Grandy02 is correct about the mushrooms. They aren't exact copies of the Nintendo icons (of course I don't think Nintendo ever copyrighted them either and they vary quite a bit from game to game...)

Looks derivative to me. -- Infrogmation 00:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What about their sister, the eyed star?

• 

Also by the same user. Regards. --Dodo 15:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Infrogmation - looks derivative

I remember a picture which (If I'm right) got deleted, because it's content was the alien of the film with the smae name on the film set...

--D-Kuru 23:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for copyright violation. When somebody draws a very simple looking mushroom or star and puts eyes on it, it can't forbid you to draw an own mushroom or star and put eyes on it as well. It isn't an exact copy of the Nintendo artwork, but a free interpretation, so I see no problem. --Grandy02 18:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The star is really too simple to be copyrighted. About the mushrooms I don't know. Should go through a deletion request. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not bring copyright discussions here. Use COM:DEL. They are not speedyable. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 13:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible minor issue with User:Drumguy8800/Picture

I'm not sure if this is an issue, so I'm asking here before bringing it up with Drumguy. His copyright tag - User:Drumguy8800/Picture - contains the GFDL with a statement above explaining it, which is fine. But that includes the following:

"You may NOT use this image on your own web site or anywhere else unless you release this image and any derivative works (e.g. your web site) by following the terms of the following license."

It's my understanding that embedding a GFDL file into a website does not require that website to be released under the GFDL; otherwise Wikipedia would have problems in the other direction, since it accepts cc-by-sa images but is released under the GFDL. But does it not work in the other direction? If Wikipedia used cc-by-sa for text, could it not use GFDL images? --NE2 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like he is pushing his own interpretation of what a "derivative work" is, when it comes to images. His view is one that I have heard, but as the GFDL hasn't been tested in court it's hard to say whose interpretation a court would agree with. At any rate, it seems a bad idea to let people push their own interpretation of specific licenses.

I suggest we stick with the de-facto interpretation Wikimedia has implicitly used so far, that combining text and images doesn't create a derivative work of either and they can each retain their own separate license. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Similar issue discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chanticleer Gardens Main House Springtime 2892px.jpg William Avery 21:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Finnish Defence Forces copyright

see [6]: "The Finnish Defence Forces copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge but the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged." Material of Finnish Defence Forces is free copyright?--Shizhao 13:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FinnishDefenceForces. --Para 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't grant the freedom to modify the images so they don't count as free per policy here. Haukurth 14:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Signature updates

I am inclined to update my sigs using my bot unless there are any serious objections. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 13:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that that serves absolutely no purpose. But whatever, go ahead. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Check Usage" not working

When I try to check the usage of any of my contributed images, I get the following database error:

Database Error: User 'daniel_www' has exceeded the 'max_user_connections' resource (current value: 30) (sql)
- failed to connect to log database
- failed to log script start!

Database Error: User 'daniel_www' has exceeded the 'max_user_connections' resource (current value: 30) (sql)
- failed to connect to WikiList database

failed to connect to WikiList database
- script start not logged! logging end anyway.

Hopefully someone can clear this. Ian Fieggen 23:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There were some database issues today. Try again tomorrow, if it still doesn't work, let us know. I've encountered the exact same error multiple times today, alas. NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 05:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Are images from google map allowed to be uploaded?

I am enquiring about the usage of aerial images taken from google maps, basically screen shots of places? Is that permitted under the GNU? -- LoNdIuM   ^{Speak to me}_{Contributions} -- 01:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No. A little more (unneeded) information: Google Maps prominently displays (c) Google Maps on its images, so no, that's not ok nor permitted under GFDL. Neither are adaptations of the images which would amount to derivative work. NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 05:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Template for encouraging translations

I jut wanted to note that I created a template that can be used on the description of the image, to encourage the translation of such description. It's {{Translate description}}, categorized under Category:Internationalization templates. If you think there is a more suitable category, please go ahead and move it. I'd like your help to remove the "external link image", I think it would be nicer if it wasn't any. Also, you might check if the phrase is correctly posed. - Keta 17:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image, following {{Edit}} I saw that it was just adding class="plainlinks". - Keta 17:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Russian copyright law and "freedom of panorama"

It has been argued (here for example) that latest russian copyright law regarding Freedom of panorama prohibits the reproduction of public monuments except for "non-commercial purposes". This would mean that not only pictures of these objects may never appear in the WP but neither in any book, travel guide, TV documentary etc. around the world. - Now I can't believe that this is the intention of the russian lawmakers. Do others share this interpretation of the russian law? If so, what proposal could a good advisor give the russian government to modify their law in a way that makes sense; like it seems to be in the majority of the rest of the world? --Burn t 17:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't use images of monuments (not in public domain) commercially without permission from author/copyrights owner. See article 21 of Russian copyrights law.

Russia is not unique. For example, same provisions exists in copyrights laws of majority of ex-USSR countries. Actually USA have same restrictions, so majority of the rest of the world is not correct term. See Commons:Freedom of panorama for details.

Sure, lobbing for changes of copyrights laws in all affected countries for allowing freedom of panorama is good idea.

EugeneZelenko 15:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Commercial use" in this context is broader than most people think and it can be confusing for some people. Most freedom of panorama laws include the ability to reproduce and distribute the work. This wouldn't stop you from, for example, reprinting the image in a travel guide or a newspaper for commentary purposes. You could even sell the book without really using the work commercially. "Commercial use" of the work, on the other hand, would include selling pictures by themselves, selling postcards and t-shirts, or perhaps building a replica of the work and charging people money to see it. Commons requires that photos be free not just for reprinting but direct commercial exploitation. -N 13:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's interesting idea, that if you place image in travel guide/newspaper, you didn't use it commercially. Is it proven in court or you mean faur use? However even if you right, this will not help you in Russia if copyrighted work is basic object of such reproduction, broadcasting or cablecasting for general public knowledge and you don't have author permission. --EugeneZelenko 14:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that any book etc is a commercial use. The second point I interpret differently, though - in the cited english text it says ".. may be reproduced if the work is not the main subject of the reproduction or if the reproduction is used only non-commercially", and this "or" is not to be read as "and", i.e. _if_ it is non-commercial, you may use _full-size_ pictures of the object. So, lets open an alternative WP site where any media use is stricly "non-commercial", and we could show these pictures. --Burn t 15:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that there has been a classical logical error. NOT (A OR B) = (NOT A) AND (NOT B). Hence to get from "is allowed, except where portrayal of the work is the basic object [...] OR where portrayal of the work is used for commercial purposes" to a sentence constructed with "is allowed if", it should read "is allowed if the work is not the main subject of the reproduction AND the reproduction is used only non-commercially." (terms A and B highlighted, the "NOT's" are underlined. Lupo 15:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately other restriction I quoted (usage for general public knowledge) will prohibit such project. Full paragraph:

Article 21. Free Use of Works Permanently Situated in Places of Public Resort

Reproduction, broadcasting or cablecasting for general public knowledge shall be
allowed, without the author's consent or payment of royalties, of works of architecture,
photography and figurative art permanently located in places of public resort, except
where portrayal of the work is the basic object of such reproduction, broadcasting or
cablecasting for general public knowledge or where portrayal of the work is used for
commercial purposes.

I don't know how such law could work on practice... Looks like any sculptor should hire legion of lawyers to handle permissions.

EugeneZelenko 16:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Typically, that's what collecting societies are there for. Lupo 19:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be useful if Eugene read the Russian version of the law, to see if its message is the same. / Fred J 16:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes. - Yes, I follow the change of "or" to "and" based on the complete english text. And yes, if someone fluent in russian commented the original it would be very helpful. --Burn t 18:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I note, however, that Elst, M.: Copyright, Freedom of Speech, and Cultural Policy in the Russian Federation, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, 2005; ISBN 9-004-14087-5 also agrees with the interpretation that both conditions must be fulfilled (p. 432f). Furthermore, the same interpretation problem exists at least for all the other successor states of the USSR, and for Romania. Judging from the English translations available (all listed at COM:FOP), there are only three clear cases: both the Armenian and the Uzbekh law clearly specify that both conditions must be fulfilled, and only the Azerbaijani law clearly states that it's one or the other (thereby allowing commercial uses of overview shots). For all the others, we have exactly the same interpretation problem as for Russia. The three Baltic states' laws are pretty clear that both conditions must be fulfilled. Note that countries where both conditions are necessary are de facto no-FOP countries for us, since we don't allow non-commercial-use-only images. Lupo 07:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just original Russian text and my attempt to interpret.

Статья 21. Свободное использование произведений, постоянно расположенных в местах, открытых для свободного посещения

Допускается без согласия автора и без выплаты авторского вознаграждения воспроизведение, передача в
эфир или сообщение для всеобщего сведения по кабелю произведений архитектуры, фотографии, изобразительного искусства, которые постоянно расположены в месте, открытом для свободного посещения, 
за исключением случаев, когда изображение произведения является основным объектом таких
воспроизведения, передачи в эфир или сообщения для всеобщего сведения по кабелю или когда изображение 
произведения используется для коммерческих целей.

You can't without author permission royalties use images of copyrighted works in 2 cases:

1. Make them publicly available if copyrighted work is main subject (когда изображение произведения является основным объектом таких воспроизведения, передачи в эфир или сообщения для всеобщего сведения по кабелю (where portrayal of the work is the basic object of such reproduction, broadcasting or cablecasting for general public knowledge))
2. Use them commercially (когда изображение произведения используется для коммерческих целей (where portrayal of the work is used for commercial purposes))

EugeneZelenko 14:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thus not even overview shots in which no single copyrighted work/building is the main subject can be used commercially? (Assuming, of course, that the image does include such copyrighted works at all.) That doesn't bode well for the numerous images of Russia we have. Lupo 14:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And, is a building really "copyrighted work"? What we read here makes sense for art/design and text - but is it really meant for public architecture? The "reproduction" of a painting with a camera might make the print look like an original, but a picture of a building will definitely not. Literally, "reproduction" of a building could be done by rebuilding it, based on several pictures of the original maybe, but not by a picture alone. --Burn t 00:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, on that part, the Russian copyright law is very clear: buildings are objects of copyright as works of architecture. So are the blueprints. A photo of a building is a reproduction, and if the building is copyrighted, it's a derivative work. (It's the same in other countries, too. E.g. in Germany and Austria, to name just two. Are you familiar with the "Hundertwasserhaus" case?)

According to Elst, works of urban planning and "landscape gardening" (is that the same as "landscape architecture"?) are not covered by §21. I must admit that it is not clear to me what a work of urban planning would be. Lupo 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Russian copyrights law speaks only about works of architecture. But term works of architecture is defined in other parts of Civil Code of Russia.

Some time ago I asked Belarusian lawyer, and she told that Civil Code of Belarus doens't have such definition. She also referred to Civil Code of Kazakhstan, where works of architecture are projects/blueprints/etc but not buildings themselves.

EugeneZelenko 14:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, this would change the message completely. On my next visit to Moscow I will try to dig further into this. --Burn t 18:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Too esoteric

I really tried very hard to improve an article, and I'm no dummy to the internet. But after uploading two photos and forgetting to add a copyright tag (the images are my own work), I found it an impossible waste of time to try to figure out how to add the copyright tag after the fact.

Forget it.

• disgusted* —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.8.187.68 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 23. Aug. 2007

After uploading, you click the "edit" button and add a Copyright tag. There is also Commons:Help and Commons:First steps. --Fb78 07:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, you may consider registering, it facilitates communication and gives you access to better tools. And there is always Commonist for automatization...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this user is registered (but not logged in now), since he says he has uploaded two photos. /81.231.248.85 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Many users unfortunately think that they can reuplod the image with the same name, and that the description page will change. Ah, well -- I wish it will be like that some day! Currently, you have to go to the image page and press "edit" at the top, just like in any other article. / Fred J 20:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure it would be good to change descriptions when uploading new versions. The new file should be an improved version of the same image. In most cases it should be enough to put appropriate comments in the file history. In some cases small edits to the descriptions might be needed. But the description and licensing should not have changed. If the new file versions are so different that larger changes to the descriptions are needed, it is often better to upload the new version using a different file name. I think the current system (were the summary field is only used as comments in the file history) would be good if there were special upload instructions for uploading new versions of files. /Ö 00:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

24 August 2007

Can I have automatically updated wikipedia in my blog?

Hi,

I consult Wikipedia every now and then. I also love having a new wikipedia article or picture of the day everyday in my Facebook. I was just wondering if it would be possible to have something like that in my blog.

For example, www.thefreedictionary.com offers free regularly updated content to bloggers. And I love this service! I am using it at http://shongjog.wordpress.com/

Also note that if this service is made available, it has to be ensured that the link code is pure HTML. Otherwise bloggers at http://wordpress.com won't be able to benefit from it, as it doesn't allow anything but HTML for security reasons.

Thanks for your time. I would greatly appreciate a feedback asap.

Dear anon, this is not Wikipedia - this is the Wikimedia Commons project. Try asking at Wikipedia:Help desk.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Village pump archives

Hello! When adding the two archives of July and August to the archives front page and trying to update the template Template:Village pump archives after (last update: 19th January 2007), I detected that there are double archives for

• Dezember 2006 (Commons:Village pump archive/2006Dec and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2006Dec),
• March 2007 (Commons:Village pump archive/2007Mar and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007Mar) and
• April 2007 (Commons:Village pump archive/2007Apr and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007Apr)

(at least). How to deal with?

And by the way: The last archives seem to be a little bit disordered - some threads are ordered by first date, some by last date, some below a correct date heading, some below an incorrect date heading or with no date heading ... -- JörgM 09:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

27 August 2007

Fan Art policy

I am copying over a bit I wrote at Commons talk:Fan art in order to open it to wider discussion. Having since located the relevant policy, I want to add that what I would like specifically reconsidered is the bullet point of Commons:Derivative works#Casebook, "Images of characters/objects/scenes in books are subject to any copyright on the book itself." The comparison between fan art and a movie seems to me very inapt, and this should explain why. I've inserted an additional [comment] in places.

Fan art of literary characters

this section has been removed, because the discussion is taking place at Commons talk:Fan art / Fred J 16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Sverige

Information, for any Swedes: A start up meeting for a Wikimedia Sverige is due on October 20, 2007 at sv:Naturhistoriska riksmuseet. Relevant info will be found on Meta:Wikimedia Sverige, preparation dicussions can be found on sv:Wikipedia:Wikimedia Sverige. Some discussion has also taken place on wikisv-l. Micke 07:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Some translation suggestions ?

Does anyone have any inspiration for an English language word for the Dutch (Flemish?) "nl:roepsteen" ? Composed of "roep" (from "roepen" = to call) and "steen" = stone. Before the invention of all modern means of communication, a "roepsteen" was located in village centres, usually near town halls or churches. From this "roepsteen" , official messages were announced to the population. Off course, once newspapers and so got popular, this wasn't used anymore.

Now I don't known if these were used elsewhere, nor if there is a well-defined English word for it. (Though we don't need to invent one ourselves I suppose). An English word would come in handy to provide Image descriptions in English ;-) --LimoWreck 17:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This stone was typically used by the en:town crier: he was standing on such a stone (podium) to announce new laws, rules and events. --Foroa 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I need some help

I uploaded Image:Foro romano.jpg‎ without noticing the little message about an already existing image with that name, so I replaced it without willing to do so. Can anybody undo my error? My intention is to reload my image with a different name.

Thanks, --Filipo 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the image, but for some reason it won't let me delete your version ("There is no archived version of Foro romano.jpg with the specified attributes."). Not that it should really harm anything to leave the old one in the history. --Davepape 01:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

28 August 2007

Commons:Welcome log

What's the story with this page? This seems an excellent system to ensure that all new users who needs guidance gets noticed (i.e. get's template generated notices on their talk-page but still...;), but there doesn't seem to be any activity except from bot's adding new users regularly. Aren't we supposed to remove users from the list when their contributions has been checked and responded to? Or are new users being greeted elsewhere - it would appear inefficient to use Special:Log/newusers, and harder to check using Special:Contributions/newbies but maybe I'm missing something here? Finn Rindahl 18:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, remove users from the list when you have checked their contribs. It has little activity because it's quite overwhelming and can cause some disillusioned burnout if you do it for a long time, and it's not usually a whole lot of fun... but please use it, revive it, get other people to help out. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WORLD MAPS

Hi, does anyone knows where the geographical maps/ atlases are? thanks RPDC

Check out the quite impressive Atlas. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Doubled Pictures

The last mediawiki-update added sha1-hashcodes for all pictures. With the hash it is very easy to find identical pictures which have differend names (like Image:Pedro.jpg and Image:PedroIII.jpg). I hacked a little tool, that should help with that. The tool shows the name of identical pictures, the pictures and a link to checkusage for each picture. The job of the user is to find out, which picture is more used, correct the links of the other, controll the meta-data and (if the user is admin) delete the lesser-used picture. It's a beta-version so feedback is very welcome :). --DaB. 00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome!! Thankyou!

It would be cool if you could use the Javascript Check-usage on the same page, because I think nearly every time someone looks at a dupe, they will try to replace them.

Also, link to CommonsDelinker, so people can use the "universal replace" command and not re-link dupes by hand if there are many links. -pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the link to the commonsdelinker and put filled-in-templates on the toolpage too.

I think that an automate javascript check would use to many resources at the wm-server. --DaB. 15:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion / deletion

I see that over the past few months Commons:Categories for discussion has acquired some instructions (rather hard to follow, as far as I can tell, and with some links along the way to nonexistent instruction pages). These instructions seem to presume that "discussing" category is tantamount to a proposal to delete it (which I don't think should be the case: it should be possible, for example, tostart a discussion on how to split up a large category, or whether a category's contents are generally approprate to the category name.

Could someone who is more of a "player" here at Commons than I am please look into this? It came up for me because I wanted to propose renaming Category:Greece Orthodox churches as Category:Greek Orthodox churches; I'm proposing a rename, not a deletion. - Jmabel | talk 02:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You can use the {{Move}} template to propose the renaming of a category. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 04:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture of (alleged) criminals/offenders

Dear all,

Is it possible to use pictures of criminals arrested in the United States? (The type of picture with the guy in prison uniform holding a plate with his name.)

• I don't know what is the legal status of those images. Are they eligible for {{PD-USGov}}?
• Is is ethically acceptable to depict people this way on the Foundation's wikis?

I already saw that we have a page named convicts, but everything there is PD-old so the problem is different.

Thanks for your answer. Jérôme 07:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out Category:Mug shots and Template:PD-US-mugshot. --Fb78 08:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you very much. however there are now some conflicting information.

• The model {{PD-US-mugshot}} redirects to {{Copyvio}}, probably meaning that those images are not acceptable as a general rule;
• Some older images Image:Bill Gates mugshot.png are published as public domain because taken between 1923 and 1977 without copyright notice, confirming the idea that except in some specific case, these images are not acceptables.
• But some more recent images like Image:Jack Kevorkian.jpg simply display {{PD-USGov}} as if it was all ok, and apparently nobody cared to suppress them, so it must be ok in a way...

That's why I still have no idea whether these images are or not compatible with Commons' policy. If you have some complementaty information to give me, I thank you. Have a nice day. Jérôme 10:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps there is just no rule that covers all cases. Perhaps you'd like to tell us which pictures you want to use. --Fb78 10:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add a picture to the article w:Hans Reiser. There are many of them on the internet, but none under a suitable licence. So I wondered about the picture of him taken by the police. (I put a link to a press article in XML comments just here ). Jérôme 13:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not ask someone to put their image under a CC-BY license? That seems more humane than showing a mugshot --Fb78 14:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the personality rights (template: {{personality rights}} ) of those depicted might be considered. -- Túrelio 10:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Locked page

Please, could you explain me why is this image page locked? I would like to edit it. Thanks.--sevela.p 09:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

done - it was locked because it has been used on the main page. Two years ago. --Fb78 10:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with a deleted picture

Shortcut:
The Problem is that user spider uploaded Image:Konohagakure Symbol.svg, set {{Duplicate}} to Image:Workgroup Naruto.svg. I deleted his picture, because (as an admin told me when I started contributing on commons) it is/was the smaller one.
They don't look very different, but user spider says that his picture is nearer to the series.
However, it could be a derivative work (close to Commons:Village_pump#Copyvios.3F_.28derivative_works.29)
See User talk:D-Kuru#Image removal for the whole story...
thx for helping --D-Kuru 23:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I should probably add that there are actually three problems, not just one. These three problems should be treated and discussed separately:

1. D-Kuru deleting the image for all the wrong reasons. He clearly stated he didn't know that an SVG can be scaled (that's what "S" in SVG stands for), and during a discussion he was editing my comments [7] and forgetting to sign his [8], calling someone else's (Kmattheis's) work "stupid", etc. I wonder if admins with this level of competence and attitude will do good to Wikimedia Commons, especially in the area of deletions. Sorry if it sounds impolite, this is not personal bashing, this is about competent actions.
2. Image:Workgroup Naruto.svg being kept with Image:Konohagakure Symbol.svg being deleted. As I stated on D-Kuru's talk page, the deleted image is of cleaner and better quality than the alternative, it is simpler, closer to the original (perceived much, much less derivative), it is almost four times smaller in bytes, and just as infinitely scalable (SVG) as the alternative, it has a name that makes more sense and reflects the image contents better than the alternative, and it was created by me who is willing to release it as copyleft, while the source of the kept image is unknown. Whatever the outcome of the whole discussion might be, ths source must be found or the image must be deleted. Tertium non datur.
3. Proper licensing to all village logos and other possible images for Naruto universe. Personally, I am not aware if the symbol now known as Konohagakure symbol has been known and used before Naruto manga, but it is possible and I can do some inquiring (for example, a symbol now known as One Piece pirate crew logo was depicted first several years before that in Rurouni Kenshin manga). Yet I remember other mangaka (people who draw manga professionally) using the same symbol in their work without legal consequences, and I can post at least one proof (manga scan from Hunter x Hunter). However, if it's really a trademarked logo, it should be labelled as such (there are other vectorised logos at Wikimedia Commons). It is important that we attach proper license tags to all images, not just to those the admins don't want to undelete.

Thank you for your attention. --spider 07:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

add 1) i edited your entry before I answered you, because I don't like big pictures on my talk page. So why is it a probelm that I set : to your 800px image?
I agree that I forgot to sign my entry, because of wrinting in the village pump etc. but why is this also a 'problem' which which should be included in a discussion about a deleted picture?
Why is it a problem that I didn't know yet that svg files are scapable?
add "calling someone else's (Kmattheis's) work "stupid"": I wrote: "Also Image:14-segment.png drew somebody, but it is {{PD-ineligible}}, because you only see some stupid lines hanging around somewhere in the picture." I just wanted to point out that it really is {{PD-ineligible}} - moreover I called the lines stupid not the work as such.
We already had the discussion about commons admins with Drakorobot -> I don't think that this is usefull to discuss.

You said that you're "an admin on six different wiki sites" but I wonder why you have to use the bad admin vs. inocent user-play. You tell me that I'm not a good andmin, because I don't take "competent actions", but you behave as you say that I do.

add 3) "there are other vectorised logos at Wikimedia Commons": Logos are allowed if they are {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-ineligible}} - logos aren't allowed if they have to be tagged as {{Fair use}} or something like that.

--D-Kuru

(on#1) The point of setting image width to 800px was to show you how it scales. If you don't like to see the image, you could've ask me to remove it, or cut it out with HTML comments, probably adding some remark that you got my point. Instead, you changed my text to something that looks silly (a link with "800px" text) and that still looks like I wrote it, making people who read it believe that I'm retarded enough to think that by making such a link I'd show a resized image. I don't quite get what do you mean by saying "you behave as you say that I do" - when did I edit your comments to make them look sillier?

(on#1) If you don't know about SVG, you shouldn't make decisions on SVG files' quality and have the rights to remove them. That doesn't immediately make you a bad admin - perhaps you're very competent in some other areas like photography, or template coding, or running bots, etc. Usually I don't read discussions on Wikimedia Commons, so I don't know how many times you have already been accused of something like this, rightfully or otherwise, and frankly I don't care that much to start researching. It's just that some other people might notice my remarks and do something like distributing responsibilities better.

(on#3) I started a parallel discussion on Russian Wikipedia Anime Portal, and had a few comments already. People think that the work is definitely not trivial but don't yet have a steady proof of it being free or copyrighted (and by whom). I'll keep you posted on any useful input I'm gonna get there. If it's deemed to be fair use, all images in Category:Naruto should be removed from Wikimedia Commons. --spider 16:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Since no-one has responded with a steady claim that the work isn't copyrighted, a week passed, and people at ru.wikipedia almost unanimously think such pictures are fair use, I think the case is closed and quite clear. Thus, I nominated all derivative and fair use images in Category:Naruto for speedy deletion due to copyvio. They can later be re-uploaded to local Wikipedias, but cannot be stored on Wikimedia Commons. --spider 22:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing non-english pages

I have started translating some Commons and Help pages into Basque, but I have some doubts. When categorizing, I don't know if I should include them all into Category:Commons-eu, or start doing sub-categories and copy the style of Category:Commons-en. In other languages, most pages are within the main category "commons-xx", but not all, since for example in the German category there is sub-category Category:Commons Hilfe, which is equivalent to Category:Commons help. Also, at the top of Category:Commons-en it says All articles with the exception of Main Page and Commons:Community Portal get sorted in appropriate sub categories. But why don't the other languages follow this?

And what about pages like Commons:Featured pictures? In other languages, some are categorized under their main "commons-xx" category and others under Category:Commons projects. Shouldn't there be a category about projects for each language?

I have seen Commons:Category scheme Commons maintenance but I understand nothing. The sub-pages are identical to the English sub-page, and they all link to the English categories... I'm confused, and I'm afraid I'm confusing you too ;) Please, I need some advice on how to do this. Thanks in advance! - Keta 16:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The categorising is very haphazard, even for English, let alone the other languages. So I think do whatever makes sense to you... if you want to put all the Basque pages in a single category, go for it. Or otherwise divide up like Help pages/Policy pages. Just not too many different categories. Thanks for translating :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

29 August 2007

Question about font copyright

According to [9], the font used for the "Alberta" in en:Image:AB-provincial highway.png is "restricted to provincial government departments and agencies". I know that fonts are generally not copyrightable in the U.S. (is that true in Canada?); what exactly does that mean here? Can I create an SVG version, or do I have to use a publicly available font that looks similar? --NE2 11:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't really answer your question, but in the U.S. it's really only abstract font glyph shapes which are uncopyrightable. Computer font programs are copyrightable, and font names can be trademarked. AnonMoos 02:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Logos

Can someone maybe point me to the Commons' policy on logos and heraldry? (If there are policies on those.) I'm not clear on why logo's like en:Image:Airbus_Logo.svg are copyrightable, or why an image of the flag of Nova Scotia isn't in the public domain, even though it was created in 1858? Anrie 18:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Roughly speaking, if you make a heraldic image from scratch based on the original text description or "blazon", then you have the copyright over that particular image, and can assign it whatever license you want (though there may be separate, non-copyright, restrictions on the use of official insignia). If you download a heraldic emblem from a government website, then that's a completely separate issue, which depends on individual national laws. Corporate logos are only allowed to be hosted at Wikimedia Commons if they consist of simple text in a font. (More eleaborate logos can be hosted at English Wikipedia under "fair use" provisions, but not here.) AnonMoos 02:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Poll about association football

I have set up a new poll about the naming of categories which regard association football here, in order to resolve the issue which has been discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2007/07/Category:Soccer in England & Category:Soccer in Scotland.

The voting will begin on September, 1st, 0:00 am. --Juiced lemon 10:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)