Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008/01

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

Inactive Checkusers[edit]

I would like to bring the community's attention to the policy on inactive checkusers as stated on Meta here. While inactivity per se may not be an issue this is a position of trust and it seems a little unwise, as well as against policy, to allow the rights (with the access to private information that that allows) to continue for those who have ceased to use them.

Ausir has made only one log entry in the past twelve months which was to check himself (often done by CUs when the interface etc changes) but which does not seem to constitue activity. Arnomane has made no checks in the past twelve months. Given that the policy is clear I intend placing a request for removal of these rights on Meta by the end of the week and will leave messages on the user pages too. If anyone has objections or sees this differently please say so (other active CUs have been consulted on this and agree).

While I'm here - best wishes to all for 2008! Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks for keeping up to date on this for us Herby. Happy new year --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 1[edit]

Flickr[edit]

May I upload this image? Thanks in advance. --BokicaK 08:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you can get permission from Yasemi. The flickr page says "all rights reserved". --MichaelMaggs 12:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Melies[edit]

Public Domain worldwide?


Is n't this image now worldwide (not only US) Public Domain? I ask this because its author (George Melies) died in 1938. Since it is now 2008, and France applies the 70 pma-rule (something is in the public domain if the author dies in a calender year 70 years or longer ago), my guess would be that this is now definititely public domain everywhere..... just as all his movies (see en:Georges Méliès#Filmography).
In that case, wikimedia/-pedia can enrich itself with all Melies-images wanted.

Greetings, Herodotus 15:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not before January 1 2009. It goes like this: some date in 1938 + 70 years = some date in 2008 => Copyrighted through 2008, PD in 2009-01-01. Samulili 17:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Samulili for explanation. So if I got you right, this means today, all works from the people who died in 1937 fell definitely in public domain (besides other public domain-rules being effective of course) Herodotus 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what it means. en:Category:1937 deaths. Samulili 20:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started a page that we can work on together and where we can list people who have probably produced some interesting non-text media: User:Samulili/1937 deaths. So far I have gone through A and B. Samulili 21:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea! I'll help you. Btw: this also applies for textual media. I hope someone involved in wikisource also reads this (I'm not). Herodotus 21:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Wikisource-cerers, watch this! en:J.M. Barrie, author of Peter Pan, is now in the public domain! Herodotus 21:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSS update[edit]

An administrator should handle the request I made here. HujiStat 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New year, new public domain works[edit]

As we now are in the Year of Our Lord 2008, new works are becoming PD. See [1] [2] for a few photographers who died in 1937. And suddenly is Category:Waldemar Titzenthaler legal. Kjetil r 21:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And see also few rows above, under heading #George Melies. Samulili 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks to" Gerda Taro, we now have a legal picture of the famous photographer Robert Capra!

Check out http://www.icp.org/site/c.dnJGKJNsFqG/b.2876631/ Herodotus 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I really wish copyrights in the U.S. weren't frozen. 2019 is so far away :( Rocket000 11:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't complain man. At least you got your public domain-movies up to 1977/1989. We in Europe have to wait another year until George Melies' films (some from before 1900!) are in the public domain. The 70 pma-rule is a killer for movie-fans, especially because it applies to the director, the producer AND the screenwriter. So on which side of the Atlantic are the copyright rules more bizarre???

(BTW: apologies for the stupid "Robert CapRa typo... :( ) Herodotus 13:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, I guess we were just spoiled for so long. :) Rocket000 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the whole "U.S. government work = PD" is a beautiful thing. For the most part, copyrights are pretty reasonable here, it's just sometimes your Mickey Mouses and Sonny Bonos get involved. Rocket000 14:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2[edit]

Page Scraping[edit]

Hi; I'm starting an open source project and I would like to page scrape data from the wiktionary. What policies does wikipedia have regarding page scraping? Hits per day? etc. TIA, beno

Well, this isn't Wiktionary or Wikipedia, but see Reusing Wikipedia content. As long as it stays GFDL and follows what that entails, then it should be fine. Good luck with your project. Rocket000 15:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm sure I fit those rules. What I'm wondering about, is this: What if I wrote a screen scraper that scraped, say, 1000 pages a day? What if there were 1000 people like me doing the same thing? Wouldn't that really screw with their bandwidth? That's why I'm wondering if they have rules concerning the same :) TIA, beno

If you want to do bulk downloads from wikipedia, take a look at m:Data_dumps. --rimshottalk 17:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too sweet! Thanks! beno

Osama family photo[edit]

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but is there anything stopping this alleged photo of Bin Laden from the 70's[3] from being {{PD-Saudi Arabia}}? -Nard 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Depends on where it was published. I doubt it was even taken in Saudi Arabia, certainly doesn't look so. FunkMonk 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't. It (supposedly) is a family photo taken on holiday in Sweden. The family would not have given out copies in Sweden though, they would have given them out back home. If I take a photo on holiday, I certainly consider the US as country of first publication.... -Nard 23:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't be sure, but his mother's family is Syrian, and his father' family is Yemeni, so if it was handed out there, it would be PD too. So well, what keeps it from being PD is simply copyright paranoia. FunkMonk 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, one big reason for it not to be PD-Saudi Arabia would be that the photo was taken by a local Swedish newspaper, according to the Guardian [4] and other reports. The Globe & Mail (26 Sep 2001) put it: "Large clans of obviously wealthy Saudis were such a rarity in small-town Sweden that journalist Hans Lendquist was sent out to write the story ... A search of the newspaper's archives turned up the article and the photo of the handsome clan gathered around a massive Cadillac." (found via Lexis/Nexis). --dave pape 02:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violating user[edit]

Could some admin check this guy's gallery out: [5]

All the images he has uploaded and attributed to himself seem to be the copyrighted work of others. FunkMonk 22:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the images. Some are correctly licensed like Image:Icterus galbula.jpg. For the other ones, I think he confused scanning/photographing with original authorship. Though things like Image:Pelecanimimo.jpg don't make sense. Rocket000 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's pretty clear he doesn't understand the license tags nor the "source" field. He attributes the real author in most cases, yet uses the "self" tags and says "self-made" for the source. No response on his talk page. I don't think he speaks English, so hopefully someone else can try talking to him. Rocket000 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 3[edit]

Copyright Template For Flags[edit]

Now that the PD-Flag copyright tag had been deprecated, what copyright tag should be used for flags that are uploaded? None of the others I looked at seemed like they made sense 67.177.149.119 04:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian films in the public domain?[edit]

According to http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ , there are several countries with no copyright agreements with the United States. These countries are " Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, San Marino, and possibly Yemen ". This means works published first within these countires, made by citizens of these countries, are "Not protected by US copyright law because they are not party to international copyright agreements".
Especially Iran has a huge cinema legacy: en:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Iranian_films. Can we treat Iranian films on wikimedia commons as they are not affected by copyright? As they are not protected by US copyright law, a tag "Public Domain-USA" would apply. Herodotus 17:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks like there is no legal barrier for hosting and distributing those films from a server in the US. However, as a rule of thumb, we only host content that is free in the US and in the originating country. Samulili 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See COM:L#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_foreign_copyright_law for the policy statement. --dave pape 17:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any way to upload logo Whatsoever?[edit]

Okay, I have been wondering if there is anyway that I can get a copyrighted logo onto WikiCommons and not have it deleted. It is a logo of Advanced Micro Devices' (AMD) to be released microprocessor series, the Phenom FX. I just want to get it over to Commons so I can put it into a Wikipedia article that I am working on. Here is a link to it. [6]
Thanks,

EbonyFalcon 17:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons is a repository of free media. Logos are not free. Therefore, we can't accept them. However, if the article you're working on is at the English Wikipedia, you may upload the logo there using a fair use rationale.--Boricuæddie 17:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, that'll work! EbonyFalcon 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page template?[edit]

Is there already talk page template for notifying user to be carefully when moving images from other wikis, or to ask them to use CommonsHelper? At least i didn't find any, maybe it should be created? --Tomia 17:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rling/license[edit]

This page: User:Rling/license appears to be conflicting with the existing licenses that this user has licensed his photo's under (multi-license, GFDL and CC-BY-SA-2.5, see one of his images as an example). To my knowledge, it's possible to specify one or more licenses but not to define addition requirements. For example, the original licenses require attribution but don't make specific requirements on how that should be done. But this user additionally asks:

  • displayment of a copyright notice ("Copyright (c) [year] Richard Ling") which is incorrect as the image is under a free license
  • In online formats, you must provide an active hyperlink (not required by licenses, it requires attribution but not necessarily an active hyperlink; strictly, attribution by mentioning "Richard Ling" would be enough)
  • same for offline usage (mentioning the URL)
  • not allowed to remove metadata from image

These requirements aren't in the original licenses so is this allowed really? Otherwise, this page should be removed and the images should be available under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses, without extra requirements. - Simeon87 22:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is my understanding that attribution can be demanded in a reasonable fashion, and this demand is reasonable. I do not see requiring preservation of exif data and acknowledgement of copyright to be unreasonable (free license!=copyright free!) -Nard 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks - I didn't ask this because of the reasonability of the requirements but it's more about specifying extra requirements in general. After all, if this is allowed then who determines (defines) what it is reasonable (legally speaking). The metadata requirement is the fourth item, by the way. - Simeon87 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kinda. As far as any CC license goes, acknowledgment of the license is required and the copyright holder can specify how they want to be attributed. These are not extra requirements as that's what the license allows you to do. However, if you don't want certain parts of the image to be manipulated (e.g. the EXIF data) then you would need to use something like CC-BY-ND. Which is allowed here as long as you give the GFDL option (not recommended though, as it's not really in the spirit of our project). Rocket000 23:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The prohibition on removal of the metadata is indeed problematic, not least because the Mediawiki software does this automatically to all low-resolution images used in articles and such. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can we see and enjoy a recent picture of vocalist REGINA BELLE on her Wikipedia bio-story? Can anyone help?[edit]

I uploaded the photo from Internet, there was no credit, it's from the Washington Post article dated 11/09/2007. I cannot see it...:-) Please, HELP! thanks.

Can you tell us the username you used for the upload or give us any indication on the picture's title? Please note that unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the Web is copyrighted and so not permitted here. The picture you uploaded was most probably deleted on these grounds. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the article was: "Free to Be Regina Belle.Wide-Ranging Singer Credits Her Longevity to Staying True to Her Values"

and the picture title was: "Regina Belle continues to expand her repertoire. A gospel album is due out in February". Thanks. Anyway, the most inportant thing, for every music lover's sake, is that anybody from WIKIPEDIA may upload a nice, recent picture of the jazz/soul diva REGINA BELLE, to make her recognizable. Not necessarily that one that I tried to upload without success and expertise :-).I just found out that the picture was pretty recent and nice! my user name is gizetha.

Unfortunately, things are not so simple. Commons only accepts free content, so we have to find a free picture of Ms. Belle. Also, it seems User:Gizetha doesn't exist. Or you sure of the orthograph? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well, it will be a rewarding job. Ms. BELLE is well loved and popular.Please, anybody who can help us out, from the Peak Records, Concord Jazz Records labels? From her management and producers? THANKS !!
I'm not sure I understood you correctly, but you are free to request any owner of a picture of Ms. Belle to release it under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia. Such people should read w:Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission. Contacting her management for such a thing is a possibility, but please be very polite when doing that and explain the situation properly. TheDJ 19:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity for a bot[edit]

Some of the redirect categories inevitably repopulate because their names seem to be so obvious. I've been manually sending the pics from Category:Frogs to Category:Ranidae today. In the last week I've also redirected dozens of items from Category:American culture to Category:Culture of the United States and from Category:Jewelry to Category:Jewellery.

Wouldn't it be sensible to automate this type of work? I'm not the one to do the coding, but I'd like to get in touch with someone who has the skill. Durova 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:CategoryRedirectBot siebrand told me recently that this bot should be operational in the not too distant future. TheDJ 19:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Durova 07:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.svg downloading[edit]

I am trying to download various .svg files to translate IUCN conservation status images but they do not become .svg when I download. On the download screen after 'save image as', there is a drop-down box which suggests 2 different file endings (.png and 'All files'). After downloading both, they do not cooperate as vector images with Inkscape (the newest version). My computer obviously just doesn't recognise .svg as a real ending. What can I do? Harris Morgan 23:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Harris, are you right-clicking on the image itself or the linked image name below the graphic? You need to do the latter, as MediaWiki produces PNG thumbnails for SVGs. cheers --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken Wikimedia uses some backend toolkit to render SVG as PNG in some instances, such as thumbnails. If you go directly to its upload page and click the image it should render it as a single SVG element in your browser and you shouldn't have any trouble saving it. I have saved a few SVG's to my HD from commons with no trouble.
A demonstration of this is the commons E8 graph. If you right click to save it on its commons description page [[7]] it will ask to save as a PNG because it's thumbnailed as a PNG by the backend toolkit, but if you click the image and just render it as a single element in the browser [[8]] it will allow you to save it as an SVG because it's not being converted to a thumbnail PNG by the toolkit. (Note in Firefox when you are rendering the SVG as a single element you will need to use "Save Page As..." rather than "Save Image As...". When you use "Save Page As..." the Save Type As entry in the Save As box will show "SVG Document" rather than the usual "HTML" you would get when saving a webpage) 67.177.149.119 04:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That will be it then! I'm using firefox, so I'll just use the internet for my SVG downloading in the future. Thanks for the help, Harris Morgan 13:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

January 4[edit]

Trademarked images[edit]



A free image?

I've been wondering about this for a while and thought I'd raise the question so we could all have a bit of a discussion and I could understand the common thinking in this area. The existence of {{Trademarked}} puzzles me. As I understand it, the point of Commons is to act as a repository of free images, not just images that are free of copyright. Some trademarks have extremely high levels of legal protection, with large multinationals willing to aggressive pursue the slightest infringement of those trademarks. To describe those images as free seems rather odd. Take the image to the right as an example - the image is not covered by copyright (the logo is simply the words "Coca-Cola" written in Spencerian Script) - but it seems to me that the uses a downstream user could put this image have very real legal limitations in most jurisdictions. Given that that trademarks are now usually registered in most countries and that the existence of trademark rights over them will restrict their uses, why do we include trademarked images on Wikimedia Commons? WjBscribe 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image is free for just about any purpose save advertising a competing/knock-off product with it. You could print it in a magazine, use it commercially to sell Coke, re-arrange the letters comicly, sell reprints of old Coke ads, sell parody T-shirts and so much more. Just about the only thing you couldn't do with it is use it fraudulently, which you would have a hard time doing with any image. </Devil's advocate> -Nard 20:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) It's a good point, and something all of us here have considered at one point or another I think. But... the images are clearly marked as being trademarked. Thats already more than we do for trademarked brand names in Wikipedia (which also have potential downstream concerns in theory). Many insignia and country flags are covered by other laws as well. As a matter of fact, we have some nude material on commons that might actually be more problematic in my eyes than our trademarked images. In my opinion the images are free, their usage is restricted, but that is not really our problem. It is a problem of the one who uses the image. We cannot protect our users from everything. Now I'm quite liberal in these things so I'm sure quite a few people will disagree. But in my opinion the images are free enough for commons, we don't delete all pictures with people in them because there are potential defamation law issues for a downstream user either. TheDJ 20:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's kinda how I see it too. Most of our images aren't completely free. There's personality rights, moral rights, trademark rights, and some pretty restrictive copyleft rights (*coughGPLcough*). It's just we have to draw the line somewhere. Our project's main purpose is suppling images to Wikimedia projects—other users come secondary. TM images are immensely useful to the projects. Especially the ones that don't allow local uploads (!) they would be missing out on a lot. Rocket000 05:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with Rocket000. Trademark protection isn't by any means absolute or all-encompassing: it generally stops people using a mark in a manner in which it could be misunderstood by others as being use by or with the authority of the trademark owner. So, an image including a trademark might not be useable commercially in conjuction with certain goods or services (depending on which goods/services the trademark has been used or registered for), but might well be perfectly OK when used on entirely different goods/services. It may also be OK when used in a non-commercial context such as Wikipedia . Also, trademarks are protected on a country by country or region by region basis. Trademark rights cannot (normally) be asserted to prevent a mark being used in a country in which the mark is neither used nor registered by the trademark owner. --MichaelMaggs 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also with Rocket000. If free means for any purpose then all pictures of living German people have to be banned because of personality rights. Merchandising is'nt allowed by the exception of "right of the own picture" --Historiograf 01:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion backlog[edit]

I just realized Commons has three months worth of open deletion debates. I can't fathom how it got so bad. We have to do something about this. For comparison, English Wikipedia only has 6 days (to be fair, deletion debates there are 5, rather than 7 days, but still). Superm401 - Talk 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is bad, but keep in mind our deletion requests are a little different than WPs. On Wikipedia, all you got to do is establish consensus, here the major reason for deletion is copyright status, which isn't so easy to establish. Rocket000 17:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even on Wikipedia, you have to have a reason for your opinion (not just up and down). And Commons is supposed to be more free than Wikipedia, which means being conservative. If there's something from September 2007 and no one knows for sure if it's legal, it should just be deleted. Superm401 - Talk 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three months? It has been five in the past...
It seems to me a lot more people just pass by and make comments, at en.wp. That is useful. But it's not very common here. Another reason is that the fall-out can be potentially worse, in terms of impact on other projects, here compared to en.wp. But the main reason is as Rocket000 says, figuring out copyright status is not always straightforward.
Please do drop by and make comments if you can. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Scrape or Download Dump?[edit]

Hi; I want to grab all the wiktionary entries and use the data for an open source project. Last week, someone suggested I grab a dump here: wget http://download.wikimedia.org/ukwiktionary/20071119/ukwiktionary-20071119-pages-articles.xml.bz2 I did that, bunzipped it and opened it up in vi. Got bored looking around so I tried looking up "antenna" which is found in the wiktionary. Nope, wasn't in the download :( So, am I stuck with screen scraping to get the data? TIA, beno

Don't screen scrape. You can get help at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/ Superm401 - Talk 17:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 5[edit]

Iranian films (/photos) in the public domain:template?[edit]

Following the discussion above, I did some research on Iranian copyright law. It looks promising. Photos and cinematographic works from Iran (that is, by Iranian citizens, under Iranian jurisdicition) are under copyright for only 30 years after they are published. This also applies to works from legal bodies. See [1], article 16. Since the US does not protect Iranian copyright anyway, "every" Iranian photo/movie up to 1977 could be hosted on wikimedia: they are free both in Iran and in the US. (Other Iranian works, like paintings etc., are public domain 30 years after author's dead).
I propose a template:PD-Iran, which can be used to license public domain-works made in Iran. Herodotus 00:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, never mind than :( . I was browsing the templates and could not find this one, so I assumed there was no template. Thanks for correcting! Herodotus 09:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Industrial designs, tradedresses and trade secrets.[edit]

A similar template to {{Trademarked}} and {{Personality rights}} but for Industrial designs, tradedresses or trade secrets from utiliarian objects may be created? --guerreritoboy 01:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't need one for trade secrets. If we did, they wouldn't really be secrets. And you can't violate patents with images. Rocket000 01:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage links[edit]

Hi,

It would be very useful if interlanguage links were available for content pages. For example, if I read about Nyctalopia in English, I would like to then read the equivalent article in French, right now I have to go to wikipédia in French and then search with the term in French (or another language). It would be much easier if a link lead directly to the same topic in the desired language. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.37.141.171 (talk • contribs)

  • They are very easy to add to the page you desire. Just type [[fr:foo]] at the bottom of the page to make the interwiki link in the tool bar to the left. Type [[:fr:foo]] in the text to make an ordinary link. You can also use piping to pretty it up (ie [[:fr:foo|foo at the French Wikipedia]]). Hope this helps :) I encourage you to register an account here and fix up the pages that need help :) And be sure to sign your comments by typing 4 tildes (~~~~). -Nard 07:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation in uploads from PDB[edit]

Category talk:PDB.org's Molecules of the Month

Please discuss!

Maybe someone could create a DOI-Template?

Thank you! --Patho 11:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Freeman.svg won't display properly[edit]

Is there a way to remove those huge top and bottom margins from this image? It gets in the way (it's meant for my userpage). I just got Inkscape on here and I haven't studied all of the intricacies of it yet. How do you fix this problem in Inkscape? -IonasFreeman 17:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed it for you. Easiest way to fix it is to select the object, go to File->Document Properties, then click "Fit Page to Selection" to change the canvas size. -Nard 17:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, looking at your picture you are like 8 years old. And you are also apparently proud of the fact you've been banned from en.wiki. Don't vandalize Commons, ok? -Nard 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of Sir Ian McKellen[edit]

I'm in touch with Sir Ian's webmaster, he's indicated that he'd be happy to release a few pictures for use on Commons and Wikipedia, http://www.compu-webs.com/keith_stern/photographs/ shows some of his work. Please email me if you've any pictures you'd really like for commons. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keith has also indicated that he'd be happy to discuss releasing photos credited to him from at mckellen.com or serkis.com or seanastin.com. :-D --Brian McNeil / talk 18:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PD-NASA and warnings[edit]

{{PD-USGov-NASA}} is an exceptionally ugly template due to all the warnings attached to it. Licensing templates are primarily for re-users of our content, not for internal admin or uploader assistance. Given this the only real thing that needs saying are the restrictions on logos and insignia. As for the other parts:

  1. The NASA website hosts a large number of images from ... non-American space agencies.
  2. Materials from the Hubble Space Telescope may be copyrighted if they do not explicitly come from the STScI.
  3. All materials created by the SOHO probe are copyrighted.
  4. Astronomy Picture of the Day may be copyrighted.

All these aspects are reinforcement of the message: On nasa.gov != PD-USGov. Each only applies to a subset of the images that come from NASA, and they are more reminders to Wikimedians not to upload this stuff than messages to our reusers. The appropriate place to remind Wikimedians would be MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fromgov. Why do we have it on the template?--Nilfanion 12:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because we're trying to remind people looking at the image description page of the caveats, not just the original uploader. Getting all the legal and situational details right is probably more important for a copyright template than being aesthetic... AnonMoos 21:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of those caveats should apply to the image that is tagged though. If any of those caveats apply, the image should be deleted. Therefore they are redundant except for the logo and insignia one.--Nilfanion 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

flickr[edit]

can we move any image form flikr here? Frizabelaspk2me 21:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only those with a free license, which are listed here. More information about images from flickr can be found here. Best regards, --rimshottalk 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 6[edit]

Multilingualism[edit]

Commons is multilingual, although English is still quite predominant. No one will argue that. I am Filipino, and a native w:Tagalog speaker. The languages code is "tl". However I have been prevented from contributing in Tagalog (translating, etc.) here in Commons due to the template "tl" being already occupied by Template Link. Please help me resolve this. It would be quite unfair if we won't have here Tagalog. -- Felipe Aira 10:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For that reason, I think, we have {{Tgl}}. --rimshottalk 10:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Duernkrut3.jpg[edit]

This image: seemd to be copied from de: wiki de:Bild:Duernkrut3.jpg, but there reads "Do not move this file to Wikimedia Commons!". Also image in commons has lower resolution and different license ({{GFDL}}/{{PD}}). I dont understand other texts in German, is there some problem with original image? --Tomia 11:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the German WP it was uploaded as PD back in 2005 when there were no specific PD tags. Because the author stated that it was self-made, PD should have changed into PD-self but was (bot-assisted) changed into something like PD-ineligible. Since for PD-ineligible the guidelines on de.wp and Commons are not the same, there is a line "Do not more to Commons" included in the PD-ineligible template at de.wp. I uploaded the higher resolution and updated the image description. --Matt314 16:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing this out. --Tomia 17:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit]

Does any one know why it seems hard to find WW2 cine-film/video clips? For example, the original film made about the Memphis Belle must be available for use (I imagine the copy right has expired). I know German combat photographer also took some great films/stills, but I can't seem to find them. Any suggestions? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.77.190.186 (talk • contribs)

I think the problem is that unless you have some specific information about copyright status of the video or image (for example it was made by US Government and one can use Template:PD-USGov) than you have to assume 70 years after authors death rule (Template:PD-old) which does not apply to any WWII material.--Jarekt 04:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Memphis Belle thing is pretty clearly out of copyright, because it was the work of U.S. govt. cameramen. Why not look for cheap DVD's of the Why We Fight series? That's where I got my copy of the Memphis Belle documentary. Also, some version of it appears to be available for download at http://www.archive.org/details/MemphisBelle and/or http://www.archive.org/details/TheMemphisBelleAStoryofaFlyingFortress . As for footage shot by German official photographers, that's probably a more complex matter... AnonMoos 13:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

small Sherman Firefly images with wrong name and wrong description[edit]

Please, can somebody do this:

—the preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.54.172.191 (talk • contribs)

I think you can do this yourself as follows:
  1. ) Upload the new images under the filenames you want
  2. ) Ensure licensing, source, description are correct
  3. ) Copy over any info from the old versions (especially categories)
  4. ) Mark (edit) old versions with {{duplicate|new-name}} eg add {{duplicate|Image:Sherman-Firefly-19840226-1.JPG}} to the top of [[:Image:Sherman-M50-19840226-2.JPG]]
If you don't have an account, create one and away you go (there's lots of other things you can fix too :-) --Tony Wills 03:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scanned Image from a newspaper page circa 1930[edit]

I'm in the process of updating and expanding my Father's (Tadeusz Olsza) entry in Wikimedia and want to upload a photo of him from a 1930 newspaper page which I have among his memorabilia. Would I be violating copyright by publishing this scanned image? - BronkaOlsza

It wouldn't be {{PD-US}} so I don't know if it can be free. // Liftarn
Since Tadeusz Olsza article is in polish wikipedia than there is a chance that the newspaper you are talking about was printed in Poland. If so, than Template:PD-Polish would apply, assuming that you can provide source info about the paper. --Jarekt 16:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Image:TadeuszOlsza.jpg and Image:TadeuszOlsza03.jpg, but I think they may be misstagged. // Liftarn

Feedback[edit]

Hi all! I'm pretty new here and was wondering if I could get some feedback on the image I uploaded, Image:Vamp barnstar.png. I intend to use it as a personal user award on Wikipedia for those who helped me out with a vampire-related article and was wondering if it was correctly licensed, was the sort of thing that's allowed on here (IE, won't be deleted) and anything else. Also, if anyone has time, I tried to get the background transparent, but it didn't work. Could someone do this for me? Pleasy? Asked elsewhere ;) Anyway, I'm not even sure if this is the place to come for this.... Oh, and categories - what ones should I put them in? Cheers, Spawn Man 10:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category part is easy: Category:Barnstars --rimshottalk 12:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Licensing looks fine assuming you created it from scratch, otherwise you should mention any image that it is based on or derived from. --Tony Wills 10:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 8[edit]

Valuable Images Proposal[edit]

I propose to introduce a new class of Valuable Images (VI) on Commons to supplement the existing Featured Pictures (FP) and Quality images (QI) systems.

FPs are the cream of the crop at Commons and in principle reserved for images of extraordinary value and technical quality. Candidates are evaluated in a lengthy voting procedure. By requiring a 2/3 majority vote only the best of the best pass through. About 0.05% of the images at Commons has the FP stamp on them. Due to the voting procedure it is mostly aesthetically pleasing images which gets promoted and are used as Picture Of The Day and for the show room to attract interest and users.

QI emphasizes the technical quality of the images and provides a forum for recognizing users who contribute with images of high technical quality. Candidates are reviewed in a fast and lightweight review process, where a single review by another user is often sufficient. Using the feedback from the reviewers the contributors often get hints on how to improve their contributions, which is fruitful.

My idea with the VIs is complementary to the QIs. A VI is highly valuable for other Wikimedia projects, putting a lower emphasis on the technical quality.

A detailed proposal is available here and discussed here. Feedback and suggestions are welcome. -- Slaunger 00:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images with borders[edit]

What to do when the uploader repeatedly removes the "removeborder" template from "his" images ? - Erik Baas 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 7[edit]

problem with Image:Fs-flag.svg[edit]

Please see Image talk:Fs-flag.svg. I have uploaded an image of the free speech flag, and the +C0 partdisplays as a black box instead of white text (which I set it to). As I said before, I'm new to Inkscape, and don't know whoe to fix it, so can someone please tell me how? -IonasFreeman 17:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image talk:Fs-flag.svg#C0 ¦ Reisio 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i fixed the image for you. If i'm not mistaken though, this is not the right place for such requests. Instead, see images to improve. /Marmelad 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or Graphics village pump. Rocket000 04:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone for helping! -IonasFreeman 07:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 9[edit]

Policy on PD-art?[edit]

There been a lot of debate surrounding our guideline on photos of 2D artwork that are PD everywhere except a given copy happens to be from a country that decides to "re-copyright" the painting because the copy happened to be made with a camera. Some disagree that these copies are even protected by copyright in the originating country because they show no originality (as is my view), however, many do see these images as violations of the photographers' copyright. (There doesn't seem to be any argument over scans or other reproduction methods.)

What about changing our policy? (Is it even a policy? Who decided?) No one seems to like it (as consensus has shown over and over again in DRs like here) and it only screws over wikis that don't allow local uploads. Most of the time images like these are perfectly free for them - they shouldn't miss out of all this historic artwork because of some silly policy. There's no reason for wikis to exclude PD work just because they decided to rely on Commons. If it's Public Domain in the U.S. and most other countries, why not allow it? Sure, may not be completely free, but a lot freer than most of our images. A large amount of our stuff isn't completely free, so I don't see why we can't just use a little template like "This image is PD in most countries except possibly this country". It doesn't make sense (nor is technically possible) to follow ALL local laws. Theoretically, a resident of any other country where it's PD can make a new copy of the file and reupload it and everything's fine. Their country wouldn't recognize the photographer's "copyright" and only the original artist needs to be named (no reason to mention what could be copyfraud locally). We have to decide on who's definitions of "copy" and "derivative" we use because it's logically impossible to use every countries'. And, of course, I suggest using the U.S.'s because we legally have to.

This policy is a major reason why we have such a DR backlog and so much confusion over what is or isn't ok. We waste so much time on this when we could be making Commons better. I'm not suggesting we condone users uploading material if their country says it's copyrighted, but we should allow users to upload content if their country says it's PD (as long as it's also PD in the U.S.) I'm also not suggesting we do away with the long-standing policy of original copyrighted work (i.e. the paintings themselves) not being allowed even if the U.S. doesn't respect the copyright; I'm only talking about {{PD-art}} images, where the work itself is PD everywhere. We can even keep everything on {{PD-art}}, but make it clear it only pertains to uploading from that country, not hosting it in the U.S. Another thing I should mention, if there's anything in the photo, like picture frames, shadows, or angles other than straight on, then it would be considered a derivative and still protected.

I'm not one to do the whole formal proposal - but maybe this little comment will start it off. So far the only arguments for keeping this "policy" have been because "it's policy". That's a terrible reason - we're the ones that make the rules (granted those rules are in accordance with the law and our project's purpose). They should make sense and they should made with the question, "What would be most beneficial to the most people?" in mind. Maybe I'm missing some huge obvious reason why things are the way they are (if I am, someone please point it out to me), but all I see is some silly rule that only limits Commons role as a media provider. The current trend seems to be "just upload it to en.WP", but the problem with that is many projects don't know to go there for images. And do we really want to split Commons up this way? As more and more wikis go Commons-only, the demand for these images is going to grow. We need to figure something out. Rocket000 00:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have two points to make in this issue:
  1. It is problematic that we give one weeks notice to images we have hosted up to two years telling everything is allright. The uploaders of those images are very unlikely to visit Commons every week.
  2. Added restrictions to using PD-art are self-restrictions, not strictly required by law.
Samulili 06:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I'm suggesting allowing more images - nothing we have would be deleted - actually, the contrary. Restrictions to using PD-art are self-restrictions on Commons? I think you mean not allowing certain PD-art images is a self-restriction that we as Commons have imposed. It's certainly not when uploading from those countries or reusing images in those countries; that is legally restricted (so they say). But I wasn't talking about that. Rocket000 07:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I thought I should point out, we already allow material that is against local laws outside the U.S. For example, Nazi propaganda or Holocaust denial related images are banned in Germany. Tienanmen Square protests, Tibetan and Taiwan independence, and democracy promoting material (and more!) in China (I'm mean, they blocked Google). Pictures of Mohammad and tons of other stuff in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries (they blocked Wikipedia in the past). Criticism of the Thai royal family or Buddhism in Thailand. "Terrorist" sympathizing in Israel. Tons of stuff in North Korea... Basically, many of our images aren't free at all in certain countries (not even under "fair-use"). Just like with photos of people, official insignia, trademarks, etc., I think it should be users' responsibility to know their country's laws and use our images accordingly. Rocket000 07:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In several countries such as the UK a photograph (not a mere scan) of a work of art such as an old painting does without doubt generate a new copyright for the photographer. Some users don't like that, but the law is as it is. The reason we reject such photographs is the rule that on Commons the image must be copyright-free not only in the US but also in the country of origin. That's a policy - true - but to change that to one where only US copyright is considered would be a pretty major policy shift to say the least. Also, a country that does not recognise the generation of a new copyright for locally-taken photographs may well nevertheless upload in its local courts the law of another country when the photograph was taken elsewhere. That was exactly what happened in the US Bridgeman case, where a US court had to rule on the validity of a copyright claim that was based on UK law. In that case, Bridgeman was a UK art library that had taken in the UK photographs of a variety of PD works of art, and claimed copyright on those photographs. The US court was undecided about whether UK copyright laws should be upheld. First it decided the case on the basis that they could, then re-opened the issue after judgement had been given and decided that they could not. Neither judgement sets a precedent which would bind the higher courts, but it does illustrate that as a general rule it cannot be taken for granted that a court will ignore a copyright claim that arose in another country where the law may be different.
I think what you're suggesting is to change our basic rule to "If it's OK in the US, where the Commons servers are held, that should be enough". By all means let's discuss that, but such a change goes well beyond PD-Art considerations. --MichaelMaggs 07:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)--MichaelMaggs 07:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. :) I'm only suggesting PD-art images where the U.S. doesn't even recognize there's a new copyright on the image. I'm not suggesting images that use to be copyrighted in the U.S. or could be copyrighted in the U.S. should be allowed. I don't think it's that big of a shift in policy, as we already ignore other countries' censorship laws as I stated above. We stick to "if it's ok in the U.S. it's ok for Commons" (freedom of speech cases). Copyright laws can be seen as a type of censorship too. IMO, this "policy" isn't even that established here as we have DRs that close in favor of keeping these images per consensus. Rocket000 08:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Calling the copyright laws of a large number of civilized countries "censorship laws" just because they deal with copyright in a different way to to the USA is perhaps not your best argument. It wouldn't be too hard to find an example where US laws are more restrictive than those elsewhere: FOP for example. --MichaelMaggs 09:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, that's censorship too. U.S. is not an exception. Rocket000 09:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, yes :-) you do. If something is PD only in the U.S. but not in the source country, upload it locally at the English Wikipedia and tag it appropriately. The Commons caters to a wider set of projects, and our rule is that an image for which PD is claimed must be PD in both the source country and in the U.S. (At least.) The "photographer's rights" countries such as the Nordic countries and the UK have these restrictions right there in their copyright laws, not in some other laws. Hence we'd better respect them. Or change our rule. The "censorship" you mention has nothing to do with copyright, and is thus beyond our concerns.
We have some cases where we do not apply our "PD in US and source country" rule, but de facto use the rule "PD in source country". That concerns all the "freedom of panorama" images of sculptures (not ok in the U.S.), and also all non-U.S. PD-Old-70 images first published 1923 or later and still copyrighted in their source country in 1996 (also not ok in the U.S.) There have been previous discussions about these cases, all inconclusive. But none of them has ever suggested to use "PD in U.S." was sufficient.
You are suggesting for PD-Art to use the rule "PD in the U.S." That's bound to lead to problems, because the rights holders of these non-U.S. images, which are copyrighted in their country, are likely to complain. (Just see the Lafayette Studio images.)
Besides, I have closed the deletion request you mentioned as delete and indeed I will delete all images concerned once Bryan's bot has managed to move them all to en-WP. I had asked him before Christmas to do so, but he was away for a few weeks. There's ample evidence that these images are copyrighted in their source country, and thus should not be hosted here.
In all honesty, since the files will be hosted anyway on upload.wikimedia.org regardless of whether they're uploaded at the Commons or at en-WP, this looks like a futile exercise. However, if they are at the Commons, they can be used by all WPs, but if they're at en-WP, they can only be used there. Even if they're physically stored on the same file system. Absent any guidance of the WMF, we can only muddle on the best we can. We have six options for a rule for the Commons:
  1. PD anywhere. Boils down in essence to "author dead at least 100 years" (Mexico) and published before 1923 (U.S.) IMO that's way too restrictive.
  2. PD in the U.S. and in the source country. The current rule, not perfect, with some de facto exceptions for FOP/post-1923 PD-Old-70 non-U.S. works that are IMO barely tolerable because they apply in many non-U.S. countries, and we're unlikely to get into trouble in the U.S. because of it.
  3. PD in source country. Has the risk that a great many images are PD only in the source country (think of all the "simple photograph" rules (Sweden, Denmark, Finland), or special cases like Poland, Italy, or also Switzerland). IMO a bad choice, since such images would be better uploaded locally at the projects where they are indeed PD. Additionally, this rule runs the risk that we end up with lots of images that are definitely not ok in the U.S., but such images will surely be used at en-WP (Commons said it was PD, eh?). En-WP already has enough troubles with "fair use", no need to turn it into an even greater collection of copyvios.
  4. PD in the U.S. Has the risk that we'll end up with a lot of works that cannot be used anywhere except at en-WP. IMO a bad choice; upload locally at en-WP.
  5. PD somewhere. That boils down to "anything goes", since anything is PD in Afghanistan (has no copyright law yet). IMO an extremely bad rule.
  6. PD in the U.S. or in the source country. IMO another extremely bad rule, since we'd end up with a completely unusable mixture of images that'd be ok to use sometimes only in the U.S., sometimes only in the source country, and nobody would know which image was ok to use where.
All things considered, I think the current rule is the best workable one, even if it is sometimes inconvenient. A clarification from the WMF whether all our content must be legal to host in the U.S. (i.e., whether the "PD in the U.S." part is mandatory) has been promised by Anthère, but is still pending. If so, our current de facto execptions for FOP and post-1923 non-U.S. works that happen to be PD-Old-70 would need to go. But for the reasons hinted at under point (3) I think we should stick to that rule even if the foundation should ever say "we don't care, we're just a service provider" (but in that case, let's keep the FOP/post 1923 exceptions).
As an aside, we could also consider whether we really want to allow PD-Old-50 images. Most of these are not usable in the largest projects we have, since those operate under PD-Old-70 laws or the U.S. law. Lupo 09:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think "PD in the U.S." would be a good option. Even just figuring out US copyright laws is complicated enough, trying to educate our admins so that they have a working knowledge of copyright in every relevant country is unrealistic and isn't really working out for us. And how can they close deletion discussions intelligently without that knowledge? You say: "Has the risk that we'll end up with a lot of works that cannot be used anywhere except at en-WP. IMO a bad choice; upload locally at en-WP." I think this misses an important point - Commons isn't just a database for Wikipedias, it's also a useful project in its own right. And it also provides services to Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikiquotes etc. If you want to use an image at en-Wikipedia, en-Wikisource and en-Wikibooks it is quite inconvenient to upload it locally three times. Haukurth 13:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but it would greatly reduce the usefulness of the Commons for all the non-English projects that do not operate only under U.S. law. With the "and PD in source country" bit, we at least have a decent chance that the work actually is PD in more than just the U.S. and the source country, since often "PD in source" is effectively PD-Old-70, and that applies in lots of countries. The cases where "PD in source country" means less than PD-Old-70 are problematic, though. Which is why I don't agree with aggressive attempts to try to exploit shorter terms for special cases. Lupo 14:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I would like to suggest, instead, is that we leave old images alone, that is, images that predate Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag (2007-04-26). Or that we, at least, personally contact every uploader in a language they understand, in a project they follow closely, and give them time adequately time to reply and find the source of the image they have uploaded. Samulili 08:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this discussion was about whether to honor the "photographer's rights" that exist is some countries, not about whether PD-Old works needed sources. Lupo 09:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about PD-Art and whether it requires a source, and in the absence of a source should the image be deleted and throught which process, in such cases where we previously have not required a source during the period before writing COM:PDART. Samulili 09:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I know what you're talking about now. There's been some recent discussion (somewhere else too, I can't find right now) about that. Something we can discuss, but let's keep it separate from this. Rocket000 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the response Lupo, however I'm not sure you really got what I was saying. Let me try to clarify with less text and more bullets. Here's what I would like to see as out policy.

  • Images that aren't free in the U.S. are never ok. (Regardless of what the WMF has to say, all our content must be legal in the U.S., right?)
  • Images that are PD in the U.S. but were or could of been copyrighted in the U.S. (i.e. if the work was created in the U.S.) are not allowed if they're copyrighted elsewhere.
  • Images that are PD in the U.S. but not in another country because of "photographer's rights" or something else that goes against U.S. law, can be allow provided that the copy wasn't made (uploaded) in that country.

I think my censorship statement has a lot to do with this, because the common argument for keeping this rule is that all our images should be free in all countries.

One way to look at it is, "what benefits the most". Many of these images are only copyrighted in one or two countries, having perfectly legal files really benefits all those projects that don't allow local uploads. Sure, they can start to use en.WP as a media repository too, but that kinda ruins Commons central role.

Another question, what if I download these images, create new copies and upload from the U.S.? Rocket000 09:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to grammatical errors, I cannot make sense of your second bullet. For the the first bullet: agree, but note that we do have these de facto exceptions for FOP and for PD-Old-70 non-U.S. images, even if they might be copyrighted in the U.S. For the third bullet: it depends. If you take a Swedish photograph (e.g. from a Swedish book) showing a PD-old painting from anywhere, and the photo was taken 1969 or later, you should be aware that the Swedish photo is copyrighted in Sweden and thus the photo (or a scan of the photo) should not be hosted here, regardless of where you scan or upload the image. Even if you are in the U.S., where that photo would be PD per the Bridgeman ruling. Same if you find a jpg of such a Swedish photo (e.g., on a Swedish website). If you find a U.S. photo (for instance, first published in a U.S. book), you may upload the photo, even if it shows a Swedish work or was taken in Sweden. Theoretically, one must not upload such a U.S. photo if the uploader is located in Sweden or some other country in which that photo would be copyrighted, but that's entirely the uploader's own risk. Lupo 10:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, let me try the second point again, because it's key. (Although it's the way things currently are. The first two points are just to clarify the third, which is not the way things are now.)
  • Images that are PD in the U.S. but were previously, or could of been if created in the U.S., copyrighted in the U.S. are not allowed if they're copyrighted elsewhere. What I mean by "could of been if created in the U.S." I mean if the work was created in the U.S. would it have been copyrighted? If so, then the image is not allow even if PD in the U.S.
Hopefully, you got that. I don't know if the commas helped. Sometimes things sound perfectly fine in my head but not to others. :) Rocket000 10:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, it sounds bad to me too. Rocket000 10:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't make sense to me, even if I assume that "could of been" should be "could've been". Are you talking about U.S. works or about non-U.S. works? Lupo 11:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry, common local dialect grammar error (Midwest, U.S.). I'm talking about non-US works that are PD in the U.S. because, by U.S. laws, the work could not be copyrighted even if it was made in the U.S. Rocket000 11:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think now I got it. You mean works that fail the en:threshold of originality? Right, if such non-U.S. works are copyrighted in the source country, we don't host them. And the difference to PD-Art is what?? Lupo 12:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is we use U.S.'s definition of "threshold of originality". Rocket000 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) As I demonstrated on the DR, let's say this image was created by a Norwegian last year with a camera. So it would be banned from Commons. What if uploaded this copy from the U.S.? Should it be deleted because I used PD (to me) material? (It's the first image, photoshoped.) If so, does the photographer now have a monopoly on all faithful photographic reproductions of the Mona Lisa? (Yes, I'm somewhat playing Devil's advocate here, but it's still an interesting situation.) Rocket000 12:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer has a copyright on his photograph. He does not get a monopoly on the subject. If you photoshop the Norwegian (copyrighted) photo in the U.S. and then upload it, that all is fine by U.S. law, since the Norwegian photo is not copyrighted per Bridgeman in the U.S. But it's still a derivative of the Norwegian photo, and thus a copyvio under Norwegian law. Your photoshopped version would be PD (as would the Norwegian original) in the U.S. only, but not in Norway. Hence, upload it locally at en-WP, not here. The Commons caters to more than just the U.S. If someone else takes a new photo and publishes that in the U.S., the photo is a U.S. work and we no longer have these problems. (Whether the Norwegians still might have a problem with it, I neither know nor care. I think such a U.S. photo would be fine even in Norway because their photographer's rights only apply to works of EEA nationals and residents.) Lupo 13:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, this whole question of "photographer's rights" is also one of consistency. You advocate ignoring these "photographer's rights" for "simple photographs" of 2D works. However, we have several other tags that explicitly do acknowledge these rights (and try to exploit the shorter protection term). See e.g. {{PD-Finland50}}, {{PD-Sweden-photo}}, {{PD-Denmark50}}. If we acknowledge and regard these photographer's rights in these cases, we can't just turn around and say we ignore those same rights for {{PD-Art}}. This is not an opportunistic pick-and-choose game! Lupo 13:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I guess those would be included too. I just was using PD-art because it seems to cause the most debate, but, you're right, it's the same issue. So you're saying my copy would be a copyvio? (If the photo was copyrighted to begin with, of course. It's not really a copyvio.) The thing is: what aspects of it is copyrighted? The lighting? The angle? The resolution? What besides the original painting is copyrightable? Even if you say there's very very subtle details unique to each photograph, well, I just changed it all. This is starting to stay from discussing policy and getting into the nature of intellectual property itself, but I'm still interested in hearing what you have to say. Rocket000 13:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, assuming the original photo was Norwegian and copyrighted. In the U.S., it wouldn't be, but in Norway it is. It gets, as a Norwegian "simple photograph", this special "photographer's rights" protection simply by virtue of being a photograph; no distinguishing characteristic is needed at all. If it had enough originality to pass the Norwegian threshold of originality, it'd be a "work" and even get full copyright in Norway (with a longer protection term). The point is that all (Norwegian, or rather EEA nationals' and residents') photos that do not pass the Norwegian threshold of originality are covered by these "photographer's rights". So, whatever you do with that (presumed Norwegian) Mona Lisa photo, it's fine in the U.S., but not in Norway. Lupo 13:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about what's fine in the U.S., so let's stick with Commons. You didn't answer my question to what exactly is copyrighted. In your reasoning, you are suggesting the photographer does own the copyright of the subject (Mona Lisa). If those things like lighting, angle, whatever are all completely different, why would the photographer's copyright still be on it? This seems to suggest they do indeed have a monopoly on Mona Lisa images. Rocket000 13:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, he does not. He just gets the exclusive rights to reproduce and publish his photo. He cannot prevent anyone else go take a new photo (maybe even identical) of the same subject and publish that. If the photo is sufficiently original to be a "work", he gets the normal copyright, which even prevents other photographers from re-shooting an identical image. But a plain photographic reproduction of a 2D original is not a "work", it's a "simple photograph". Thus, no monopoly on the subject. Lupo 14:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then how is my image still a copyvio if it's no longer his photograph? Rocket000 14:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photoshopped version of the Norwegian original is a derivative. By uploading your photoshopped version of the Norwegian photo, you publish a derivative of his photo. That's not ok by the laws of the source country (unless you have the Nowegian rights holder's permission), and so not ok on the Commons. But nothing stops you from taking e.g. a U.S. photo of the Mona Lisa as the base of your derivative. That'd be fine. Lupo 14:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what exactly is copyrighted? How could you tell if it's a derivative? Rocket000 14:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is copyrighted. You are, rather, violating neighboring rights. The fact that it's hard to tell that you used a particular photograph is incidental. Haukurth 14:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so if it's not restricted by copyright laws, that changes things. As stated many times, images only have to be free in the copyright sense. So there's no reason to even worry about these rights. (Which are impossible to uphold in some cases like my Mona Lisa. No one would know what photo I used.) Rocket000 14:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That misconception is precisely why I avoided bringing up the term "neighbouring rights". In the Continental European scheme of copyright, you got author's rights (copyrights) and neighbouring rights. But neighbouring rights (or "related rights") are also types of copyrights for special kinds of objects that are not "works" (such as broadcasts, performances, recordings, photographs, databases), but that (in the eyes of the legislators) deserve still "protection" equivalent to copyright. In the U.S., all these are simply subsumed under "copyright", the distinction between author's rights and neighbouring rights is unknown. Broadcasts, performances, and recordings are protected by normal copyright in the U.S., and databases are covered as collections. So, you'd better immediately forget that notion that "neighbouring rights" were not copyrights. They are. See en:Related rights. Lupo 14:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I just said that because of how it was stated. We should have been using that terminology, though, to distinguish between rights easier.
I tried to explain my idea, but I don't know if you guys got it. Maybe you did, and I'm just not getting you, but I don't feel like some of my questions are being answered. A little circular reasoning thrown in, too. I'm dropping the issue for now. I would still like a simplified, more inclusive, and more beneficial policy. It doesn't have to be my idea. Rocket000 15:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photographic anilingus[edit]

I just want to point out a pornographic photo, I think that wikipedia should not publish material of this kind.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Anilingus.jpg

--Frazac 08:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's true we aren't here to host porn, but many don't see that specific image as porn. It's used in many articles and deleting it here would be last step of removing that image from Wikimedia. Rocket000 08:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making sub-categories[edit]

I have several pictures I would like to upload that are of the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. On Wikipedia there is an article called "Appomattox Court House". I would like to make a sub-category called the same name under perhaps (unless you have a better root categoy suggestion) "Category:History of Virginia". Then I can have Template:Commonscat in Wikipedia showing all these pictures that pertain to that subject. I'm confussed on how to do this (make a subcategory).--Doug Coldwell 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Category:Courthouses of Virginia. To make a subcategory, just create the category, for example Category:Appomattox Court House and add it to Category:History of Virginia by adding "[[Category:History of Virginia]]". --rimshottalk 16:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbnails problems[edit]

I currently experience problems with generation of thumbnails for newly uploaded images. Is this a general problem, or is it just me? Lycaon 17:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems solved, must have been some database lag. Lycaon 18:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 10[edit]

Media containing uploader's name or website link[edit]

Is there any rule concerning the inclusion of unnecessary external links in Commons media? Is there a general rule that says “no URIs in images”? Which of the following is all right, which is not? And how would we know?

1. Is it all right if…

a) Somebody creates or significantly modifies a map, a drawing, a photo, an audio file etc. and decides to visibly or audibly include their name in the file before uploading it to Wikimedia Commons.

b) Somebody takes free media from somewhere outside Commons and decides to include their name in the file before uploading it to Commons.

c) Somebody creates or significantly modifies media and decides to include a URI to their homepage in the file before uploading it to Commons.

d) Somebody takes free media from somewhere outside Commons and decides to include a URI to their homepage in the file before uploading it to Commons.

2. In each of the above cases: Is it all right if…

y) Another editor removes the artist's (or uploader's) name (or URI) from said media (for example, by cropping the image) and puts the artist's (or uploader's) name (or URI) on the corresponding Commons page instead, if it isn't there already.

z) Another editor removes the artist's (or uploader's) name (or URI) from said media (for example, by cropping the image) without putting it on the corresponding Commons page instead.

3. If a+c are treated as different from b+d: Is somebody who reads/speaks a free text and uploads their recorded voice to Commons an “artist” (that is, a/c)?

4. If one or more of the above are not all right: Do we have problem tags for these cases?

I am asking because I found it irritating to see a map with a URI in it, but wasn't able to find anything against it. Thanks in advance. Dustsucker 14:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick remark: unless there is an OTRS ticket for the map, it should probably deleted as copyright violation from http://armenica.org . --rimshottalk 14:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's {{GFDL-Armenica}} -- AnonMoos 01:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I didn't find any GFDL notice in my quick browsing of the site. I hope the map in question doesn't date from after January 1st, 2007, which is the cutoff date mentioned by the template. --rimshottalk 10:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the tag for all of above cases is template:watermark. See instructions there.--Jarekt 18:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, great. I guess at least a and probably c are tolerated, but all four (a–d) are “strongly discouraged”, and any user may and should remove all visible signatures and invisible watermarks from the image – or track, extending the idea to sound files – and put that information in both the EXIF data and the file's description page on Commons instead. Right? Dustsucker 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Most people are ok with watermarking as long as it's not visible (i.e. EXIF data). There's no reason to add EXIF data unless the author requests it (or it's your own work and you want to). Generally, it's a lot easier to update one record of metadata verses two. (Many people don't think to change the EXIF data when they create derivatives, leaving incorrect data behind, like false/incomplete attribution.) With sound files, I would say adding any available metadata is a good thing as nearly all media players make use of those tags. Rocket000 04:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple book designs[edit]

Some days ago I have noticed this image, with the cover of a book of Adolf Hitler. But well, regardless of the author, it should be trated as any other book.

One part wich seems wrong, is the user Roby licencing it as if it was his own work to licence. Of course, it isn't. The photo may be of his work, but that doesn't override the copyrights of the book itself. The book was published by Secker and Warburg, and unless proof of otherwise is shown, it should be asumed that the copyrights belong to them. And without fitting a case where copyright expires, we must asume that copyright is as valid as day one. Even with the other possible scenario, the book copyrights belonging to Hitler himself and not Secker and Warburg, it wouldn't be free either because 70 years have not passed yet from his death at 1945 for PD-OLD to possibly apply.

So, I marked the image as copyvio, for speedy deletion. It was reverted, but with an interesting reason: he says that the book has such a simple design that it can't be protected by copyright. Does this reason make sense? Is there such a thing as a milestone of complexity for things to be able to be copyrighted? Is the book cover in the public domain just because of not being complex enough? Thialfi 14:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Hitler made that cover himself. It would be the publisher's copyright. I agree with the {{Pd-ineligible}} reasoning. Germany has a relatively high threshold of originality. But of course this is debatable. If this was a DR, I wouldn't close it as "kept", I would just vote "keep". Rocket000 15:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a DR, now. --rimshottalk 16:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the photographer marking it as his own work: that's perfectly fine: a photograph of something three-dimensional is a work in its own right, namely a derivative work. It will carry the restrictions of the original as well as the derived work. --rimshottalk 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks rimshot for letting me know. And I should have pointed out the photo is definitly not PD-ineligible (but the license makes it free). Rocket000 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bill Gates Letter to Hobbyists.jpg[edit]

I have uploaded a public domain copy of Bill Gates' "Open Letter to Computer Hobbyists." This is the one where he complains that he will never make any money on software. The letter was published in several magazines including the public domain Homebrew Computer Club Newsletter. They were the main target of the letter. The image description provides a explanation of the copyright status. Could someone check my description? -- Swtpc6800 22:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC) w:en:User:Swtpc6800[reply]

The copyright automatically belongs to the author, Bill Gates. Unless he explicitly dedicated it to the public domain, it's not PD. Superm401 - Talk 15:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the image page seems to be claiming another reason (no copyright notice) as well, so it may be legal. Superm401 - Talk 15:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States before 1978, the author had to explicitly claim a copyright and include a copyright notice. Mr. Gates did not, so his letter is public domain. (The letter was published in 1976.) -- Swtpc6800 02:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 31[edit]

POTY Voting round 1 now open[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

The 2007 Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year competition is now open!

Please visit here to see if you are eligible and get a voting token: Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007/Voting

The images are presented in categories, but you can vote for as many as you like, in as many categories as you like. (The categories are just so you don't have to look at hundreds of images at once.) The top 28 images will make it to the final.

Before you cast your vote, you can preview them all at Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007/Galleries. Voting is open from January 10-17, so please take the time to have your say!

Thanks, Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee (pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Would it be appropriate to link to the POTY competition from the main page or at least from the main community page. It took me quite some time to re-find this? -- Slaunger 09:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan just added it to the main page. And isn't this (the village pump) the main community page? Rocket000 09:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. With community portal I mean Commons:Community Portal. -- Slaunger 09:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. I never use that page so I forgot about it. Rocket000 10:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now you know. Can be handy knowledge as an admin ;-) -- Slaunger 10:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's available in the sitenotice as well. /Lokal_Profil 12:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to vote, but got a horrible python crash :-( -- ReyBrujo 13:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have voted on several images in several galleries without any problems. Peculiar. -- Slaunger 13:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could vote in the mammals category without problem. I reported the crash at the POTY talk page, will continue with the other categories and leave that one last just in case. The only important thing about the crash is that the password for the database containing the votes is visible. Not that it could be easy to use it, but it is a problem nevertheless. -- ReyBrujo 13:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just left a message on the voting talk page. Looks like there's a glitch in the software. My name appeared on the list of voters last night right after I voted, but doesn't show up now. Is this just a problem with display or are you losing data? Durova 19:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReyBrujo, that's been fixed. Durova, I copied your report to Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2007/Committee. Please report all problems there or to commons-poty@googlegroups.com. thanks pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Durova 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Owing back to our earlier conversations about our logo's resemblance to a nuke or birth control, I can't help but let loose a sophomoric giggle everytime I see the acronym for "Picture of the Year". --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 11[edit]

A question about the copyright[edit]

I have uploaded a image file which is called Image:Aiguojiangquan6.jpg. The copyright of this article has expired in Taiwan (Fifty years). Someone has requested me to delete this file, because US copyright protects for seventy years. What should I do? Delete it? Or not? --竹筍弟弟 03:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should include the real date on which the bill was originally printed, so that people can know it's been at least 50 years... AnonMoos 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I can look up from a catalog, but I'm very sure this country-loving lottery (Ai Guo Jiang Quan) is an old history "item". I have some later version, and their copyright has all expired, too. --竹筍弟弟 08:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Louvre wrote me[edit]

Just an aside anedcdote in the quarrel about the permission to photograph works of art in the PD, displayed in museums (in Italy we are having big trouble with the issue). Two days ago a curator of the Musée du Louvre contacted me at my private email address to get my permission to print one picture I took in the Istanbul archaeological Museum. (By the way, this is the second time I get a request to publish in a book this very image: when I shot the pic I had no idea the statue was that important, I merely liked it for being beautiful, but this shows how Commons can have unexpected positive outcomes).

To make it short, this statue is travelling to Paris for an exhibition about Babylon, but the Istanbul Museum was not able to provide a picture to be printed in the catalogue, which had to be printed in time. And it seems my picture was the only one available for the curators.

Here we have a very concrete example of how copyright restrictions are jeopardising the museums and their curators in the first place, in the very same way software litigation is by now aiming at Microsoft in the first place.

To be honest, the Louvre museum seems to have a rather liberal stance about allowing photographing their belongings, judging from the marvellous pictures User:Jastrow is taking there, and also in Istanbul I was allowed to photograph all I wanted, apart for the fact that guardians did not allow me to use a flash. This said, greed seems to backfire... in the long run. Let's hope this will help Museum curators to be a little bit less histerical about dilettantes like me shooting at their belongings... --User:G.dallorto 15:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) And I'd like to point out that User:Bibi Saint-Pol and User:Rama also take great pictures in the Louvre. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance requested for Valuable Image deployment[edit]

Three days ago, I published a proposal for a new Valuable Image concept as a supplement the existing Featured Pictures and Quality Images. The response so far has been encouraging, and it has been suggested that I should be bold and kick it off. Well, I'd really like to but there are a couple of issues I would greatly appreciate to get some assistance from other users in setting up. This mostly relates to technicalities about the possibilities in wiki, should subpages be used, templates, graphics, bots and internationalization, which I am not that knowledgeable of.

More specifically, I need assistance with the following

Therefore I kindly ask you, dear fellow Commoners: Can you help me? -- Slaunger 15:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 12[edit]

COM as alias for Commons namespace[edit]

WP as alias for Wikipedia (Project) namespace was created recently for English Wikipedia. Similar request are pending for Polish projects. I think will be good idea to do same thing with COM prefix.

Why not? What I would really like to see is a COM: (or even just C:) interwiki prefix shortcut like other projects have. Rocket000 01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
com: interwiki prefix could potentially interfere with en:ISO 639 language codes. --EugeneZelenko 15:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From en:ISO_639:c#com, it seems that this would only be a problem if there's likely to be a Comanche-language wikipedia... AnonMoos 15:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
de wp has the same. I would support a redirect COM -> Commons. Code·is·poetry 07:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted request. --EugeneZelenko 16:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question[edit]

I have uploaded a image poster of rahe bipayan. this image deleted. rahe bipayan is a TV Series in iran and I am Producer of this program. and all rights belongs to me. why I cant use this image in wikimedia commons? I must add more information for reupload it? azizi 09:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should donate the images to have them stay here. But by doing so, you should consider that anyone will have the right to use the images, not only you. --User:G.dallorto 15:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your explanations. I am well aware of the terms and regulations for Copyright use and I have already granted the right for anyone to use the pictures for any purpose. the tag that I have put in the Image description page is also supposed to imply this. azizi 07:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should dioramas be dealt with as sculptures?[edit]

We are wondering on the issue in this page. Your piece of mind is appreciated, I personally think we need a guideline on the issue. --User:G.dallorto 15:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish I could comment there, but with that, I honestly have no idea. I'm sure the images are fine generally, but for Commons? Rocket000 19:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was DMCA passed?[edit]

OK, I have seen many times where it is stated that in the US, 70 years after the copyright holder dies, the work is public domain. Is this a) not updated, b) law already passed (meaning it was originally 50 years after, or c) do I have it all wrong?

By the way, I have put a notice saying I want my userpage here and at simple.wikipedia to be deleted and for the last revision to be restored here and it has yet to be fulfiled. -IonasFreeman 01:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the DMCA has to do with it, but to align with standard international copyright treaties, the U.S. recognized the "life + 70 years" laws of other countries. However, material previously published in the U.S. is still often subject to other provisions of U.S. law. AnonMoos 09:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: m:Metapub#Set_upload_to_autoconfirmed_Wikimedia-wide[edit]

The proposal is to make "upload" an autoconfirmed right rather than an automatic right, as default on all Wikimedia wikis. So after you sign up, you have to wait 4 days before you can upload. Commons would not adopt this functionality. But it might mean more new users at other wikis would upload here, if they were impatient. So it could encourage people to use Commons, and maybe more newbies would come to Commons. Please leave comments at the meta page. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

A reminder that Wikibooks (and Wikijunior) are looking for new logos. We're collecting entries now, so please please add a submission if you're an artist. There are some guidelines you'll want to look at on those meta pages. Thanks to all who have already entered something, and anyone who does in the future! – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 13[edit]

Image redirects[edit]

Is there a way to make a redirect for an image on commons? I need this effect: when I call Image:a.jpg on xx.wiki, I want Image:b.jpg to appear. -- Obradovic Goran 16:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, MediaWiki still doesn't support this feature. See bugzilla:709 for details. --EugeneZelenko 16:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories with people's names[edit]

I have a general complain about categories with people's names: when I see one I can not tell if it is a name of photographer or a subject. For example when I want to find a photo of Ansel Adams I would go Category:Ansel Adams, but that category is full of his pictures and not pictures of him. On the other hand Category:George W. Bush is full of pictures of George Bush. Other categories are mixed some pictures are by a person and some are of a person, like Category:Dorothea Lange. Was this organization decided this way or was it accidental?. My personal preference would be to call all categories of photographers Category:Photographs by ... and reserve categories with people names for subjects of the photographs. --Jarekt 04:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. Naturally, "Category:Photographs by X" should be a subcategory of "Category:X". Samulili 07:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have some notes on that at Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy. BTW all our category organisation is accidental, if something is organised it is despite our best efforts. ;) ;) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some categorization stuff[edit]

I had a problem in categorizing two of my mages, Image:Kizilcik meyvesi.JPG and Image:Ki,zilcik meyveleri.JPG, as i'd read the tag as cotoneater dameri, but the category is Category:cotoneaster. Can someone decide if these pictured trees are cotoneaster or cotoneater? Khutuck 14:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotoneaster, we can find a “Cotoneaster dammeri”, and i find nothing about a “cotoneater”. ~ bayo or talk 14:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image with errors[edit]

Anyone understand what is happenning with this image? Can it be repaired/re-uploaded?-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Repaired-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 18:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add template:information template and describe what that drawing is?--Jarekt 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template help[edit]

Hi, could someone give a little coaching on the Library of Congress template? I've got some uploads I need to credit properly. Thanks, Durova 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 15[edit]

Is there a discussion or policy on naming?[edit]

Is there a convention about categories and page names for images of people whose native language doesn't use the Latin alphabet?

I realize commons is a multilingual project. This has probably come up before. Please direct me to the appropriate page and/or discussion for this topic. Thanks, Durova 05:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, pending agreement and/or a software fix, consensus seems to be that categories should be in English (but there are plenty of exceptions and anomalies) but galleries can be in native language (with at least a Roman script redirect). See Commons:Language policy for discussion. Man vyi 06:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category includings[edit]

Is there a tool to find category includings like {{Category:Buildings}} instead of [[Category:Buildings]]? --32X 07:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a specific given category, Special:Whatlinkshere/Category:Buildings should do the trick. That should show you the transclusions. But in general, I don't know. A regexp search on Wikitext would be a useful thing... Lupo 08:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more interested in a solution for the general case, since the includings I've found so far aren't very often but occur sometimes. --32X 09:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steward policy review[edit]

Can I draw the community's attention to the vote on the updated steward policies on Meta. This is your opportunity to have your say in this. The page is here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My website in source?[edit]

Hi there. I will upload (please note that it's not conditioned to the answer to this question) some pictures i've taken. These pictures are selections from my gallery web-site, were I have a lot of pictures from live gigs. I already use GFDL and CC-by-sa as licenses on my website.

My question is: is it ok to put a link to my website somewhere on the page description of the pictures I'll upload (in the "Source:" field for example)?

There is little interest for Commons to have dozens of pics of confidential bands, but people interested in the few pictures uploaded could be interested in visiting my website (and I insist on the fact that all of these pics are already released under open licenses). (and yes, of course I hope to gain some visibility for my site by doing so, but isn't it a fair tit for tat in that case? and I repeat, if the answer is a loud "hell no!" I will upload the pics anyway.) Case 11:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Case,
Yes, that's acceptable. See User:Lucag/Credit Luca Galuzzi for an example. See also Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy for more guidance about templates. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, only put your website as the "source" if your website clearly states that are freely licensed and which licenses. It is really better to put "self made"/"own work" if that is the case, and specify the link to your website as a different part of the metadata. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antix[edit]

Hello. I just add a copyright tag on this category. But i would like to have comment. The game is in text mode and graphiclly very simple. Do you think its possible to clam non eligibility of copyright for some screenshots ? Is here any help page talking about that? Thanks a lot. ~ bayo or talk 14:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that should be a deletion request on COM:DEL instead of being tagged as speedy. Since it's all text (included drawing characters) I would say it's PD ineligible, but can ASCII art be copyrighted? Rocket000 15:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do it. Thanks a lot. ~ bayo or talk 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combination Italian photo law + US-not renewed/not registered?[edit]

As you know, the Italian wikipedia has many fine images from movies, since movies and photos older than 20 years are under some circumstances public domain. There are a lot of Italian movies from the 50s, 60s and 70s in the US public domain, because they where either never registered for copyright, or their copryright was not renewed. Many of them are B-movies, exploitation films and spaghettiwesterns. Think Maciste, Caesar the Conquerer, and probably La Ciociara.

Am I right that screenshots from these movies are permitted on the commons, since they are legal both in the US and Italy? Herodotus 07:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under which circumstances would the copyright on a movie have expired in Italy after only 20 years? And don't forget about the URAA copyright restorations in the U.S. Lupo 08:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The circumstance is that the image is classified as "non-artistic". Here is the official wikipedia text:

"This image was created in Italy and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired. According to Law of 22 April 1941 n. 633, revised by the law of 22 May 2004, n. 128 article 87 and article 92, all non artistic photographs enter the public domain after 20 years counted from the beginning of the following calendar year (ie. as of 2006, prior to the 1st of January, 1986) after they were first published, this rule is valid also for italian film's screenshot. Artistic photographs enter in the public domain after 70 years." (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sjabloon:PD-IT )

On the Italian wikipedia, practically every screenshot "goes". See http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:La_ciociara%2C_screenshot.gif , http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:10.000_dollari_per_un_massacro_Django_Garko.jpg , http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Ace_High_Hill.jpg .

I am not sure about the effects of the URAA on Italian movies that where prevously public domain. On all sites with public domain-movies (like archive.org and publicdomaintorrents ), the Italian movies are still distributed. Herodotus 09:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see an authoritative source on that screenshot thing. I would be very surprised if that were true. Movies (excepting maybe documentaries) are artistic works, and screenshots are not photographs. Lupo 09:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the use on wikipedia, I would say check out those links from the Italian wiki I gave, or look on http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Screenshot_film . I think they use the following sentences from the Italian law: "Sono considerate fotografie ai fini dell'applicazione delle disposizioni di questo capo le immagini di persone o di aspetti, elementi o fatti della vita naturale e sociale, ottenute col processo fotografico o con processo analogo, comprese le riproduzioni di opere

Dell'arte figurativa e i fotogrammi delle pellicole cinematografiche." ([ http://www.interlex.it/testi/l41_633.htm#87 link] )

My Italian is not that good, but I think that this is the right text for it. Perhaps anyone with a close knowledge of Italian can say if I'm right? Herodotus 10:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, now I am surprised. Indeed this looks as if Italian law treats single frames ("screenshots") of movies as "simple photographs". The problem is that the U.S. doesn't do that. (And in fact, I'm not aware of such a rule in any other country.) You'd still need to show that the movie itself was PD under U.S. law (i.e., not restored) for such a screenshot to be acceptable. Lupo 10:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am no law expert, and that law (1941) does indeed says what it has been quoted for, however the problem is that when we were talking in the it:Wikipedia about the Italian law and Commons, we reached the conclusion that the Italian law is now superseded by the most recent international copyright laws agreements. In fact, all "non-artistic" Italian photographs (that is to say, not only film shots) that had been uploaded in Commons under the 20-years rule, have been meanwhile deleted. Therefore I can't understand how this rule can now apply to film frames alone, which in many case can claim artistic merit (thus being exempt from the 20-years rule, which was intended for news images). In my opinion, uploading these images would not be a good idea. By the way, the copyright disclaim for the images Herodotus refers to, explicitly warns about NOT uploading these pix on Commons. --User:G.dallorto 11:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ Lupo: From a dozen of Italian films, I can reasonable claim their public domain status in the US. Combined with this law, I conclude that those screenshots can be allright.

@ G.dallorto: Of course international copyright laws must be obeyed, but that's my point: of some films, one can reasonable say they are public domain in the US. That meets wikimedia commons' demand for public domain in both countries. About the pics I show: they are just an example, I know THESE are not in the US public domain, and can therefore not be uploaded on wiki commons. Both others (as I said, mostly B-movies) are. I will soon upload some, with both the Italian and the US laws cited. People with further objections can comment on them. Herodotus 16:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I took the liberty of uploading

, since I think both Italian and US laws say "OK". Anyone who thinks it is not allright, please contact me. Herodotus 22:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. We have an Italian 1963 (or 1964, online sources differ) movie Ercole l'invincibile, and a U.S. version thereof, Hercules the Invincible, later re-titled as The Sons of Hercules: In the Land of Darkness. The Italian movie is copyrighted in Italy (see articles 13, 25 & 26, 44, and 78-ter of the Italian copyright law). The U.S. version apparently was published simultaneously with the Italian version (many films from that series even were U.S.-Italian co-productions). The U.S. version has no copyright notice (see [9]) and thus is PD in the U.S. The screenshot is from the U.S. version. Is Italian law relevant at all in this case? Why should it? And anyway, unless this screenshot was made more than 20 years ago, the Italian provision about treating movie stills as "simple photographs" has no bearing at all. And related question: is the Italian version copyrighted in the U.S. (URAA restorations)? The U.S. version, as a translation, would be a derivative work of the original Italian version. Does that derivation concern only the audio? Would a screenshot from the middle of the film where there's no text also be PD, or would it be subject to the (restored) copyright on the Italian version? Lupo 08:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Italian law is relevant, because the images are from the original Italian motion picture. I do not think only screenshots from 20 years ago are permitted under that law. As I am the one who took the screenshot, that screenshot is my work, so that is no problem. The question really is weather movie still from more than 20 years ago can be used for screenshots etc.; I think so, reading the Italian law. As I said above, I am not sure about the URAA restoration, but I have a good clue. I searched the title (in various forms) in the copyright administration database, and it did not appear. There IS a copyright registration for a (subtitled) video cassette called "Ercole l'invincible eroe/Hercules the invincible hero" , but that is not the dubbed motion picture we discuss here. (Is there by the way a list of what works where copy-restored by the URAA?)

Herodotus 09:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Italian movie is copyrighted in Italy, so you can take a screenshot of the Italian version only with the consent of the rights holders. That screenshot would then be protected by Italian law for 20 years in Italy. For screenshots from the U.S. version, that shouldn't be problem, as that version is PD-US. And no, there is no catalog of works on which the copyright was restored, simply because that restoration was automatic for all foreign works that qualified under the conditions of 17 USC 104A. Lupo 09:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I can just screenshot any of the PD-US films from Italy, given a proof of them still being public domain in the US, AND it is from the US-version- right? Herodotus 12:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Problematic sources page[edit]

The new Problematic sources page brings together for ready-reference a list of sources that are likely to be problematic for some reason. It aims to address the question "can I upload images from such-and-such a website?". The page has been excellently started off by Lupo. --MichaelMaggs 17:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the term "Flickrwashing" :P -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, some new vocab for me too :) Thankyou Lupo and Michael. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not my inventions, though. Seen it before in some deletion request. Let's see... ah yes: first mention of "flickrwashing", Oct 22, 2007, mention where I had seen it originally, from Dec 14, 2007, and the first mention of "flickrvio", Nov 25, 2007. Lupo 08:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It now links to bad sources, where the really horrible sites live. --MichaelMaggs 17:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 16[edit]

MESSENGER images/NASA[edit]

Is there anyone more familiar with NASA copyright policy? I came across this because ofImage:Messenger.jpg but this could affect any MESSENGER images. The copyright statement we're linking to [10] is somewhat unclear. It seems to indicate it's not free (As it only mentions non-commercial and public informational purposes which would suggest that many commercial usages are not allowed and certain derivates may not be allowed either). However it does say it's a NASA mission and links to the general NASA copyright statement which states their images are generally (although not always) not copyrighted. Since multiple organisations are involved in this mission I don't think we can assume US government = public domain. The image in particular, since it's a artist's impression and could be made by anyone in any capacity and the source [11] does say © 1999-2007 by JHU/APL. Nil Einne 12:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, images from NASA itself are in the public domain. Images from any non-government organization associated with NASA (such as Johns Hopkins University, in this case) are not. --Carnildo 20:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've e-mailed one of the contacts for the MESSENGER mission since I decided this was the best way to sort it Nil Einne 21:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems here is that a vast number of so-called "NASA images" are these ones produced by joint efforts with other organisations. Sometimes the other organisation builds the spacecraft, NASA sends it up into space, and the other organisation receives the data and images (ie. NASA is just the delivery boy). Often NASA is more involved than this, and a lot of the 'credit', if you like, goes to NASA (or associated governmental organisations) as well. What it comes down to is carefully reading the credit lines NASA provide. If they say "JPL" (w:Jet Propulsion Laboratory), or "KSC" (w:Kennedy Space Center), then there is no problem. But John Hopkins University is a problem here. The irony here is that the image (an artwork) may well have been produced by a NASA artist, or a JHU artist, or someone else entirely, working for hire. The information NASA provide doesn't allow us to work this out. Carcharoth (Commons) 22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thread on wikipedia is here [12] Nil Einne 19:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Image casebook page[edit]

For a new user who may not know anything about copyright, Commons can be a daunting place. Not only are our guideline pages confusing and in places downright contradictory, they are mostly based around legal concepts that are generally meaningless to the beginner. One consequence is that too many uploads are innocent copyvios; another is that deletion requests tend to go over the same ground over and over again. What users really want to know is "can I upload pictures of some particular subject?" - in other words, the entry point for queries tends to be subject-matter based not legally based. To try to fix this, I have created a new page called Image casebook where users can find simple answers to questions based on subject-matter. The plan would be to expand this, and as it gets too big to split off sections to their own pages, with an appropriate link. Comments are welcome. --MichaelMaggs 16:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks totally champion. Don't forget to link it in places like Help:Contents. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this list looks great, and will be a great help. My only suggestion would be to link each section name to a related category. Like "Coins" should be Coins. That would send users immediately to related images. I would also add section on medical images (like xrays and ultrasound) with a note to use {{PD-ineligible}} instead of self-made. Other useful sections: stamps, astronomical images, family snapshots, science graphs and diagrams, etc. --Jarekt 14:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have in mind a separate page about {{PD-ineligible}}, if I can get round to it. Not sure about the category linking, as the page isn't really intended to help in categorization and there would be a danger of adding headings which do no more than replicate the category list. --MichaelMaggs 20:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Book Search[edit]

Now that so many public domain books have been uploaded to the web by Google Book Search, is it okay for us to upload photos from these books to Wikimedia Commons? (e.g. for my fascinating new Wikipedia article on Canadian poet Theodore Harding Rand, I would like to upload this photo http://books.google.com/books?id=MdwOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2&dq=theodore+harding+rand from his 1900 book Song-waves, which has been placed on the web by Google Book Search) I'm assuming this should be okay since Google Book Search only uploads books in the public domain, so it would seem to follow that all images in Google Book Search are also in the public domain.

If that's the case, should Google Book Search be added to Commons: Free media resources or somewhere like that?

Also, assuming the public domain issues are good, I'm going to need technical advice on how to convert the .gif image from Google Book Search to something useful for Wikimedia Commons, so if someone would like to spare me having to post on the technical page, go ahead.

Adam sk 06:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Google Book Search does upload books that aren't in the public domain. But the book I want to use is in the public domain. Adam sk 06:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upload URLs[edit]

Hi. I would like to know how are calculated the "/7/73/" part in upload urls like http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Rogers_Center-restitched.jpg

In fact I work on a wiki where it is normally impossible to restore deleted images. But these images are still on the server, and I think this information could help me to restore these images.

Thanks for any help. --GaAs11671 10:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're running MediaWiki software, why don't you just upgrade to the latest version, which does have image undeletion? If you're running other software, that other software may determine the storage location of a given file differently. In MediaWiki, I think it is given by the hexadecimal representation of the MD5 hash of the image filename "Rogers_Center-restitched.jpg" (first character converted to uppercase, blanks replaced by underscores). The "7" is the first hex digit of that MD5, and the "73" is the first two hex digits. See en:User:Lupin/popups.js, function "make_image" of "Insta.convert", for a Javascript implementation. (An MD5 implementation is also in that file, function "hex_md5".) Lupo 10:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. Of course we're using Mediawiki, I hadn't bothered you if it wasn't. The problem is not to upgrade the software, but how to restore images which have been deleted before the upgrade. Probably Commons have experienced that at its beginning, that's why I ask you tis question.
We just accepted that images that were deleted before undeletion was possible, were permanently gone. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life drawing/painting models[edit]

I was thinking about creating a category for this subject but since English is not my mother tongue I prefered asking here what should be the correct name according to you. Thanks for your suggestions and comments. (also where to categorize this category?) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia calls it w:Figure drawing and this might be a better name, despite being usually called "Life Drawing". It will probably have a huge overlap with Category:Nude drawings. --Jarekt 03:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it would be the same as Category:Nude drawings (which isn't perfect but works - en:w:Figure painting actually links to that Commons category), unless you mean illustrations of the human form in general - then maybe something like Category:Drawings of the human body (or just "Drawings of humans") might be more easily understood by non-native English speakers. Rocket000 15:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think it will overlap them since I was more thinking about photos like those: Image:Sucker for art (photo and painting by Peter Klashorst).jpg, Image:Multiple exposure 33.jpg, Image:Aktmodell.jpg. Actually, as you can see, I wasn't only thinking about nude "painting" but also other forms of art! That's why your ideas don't match mine! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Bono Copyrright Act[edit]

Above #Was_DMCA_passed.3F, I meant the Sonny Bono (Mickey Mouse) Copyright Act, extending the copyright 20 years after the holder's death (I may not have phrased it right, but you know what I mean). Was it passed? Was it formerly 50 years after the death? Or are we violating that stupid thing? -IonasFreeman 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it was definitly passed. I think you were confusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (aka the Mickey Mouse Protection Act). It extended all copyright terms by 20 years. Previously it was life + 50 years or 75 years after publication for works of corporate authorship. Now those are 70 and 95 years, respectively. Keep in mind, the extension act is not retroactive, so works that were already in the public domain, stay PD. It just kinda froze things. (See the chart) Rocket000 08:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help! IonasFreeman 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recruitment drive?[edit]

See Commons:List of administrators by adminship status in other Wikimedia projects ... we have a pretty good list of projects that have at least one admin here but it could be longer. I would like to suggest that maybe some recruitment among major wikis that have no admins at all here yet might be a good idea? Its a not very well formed idea to be sure, and I think we've done it before but? ++Lar: t/c 15:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That page could do with an update really. Majorly (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, but it takes a fair bit of work as there is no easy way to check. it seems to work best if individual admins remember to update it. Maybe I'll see if some toolsmith wants to make an easy way to tell who is admin where, en-masse. The problem is spoofed IDs though. ++Lar: t/c 23:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with category:Vintage[edit]

This category is about viniculture, not about the other meaning of the word "vintage". But some pictures like Image:Kurt Vonnegut-Welcome to the monkey house - paperback cover.jpg or Image:Old Letter.jpg are categorized there. I tried to look for a better category for them but I could only find Category:Vintage photographs.Since my English is far from being perfect I prefer to let you find a solution! Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's one less that doesn't belong. (Copyvio) Rocket000 05:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some sorting out and added a disambiguation. Hope this helps. Man vyi 08:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 19[edit]

Commons:Picture of the Year/2007/Results/Round 1/Voting register[edit]

Hi, linked above is the list of people who voted in Round 1 of the POTY competition. Please, have a look over it, and if you recognise any names of people known for sockpuppetry, write to commons-poty@googlegroups.com. thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr change of license[edit]

Today I feel extremely grateful that we instituted the flickr-license-checker bot. Image:New York City at night HDR.jpg has its licensed changed, and the author of Image:Peugeot 206 WRC.jpg deleted his entire Flickr account. (They are both POTY finalists.) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. :) Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 03:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info prefix?[edit]

Does anyone know what these pages are? They all start with "Info:" which isn't a namespace, of course. I deleted a few but then I realize how many there were. Do they sevre a purpose or are they just incorrectly named? Rocket000 17:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They all seem to have been created by the same user (at least the ones I checked). Unless they have some use that I'm unaware of, they should be deleted as essentially encyclopaedia stub articles. --MichaelMaggs 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Information for the use of "Info" pages are at Category:Info Pages. Not sure it helps... --GeorgHH • talk   20:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was written by the self-same user who wrote all the info pages. It appears to have been an idea of User:Makthorpe's which hasn't been taken up by the community. --MichaelMaggs 21:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question[edit]

I've had a query from a user on Wikipedia about the terminology of the copyright notice on some of my images (see for example Image:Tivedshambo 2006-10-28 Mallwyd waterfalls.jpg. It has a valid GFDL-1.2 tag, but I've added a disclaimer that I have the right (as copyright holder) to amend the copyright in future as I see fit. This is not intended to make the images any less free, but just giving me the option to change to another copyright acceptable to Commons in the future. After all, GFDL-1.2 may fall out of favour one day, in which case I will have to change it. Could a copyright expert confirm that I can do this please. Thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to revoke your licence(s). 哦，是吗？(O-person) 20:55, 19 January 2008 (GMT)
Could you point to somewhere confirming this please. Obviously I accept that if I did revoke my licence (which I have no intention of doing), my images would be deleted. – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IANAL, but there is nothing in GFDL allowing you to unilaterally revoke the license. The GFDL states, "Such a notice [that the work is under GFDL] grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein." (emphasis and bracketed text added). You can not arbitrarily limit the duration of the license. It will, however, automatically terminate for a reuser that violates it. At any point, as copyright holder, you can add any license you like (proprietary or free) for the image, but you can not remove licenses for those that remain in compliance. Superm401 - Talk 21:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the position is on Commons, but in Wikipedia, {{db-self}} is a valid request for speedy deletion which I have occasionally used for my own images, e.g. where it has been superseded by a better image. Be that as it may, I've removed the offending words from my template. Hopefully this finalises the matter. – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a wider issue, what is Commons policy if a contributer of a image with a valid licence tag were to request deletion of that image? – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no firm policy, but if it was a valued contributor with a good record, the image was not used anywhere "important" (a very subjective call) and it wasn't a POINTy "I want to take all my images off" request, I at least would tend to support it. That despite that once GFDL or CC-xx is granted, it can't be revoked legally, for that particular version. You can well ADD licenses, and you can make other versions available with other licenses... It's a matter of courtesy rather than rights. ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it very much depends on the situation. We have had users who left their home project in dispute and tried to have all their images deleted from Commons in order to disrupt the project they left. On the other hand we have also had users who regretted posting an image for some reason and nicely asked. In general, if an replacement for the image can be found and it is asked politely we delete images on author's request. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per Resolution:Licensing_policy and the resulting requirement that freedoms should be availible to anyone anytime the current version is not acceptable either since it would be trivial to modify the license to a non free state (there is also the secondary problem that the sentance you have written would only make sense if you are the goverment of a nation state).Geni 23:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I have no intention of doing any such thing (i.e. changing my licence to an unfree one). If I didn't want my images on Wikipedia or Commons, I wouldn't have uploaded them. I'm afraid I don't understand your final comment. – Tivedshambo (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have no intention then why have the text there at all. Your failing to undestand the final comment is part of the reason homebrew licenses are a bad idea.Geni 02:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can always refuse to distribute the image yourself, but once the license is given to a reuser (and Commons is a reuser) the reuser can continue to distribute the image under the given license. -Nard 23:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would remove that extra stuff since it doesn't add anything ( anyone and everyone can relicense their work if they hold the copyright). The part about not amending or modifying the license if you're not the copyright holder goes without saying. (Well, it is said in the license itself.) It only confuses users and implies that authors of derivatives must use only your license. Derivatives (not copies) can be amended (the GFDL has to remain unaltered). Rocket000 03:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GFDL-user-en[edit]

This redirects (or did until today, i've edited it to add a notice) to Template:GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers, whereas for the past six months the relevant templates on en.wikipedia itself did NOT include disclaimers. I'm concerned that people may have, when copying images to commons, incorrectly translated {{GFDL-self}} to {{GFDL-user-en}} after this change occured. —Random832 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

January 20[edit]

POTY final now open[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

The final for the 2007 Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year is now open!

The top 28 images were chosen from the first round. Now, you have just one vote, to help us choose the ultimate Picture of the Year. The finalists are listed here: Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007/Finalists

If you are eligible, you can vote in the final, even if you didn't vote in the first round. Please visit here to see if you are eligible and get a voting token: Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007/Voting

Final voting is only open for 5 days, so be sure to get in quick!

Thanks,

Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

(that was me :) pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]


Finalists
Finalists

State Hermitage Museum[edit]

I have a question regarding images from the State Hermitage Museum digital collection: their Image Usage Policy states that, "The contents of this site, including all images and text, are for personal, educational, non-commercial use only. The contents of this site may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form without the written permission of the State Hermitage Museum." Yet, I see that images from that museum like this one have been uploaded. Is this something that has been overlooked or is it how is OK to do so, like it falls under something like the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. rule, or the State Hermitage Museum has given written permission to do so? Thanks. W. C. Minor 01:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It falls under Bridgeman v. Corel because there is no known country-specific rule at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Country-specific_rules. BTW: It was a bad idea to suspend B. v. C. by this page. --Historiograf 04:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upload history broken ? - no user link on new images[edit]

At my end of the series of tubes some image pages are not showing the user associated with an upload. Example: Image:Wutai_Shan_from_the_air_-_p-ad20080116-10h51m49s-cdr1b.jpg, this is possibly related to new users/images with only a single uploader. Older images seem to work okay. Megapixie 13:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at 'latest files' this is happening to all new uploads. Arthena 13:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happens to me as well. Code·is·poetry 13:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked on Wikimedia-tech on IRC and the response was that this is basically a fixed problem, and that the correct history can be obtained in an image by manually purging it ('click on edit, then replace the word 'edit' by 'purge' in the url, and load the page). Eventually all images will be purged automatically. Arthena 13:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or add ?action=purge to the end of the URL for a simpler way. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 14:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image redirects[edit]

We have recently implemented image redirects. You can test them at Test Wikipedia now. Please, report all issues at Bugzilla and this page — VasilievVV 14:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GIF instead of large PNG?[edit]

I noticed that PNGs have a 12 mega pixel size limit (see Commons:FAQ#What_resolution_should_the_images_I_upload_be.3F). Would GIF of large images be preferable? In my case I would like to upload a map with 13 Mega-pixels and PNG and GIF files compress (losslessly) much better then JPEG's. I can also use approach I used in Image:Warszawa Powstanie 1944-08-04.png where I uploaded 2 different sizes. --Jarekt 16:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The limit actually applies to both PNGs and GIFs. There's no limit on uploading such files; it's that files above the limit will not be resized /thumbnailed by Wikimedia software... AnonMoos 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, GIF is not a preferred format since it is proprietary. ++Lar: t/c 02:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the patents are completely up so it can be used freely now, but it did give it a bad name. PNGs are still the preferred format because they're technically superior to GIFs. They generally compress better than GIFs, support larger color depths, have better interlacing, and many other things. PNGs are sometimes larger than GIFs cause they store more information, but usually they're smaller and render faster. Rocket000 03:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, here, "smaller" is not entirely the case, thanks to Commons' wonderful PNG renderer. Whenever a thumbnail is generated of a PNG image, that thumbnail is a 24-bit PNG, regardless of the color depth of the original, which kills any size advantage it might have had over GIF (only the original, un-thumbnailed PNG images end up smaller). GIF is an 8-bit format and stays 8-bit when you resize it, and so (despite being discouraged here) is actually, IMO, more suitable for certain tasks, at least until the PNG thumbnailing is fixed. No comment on whether it's more appropriate here though. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 03:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but just with browser compatibility, that's not the format's fault. GIF is still the preferred format for animation (at least until SVG dominates the world). Rocket000 05:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's not the format's fault. Browser compatibility, though? Does MediaWiki generate 24-bit thumbnails for that reason? Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 06:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just meant GIFs have less browser compatibility issues than PNGs, which also isn't the format's fault. (Not some much of an issue anymore now that IE6 is fading away.) Rocket000 06:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. :) There is that. And if MediaWiki would generate thumbnails properly that would be one less reason to use GIF... Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 06:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you don't use alpha channel transparency, PNG is compatible with IE, which gives PNG no downside compared to GIF, except for the MediaWiki thumbnailing issue of course. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a bug for the thumbnailing? If not, should there be? I have poor results finding bugs, I always end up opening a dup :) ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This limit was implemented as a matter of specific policy, since the thumbnailing of huge lossless images was taking up too much resources. There was an explanatory e-mail on one of the lists, probably archived away somewhere (the former URL I had, http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-October/032030.html , doesn't seem to work now...). AnonMoos 11:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THAR U GO! Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 12:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair on MediaWiki, this is probably a bug/feature in (I believe) GD, not in MediaWiki itself. (CLARIFICATION COMMENT: I was referring to the huge size of thumbnails generated from PNGs, not to the refusing-to-thumbnail-huge-images issue. 12:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC))
But maybe GIF doesn't only have an advantage when thumbnailing. Interesting experiment: Try converting the full-sized version of this (greyscale PNG) to GIF with ImageMagick. I get it down to 324k (from 613k). I can get the PNG down to 586k in the GIMP; and down to 354k by converting the GIF version I made to a PNG with gif2png -os. GIF does seem to have some kind of size advantage, although small, with images like this. (Maybe it's a black-and-white thing; converting this to GIF led to a substantial size increase.)
I hate computers. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The GIF size advantage comes most likely from 8-bit colors. You should get similar compression with PNGs after switching to 8-bits (by lets say converting to GIF and then to PNG). --Jarekt 03:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mhm, it does. The convert-to-gif-then-gif2png method does precisely that. GIF still ends up smaller. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 09:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

category:Couple vs category:Couples[edit]

Which one to keep? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plural is standard, therefore Category:Couples. I'd keep a category redirect at Category:Couple, though. --rimshottalk 11:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

category:Flip-flops[edit]

Can anyone do some sorting out? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ho ho - I see the problem :-) I suggest creating category:Flip-flops (footwear) or something similar for the shoes. I'll do it tonight, unless someone else gets in first. – Tivedshambo (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This time, you can find an answer in en:Flip-flop_(disambiguation). Many images refer to an electronical or "logical" flip-flop belonging to Category:Digital circuit diagrams. Many of the 30 to 50 flip-flop images still need categories. --Foroa 14:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existing category appears to have been made for the logic diagrams, as it is a sub-category of category:Logic diagrams, etc, which is why I suggested moving the footwear out of it. I'm not an expert on the electronics side to recognise a flip-flop from any other circuit, but I think I can differentiate the shoes! If anyone has a better suggestion, I'd be happy to go along with it. Is there any precedent for category disambiguation pages? – Tivedshambo (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where arrives a photo in "Media with locations"[edit]

When possible and relevant I add the coordinates with the photos. When I upload, automatically the category "Media with locations" is added. For the first time I had now a look at that category, but I don't know how to find a certain image. For example I added Image:Playa_del_ingles_near_beach_B.jpg but how/where can I find it back in that category? --Wouter 11:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big categories aren't shown all at the same time, but in sets of 200 items (be they images or something else), which can be browsed with the links at the top and bottom of the page. There's more information on meta:Help:Category. However, that category isn't really ment for use by humans and I can't think of any direct use for it. Thanks for geocoding your images, but please do it following the instructions and templates on Commons:Geocoding. --Para 14:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your answer. You wrote "... but please do it following the instructions and templates on Commons:Geocoding." From this I understand that in your opinion the example I gave is not according to the instructions and templates on Commons:Geocoding. I always add the scale parameter so that the zoom factor is right and you don't get the message that you have to zoom out. In Commons:Geocoding under the heading "Adding a location template" you find the example I have copied below.

or add {{location|lat deg|lat min|lat sec|NS|long deg|long min|long sec|EW}} to the top of the image page, filling in the lat and long the result will look something like this:

Camera location37° 30′ 40.9″ N, 77° 36′ 09.41″ W Kartographer map based on OpenStreetMap.View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMapinfo


Under "Parameters" is mentioned that type and scale are redundant on Commons, as most images are at lowest scale. The defaults are type:landmark and scale:5000.
Heading is used to indicate the direction the camera was pointing at. (Example: heading:NW)
The default scale factor of 5000 in the example given is not suitable because one has too zoom out. A scale factor of 40000 gives in Google Maps a result. I like the words "Camera location" but I don't like the three lines
This and other geocoded Commons images:
* Google Maps
* Google Earth
I like too keep it to one line. The link to Google Maps does not use the scale factor given in the coordinates of the camera position. So in my opinion is the link from the coordinates itself sufficient.
I tried the heading parameter as follows: {{location|37|30|40.9|N|77|36|9.41|W|heading:NW}} but that did not show any info about heading. Do I use it in the wrong way? Regards, Wouter 10:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be better discussed at Commons talk:Geocoding, but generally it's not a good idea to go by personal preferences over community guidelines. It's not just for the the visual look that the location templates are preferred, but there are tools that expect the information on Commons to be in that format. You're using the heading parameter correctly, but it's visualised with the two Google links only and isn't mandatory. --Para 12:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Perfect" Image[edit]

Is there anywhere on Commons a page defining rules on how the "perfect" image should look? For example that maps should be SVG and maps should follow some color rules to be easy accessible. The same for the image description. A map image description should contain info on what exactly is depicted, if necessary a color legend, and in the ideal case specification about the coordinates of the image borders etc. pp. Is there any such checklist? --::Slomox:: >< 17:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know. It is however useful to read through the nominations of the Featured Maps. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 21[edit]

figure brackets[edit]

Who deleted one fnd replaced with Template in edittags Template:''' & '''? I need it --Albedo-ukr 05:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you restate that question? Maybe give a link ? thanks! ++Lar: t/c 17:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot move to commons , CommonsHelper , etc...[edit]

Nowadays, lots of imges are transferred from the local wikipedia projects to commons. Nice. But those botmoves also automatically add categories.

And that's where things go seriously wrong. Wouldn't it be better not to automatically categorize those images, but just mark them as uncategorized (as already is done now)?

  • One of the problems might still be acceptable: overcategorization. Single images are often added to up to 10 categories, often very generic categories. So those generic categories seem to get "spammed" (if I may use that word) with tens or hundredth of vaguely related images.
    • Some examples:
      • This is what I would call almost insane generic overcategorization (and even wrong) [13], [14]
  • Even worse are categories that are plain wrong. Massively adding hundreds of mistakes or bot created desinformation can't be the goal of the Wikimedia projects, isn't it ?
    • Some examples:
      • The category of this German town is literally spammed by images from the netherlands or belgium; that is : images not related to the german town at all: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20],
      • Image from the Netherlands are dumped somewhere in very generic categories on Flanders (part of Belgium): [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]

This is already going on for months....

Anyway, all those image are already marked by the template {{BotMoveToCommons}}, so they are listed and categorized and need to be reviewed (that is what I do from time to time). So, at some point, the good categories will be added. But in the meantime, lots of wrong categorizations stay around for months (or may never be fixed), and some categories seem almost unusable when half of the images inside actually don't have any relation to the category subject. So leaving the imports uncategorized would at least avoid those hundreds of errors.... --LimoWreck 18:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a problem but in my opinion the problem is not the tool but the way it is used. The bot suggests categories but it is up to the user (the one moving and/or the one that verifies the move) to ensure that the categories, as well as description, license, etc. make sense. Also in my opinion over-categorization is better than no categories (just barely) --Jarekt 14:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommandbot was bringing over images that had no categories at all. I think having the bot put images into some category that suggests further review would be good is what we should do but I would encourage over rather than under categorisation, even if the cats are too generic. Humans can then look to see if there are more specific ones. When HotCat works well, this is pretty easy and a good way to do some "goldfarming" :) ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation policy[edit]

Sort of related to the last but one thread. Does Commons have a disambiguation policy, e.g. can we create disambiguation pages and is there a standard format to follow. Whilst searching to see if Commons had any images of the Merlin anti-tank round, I was led to Category:Merlin, which is for the magician, I added a line with links to the bird of prey and the Westland helicopter, but it would have been useful if there had been a disambig page.KTo288 18:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Category:Disambiguation for some formats to follow. Man vyi 09:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is what I was looking for.KTo288 09:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 22[edit]

Protection question[edit]

What exactly is the time limit for the "new" in "new or unregistered users"? I'm only one day old, so I obviously can't edit a semi-protected page, but I'm curious to when a user is not longer considered "new". Nousernamesleft 01:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three-four days. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 01:47, 22 January 2008 (GMT)

Category tool[edit]

I know we have several category tools around, but I'm having trouble finding one which does what I need. Is there a tool available where it can scan for all images uploaded by a user and then automatically add a new category to them all? My goal is to add all of my images to a user gallery, but I never really thought about doing that until nearly 3500 pictures too late. Thanks! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 20:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work...?[edit]

If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?

By taking a picture with a copyrighted cartoon character on a t-shirt as its main subject, for example, the photographer creates a new, copyrighted work (the photograph), but the rights of the cartoon character's creator still affect the resulting photograph. Such a photograph could not be published without the consent of both copyright holders: the photographer and the cartoonist.

Legally, most toys are art. It is the same thing whether you take a picture of a sculpture or a picture of Darth Vader. Both are copyrighted, in both cases, the copyright of the photograph does not void the original copyright, and in both cases you will need the permission of the original creator. You cannot upload pictures of a sculpture by Picasso, you can't upload photographs of Mickey Mouse or Pokemon figures.

...is this really public domain ? Argument would go like "US Govt has accepted to release all his work as PD , so yes, it's PD". But then, if I make a derivative work of something with reserved rights.. and I accept to release as PD, that wouldn't make it PD, would it? So, either US Govt cant' release that as PD, or we can relicense derivative works as we want.

So? -- m:drini 23:07 13 ene 2008 (UTC)

Am I a PD derivative work or not?
The US Govt can do a lot of things we can't. They did make the laws, didn't they. I don't know what the situation really is, but I know not all derivatives of PD work can be remain PD. Just like old PD movies with still copyrighted characters Rocket000 00:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't copyright a character, only an expression of it. Old PD movies (e.g. pre-1923) are PD in their entirety, though the characters in them may be trademarked. Derivative works of copyrighted works can not be released into the public domain. Whether a work is derivative can sometimes be a complex question. Superm401 - Talk 06:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course one can copyright a character. Remember Mickey Mouse? Lupo 08:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The expression of Mickey Mouse is copyrighted, not the idea. It's also trademarked, that's why things that merely resemble the character's likeness are restricted. But the "expression" of made-up things, like cartoon characters, is very broad and wide-ranging since in order to make anything that resembles the subject, one has to use the original expression, and thus making a derivative. Unless both were created completely independent of each other—a nearly impossible situation that has no creditability whatsoever—one's clearly a derivative. That's why we simply say the character itself is copyrighted. Technically, the idea of a anthropomorphic mouse named "Mickey Mouse" isn't copyrightable but Walt Disney's expression of it is. Rocket000 09:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rocket... but US Govt is still bound by international traties, isn't it? -- Drini 08:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but sometimes it doesn't seem that way ;) Rocket000 09:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I'm outside of USA, then US laws won't apply to me. This is more like discussing the abstract situation rather than the specific example (which I think it's a weaseling copyvio) -- Drini 08:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is discussing the abstract situation kinda like in the "neighboring rights" situation. The U.S. does not even acknowledge the photographer's rights on faithful 2D replications, so legally they're fine because our severs are in the U.S., but Commons is more restrictive than we legally have to be in hopes of benefiting a larger user group, namely those outside the U.S. And you're right, regardless of what the U.S. claims, you still have to follow the laws of your country if they don't respect the U.S.'s claim of PD. I know what you mean here and I agree with your reasoning in theory, but we don't have the authority to say the U.S. is in violation of it's own laws. It may be hypocritical, but it's still legally what they say it is. Copyright laws in general don't always make sense. Good in theory, but terribly flawed in practice. That seems to be the way the U.S. is, itself. :) (coming from one of its citizens). Rocket000 09:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an employee of the US Govt photographs something doesn't make that thing public domain. With these photos, as with all derivative works, there is more than one copyright to consider. The US Govt may release their copyright over the photo into the public domain, but the representation of spiderman is derivative and presumably Marvel Comics would claim copyright. —JeremyA 22:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 14[edit]

PD Old templates[edit]

Please see Template_talk:PD-old#Additional_templates for discussion of which PD old templates to use on Commons. I have added {{PD-old-100}}, which prompted Jusjih to add PD-old-75 and PD-old-80. I am seeking consensus on whether others believe the additional templates are needed. I initially thought not, but am willing to reconsider. Superm401 - Talk 04:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 24[edit]

A category mess[edit]

A category mess that I don't know how to sort out: I was trying to place Category:Steam meet (which should possibly be Category:Steam meets) in the categories hierarchy. There may be a few ways to improve where I put it, but in the process I ran across quite a mess: Category:Clubs. It seems to be an unholy mix of nightclubs, dance clubs, "clubs" in the sense of "elite quasi-fraternal organizations", and at least one thing that is the sort of thing I was thinking of (and which I put there some months ago, probably without looking at the hierarchy), Category:Cyclecide, a club of altered-bicycle enthusiasts. Anyway, there is something here to disentangle, and I don't entirely see my way clear to how it should be.

I think nightclubs, dance clubs, etc. belong somewhere under Category:Entertainment and maybe Category:Bars (but what about dance clubs that aren't bars?), but they should not be under Category:Clubs. Category:Clubs should be for voluntary organizations, and should be split into things like hobbyist clubs and (I don't even have a good word for this) elite fraternal associations (such as yacht clubs and university clubs, whose categories are already in Category:Clubs). That seems to be the outline of a solution, but hardly a comprehensive answer.

If there is somewhere other than the VP where this would better be handled, feel free to move it; a link would be appreciated so that I can find the discussion. - Jmabel | talk 19:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that "club" is overloaded into the organizational meaning and the venue meaning (be glad no one wanted to post a lot of pictures of caveman implements of war, eh?). I think you've sorted it correctly, I'd support club being used for organization and use bar or entertainment or even "venue" for dance clubs. The problem is where the two shade together a bit, we have "supper clubs" and "country clubs" both of which have a membership AND an entertainment aspect. But for those, double categorise. Carry on, I say, you're doing what seems needful. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It helps, but I'm not sure I have time to properly follow up on this in the next few days, and I suspect there will be a lot to disentangle. Does someone else want to take this on? If not, I'll probably get to it early February. - Jmabel | talk 20:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making a list[edit]

I've been working a bit lately on this list at Wikipedia of all full length copyleft/public domain musical works available on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, in ogg format. Does anyone know an easy way of figuring out what's missing from the list? Thanks.

The obvious way is to list all .ogg files from the database. These could then be filtered by file size, assuming that music files are larger than, say, pronounciation files. However, since that DB field is not indexed, it will take some time to generate. Could probably be done on the toolserver. --Magnus Manske 10:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, Magnus. I've invited someone who might be able to help implement your suggestion.Ferrylodge 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when I run the applets to play ogg, I don't see any volume control. Is there a separate volume control icon that I can include at the top of the aforementioned list?

Additionally, I can select musical works from this list to play one at a time, and it would be nice to be able to pick several works to play one after the other. Is there a way to do that with these ogg files?Ferrylodge 02:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I think would be the most useful option is to have a database of OGG metadata. OGG metadata is currently already available in the databases, but unseekable. This data should be extracted and put in some table and have a web interface built around it. Unfortunately I don't have time for it. But maybe later. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. After I started this section at the Village Pump, Raul started a new Wikiproject Free music, and the discussion is ongoing there. I'll let them know about your suggestion, Bryan.Ferrylodge 16:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New rights discussion[edit]

May be of interest to people here, thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Server trouble?[edit]

Starting this morning, I'm seeing very long latencies whenever viewing images that are stored on upload.wikimedia.org. Pings to the server seem OK and everything else on my connection works fine. But it takes forever for any Commons picture to pull up (including when I browse English Wikipedia). Is there something going on with the server? Crotalus horridus 15:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but it's reeaaalllly slow generating images for me too. Rocket000 16:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the sitenotice (at the top of every page): Due to problems with one of the upload servers, images may not be displayed. Arthena 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. It's within the advertising box for pic of the year votes that regulars have probably developed the habit of not constantly reading over and over again. -- Infrogmation 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The design of our upload form[edit]

I've played around with some Javascript to change the upload form. The main objective was to see whether it was possible to create a form that has separate input fields for the original source and the author of an image, and that could check for and catch the most common errors made in uploads, namely: not giving the source, not giving the author, not specifying a license, or using the Flickr-upload form for non-Flickr images.

A prototype implementation has been done and seems to work. It's at MediaWiki:UploadForm.js. It was tested on Firefox, IE6, IE7, and Konqueror. The implementation can be adapted easily to different languages, and should degrade gracefully (if it doesn't work, it should just present the normal old upload form). Try it out here:

Note: the explanatory texts shown on these forms are the same as always. They were all written for the old form. Do not place an {{Information}} template into "description": the upload form will create one automatically from the various input fields. Just use "Description" to, well, describe the work. The pre-fill for the "own work" versions (Source as "Eigenes werk"/"eigen work"/"travail personnel" etc.) has not yet been done, to do so, code from MediaWiki:Upload.js would need to be integrated.

The new form does not allow to upload if no author, source, or license has been given. The Flickr upload form additionally requires that the source be a URL pointing to www.flickr.com.

What do you think? Do you like it or not? Why? What could be still improved? What problems do you see if we were to use such an upload form? Does it work for you? If not, what browser/operating system are you using, and what exactly didn't work? Shall this be pursued and polished and eventually replace our current upload forms? Or rather not? See also MediaWiki talk:UploadForm.js. Lupo 11:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeee!!!!! I love it so much. :D I'll leave more detailed comments on the JS talk page. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks nice. Probably shouldn't have the information box on the right, people will copy it into description. And in the Licensing box, would it be possible to change "None (provide above or ...)" to "None (Select one of the below, provide above or ...)"? Regards, Ben
Sure is. The information box is part of the explanatory text, which is left unchanged. If we ever adopt this, we'll have to rewrite these texts a little. The script only changes the form itself (the input fields) and their labels. Nothing else. Changing "None (provide above or ...)" to something else would have to be done—again, if something like this were adopted—at MediaWiki:Licenses, it also is left untouched by MediaWiki:UploadForm.js. Lupo 12:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good for new users and occasional uploaders, but is there (or will there be) a plain vanilla upload form for those amongst us who upload rather often and use 'own' (but legitimate) templates (as e.g. here)? Lycaon 12:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That could be implemented, if and when something like this new form became the default. No sweat at all. Note that with this script we already have several upload forms. See Special:Upload, the forms linked at Commons:Upload, and the prototype forms I linked above. :-) Lupo 12:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's great. I didn't know about the shortcut to Special:Upload. Lycaon 14:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This will presumably cut down on the amount of mangled Information templates that are now so common with new uploads. You should check for unbalanced "{" /" }" and "[" / "]" in the form fields as a further precaution. AnonMoos 13:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather difficult to do properly. IIRC, "}}" inside "[[" and "]]" is not seen as the end of an enclosing template. Let's see:
{{en|This is [[just }}]] a test.}}
gives
English: This is [[just }}]] a test.
Yup. But
{{en|This is [[link {{!}} another]] a test.}}
gives
English: This is another a test.
Simple cases could be checked (and maybe even sometimes automatically corrected), but the above really stumps me. The first is unbalanced, yet "correct". I'd rather not do any time-consuming sophisticated text analysis. Lupo 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem is not misnested (but matched) brackets within a line, but completely unmatched brackets of various types, which can have long-distance effects and cause the whole Information template to become unparsable and undisplayed. Try inserting an isolated [[ or {{ with no matching closing brackets at all into a form field... AnonMoos 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I had this happen once to me. See here. Imagine my surprise... my harmless edit just about cleared the village pump, because there was a single } missing in a post at the top: [26]. On a single image page, the effect would be less devastating, but nevertheless: text sanitation on the input fields is coming soon... Lupo 15:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new form is better than current standard. The only suggestion would be to order the fields in the same order as is used in Information template--Jarekt 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a text in the spanish version not translated: Permitted file types: should be Tipos de archivo permitidos:. But I like it. I will test it as soon as possible. :) ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 22:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The script does nothing at all with this string. It's not even part of the form. It's in a special <div id="mw-upload-permitted">... does anyone know where this comes from and where it can be is localized?? I haven't found it anywhere, not even in the MediaWiki sources! Lupo 10:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks to User:Pfctdayelise, who found it at MediaWiki:Upload-permitted. Localized now at MediaWiki:Upload-permitted/es. Lupo 08:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First thoughts: Nice: Is this an opportunity to put in a field to accept a geotag, defining the position of the camera. Geotagging is discussed at Commons:Geocoding.
Throw out the Categories entry line, and let's HotCat to the default config. It's incredibly useful and motivating. --Dschwen 23:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But can HotCat be used to categorize yet-to-be-uploaded files?? All it does for me on the upload form is add a line "Categories" with a non-editable box, which is empty. That isn't very useful. Lupo 07:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that was caused by a quick fix in HotCat yesterday evening. The new upload form works now (mostly) together with HotCat. Lupo 14:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lupo, have you ever legitimiately seen curly brackets in a square brackets link?! Just don't allow such nonsense. If people want to do that they can edit the page after they've uploaded it, if they really want to. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll see what I can do under the assumption that only strict nesting is allowed. Lupo 08:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just tested “modified Upload form, English, plain”, and it had some minor bugs. When I uploaded [27], it ignored the category, and inserted “[object HTMLInputElement]” below {{Information}}. --Kjetil_r 19:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Lupo 20:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UploadForm now uses HotCat for the Categories. Lupo 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it now disallows the most common non-descriptive filenames such as "img.jpg", "image.jpg", "test.jpg", "DSC00065.jpg", target filenames looking like a URL, and others, including double file type extensions ("my_file.JPG.jpeg", or also "my_file.png.jpg"). Lupo 11:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation now available at MediaWiki:UploadForm.js/Documentation. Lupo 11:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input text sanitation has been enabled for testing purposes in MediaWiki:UploadFormTest.js. Please see MediaWiki talk:UploadForm.js#Input text sanitation. Lupo 10:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Finland50[edit]

The conditions for the use of this template have been discussed before and it's applicability is clearly stated in Licencing. If the photographer had no control over the composition or lighting of the picture can not be concidered works of art. This clearly is not the case with several photographic portraits that are currently tagged under this template, such as Image:Portrait of Erik Heinrichs.jpg for example. In these cases the photographer has definitely full control of the composition and lighting and therefore these pictures most certainly are "works of art" and have normal copyright protection (i.e. 70 years after the creators death). I think all the pictures should be carefully checked and these obvious copyright violations deleted. --Joonasl 13:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The photographic portraits were actually a characteristic example of a copyright-protected photograph in the earlier copyright legislation. We must delete the photographic portraits, although there are numerous examples. However, care should be taken o find out the names of the photographers. Some of these images are in PD anyhow. --MPorciusCato 14:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should probably make a template for tagging all pictures labeled as just "photographs" even though they probably are works of art?. --Joonasl 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. In addition, to ease patrolling, I have moved all PD-Finland50 material to its own category PD Finland (simple photos). PD-FinlandGov already has its own category. --MPorciusCato 07:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will try to put something together. --Joonasl 07:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already made the {{Delete-PD-Finland50}}. --MPorciusCato 08:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a mass deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/studio portraits. --Joonasl 08:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity category[edit]

Hi. Looked at the FAQs and may have missed this one. I have uploaded some photos and artwork I made that need a spot because they were cluttering more useful groups. May I make a category of my own work? Is there an accepted naming convention for this type of thing (a non-notable artist)? -Susanlesch 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy#Categories is what you are looking for. /Ö 23:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! -Susanlesch 02:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LitOldRAWset.jpg[edit]

The permission for this image begins "Hornetman16 at the English Wikipedia project,..." The image was uploaded today and Hornemat 16 is banned from the English wikipedia. Does this render the permission invalid, as the source is unidentifiable/uncontactable.--Barliner 23:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like that is a problem, but there are other issues with the image. Firstly, Hornetman16 ≠ Steventoo on Photobucket and, secondly, the source site does not have a) that picture b) any picture released with a GFDL license. It looks like this is a copyvio. Samulili 06:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 25[edit]

SVG problem[edit]

The file Image:Warszawa Powstanie 1944-08-04.svg does not render in Wikipedia environment. However, when download to my machine, I can view it using Inkscape or Firefox. Does anybody know what the problem is? The file itself is a SVG marking used to alter full version of Image:Warszawa 1935.png image found here and the results suppose to look like and eventually replace Image:Warszawa Powstanie 1944-08-04.png. --Jarekt 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The usual explanation is that the SVG code references a raster image file on your local hard drive. SVG files are meant to contain predominantly vector data in any case... AnonMoos 23:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was the case with the original file uploaded by original uploader. I switch the file pointer to a http link pointing to a file already on commons Image:Warszawa 1935.png. I believe the SVG does not have any other references to local files.--Jarekt 02:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to work -- and even if it did work, it would still not be using SVG files for their main intended purpose on Wikimedia Commons... AnonMoos 04:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am, not sure what do you mean by that. What is the "main intended purpose" of SVG files on Wikimedia Commons? In case of this image the attempt was to have one base map in raster format (Image:Warszawa 1935.png) and generate multiple SVG annotation layers to visualize front lines of Warsaw Uprising at different dates. At the moment those maps are all in raster format and they take a lot of space.--Jarekt 14:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main intended purpose of SVG files is that they are meant to contain predominantly vector data (as I said above). Raster data embedded in an SVG is supposed to be a minor technical kludge, where this becomes necessary for various reasons -- not the main data in an image file. By the way, raster data embedded in an SVG file can take up even more space than if it were in a raster image format file... AnonMoos 00:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is a size issue? Above a certain size I think the sw doesn't generate thumbs. I see just the name, and no image, but if I click through I see the image. ++Lar: t/c 12:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I managed to fix the "full view" so it shows correctly in Commons but the thumbs on Image:Warszawa Powstanie 1944-08-04.svg are still not rendered, which might be due to embedded PNG graphics being over 12 Mega pixel threshold.--Jarekt 14:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you have it linked above, the "full view" means that the SVG file is rendered in your local web-browser (or by whatever other program your web-browser delegates with this task) -- not by the Wikimedia software SVG renderer at all.. AnonMoos 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to convince "Wikimedia software SVG renderer" to render scaled versions of the file. Or is it something I should add to a bug report / feature request list somewhere? --Jarekt 13:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The SVG file still has an external link to raster image "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/4/44/20080122213308%21Warszawa_1935.png", and it seems like WikiMedia developers have made a deliberate decision not to implement such external-linking within the SVG rendering module. Furthermore, since you're attempting to use SVG files for a purpose which SVG files were not really intended to be used for on Wikimedia / Wikipedia (namely, taking a HUGE raster bitmap and overlaying it with a few little vector arrows and lines), therefore the WikiMedia developers may not be too eager to accommodate such a request. This is pretty much what I've been trying to tell you all along... AnonMoos 03:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the help - I am learning a lot. I see your point that SVG was not created for overlaying maps and annotating images. But it would be a great help if it could. I also do not like embedding raster data in SVG files ( which might fix Image:Warszawa Powstanie 1944-08-04.svg image - the way software works at the moment). The w:Base64 process changes every 3 bytes of raw binary code to 4 bytes or 4 printable characters. It seems too kludgey, and wasteful. That is why I tried to test the http link approach. Thanks again --Jarekt 13:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos, your statement begs the question: what format should one use to "take a HUGE raster bitmap and overlay it with a few little vector arrows and lines" on Wikimedia? I hope you acknowledge that this can be pretty useful. Probably the thumbnailer should only render links to images hosted on wikimedia servers, but otherwise should replace the external image with some default "Image not Available" bitmap, rather than fail. --Inkwina 17:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The PDF format would definitely work for that purpose (make sure that the /Interpolate true flag is set in the image parameters dictionary), and the PDF file would probably be smaller than an equivalent SVG file (possibly much smaller) -- but of course the Wikimedia software will not resize and display PDF pages. All I'm saying is that the "philosophy" of SVG use on Commons is that SVG files should contain predominantly vector data, with possible additional small embedded raster bitmaps used for supplemental purposes. The reason why you guys are having difficulties is that you're attempting to use SVGs in a way that does not fit in with this philosophy. And if the Wikimedia developers continue to adhere to the same overall philosophy as in the past, then I'm guessing that they won't look on a request to include SVG external raster image links with great enthusiasm (but who knows, I could be completely wrong...). AnonMoos 15:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 23[edit]

Wikimedian Demographics on Wikiversity[edit]

I'd like to invite all commons users to join the Wikimedian Demographics surveys on English Wikiversity. The resource is aimed at both understanding demographics in general, but also for getting the opinions and outlooks of people who contribute to or otherwise make use of the Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The hope is to get opinions from the contributors of all the various projects, including cross-project opinions (e.g., what wikibookians think about commons, and what commoners think about Wikipedia).

A new survey specifically about commons was added yesterday, with questions about the organization of the project, including:

  1. Are media files easy to find?
  2. Do you categorize?
  3. How should media be organized (gallery vs category)?
  4. Should webcrawlers be used to find free images in other places on the web?
  5. Should featured media be limited to works created by Wikimedians?
  6. Do you support the minimal activity requirements for administrators?
  7. Should uploaders have the right to ask that their uploads be deleted?

Those questions were more or less from my mental list of issues that have popped up over the past year or so on commons, but I'm hoping other people will be able to come up with more questions to add to the commons survey. Responding to the surveys is relatively easy (just filling in templates), and we're working on making it easier to create survey questions without needing a high level of experience with templating (we're getting close, but still a bit further to go).

To participate, just go to Wikimedian Demographics and follow the instructions. The preload template will add further instructions that define what answers the template will accept. --SB_Johnny | PA! 11:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to those who have responded so far! As requested, I tried to make the instructions a bit clearer, and have added surveys about nationality, residence, and travel for the other 3 continents and Oceania. The instructions appear on the top instruction box (if you already disabled that box, you don't need the instructions on how to do it). To add the geography surveys, just add {{subst:Wmdgs-nationality, residence, and travel (Update preload)}} to your survey page (if you haven't yet taken any surveys, just use {{subst:Wmdgs-preload/all}}. There are also clearer instructions about how to add more countries to the surveys using another template (all you need to do is add the country's name and the image filename of the flag). --SB_Johnny | PA! 15:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Picture of the Year/2007[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

The 2007 Picture of the Year competition is now concluded, and we are happy to announce the results:

WINNER: Broadway Tower in Cotswolds, England. (Image:Broadway tower edit.jpg) by Newton2. 84 votes

RUNNER-UP: New York City at night, USA. (Image:New York City at night HDR.jpg) by Paulo Barcellos Jr.. 67 votes

2ND RUNNER-UP: Red Squirrel in the Hofgarten in Düsseldorf (Image:Eichhörnchen Düsseldorf Hofgarten edit.jpg) by Ray eye. 66 votes

In the first round, there were 665 voting among 514 images. The top 28 made it to the final, where 919 voters voted. Congratulations to all the contributors who helped create these beautiful works and made them available to the world as free content.

A complete listing of the voting totals, along with selected voter comments, is available at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007/Results .

Thanks to all the voters for participating, and we look forward to doing it all again for 2008. :)

Thanks, Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007

And I would like to add that discussion is welcome on Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2007 and that all images are downloadable from download.wikimedia.org. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Big Well done to committee (and photographers of course). But the full size links seem broken.--Inkwina 02:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I sent an email to Bryan to check this. (Of course you can always download the original directly from Commons :)) pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan disabled it in the web preview, but it works in the zip. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a different kind of "fish story"[edit]

Few days ago I got e-mail from London. The guy e-mailed me that he saw my image of a puffer fish at the posters advertising Kleenex in London tube. I asked him, if he could take an image of this poster and he was kind enough to do it for me. He e-mailed the image of the poster to me. There was my fish at this poster all right. I felt "all puffed up" and I e-mailed to Kleenex for the explanations. Today they called me. They admitted they took my image from Wikipedia and they told me that the artist, who did it, was told that Wikipedia is the place to get free images. This story amused me and I believed it might be interesting enough to post it here. Thank you.--Mbz1 21:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Commons:Reuse.
Mbz1, that's very interesting!! What do you plan to do? If you post the image to Flickr I would love to see it. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 22:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, everybody. First I e-mailed to Wikipedia Permissions to learn more about the license of the image. Here's their response:
    "Dear mila zinkova,
    Thank you for your mail.
    I see that your image is licenced under the GFDL and the Cc-by-sa; both these licences require that the original author be credited for his work, and that derivative of the work be under the same licence (in this case GFDL, Cc-by-sa,or both).Furthermore, the GFDL requires that the text of the GFDL be distributed with the work. The Cc-by-sa requires that the derivative "make clear to others the license terms of this work". Thus, someone who would use the image in the way you describe, without having requested and obtained a special permission from the author, would be in violation of the licence."
    Then A freind of mine did some investigations at the image and here's what was found out:
    "Mila, I downloaded your pic, duped it, took the opacity on the duplicate down to about 40% so it was transparent, then overlaid the poster image on top of your image using Photoshop. A little manipulation using transform>rotate>scale>skew proved that the two pictures are obviously the same. All the white spots, the eyes, the shadows, the mouth, fin details, etc., match. Whoever took it removed some of the area under the mouth & played around with the fins, duped part of a fin to make the tail. It's yours all right. I'd say you need to contact the company & ask for compensation for the stolen photograph."
    Then as you already know I e-mailed to Kleenex and talked to them by phone today. They apologized, they are going to pay me 700 Pound sterlings, send me the copy of the poster and a letter with the admission they violated my copy rights. My main condition was that I did not want them to punish the artist, who I sure, has not had a bad intention and took my image by mistake.
    Here's the link to my image together with the poster. To me the most important part of this story was that this guy from London recognized the image as being mine and was kind enough to e-mail me about this. BTW, when I told this story to a friend of mine, he asked, if I got permission of this fish to take a picture of him and to upload the image to Wikipedia. ;)
    pfctdayelise, may I please ask you why you cannot see image here at Wikipedia? I'm afraid I could not understand what you mean by uploading the image to Flickr. Thank you.--Mbz1 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mbz1, I meant I wanted to see a photo of their poster, which you gave a link to, so thanks. (I can see your original here just fine :)) pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could ofcourse upload a photo os the poster since the license allows that. // Liftarn

Empty space in Image:KTorrent logo.svg[edit]

Could someone with experience working with SVGs please remove the excess transparent space from Image:KTorrent logo.svg? I figured out how to remove it with the GIMP, but I can't figure out how to export to SVG. (Paths yes, other data no.) (By the way, the GIMP's autocrop made it 128x126 pixels... Just add two to height and shift it down one and it'll be perfect.) Thanks. — SheeEttin {T/C} 22:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I changed width to "133" and height to "128". - Erik Baas 23:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! — SheeEttin {T/C} 01:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 26[edit]

Image:Enigma.jpg[edit]

Accidentally I stumbled upon an interesting history of uploads, overwrites and reverts of Image:Enigma.jpg image. Apparently original image was this which was overwritten by the current version. Then various different people were reverting to one or the other version, with one extra overwrite by some painting. I think the current and original versions of the image are valuable, so I was thinking about leaving the current version alone as is, and creating a new page with a new name for the original image. Or is there a better way to handle this? --Jarekt 03:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to revert the description and the image to the first version (*11:57, 15. Dez. 2005 Jszigetvari). By uploading the current image the history of description must be checked (why is it an NSA image? Uploader User:JosuM hasn't stated a source.) --GeorgHH • talk   09:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing a month old deletion request[edit]

Can someone close the deletion request of this image? Image:Dionnewarwick.jpg. Thanks. miranda 06:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed (kept). Samulili 09:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old version persisting[edit]

I uploaded a new version of Image:Napoli Museo Archeologico Glasses From Pompeii.jpg but the old photo on the preview-page doesn't go away. How to fix this problem? --AM 14:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it's a cache persistence problem, but the cached (old) version of the sized-down quasi-thumbnail could be located anywhere from your local hard drive, to Akamai middleman servers intervening between your computer and Wikimedia Commons servers, to the Wikimedia Commons servers themselves (i.e. thumbnails have not been generated for the newly-uploaded version of the image). You could try "&action=purge" as a first step... AnonMoos 14:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that worked. :) --AM 16:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does image under Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 belong to commons?[edit]

Hi, I want to upload edited version of this image, but the original is under Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 license. Should i upload it on commons? --Lukipuk 15:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Images on Commons must be free for commercial use; though commercial use may be restricted by other rights than copyright. -- Túrelio 16:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 27[edit]

Embarassing question[edit]

If I make a picture of a pd-art image with a photo camera. Do I have to put a licence like GFDL, pd-self (each personal) or do I have to put pd-art image alone or both (personal and pd-art)? I have a photo solely of an art work (no frame or other surroundings) of the 15th century but I have made the picture. I don't know - I mean I still have made the picture.... --88.64.85.103 12:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what country you're from, but usually {{PD-art}} is enough. You may have "photographer's rights" which we respect here on Commons even though legally citizens from other countries may not be legally binded by those additional rights. For example, according to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., faithful reproductions of two-dimensional original works cannot attract copyright in the U.S. (See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Country-specific rules) If you do have additional rights granted by your country, you have to release those under a license similar to PD-self or GFDL to be allowed on Commons. Of course, that's up to you since you're the creator. Rocket000 12:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have additional rights granted by your country, I think it would be a good idea to release those under a license similar to PD-self or GFDL so that you can make sure that your image can be used all around the world. Samulili 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can you release rights you don't have? You can't add restrictions on top of things where you have no right to. That's copyfraud. This would be the same as websites that claim to be the copyright holder of PD work. Stating that you would release all rights in the case PD-art isn't valid in some countries is a good idea, though. Rocket000 17:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you may have them in some other country even if you don't have the rights in your own country. Samulili 17:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it only applies to citizens of a given country. I did say it would be a good idea to state it's PD-self in the case PD-art isn't valid. Giving it restrictions like GFDL applies to all countries including the ones where it's copyfraud. Rocket000 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you may commit copyfraud even when giving a fully free licence ({{PD-self}}), if the file you are releasing into PD is PD anyhow on the merit of its ineligibility for copyright. After all, if you claim you are releasing something into PD, you claim that you have the copyright, and are thus able to give up that right. On the other hand, you may licence conditionally by writing: If the photograph of the work is subject to copyright and then putting there the licence of your choice. --MPorciusCato 18:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly recommend that you put your own license on it, in addition to PD-art. That will make it reusable outside the U.S. --Kjetil_r 15:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr Review Aid Program[edit]

Do you think that someone can make a program which assists in reviewing images for Flickr? Thanks. miranda 10:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what is reviewing supposed to mean in this case? -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[[28]]. Done before you know it. Javascript tool, albeit, not a program. Patstuart (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Bing -Rocket000 21:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery not working[edit]

My gallery button, check usage button and Commonshelper does not seem to work for last few days. Is it just me?--Jarekt 14:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a problem with the toolserver, which is something that these processes need to work. As an alternative, you can use the Javascript check usage, you have to turn it on at preferences -> gadgets. Then you get a link called "javascript checkusage" at images. Arthena 15:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is fixed, but the database still needs to be imported again. That will take a significant time and most of the tools will be broken until that import process is finished. It is not known atm how long the import process will take. That's about as much as I know atm. TheDJ 16:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I face the same problem. I hope it is being taken care of. Thanks. --Happyme22 20:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tags in uploads[edit]

I was asked in my talk page to use the {{Information}} or {{Flickr}} when uploading Flickr images. Is there a reason why these don't automatically load when I click on the flickr upload link? They do when UI upload my own work. Sabine's Sunbird 20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sabine's Sunbird,
The summary isn't pre-loaded because we recommend you use the Flinfo tool, which would put those templates for you.
Even better, I recommend you try the Flickr upload tool. It saves you having to download and re-upload the work, and it's really easy to use once you get the hang of it (only the first time is a bit confusing). And it puts all the appropriate templates for you. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TartanSaskatchewan.jpg[edit]

This image needs a different tag, it can be used according to the Government of Saskatchewan as per statement under source. SriMesh | talk 20:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tartans are Public Domain because they're not original enough, but the colour scheme can be trademarked. Bogdan 13:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too late, I just deleted it. The site says "Reproduction of any materials for commercial purposes requires the advance written permission of the Government of Saskatchewan." Not acceptable for Commons. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vector-Images.com[edit]

Per recent development, input are welcome at Commons:Deletion requests/Template talk:Vector-Images.com →AzaToth 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 28[edit]

Commons:Collections[edit]

Hi all, I just made this page. It is for linking to interesting galleries of related media from a common source.

  • not a category, so the gallery page should have extra information or organisation
  • the media should be related, so not just a category listing everything from a common source
  • common source, so not things like Numbers which are very good but draw things together from multiple sources (that one should be a Featured gallery, if anyone feels like reviving that :))

So I am sure there are more interesting collections around, please add them to this page. cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media of the day[edit]

How does that work? Is there a nomination process or can you just change the media to a different one?--THUGCHILDz 06:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures illustrating the subprime mortgage/housing crisis?[edit]

On the Dutch Wikipedia, I'm maintaining the article on the crisis on the financial markets, nl:Crisis op de financiële markten van 2007. I've been asked to add more illustrations to the article. So far, I have two graphs plus a picture of queuing Northern Rock clients, form Commons. I was wondering if a Commons contributor in the US could be so kind as to supply me with a picture of houses for sale (preferably showing several houses in the same street put up for sale), or houses that have been abandoned. Thanks in advance! Best regards, MartinD 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep my eyes open, for good shots.--Jarekt 02:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shall keep an eye out -- I'm usually on the road pretty often in an area that's been particularly hard-hit, though my camera is going to be out for repairs for about a week or so. In the meantime, you could probably just use any house that looks abandoned or dilapidated. Just give a generic caption. So long as people don't click on the photo, most won't notice; and I'd say it'd be close enough if you really need photos. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 04:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try Category:Abandoned buildings, Category:Urban decay, and Category:Houses in the United States, for some interim photos. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 04:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks in advance. Point is: I'm in the Netherlands,and my budget doesn't allow for a trip to, say, Stockton, CA (which I understand is hit in a really bad way). Best regards, MartinD 12:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the absence of picture, I get the impression that I've asked a bit of an embarrassing question. Please be assured that it is not my intention to make fun of the hardship of people who have been affected by the housing crisis. Ít's purely for illustrative purposes. I would take such pictures myself, but that is not feasible. Regards, MartinD 20:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images animaux danger liste rouge iucn[edit]

Pictures red list IUCN

Je suis professeur documentaliste et je fais travailler mes élèves de Sixième sur les animaux en danger de la liste rouge IUCN. Ils vont créer un diaporama. Pour pouvoir le mettre sur internet, j'ai besoin d'images avec des droits ; parmi les soixante-dix animaux cherchés, j'en ai trouvé beaucoup, il m'en manque dix : qui pourrait savoir où trouver (sur des sites anglais ?)des images du domaine public ou sous licence libre sur les animaux suivans :

  • Macromia splendens
  • Myotis capaccinii
  • Galemys pyrenaicus
  • Chondrostoma toxostoma
  • Eunicella verrucosa
  • Austropotamobius pallipes
  • Rhinolophus euryale
  • Rhinolophus mehelyi
  • Coenagrion mercuriale
  • Coenympha oedippus

Je trouve d'ailleurs qu'on devrait trouver plus facilement de l'information sur ces animaux en danger sur le net en général : essayez, ce n'est pas facile. Merci 

In english now :

I am a teacher and librarian I work my students Sixth on animals in danger of the IUCN Red List. They will create a slideshow. To put it on the internet, I need pictures with rights; among the seventy animals sought, I found many, it lacks me ten: Who could know where to find (on sites English ?) images in the public domain or under license free on animals suivans: Macromia splendens Myotis capaccinii Galemys pyrenaicus Chondrostoma toxostoma Eunicella verrucosa Austropotamobius pallipes Rhinolophus euryale Rhinolophus mehelyi Coenagrion mercuriale Coenympha oedippus I think we should also find it easier Areas Information on these endangered animals on the Net in general, try, it is not easy. Thank you

Malhereusement,ce n'est pas toujours facile. Si, [[Category:Species by IUCN Red List category]] ne marche pas, Googlez le nom et cliquez le lien en.wikipedia. Les réstrictions de licence sont moins sévère, là. J'ai essayé et trouvé deux de tes bêtes. ClemRutter 16:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women's and men's objects?[edit]

Hi. I was thinking about categories for objects/things that may be used by only one gender. Like male urinals for instance. Do those categories exist or not? What titles to choose for such cat? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Urinals. There is no category "things used by men", nor, IMO, should there be. After all, the categorization system of Commons is not a general directory of things but something that helps you to find the specific thing you are looking for. Samulili 11:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that they generally do, but there is Category:Women's_clothing and Category:Men's_clothing (the first of which is a subcategory of Category:Women by subject), while gender signs for toilets are included under Category:Gender symbols... AnonMoos 11:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created Category:Women's objects. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check Usage for Categories and Galleries[edit]

I can not figure out this one: how does one check usage of a category or a gallery. Wikipedias can link to it so if one renames it one should check who uses it. Is there some trick I am missing? --Jarekt 14:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jarekt, no, AFAIK there is no tool that does this. (BTW I would call it "global Whatlinkshere" rather than Checkusage.) Would be good to open a bug report for it, if there isn't one yet, or cajole a techy type into writing one on the toolserver. :) pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I filed a feature request.--Jarekt 14:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images unavailable[edit]

Hi all. Since Sunday, January 27, and persisting today, I have been unable to view any images on any Wikimedia projects (including Commons, of course). All I know is that my browser keeps attempting to get the data from http://upload.wikimedia.org, but ultimately the transferrence times out and, instead of the images, all I can see is their caption.
Is there some issue going on or is it just me — or rather, my internet service provider? I'm not having problems with any other websites, which makes me believe that there might be something specific to Wikimedia taking place. Redux 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably your computer or provider - I can see the images, only the gallery and some other tools are still broken. --Jarekt 02:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can try running a traceroute to the servers and posting the results. I can see images. Superm401 - Talk 02:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Double check your browser popup/content filter isn't nixing the images. On at least one occasion I've had a browser block commons images because it matched an a blocking url wildcard. Megapixie 04:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 29[edit]

Numbers and years[edit]

Hi. I've realized there were some categories in Category:Numbers that are similar to the year categories. Shouldn't we rename them? For instance Category:42 renamed in Category:Number 42 --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would be Category:42_(number), but it would probably be a losing struggle --currently there seem to be no images strictly relevant to Category:3, and all the images and subcategories in Category:3 should be in Category:3_(number). Maybe it would be pragmatic to simply declare that all numerical categories using numbers below 100 refer to the numbers themselves, not early A.D. years... AnonMoos 11:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate claimed by 2 users[edit]

Image:FemaleUrinal.jpg and Image:Femaleurinal.jpg are duplicate images and both uploaders seem to claim they're the authors!!! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess one should ask both "photographers" about it. What were "Rick" and/or "Prince" doing in woman's bathroom anyway ;) --Jarekt 19:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I thought about that but they both have no contribution since Agust 2007 so I don't think they'll ever answer! And none have allowed to contact them by e-mail. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the two, User:Prince Grobhelm, is also active on :en [29], but there his last edit was in October 2007. -- Túrelio 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm. Rick has uploaded no other images to commons - but Prince has. All Prince's other images indicate that he used the same camera to take the pictures. Prince also uploaded his "version" of the image long before Rick uploaded his. I don't think it takes Solomon to work out what's going on here. Megapixie 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Prince's came first by about 2 months. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the Image:FemaleUrinal.jpg as a copyvio (since it has false attribution) and duplicate. Superm401 - Talk 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 13:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reloaded photo[edit]

In Category:Valleys in Slovenia is a photo named Baska grapa.JPG. When I want to see this photo, it shows original photo (my photo). I noticed that user Ambrozd reloaded it, but category still shows Ambrozd version. --Pinky sl 11:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See if this help: Commons:FAQ#Why is the old picture and not the new uploaded picture on my screen? (Or-- my thumbnail is wrong.). --Jarekt 14:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a FEncyclopedicPC page ![edit]

I noticed that the FPC page provide mainly artistic images, that's votes between photographs for the cutest pictures. Can we have a page for the encyclopediest pictures/images ? I means... How can we support all the wikipedia when we give so many awards to artistic pictures which will go on our computer to become your favorite wallpaper, and so few is done to encourage, to award, encyclopedic images, schemes, picture, which are colder but really... really more efficient to teach/learn. I'm talking about visuals diagrams (not cute, but wonderful !), maps, schemes, which have no change to be feartured, but which are need 210.203.61.15 16:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at User:Slaunger/Valuable_Images and join its discussion on User_talk:Slaunger/Valuable_Images --Foroa 18:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for interproject-links interwikistyle[edit]

Dear all, I was searching for something like this on Commons, but I could not find it implemented here. On de.wikt or pt.wiki it works fine, see wikt:de:Benutzer:Spacebirdy/test (right under "Schwesternprojekte") as an example. It creates interwikilinks to other projects in the left navigation.

You can find the code here (below the headline: "// Interprojekt-Links (Bug 708)")

Imho it would be great if it could be implemented on Commons too.
Please let me know what You think about it, many thanks in advance, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 14:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is particularly useful on multi lingual projects & I would support the implementation of this --Herby talk thyme 14:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like that too. Will it change according to the user's language? Listing them all would be way too long. Rocket000 17:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know for one thing the English Wiktionary has these. I'd also support this proposal, as it would be extremely helpful given the wide repertoire of users and projects here. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 20:47, 19 January 2008 (GMT)
If no one objects I'll do this tomorrow? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Rocket000: Now it will, just fill MediaWiki:Sisterprojects, MediaWiki:Sisterprojects/de etc. with the headline. Furthermore the script has to contain:
<a href="/wiki/Commons:Sister_projects">'+$("sisterProjects").firstChild.innerHTML+'<\/a>
instead of:
<a href="/wiki/Commons:Sister_projects">Sister projects<\/a>
Greetings, Melancholie 14:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S: Maybe include the English-only? language href link to MediaWiki:Sisterprojects, MediaWiki:Sisterprojects/de etc., too (and remove it from JS)! --- Melancholie 14:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important note: The script does *not* belong to MediaWiki:Common.js, but to MediaWiki:Monobook.js! The script is designed for the standard skin with sidebar (toolbox > p-tb) only, yet! I do not think there really is a need for other skins, as this is just a workaround (see bug 708). --- Best regards, Melancholie 20:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You so much for Your help Melancholie, Herby implemented the code now (thanks) and everything looks fine.
See Commons:SisterProjects for the code and usage (please feel free to expand the page).
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 13:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"check usage" function down[edit]

I noticed that a few days ago. An internal error "500" is created. Maybe one of you tech-guys could take a look at it. Im not sure if this is the right place to report, but I got tired klicking through various trolldiscs :) wbr. Alexpl 12:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is, as you might have guessed, a known problem. The Database server is down. The tech guys are probably doing their best to fix it. --rimshottalk 13:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS-related question[edit]

I am in the process of slowly transferring images from the Afrikaans Wikipedia to the Commons. This is hard work, seeing as how many images lack sources or licensing information and the uploaders are long-gone or refuse to co-operate.

Thus I have to send many of the copyright holders (non-Wikim/pedians) emails, asking them for a permission e-mail (similar to Commons:Email templates) for many of these images.

My first question is this: obviously, the permission email will refer to the image hosted on the Afrikaans Wikipedia. Can I transfer the image to the Commons (once the permission has been received) and then forward the permission email to OTRS, asking a user to maybe mention that the transfer has been reviewed and the permission email is applicable to the Commons version as well (I'd really like to delete the local image).

My second question: some of the images have really obscure filenames (44.jpg, etc.) and I'd like to transfer them to Commons, but then the filename will differ from the name stated in the email. Could I maybe transfer under a new name and have that same reviewer note that the image used to be available under 44.jpg but now is available under better_example.jpg and that it is a faithful reproduction of the old image?

I hope I'm making sense. I was going to post this at Commons talk:OTRS, but it's not exactly the liveliest of talk pages. Anrie 13:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you forward the permissions email to OTRS, just add a note about the current location on Commons. Then it should be ok. Note that OTRS is quite backlogged, so it may take 2 weeks or more before a permission is handled. Thanks for your hard work, -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick reply! I shall do as you suggest. Anrie 16:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images Extracted From US Patents on File With US Patent Office - Are They Public Domain?[edit]

Are images that might be exacted from a US Patent Office Application or Patent Award on file with the U.S. Patent Office considered in the Public Domain?--Mike Cline 15:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to {{PD-US-patent}} "In general, the contents of United States patents are in the public domain." // Liftarn
Thanks--Exactly the direction I needed.--Mike Cline 15:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Category to Gallery conversion tool[edit]

Hi, Is there such a thing as automatic category to gallery conversion tool which would create wiki text with all the images from a category with description on the bottom extracted from infobox of each image. Latter such gallery would have to be manually organized, annotated and possibly trimmed, but I am looking for the tool to do the first cut - all the time consuming cutting and pasting that is required. --Jarekt 16:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 1[edit]

Flower patterns[edit]

I've realized we have a lot of pictures with flower patterns clothing so I wanted to create a category for that (in category:Clothing by pattern) but I'm not sure about the correct expression to use. Any suggestion? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floral pattern clothing? Man vyi 17:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad. If there's no better suggestion before tomorrow evening (UTC) I'll create it with that title. Thanks for the suggestion. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about Flowered clothing or Flowery clothing? Isn't that better? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to create Category:Flowered clothing. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flower patterns[edit]

I've realized we have a lot of pictures with flower patterns clothing so I wanted to create a category for that (in category:Clothing by pattern) but I'm not sure about the correct expression to use. Any suggestion? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floral pattern clothing? Man vyi 17:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad. If there's no better suggestion before tomorrow evening (UTC) I'll create it with that title. Thanks for the suggestion. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about Flowered clothing or Flowery clothing? Isn't that better? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to create Category:Flowered clothing. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

  1. ↑ http://portal.unesco.org/culture/admin/file_download.php/ir_copyright_1970_en.pdf?URL_ID=30380&filename=11424169773ir_copyright_1970_en.pdf&filetype=application%2Fpdf&filesize=21603&name=ir_copyright_1970_en.pdf&location=user-S/
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2008/01&oldid=76060405"