This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This page currently archives discussions in a very odd style (Sample: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010Nov).
Since Commons is a global venue, we need to make things as clear and simple as possible. Surely a non-English speaker wouldn't understand what the heck "2010Nov" is? How about sending a bot to cleanup all this by renaming all archives to the ISO 8601 format, in the form of subpages. Such as: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010/11? Rehman05:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but in the format Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010-11. Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010/11 would not be a good idea because a Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010 subpage would be necessary, which we don't need. ZooFari22:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Well that works, but in my opinion it would be more consistent using 2010-11. If not, the other way around works too. ZooFari04:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Although I don't have any problem both ways, I think sticking to .../2010/11 is better, considering its use at the large deletion archives; purely for consistency sake... Now to find a bot to do this... Rehman07:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the existence or otherwise of a .../2010 page is a big problem. If it is not required, we don't have to create it. Alternatively, we could transclude all the month pages on to that page in case any editors wish to have an overview of all the discussions that took place that year. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–09:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
We can't transclude all discussion from 2010 to one single page. I'm sure it would be to big to work correct. If needed we could just create a page with links to discussions from January, February... December. --MGA73 (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I didn't notice that. I will attempt to modify the MiszaBot template shortly, and then would start moving the archives manually. Kind regards. Rehman04:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
At COM:AN/Blocks_and_protections, Rehman made the additional proposal to organize the earlier archives (currently in the form "/Archive/##") and break them down by month (this is about pages 1 to 36 on Commons:Village_pump/Archive).
As long as one of these pages matches a given month, this is harmless (as the earlier "2010Nov → 2010/11" proposal). Redirects will take care of internal and external links. When pages need merging, redirects might work too, but if pages are split, this would break internal and external links.
Thus for archives earlier than October 2006, the format "year/Part #" (e.g. "2005/part 1") seems preferable. -- Docu at11:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The initial suggestion was "How about sending a bot to cleanup all this by renaming all archives..." so in my opionion it has been discussed. --MGA73 (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Apparently some disagree: On December 28, Rehman stated "most of the work is done" and none of these had been changed. -- Docu at12:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
More and more pictures from FlickR are in my opintion not suitable for commons due to three reasons:
FlickR-washing: The license information is not valid, oftentimes pictures are uploaded on FlickR have been stolen form the web, videos, etc. pp. (last example: File:Let me in-Young Gay Kiss.jpg, deletion discussion)
Besides of copyright problems, COM:PEOPLE is not an issue on FlickR.
Do we really need commons to be a kind of backup copy for FlickR (keyword "project scope")?
Hence I would suggest to stop those bots filling commons with pictures partly useless and violating copy/personal/... rights. It's more than ok to look on FlickR for specific pictures, but the automatic other way round will bring us sooner or latre in trouble. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
If I understand you right, you want to stop the bots that are automatically uploading files to Commons from Flickr. If such bots exist, as honestly I didn't know such existed: really strong support. This is ridiculous. Commons is not Flickr's backup. Rehman15:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
What? There are no bots automatically uploading images from Flickr. They do so at the request of users only. The image you linked was uploaded manually by User:Fg68at. We obviously don't want to import all the freely licensed images on Flickr, there are way too many and most are out of scope. I don't think Flickr images are more likely to be copyvios than direct uploads; each image should be examined carefully to determine its copyright status. There's also no evidence of Flickr-washing in this case (I have no reason to believe the Flickr user is the same person as User:Fg68at). Dcoetzee (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
+1 with Dcoetzee. There is not such thing than automatic upload from Flickr, only tools that make it easier. Making upload harder is certainly a good way to have less uploads and thus less copyvios, but it is somehow the opposite of what we are trying to achieve (being user-friendly etc.). Jean-Fred (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
If there were a bot automatically uploading photos from Flickr, that would be bad. But I use flickr2commons all the time, because I don't want to enter all the damn information again, or have to upload the image twice from a pos connection. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, there's no bot mass-uploading images from Flickr. OTOH, COM:FUB does that on behalf of individual requests, and there are the upload tools as well, and if enough users are using them, I believe the result may actually be the same. Does anyone have something better than anecdotal evidence on the good/harm ratio of uploads from Flickr (i.e. actual numbers)? --Ianezz (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Stop the Bots! They've taken over- Ahhhhhh!!!!!
No worries, the flickrbots aren't actually operating on their own... yet.--AerobicFox (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Flickr upload bots are not the problem, a much more problematic issue is the use of automated flickr review by Bot. This only checks formally for acceptable licenses, but cannot have sense for flickr washing. flickr reviews should only be allowed for admins, or trusted users, only for human beings. -- smial (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a common misunderstanding. License review is not the same thing as giving a file a stamp of approval; no image should avoid scrutiny or deletion merely because it has been license reviewed. All it says is that the license on the source site matches the license we give here, and if admins doing manual review happen to spot copyvios, they are going above and beyond the call of mere license review. Of course sometimes people place too much trust in license review, and we may want to discourage that tendency. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, a lot of free images are still uploaded to Wikipedia instead of to Commons. Worst offender is (of course) the English Wikipedia. Would of course be much nicer to have them upload to Commons directly right away. I proposed a small step (linking own work to Commons), please voice your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Upload. Multichill (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the techies can design the upload page at the English Wikipedia and other projects to detect when people select a free licence, and display a notice suggesting they upload the image to the Commons instead. But whether or not we implement such a feature, human beings will still need to check the uploads. There will be false positives, because quite a number of people whack on free licences to images that are not free, either intentionally or because they are unaware of the niceties of copyright. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–08:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to note a similar situation: English Wikibooks a while back had its upload link pointed directly to Commons because people kept uploading free files locally despite our best efforts to discourage it. Fair use files can still be uploaded locally, but require a request for entry into the "uploaders" groups there to use the local Special:Upload. – Adrignolatalk01:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea. But some users do not understand or like Commons. So I would like to suggest we all try a little bit harder help our friends from enwiki so that they can see Commons as a good thing. So instead of just adding a copyvio notice or whatever concider also to leave a note explaining why. Perhaps "This is a derivate work and there is no freedom of panorama in x. So we can not keep this on Commons without a permission from the artist who made the x. I noticed you wanted to use this on enwiki. Perhaps you can upload it to enwiki as fair use." --MGA73 (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Projects without local upload have mostly the same problems as the enwiki folks. One problem brought up was that these messages go to the discussion page only on Commons, and so a person uploading a few files and going on editing a Wikipedia will not notice any warnings (unless the user has enabled e-mail notification). There should be an easily accessible link to the home wiki of SUL users and that link used in many cases.
Templates are good as they often are translated, but the user using a template should always check that the text is relevant and helpful. And adding an explanatory text is nice even then, as it makes the notice more personal. If the template isn't good, then one should check any hints about whether the user can be supposed to understand English and if not, some effort made to give useful advice in a format that can be understood ({{help desk|lang=xx|issue=copyvio}}?)
That is true. But if "you" upload a file to Commons but do not plan edit here often it would be a good idea to make sure you do get an e-mail when your talk page is edited. That way you will find out if one of your uploads it tagged with some deletion template. We could perhaps add that tip to the welcome notice.
If you upload it to xx-wiki and someone else move it to Commons then you do not get a notice at all. Therefore uploader has the best chance of getting a notice if (s)he uploads directly to Commons + enable e-mail notification.
But in general it could be a good idea to inform original uploader if someone else moved the file to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, images from Commons used by wikipedias should be copied to local wikipedias and anchored there. Commons is not a reliable storage - today a file from en-wiki is moved to commons, tomorrow it's deleted, gone gone gone. Get real, local wikipedias are far better in reviewing and keeping their stuff. NVO (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I actually doubt if Commons could handle all those image uploads from en.wikipedia. If you look at how long it takes before a deletion request is handled, or how long it takes before a copyvio is deleted. Although perhaps things have improved, I see now Category:Copyright violations is relatively empty. Garion96(talk)12:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
December 29
Signatures displaying incorrectly
Hey. Have a look at this page, notice the signature at the bottom of the page? I see a white cage around the signature, about a 1cm high, with nearly 100% screen width. I've come across such "bugs" quite frequently lately. Anyone knows whats up? I use Firefox 3.6.13 on the Vector skin... Rehman02:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Well it's annoying when newbies use it, but every experienced editor should know when and when not to use it. It's usually used to highlight a code or something separate from the original content. --ZooFari02:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this different from <code>CONTENT</code>? Which renders like CONTENT?
Or <pre>CONTENT</pre>, which renders like:
A B C D E F
A B C D E F
A B C D E F
A B C D E F
Because using a simple space before the text to render this would make accidental caging (like the signature) more common... Wouldn't it? --Rehman02:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Using <pre> is almost the same as using a space, except that when you use <pre>, the markup won't be parsed. Take a look:
The indent method is prone to accidents, yes, but they don't occur too often or rather they aren't a big deal (because the Wiki markup would still work). --ZooFari03:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Also note that this is essentially important in wikis like Wikipedia, because the style of writing does not include indentation. If a new user uses it, another one would be able to spot it easily. Without that effect, a single space before a line would be difficult to find. --ZooFari03:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. If you are using Windows, open the file in Microsoft Paint, and save it as a JPEG image (or PNG, as explained below) via File > Save as. What is the file content (diagram, photo, etc)? Rehman05:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
If it's a drawing, a diagram, a flag, or something like that, don't save it as a JPEG! Save it as a PNG instead. —Bkell (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The reason you can't upload as a BMP is that it's a proprietary format that we don't allow. In any case, though, a PNG will be lossless and smaller. - Jmabel ! talk08:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure the fact that it's in theory proprietary is the main reason; it's a poorly supported format that can be many, many times larger then other lossless formats.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey friends, thanks. I ended up converting it in Paint (figured out on own) into a Jpeg. Didn't know about PNG and figured JPEG would be safe. Here is the image. Please advise me if you think I need to make a PNG version.TCO (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Huh. Well, when I rightclicked and tried to save it from the web page, it would only come over as a bmp (no other choice available). But anyhow, if we are fine, will leave as is.TCO (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just uploaded a few files with a premade Information-template with licenses and categories, and the second I press "Upload file" I can clearly see the following being appended to the textarea for no obvious reason:
I'm not sure why TextCleaner is applied though. If the javascript upload form is used, javascript itself constructs the template. If any sanitation would be applied there it should happen when the user input field (for example for the Author-field) is put into the {{Information}}-template, not afterwards as the javascript can take care of it itself.
When someone specifically chooses for the basic upload form they are expected to know the syntax and no sanitizing is needed at all, right ? –Krinkletalk18:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Are these Roman fortifications or are they of a later date? In english wiki there is talk of the wall of the lower garden of the Topkapı Palace. Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I was in Istanbul about a year ago, and I'm fairly certain this picture was taken from the Topkapi Palace. According to the Dutch and English Wikipedia, construction of this palace began in 1459, so it's not Roman. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
License migration opt-out
in Category:License_migration_opt-out many files are listed that are already under Creative Commons. For example: File:12Night03Fezes.jpg contains {{self|cc-by-sa-2.0|GFDL|migration=opt-out}}. The combination of cc-by-sa, GFDL and no migration from GFDL to CC appears to be nonsense. Perhaps and admin could add code testing for this combination inside the self template, adding the results to a category that allows cleaning it up. --Vigilius (talk) 11:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been identifying, categorising and moving if appropriate lots of images of identified birds. Obviously there are images which are identifiable, but not by me, but I wondered about images in the following groups
images which are probably permanently unidentifiable to species through insufficient information (goose footprints, images too poor for ID, good images which don't enable id of very similar species (some albatross and swifts for example))
images so small/poor/blurred that they will never be used because there are much better images on commons
Should I be tagging for deletion either unidentifiable images or very poor images where better exists? I haven't been doing so because I get the impression that nothing is ever deleted except for copyright reasons, but I may be wrong. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, poor quality images that have replacements are ok to be deleted. Commons is not a junkyard. But others' opinions may differ... Rehman10:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
For that reason I have created in 2009 the category Bad images. For me it is a balance between the total effort to have an image deleted and the effort to put the image in for example Category:Blurred images and deleting all other categories with the image. Wouter (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it is OK to delete unidentifiable images or very poor quality images where better exists. Same with thumbnail size images and some images with watermarks where work needed to remove them outweighs the value of the image. However one has to be careful with such deletion - I have seen DRs for every image of one of Polish cathedrals after one user took quite picture of it. Those have to be really low quality images. --Jarekt (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
There is also a distinction between really redundant images and images that have some valuable aspect. Blurry birds may have been photographed on a bird island, the articles of which are without illustration. For identifying such it is important to keep the categories, and DR discussions may be needed. --LPfi (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This will suck in a lot of time if you start nominating images with a hint of usefulness. So before you nominate think to yourself if someone possibly could use it and if the answer is yes or maybe, don't nominate it. Would of course be much nicer if images tagged as not so good quality would just show up lower in the search results (as opposed to featured pictures and good images which should always show up first). Multichill (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Even if it's good practice to identify the species of plants and animals, the sole purpose of an image is rarely to illustrate the species. It's quite likely that we have images of unidentified plants and animals that can be used for something else and thus they shouldn't be deleted. Even if the species is identified, it might be not be of much use to illustrate the species .. -- Docu at12:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Rehman, and would encourage you to nominate very poor quality images for deletion when better ones are available. As Commons rapidly grows it becomes more and more time consuming to find useful images among the junk. IMHO is time to start focus a bit more on quality. --Elekhh (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, once you've checked that the categories present are correct, you can remove that template. It is useful when a file is automatically moved from one of the other projects to here, since categories may be drastically different between the two, but once the categories are taken care of, it no longer serves a purpose. — Huntster (t@c)03:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me clarify myself; I see no reason to remove that header from the template, since it makes the "in use" articles a little more visible and help someone in categorising the image. Once that is done, you can remove the template from the image page. — Huntster (t@c)03:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Why would it be useful to hide the template from display? If the template is present, the editor should check the categories, ensure they are accurate, and then remove the template. Or, does the above just remove the "File usage on other wikis" section? — Huntster (t@c)06:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I've made small changes to the {{PD-old}} template. It no longer claims to apply to the United States; works in the United States do fall into the public domain 70 years after the death of the author, but only those produced in 1978 or later, so this won't matter until 2048. I also added a link to an existing list of US PD templates, any of which are acceptable for works first published in the US. Notifying here since it is the most widely used license template on Commons. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation of categories
I'm a little concerned there is a tendency to disambiguate categories when its not required, and this relates to situations that the primary topic rules describe on Wikipedia.
The reason we would select a "primary topic" here is essentially the same as with the Wikipedias: Category names are primarily an aid to the "readers" of Commons, not the "editors" (using WP terms to make that distinction more obvious), for example if readers would overwhelmingly expect Category:Town to be about Town, Country A not Town, Country B, then it should be about the town in A not a disambiguation. As we are a multi-lingual project this should be borne in mind, complicating the reasoning compared to a single wiki and should also mean we should set the bar higher.
I do not think that every ambiguous topic should be disambiguated, and that consideration of "importance" should be brought in at some point. I'll give three examples here to aid discussion, from one extreme to the other.
"Melbourne": The Australian city has population of >4 million, the populations of the others combined is ~100,000 (and the next city is 80,000 of that).
"Plymouth": The English city is the largest (~300,000). There's a long list of other towns with the name, and a major car brand. A recent discussion on en kept the English city as the primary topic there.
The first shows why "disambiguate everything" should not be used: Is the existence of that 1 image of the mango really reason enough to move the thousands of files of the city (and inconvenience the 99.999% of people who want Jakarta, the city). The third is why "follow en.wp blindly" is equally daft, we would suffer any disruptive effects when really there is no point.
The second one - Melbourne - is one worth discussing a bit further. In Wikipedia terms, its a clear primary topic with all the major wikis treating it as such. Any objective measure indicates the Australian city is by far the most important, the others not being close. Should it be disambiguated? I say it should not, because "readers" are overwhelmingly going to expect Category:Melbourne to contain imagery of the Melbourne... and making them go through a dab page (as they would if following an unrepaired inter-wiki) is not helpful. A naive uploader will likely also assume Melbourne is about the Australian city.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed completely. Creating subcategories is, in my view, absolutely fine. But please apply common sense when it comes to naming them. The Wikipedia primary topic rules are fairly well established and are a fine model for operations here. — Huntster (t@c)01:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there any problem in contributing hybrid PDF-ODF files? They look and behave like a classical PDF, however we can open and edit them by OpenOffice like ODF: after that, a saving to ODF or export to PDF (normal or hybrid PDF-ODF) is possible. See ex. File:Deklaro pri livero de permesilo Krea Komunaĵo 001.pdf. I have created a template for marking such files, as they look same like a normal PDF: {{PDF-ODF}}. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
There exists an en.wiki article for OpenDocument, which is also present in a variety of other language, but I cannot find one specifically for the PDF-ODF hybrid format. — Huntster (t@c)03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
On a second thought: wouldn't said documents be mostly text (which wouldn't even need transcription, BTW)? And if so, are we sure that Commons is the right place for them? --Ianezz (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the description, I would simply add that line to the category page rather than create an article for it. I would change the category as suggested above, but I can't figure out (nor find documentation...really?) for the Autotranslate template. — Huntster (t@c)08:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that's great. I was referring to changing the category name to "PDF-ODF files", but I can't figure out how to modify {{PDF-ODF}} to accomplish this. The Autotranslate documentation doesn't mention which variable controls the output category (I think it's "3", but I'm not sure). Hopefully Petrus will spot this request and make the modification. — Huntster (t@c)12:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Petrus. This is a caching issue; it may take the server a while to migrate everything to the new category. Issuing a null edit to the individual images forces the update. — Huntster (t@c)20:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
January 4
Namespace for deletion requests?
Frequently, when searching Commons namespace, I'd rather skip all those old deletion requests. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be preferable if they were in their separate namespace. -- Docu at07:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
If only there was a negative form of the "prefix:" operator for searches, it would simply be a matter of excluding the right prefix (as in searchterm NOT prefix:Commons:Deletion requests, but that doesn't work). --Ianezz (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
OTOH, negative "intitle:" operator seems to work: searchterms -intitle:"Deletion requests*" -intitle:"Undeletion requests*" --Ianezz (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Creative Commons - Am I using and attributing this image correctly
Hello all, I've just used this image, in this article on my site (following simplified creative commons attribution advice from this blog post) and I want to make sure that I am using the image and attributing correctly - If I am not, then I can fix the attribution or remove the image as required. I like the resources offered by Wikimedia Commons through CC licenses, and I don't want to take the mick. Thanks Darigan (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I recently uploaded a photo onto Wikimedia Commons which has an extended description. However, when I linked the photo to a page on Wikipedia, the description there is only a short one which was an earlier edit of mine. Is there any way for the changes to the description I've made to the Commons page to be reflected on the Wikipedia one? Many thanks in advance. Ivowilliams (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The version of the image on en.wiki is just a mirror of the image here on Commons. I see no difference in the description texts on my computer. It may have been a caching issue. — Huntster (t@c)22:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
It's kind of strange because I can only see a difference when I've logged out, closed my browser and deleted all the cookies (trying to 'pretend' I'm just a general user). Otherwise, when I'm logged in I see no difference as well. This also happens for the other photos I uploaded as well. When I did the above, the image on here is not displayed - an error of some sort; does this appear to you as well? Ivowilliams (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that too when logged out. Very odd, I've not seen that particular error before. Also likely a cache issue, though bizarre that it gives entirely different file sizes. Btw, I now see what you mean regarding the first file you mentioned. I see it as different as well when logged out. I'd suggest to just give it a few days, and it should sort itself out. — Huntster (t@c)23:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Did a bit of research, came across this page and followed the instructions (adding "?action=purge" to the end of the URL). Seems to work for me, is it the same for you? Thanks for your help! Ivowilliams (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This filepage reports "Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters or PNG file with more than 12.5 million pixels" and does not show the image. Can anyone check and sort this out? Thanks --Santosga (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Alternatively you can create a crop or downscale version and upload that for use in articles. It's hard to get an appreciation for a detailed map like this without close examination. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
January 6
Language tool?
I came across this while wandering around! I use Babelfish currently but I wonder if it would be useful to have this as a "gadget" for Commons? --Herbytalk thyme09:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Something like that would be nice to have, and I was thinking about writing it for commons (got an API key two weeks ago). Please do not import the version you linked to, the code is not quite up to the standards (no jquery, browser id checking, global namespace pollution etc.) --Dschwen (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I have a proof of concept implementation now. Test it here. To translate text, just select it with the mouse and hold the shift key while releasing the mousebutton. I'll make it prettier. It translates to wgUserLanguage, the language set in your preferences (but only if Google knows that language. I need to have a fallback logic for unsupported languages). --Dschwen (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Public Domain Day 2011
Please make sure to upload your files of works by Paul Klee and all the other artists who died in 1940. They are part of the public domain as of today (at least in the EU and other countries whose governments weren't completely bought by the copyright industry). To celebreate Public Domain Day 2011, I uploaded some works as diverse as the factory paintings of Carl Grossberg († 1940), a 1902 bust of composer Hans Pfitzner by Hugo Lederer († 1940), and a series of traditionalist reliefs of the Stations of the Cross by Heinz Schiestl († 1940). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
What a good idea! Looking at "1940#Deaths", I note Eric Gill as well. No, generally months don't count because the relevant laws will generally state that the 70-year period runs from the end of the year in which the author died. (There may be variations, so uploaders should always check the law of the relevant country.) — Cheers, JackLee–talk–19:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Yay how exciting. I'll hit the web to see if I can find more high quality media for some of these. Also remember to add new media you upload to articles if you can! I will take the liberty of informing everyone on the talk pages of the associated articles that they can now upload media from these artists with abandon. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, this is interesting. I had the impression that under current United States copyright law, nothing currently copyrighted would enter the public domain until January 1, 2048, but I don't quite remember where I read this. In a post on his blog in 2004, Lawrence Lessig wrote, "Here in America, we'll celebrate our next public domain day in, um, 15 years," implying that nothing would fall into the public domain before 2019. The copyright term chart from Cornell seems to confirm what is being said here, that works from authors who died in 1940 are now in the public domain; but a copyright term flowchart linked from that chart seems to indicate that a work published in 1923 or later but before 1978, and properly renewed, expires 95 years after publication, which suggests that works from authors who died in 1940 are not automatically in the public domain. I'm having trouble following all of these charts, though, and my head is swimming—can someone please make sense of all this? —Bkell (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Scratch that, I misread the Cornell chart. According to that chart, works registered or first published in the United States from 1923 through 1977 with a copyright notice (and for which the copyright was properly renewed, if published before 1964) are under copyright for 95 years after the publication date. The same goes for works published outside the United States during this period, as long as they complied with U.S. formalities, and for a few other classes of works. Therefore these works are not yet in the public domain in the United States, and as I understand Commons policy that means they cannot be uploaded here. —Bkell (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm good point. In fact this is mentioned at Template:PD-old-70 and we overlooked it: "This PD-old-70 specifically gives the reason why the image is PD but even works published from 1923 to 1977 are copyrighted in the USA for up to 95 years since publication rather than life + 70 years." We may have to re-delete many of these works and tag them with an appropriate undelete category based on their year of publication, if that can be obtained. The exceptions are: works first published before 1923, works with no copyright notice, works whose copyright were not renewed, and works published in foreign countries that were in the public domain in their source country on the URAA date (typically 1996). These are all in the public domain in the US (and were before 2011 as well). We won't get any new public domain works until 2019, at which time works first published in 1923 for which all formalities were observed will enter the public domain. The {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-old}} tags are in all likelihood being widely misused and images using them need to be reviewed en masse. (However I still think it's well worth the effort to collect images that we intend to undelete in the next 30 years or so.) Dcoetzee (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
US law is so silly (and obivously morally wrong) in this case that you cannot honestly expect the rest of the world to abide by it (especially for works that have nothing to do with the US whatsoever). We have the template Template:Not-PD-US-URAA to cope with these images. If Commons should ever reach a consensus to actually delete these thousands and thousands of images, many of them very important (because they are the only way to illustrate articles on most of 20th century history and art history), then Wikimedia will have to cope with that problem on a much bigger scale. A simple delete (with undeletion list) will not do. It would mean that we need a Commons-US, more or less automatically combined with Commons-RotW (Rest of the world), and move Commons-RotW to servers in countries that are not ruled by Disney. I am not joking here: enforcing this means that European wikimedia chapters will seriously have to think about forking the Commons project. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
While I despise the URAA and would support the idea of hosting some images abroad, if that would indeed resolve the legal issue, I am primarily concerned here with images published between 1923 and 1977 in the US, which are still copyrighted until at least 2019 if all formalities were observed. There is no avoiding this. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
It's silly and morally wrong not to give copyright protection to works published in the 1850s? To not force users of the PD to undergo complex and sometimes expensive searches for biographical information? To force people to either make guesses about old works by named but unknown authors, or to consign them to the waste bin of history? How about the fact that a good history of art in 1920 can't be written on Wikipedias that don't permit local uploads under US copyright, because many modern artists lived into the 1960s or 1980s? In any case, modern copyright law, world-round, was written in Europe, which is why it's called the Berne Convention. And every clause of the URAA was forced down the US's throat by foreign governments who disagreed with our interpretation of the Berne Convention.
If we're going to fork, let's not go for the oppressive European laws; let's put the server in Canada (life+50) or some country with a somewhat reasonable law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Whether you find U.S. or European laws more "oppressive" is a matter of which images you would like to show, I think ;-) - such remarks about "oppressiveness" don't really get us anywhere. One could argue that European law is much better and safer for the user, as the 70 years p.m.a. rule is very simple and easy to understand, whereas U.S. law is very complex especially for non-U.S. works, as works published outside the U.S. after 1922 in some cases are in the public domain in the U.S. too, and in some cases not for many years to come, even if the creator is clearly dead for fare more than 70 years. On the other hand, one could likewise argue that U.S. law is the wonderfully simple one, as "everything published prior to 1923 is PD" without having to look up the date of death of the author can make using and reusing very much simpler in many cases, too. Although the "published" bit is tricky, too - see Lupo's recent, very interesting explanation at User_talk:Lupo#Paul_Klee. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
By the way, Template talk:PD-US-statue/proposal is an interesting example of an area where U.S. law is hopelessly confusing compared to the crystal-clear European "70 years after the creator's death it's in the public domain" (well, there are also some exceptions to this, e.g. the publication right granted to the publisher who first publishes a previously unpublished work after that work's original copyright has expired, but even with these exceptions its comparatively simple and easy to understand). Gestumblindi (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Statues and paintings are complex, but the American rules are much simpler for books and periodicals--look at the front, check the year of publication. If it's earlier than 1923, it's okay. When working on the British Esperantist for Project Gutenberg, it would be impossible to handle a complete issue under UK law, and while most--but not all--of the Esperantist writers have documented death dates, the professional photography is hopeless; note [1], which got no definitive response as to death dates, despite being clearly reusable under US law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
If both were referring to the same thing, then the one should not have been deleted. The one that still exists doesn't refer to a company, but to the Association of Exclusionist Wikipedians, and appears hand-made. — Huntster (t@c)01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
If it's a logo of non-existent association that was made up by somebody, I see no problem with "File:AEW Logo QiP light.gif" remaining in the Commons. You can probably ask for it to be undeleted, and I would suggest that something be written on its file description page to state that this is not the logo of a real company. However, if you don't think that there will be any other use for these two images, then perhaps "File:AEW Logo QiP dark.gif" should also be nominated for deletion on the ground that it is no longer useful for any project. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–09:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The en.wiki article declares that Mucha's work is PD (see the end of:
Legacy), and Mucha's hi-res images are tagged on Commons with {{PD-Art}} (70 years after the author's death).
The Mucha Foundation asserts that The Trust also owns all the intellectual property residual in Mucha's work.
Mucha Limited is a commercial company that exploits the commercial opportunities of Mucha's artistic heritage. It does so via Mucha's copyright, trademarks and the Mucha brand name.
It's not 70 years in all cases, but it's Wikimedia policy not to recognize new copyright in mere faithful/mechanical reproductions of artworks whose copyright has expired by the normal rules. If there is a creatively derived or transformed variant of the original artwork, then the person who did such creative transforming owns the copyright to his own particular derived version (but that does not change the copyright status of the original). AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I see - this example is a "derivative work" (new pictorial adaptation reproduction of original) which is registered at copyright.org. So, does the Mucha Foundation make a false claim in item #2 above?
Do you know if there is any way that a copyright can be extended beyond death+70 (up to +95 years, when applicable) by republishing/repackaging the work?
For example, Pictorial Webster's (ISBN: 9780811867184) was copyright in 1993. This book is filled with thousands of the small images printed in six different illustrated American dictionaries, all published before 1910. I understand that once something gets to the PD it can't be copyrighted again, but the Pictorial Webster's seems to be doing just that. Is an image from the original 1859 dictionary PD, while the same image printed in this book is not? Maybe this is a bad example - major publishing houses have experience with this issue.
Another way of asking the question would be, if the author's death date is 70/95+ years ago, is there still a chance that there's a copyright sitting around somewhere, is a due-diligent search required? Thanks for your reply, this helps with my work here. ~ Dogears (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Note that images by this artist published 1923 or later must be marked {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, since they are not public domain in the US due to the URAA (since they were not in the public domain in the source country in 1996). Dcoetzee (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
"The public domain" doesn't exist; it depends on the country. Most of the world has settled on life+x laws, where x can be as much as 100, but the US still has different rules for older works; all works published before 1923 are in the PD in the US.
I don't see that #2, "The Trust also owns all the intellectual property residual in Mucha's work" is necessarily false; even if there were no copyright left, it would be vacuous, but there are still existing copyrights in the US and possibly elsewhere, As for the Pictorial Webster's, none of the reprinted materials are copyright in their original form. But if you choose works and make a unique collection, you have a copyright over that collection as a collection, even if you control none of its pieces. The copyright also covers the cover design and the introduction. And he claims to have "cleaned and restored" them; it's quite possible his lawyers could claim there was creative elements in what he did. You'd have to do your own comparison of the images to see whether that was true; a simple brightness and contrast wouldn't be copyrightable, but fixing a three or five-legged horse probably would.
@Dcoetzee: I don't know that anyone will do the research, but if they were originally published in a country that was life+50 in 1996--possibly Czech or Slovakia (a quick websearch doesn't say)--they'd be PD in the US unless registered.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like both Czech Republic and Slovakia (who didn't draft their own copyright law until 1997, so presumably they kept with the Czechoslovak law until then) were both 50 pma on the URAA date, so any works first published in those countries would not have been restored. By his wiki article, it seems to indicate he spent most or all of his post-1923 years there (though travelled quite a bit earlier, including the U.S. and France, so countries of origin may differ but those should mostly be pre-1923 works). The copyright.gov registrations are somewhat worrisome, although all of them predate the Bridgeman vs Corel ruling which indicated that that type of thing does not get new copyright (and the entries pretty much say they are pictorial versions of the original art). As noted, there are some countries were copyright would still exist (Colombia is 80 pma for example), and there may be certain works which use Mucha's works, and could have a copyright on the additional material. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I think those 37 copyright registrations would be valid if the works in question were not published before the registration. In other words, the sequence (for Summer) would be:
Summer was created but not considered published in artist's lifetime (it was a panel painting, one of its kind, in a private collection and thus not likely to have been published, i.e. several copies meant for public distribution).
Mucha died in 1939.
Unpublished works are considered to have perpetual copyright in the US (until 2003 when it was revised to the 70-year-pma), so in 1995, his heirs or Trust were still considered by the US to have copyright over his unpublished works.
His Trust permitted the publication of the artwork in US, the first (reproduced the artwork as more than one copy for public distribution in magazines, brochures, etc), registering for copyright in 1995.
Under the Berne convention, the work is considered a US publication by virtue of first publication in that country, which would then be copyrighted until 31 December 2047 (pre-1978 creation, 1989-2002 publication).[2]
The registrations are explicitly labeled as derivative pictorial works of Mucha's paintings, and are not attempting to register the original works themselves. But yes anything first published well after Mucha's lifetime (at least if before 2003) would need special scrutiny. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
January 8
Line break doesn't work
Anyone here more familiar than me with wikitext? On my user page I am desperately trying to make it start a new line before the "Examples of my contributions" headline, but no matter how many <br/> I'm adding it won't start a new line. Any idea what's wrong? -- H00515:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess because all the other objects are "float" objects. {{subst:clear}} would probably be even a bit better since a "active" template is not needed here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
As I hope to move to cloud computing soon is there a way to connect Wikimedia Commons with Picnik directly? Not sure what the ability of Chrome OS will be to save much to the hard drive. --James Heilman, MD (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Requesting a widget for patrollers
Would it be possible to add a widget to the top menu to allow patrollers the ability to automatically add a {{LicenseReview}} template to a page when we have verified the license of a photo at an external website? Kelly (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
January 9
User-specific categories
Since user-specific categories are allowed at Commons, I think there should be a uniform way of naming such categories. Which is better:
[[Category:Photos by Example]]
[[Category:Photos by User:Example]]
Or is it better to name it as [[Category:Uploads by Example]], to hold all uploads of a particular user? Rehman06:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest "Files by ..." since this matches what we call our content. No point differentiating between photographs, computer-generated images, sound files, video files, PDFs and so on, I think. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–06:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, thats better, (oh crap, I just finished adding all my uploads to my new Category:Uploads by Rehman). Do you think we should perhaps make a "rule" for this type of naming format? Because currently, there is a whole wide variety of names scattered all over the place... Rehman07:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there's a problem with differentiating by type of upload, so long as the eventual parent is a master category like "Files by user". — Huntster (t@c)08:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
If the user name happens to be "Example" (or something similiar), maybe "Category:Images by User:Example" is preferable. For "ZooFari", "Category:Images by ZooFari" seems sufficient. Note that some users prefer to use their real name in the user category. -- Docu at08:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, a good point. To overcome this issue, I think using "Files by User:Example" would do... Lets discuss the real name issue at the proposals talkpage... (discussing there helps keep the original discussion-history together, if the proposal ever gets accepted). Rehman08:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
A Catscan2-like gadget: Catwatch2
In case someone could be interested, I'm developing a little Catscan2-like gadget. A full description, and instructions on how to install and use it can be found at User talk:Ianezz/Catwatch2.js. It's far from being finished (it completely misses localization, for example), but it's currently useful enough for people wanting a quick peek of what changed below a certain set of categories in the last N days. --Ianezz (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyright of the Albert Kahn collection
Albert Kahn died in 1940. He owned a collection of 72,000 photographs all around the world. Some phtographs were taken by Kahn himself. If the 70 years post mortem rule is applied to the collection, photographs taken by Kahn has been in the public domain since January 1, 2011. However, most of the photographs were taken by hired staff. Have the copyright on those photographs been transferred to Kahn, or does the photo-takers own the copyrights? --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki)17:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
According to [3], "Under French law, only natural persons who create works may be considered authors. In addition, the law states that all the rights of a work vest in the creator or author of the work, regardless of any contract for hire or service by the author." However: "When several authors make inseparable contributions to a work, and a separate principal initiates and directs the process and takes responsibility for publishing the overall product, the principal takes all the ownership rights in the work." However, even if we were to treat Kahn's archive as a "collective work", I'm doubtful that the contributions of Kahn's photographers can be considered "inseparable", since each photo can be attributed to a particular photographer. Assuming this document applies to the 1901-1933 period, and the fact that the photos were taken in other countries is not relevant (I presume they were first published in France), I'd argue that the photographers are the rights-holders, in this case. Additionally, even if Kahn were the copyright holder, any works created 1923 or later would still be copyrighted in the US under the URAA since they were copyrighted in France in 1996 ({{Not-PD-US-URAA}}). Dcoetzee (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the article you linked above is talking about "presumptive" or implied transfer of copyright, i.e. if the employee copyright is automatically transferred to the employer. It says (my emphasis): "French courts primarily abide by Article L111-1 and refuse to imply transfers of ownership to employers or commissioning parties absent real evidence of such transfers contained in an employment or commissioning agreement." and: "However, this difference does not preclude the author from transferring some or all of his rights to his employer, and some civil law jurisdictions will imply the existence of an agreement to do so. Id. The end result may be largely the same as when the employer takes the rights to the work from the outset, but the differing theory ensures that any residual, inalienable rights (usually moral rights) remain with the employee author." So if Kahn had the transfer explicitly mentioned in the contract, or if a transfer agreement was signed separately, then he could well be the copyright holder. Commercial copyright that is, since moral rights are inalienable under French Law. -- Orionist ★ talk14:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Even if Khan may be the owner of the copyrights on photos taken by other photographers, that doesn't make him the author of such photos. Copyright terms are calculated based on the lifetime of the author, not of the copyright owner. Hence for all photos among the 72'000 in the Khan collection that were not taken by Khan you would need to know the author and his life dates to determine whether they were PD in France yet. Lupo14:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. Why would someone's term of (albeit bought-up) copyright be dependent on someone else's lifespan? And wouldn't such law lead to an increase in hiring of people of young age coming from populations with higher life expectancy? I don't see 15-year-old Japanese girls with cameras jumping around at press conferences! :-P -- Orionist ★ talk15:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The original photographer was the author, and the term is based on the author's lifespan. If that author sells the copyright, the term does not change based on who owns it. The EU copyright directive does have an element which says that for works where a legal person (i.e. company) is considered the author, the 70 pma term is only valid if the employee is named in the original publication, otherwise the term is 70 years, but I don't think that applies in France. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, yes, it probably is the case. What I'm saying is that there should be some side effects. Like companies in creative fields hiring from a certain demographic, with life expectancy as the most important criterion. Or publishers and copyright buyers investing in an expensive health insurance policy and a personal trainer for their authors, or refusing to buy rights from aging or even smoking authors etc. The absence of such behaviors might indicate that long-term prospects for copyright do not really matter for those investing in it, and that current copyright terms might be excessive. -- Orionist ★ talk18:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes. A buck in the hand is worth a heck of a lot more than one 70 years down the road, and unlike a movie or novel, the likelihood of any one photo or set of photos having real value 70 years down the road is pretty low. I bet these photos aren't making the owners enough money to cover the costs of storing them all these years.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh please. No one plans so far ahead, not even copyright lawyers. If an author sells, he sells now and it's the only thing that matters. NVO (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Huh? the 70 pma term is relatively new. Everywhere, copyright terms and life expectancy used to be much shorter. People invest for the long-term when there is value in the long term. You have winemakers, investors in art, collectibles and memorabilia, and of course family businesses. So it tells something about the relevance of copyright terms (except for the few lucky ones). I was, of course, exaggerating in my previous comment, for some humorous effect. I hope that didn't pass anyone. -- Orionist ★ talk06:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
US terms for works for hire are 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever comes first. It doesn't matter anyway because we could only hope to get photos published pre-1923. As for a possible loophole in French law, then yes, upon reading the above article and a quick read of the relevant articles in French law, we may be able to consider the collection a "collective work". If we consider it published in installments, "the term shall run as from January 1 of the calendar year following the date on which each installment was published." Which seems to indicate that each installment will have a different term, although I'm not sure about it. Also, as you've already mentioned, it might turn out to be anonymous. In the case of pseudonymous, anonymous or collective works the term of protection is 70 years from publication. Which is sufficient for us, provided any of his photos were published before 1923.
In the end we still have two problems: where can we find the photos, and how can we know if they were published before 1923? At least we know that the photos in the book you linked above will be definitely in PD on 2034-01-01. My suggestion is: if the photos are really valuable, then the WMF French chapter could contact them and try to convince them to collaborate with us, a la Bundes Archive. It could prove fruitful. -- Orionist ★ talk18:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Not quite -- the 95/120 thing is only when the author is anonymous or unknown, or a corporate author. If it is a known individual author, the U.S. term for works published since 2002 is straight-up 70 pma. For works published between 1978 and 2002, it is 70 pma or 2047, whichever is later. The 2047 line is not applied for works published since 2002 though, so if photos which are known to be actually authored by Kahn have only been published since 2002, then they are now fine in the U.S. But, it sounds like it will be difficult to know that, since most were authored by other photographers. Not sure this would be considered a work for hire -- could be more of a freelance photographer thing. For works published long ago, yes, we can only hope to have pre-1923 works (unless they are truly anonymous, in which case the line is somewhere in the 1930s -- France had 50 pma terms plus wartime extensions on the URAA date, not 70 pma, and the anonymous term was 50 years, presumably plus the extensions). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
According to the article above, the 95/120 year term applies when an employee is the author. However if the author is an independent contractor, it would apply "provided that the parties have signed an agreement designating the work as one made for hire, and provided that the work falls into one of nine categories enumerated in the statute." of which the only category that might apply is "contribution to a collective work." Otherwise the contractor is the copyright holder. So this is not getting any easier to determine. However, if that doesn't matter if published after 2002, then most of the images in the book you linked above could be uploaded to Wikipedia and tagged . If the copyright term in France was 50 pma on the URAA date, then I think the line would be around 3 September 1937, hat's as long as the photos are anonymous, or if we consider them part of a collective work. The question is still where are we going to get them from? We might have to talk to the owners afterall. -- Orionist ★ talk06:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Aha, cool. Per that link (and several others) Robert Dumas and Stéphane Passet were the two photographers sent to india, and theirs are obviously documented. Passet went in 1912 or 1913... he lived from 1875 to 1942, so his still have a couple years to run in France. Dumas went many years later, so his are post-1923 to start with, and he lived from 1891 to 1972 (per here), so those will remain copyrighted for quite some time. Per this link, some other photographers were Georges Chevalier (1882-1967, which per this link means we need to delete File:Albert kahn.jpg), Auguste Léon (1857-1942), Frédéric Gadmer (1878 - 1954), and Camille Sauvageot (1889-1961). (Dates gotten from here and here and here). Albert Dutertre (1884-1964) was Kahn's chauffeur, and took some early ones. So... it looks like we would need to know the particular photographer, and the majority of them are still under copyright. If we can identify any Kahn took himself, those may be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Good work! I can have another look at the Okuefuna book and see if I can add anything to your list. I doubt Kahn himself took any of the photos, his role was mostly that of a financier. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Photographs by Alfred Cheney Johnston
We have a collection of photographs by Alfred Cheney Johnston (1885–1971) whose copyright status remain unclear. Most, if not all, of these photographs are collected within the Library of Congress but are not published by the library on the Internet (with the exception of very small thumbnails). According to the data at LoC, these photographs have been created and/or published in ca. 1918–1939. Exact dates or references to publications are not given. In regard to the copyright status, the LoC simply states: Rights status of individual images not evaluated.
The individual copyright tags which are actually used are a mess. Some representative examples:
File:Mary Pickford - A.C.Johnston.jpg was taken from Library and Archives Canada. {{PD-Canada}} is used as a license tag but the page at the Canadian library does not indicate that this was published in Canada first. Instead the record indicates that New York City is assumed to be the location where the photograph was taken without giving any pointers to a possible publication. This is indeed PD in Canada but from this we cannot conclude that this is also PD in the United States.
I wonder if someone knows more about possible early publications of these photographs or anything else what would allow us to keep this valuable set. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hrrrm. Apparently he made a gift of 250 images to the Library of Congress in 1960 (see here), but no idea what the terms of the gift are (although they are selling a CD of them at that link). As you say, most of the image pages only have the small thumbnails, meaning they are either copyrighted or not evaluated yet (though if you know the URL patterns you can often get the higher-resolution images anyways). At least one from that collection however is marked "No known restrictions". It sounds like Johnston's photos were pretty well known in the 1920s, so many were presumably published -- perhaps for that one the Library of Congress knew of some publication info (actually, that one is almost certainly pre-1923). You'd think they are all legally published, by the 1960 gift if not earlier, but searching renewal records may be a bit daunting without knowing when things were published. The online Library of Congress doesn't have any hits on his name, so it would at least appear he never renewed any of his stuff published 1951 or later. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The cc-by tag is clearly wrong and should no longer be on any of the images taken from my Flickr account (there was a discussion about this when the pictures were bot-transferred, but as predicted this issue has fallen by the wayside). User:Howcheng, who updated some of the descriptions, used {{PD-US-no-notice}} for the ACJ photos from 1923 and later, which imho is the best guess we have. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
{{PD-US-no-notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}} are surely good guesses but guesses alone do not help us here as we follow the precautionary principle. This means that we need a proof that this material is PD, not just a guess how likely this is. This requires research and it would be quite helpful to learn when these photographs were published first (including bibliographic references). Do you know anything in this regard? --AFBorchert (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, that's why I never uploaded them to Commons myself. The Hudovernik book seems the best chance to find evidence on the copyright status. I believe Hudovernik is also the one running the ACJ website. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
And since this template is not a subst: template, it is probably just another ignored unused template. I will be bold and delete it now. Let me know if I shouldn't have done this, and I shall restore. Rehman11:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
US Copyright Protection for pre-1972 sound recordings
The US Copyright Office is soliciting comments on federal copyright protection for pre-1972 sound recordings. As this is currently controlled by state law that is eternal (but will be preempted by federal law in 2047), we have nothing to lose in the next 36 years by a change, and it will mean that we never have to worry about differences between state laws. I was going to toss a comment there myself, but it would be bigger coming from a group of people, or even the Wikimedia Foundation. It's due by January 31st, so no time to waste.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
January 10
A singer's small fragment
Hello, I have thought that it could be a good idea to incorporate in the wikipedia a small file that bring so alone a fragment of single 1:30 min of an improvisasiòn of a famous singer of my country that is at the end of their second disk engraving in the year 1984. The fragment is not compromising since it is about a jazzy versiòn and the song like such it is not recognizable at all since is so alone of 4 or five chords with her improvisasiòn for up. I but like to know if there is not problem to go up it, and which will be the corresponding license.If they can answer me here or in my user page , could be good in any case.It is everything, thank you.
Vicond (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
That depends on what country you live in - let's get that first and go from there. As sound recordings go, improvisations can be somewhat complex, since unlike performances, they are not generally derivative of a written work. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Help needed to review [[Category:Coins of England]]
Hi. If anyone has any spare time, can you possibly assist me in reviewing the above category please, it contains a lot of copyvios. I've tagged 6 or 7 in the last 10 minutes or less. Any English coins, images, photographs or the like are not permitted here due to the following statement at Commons:Currency#United Kingdom -
"Coin designs are copyrighted by the Royal Mint.[14] So although publishing images of coins is not prohibited by the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (c.45) (Its section 19 applies only to "imitation British coins", which are defined as "any thing which resembles a British coin in shape, size and the substance of which it is made."), such images can be published only with the consent of the Royal Mint."
If anyone has the available time, I have been using that as the rationale for the copyvio template. Your help in cleaning this mess up would be much appreciated. Thank You :) BarkingFish (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh Shit. I misinterpreted that. "Published photographs or engravings subject to Crown Copyright which were created more than 50 years ago are now in the public domain" says to me that if the photograph was created more than 50 years ago, it's PD. I have got a shedload of cleaning up to do. NOW. Thank you for pointing that out to me, Prosfilaes, it will be cleaned up and tags removed where placed, IMMEDIATELY. BarkingFish (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Per the above, thanking you for your help in cleaning up my mess, I have removed some of the copyvio tags (i discovered you had done the rest) and I have also placed an apology on the talkpages of Numizmat675 and Anakin101 for the mass tagging, explaining that I misinterpreted the guideline, and no action will be taken in respect of the warnings, nor indeed is any further action necessary by them. I feel like such a dick :8( BarkingFish (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, at least you weren't the guy who discovered that not only can you delete the English Wikipedia main page, deleting a page with that many revisions does nasty things to a server. We all screw up; it's no big deal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
AFAIK, such combined content could not be split. But what we could do is, manually upload the latest version on a different file, and I could delete the latest version from the above file... Rehman15:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I have always wondered. It is possible by renaming/deleting/undeleting to "split" pages histories − this is how sysops used to handle copyvios on WP (or so I understand, never done it myself) ; but then it is not possible for files ? Too bad, would be handy in such cases :-( Jean-Fred (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I can partly do it myself, manually opload the latest version as a new file, and revert the old file to an earlier version; but I hoped indeed for a cleaner split by an administrator.--Havang(nl) (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
@Frédéric, I know we could merge, but never succeeded in splitting. Will try experimenting after I come back from work... Kind regards. Rehman00:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
W00t, that IS cool. Rehman, could you please draft a quick help page for that? I would hate to break something with doing this in the wild. Jean-Fred (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Has everyone missed that the originally uploaded image at File:Atalaya.png is labelled as CC-Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike? This should probably be deleted as non-free. — Huntster (t@c)11:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Bug in the system?
...and also discovered a major bug in the software. If you delete File:RehmanTestUpload.jpg, and restore only the "file" and not the editable "contributions", you will make the file undeletable/unmovable/etc. Its a page without logs/edits/whatever, but with a "file". The TestUpload file is now stuck and undeletable. Need to contact someone... Rehman09:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstood something, but I had no trouble deleting this file? (Sorry if you didn't want it to be deleted...) Lupo10:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thats weird. I really couldn't delete it. But as you can see at Special:Undelete/File:RehmanTestUpload.jpg, there is no more page history, just a single file history. So "move" and similar functions wouldn't work... I don't mind it being deleted, its just a test file; many deletions/undeletions on that ;) Rehman10:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
WikiProjects
Hi. I have just created Commons:WikiProject, a venue to provide information on WikiProjects. Please have a look and see how you can improve. Also, please consider joining the Commons:WikiProject WikiProjects, the project aimed at the maintenance of existing projects, closing of old projects, and the opening of new ones. Its still "under construction" though... Rehman13:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I was confused by that too; in fact at first, I had some of the "WikiProject WikiProjects" content at "WikiProjects". Reason why it should be separated is that the earlier is a WikiProject, and the latter is about WikiProjects. Just like Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiProjects and Wikipedia:WikiProjects.
But at Wikipedia, the earlier is redirected to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Council" (same purpose as "WikiProject WikiProjects", but on a better name). I'll rename here too, just to avoid confusion. ;) Rehman00:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Does the Commons have a special mobile phone edition? I know Wikipedia has one, with the English one at http://en.m.wikipedia.org (and accordingly for other Wikipedias of other languages)
For Commons I think an important element of a mobile version would be a full-screen image viewer which could zoom in selectively on parts of the image, loading information on-demand similar to Zoomify. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I have written a new section in the English WP article, en:Threshold of originality, about the copyrightability of security camera recordings and the like. It appears that, while there is not yet US case law about this issue, most commentators from the jurisdictions that apply an originality threshold (which excludes the UK but includes the US) think that recordings made without human intervention, such as by a security camera, are not copyrighted.
If so, this would expand the scope of works usable in Commons, and might allow us to use e.g. this security camera image related to the recent shoting in the US, unless one considers the selection of this specific frame from the video to be a separate act of human authorship, which I haven't yet formed an opinion about.
There has been some debate about this topic here on en:wp in 2007. I'd like to ask whether the community supports the idea of the development of a PD license tag that allows us to use works that are very likely not copyrighted while staying on the safe side. For instance (subject to improvement):
This file is part of a recording from a surveillance camera, webcam or other pre-positioned recording device located in the United States, in continental Europe (excluding the UK) or in another jurisdiction that requires copyrighted works to clear a threshold of originality. It has been automatically recorded without human intervention. The recording is therefore in the public domain because it has no human author. If it has been further processed in a manner that constitutes an act of authorship under U.S. law, either by the uploader or other persons, a separate license tag is required to cover the copyright that subsists in such authorship.
No. In most continental European countries photographs are copyrighted for 50 years after publication regardless of an originality threshold. See de:Lichtbild for Austrian and German law. sугсго20:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hm, that article does not address the lack of an originality threshold, which is a basic feature of Continental copyright law. Also, even Lichtbild protection requires the existence of a human author ("Das Recht nach Absatz 1 steht dem Lichtbildner zu", UrhG §72/2), whereas the recordings at issue here have no human author (and are generally video recordings anyway, not Lichtbilder). Sandstein (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Im allgemeineren Sinn ist mit einem Lichtbild jedes durch Fotografie entstandene Bild gemeint. ~ In German (and Austrian) law every photograph is a Lichtbild and video recordings are (chains of elektronical) photographs. sугсго22:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
That is just a statement that photos are subject to copyright. That's not in dispute. What this does not show is that Lichtbilder are exempt from the originality requirement and that automatically generated Lichtbilder have an author who can exercise any copyright. Sandstein (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Security cameras may be intended for an entirely practical concern rather than an artistic purpose, but they are still positioned by a person and that contribution appears to meet the "creative spark" standard of copyrightability in the United States. Whoever sets up the camera is effectively the "photographer." It's much the same as a person setting up a camera on a tripod on a timer, which is routinely done by professional photographers, except over a longer period of time. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The legal professionals cited in the Wikipedia article disagree. The tripod analogy is false because the camera installer does not press the shutter button to record a specific image of a specific subject at a specific time. He just sets up the camera. Whatever happens to wander into view is, for his purposes, essentially random and is therefore not part of any authorship on his part. Sandstein (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)§
This is a reasonable argument, but I think it depends very much on the individual case whether the person who installed the camera did so with the intention of (and could reasonably foresee) capturing a particular image. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I think I would have to reject any argument that leads to concluding that a surveillance camera recording a burglary of the store it records would be copyrightable, but recording a hit and run is not. I keep wandering back to the Zapruder film and wondering how a handheld camera pointing at the obvious target is inherently different then a mounted camera. (I don't think it would hard to build a computer that would automatically track something like the President's car nowadays.) I don't think that I can convince myself that it is anymore.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Zapruder, the guy who filmed the Kennedy assassination, was a person who was on-site with his hand-held camera to make a recording of the president's car; he chose subject, zoom, duration, panning etc. to that end. He's the classical author. An automatic camera that tracks anything that moves, on the other hand, is not a person and therefore does not make original - creative - works, except possibly in the (probably rare) case mentioned by Dcoetzee where the system is set up with some forethought to capture a particular image. In that case the set-up may be considered an act of authorship. I do recognize that this boundary is somewhat fuzzy. Sandstein (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure; does attaching a camera to a building to record what's going on outside have any more creative spark than pointing a camera at a painting? There's absolutely no control, and no attempt to control, what's going on in the camera view. That differs from a tripod in that the controller of the timer is grabbing one image that he's controlling the time of the shot and almost certainly has some control over what goes on in that shot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
"think that recordings made without human intervention, such as by a security camera, are not copyrighted." This is wrong. I've seen documentarians have strong copyright protection of their cameras put up without humans. It is the only way to capture natural images of animals. It would also be theft to take the images without permission of the person recording them, so I don't know how you would even attempt to justify the image. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Not true. I've seen cases where the photo was seen as copyrighted. It is their camera and their footage. It doesn't matter if they put it on "automatic". You don't have the right to steal images from National Geographic merely because anyone can access the sites they were taken in either. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Seen by whom? There's a big difference between the cases where the owner of the camera claims copyright and where a court says there is copyright. What about the frequent cases when the creative input is done by some independent contractor that doesn't own the camera, the store or the film? I bet a lot of them are installed and positioned by someone who does that for many stores as their job, and it's clearly not work for hire.
It's not legally theft. That's perfectly clear; if they do own a copyright on the material, then it's copyright infringement, not theft, for us to use it without permission and without a fair use reason. If you have a moral objection to the use of the material, let's here it clearly and separately from the legal objection.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
If you honestly believe anything you say, then take clips of National Geographic documentaries where the camera was left - like time lapse film- and try to upload it to Commons under a PD rationale. We both know that your argument has no merit and that you wont do it. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
In any case, the case of a nature documentary can be distinguished from a security camera. A nature camera is placed with creative intentions, and the film is so cut and edited. A security camera is placed with a very limited set of choices for purely technical reasons, and the cut of what is available to us is the entire range of what happened. Picking one frame from six hundred of an event, and more realistically the 10 or 15 good frames, is not copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
"placed with creative intentions" So, if your writing is to sell something, its not copyrightable but if your writing is to be pretty, it is? No, that isn't how it works. You would be allowed to make your -own- footage of the same thing but you can't steal others. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Feist v. Rural says "To qualify for copyright protection, a work must ... possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity." and quotes an older decision approvingly "It described copyright as being limited to 'original intellectual conceptions of the author,'".--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
You obviously don't understand what that means. It means that you can't copyright a solid red background or a simple knife. Unique footage of a moment collected from your tool is copyrightable. That has always been the case. That does not prohibit -others- from taking images of the same thing, but it does keep you from stealing -theirs-. Otherwise, every "fair use" image of a public figure would magically turn into PD. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Unique footage is not necessarily copyrightable; Corel v. Bridgeman. No photograph of a painting is just like any other, and yet they aren't copyrightable. And Feist v. Rural has nothing to do with stealing; it was a court case about copyright infringement, which makes me wonder if you understand what Feist v. Rural means.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I love the deception. Feist v. Rural is not Supreme Court case, as if lower courts can make determinate rulings. Then there are the misleading claims. Corel v. Bridgeman does not declare what you claim but it instead "ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images". PD images -already-. Not new and original images. The mere attempt to use this case in a blatantly misleading way is disruption. Please don't continue such behavior. That is in addition to Feist v. Rural which has nothing to do with photographic images but FACTS. Such misleading statements are a gross violation of civility. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Feist vs. Rural was indeed a Supreme Court case (perhaps you were thinking of Bridgeman?). It was not about facts, but more generically what amount of creativity is required to sustain a copyright. It was already well known that facts were not copyrightable, but since arrangements and compilations of non-copyrightable works can have their own copyright (called a "collective work"), the court case was regarding if a phone book qualified as a collective work. That case struck down *all* arguments based around how much effort was involved, or how much something cost to create, and instead ruled that copyright is a function of creative human expression only. That is indeed relevant here, at least quite possibly. Corel v. Bridgeman was comparing a painting and a photograph; two very different mediums and *not* a straight copy. That court decided there was not enough creative expression on the part of the photographer to warrant a copyright for a straight-on photo. There is similarly often very, very little creative expression involved in a 24/7 security camera -- most of what it captures is purely happenstance and not the result of someone's creativity. The photographer owns no copyright over depicted objects (unless they were creatively arranged by the photographer beforehand), but rather is based on elements under the photographer's control (lighting, angle, perspective, choice of film, etc.). Works which do not copy those specific aspects probably aren't derivative works. This article goes over some of the issues with determining exactly what part of a photograph is copyrightable. From the Copyright Compendium: To be entitled to copyright registration, a photograph, hologram, or slide must contain at least a certain minimum amount of original expression. Generally, original photographic or holographic authorship depends on the variety and number of the elements involved in the composition of the photograph or hologram. However, the nature of the thing depicted or the subject of the photograph or hologram, as distinguished from its composition or arrangement, is not regarded as a copyrightable element. Original photographic composition capable of supporting registration may include such elements as time and light exposure, camera angle or perspective achieved, deployment of light and shadow from natural or artificial light sources, and the arrangement or disposition of persons, scenery, or other subjects depicted in the photograph. Basically, it seems to me that the only relevant part there is the angling of the camera -- which is often done by the installer, probably at the behest of the proprietor of the premises. Is that really an act of authorship? Does the installer own it, or the proprietor? The compendium also says: In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Thus, a linoleum floor covering featuring a multicolored pebble design which was produced by a mechanical process in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable. That does not say a human has to be behind the camera, but does say there needs to be some human involvement in the resulting expression. I would say there are a wide range of not-human-present situations which would easily be considered copyrightable. For example, if someone sets up a camera with a motion sensor in order to capture a targeted image -- say birds at a feeder -- and gets it, I would say the result is copyrightable. The question is if a mundane security camera rises to that level, and there is a fair argument that it may not, in specific situations. Given a particular set of facts about how the camera was mounted, etc., it may be considered a result of a purely automated setup, and not human. If they happen to get unexpectedly lucky with a capture, well, that part is not the result of any human authorship to me. But, since this is a matter which is debatable in the legal world, I would rather not have a Commons policy which says one thing or another, and certainly not a tag which claims more certainty than there is. One last thing -- you keep on referring to this as "theft" and "stealing"; that is incorrect (or pejorative at best) as theft/stealing/larceny is a completely separate type of crime with its own laws, penalties and jail terms. We are discussing the (potential) crime of copyright infringement, which has nothing whatsoever to do with theft, and should not be labeled that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean you've seen that documentary makers have strong copyright protection? Surely that must mean you have court citations to offer us, right? Otherwise that's just an opinion, something you believe, not have seen. I might distinguish between a documentary maker and a security camera in intent and choices; a documentary maker has a wide range of options of placing and controlling a camera, and is doing it with creative intent in mind. (I've responded to the "theft" statement on your talk page.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
If you believe I'm wikistalking, take it to the noticeboard. You haven't bothered to cite a policy that says I can't make snide comments and gives my statements as examples, so I don't see any reason to worry about the fact that you consider my comments snide and inappropriate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Two other people posted that your insulting claims of me making attacks were blatantly false and wrong. You have acted utterly incivil, put out nasty attacks, and make up stuff about others while promoting some bad understanding of law. That isn't acceptable behavior. I doubt you would even apologize for your clear impropriety. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
If you're talking about the two users on User talk:Ottava Rima, that's a blatant lie. What they said was that they disagreed with my claim that that was a personal attack, not that the claim was insulting or blatantly false. Given that one of the editors has retired and basically his only editing since 2008 has been his user page, talk page, and to defend you, it's pretty clear you solicited opinions of people who would agree with you, so it doesn't mean much at all. Your sample is not only tiny, but horribly biased, and even at that you're distorting the results.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Why don't we just ask the WMF legal department for their "official" view? I hardly think amateur discussion on Commons is going to stand up in any possible court case. ←fetchcomms20:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Have a look at de:Lichtbildwerk. It seems the Supreme court of Germany regards photo booth pictures as Lichtbilder (not Lichtbildwerke) with 50 years copyright. It looks like the security camera stuff hasn't been tested in court in Germany. 217.235.15.2302:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Photo booths are not like security cameras. They are activated by humans to capture a specific moment. The analogy we should be looking at here is software that automatically writes a poem or paints a picture. When there is no human involved, is a copyright created? I remember researching this a long time ago (for US law), but don't remember what the conclusion was. Kaldari (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The NJTA sued Youtube (and others) in 2007, demanding removal of an image caught on security camera[4]. I can't find the result, but there's a precedence in the U.S. for at least claiming copyright status on security camera footage. Buddy431 (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The NJTA voluntarily withdrew the suit a couple days later, on May 24 (I think YouTube took the video down, and YouTube themselves weren't the potential infringer anyways), so that resolved nothing. Dunno... cameras set up to monitor vehicle traffic have a fair amount of value I'd think. A lot of security cameras can be controlled somewhat by a security guard, and so may not be all that random. I wouldn't want to make a blanket statement either way; there are probably some specific circumstances which may result in a video being considered uncopyrightable, but there are probably many more situations which would attract copyright. It's probably case by case, depending on the tiny details around who set up the camera, how much control did they have, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't find the cite right now; but this argument, and ones like it, have gone on before, and I used to have an argument from a lawyer that security cameras footage wasn't copyrightable. Of course, being a brief in a case meant that the other side was arguing the other way. I will note that IIRC the company who had the security cameras installed was arguing the footage was not copyrightable, and the security company was arguing it was, in an apparent attempt to hold it hostage over the head of the first party.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds like a weird argument for a case like that. On the other hand, I suspect that if a company came to some financial harm due to use of that company's security-type videos by someone claiming uncopyrightability, the judge may try fairly hard to find an aspect they could rule as copyrightable. Given the precautionary principle, I would be hesitant to give any guidance further than the Copyright Office Compendium bit about requiring some element of human authorship, short of actual case law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I am generally in favour of the proposal, but the language should be a bit more restrictive. If I put a surveillance camera into my backyard, pointing up a tree, in order to record a squirrel that I have often seen run up that tree, then surely I have the copyright on the result. The proposed language could mislead users into believing I don't. Hans Adler (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The pragmatic answer is that we should wait for some caselaw. Claiming that such images are PD would be an agressive copyright stance in a grey area and would create issues for reusers not interested in that level of risk.Geni (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I hate to spoil the fun, but one of our core policies is the precautionary principle. So, unless someone can produce some clear US (case) law(s) proving that these images are free, these images can not be uploaded to Commons. Multichill (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
For once, I agree with Prosfilaes. There is no creative content in security camera recordings. It is an automatic process, like scanning. Beside, we interpret the law all the time, why not in this case. If we need to wait for some tribunal to make a verdict for every corner case, we would never take a decision here. Yann (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this something that the Wikipedia foundation ultimately has to decide? This is a core legal issue. There's a lot of legal discussion above, much of which I'd assume is from non lawyers. I am a lawyer, but I wouldn't dare to suggest my opinion on this issue should be Wikipedia policy, nor would I offer any legal advice in this setting. This is a somewhat open, and very undecided issue. There are core questions about the creativity threshold in U.S. copyright law, but that there are questions doesn't mean it's a consensus based issue. The broad editor base wouldn't face liability from a mistake... the foundation would. I believe this is fundamentally a foundation question, and they need to address it. As for the amateur wrangling about the creativity standard, it's interesting but ultimately irrelevant. Copyright law isn't the most understood or rational of the federal codes. Shadowjams (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The point is that the Wikimedia Foundation has constantly refused to provide formal legal advise, and I can understand why, even if I don't agree with the decision. I had several discussions with Mike Godwin about this. His point is that the WMF needs to stay indenpendent to any legal decision taken regarding the documents hosted by the projects. I have suggested several times that an independent lawyer advise to be requested for several difficult legal issues. Nothing has ever been done.
And a lawyer's opinion could be 1. yes, you can go; 2. no, don't do that; 3. a lot of other possibilities in between. So even with a lawyer advise, the community has to take these decisions, and it has done so alone for the last 10 years. In any way, WMF is only a hosting provider, so editors have to take the legal responsibility for what they upload and publish.
As a lawyer, you could help in saying which court cases are relevant, and where to find them. You do not need to give your personal opinion. Yann (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that Yann. That actually explains quite a bit. I suppose the foundation considers itself within the safe harbor provision. Still, there are instances of editorial discretion (office actions), and I wonder the extent to which the community really could change fundamental aspects of the project (changing the license to a restricted paywall, for instance)... but those are questions for another day.
In a lot of cases, even if the footage has protection, there may be substantial fair use claims to it. We do that analysis pretty regularly and that works efficiently. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion that path remains open. Shadowjams (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Security camera pictures are not for publishing, but private stuff, and mostly have to be destroyed a short time after recording. Let's respect privacy and not publish. That's my personal opinion. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
In the examples that I've seen prompting discussion, it has nothing to do with privacy. The 9/11 hijackers were caught on security cameras and those pictures were published in formal documents. In this case, the shooter in Tucson was caught on security camera, and that picture made it all over the news and likely will see publication in at least one book.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The abovementioned file is incorrect, as it represents neutral states (Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Austria) as being in the Western field, while correctly pointing out the autonomous position of Yugoslavia and Albania in the socialist field. The correct file to use would be the second one, which is nevertheless way less used. Can somebody please advise on how to proceed?--Dans (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If you are absolutely sure the latter is the correct, then you could request history merging both files, so that the latter file would appear as "newer versions" of the earlier file. That way one could understand the "file evolution"... Rehman23:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I noted that with JavaScript enabled, the "full resolution" link below larger images is currently hidden. This seems to be caused by MediaWiki:LargeImage linkswap.js. What's the reasoning? … definitely feels like a bug, not a feature. --:bdk:21:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
No, the photograph of the passport is protected until 70 years passed after the death of the photographer. All other parts of the passport are ineligible for copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
If you consider issueing a passport publication then it was published. If you do not consider it publication you are of course right. But it seems logical to me to consider it publication because that's the sole purpose of passport photoes. They are not meant to be published in any other way.
Passport photoes are utility products and not works of art. Their creators do not expect any compensation except for a fixed sum paid at the time the pictures are taken and therefore the authors of passport pictures are not documented in any way that makes it possible to investigate them 70 years later. Therefore it is completely sane and valid to consider them anonymous works. --Slomox (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The use of a photograph for a passport is no publication. § 6 UrhG defines that a work is published if a work has been made accessible to the public with permission of the copyright holder. A professional photographer usually grants just a limited right to use the photograph per § 31 (2) UrhG. This doesn't make the photograph PD nor does it allow to publish the photograph under another free license such that it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
But if it's unpublished an anonymous work will still expire after 70 years according to § 66 UrhG.
A professional photographer usually grants just a limited right to use the photograph per § 31 (2) UrhG That's a very theoretical approach. We are speaking about passport photoes. Incidentally it has just been a few days that I was at the photographer's and made some passport photoes. I have double checked and I can assure you that the photographer didn't inform me about any restrictions to the use of the photoes. Not in written form and not in spoken form. She didn't obtain my personal data to store in her rights management database. She just sold me the photoes. She didn't even ask what I was going to do with the photoes. From a strict legal point of view that means I am not allowed to use it in my passport. I have not obtained any explicit permission to do that. And still millions of people do exactly that and thousands of photographers have no problem with it.
Nobody cares about copyright in passport photoes. My photographer didn't care to discuss rights with me. In some weeks she will not even remember she ever took photoes of me. Even less so in 70 years. I'm 99.99% sure that you will be unable to determine the original author of Strahinja Janjic's passport photo even if you had a professional team of historical reasearchers and a million dollar budget. That information is lost forever. The people who could have known are long dead. Even if they'd still live they'd forgotten. Copyright only makes sense if there is anybody who could hold that right. For us it only makes sense to handle it as if it was an anonymous work, because the course of time has made the author undiscernible.
I think the Berne Convention asks that governments themselves enforce the rights of still-existing anonymous copyright, in the absence of a publisher or someone else who can represent the owner, so it's not impossible (generally speaking) that there could be issues even if the original author is unknown. Some countries grant a "portrait right", giving the person photographed a lot of ownership over the image, and those would usually be more relevant. In the specific cases of passport photos, I'm inclined to agree with you, after the anonymous term passes. I have yet to see a passport which specified the photographer's name. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
@Slomox: In regard to § 66 UrhG: Works created before 1 July 1995 fall under the old regulation which has no provision for unpublished works where the author is unknown. Secondly, this thread is titled Third Reich and is thereby asking for German copyright law. And at Commons we care about copyright even if it is unlikely that copyright holders are alive or any of their heirs would notice any violation. Please be refered to COM:PRP. This is our policy. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it is settled that "Official material of Third Reich" is PD as "Amtliches Werk". The passport itself is PD. It's just the image that could be problematic because it was possibly not made on commission of the Reich. The photographer was either a military photographer of the Reich (in that case I guess German law applies) or a Serbian civilian photographer (in that case Serbian law applies).
Works created before 1 July 1995 fall under the old regulation The whole law is from 1965. What was the position of the law that was in effect in 1941 then?
In 1941 we had KUG which is succeeded by UrhG. Photographs were copyrighted per KUG and nothing of this has changed due to the switch to the new law covers all works including those that predate it.
In regard to COM:PRP: In case of a passport photograph from 1941 where the photographer is unknown and neither he nor his heirs can be asked for permission, we have absolutely no doubt that an upload to Wikimedia Commons under a free license would constitute a copyright violation or copyfraud which is eligible for speedy deletion. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Siebot, the bot which performs the commands, appears to have stalled. I posted a note on Siebrand's talk page, but afaik there has been no motion on it yet. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Uhm, I believe this would also result in disabling deletion requests by unlogged users (a deletion request requires a new page)... OTOH, after a quick peek at new pages recently created by unlogged users, the situation doesn't look so bad (mainly new categories, with meaningful names if I'm not mistaken). --Ianezz (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it just the tip of the iceberg - how many pages were shot on sight and are missing from public logs? 500 pages over two weeks seems quite low. Perhaps very few users actually know about this loophole (BEANS). NVO (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, I didn't think of that. The same query against en.wiki results in too little noise for including the speedy deletions (and since the Mediawiki api works the same on Commons, this means that deleted pages are not listed). It would be nice to know the actual signal/noise ratio, though. --Ianezz (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Recently I had some communication helping out an IP who is very active in categorizing Polish church photos, including creation of whole category tree. He decided to remain as anonymous and change IP often. --Jarekt (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
That polish church categorization chap has been doing this for months :) and that person is really categorization addicted. Works until 3AM, sleeps 4 hours, gets up and caries on with the categorization ;) . Amada44talk to me18:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought a chunk of all current vandalism was due to the allowing of IPs to create pages, (but I didn't thoroughly check). So if you guys think this should be left as it is, and all is going well, then cool ;) Rehman00:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The only thing what I suggest is to disallow IPs from initiating a deletion request. Doing a lot of patrolling I see often a not relevant argument and it involved time of others before all has been brought back to normal. It is not as simple as reverting vandalism in for example the description. Wouter (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Request help downloading an image (maybe featured picture quality?)
I got CC-SA permission from the head of collections at a museum for this tiger-man image. I had asked him for a high resolution picture (was seeing pic at a different location, featured on their web page). He sent me here to the "digital collection". I would like to get the full quality image (the 5G or whatever), both so we have it and to meet FP criteria. Please tell me if this is doable somehow. Otherwise I have to bother a busy man again.
P.s. Is this image cool enough to get FP? I mean it is black and white, but that could be kinda retro cool no? And obviously it's striking (featured on their museum site and caught my eye). Plus useful as I'm doing an article on the fellow and he is a famous biologist and this even shows him in his work a little, even wrt museum which he helped found. IOW, it is a very pertinent pic, not just a cool one. although (I think) it is cool.TCO (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I engineered this link to download the entire image in full resolution. --Dschwen (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC) P.S.: For FPC this would need restoration (dust removal mainly). Please also crop out the frame. --Dschwen (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Full resolution image
Can you help me? I uploaded the screenshot and sent in the permissions. Can you get the larger thing posted and the dust removal (or do you need the physical print) and submit the thing for FP if worthy? I am so sorry to be a baby, but I have a recent brain condition and concentrating is hard. Still enjoy me Wiki, but my Message to Garcia ability is down.TCO (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Man, wiki is so fun when people help! Touches me! If there is a restorer who wants to fiddle with it and has the yen to take it to Featured Picture, please do. I donno. Maybe I just like things from the past. No push though. Especially if I am getting carried away. Anyhow...it looked cool at the museum site and is perfect for my article (hits three topics: the man, his work with animals, and his museum founding acheivement!)TCO (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The animal appears to be strangely liveless, maybe taxidermised. The tiger too. I may have a look at dust and border removal sometimes inside the next 5-6 days. OAlexander (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
By the way, the birth date of the subject of a photograph has no bearing on the copyright status of the photograph (only the birthdeath date of the photographer, in some cases). AnonMoos (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Well... it can help date the photo, and the date of creation does matter in a number of places. In this case... it's a photo of an 11-year-old boy, and the tag states the photo was created at least 25 years ago, so... Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There's a long-standing Commons policy that FOTW images should not be uploaded to Commons, unless the FOTW image author has given specific permission to do so. Jaume Olle has given such permissions, but the most other FOTW image authors have not. AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to upload an image but I'm getting the following error message:
Please complete author information for the following images:
- File:Royal-Cypher-Eliz-2-Black.svg
Actually, when I enter the original file name, Royal-Cypher-Eliz-2-Black.svg, I get an error message that says that file doesn't even exist. I'm using the crown from this image and I'm crediting the author, but I don't know how to complete the author information.
--Glasshouse 15:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you provide more information? What is the subject of your image? What name are you trying to give the new image? At what stage do you get the error message (what did you do just before the message appeared)? — Cheers, JackLee–talk–18:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
My image is a monogram of George V of Great Britain, and I'm trying to name it, "Royal Monogram of King George V." The message pops up as soon as I try to finalize the posting. The image is linked and ready to go, but when I try to hit the final button, the error message comes up. The original author's page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:User:Greentubing?rdfrom=commons:User:Greentubing, and a message at the top of his page says, "This user is now on a Wikibreak for some indeterminate period of time. Greentubing 23:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)"
Yes, it does exist, but I still can't upload my image without completing the author information for the image I'm referencing. Is it because that author hasn't been active in a long time? Should I not credit them at all? -- 03:54, 13 January 2011 User:Glasshouse
It would help if you could give a more precise step-by-step description of what you are doing. By the way, stuff like this is often handled better at Commons:Help desk than here on the Village Pump. - Jmabel ! talk06:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yup, I'm not clear what you [Glasshouse] mean by "completing the author information for the image [you're] referencing". What is the URL of the web page you are using to upload the image? If you are filling in an online form, what is the name of the field you are having difficulty with, and what information are you trying to put into that field? — Cheers, JackLee–talk–09:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Would it be better if clicking the delete page would also show the Special:GlobalUsage of the file at the bottom of the same page? If there is consensus, I could submit a Bugzilla proposal. (Or should that change be performed somewhere here, on Commons?) Rehman16:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
RFC: Derivative works claimed as own work without sources
Some editors are uploading obviously derivative works with Author {{Own}} and without sources. My view is that unsourced claims that one has authored something that is actually a derivative work are disingenuous, at best. The PD statuses and enforceability of copyright on the original works (due to being utilitarian works) are irrelevant, we still need sources for derivative works. I request comment on how such editors and their uploads should be treated. For background, please see User talk:Jeff G.#File:Los_Angeles_class_submarine_profile.svg. Thank you. — JeffG. ツ11:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not a matter of who or what originated the design, it's who created the particular image, in my opinion. And while I would prefer a public domain image that has been modified remain public domain, if the change goes beyond technical image mods (like cropping), the new work can be licensed however the modifier chooses. Of course, the source must be specified. Is there an issue here beyond this that I'm not seeing? — Huntster (t@c)12:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
What does the design of the submarine have to do with the SVG? They certainly aren't related by copyright. The SVG would be an original work, unless it is a tracing of another drawing, or pulled from another vector source, or something like that... Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Above comments are correct. Editors are entitled to release their derivative works under any license they choose. Although you could ask them to provide the original source of the diagram and preferably link to it. At least to avoid any challenges on the grounds of copyright, or license compliance if the original source was released under a CC license. Something like "Own work. Based on such and such image." would probably suffice. -- Orionist ★ talk20:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It would be appropriate to get a guideline on this, not to request the deletion of three files out of thousands with a request that changes over time (I doubt that the uploader designed the depicted equipment -> no source). --Polarlys (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps not a guideline ({{Information/doc}} has relevant instructions) but an overhaul of current upload form. There are options for "entirely your work", for US-gov, for flickerwashing, for anything - but "derivative photographs" just aren't there. Especially those when the authors of the original work are unknown (I don't know a formal way to get around Commons:Upload/Unknown_author_or_license, do you?). Thus the uploaders like yours truly choose the first "entirely own" option and leave the form as is (it is my "work" although not entirely mine) or append it into something ungainly like File:Moscow, Malaya Krasnoselskaya 7-1 Mar 2009 01.JPG. Oh yes, there's something called Special:UploadWizard but it's a stillborn nonsense that does not address the point (and does not work at all in MS IE). Fix the process first. NVO (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a major misconception here. The design of a submarine, airplane, car, or any other utilitarian object does not have a copyright in the first place. The SVG can only (possibly) be derivative of another graphical work. A 3-D *model* of a submarine or airplane is different; that is considered sculpture (but would itself *not* be a derivative work of the original object, since there is no copyright in that to begin with). Photos of models we need to be careful about, but the copyrights in graphics made of real-life objects like that are 100% owned by the person making the graphic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
To make myself more clear: "Specifically, the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not: ... The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible. Note: Things like "Transferred from Wikipedia" are generally not considered a valid source unless that is where it was originally published. The primary source should be provided."[5] is official policy as a part of Commons:Licensing. — JeffG. ツ06:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Everything has influences, but unless it's copyrightable derivation, we don't care, and we don't need to. I bet you could write a thesis on what works Boucher had in mind when he painted File:Boucher L'Amour désarmé.jpg, but even if some of it would amount to copyright infringement, we don't need to care. If someone makes a SVG of an actual item, we don't need the entire history of the Los Angeles Class submarine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I'm sorry, but "own work" is a valid source. If the uploader made it, there can be no other source. All three you note explicitly say that on the image pages themselves. You even note that yourself in the title of this section; all have a completely valid source. Your question was if they were derivative works or not, which (in my opinion) one is and two are absolutely not. Even for the one that is, the photo is apparently by the uploader so indeed is "own work" and needs no further source. It only becomes questionable if we can actually find another source, disproving the "own work" claim (or the uploader has a pattern of such behavior). Even if it is a derivative work, the person making it is still an author, and owns the copyright on that derivative work (it's just that it would also be subject to another author's right), and has every right to label it "own work". I'm still a bit mystified, to be honest -- you say "The PD statuses and enforceability of copyright on the original works (due to being utilitarian works) are irrelevant" but that is flatly incorrect, as it is highly relevant -- if there is no copyright in an object, then any depiction of it is not a derivative work at all, and no reason for deletion exists. Are you saying you feel these should have sources for where they got dimension data, so as to show their accuracy? (That is not a copyright issue at all, and not a reason for deletion either, but of course would be nice.) Am I missing something? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I am in China, and uploading images larger than about 1/2 MB causes the Great Firewall to cut my connection. I recently uploaded 4 images in low res. I would like to upload the higher res versions. An editor suggested emailing them to permissions-commons at wikimedia.org. If I did that, would somebody upload them for me? Or, is there an editor out there to whom I could email the images for upload? These are the images:
How can you be the author of a work that is created by „Liang Dehua“? I sent you a mail about your photos, but two of them need some clarification. Thank you. --Polarlys (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Liang Dehua is my friend. She took the photos for me.
Imagine Wikimedia Commons in 2015. I finally quit here, new administrators were elected and new users started working on our files. You don’t have your your uploads on your watchlist and you barely visit the project. When someone asks then, who is „Liang Dehua“ and why are here files uploaded from a person with a different name under an own work claim it is okay for them to request this clarification and if it is not received the file could be deleted. Please pay attention to Commons:OTRS. I will upload your new images now. --Polarlys (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm very sorry. I didn't know. I thought the uploads were on my watchlist. I will add them. I have terrible trouble uploading. I have to try repeatedly for even small files because of the Great Firewall of China. Most of the time, the connection gets cut by surveillance software and I have to go back and type in the info again. I forgot to add them to the watchlist the last time, I think. Please don't be angry. I am doing my best.
About answering the Liang Dehua question, I didn't know how else to answer. What else can I say? I asked her to take the photos because she lives by the station. She did. She emailed them to me and said I can use them any way I like. Commons:OTRS and all commons guidelines confuse many, many editors. I am doing my best to understand. Thank you for your help and sorry to make you angry. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please don't be too concerned about Liang Dehua, a good, personal friend, freaking out about copyrights and getting on a plane, coming to Florida, and suing Wikimedia. This is China, where copyright issues are not a big deal. It's more likely that the fine folks at the NKIE and the Basketball National Association would be upset for the use of their logos both on one pair of shoes. :)) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand that it's frustrating, but we don't accept any images without an explicit license statement from the copyright holder, no matter how unlikely it may be that they'd pursue legal action in the future. It's a matter of policy. If you can get your friend to e-mail you a statement releasing it under an appropriate license (like "I release the image at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nkie.jpg under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero Waiver"), then all you have to do is forward it to the correct e-mail address at Commons:OTRS. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Until somebody finds out. In fact, OTRS clarification is needed e.g. if the images are high quality, such that one could expect them having been made by a professional. --LPfi (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
do we have any turtle sounds or videos? And how to search?
Looking for a turtle sound or video. Also, not sure how to search here. seems like engine does not work as friendly as google and I don't understand categories or how to specify a file type. Not criticizing, just educate me and help me, please.TCO (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thanks for search. I really wasn't crazy about our videos or sounds (yeah, they don't have much sound really)TCO (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
[Warning: NSFW.] They certainly do. There are several youtubes of turtles (or tortoises in British parlance) having, um, amorous encounters with "Crocs" (footwear rather than reptiles), and the turtles are not silent. -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
When using a photo with the "Attribution" obligation on a wiki ...
I have a question for those who understand the finer points of the Creative Commons license.
I had used a picture on a wikipedia article (commons hosted) and included at the description, besides the description, the name of the author. This because it is under CC attribution license , so I give "attribution" . The name of the author was removed by an other user for the description on the article page. It is true that I do not have the impression that it is common to do that on the wikipedias, making the name of author visible in articles near the pictures.
But I wonder what the legal logic is why for pictures that are under a attribution-license do not need to be given attribution in public, only at the image description page. Or is just a common widespread violation that this is not done? --Walter (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You have a point. Attribution of pictures on wikipedias is like attribution of pictures in a book to be found in an index at the end. Here attribution is found at the commons file. But... someone less experienced with wikipedia and commons can copy images from wikipedias without opening the commons file, and in that case, attribution information is lost.--Havang(nl) (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The attribution is not required to be in a caption or otherwise "right next" to the image. It can be in a footnote, in a list of credits, or as we do on an associated webpage. This does create the risk that someone may copy the work without copying the credit, but stylistic concerns are considered to take priority over that risk. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree. As for the risk of copying without the credit, putting the credit next to the image won't stop people from ignoring it, even if it says "all rights reserved". People who want to attribute, will seek and find the credit line. -- Orionist ★ talk19:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we have reasonably satisfied our obligation. Yes, someone else may not keep the attribution, but then they could also crop even an inpic attribution. Careful people will keep the attribution and we have not made it sohard to find that careful people can not comply.TCO (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Problems with standard wikim(p)edia text editor
Last few weeks I am noticing strange problems with standard wikim(p)edia text editor: cursor jumps in the middle of the word ~20 characters backwards or to the next line. I am pretty bad typist and I watch keyboard when typing so I do not often notice the jump when it happens. Those problems started recently - did I suddenly become more sloppy or did something changed in the editor. Maybe some new secret key combination are designed to do that. Does anybody else have those problems? Or maybe my computer has some problems. --Jarekt (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
No, you're not the only one this is affecting. I have been experiencing the same problem now for roughly a month or so, I thought maybe it was to do with the recent upgrade from my distribution (mandriva) to the firefox web browser. Now I know it is affecting other people, i will make the mediawiki team aware of it, and hopefully see if someone knows what is causing it. It would help me a lot if you could post your Operating system (make and version) and which browser you are using (and its version number too). Thanks - BarkingFish (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
What options do you have turned on (specifically, do you have the table of contents turned on?) More info on the browser/os combo will help too. Trevor Parscal (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Trevor: It happens on pages where table of contents is on or off. It happens on my talkpage, as seen in the video linked from the bug, and it also happens on uploads when I'm adding notes or setting license details - the table of contents doesn't seem to be a factor. As for browser and OS combo (as well as a few system notes), I'm on Firefox 3.6.13, running on Mandriva 2010.2, KDE 4.4.5, system is i586 arch, running on a Xeon 2.93Ghz Processor, 2GB of ram. BarkingFish (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
My system is Firefox 3.6.13 running on windows XP. I am using vector skin and old style editor. "Show table of contents" is on, "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" is off --Jarekt (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I still can not reproduce this error yet. To clarify, by TOC, I was referring to an option that is actually hidden on Wikipedia right now. Trevor Parscal (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Closing of discussions
Hi. Currently in areas such as COM:CFD, discussions are closed in the form of:
This is a technical nuisance. Because everytime you click edit on the section header ("HEADER"), {{ClosingTemplateHeader}} is excluded from the editing window (as it is placed outside the topic), whereas it actually is part of the section.
All well established discussions at en.wiki closes their discussions by placing the header templates below the header. I have changed COM:DR about a month ago to reflect this, but there are more areas (such as COM:CFD, bot scripts) where this change has to be made.
IMO, I don't have the authority to make such a change, so please state whether you support this change, or oppose. If you oppose, please state clearly the reasons why. If there are more than two supports, and no opposes, I will start with this uncontrovercial and helpful change. Thanks. Rehman05:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Neutral. That would be nice, but all bots need to be updated to know that the header above the tag is included as part of document which needs to be archived (many bots copy sections to archive pages, as each discussion is usually not its own page). Breaking existing bots is not worth the change to me, so we probably need to tread carefully. A simple template rename broke User:DRBot recently, causing a mess on COM:DR, and its author is no longer particularly active here (though did come back to fix that one). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I've modified my proposal to clarify that this includes modifying bots... Also, I modified your comment as neutral, please change if it's wrong. Rehman06:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, I don't see a need for this very tedious change. You have not outlined the problem with the missing header template in the edit window. If the request is closed it should not be edited anymore. Only bots will touch it, and they can (only) deal with the current format. I would suggest you change back COM:DR and leave it at this. There is no need to create massive amounts of work for script and bot developers to change a system that works fine. En.wp can do what they want, but that does not mean that commons has to follow every step they take. --Dschwen (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I am in no way saying "lets do this because Wikipedia does". It's just that, Commons is rather young considered to other wikis, and these types of flaws should be speedily corrected before things get more difficult to fix. Of course it comes with work, so is the case with every other improvement/change, but this is definitely worth the fix. And of course archives shouldn't be edited (except for technical fixes), but this doesn't directly have anything to do editing the archives. Please change your vote to neutral, as you mainly oppose due to work load; I will do my best to deal with the work load. Rehman00:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Uhm, what? No! First of all you cannot deal with the workload. The suggestion alone shows that you have no idea what has to be done. And secondly the workload is not my main point, my main point is that you have not shown that there is a problem to be fixed in the first place. You just repeat common places like flaws should be speedily corrected, without any substance whatsoever. --Dschwen (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
"You have not shown that there is a problem"? I have shown the current issues, read my nom, or the reply to AFBorchert below. Rehman00:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
No, you have not shown there is an actual problem. You are just labeling your personal preference Correct and what you don't like Wrong. --Dschwen (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
"Personal preference"? Nearly all of the archives at en.wiki function this way... (I know Commons is not Wikipedia, I'm just trying to say that En.Wiki is the most mature of all Wikimedia projects.)
Do you really think maturity is an issue here? Deletion requests have been closed like this since July 2005. That is almost five and a half years. And while you admit that Commons is not Wikipedia, doing it just like Wikipedia is the only argument you present for the change. And that is a bit too thin. --Dschwen (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: I second Dschwen and I do not see a real benefit from this but a significant amount of work for the bot maintainers. As long as the involved but developers do not agree beforehand it does not need to be discussed here. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Currently, if you need to edit a transcluded page with a header+footer template, you have to:
Click "edit" from the current display page
Click edit on the new page again (while already on the edit window) to override "edit=section1" to display the whole edit text.
My proposal changes this to a single "edit" from the main display page. This is benefit 1.
The second is to reduce the unnecessary clutter an mess at a discussion. This is how the current archiving system looks, and this is how it should look. This is benefit 2.
There is a very good reason why bigger wikis use the type I propose. Please remove your oppose vote; we should fix the issue when we can, as I said in the comment above. It may be impossible to fix once Commons gets bigger. The workload is not a reason to oppose. Rehman11:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rehman: Firstly, I need just one "edit" click as all pages with header+footer templates that are of interest for me are on my watchlist. Secondly, this is a project of volunteers which cannot be ordered to adapt bots just because we got a new policy. Hence, it would be a better approach to check first if they have time to do this before we start a poll on this. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I don't understand, we don't need major changes in bots (or maybe none, since bots don't close discussions). AFAIK, the only key changes would be at the "closing instructions" pages, and the scripts pages (if users use any gadget and automated method to close discussions). So we are not really "ordering" or modifying any bot or bot-task, unless I miss something somewhere? Users who manually close discussions could simply just place the appropriate tags at the appropriate place, no need to change anything to "make way". So the timing and purpose of this thread seems ok to me, IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehman (talk • contribs) 10:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
For every necessary source code change you will need a bot maintainer actually patching and testing it. Even if it's a small change, it takes some time and it has to be done with care. And yes, the proposed change requires at least one bot to be updated, please see the comment by Carl Lindberg. Even if it does not appear to be a big deal, I want to see that this is supported by the maintainers and not the other way around where we try to command people who have already contributed some work to us. This is the way how these projects work. The other way will not find my support. It is that simple. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough ;) If you could point out the people that needs to be informed (as I am not really sure who or which bots), I'll do the talking. I've already asked the DR gadgets author, but they've asked me to contact someone else to do the change as they're not that free. So thats basically being taken care of. Other than DRs, I could only see CFD (and any related bot/gadget)... Rehman13:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Neutral It would be nice, Rehman, if you wouldn't tell people how to vote. You set up the vote, and when someone adds something, you tell them it's wrong and they should remove it. That's not the way a vote works - and I know you know that, because you're an admin. And admins should know better than to effectively order people to remove their votes. BarkingFish (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Support - keeping the ClosingTemplateHeader inside the section is technically far superior. We also must remember that we have far fewer closers adding ClosingTemplateHeader lines than we have editors editing sections. — JeffG. ツ18:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment - "All well established discussions at en.wiki closes their discussions by placing the header templates below the header." even if this were relevant, it's wrong. Both MfD and AfD place the close top template above the header and always have as far as I know. See DELPRO for the closing procedures at each enwiki XfD. All of the XfD's at enwiki are different and have long fought off attempts to try to make them consistent, though this is largely due to the fact that both MfD and AFD have a different way of archiving and both (through different methods) transclude individual discussions, maintaining a separate page for every discussion whereas some others, such as TFD, have daily logs that contain all the discussions for the day. The problem you are describing is still an issue at MfD but has never been something worth changing. You simply navigate to the page, click on the page tab, then click on edit again and you get the whole thing. We should do what works best.--User:Doug(talk • contribs)14:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
"[...] click on the page tab, then click on edit again and you get the whole thing [...]" and "This (vs. this)", are the two key things I am trying to fix; once Commons grows further, it may be impossible to change... Rehman16:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Encouraging an organization to upload
I'm a rare visitor to Commons, so what follows may boil down to a FAQ (though not one that's obviously in the list pointed to above).
As (1) articles can (I think) often be improved by illustrating the covers of related books, and (2) a huge percentage of the covers of books are already -- in practice, and only in practice -- freely available on the interwebs, I'd have thought that (3) a pile here of small JPEGs of the covers of books would be a plus, and that (4) publishers would be rather easily persuaded to upload them.
I do realize that this might be seen as giving the green light to the upload of thousands of large files of the covers of insignificant books from vanity publishers and so forth: a waste of server space and bandwidth. And that there could be other possible minuses that haven't yet occurred to me.
I thought that, without pretending to be anything other than an occasional user, I might start by emailing a smallish publisher with this idea. But no, surely either (A) there's already a page somewhere that invites organizations to make such donations of material and explains how best to do it, or (B) this kind of invitation is discouraged for good reasons that I haven't thought of. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
If you can talk them into it I think that's a great idea. Publishers may be willing to release low-resolution works under a free license but not higher-resolution works, particularly if it's good publicity, and if at least one publisher does it it might set the stage for others. Bandwidth/storage is not a concern, and there is no notability policy per se on Commons, but out of scope book covers will be deleted. It is important to ascertain that the publisher is actually the copyright holder; in some contracts and/or countries the publisher is merely licensed to publish the work and the author (the cover designer/artist in this case) retains copyright. Finally, note that some book covers are {{PD-text}} because they have a very simple design (e.g. just the title and author on a solid colour background). Dcoetzee (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the qualified encouragement. (Umm ... if bandwidth/storage is not a concern, I wonder why we're periodically asked for money. But that little matter aside....) Yes, you're right about the way in which the publisher may not be the copyright holder; for this we can see the various examples of a book published in nation Y by company B with a cover that's substantially the same as that of the book published in nation X by company A. And of course many covers incorporate elements (typically photographs and illustrations) copyrighted by others. I'd phrase any message accordingly. Incidentally, I'd have assumed that any design, no matter how simple/unimaginative, would be copyright: the designer (no matter how lazy or incompetent) has to make choices of color, positioning, font, etc, that could all be considered intellectual property. (On the other hand, I recognize that I don't know what I'm talking about.) Is there really no page here that gives guidance for, or encourages, such corporate "donations" of images? -- Hoary (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I am a bit confused. For museums the page recommends a text saying:
We would upload the image to Wikipedia Commons under a copyright license restricted to use by your permission, with a note saying "courtesy the Mariner's Museum," unless you'd like it to say something else.
Not the best way to explain free licences, is it?
I think you have to use your own judgement when writing the letter.
I would also like to remind that "web quality" images are not enough for us. At least I mostly avoid those when illustrating articles. The best would be to have a full resolution image, which would not give any false impression about holding the rights. A low resolution image can be used as base for a similar high quality image (derived works are permitted), and thus only trademark law and similar regulations protect the cover from being used elsewhere.
Great idea. You might target some publisher (or division of a publisher) of "great books" or "literature". Pretty much all those The Mill on the Floss style books will be encyclopedic. Deal with the vanity stuff later and also gets us a lot of images that are useful for articles we have or know we should.TCO (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I also think a better article (here AND at en:WP) on how to actually get permission would be helpful. I've tried following the boilerplate stuff and it never works. At this point, I pretty much know, to tell the person to give me a "repeat back" that acknowledges the license. And I don't take it forward until totally sure that they understand how radically they are freeing the image (to others, not one time use).TCO (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments. There's something I find curiously offputting about the phrase "great books" (even though I think a number of the books that I possess are great and even that one or two of the books that Britannica used to market as "great" are great). No, what I thought I'd do is to write to a small publisher of books that happen to be of great interest to me, with the promise that I'd immediately add a large percentage of the images to articles, in the hope that I'd thereby be more likely to reach an interested human rather than an outsourced (non-) answering service, and in the expectation that if my plan worked it would generate a small number of images that I'd actually have the energy to categorize. That done, I'd turn to other and slightly bigger publishers, able to point them toward the fruits of my earlier work.
One comment above has me lost. This one:
I would also like to remind that "web quality" images are not enough for us. At least I mostly avoid those when illustrating articles. The best would be to have a full resolution image, which would not give any false impression about holding the rights. A low resolution image can be used as base for a similar high quality image (derived works are permitted), and thus only trademark law and similar regulations protect the cover from being used elsewhere.
A publisher's original of a cover design would, I presume, be measured in thousands by thousands of pixels. Even assuming that a publisher would be willing to donate these, I see no reason for them whatever (and if there really is no constraint on server space then Wikimedia's error messages talking about the constant need for equipment lie to the public). I also see no need for images that are, let's say, 1200 by 800 pixels. They'd be OK, but if you did get Mondadori (or whoever) to automate the sending to Commons of such an image of every one of their cover designs, it would all add up. The desirable size was something I'd been going to ask about later, but I'd provisionally and tentatively guessed that 600 px for the larger dimension would be adequate.
What worries me most is the risk that the donor might appear to some people here as a spammer. Are there happy or unhappy precedents for company donation of images of their commercial products? (For example, a cellphone company donating images of its cellphones.) If so, I'd like to be pointed toward these in order to learn what to ask for, and what to ask avoidance of.
I also thought I'd write a draft of my email invitation in a subpage of my userspace here, and invite improvements to it before trying it out.
I'll be pretty busy in the next couple of weeks and of course I have no proprietary feelings about this idea "of mine". So of course if anyone would like to beat me to it and write to a publisher him- or herself, please do. Indeed, this would make my own job a lot easier. -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
To answer your question regarding high resolution media, see Commons:Why we need high resolution media (an essay I just wrote on that topic!) As for spamming, I don't think that's a big concern (we rarely encounter spammers on Commons), but one way to avoid any confusion is to have your contributor add a template to each page explaining the project and linking to your talk page for questions or concerns. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you all. Commons:Permission looks as if it should be useful. Sorry but I find a key part of it obscure; I've commented/asked about this within Commons talk:Permission. (In view of my inexperience at Commons, I very deliberately refrained from "being bold" and didn't change the page itself.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Who owns what, and which license(s) do I need?
I have submitted a biography of a deceased family member, psychic David Marius Guardino. My family is in possession of a number of photographs taken of David with various celebrities. We also have some professionally made publicity shots but don't know their source. These items were mostly made in the 1970s and 80s. Many of them were published in tabloids, and the originals were destroyed in 2001 when American Media Corp. got attacked by anthrax. I requested permission to reprint them, and the answer was that the originals no longer exist, so I'm on my own as far as copyrighting. So where do I go from here?
Also, my family has some home-taken photos of David, although we're not sure who took them. Can I attribute to them to "Guardino Family Collection"?
Generally the photos' copyrights belong to the photographers unless you bought them or got them donated. So, for these photos there is no way of uploading them here as they are still under copyright (not out of copyright due to age) of the photographer.
For the family photos generally the same applies. However, you could ask all people who could be the photographer for permission to publish the photos under a free license. I guess this should also be okay. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
If you own the original negatives to a photograph, that could create a presumption that it was taken as part of a work-for-hire arrangement; otherwise the situation doesn't seem to be looking good... However, Infrogmation and others have uploaded their old family-taken photos. AnonMoos (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
You might be able to ask American Media Corp for more information on their standard copyright procedures, some firms always purchase all rights without exception, in which case they can be presumed to have done the same for these and could do several things to make them usable, 1) they could license the photos (which they do not possess but they own the rights to) under an appropriate creative commons license (just don't let them use an Non-commercial variant), 2) they could dedicate the photos to the public domain, or 3) they could transfer all of their rights in the photos to you to do with as you wished, in which case you could then choose option 1 or 2 yourself. After any of these, you would need to provide evidence of the release, probably via Commons:OTRS and then you could upload. Regarding the family photos, if some of the possible photographers are no longer living, you would need to get a release from all of their heirs. Much better to figure out who took them somehow. Good luck!--User:Doug(talk • contribs)11:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Doug. I'll check in to your suggestions. Meanwhile, I think the article can stand by itself.
both of these transclude a subpage that has the interwiki links on it (e.g. Heinrich_Cornelius_Agrippa/interwiki) and both of these are transcluded to both their relevant {{Creator}} pages and Categories:
This allows the information about the author and the interwiki links to be edited on a single page rather than trying to sync the information on multiple pages with separate edits and ensures that the all important interwiki links show up everywhere needed. Via a few simple <noinclude>'s it ensures that only the {{Creator}} template itself is transcluded elsewhere and that the gallery doesn't display on the the creator and cat pages. If the {{Creator}} is desired on the cat and gallery, I suggest it be default collapsed at least on the gallery.
In the case of an author without a current gallery (she had only three works of which we host only two, so it's arguable whether she justifies one), I have placed the interwiki links directly on the creatorspace and category pages: Creator:Hannah_Glasse/Category:Hannah_Glasse.
If you want to change the layout for interwikis, it would easier to do that in the layout rather than moving them to a template. -- Docu at12:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
In the sister project template you are adding a second set of interwiki links to Wikipedia. Instead of duplicating them there, you could just move them to a better place than the current location (hidden behind "In Wikipedia" on the left side in Vector skin). -- Docu at12:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought that the category in the {{Creator}} could be excluded, which I have done for author's where we are unlikely to host more works, at least not initially, and it can be added later if necessary. — billinghurstsDrewth12:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
On second thought, maybe this entire process would be better done from the creator template. See my suggestion here: Template_talk:Creator#Descriptives_as_a_replacement_for_the_information_on_a_Cat_and_Gallery. Then we could do away with the need to manually transclude the gallery space information (or worse, the current practice of maintaining the same information in two namespaces), eliminate the duplication to the information already in creator, provide this valuable information in image space, and eliminate the long list of the same information in different languages that can currently exist. This would be particularly valuable if the creator template also incorporated the interwikis and would place all information about an author in creatorspace where it belongs!--User:Doug(talk • contribs)13:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I heartily endorse anything that means that information gets entered once in the one place, and is them more widely available throughout the site. Our aim should be for one set of data, and where it can be meta-data'd (in the future), magnificent! Exactly where and how, that I will leave to the data experts, in lieu of their determining that then the creator template makes sense to me. — billinghurstsDrewth13:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
A bit difficult to judge as example creators do only exist in few wikipedias and have not really many other names in other wikipedias.
Nevertheless, it is a proposed standard that only applies for a small part of Commons categories (there is even no definition of a creator). Personally, I never create {{subst:creator}}s.
{{subst:creator}} is generally created as last element of the chain, sometimes years later.
Adding a fourth element Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa/interwiki might be complex and problematic (each creator needs at least 3 items), but might be possible and it works for searches. In the end, I think that we will need a (pseudo)name space for interwikis and translations. Such solution should work for all categories. --Foroa (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I added "Wikisource" parameter to Creator template lately meant for {{LangSwitch}} with interwiki links to all Wikisource pages in all languages. Similarly "Name" parameter would be used for {{LangSwitch}} with interwiki links to all Wikipedias (We use it that way much more at {{Institution}} pages). I think {{Creator}} template scope can be expanded to include people unlikely to be "creators" those templates can be synchronized with Wikipedia:Persondata and author pages at wikisource. May be with a script like s:en:User:Phe/Author fill.js (User:Billinghurst thank for the tip). --Jarekt (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Foroa, when text scans are uploaded here for use at WS, I include {{creator|Foo}} in the {{Book}} template at upload, and it's one of the first things I set up if it's missing for an author I'm working with, as I consider both the creator template and the interwikis to be critical to the whole package of the scans at Commons and the text at WS (and hopefully an article on the author, if not the text, at WP). I see creator as the central point where this material should be kept here. If for some reason others don't find it practical or beneficial to have the description inside the box; then we could place it outside the actual "creator box" but on the creator page and inside #ifeq to not transclude in the imagespace. Though I think this information would be valuable to transclude in the imagespace, I can see how others might not agree. The point is to stop independently putting {{en|description}} {{de|Beschreibung}} etc. on each gallery and category page and place it all on the creator page and transclude it to the other two, so there is a single point of maintenance.--User:Doug(talk • contribs)09:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I see your point, but in practise, only a very tiny percentage of the galleries/categories get a creator, and if they get it, it is often added when a lot of stuff starts to exist around that theme. Creator templates are often a pain when renaming categories too. --Foroa (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Replacing one copyrightable work with another separate copyrightable work
Photographs of coins (3D objects) are copyrightable. Ignoring questions I have over its information, File:MauryanCoin.JPG was uploaded here on 6 May 2005 under the claim that User:PHG released it into the public domain. On 27 September 2006, User:World Imaging uploaded his own photograph of the coins (a better and more easily verifiable work in my view) over this image. I am asking is it correct to leave the public domain release attributed to PHG? Should it be corrected to World Imaging (his other works are licensed as CC/GFDL), or should World Imaging have uploaded his work to another file name and let PHG's work remain at File:MauryanCoin.JPG? Jappalang (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
That should have been uploaded as a different filename, in my opinion. That is a separate work with a separate author, not a technical improvement to an existing work. On the other hand that particular over-upload was done in 2006, meaning virtually all usages are now expecting the current version, so I would not change it. I would at least change the author though. I'm not sure there are grounds to change the license, as that license was not changed or re-specified when it was uploaded over four years ago and I think it would be unfair to change any potential assumptions made elsewhere in that time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I am partial to changing the name in the release to World Imaging's; it seems strange to me that World Imaging's work is copyrighted to PHG (unless they have some formal agreement), even if this means losing a visible indication for the status of the first version. Jappalang (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
to me it looks like the same person the "new" image has exactly the same conditioning marks on the coins as the riginal what I see is a size increase and an adjustment to the colur balance. As PHG doesn have a commons accunt and world imaging deosnt have an en account I would not be suprised to find ut that they are the same person. Gnangarra15:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, yeah, they are the same exact subject. Maybe add the local username to PHG then. Ah... World Imaging is the new name of the former User:PHGCOM. Yep, same person. I would add the current name in the author field, alongside the en user reference. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
A number of pictures in the category Santa Maria in Trastevere (Rome) are made in another church but I don't know which one. As a result a number of these pictures are on wikipedia articles where they don't belong. I visited the church last week and I will upload my pictures to this category so it will be clear. I just don't know in which category the misplaced pictures belong. Can anybody help?Paul Hermans (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
a question: What speaks against uploading Open Office files? I wanted to upload my presentation which I made in the Strathmore University, Nairobi. There are two files, an odp-file which is the presentation itself and an odt-file, which is the draft of my talk. Like all my presentations in relation to Wikimedia movement the files are under CC-BY-SA, the images I used are also under the same license, the draft is totally my own work. By having such presentations on Commons we can also reuse them for future presentations. --Wing (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, if several images (or other media) are kept inside a single file, how can we categorize them individually so they can be found? How can other WMF projects point to the single file? If the author of a media file used in a presentation is not the same person as the presentation's author, how can we credit them? From these points of view, an OpenDocument presentation containing media files is as convenient as a zip archive of said media files (i.e. not convenient at all). Also, while considering them useful, I'm not sure that templates for OpenDocument presentations fall within COM:SCOPE. OTOH, I have nothing against OpenDocument drawings (except that SVG is more popular). --Ianezz (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Not taking any position on the Scope and other issues (I haven't even thought about them), but we've managed multiple images in a single file before with .DjVu and .PDF. Granted these would be embedded rather than each being a separate page, though that can be done in a pdf. --User:Doug(talk • contribs)13:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Viewing the content of PDF/DjVu files works quite well, but let's assume we have an ancient travel book with prints of city A by author X and prints of city B by author Y: the only option we currently have is to extract each print as an individual file, and then categorize and describe that. Or imagine if someone uploaded his picture collection as a video file displaying a slideshow: of course, we can play video, pause, fast forward and rewind, but in order to properly categorize and reuse each photo we have to extract it from the video as a separate file. The same would be with OpenDocument presentations, even assuming we can find a way to view each slide. And that withouth touching COM:SCOPE. --Ianezz (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I make regularly a backup of the Bulgarian Wikipedia pages, with a bot, "just in case". Is there a way to backup also the media files used in these pages? As they are only a small part of all Commons media, it is not worth ordering and sifting through the entire filebase, given its size. Also, a one-time transfer will not reflect the future changes, and thus will soon be obsolete. Bots can be selective enough, but I see that the download of the media files themselves is blocked. Can something be arranged?
(This has also wider implications. If the mass download is freely allowed, the traffic expenses and the server load of WMF will go through the roof, at least initially. But if it is not allowed, the distribution of the media here is effectively limited in an undesirable way. A "free, but only if you take a very limited part of them" is much akin to "free, but only in very limited circumstances" - far from the CC-BY or CC-BY-SA intent... The result is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I'd love to help to get out of it - any ideas what can be done for you are welcome.) -- Григор Гачев (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
First of all, you should not be copying the text of the Bulgarian Wikipedia with a bot - you should download the database dump from http://download.wikimedia.org/bgwiki/latest/ and install it into your own Mediawiki server. There are more details at en:Wikipedia:Database_download. Let me know if you need help setting this up.
It should be possible to automatically extract a complete set of images used from the wikitext of the Bulgarian Wikipedia (let me know if you need help with this). As far as I am aware there is no prohibition on automatic downloading of Commons content and I'm not sure how you got that impression. If you wanted all of Commons content, that would be another matter and it would be better to arrange a transfer that large through the developers.
Finally, it's worth noting that the project does of course make its own offsite backups, so you need not worry too much. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Offsite backups help in case of technical disasters, but not in case of political ones. I think it is good to have enough backups outside control of any one authority or jurisdiction, to be sure the projects will survive any such problems. Possibility of forking in other countries may also lessen the risk that politicians interested in censoring interfere with WMF. --LPfi (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The database dumps on download.wikimedia.org are often months old, and importing them into a MW server takes additional time. And they aren't diffs, and thus make much bigger transfers, even compressed. The hourly bot transfer typically is under a megabyte for bg:W (uncompressed - the actual compressed transfer is even smaller; that is less than one good-quality picture). A much lesser load than a periodic DL of the dumps. Also, LPfi is right: I know about the WMF offsite backups, my primary goal is decreasing the political risk.
I got the impression for prohibition on automatic downloading by trying it, and reading the message returned. :-( (My bot extracts the set of image names used in the bg:W wikitext as it backs it up.) Not sure about the rules here: maybe should request a bot status here too, or talk to developers, in order to get the permission to download the image files?
Using a web crawler is technically prohibited, but you make a good argument that it's pretty reasonable for a small wiki (make sure you're using the Mediawiki API though and not scraping the webpages!) You don't usually need a bot bit for a read-only bot, but I'd like to see what message you're getting - if it explicitly indicates that you were blocked for excessive bandwidth consumption or whatever, then yes we would have to talk to the devs and get that fixed. However it may be something else. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The error is: "Access denied. Access control configuration prevents your request from being allowed at this time. Please contact your service provider if you feel this is incorrect." A request with a browser from the same IP address, however, retrieves the image. The problem does not exist with bg:W(update: sorry, it does - probably I missed this before) or other, non-WMF wikis. Do you have an idea what might cause it?
The bot software I use works through the MW API, and supports compressed transfers. The script that retrieves the wiki changes uses databases and heuristics to keep the transfer volume down. And I will happily adhere to whatever bandwidth / request limits are suggested. -- Григор Гачев (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, a bot flag could yield a small decrease in the traffic, due to the slightly better compression of the larger data blocks. The difference is not big, but still might be worth obtaining a bot status. The bot account I use is User:Ботчо. -- Григор Гачев (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
That's weird, that doesn't sound like a Mediawiki message, it sounds like it might be from your ISP or something. In any case I'm contemplating at this moment an unofficial project to distribute torrents of "image dumps" for various WMF projects, and it might help serve your needs as well. I'll keep you posted. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to be generated by the webcache: probably it is due to the configuration of the cache ACLs. Quoting the error message HTML:
<ADDRESS>
Generated Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:19:52 GMT by amssq51.esams.wikimedia.org (squid/2.7.STABLE7)
</ADDRESS>
Image dumps are perfect for getting one-time snapshots, but not for backing up. You want an up-to-date backup, you have to get them often. If they are not diffs, that's far bigger traffic than the bot crawling. And if they are diffs, they have to be an impractical amount (at least one per wiki - eg. I don't need a diff of the whole Commons); this amount will have to be done impractically, maybe impossibly often, taking a lot of server power and disk space; and any one diff will be very rarely requested, and thus will not benefit much from the torrent technology.
For backups the bot seems the best idea: nothing gets even close to its selectivity, and thus to minimizing the server load. Also, a well-written hourly backup makes the same yearly traffic as one-time yearly backup - you may have a very up-to-date backup without causing extra server load. That's why solving this problem will probably be a benefit not only for me. -- Григор Гачев (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Not that I disagree with you in general, but I don't see how a well-written hourly backup won't make more traffic than a yearly backup; the whole point of a hourly backup is that if a picture changes daily, it gets downloaded daily.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
A "backup" that keeps only the last revision will indeed make smaller transfers. However, a true backup should get all revisions: an yearly backup, if complete, will also transfer all picture changes. A hourly backup will increase the traffic very slightly because of the bot logins, but this is negligible. -- Григор Гачев (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. At this point the concept is known as "Flickr washing" regardless of the source. I don't think anyone would know what "Image washing" means. Kaldari (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Support. While Kaldari is right that the practice is widely known as Flickr washing, given that a redirect will exist, I don't see what the problem is. The lead can be modified to "Image washing, commonly referred to as Flickr washing,..." as well. — Huntster (t@c)20:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Loses the bite completely. Is there any threat from owners of Flickr? No? Leave it. BTW, the real photographers (the ones doing silver chemistry with their own hands) actually wash images - film and prints. NVO (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment. What about "image laundering" or "file laundering" (could apply to sound recordings, video recordings, PDFs, etc.)? :-) — Cheers, JackLee–talk–06:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Support. My vote is for "license laundering". It's sufficiently general and has (as they say on TV Tropes) Added Alliterative Appeal. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Support "license laundering", though I agree with Carl about the technicolor nature of "Flickrwashing" – we can console ourselves with the knowledge that the term will no doubt remain in currency when the "laundromat" in question is Flickr. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–10:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
For me it is always difficult on Commons to give people who help to keep this project working some tips on effecient image searching and to not give people who do copyvios - and regretably there are way too many people who not do this by accident but intentionally - any tips what to do to not get caught. COM:FLICKRW now is a collection of tips. The intention of the page is to explain what someone did wrong - do not copy other peoples work to your flickr account, thereby declaring it your own work and making yourself a licensor of something that you not own any rights on. A collection of tips to detect flickrw should be moved to a different page, strictly separated from the explanation why flickrw is wrong. As said initially: This is always a fine line between giving people an explanation what they did wrong and how I found out that they did it wrong. It has something to do with AGF, but regretably our GF in this field has been abused too often, an copyvio uploader who was detected by EXIF data will resubmit the image with the EXIF data removed, I too often expirienced this behaviour. Explanations for 'bad behaviour' should not be mixed together with explanations on evidences of bad behaviour or examples of best practice. --Martin H. (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I wrote the new page. I understand concerns about the risk, but I also think it's important to make information about detecting copyvios available to help train new users, or else in 10 years when many of us are gone the same (or similar) vandals can play the same tricks again. I think we can balance these two concerns and I'd invite you to remove or rewrite anything you think is on the wrong side of that balance. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Temporal Media Fragment support ( selecting portions of a video stream when embedding)
10
20
Starts at 10 seconds and stops at 20 seconds For Temporal Urls you must Enable mwEmbed
As of mwEmbed: r185, basic temporal urls are supported. Bug 26663 explains the rational. Its based on the In the w3c media fragments spec and low level the video tag url looks like this:
<video src="myVideoClip.ogv#t=10,20"> // starts at 10 seconds and stops at 20 seconds.
Usage In Commons:
If linking to a file page you can use the #t= hash directly in the url, ie: Wales address starting 30 seconds in... I should add support to the "use on the web" and "use in wiki" for setting the start / end time.
I have created a template Template:Temporal_Media_Fragment ( which needs documentation ) to make it easy, it wraps the [[File:]] embed so we can easily update all the embeds once Timed Media Handler extension is deployed.
The template usage has the added feature of setting the thumbnail to the start time of the requested segment.
This is undergoing experimental usage for wikisource.
I found this site, http://pictureskosovo.free.fr/ with its free content, and i send a letter to author. He responded that images can be used freely, but those information are mixed with some private info. Should i ask for him to post something somewhere to repere permission, or that is not necessary, as in the site name we have "free"? Just respond, and i will write to him. --WhiteWriter speaks16:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Or, he could post to the website that he is licensing them under a free license, such as an acceptable variety of the creative commons licenses.--User:Doug(talk • contribs)17:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the best we can do now is to write through OTRS that we (wikipedia) can use his images. I will do that, and then inform you about it. After that, i will start uploading images. --WhiteWriter speaks17:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
That won't work, you can't send in an OTRS that you have rights to someone else's work like that. You need the owner of the rights to send in the OTRS.--User:Doug(talk • contribs)17:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This was not further answered: The "free" in the website name is some webhost for websites but has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with what we desire here: free content. --Martin H. (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
No, you didn't understand, he sent it! From pictureskosovo@free.fr i received e-mail that he sent it to OTRS, someone please should find it. And post that info here... --WhiteWriter speaks11:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Linkbot in #wikimedia-commons
Hi folks,
The last few weeks I've seen several link bots in #wikimedia-commons channel. Sometimes multiple at the time, sometimes neither.
Below is a table for comparison. Please leave your comment and/or vote below. –Krinkletalk21:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Bot
Owner
Notes
unilinky
HardDisk_WP
Resolves interwiki
Runs from a server (24/7 coverage)
Also in #mediawiki and #wikimedia-tech
Does not auto-relaunch if it goes down
AsimovBot
_jem_
Does not resolve interwikis (*)
Runs from a server (24/7 coverage)
Auto-relaunches from cron if it goes down
Commands such as "-sul NICK" and "-luxo NICK" (see docs (es) (en)
Has a -enlaces on/off function (the same as a "mute")
Also in #wikipedia-es #wikipedia-es-biblios #wikipedia-es-abusos (and other eswiki related channels)
unilinky was given +q (queiet) in #wikimedia-commons by Bastique on August, 28 2010
bots that have a mute function could stay even if not voted for – as a backup that can be unmuted would the choosen bot go down
two bots online and speaking at the same time is not wanted
there are lots of plugins for various IRC clients that enable the clickability on [[wiki style]] links without the need for bots. So if you think these bots spam the channel, let us know as well.
bots that don't resolve interwikis wont be able to link to domains that are not internal but are in the interwiki map (such as [[mw:]]
At the moment the situation is unilinky and AsimovBot online with WikiLinkBot as (muted) backup. Obviously this can't stay this way and getting two bots spitting out links to the channel everytime a link or template is named. Please vote/comment below which bot you prefer stays in the channel or if you prefer none at all followed by a short motivation. Thanks, –Krinkletalk21:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
(*) Just to point out, the interwikis aren't translated to the "original" URL but they work through the autoconversion from each wiki (that is, [[en:A]] gives http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/en:A, but that URL redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A). I can fix that if needed, anyway, and the mw: problem, too. The commands aren't enabled by default but this can be easily changed if desired. And I'm most of the time available on IRC to answer possible questions now or fix possible problems or make improvements in my bot in the future. -jem- (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments
I would like to have a bot in the channel as there is no plugin avail for pidin (to my knowledge), plugins are hard to install for some users, no plugins exist (to my knowledge) for webchat or mobile phone clients. User who have such a plug-in can easily ignore the bot and are not annoyed by him. I prefer AsimovBot as it has interwiki support (important) and auto-recovery. WikiLinkBot can stay as a backup if this is easy to do for the botmaster. A comment: of course it is best if the person writing does directly include a http: link in the message but sometimes they are not available (you have navigated away) or you are currently on the secure server and do not want to post those links as other people would not be logged in then. --Saibo (Δ) 13:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Saibo. AsimovBot is better for the task, and we should keep WikiLinkBot as backup only, but since AsimovBot can restart itself via a persistent cronjob, I really don't see the problem. I shouldn't need to look for plugins, and having tried to make one work in the past (and what an annoyance that was) - I'd much prefer a decent, working linkbot which can handle everything without messing up. AsimovBot it is. BarkingFish (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
POV a reason to delete
I may be seeing this wrong, but is there a community consensus that POV (Point of View) concerns are treated by Commons as arguments for deletion? Out of scope I can understand, but I am seeing a few discussions that talk about POV (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gruzja2009.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kernel Georgia.PNG). Is that only a concern for a specific wikipedia project (and not Commons)? Buddy431 wrote that an "image is not eligible for deletion because it espouses a particular POV." I agree, but does the community? -84user (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see POV used there as a reason to delete. I do think that ultimately POV does become a sideways factor in scope; a file can easily have a POV so far out there that it won't see use in any project. And the flip side, if it actually is used in a project, then POV is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
When talking about whether to delete a work due to scope, a good question to ask is: could this realistically be used in some article, with some caption? For example, a political cartoon showing Canada as being part of the United States should not be used to illustrate what the United States really looks like; but might be relevant to an article on US-Canada relations, if it was intended to satire something about those relations. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
COM:NPOV hopefully spells out most of it. If an upload is pushing a POV held by that person and basically nobody else, I suppose it could be a scope issue, as it may not be truly useful for anything. I can't see the images you linked though so I'm not sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Commons does not really take sides in legitimate content disputes -- we provide the images, and it's up to each of the individual language Wikipedias to decide which particular images they want to use. However, if an image is a deliberate and intentional hoax (maliciously false), or advocates for an extreme fringe theory, then it could be deleted for those reasons... AnonMoos (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
If the images are related, it looks like there is a POV issue with the deleting admin in the 2nd deletion, as it was deleted by an admin who supported the deletion of the first image.
I was going to say that text on User:-Castellano- is long, but not really a problem as the user actually uploaded some files. However, it appears that was added by someone else, thus I'd just revert it.
Works first published after 2002 by authors that died more than 70 years ago could be kept under PD-old-70. There may be a nother tag for that, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much Dcoetzee! Now only Commons:Licensing#Material_in_the_public_domain needs to include this. The text there is too long and does not give this list of templates. Or should we simply stay with the old practice and do not be concerned about the US right for non-US-people? Usually just the PD-old template was used. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Depends on the country and situation. Terms are usually based on the life of the author, or sometimes publication, and rarely dates of creation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Works whose author has been dead for at least 100 years, and which were first published before 1923, are public domain in every nation as far as I know. In particular, this implies any work published before 1800 is just fine (since nobody alive then lived until 1911). Dcoetzee (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
One key thing that almost everyone misses is the definition of publication, which is not creation. The US and UK laws define the term as the distribution of copies (not one) to the public. 100+-year-old works that were first published in the US during 1978-2002 can be copyrighted until 31 December 2047.[11] Unpublished 100+-year-old engravings in the UK remain copyrighted until 31 December 2039. Unpublished artistic works (except photographs) of unknown authorship in the UK are also copyrighted until 31 December 2039 (or even later).[12]Jappalang (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thumbnail display of some large gif files has stopped
Well, bug 9497 has never been closed, right? It seems that any non-JPEG file over 12.5Mpixel gives headaches to the thumbnailer, not just PNGs. By looking at the revisions of the files you linked it seems to me that the problem always existed, but it was worked around by uploading a lower-resolution version of the image. Which breaks again when someone reverts to the larger version. --Ianezz (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, this (is not a bug its a feature?) seams does not apply to GIF steadily. (I thought GIF had a limit of 6.5MP in the past). Maybe upload another version (a thumb and a full, as it described here Commons:File types and maybe {{BadGIF}})!? --Perhelion (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Commons photographers on the Swiss TV
For those of you who understand French, Ludovic Péron, Frédéric Schutz and myself have been interviewed by the Swiss national television about our work, especially as photographers for Commons. The video, which as been broadcasted on Friday 14th, can be seen here: [13]. inisheer (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Congrats. The newsclip looked interesting, though unfortunately as a non-Francophone I could only guess at the meaning. Now, if only someone would add subtitles ... ;-) — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting- will there be any follow up? Can I apply for a press card for sports events? Will the TV station be offering us copyright free images from their photo library? Can this open other doors? Congratulations though.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Press cards are subjects to the rules adopted by the unions which issue them. In Switzerland and France for example, you need to work at least 50% of your time as a journalist, which is not our case. Wikimedia CH has been canvassing events organisators for two years, explaining them that our members, as volunteers, don't own any press card and why they should give us accreditations despite this. We've learned from our mistakes, improved our communication skills and became more and more successful in these interventions. This kind of broadcasts definitely helps us in giving us a professional profile and showing us as a respectable and trustworthy media. And by the way, here is the making of. inisheer (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
It's hard to predict how images might be useful later. Obviously not every image will get used in a Wikipedia article, but if this site goes offline later and someone wants to select from among a bunch of free photos of this person, to use for some purpose besides a Wikipedia article, Commons will have them.--Chaser (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
A picture of a porn star is not necessarily porn. That said, it's kind of weird to have so many images of any single subject that vary so slightly in pose and expression. Powers (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
If our goal is to support Wikipedia, which has articles on porn stars, we have to turn a deaf ear to people who complain about Wikipedia-useful pictures of porn stars. If this "not censored" thing means anything, it means we have to ignore sources, particularly outside ones, that demand that we censor ourselves by their standards. We have to be who we are, not constantly reacting to every complaint that comes in.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
You are getting the "not censored" thing backwards. Is meant as a protection of content, it is not meant as an imperative to upload porn. --Dschwen (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
These porn stars are on Wikipedia, and that is our job, to provide Wikipedia with a suitable selection of content. These pictures aren't porn, and I find it bizarre to object to clothed pictures of any Wikipedia-notable person, unless they are overnumerous; two editors agreed that 236 pictures were okay for a slightly notable person with a Wikipedia article in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eiffel Tower 4 20101026.JPG.
I will be less willing to defend new nude and sexual content the day we can support a Wikibooks version of the Joy of Sex with photographs. That is well within our scope, I believe.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerned about possible license laundering here - see for example File:Bobbi_Eden&Sandy_Cage-Mutter_Erde_fec.jpg. Pluspedia.de is being used as the source for the license, but Pluspedia describes itself as a place for hosting images previously deleted here on Commons. If we deleted it perhaps it was because it was a copyvio? I'm not quite sure what's going on here. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to be an original content, originally uploaded to Pluspedia by User:Mutter Erde. I don't know, why Mutter Erde was banned on Commons, but looks like not because of copyvio. Trycatch (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually I started the mass upload and Gohe007 is continuing it. One of the reasons why I did so in the beginning is that some of the images that were on lukeisback got lost in the change in ownership from Luke to Cindy Loftus, and I was concerned that if something were to happen to the site in the future we'd lose more images (as Chaser mentioned). Besides, the current owner of lukeisback has indicated that she has no issues with us hosting copies of those images. Lukeisback had a image on an article once where the image source was given as Commons - I pointed out to her that we took the image originally from lukeisback. Her entire response: "That's just funny. But it's easier to search Wikipedia commons for an image than my own site. And I like to give you guys a plug whenever I can." Tabercil (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I looked but couldn't find an indication that the images on lukeisback are freely licensed. Am I missing something? Powers (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as having multiple similar images: this tends to happen whenever we "scrape" a source. I've been going through, category sorting 19th century stereo cards. Take a look at Category:Stereo cards of Thomas Circle: many of these cards seem to be made from the same pair of photos. And it's the same for dozens of other topics. I don't think any harm is done by this, though there is also little gain. - Jmabel ! talk06:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
January 18
Need copyright advice on a photo of a Canadian traffic sign (turtle crossing in Vancouver)
For this photo, I got all the permissions (CC-SA) from the photog, no problem. But then there is this question about Freedom of Panorama (like is the sign itself copyrighted, so no one can photo it). Our wiki instructions say "no" on sign photos as two dimesional images. However, when I look at the Canadian law itself, I see nothing forbidding road signs (I think the additional caveat was added by someone here, interpreting UK case law). So what do you think. Is my photo legit or not? I am going through a Featured Article review, so I need to cut it (really would need to anyhow, but you get me) if it is not legit. At same time, it's an awesome photo and illustrated a point and I went to a lot of work to get it. But if I need to get rid of it will. Thoughts? TCO (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think this copyright paranoia. Copyright for a simple design that is furthermore a government work? A somewhat ridiculous idea. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Man, I want to keep the image. It's beautiful, it really illustrates a point in a beautiful article, and I went to a lot of work (2 emails and a 20 minute phone call with the creator) to get the CC-SA. Plus, I don't really see the as-written 2-D wikipolicy when I read the Canadian statutes (but like I say, who knows on common law). Also, I have no idea if Canadian government work is copyrighted or not, like US. I know for some US state stuff, I actually wrote the state and got permission. I'm kinda leaning towards cutting it, but if you can give me a good argument why not to pull the trigger (on myself!), I will leave it. :( :(
P.s. Just think of all the people who have innocently taken pictures of themselves in front of signs. The copyright police need to raid everyone's junk drawer for noncomforming Polaroids from family vacations! TCO (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Works of the Canadian government are not in general public domain; Canada does have freedom of panorama but only for sculptures, architecture, and works of artistic craftsmanship (this sign is probably not a work of artistic craftsmanship, since it was not created manually by a craftsperson). See Commons:Freedom of panorama#Canada. However, because the design of the sign probably falls under Crown Copyright, if the design was created at least 50 years ago (i.e. at least one sign that looks like this was around 50 years ago) then it may be {{PD-Canada}}. I advise User:AndreasPraefcke to give advice based on the letter of the law and not your gut feeling about what "ought" to be protected. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the Village Pump, not a lawyer's office. And I stand by my opinion: this is paranoia, and the whole discussion is even worse paranoia. What harm could ever come from this work? Who is aabout to sue and make him/herself a joke at any court in the world? --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Legitimate issues have been raised about crown copyright and the extent of FOP, and they are worth discussing. As you should know, the whole principle behind a repository of free media is not for it to be full of content that we guess or speculate nobody will sue on. You may not care about legalities or Commons policies, but if others do, please stop heckling them. These discussions are lengthy enough without tiresome diatribes about "copyright paranoia", whatever that is. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
According to precautionary principle, we would have to delete everything, at least 90% of the files here that depict something other than landscapes. Coats of arms, zoo animals, childrens' drawings, ALL photographs of people, PR-art artwork, all products, all signatures, everything inside a building, to name a few. And: Just stopping by? This must be a bad joke. Yes, please only listen to Dschwen, he has the vast amount of 14,076 edits on the Commons with 1672 images uploaded, really impressive compared to my meager 119,705 edits with 30370 images uploaded. I usually don't use "edit count" at all, but this time, I really had to. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC) PS: By the way, this silly discussion again makes it clearer and clearer to me that we need to fork the Commons into a family of single-country opt-in depositories, preferably on an own server each. For every country, we need administrators who decide what is considered "free enough" in the respective country. I am really tired of the, yes, paranoia and the nightmare of bureaoucratic red tape on the Commons that makes working here impossible, or at least no fun anymore. It used to be different, very different in the beginning. Where are the vast problems that we need all those "precautions" for? I cannot remember anything really big that would warrant the sort of discussion we are leading here.
I have to agree with Andreas here. I don't see how this photo could not be legal by any point of view. Some people here stretch the copyright laws much beyond its spirit and its letter. They really need to step backwards, and come back with some common sense. Yann (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Any chance this image could be a legitimate fair use case? I mean if I were running a newspaper, or writing a book, I would feel no concern at all taking the snap to illustrate a point. It's not like I'm making duplicate signs or setting myself up in competition that way. (I think I know the wikianswer, but need to ask before consigning the image to the byte bucket.)TCO (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I just read the fair use policy and the 10 pillars and all and think I have a strong case (I'm not competing with the original media (not making a sign and wanring drivers), I'm using the image to show a point, snapping a photo myself would not alleviate the concerns, etc., etc.) But let me know what you think. Am sensitive to looking like I am trying to push the system.TCO (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still checking into some Canadian regulations, but if I come up empty, what is the procedure to get the image deleted (think I will need to).TCO (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I could buy a de minimis argument on that one. The quality of the turtle artwork isn't really the focal point of the picture -- just the fact it is a turtle. Particularly when it's one where the intent is to make the public aware of the sign. I really can't figure a use (even commercial) of the photo itself which could be problematic, which is the real point, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm...at least I learn new copyright law. Those pics on the screens in the airplane look a lot smaller and a lot more incidental than my turtle sign, which is the focus of the shot and the point of having the pic in the article. I'm 99% sure I will have to pull the pistol and shoot it myself, and AFD it or whatever the procedure is. In my heart or hearts, I think it is very "fair use" as we are showing a context of usage of the sign and NOT getting into making signs ourselves. I would have no fear of putting this in a book or the NY Times. But wiki is so conservative on this stuff, and I'm at FAC. Will need to kill it, unless I can locate the sign design rights holder. And even then, it is going to be a mess (like what permissions would I need to get? Actually please answer that, as I may contact the rights holder. And all I want is the use in this photo and furhter downstream, not for them to release the sign design to competing firms or the like. How does that work here? I konw for the photo I got a total release, but what about this situation??TCO (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair use might well be made of the sign, but then the image cannot be uploaded to the Commons because we don't accept fair-use images here. You'll have to upload it to the English Wikipedia (or another language Wikipedia) instead, and add a fair-use justification. That's simply the philosophy of the Commons: to create a collection of free images that can be used for any purpose, including modification and commercial use. I agree with you that the sign is not de minimis but is really the focus of the photograph, so that argument can't be relied on. Use of photographs in newspapers is a whole different ballgame, because there are usually specific legal exemptions for use of copyrighted works for reporting current events – but neither Wikipedia nor the Commons is a newspaper. The copyright in the sign is probably owned by the Canadian government department responsible for putting up road signs. You'll have to do some research to find out which department that is. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–03:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
de minimis is more about "too trivial to care about", and this may fall in that range. The entire sign is the focus, not the turtle artwork. There may also be a small slice of "fair use" which is OK to host -- that where fair use is a complete defense, i.e. there is no situation where this image is used which could be considered a copyright violation. This has come up recently in a couple other contexts, but one definite example of that is parody -- far from de minimis, but since parody is generally a complete defense, even in commercial contexts, we would allow them here. It is not a photo of just the graphic on the sign, but shows the entire sign in its intended, public context -- I really fail to see how this photograph could be used in any situation which could be considered a copyright violation. And no, I do not feel that the focus is on the turtle design itself. A pure graphic of the sign itself could be an issue, but I think it's a stretch to apply that to this photo. I do tend towards feeling that deleting this would be copyright paranoia. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
@"shows the entire sign in its intended, public context" - this sounds like FOP which apparently is not existent in Canada for signs. We should not make our own laws; rather push the politicians to make better laws. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 05:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
No... they have "fair dealing" etc. laws already. I wouldn't support a close-up photo of the turtle itself (which full FOP would allow); this is different. Given actual Canadian law, do you really think that there is a context this photo can be used in which would be considered a copyright violation? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I totally appreciate the thought partners here. I still think I will have to delete it from my FAC tommorrow AM, and then put in an AFD on myself to clear the image off Commons. This blows and if there is a legit way to keep this sweet image, I want to do so. But I can't go on the front page with something not meeting standards. And realistically Wiki seems more conservative than the law.TCO (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Can't it be used under a fair-use justification at the English Wikipedia? I think so if you are right in saying that it supports some of the points made in the article and is not there for merely decorative purposes. Carl, much as I'd like to retain the photograph, I doubt it is realistic to argue that the turtle is de minimis, even in the context of the sign alone. The sign is pretty simple: an image of a turtle and some short words. Thus, the turtle image is significant in the context of the sign. Also, the potential commercial use of the image is irrelevant. If I draw a crappy picture that could not by any stretch of the imagination be commercially exploitable, it is nonetheless copyrightable. In any case, there could certainly be commercial use of a photograph of this sign for encyclopedias, nature magazines, motoring magazines, and so on. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–08:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Carl and Jack, very kind of you. Yeah, to me, realistically (I mean stepping back from being part of wikiland), it is fair use. I would not be worried putting this in a commercial publication or a coffee table book or the like. Maybe if I went in the sign business and started selling to municipalities or even making signs for dorm rooms. But a snap of a sign "in action" (setting), showing it looming over a road? Come on. As is, we are pretty far from the type of media, and the purpose is illustrative and for commentary. I think it is more vital than decorative. That said, the attitude is apparently only to allow fair use for images that are crucial (like the dust cover of a book, or maybe the logo for the New Jersey Turnpike) and as we have a long article, with many illos, it's not crucial in that same way. So we just lose a little "brilliance". I will discuss it with the reviewer in the AM and then probably need to cut it as he is the one (and not just him, that's general stance) who doesn't want fair use. I guess in any case I need to cut it from here. I confess to not really knowing the difference between Commons and Wikipedia. I sort of default and load images here.TCO (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I think photos with government road signs, when there is some sort of icon (like the turtle warning here) in the sign it is usually considered de minimus when not explicitly PD. We have had other photos of Canada animal road crossing signs that include animal logos on Commons for more than 5 years, with no problems I'm familiar with. I don't think I'd worry about this example about unless we get some indication that this is considered a copyright problem under Canadian law. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. This strikes me as a case of DM. TCO, I wouldn't both with the deletion request or uploading it to en-wiki on a fair use basis. Just put a link to this discussion on the image talk page, so no contributors need to reinvent the wheel later on if the issue ever comes up again. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this can reasonably be called de minimis. DM is for elements that are included incidentally, and could be removed without impacting the value of the photo. If the turtle were removed from this photo, it would have almost no use (you wouldn't even be able to tell what the sign is indicating). It is a small portion of the image, but the central and most prominent visual element in it. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
DM is for "too trivial to matter". In this case... the turtle artwork itself isn't the big deal; you could eliminate all the interior lines or replace with a basic turtle outline, and it would have a similar connotation (but it is far better to document the actual sign, from an educational perspective). The quality of the turtle artwork itself is not really the focus at all. Maybe it's termed "de minimis", or maybe it is "inherent fair use" -- i.e. the fair use is embedded in the photo itself, such that there is no possible use of the photo which could be an infringement. That is different than a copyrighted photo which is only OK to use in an educational context, and once it hits a point like that, I think it's OK to keep. A usual test is often "would it be OK to sell this photo on a postcard?" -- and I think it would be fine in this case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate people weighing in to help me and applying their analytical skulls to think this through. I would love to "save" the image. But of course, if it crosses the line, we cross it out. At least maybe I learn some interesting aspects of image policy and law. Also, if the controversy helps clarify things for other situations, all to the good. Also, I apologize for running all over the project to get insights. but here is a post that summarizes some of the discussions that have been had. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Community.2C_help_me_resolve_a_copyright_image_question.21TCO (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
De minimis ≠ incidental use, although that's what Commons:De minimis leads one to think, especially when it doesn't make use of the very detailed and informative article it links to at the bottom. I agree with most of Carl's comments on de minimis. Also I wouldn't say the turtle is the focus of the photo, the sign is. If the sign said: "Slow, Turtles crossing season" it wouldn't lose a bit of its value or usability. So unless there is a precedent in local courts, I wouldn't worry about it. However, if you insist on deletion, then it definitely qualifies for Fair Use on the "Painted turtle" article. -- Orionist ★ talk13:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Man, I want to save my turtle, but the WP Canada rules mention incidental only and call out the Act. Hmm....TCO (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that if other volunteers feel that de minimis is applicable I am happy to go along with that and have no plans to nominate the file for deletion, even though I may not necessarily agree with their assessment. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–09:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
To answer your question about the copyright owner of the turtle image design (assuming it is even copyrightable), the page given as a source on the file description page says: "HAT [Habitat acquisition trust] and the District of Saanich have installed 'Turtle Crossing' signs to alert drivers. This [sic] signs will only be up during crossing seasons" [14]. So, the signs are of municipal jurisdiction. Thus, depending of the contractual arragements between the partners, it is likely that the copyright (if there is a copyright) is owned by one or the other of these four entities or persons : the Habitat acquisition trust (a private non-profit organization), or the District of Saanich (a British Columbian municipality), or the individual who designed the turtle image or the company for which this individual made the work. I seem to understand that User:TCO has already corresponded with the HAT about the photo. Since it seems that this organization was involved in the process, the simplest thing would be to ask this organization or to ask to the municipality about who is the copyright owner and then ask the copyright owner to grant permission to use the image. It is quite possible that the copyright owner will happily grant such permission. That could prove a more simple solution than to discuss complex legal arguments about the possibilities of using the image without that permission. (Btw, I'm not sure why the HAT webpage is given as the source of the image on Commons, since the image on Commons is larger than the cropped one on the HAT webpage.) -- Asclepias (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Great reply. I will go fire up the communications with them again and try to track this down. Could you make a comment at the AFD please? I was a little concerned that even getting permission for use in the image would not be enough, but I will (try to) go get it and maybe it tips the balance, to make people feel OK on the liability.
As far as the larger image, I asked for them to give me an image, vice just taking it off the screen. As far as the link, they wanted a link (we give that, right)? Let me go take a look at the formats for link and image though and make sure it is the one, they requested.TCO (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Update: I should have a call back from one of the parties concerned today. Probably will need to talk to more people, but at least it's moving... ;-) TCO (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
New translation gadget
The gadget in action.
I just wrote and added a new gadget, GoogleTranslate. It allows for simple translation of selected text on a page into the language set in your user preferences. To translate text on a page select it by dragging with the left mouse key pressed and hold shift while releasing the mouse key. A dialog with the translation will pop up.
The language of the selected text is detected automatically. The backend of the service is provided by the GoogleTranslate API. Not all languages available in teh Wikimedia Commons preferences are supported by GoogleTranslate. For a complete list see here. --Dschwen (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Very cool, should be especially handy for those multilingual discussions we sometimes run into here. :-) That and translating filenames and image descriptions. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It might be good for getting a grasp about what is written most of the time. But it should be remembered that Google translate (or any other automatic translation tool) is not reliable. Sometimes you get total rubbish, sometimes the reverse of the original. Do not write descriptions relying on the tool. --LPfi (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course. Everybody should know that. That is why I only support the reading direction, and no the writing direction (pushing text from your language into multiple languages that are saved in the edit window). Nobody claims that machine translation is perfect. Do you still want me to add a big fat disclaimer in the popup? While we are at it, should we also add a disclaimer on every wikipedia page "Do not base your thesis on this article, it could contain errors!" ? --Dschwen (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
For translations, I just block the texte and without the above-mentioned gadget come to BING-translation, which gives me f.i. this translation in German: "Ich schrieb und hinzugefügt ein neues Gadget, GoogleTranslate. Es ermöglicht die einfache Übersetzung von ausgewähltem Text auf einer Seite in die Sprache, die in Ihren Benutzereinstellungen festgelegt. Übersetzen von Text auf einer Seite Wählen Sie es durch Ziehen mit der linken Maustaste gedrückt, und halten Sie die Umschalttaste beim Loslassen der Maustaste. Ein Dialogfeld mit der Übersetzung wird pop-up. Die Sprache des ausgewählten Texts wird automatisch erkannt. Das Backend des Dienstes wird durch die GoogleTranslate-API bereitgestellt. Nicht alle Sprachen verfügbar, in Teh Wikimedia Commons-Einstellungen werden von GoogleTranslate unterstützt. Eine vollständige Liste finden Sie hier." How does this compare with GoogleTranslate ? --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
As for "Bing"-Translate, I did not bother looking at it, as it only supports half the languages Google supports. Plus per my prejudice against Microsoft it must be an inferior product anyways ;-). Plus plus, The google API documentation is nicer. --Dschwen (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC) P.S.: The quality of the Bing translations is actually not bad. --Dschwen (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I see now, the translation goes to my user language (english), not from english to e.g. dutch or german. BING goes both ways. An advantage of the gadget is that you can translate texte in the edit mode, which is not possible for BING. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Neat and thanks. Useful for us en only folk to at least get the gist of some postings. I use babelfish anyway by extra help on that aspect of my inadequacy is very welcome :) --Herbytalk thyme12:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
@Havang, this is not a question of Bing or GoogleTranslate, it is simply a question of what the Gadget should do. Above I commented on the translation directions. I think such a gadget should be used to try and decypher other people's text. Using it to generate foreign text in the edit window is not a good idea in my opinion, as that would lead to the generation of low quality translations on the wiki. --Dschwen (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
it is however handsome, being in the edit mode, to look up a translation.... or to compare source texte, my translation and a machine translation without switching between modes. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there a variable that I can set in my Vector.js to manually specify the language I want the translations in? My preferences are set to "nds" which is not supported by Google Translate. My second-most proficient language is German, but as my English is better than Google's German, I rather want the target language to be English. --Slomox (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Some other input though: I played around a bit and had a problem. Under certain circumstances (no exact idea under which) I get the JS error "response.data is undefined". Perhaps if Google cannot determine the source language, at least it happened on Category:Hinrich Wilhelm Kopf when I tried it with the complete second line (starting with "Plattdüütsch").
And if I translate several strings on the same page the translation boxes stack on each other. Would be nice if any new box would close the previous one. Or is this a feature? --Slomox (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Fixed the response.data error. I was not really sure about the dialog stacking. Both variants have their use. My reasoning was that the gadget is for occasional use, where closing a box is not much work. And I found cases where having multiple translations open can be useful. For example to compare text passages translated from different languages or juxtapose different discussion posts. --Dschwen (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The stacking thing was annoying for me when I wildly tested the gadget, but I guess it is okay for normal users ;-)
About the error: an error message would be nice. If you write "Google Translate did not respond" and put the blame on them that will also be nicer for you because it stops people from annoying you with reports about the gadget malfunctioning ;-) --Slomox (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Very, very cool tool. It does interfere with a couple of my usage patterns when editing, though hopefully I'll adapt. On the other hand... is there a way to determine when Google is translating to and from the same language, and to avoid the popup? It can interrupt a couple of things when I'm tying in my own responses, and since that is my own language, there is hopefully not much need for a translation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
What usage patterns does it interfere with? I must admit that I did not perform any in-depth usability studies when i chose shift+mouseselect to trigger the gadget. It seemed unused, easy to learn, and easy to implement. --Dschwen (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I often shift-click to extend a selection, or start a selection from the current cursor (often when I want to remove a series of words I just typed, or something like that). Not a big deal; I wouldn't change the interface, as I'll get used to it. I was just thinking that if the "from" and "to" languages happened to be the same thing, there doesn't seem much point to the translation, so in that case you could avoid putting up the panel altogether. That would avoid most issues with people typing in their own language, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
None of the typically most useful diagnostics (carriages/automobiles, women's clothing styles, advertisements, etc.) seem to be present... AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
What's on the back of the postcard? It is often useful to scan and upload those, too, if only for documentation purposes (does it identify the country of publication, at least?) -- 15:48, 13 January 2011 Clindberg
In the lower left part of the image there was clearly a watermark (or other writing) that has been photoshopped away (see the repeating light patterns in the waves)... Perhaps the missing info was there? --Ianezz (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I have the original (old) postcard. If there was any editing is was non-digital. Patterns in the water could reflections or shadows from the masts. I only photoschopped a few irregularities in the sky and a thear in the postcard (upper rigth). Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
In that case, it would be helpful to upload the original scans of the front and back (or at least the back, if the image manipulation at the bottom left is not yours). You could upload those over the same image, then revert to the current version -- that at least gets the originals in the upload history. There is obvious cloning in the bottom left corner, and extending for some ways along the bottom edge. If the original has that, interesting -- that would have been done for the postcard. What is written on the back? That may also have some clues. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Good catch, that is a little problematic -- would be good to have the original scan as well, or at least a note on why this is digitally altered. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't suppose there's a version with more detail on the American flag? Counting the stars would give you a good idea of when the photo is from. (The presence of the Blue Ensign gives a early bound of 1864, but that's not too useful). --Carnildo (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
That 'house' appears to be part of the light-coloured boat immediate behind the dark one. It's just not clear enough to completely rule out a satellite dish, but that seems unlikely, especially considering the dark boat third from right appears to be a light steamer (notice the smokestack?). When were boats like that last used? Good idea regarding the trees and palms, though again I think the fuzziness of the image ruins that. I have to believe this dates from before the '50s, though that doesn't really help much here. — Huntster (t@c)03:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
On the far rigth there is a boat with long-wave radio communication. Certainly not the satelite communication.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC). There are no real square rigged transport sailing ships. They all seem to be rigged in an modern sloop type and most look like luxury yachts. The rich didnt have big motor yachts yet.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
What about trying to establish when the company that produced the postcard was established, and whether it is still in business? The web pages [15] and [16], while certainly not authoritative, suggest the company was in operation around the 1930s. Also, the second website calls the company "CM&S Hamburg": might it have been a German company? Perhaps a volunteer in Germany can conduct a search at a registry of companies in Hamburg. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–10:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Little more info, the publisher was Carl Müller & Sohn (or Carl Muller & Sons). Lots of hits around the web on that. There is a spread on the launch of the MV Wilhelm Gustloff in 1937 here; and a large page with a set of 1926-1938 postcards here. If their numbering scheme was chronological, it's possible this photo was from well after that. But it does seem they became active in the mid 20s and were around to at least the end of the 30s. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, PD-Old is overused out of habit and most European images can be reclassified to EU licences. When the postcard is issued by a postcard-company without mention of the fotografer I conclude that the company has bought the rigths or send out its employees to take the pictures. When there is no postcard-company or fotografer name mentioned it is more doubtfull. It could be local postcards made by a local photografer.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
By your description, it has the "C M & S" in a triangle, so the publisher is definitely known. And the photographer is not, so it does sound anonymous. And country of origin would be Germany. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
January 14
Category:Myasischev 3M
I have just uploaded an image but the category it should reside in is spelt incorrectly. All references i have spell it this way: Myasishchev 3M, NOT Myasischev 3M. Can someone familiar with categories please rectify this?Petebutt (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I clicked the "close" box [X] next to the "share on the web" "share on a wiki" etc. buttons at the top of the page, but I didn't mean to make them go away forever! Now they don't show up for any image. How can I make them come back? I looked through my preferences, but couldn't find anything promising. -Pete F (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I already made two subcategories (Category:Badner Bahn Type 100) and (Category:Badner Bahn Type 400) and put the rest in (Category:Badner Bahn Old Trams). However it is clear that in old trams there are at least two subtypes (example File:Wenen Badner Bahn stelplaats.jpg and File:Wenen WLB stelplaats.jpg. What are the names of these tramtypes?
Furthermore I think it is more correct to use the official name: Wiener Lokalbahnen (WLB). I tried the German village pump but didnt get a response. Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The first picture shows one of the original Badnerbahn railcars (though rebuilt after WWII). The more streamlined ones were purchased secondhand from Cologne in Germany (must have been in the 1970ies). This is an original one in a museum in Cologne: Maybe you ask on this discussion page: [18] -- 194.48.128.7511:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
HelpDesk archives
Currently, the Commons:Help Desk is archived in this weird way. I propose changing that to the ISO 8601 standard dating format (Commons:Help desk/Archives/2007/09), which currently this COM:VP and the COM:DR is using. This is pretty uncontroversial as it's just a matter of modifying the archiving bot, and renaming the pages (leaving redirects). If no one opposes with good reason, I will do this tomorrow. Rehman12:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Cross-linked it there, (dont want to remove it from here; learned a good lesson by performing such moves). ;) Just trying help Commons like you, and everyone else. :) Kind regards. Rehman14:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
In general, deleting redirects on Commons is a bad idea (especially for files, but also for other pages). For example, the link here on enwiki is now broken. Pruneautalk14:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Plus there is no way that no entries in What links here are really orphaned. People could be using http url syntax rather than wikilinks. As Pruneau pointed out, other projects could link. An then there is the whole rest of the web. Who know what pages link to the archives. You should never break links. It is considered bad style. --Dschwen (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Oops, external URLs and Crosswikis were off my checklist. Will restore the redirects shortly. Thanks for the pointers. Rehman16:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a bit annoying that we have to remind you of such basics each time. Please refrain from moving things around until you get more practice with Mediawiki. -- Docu at17:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Credit for photograph used in wikipedia
There exists on R Sargent Shriver's page an image that was made by me. My name is Rowland Scherman and I was the official photographer for the Peace Corps, 1961-63. While I understand that the image is in the public domain, and I seek no remuneration for the use of the image, I would
still appreciate a credit. The year was 1961, not ca 1962 as stated.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Sargent_Shriver_1962.jpg is the URL for the photo. -- 07:16, 21 January 2011 66.31.192.145
But when I just copy and past the file name, it does not work. Help!
EVentually it will go into this article: en:Myrrha, but for now just wanted to put on the talk page, while we increase the text amount. But I tested putthing it in article and in talk page and didn't work.TCO (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You can use [[File:'Birth of Adonis', oil on copper painting by Marcantonio Franceschini, c. 1685-90, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden.jpg|thumb]], which will produce what you see at the right. This should work in all Wikipedias. --rimshottalk22:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Want to record a turtle race at a bar for en:turtle racing. Any advice on copyright, the bar, the people around, filming conditions, etc.? Or should we just screw it up the first time and learn the hard way? ;-) TCO (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi TOC. I guess the easiest for me to say is to refrain as much as possible from filming artistic elements. I have never heard of nor seen a turtle race (having a video of it uploaded would be interesting). Will the floor be painted? What country are you in? If it is outdoors and you are in a country that has freedom of panorama, then you're good. If you're not, try not to focus the filming on the buildings or nearby statues (if it appears accidentally in the distance, then that's ok per de minimis). Since I assume this will be at a public place, you don't need to worry about the people. As long as you have this in mind and the video focuses on the turtle race itself, I don't think it would be a problem. Feel free to ask questions if in doubt. --ZooFari21:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If you go to the article, you can see images of the event. It is done at a lot of summer fair (in summer). But also in bars, I guess, year round. This bar in Cali [20] does them outdoors I think. But some others (we have links to them in article) do it indoors, with some sort of cover that they pull off the turles who race to the edge of a circle. Yeah, I figure the average persion has not seen it. So not only is it just all cool cause a video is inherently many "thousands of words" but for this topic really gives a feel of what goes down. Here's a youtube at Brennans: [21] There are other bars that race them indoors too in the Midwest. Here's another youtube. Not really a real race, but I love the en:painted turtle and the music. [22] (no one here will object to me jazzing up with some tunes, right). There's also videos of summer ones on youtube that are less racy than the LA bar one. Just lots of little kids running around. TCO (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
On a second thought: the category was manually added to the files above after you posted your question, so I believe it's safe to say there was none before. I removed that files from the category.--Ianezz (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the problem is not that there are files that can not be found, but that the file counter is not always updated when it should be. There are several entries related to this in Bugzilla. Bugzilla:18488 says counts were fixed by system administrators in May 2010. But for example Bugzilla:16036 or Bugzilla:21230 (which maybe are not this exact problem) are not fixed, so even if the counters were correct at some time they might have become incorrect later. /Ö11:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I had discussions with another contributor that was cncern by images being pushed form a main category into a grouping by state thats some three levels further down the category structure. The person was initially concerned that because their contributions were the ones affected their initial feeling was one of a personal insult. I explained to them that its normal practice to move images to a more precise category, they were ok but still concerned and the further that we discussed the matter I noticed one point that very much stood out. The point is that when a file is moved from the main category into a location subcategory it appears that no further attention is given to the image in the categorisation structure. When the image is categorised into a "by counrty"..."country"..."state"...its lost from the other more important significant aspects of the subject, like tools, vehicles, instruments, equipment etc. In such cases location is a trivial occurance at best and its really questionable as whether it adds any value to image. I question whether we should be even categorising "by location" in such case, definately we should not being removing images from the parent category when they are moved solely into location categories. Gnangarra05:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you please indicate what is the category in question? It is rather difficult to assess the situation without any context. In general, I would say that there is nothing inherently wrong with categorizing a photograph by location. It is one way of organizing a parent category that may be filled with hundreds if not thousands of files. Of course, just because a file has been placed in a "by location" category does not mean it cannot also be categorized by other attributes, so I don't see this as a problem at all. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–06:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It does not solve the question precisely. I recall a similar discussion in Russian launched by yours truly years ago. The deeper into "teeny weeny green super duplex valves" you get, the harder it is to find anything. Categorization down to a certain point is useful, but below it it becomes a headache and an obstacle. As an example, DS 19 is a well-defined and recognizable category. Readers will ask, what makes it different from plain DS, but they will recognize the subject. On the other hand, EF 86 will be an overkill - and completely un-recognizable for those who don't know the subject. So if someone decides to categorize Category:Vacuum tubes by type, it will become a nightmare for outsiders - "All I want is a pic of a nice glowing tube, don't give me a hundred of cats with useless tags"! So, if a very detailed categorization is inevitable, there's also a need for parallel, wide, all-inclusive categories - "search by eye, not by typing". NVO (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. In general, I'm in favour of more detailed categorization, and do not think it is a good idea to place an image in both a parent category and a subcategory unless there is a good reason for doing so. To me, duplicating all the images in the parent category so that users can flip through them more easily instead of visiting subcategories doesn't seem like a particularly good reason. As for whether it makes sense to have a category like "Category:Valves in Florida", I'd say it depends on the subject-matter of the category. In some cases where the subject-matter is pretty generic and therefore the same no matter where in the world it is photographed, then it might be said that "by location" categorization is unnecessary. However, as mentioned above, I generally do not think it is problematic to have "by location" categories. I can think of situations where it would be useful to have a category like "Valves in Florida", for example, if one wants to categorize valves based on their place of manufacture (though "Valves from Florida" or "Valves of Florida" might be a better name) or to demonstrate local variations of the same item. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–19:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
If someone can look through hundreds of pictures in a category, surely they can open up the subcategories. That doesn't excuse over-categorization, but in normal usage, that's how it should be done. If there's hundreds of cats under Vacuum tubes, then you're not going to find the best picture if they're all dumped in the main category.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Prosfilaes. It's not clear to me that there is a problem here -- I can't see how having media related to valves organized by location is somehow worse than having them all tossed in one main category. It certainly isn't enough of a problem to justify over-categorization. Over-categorization creates its own set of bigger problems, mostly by creating terrible precedent. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
When I can, I try to add Swedish descriptions to files, pages and categories, using the template {{Sv}}, which calls {{Description}}. I have also added such descriptions to some templates that are used in many categories, e.g. {{SwedenBridgeArc}} that is used in Category:Bridges in Sweden completed in 1919 and similar categories for other years. Is there any way I can compile a list of all files, pages and categories that now have a Swedish description? Direct linkage from the template page doesn't work, because some categories call it indirectly through a template. One way to accomplish this would be if {{Description}} added a hidden category for each language. Then we could easily count if there are more items with Swedish or Polish descriptions, and see if we make progress from one week to another. --LA2 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It only gives me the categories that directly use {{Sv}}, not those categories listed above, which use it indirectly via another template. I must admit that CatScan does a better job than I first thought, but I'm limited to searching a handful of levels down the category tree.
Maybe I should ask like this: Is there any WikiProject or collaboration that tries to improve translated descriptions in any language? And what tools do they use for this? --LA2 (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I think all categories you want are listed in Special:Whatlinkshere. The database does not differentiate between direct and indirect template inclusions. But Special:Whatlinkshere is sorted by page id, not alphabetically by page name, so it is not easy to manually see that everything is there. Here are several "Bridges in Sweden completed in XXXX" categories. /Ö16:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I assumed that "what links here" didn't include indirect uses of the template. This really solves my original problem. However, in the meanwhile the problem has morphed: Pages that use {{Mld}} or {{LangSwitch}} with an sv= parameter do not call {{Sv}}, so they would still be missing from my list of items that have a Swedish description. Maybe I'll have to dig through the XML dump after all. --LA2 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons should permit upload of insecure, possibly proprietary file formats to make sure that source files for media objects can always be added. Such content cannot be used in articles, only linked to, and no thumbnail would be shown on the image description page. Due to issues of security and/or misuse (e.g. for file sharing), upload of such files must be restricted to trusted users. This would be implemented with a new user right, restricted-upload. By default, this user right would be given only to administrators, but over time, it could be expanded to other users who have a well-understood need to upload such files.
This change in monobook.js (in November) makes it quite bothersome to navigate the site. Apparently it was discussed a year and a half prior, but that makes little difference on how annoying it is when I type "Commons:VP" + enter in the search bar and I'm taken here rather than where I am expecting to be taken. Is there a way this [feature/bug] could be turned off when someone types a namespace as a prefix (i.e. User: Special: Commons: etc)? I'm both perplexed and a little angered at this situation. Killiondude (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a misrepresentation. That change was enacted not a year and a half after discussing it. The change was merely migrated to monobook.js at that time. --Dschwen (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC) P.S.: I wrote the origimal script in March'09. --Dschwen (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hm, ok, I forgot that I made this thing a gadget first :-). Yeah, it's been quite a while. Anyhow, that does not change the overwhelming consensus we had for this change. So just removing without discussion is not appropriate. --Dschwen (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the "fix". I still think it would be preferable if it could be configured to detect namespace prefixes and skip the intermediary search page. Killiondude (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I think I have to revise my position on this. As monobook is a deprecated theme that is only used by some hard-core revisionists and not by the majority of regular users it does not really matter whether we put in user friendly features. If the monobook-using fringe wants it they are most certainly able to add it on an opt-in basis. The default theme vector already has a sensible solution built-in, so normal users and in particular anonymous users are taken care of. --Dschwen (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Dschwen, could I ask you directly (since I'm not the best coder/technical person) if what I suggested above is possible? Regarding the namespace detection. If it is possible, what are the drawback of enacting that (globally, since you're suggesting it's used on the other skins)? Killiondude (talk)
Hm? The code was designed to work with all legacy skins. The problem with detecting the namespace prefix would be making the script dynamic (i.e. reverse the default button assignement after a typed in prefix is detected, and restore its if the prefix gets changed or removed). This would make the code more complicated. --Dschwen (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is this only in monobook skin? That is mostly for conservative users who wants Commons to work like it has always worked (fro example with a go button). New users who can be confused by the differrence between go and search get the vector skin (which is even more confusing, with the search tooltip for a go button). /Ö20:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I think he said it's on all the skins, but was only added (somewhat recently) to Monobook.js in the edit I was referring to above. I haven't taken the time to check. Killiondude (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
January 20
howto add subtitles to an existing video on commons
Is it technically feasible to add subtitles to an existing video on commons? I mean is it possible to upload a subtitles file which can be used parallel with a video playing in commons? Ggia (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick answer.. and how can I embed the video to another wikipedia project with the options of captions? I tried to embed this video to el.wikipedia.org project space.. but there just the video without the subtitles/captions.. Ggia (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Registered Commons users can enable the mwEmbed gadget in their prefs to see them. It seems to be possible to make a link in the caption like I made here (see beneath) to enable all people to use them. I guess that people need a recent browser to view. I tested it now with Firefox 3.6 and Opera 11. Works pretty nice for me. I made a test here in Wikipedia: de:Benutzer:Saibo/eigene_Spielwiese Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for the help.. What I understood also from the test in de page.. it is not possible to embed subtitles outside the commons project, I saw that you made a link to the commons page.. I understand that a video with subtitles which can plays in all the projects needs the subtitles to be embedded inside the video file. Ggia (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The gadget is also present on English Wikipedia, and users who have activated the mwEmbed gadget on English Wikipedia will also see the subtitles. If you port the mwEmbed gadget to your project of choice, users there will have the same experience. TheDJ (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks TheDJ for the answer. I will request this gadget to be imported also to el.wikipedia.org project.. I thought that this gadget is only present in commons. Ggia (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Transfer to Commons okay?
I am not sure if the following images can be transferred to Commons and would need some help:
Agree with User:LtPowers. I would not consider the designs on the cards de minimis. I'm a bit more hesitant about Judo Club Basel Logo, since the character is a stylized drawing, not part of a standard font, but I'm pretty sure others would permit it here. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your assessments.
In case of 1 and 2, there would be many files endangered by deletion, if you have a look at the categories mentioned above and additionally at Category:Playing card suits.
I transferred 3 and 4. I added them to my watchlist so that I could undelete them in de.wikipedia in case they would still become subject of deletion. --Leyo17:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there a consensus that PD-Italy applies in this case? If so, shouldn't previously deleted photos of Mussolini be restored? NVO (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I've red the relevant discussions about this licence (quickly red, granted) before transferring the image, and it seemed to be legally OK, but I'm not an expert on Commons licences. What would be the problem, in your opinion?--DarwinAhoy!23:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I would say PD-Italy applies (rats, never renamed that PD-Italy-photo like I meant to). I would tend to be very careful about simple photos taken since 1976 (since their U.S. copyright was restored and is still valid, and we are definitely going to run into problems if we keep those). But this was a pretty famous photo long before that I'm fairly sure. Using the 20-years-since-creation-for-simple-photos portion of Italian law was not used for a long time on Commons (read the talk pages and deletion requests... I'd rather not get into it), and yes I bet there are a ton of images which should be undeleted, but I'm not sure that people have gone and tried to find them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
January 24
Manang picture
When I look at english article over Manang and I link trough to the "uk"? language I see the picture Файл:Manang151.JPG. Can someone put it in the commons and add it to the category "Manang"? Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I tried to import it with CommonsHelper, but it says "This image has no verificable good license, and can thus not be uploaded to commons through this tool". I can't bring it here while it stays unlicensed at wiki uk.--DarwinAhoy!01:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
It's Ukraine. Google translate works good enough with that, as far as I can see, so you may try to contact the original uploader so that he would fix the image licence. He seems to be a newbie, though, judging from his talk page.--DarwinAhoy!17:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
.ogv and .ogg file
Hi, I would like to know more about the procedure of uploading .ogv and .ogg files, is it the same like uploading .jpeg files? Another question is: Regarding [[::File:My Motherland.ogv]], is {{:::PD-China}} the correct license used? Arilang talk 01:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Arilang talkArilang 00:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
combining cleaned Tanner pic into file for old one
Is it possible (or desirable) to make the "cleaned" tanner pic just another version from the other upload? Similar to how the earlier cropping was handled?
uncleaned but croppedcleaned version but whole different file page
"Cleaned" versions are usually uploaded under separate filenames because the two images serve two distinct educational purposes. One depicts the subject as nicely as possible, while the other depicts the original work as accurately as possible. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
January 25
DMCA Takedown demand
In compliance with the provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and at the instruction of Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, Christine and I have deleted a number of files from commons. Please do not undelete these. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here. Thank you! Philippe (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to go against legal advice, but can anyone explain to me how this person can possibly have a claim on (for example) the coat of arms of Ghana? Or is he just saying that these particular renderings of these coats of arms are his, and someone else may freely create equivalents, just not these particular files? - Jmabel ! talk01:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me note that this is not legal advice. Relying on the DMCA means the foundation has to take down the file on any(?) claim, and it's the responsibility of the uploader (or any third party?) to contest the issue. See the w:Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. As long as the WMF stays out of it, they can in theory can avoid legal liability.
I just looked at the PDF ; these are all files the user uploaded to Commons himself. There's been a long running fight with him about various issues, and apparently he's decided to send the WMF a takedown notice. Almost certainly not worth fighting; let him take his toys and go home.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Philippe, please explain why you do think that this claim is valid.
Why does it matter if they can be found by Google Image Search? Liptak does have copyright in the images he demanded the takedown on, and his claim is a colorable one. Given the way the DMCA is set up, it's safest for the WMF to take them down and let someone else make a counterclaim, rather than try and figure out whether Liptak could win in court, and whether these images really are worth fighting for.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I linked google image search for those of us who do not have admin rights but want to see (at least in thumbnails) what was deleted. ;-) The COAs are probably in the PD but, if I see it correctly on the tiny thumbs, the drawings were quite artistic so he could have a copyright on his drawing. Such a reason would be nice to understand why WMF follows this takedown notice. And it does not matter that he uploaded them by himself? Did he release them under a free license? What do you mean by "someone else make a counterclaim"? Who should make a counterclaim? We Commons users? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The WMF followed the takedown notice because that's what you do to get safe harbor protections under the DCMA. His claim is that we're violating the license by not properly attributing them; there has been great fuss over the way he tends to put his signature in the middle of the coats of arms, and that signature have been removed from at least some of them. The law is written as an exchange between the copyright owner and an infringer who uploaded the material onto the server of a third party (in this case, the WMF), so I don't know who could make a counterclaim. http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf provides a guide to creating a counterclaim, for anyone willing to assert under penalty of perjury that "Each of those works were removed in error and I believe my posting them does not infringe anyone else's rights." The counterclaimer would basically be taking the responsibility of defending the usage of these files in court.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
His drawings are/were quite artistic and he most definitely had a copyright on them. If I remember the quarrel was over the interpretation of Creative Commons and attribution requirements. If he uploaded them under a mistaken understanding of what restrictions CC-BY etc. allow, then technically he may never have truly licensed them correctly in the first place, and they should have been deleted anyways (and he may be within his rights to claim that others are changing his licenses to conform to CC-BY, if that is not his wish). It's certainly not worth fighting, I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
His images are replaceable, we have editors within the project (on Wikipedia and here on Commons) to make replacements if they are asked nicely. However I'm concerned that editors can use/abuse DMCA just to issue take down notices on files they have uploaded just because of a dispute or they have change their minds some weeks/months/years later, I just hope that this take down notice doesn't set a precedent or this could become rather problematic for the project. Bidgee (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
This is only possible for users willing to hostilely sever their relations with Wikimedia projects. I was actually expecting it from a recent Flikr user who was claiming, against all evidence, that he had never used CC licenses. It is litigious and so openly hostile that I doubt very many of our editors would go this route. I think telling users that this is an irrevocable break with Wikimedia projects would stop most of them, and I think those who would do it have a pretty toxic relationship to these projects anyway.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Clindberg -- Strictly legally, Liptak doesn't have a leg to stand on, and never has. Over three months ago, I told him that if he had uploaded files under a misconception as to what a CC-BY-SA license is, then his real remedy was to admit his mistake and respectfully ask for deletion of the files (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xanderliptak&oldid=44770825 ). Unfortunately, he chose not to take that advice, and instead continually escalated his pretentions to personal infallibility and his annoying and obnoxious behavior, until he arrived at the current situation. AnonMoos (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Xanderlip wanted to "own" his drawings, and got very angry when he wasn't allowed to, and tried any number of tactics to get them deleted. He finally found something that worked, and you all fell for his act. You've been "had". But you know what? Good riddance to that trouble-making user. As Bidgee indicates, someone else who understands the rules here can create replacements. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't care about this, he can take it and leave. I note that per process, any users that threaten legal action should be blocked, and I suggest that any material produced by Alexander Liptak is put on a black list, per "user doesn't have a proper understanding of Creative Commons license". TheDJ (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs -- If he just wanted to get his files deleted, he could have probably done that fairly easily in October. Instead, he wanted to retain control over them and their derivative uses, or if that wasn't possible, then to get them deleted in a manner which would mean that he could retain his façade of 100% absolute personal infallibility, and never admit to having made any mistake of any kind at any time (that's the real reason why he had to escalate to DMCA, rather than going through normal Commons processes). Anway, if someone wanted to challenge the DMCA takedown, it would presumably have to be User:Beyond My Ken, the author of a modification of one of Liptak's files, File:Coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt by Alexander Liptak altered.png, or User:EJavanainen, who did the SVG conversion File:Coat of arms of Ghana.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Against. The idea of ostracizing people because they, at some point in their life, resort to using the law is something I can't agree with. The law is for citizens to use it. There is nothing wrong in using the law. That idea means that a victim should remain a silent victim and never seek justice. A community that adopts a victim-ostracizing or a whistle-blower ostracizing principle is terribly wrong. If there is anything wrong in that person's claim that he is a victim, evidence for this should be provided before enacting any retaliation. Teofilo (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You are apparently unaware of (1) the user's history and (2) the rule that legal threats are not allowed by editors. Sure, they can seek legal options, as they have that right. But editing here is a privilege, not a right. And one of the editing rules is that legal threats are incompatible with editing. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
People who use the law against you are saying that they can't work with you through normal channels. If we felt we owed them an apology, if we felt we did them wrong, then it might be different. But bringing in the law makes it so much more complex, and if they feel they can't work with us now, what makes us think they'll think they can work with us in the future? People who run to Mom everytime something happens aren't people you wanted to play with; and we're adults and our dispute resolution, both at the wetwear level and the policy level, is massively more sophisticated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Personal conversation at one of the Wikimedia Boston meetups with someone who I believed talked to Godwin about it suggested that anyone could send a counterclaim. I understand completely skepticism at the above statement, and I wouldn't suggest that anyone do so for these, but if you felt strongly about it, anyone could send Philippe (WMF) a message asking if they'd accept a counterclaim, or just send the counterclaim explaining your relation or lack thereof to the images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It probably comes down to how badly someone wants to fight that character vs. just saying "good widdance" and being done with it. Surely those illustrations can be built by someone else, if they're sufficiently notable and needed. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I've got a suspicion, after looking at Xander's website, that what he was really up to here was a spamming operation. He wants several hundred dollars per 8 x 10 rendering. He was probably figuring to drum up business here, and that's why he got so enraged about his name being taken off the items. At this point, probably best to leave it be and block any attempt he might make to come back. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
While I certainly don't think it's worth the trouble in this case to issue a counterclaim, it does raise some peculiar issues, like: if the person who uploaded the image themselves issues the DMCA takedown request, who exactly has the legal authority to issue a counterclaim? The law was written under the assumption that the copyright holder and uploader are different people. Can any of us do it? Do we first have to reupload the images, have him issue another takedown request, and then issue a counterclaim? Wouldn't that be going against the WMF's explicit instructions? This is terribly confusing. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
As I said, User:Beyond_My_Ken and User:EJavanainen would appear to have the best shot at contesting it. However, Beyond_My_Ken has already disclaimed any intention of doing so... AnonMoos (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
But what if the author of one of the articles using the image were deeply upset that it were removed, but otherwise had no involvement with the uploading or modification of the image? What recourse would they have against a dubious takedown request? Dcoetzee (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
If anyone does feel they are interested in disputing, again I suggest they talk to User:Philippe (WMF), about what they take as a valid counterclaim. On the ground, this is not about what is a valid counterclaim; it's about what the WMF would take as a valid counterclaim. At the very least, I would think that someone could upload it (since the idea behind the DCMA is an unrestricted hosting service), someone (preferably Philippe) could delete it as per the claim, and then you would have grounds for a counterclaim.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
January 21
DMCA Takedown Demand 2
In compliance with the provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and at the instruction of Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, I have removed one file from Commons. Please do not undelete the file. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here. Thank you! Christine (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I altered the headline of this posting because that takedown (Deutsche Grammophon, now renamed to foundation:File:DMCA Domingo.pdf) is not related to the Liptak issue but something different, File:Placido-Domingo.jpg. Following the deletion of its source File:DomingoJ1.jpg, it was a retouched version of that, it was possibly overlooked that this must be deleted too. The original was deleted following the uploaders request and the invalidity of the OTRS ticket. --Martin H. (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I have sent an apology for the prolonged infringement, and stated that the community was not earlier made aware of this 2nd copy of the infringing material. Made it clear to be communicating on personal title as a volunteer community member. TheDJ (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Good move - damage control with people whose works we have unwittingly infringed upon is an often-neglected step to ensure future good-will for the project. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
January 22
"COM:" as a redirect to "Commons:" only within Wikimedia Commons
Okay here we go again. For Request 12600, there has already been three discussions: 2008/01, 2008/02, and 2010/11. Per latest discussion at the request page, it seems to be clear that this shortcut is only for use within Wikimedia Commons, and hence will not interefere with the non-existent Comanche Wikipedia. FYI, all the current COM shortcuts currently reside in the main gallery-space, and not in the "Commons" as it should.
I would like to start a poll on those who prefer COM as the shortcut. Please add * {{Support}}. ~~~~ below if you support this shortcut, or add * {{Comment}}, [text] ~~~~ if you would like to comment or support a different shortcut. Rehman04:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment, I think using it within commons only is impossible. For example, if you type "en:" in search box and hit enter key, it just goes to enwiki. If there is a little possibility to open Comanche Wikipedia, MediaWiki system may confuse the shortcut. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 04:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not really sure. Discussions at bugzilla seem to conclude that it wont conflict, but I agree with you that it would... I don't know. I'll post this there... Rehman05:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment com.wikipedia might exist someday, and if/when it is created the interwikis to it would instantly usurp the usage on Commons: the link COM:VPon Commons would then link to http://com.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP . This makes COM unusuable within Commons as an alias or outside Commons as an interwiki (unless we got a "we will never have a Comanche Wikipedia" statement from WMF). I'm inclined to flat oppose this, simply because whilst an alternate such as CM or COMM would be viable, the de facto shortcut is COM and no-one would recognise the alias anyway - therefore making it a waste of time.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Fully agree with you, anything else is a waste of time, and would only create confusion. I did mention this on the last comment on the bug, lets see where the discussion takes us. I also did mention that "the language is used by around 200 people only, all of them elderly. It is quite unlikely that one of them would come up and propose a new com.wiki. Not going against the devs, but IMVHO holding up a useful shortcut for an almost-extinct language is sort of unproductive. Just saying." Rehman13:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
As has been discussed previously, "COM" seems to be somewhat against policy, but "CM" might be implemented if people were in favor of it... AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe if we could have enough users (200+ ?) voting for COM as a namespace alias, the devs might change their mind ;) Rehman08:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Rehman -- There might be different interpretations of WMF policies, but I doubt whether things will by changed by any kind of vote... AnonMoos (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the technical details, but a number of people over the years have said that with the current software the interwikis (XX.wikipedia.org names) and internal namespaces are not completely separate and distinct. AnonMoos (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it the issue is: If we have an internal namespace alias (such as COM) and it conflicts with an interwiki, this will result in problems. If the interwiki is given priority, the alias is useless so why have it? A potential interwiki is worse, as if it happens it would then break the links on pages here. If the alias is given priority, how would we then link to the comanche wiki from Commons: Specifically how would Category:Comanche link to com.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nʉmʉnʉ ? I'd point out that the present low number of speakers isn't really relevant: We have Wikipedia for extinct languages (Latin(!)), and in languages like Comanche could enjoy a revival similar to the Gaelic languages in the Europe, would then lead to a real need for the WP.
Unfortunately, I can't see how we are going to be able to get COM as a namespace alias. It would be more useful to see if CM or COMM (or whatever) could attract sufficient interest to get one of those implemented (I'm unsure but its possible).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we could add COMM (or whatever) for now, and if it ever becomes clear that the Comanche Wikipedia will never be created, then we could always change the shortcut to COM. Since whatever the shortcut we put, the page content (redirect) will be on the "Commons:" namespace... Rehman12:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The ideal choice would be "COM:", but as long as it's not available for us I'd go for "CM:" instead. It's nice and short, and I don't think anyone would have a big problem with it. That, coupled with a "c:" interwiki prefix, would be perfect in my opinion. So instead of [[Commons:Commons:VP]] we'd be able to type [[c:CM:VP]] only to link here from Wikipedia. -- Orionist ★ talk14:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Trying to figure out the various intrawiki and interwiki links, always confuses me; internally Wikisource is WS, but externally it's s:; Wiktionary internally is WT, but externally it's (take a guess) wikt:. I would find it easier, and I think others would too, if the internal and external abbreviations for Commons were the same, even if they were a different case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
youtube videos
Any experience here with contacting owners of youtube videos and getting a licence? Ideally, I would want the higher resolution copy of course. but just there are a huge amount of useful videos there and wonder how people have found the process of asking for donations from the youtube accounts? Also, are any of the videos there already "free". And how to know?TCO (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Some videos on YouTube are high res (up to 1080p). YouTube does not provide a standardized mechanism for placing content under a free license, but anybody can put a license statement in the video description, or submit permission through OTRS. Keep in mind that YouTube uses a proprietary, patented video format and videos would have to be converted to OGV, using proprietary tools. It's better to convert from the original high-quality master copy, but because these are very large it's often more practical to persuade the YouTuber to convert the master copy to OGV on your behalf (if they're any good with video software). Dcoetzee (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the question of whether already free videos are already available, you can always look for videos uploaded by U.S. government agencies. I occasionally find good videos from the NASA accounts, and I'm sure other government entities have YouTube accounts as well. Just be certain that the video is entirely made by the government employee and contains no outside material. To again use NASA as an example...they are particularly bad about including material from companies (SpaceX, USA, etc) and other space agencies (ESA, RSA, etc) that are non-free. If there's any doubt about status, don't use it. — Huntster (t@c)21:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
hmm...any idea on a free video related to the painted turtle (Chrysemys picta)? I did a search for videos with "painted turtle and site:.gov but came up dry. I did contact a state Fish and Game department but not sure if they will release it. TCO (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
A user saved a picture about a famous Chilean band "over" a picture of a building. I've updated the file description, but honestly I do not know how to handle that. Move the new version, reupload the old one, nothing? → «« Man77 »»[de]·[bar]00:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Now, to be safe, a admin could revision delete the file version of the band since the uploader has not explicitly released it under a free license. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Easy bulk transfer from English Wikipedia to Commons
Currently the English Wikipedia contains about 460.000 files marked as "free". A lot of these files should be transfered to Commons. To easily transfer a lot of these files I wrote a bot: Imagecopy_self (part of pywikipedia). The goal of this bot is to easily bulk transfer self-published files (about 290.000 files). Who wants to help with transfering some of these files? Just install Pywikipedia, pick a user from this list and run imagecopy_self.py -lang:en -uploadlog:<username>;5000. Multichill (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Be careful of one thing: I heard they handle three-dimensional works differently. They do not typically delete photographs of copyrighted statues and such. Wknight94talk14:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
COM:BOT is the communities policy on how users go about operating a bot, users found running an unauthorise bot can blocked both here and on en. As for the removal of the instructions see w:WP:BEANSGnangarra15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually Docu the removal of inapproriate comments is an accepted practice, where such comments are offensive or likely to cause disruption. Gnangarra16:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I know views about what is offensive varies, but this hardly applies here. In general, it's just disruptive and a quick way to get yourself blocked. In this case, you didn't even mention that you edited Multichill's comment. Please refrain from editing other users comments in the future. -- Docu at16:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
For those that know what they are doing and have had previous approval yes the process is relatively carefree, no ones it questioning you using it. Its the request and instructions you've posted for unknown/unidentified editor to also run a bot thats the concern. Gnangarra15:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerned, because there's a lot of questionable images even on the first page--it's worse then looking at Recent Images--and there's nothing that causes problems between us and en.WP like moving their images here and then deleting them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments: Users that moves files to Commons should check before they move. Does this file look ok? If yes move, if no don't move (yet). Some mistakes are allowed as long as not all files are moved without checking.
Bot flag or not? Well if you move a few files at slow speed just go ahead and lets see the goodies :-) If you plan to move 10.000 in no time you should ask for a flag.
How to do it? You decide. If you want to help but don't really know how to operate a bot you can still help. Check and tag bad files on en-wiki or check files after they are moved to Commons. Everyone can help! --MGA73 (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
stop at once. Migration should go the other way, from commons to wikipedias. Commons is not a reliable storage, or, at least, less reliable than any wikipedia. Moving stuff from wikipedia to commons is, at the very least, unwise, but more likely just disruptive. Have you seen your pictures uploaded under correct license on wikipedia, then moved to commons, and then deleted for a ludicrous reason? What was wrong with the original high-rese version of File:Gillender Building1900.jpg ? Nothing really, but someone decided that it must be deleted on en-wiki and moved it from en-wiki to commons and then deleted as copyvio. Now it appears that someone else uploaded a scaled-down version of the same on commons, - and it will be deleted here again. Please no more disruptive moves, not summary, not individual. NVO (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I suppose we all know that moving files around is tricky and time-consuming. IMHO, the good thing about Multichill's proposal is to do to this by uploader of users who primarily upload their own photos. It's much easier to get an overview of these than doing this on images about a specific topic by random uploaders. -- Docu at08:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Files from En that are deleted as copyvios here but are public domain in the US should be moved back to En. Period. If that did not occur, it was a mistake. If it is not public domain in the US, then it shouldn't have been on En in the first place. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
In my experience, many administrators do not consider it part of their responsibility to move files back to En. Not a mistake; they're willing to undelete it so it can be moved back, but not move it themselves.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Well to be fair, many of them have never been to En before, but they should at least be able to seek assistance from other admins who are En users like me. Maybe we can do more to facilitate this. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes I experienced too, how some admins here delete images without consideration of transferring to en.wiki, when US-PD even when specifically requested to do so, based on a "not my problem" attitude. Thus I share Gnangarra's, NVO's and other editors' concern of the danger of loss of educational content, since any bulk transfer does not allow for careful consideration of the involved risk. --ELEKHHT02:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject?
Don't know how far it'll work, but how about creating a WikiProject here on Commons; collect a chunk of volunteers and do a little "fun/game/competition" type thing to move eligible content from other wikis? I am working on a WikiProject (not yet created here) which will deal with importing commonly used templates and pages, but that wont be up until transwiki transclusion is enabled on MediaWiki (which will happen soon AFAIK). Hence we could also add "importing eligible files" as part of the project scope. Whadya say? We could turn this into something fun, rather than a big to-do list. Maybe add some awards per so many imports, bla bla... Comments? Rehman03:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I like idea of wiki project where we could have list of [[[:en:User:Multichill/top self uploaders|top self uploaders]] and add check mark with names for people checking licenses and separate for people using Pywikipediabots to move them. The license checking step will also be important for PD files. Multichill, thanks for your work on getting this started. --Jarekt (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The project which I was working on was Commons:WikiProject transwiki migration, of which its page I just created. We could of course, rename if the current title is not sweet enough. The projects needs workspace (subpages for discussions, tasks, etc), could use all the help in creating those ;) Rehman13:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey sorry for the delayed response; lost my connection there, something went wrong with my ISP network. The double /en was a typoactually it seems more like a glitch of some sort, I never performed a second move. Wouldn't it be better to have just one WikiProject, on Commons? We could always transclude the project page to the relevant wikis (once the feature is up) if it were that necessary, because after all, no matter on which sites the WikiProjects are created, it is finally to do with Commons... We could also import (to save original history) the de project page to Commons:WikiProject Transwiki migration/de; I can do that if someone shows me the green light. Rehman00:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I just did a bunch of flailing away to get images uploaded from Flickr. But it turns out we already hold the images: "File:Flickr - Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife - western painted turtle vandebergh odfw.jpg" I have done a gazillion searches for painted turtle and this file never came up. Is there some trick I need to learn? I wonder what I'm missing.
Sorry for the confusion. File just uploaded a day ago. I still wonder why it does not come up in search mode and if we should have file names that say Flickr in them.TCO (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The on-wiki search does not index new uploads right away, but make sure in the search that you are checking the "File" namespace checkbox (I really have no idea why this isn't checked by default on Commons). You might even want to press the "All" button to be thorough. If the site search doesn't work, you should always try Google site search: go to Google and search for e.g. "site:commons.wikimedia.org painted turtle flickr" (without quotes). Dcoetzee (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah...I didn't even know those buttons were down there. yeah, I should try to Google in, too.
Can I change the file names or do I have to be an admin to do that. I come across a lot of Red-eared slider pics and the description has alredy been fixed to say they are sliders, but the file name still says painted turtle. And then I guess someone scraped Flickr fro the Oregon images. But the names are way long.TCO (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry to need the step by step. But how do I do it? What part of the page do I put the template on? Does it wink open for me, to add fields? How do I work it?TCO (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Just edit the image description page and place {{rename|new name.jpg|reason for new name}} at the top. Add the proposed new name, and add a rationale for the name change. — Huntster (t@c)03:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Categorizing mediawiki messages
Is categorizing 'mediawiki messages' agreeable in commons? Because categorizing 'mediawiki messages translated from commons' can help people review them later. If OK, how? (using <noinclude>?). Any other options other than categorizing mediawiki messages available?--Praveen:talk19:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Inspired by category:Libraries thread above. Instead of checking external connections of the category, I looked inside and ... yes, what a mess. I can categorize them, at least, "by country" (in the case of the US this will go deeper down to "by county"). I might check/fix other categorization and sometimes "libraries by type", but that's it.
Wouldn't categorization "by location" cause more harm than good? Right now these poorly categorized files are all in one bucket. They'll end up in seventy smaller buckets. Does this, alone, make any sense? I mean, I don't really know if placing File:Bayt al Mukarram.jpg into "libraries" is correct. Quite likely, not. I can leave it in quite visible category:Libraries, or I can push it down to some obscure Category:Libraries in Dhaka - ?? NVO (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I would categorize it as "Libraries in Bangladesh" first, then if enough files of libraries from the country appear I would create the appropriate location subdirectory. Cat by location is a very useful categorization. However, as you point out, it must not be overused.
When categorizing, I usually think: "How can I find similar files to see if there's already a specific category to this building/COA/fish/whatever?", and then I create the cat tree according to that need. For instance, in that case you gave as example, I would look first into "Libraries in Bangladesh". Something like "Islamic libraries" also comes to mind, but I'm not sure if that is the case, and would have to look into that. So I would investigate a little and then proceed with categorization according to my findings and what already exists.--DarwinAhoy!19:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
January 27
help with first video load
I found a great, GREAT video for my article (perfect information, it's basically reciting my list of conservation issues) and it is public domain! It would go right in the spot where I had the turtle crossing picture.
1. How do I download it and upload it? Help? (I have no video experience).
2. Will it play properly on Wikipedia? When I click videos, they usually don't play well (from this site, rest of the net works fine). IOW, will people really be able to watch it?
3. Can I just embed the youtube video somehow? So if Wiki site is glitchey, people can watch it on youtube?
To my eyes, it appears that they are saying that only the images are public domain. "These images are the work of ODFW employees, taken during the course of the person's official duties and belong to the Public Domain." (Emphasis mine.) I would suggest emailing them and asking for them to specifically label the video you are wanting as public domain, or for them to put a blanket statement on the video index page just as they did for the image page. Remember, by default, works by U.S. state employees are not public domain, so it must be assumed to not be unless specifically stated otherwise. — Huntster (t@c)08:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
A. I'm going to double check that. I noted the same ambiguity. I have gotten permissions before from NH FG and requested from othe states. That's why this was interesting. Take a look at their flickr page!
B. How about the technical questions?? If I get the permission can you do the razzle dazzle and download upload it? And will anyone be able to see it? Seems like our stream is so bad.TCO (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about that. No, you cannot embed YouTube videos for the standard reasons of avoiding copyright violations. However, There are sites for downloading YouTube vidoes (youddl.com), and then you can convert them from the FLV format to OGV with program like FireFogg. If you want, if/when Oregon updates their licensing, drop a note on my talk page with a link to the you want to transfer to Commons, and I'll take care of it. As for videos not working for you on Commons, I really can't comment on that, as they work fine for me. — Huntster (t@c)09:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I sent an email asking for clarification and (if the wording does not cover videos) than a specific license request. (I'm not asking them to change their website. But I'll upload an OTRS with the email stating their clarification or licence.) Thanks for handling the technical details! They actually have a comment about being willing to send more high res pics, so they may be willing to work with us on format and sending the video if you can't strip it. I left the door open for that.
It's not about my viewing so much. Am just concerned for my readers. Just want to gauge if the video will be effective (I know the content is perfect, but if it is difficult to watch, then maybe a link is more effective.) If the thing plays perfect, of course I would like to keep the reader "in page". And have this slick video.
BTW, you realize this is a few minute long, youtube sized video. That seems very normal all over the Web, but on this site I mostly see tiny boxes and the clips run a few seconds. Are we OK to handle a video that size. (Note I'm not asking about the artisitic issue of should I have a snippet versus a longer video. It's actually the narration here which is helpful.)TCO (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did a test conversion, and an initial test at full quality came out at 40 Mb. I reduced settings a bit and got it down to 21 Mb, and it looks virtually the same. I could probably knock it down even further since video quality isn't a big deal (so long as FireFogg doesn't throw a fit, as it's prone to do). So, should be no problem at all. — Huntster (t@c)11:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Do not downgrade video quality. We want as close to original quality videos as possible. 40 MB is fine - the thumbnail videos displayed in articles are smaller, just as with images. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the original FLV is 22 Mb, its the conversion to OGV that inflates it, and I have a feeling the 21 Mb OGV is a the more natural conversion, given the lack of options available in Miro, which is what I first used. Check the video link above to see what I mean about video quality not being a big deal...it's more of a slideshow, except for a very low quality recording late in the piece. I've got no problem with uploading the 40 Mb file, but it really is a bit pointless in this specific case, D. — Huntster (t@c)11:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah...it is more of a slide show. It's the voice narration with the slides (the points they make) that are like a recital of parts of my article. But in a different format (so good for people). TCO (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Does the size I display at affect how much data streams (and wehtner people have a hard time watching)? I would like to put it in article at "youtube size" which is really already "small" compared to a TV image. Just hate when stuff is so micro, that we can't appreciate the images.TCO (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Mmm, I wouldn't recommend putting the video in an article at such large size. You can make a note in the caption that the full size is available on the media page. Regarding the Missouri video, it appears to be an MP4 file, so that shouldn't pose any problem either. — Huntster (t@c)12:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, a size similar to the original FLV is fine in this case (although it'd be better if you could get access to the original video in some higher fidelity format to transcode). Dcoetzee (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand the artistic debate but would like to have enough megs so that if I choose to have a youtube sized video in article, it is available. (I really don't think that is so awful big and it's totally normal website construction. I mean, you don't see the states embedding a tiny version on their websites. And I don't really consider a youtube video to be "full size" anyway. It's already a much reduced size versus full screen or versus a TV. I can work on getting the higher resultion code sent. TCO (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Actualy though, see less need for the MO video in article. The OR one is the one that helps where my other image was axed (content is more encyclopedic).TCO (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
A. Sorry to sound argumentative (was never good in the sangbox). I TOTALLY appreciate your kindness and expertise! :-) Go turtles!
B. OR gave CC-by-SA permission (yeah!) and I'm uploading an OTRS (will refer to your user name and subject and source) as file name is not up yet. (BTW, they never answered my question on the gallery of videos, but did grant the specific license. "You were right!")
C. He said video is 42Meg, he could sent a CD but can't email it. Do you have what you need or should I get some CD or dropbox or file conversion? The version the permission fellow had was wmv.TCO (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I sent in the OTRS to permissions and referenced your username and this discussion (and asked kind permission for the file name not being up yet). After you upload the file, I can send a followup to the volunteer.TCO (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
(Update): They sent me an update and they are tweaking the video a bit. Asked us to hold up with "publishing", so please hold off. Then will need to convert that new video (apologies for the rework). (I don't know exactly what there concern was, it sounded more artistic, than something legal.) I think this is best encyclopedically (and safest in context of the permission just coming a couple hours ago) to have the current version. We can see how it changed. May be an improved version. TCO (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, just let me know when they finish with their fixes. I have OTRS access, so I'll be handling that ticket. Everything looks fine with the ticket, so I'll send a confirmation email to you and them. As for the file itself, I have everything I need; so long as they upload the file to YouTube, I can download it without difficulty.
As for the Missouri file, if you've already sent a request and they give permission, then all the better. No need to turn down freely-licensed material. Let me know all the same what their response is. — Huntster (t@c)23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me. I'm kind of an old ex-convict (was permabanned) so appreciate you helping me. We'll wait on MO. They were a little less progressive than OR. Not sure if OR will fix both the on-site and youtube versions of their vid. and it is 1800 out there right now, so will be later tomorrow at earliest before they get it squared away. Thanks for hanging in there! TCO (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I have the new video from Oregon. Viewed it and it is fine. (It's a little long, but the stuff I care about is front-loaded so it's easy for my reader and I'll call out features to look for in the caption. And obviously now that we have it anyone do derivitve work. But I'd like the full play for base file please.) Here is the youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeTVghxdZwI (will send you a talk page note as well. but just commons this time.)
Really appreciate your expertise in the conversion and all. Please come over to the "other side" and give me a hand if there are any playback issues when put in article. Just want to make sure the whole bit of work finally delivers a result.
BTW, this is really kinda cool. They were very up for the deal and kinda think we are a big deal. I kinda think they are kinda right! Anyhow, positive interaction...and you know they have more stuff on their site! TCO (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
anyone use Forestryimages.com for images?
I signed up on their system. Trying to learn how to use their different things and then not sure what sort of images to take for wiki. They talk about powerpoint settings and large page downloads and the like. They are half CCbySA and half CC_NC. Want to learn how to ask for permission to for some of the stuff that says NC. Also they have a lot of National Park Service images that are NC. Seems wrong, no?
I signed up for it. It is a free account. Very slick at how you can download images to your "light table" (like a shopping cart) or directly. Two images I really want are NC, but they have a procedure to ask for more rights so am doing so. The NPS designation for NC still bugs me though.TCO (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Cool. I will hack away at it. Only part I don't understand is your comment on NPS. in the Bugunderwood I linked it says CC-NC. But it also says she is NPS. How do I handle that? Is it just a mistake and I can treat it as PD? Did she take the pic in her spare time, but still represent herself as NPS? Is she trying to earn extra money when she shouldn't? Do I just call it PD and roll with that (that is fine by me).
Any of these is a possibility. I lean more towards the possibility that it is in fact a PD work done as part of her duties, but you'll have to make your own judgement call. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I had aleady followed the procedures for asking for the broader license (using the whole "light tray") for that specific image (and one other by same phogog). She emailed back with one of those "use it however you want" emails. GRR! Not the "repeat back" that I requested giving CC-by-SA. But I will suck it up, put my charm hat back on and ask again.
I suspect you are right about the general gallery of NPS images there being legit for the broader license. I had already sent an email to Bugwood (they have not replied yet). I might send one to NPS directly also. I'm not trying to be a rules ninny or beat on people (I'm normally the anti-rule person), but I just don't like the inconsistency. I wonder if others are stopping from uploading content for instance because they take a too restrictive license on that site and they we lose possible donation, and the mission of that site to spread knowledge is limited. (That said, perhaps the administrators there like having the improperly restrictive wording as it gives them more reason to exist than if we had most of their content. And it is a sweet little site with the light table and output to Powerpoint and all!) I need my little plastron picture, but the issue is broader.TCO (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I corresponded with the Forestry Images people. He said, that we should not assume it's PD if name says NPS or BLM (federal employee). They can have pictures that are from personal time. Or grad school or whatever. Acknowledged that there may be overclassification of some images in effect, but that we need to regard the as-stated license and ask permission because of this issue of off-time creations. He said they have previously communicated this with wiki. I'll send an OTRS in just in case it's helpful. His email was thoughtful.TCO (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh and I'm basically hosed on my immediate needsince the NPS person would not give me a strong enough acknowledgement. Got the whole "do whatever you want" even thought I askeod for a litany. TCO (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't feel comfortable uploading stuff that says NC now. First, well, it explicitly says NC. Secondd we've been warned not to make guesses or judgments based on where someone works. I guess I could push NPS to put pressure on their employees and on Bugwood to get some of the overclass straightened out. But I don't feel good doing that, seeing that they are trying to share things even if not doing it same way as us.TCO (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see talk page of the file. Somebody could be mislead by the title of the file to believe that there is Essad Pasha Toptani on the picture. But instead of him, I believe there is mistake in the file and file should be redirected to: Prince Wied, Isa Boletini, Duncan Heaton-Armstrong and Colonel Thomson.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Tips on mechanics and kosherness of snagging photos of old book plates
Like this [29] (poster sites, selling with watermarks( or this [30] (just a site, I guess).
Also what about places like Open Library or Archive. Where they have old books and you can download a pdf or read online. For instance, the back of this book has about 20 pages of illos that would help a big en:WP project on turtles. But can one grab from the site or pdf (mechanically, I assume it is legit). See here: [31]
As long as the images fall into the public domain, there should be no problems using them. The important part is making sure that they indeed are in the PD. Usually that means that you must have the author dead for >70 years ({{PD-old}}) or the image published in the US before 1923 ({{PD-US-1923}}). The books digitized by the Internet Archive are certainly in the PD (or else they could not be using them).
A good way to get images from the Internet Archive: use the "Read Online" feature, make your way to the desired page (example), open (or copy the address of) the image of the page ([32]), then replace "scale=x" with "scale=0" in the address ([33]). You can then use the high-resolution image however you like. Alternatively, I guess, if you intend to collect images from all over the book, you could: go to the Internet Archive (the link is on the bottom of the Open Library description), follow the "All Files: HTTP" link, then download the full book as a compressed archive (the "jp2" files). That's all. I hope I didn't go into too much detail here... —Quibik (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
n.b. As I understand it (this is going to be embarrassing if I'm wrong!) "The books digitized by the Internet Archive are certainly in the PD" in the United States. For Commons to accept them, they would also need to be out of copyright in their source country. Jarry1250 (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
1. Thanks man. This one is 1792. (German.) Although it may have published here too. There are libraries with it. Should be clear at that old, no?
2. So I will probably dork it up a couple times, but you gave excellent advice on downloading the book and images at full scale and all. If I get the book is there some file conversion or I guess cropping needed? Will paint to it?
3. Last one is those sites that try to sell posters of old stuff. you know with a watermark on the image and all. Don't need it for the turtles, but sometimes old engravings of other stuff (Baroque art). Any advice on how to get proper download? Just right click and save the pic or what?TCO (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
4. Actually on that turtle project, I want to save like 20 pages. So mauybe should just save the book. I brought it over as a 16M pdf, but I guess I need to do what you talk about. Hope I can restrict it to the plates (at back of book).TCO (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
A published book from 1792 is public domain, period. In general, we believe scans of that type of thing do not give rise to any additional copyright, so if you want to upload them, they would be fine. Depending on where you get them, you still may cause friction with the institution that scanned them, put them online, etc., as often they don't want people copying them (even if it is legal, copyright-wise). Always best to credit them, as the very least. Only you can gauge how many problems there may be, if it violates their terms of service (they could block you if it is an account-type thing), how much you want to respect their wishes, etc. As for entire books... yes, please. The Wikisource projects are meant for that (they transcribe the text, or can run OCR on uploads which have page images). European sites can also have something called the "sui-generis database right", which is basically a copyright on the collection -- you can't copy a database, even if the items are public domain, if there was some investment in the collection (though you can copy individual items). Copying one book should be OK, but, perhaps, copying all books made available could be an issue. The preferred format for an entire book is .djvu, but PDFs are OK too. They should be uploaded to Commons; wikisource can make use of them (if they choose) just like wikipedias can. You can also make a particular page of a DJVU or PDF file appear as an illustration in a wikipedia article -- just add "page=XX" to the "File:" definition to choose which to display. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Cool, we are shifting from theory land to getting work done land. Is there anyone interested in helping? We would make you a member of Project Turtle. Seriously that is a rocking project racking of Featured Articles. We are doing a big blitz to get GAs done and I'm up to my ass in...turtles. Need to stop doing everything myself. If you look at the beaiutiful book, the whole last 30 pages or so are plates of meticulous oil paintings of main turtles. We have used them before for taxoboxes. Anyone here stoked to upload, convert, crop clean, etc.? It really is a beautiful set of classic images that is intriguing we still get FA use out of.! TCO (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Can't Change Categories
File: Imperial Monogram of Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico.svg, was incorrectly tagged for the category "Royal Cypher" instead of the correct category of "Royal Cyphers" with an "s" at the end. I've tried to click "Find Categories" to re-assign it, but for the last couple of days, all I get there is an error message reading "Database Error: Unknown database 'eswiki_p' (sql-toolserver) on sql-toolserver/eswiki_p
- Failed to connect to database!
no wiki db"
I've also tried to go in and re-upload this file into the correct category name, but it still won't go.--Glasshouse 18:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
All of these have now been nailed. No doubt there will be more later, but right now there are no open issues. - Jmabel ! talk20:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Log-out during editing
The last weeks I experienced that I am often (about twice a day) logged-out during editing. With Wikipedia I have not that much a problem. Although it is easy to log in again, I wonder what has been changed. Wouter (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I have the same problem for last few years, although not frequently (1-2 times a week). It is especially annoying when it happens in the middle of editing, especially of protected pages. --Jarekt (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
My browser Firefox is set to accept cookies except of third parties. It happens in particular when editing a page. Wouter (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe that is the problem. I am using Firefox too, but I have my browser set to accept third-party cookies and I don't get logged out at all, even in between sessions (when I shut down my laptop and then turn it on again the next day, I am still logged in). — Cheers, JackLee–talk–11:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, convert to jpeg and upload under a new file name. PNG thumbnailing does only work until 12.5 mpx for our projects' servers. Then link both files.
However, we probably cannot keep this file due to licensing problems. You write: "author unknown, the initials "WK"". The author must be dead for more than 70 years. Or you need permission be his heirs, or the images must have been published anonymously and you cannot find the author even by searching hard, or ...
The image might as well have been published anonymously, as the initials of an amateur painter are not very helpful. Plus, I am assuming my grandfather and the painter who painted him made a transaction (as much as they could in the prisoner-of-war camp) where all the rights were transferred to my grandfather :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk02:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I suspect even if it's an amateur painter, a clearly signed painting does not qualify as anonymous. I'm not sure why you would assume that he transferred copyright; in many countries--including Russia, where I'm guessing this transaction happened--it has to be a transaction done in writing, and it strikes me as the last thing most people would worry about doing in a prisoner-of-war camp.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Normally I wouldn't bring a simple categorization question to the Village Pump, but Category:Libraries is a pretty important category, and the issue at hand here is likely to propagate down to literally hundreds, if not thousands, of geographic subcategories.
Besides being in Category:Education buildings, which I think we would all agree is reasonable, Category:Libraries is also in Category:Science buildings. I'm guessing—though I'm honestly not sure—that the motivation for this is via the German word Wissenschaft, often translated into English as science, but the two words aren't quite the same. The English word science is more like Naturwissenschaft: it doesn't include (for example) literature or ethnology, which in English would be part of the "humanities" and "social sciences", respectively, neither of which is considered "science". Many libraries have little or nothing to do with what would normally be called "science" in English.
Since we are using English for our category hierarchy, Wissenschaft isn't a concept easily used in the hierarchy. No word in English precisely corresponds to Wissenschaft, and we can't just redefine/invent a word. The only reason I even had a guess as to why someone would use this word is that I have semi-decent German (especially for reading).
As I said, I know this is a more important categorization issue than most, so I'm not "being bold". I'll inform every user who has ever modified Category:Libraries; please feel free to let others know about this discussion. - Jmabel ! talk02:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I personally agree that a library should not be considered a "science building". But more broadly I think the sheer effort needed to correct such an issue in a category hierarchy is a symptom of why categories are bad. A tag-based system in which e.g. Libraries in Bremen are simply files tagged with both "Library" and "Bremen" would avoid this. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dcoetzee, I see what you are hinting at, and I think that one day we will probably move to a system that is interchangeable between both. The downside of your proposal is for someone who does NOT know exactly what he is searching for - in a category system, he can follow the branches down (going from more generic to more specific) and so find answers for which he only had a bad grasp of the question (for example "what are the types of buildings in Bremen?" - a pure tag system would not give him an answer like a "buildings in bremen" category provides).
That little aside, and noting that, yes, I did the original edit to place libraries into science buildings, I would argue that that still remains correct in a very reasonable sense, if one looks at the word science a little bit more widely. Science, is essentially applied research, mixed with methodical trial and error and intuition. Libraries are one of the core places where one does research (though today, that function is moving more and more into the internet - which in some ways is just an immense virtual library). Therefore, I argue that libraries are essentially tools of science, and thus perfectly reasonably within "science buildings". Regards Ingolfson (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Smart search would go a long way. Given every dinky little site uses it now, I wonder why ours is so hard to use and not smart about doing substitutes for misspellings and the like. I mean this is 2011 and it is somewhat a technology venture. But the search seems pre 2000 in capability. maybe pre 1995. TCO (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Could we try to keep this section on topic about what we should do with Category:Libraries and its subcategories under the system we actually have? If people want to start a separate discussion on replacing the entire category system, fine, but that discussion is likely to go on for weeks, more likely months, and this immediate issue will get lost in the shuffle if the two are combined. - Jmabel ! talk07:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Libraries are not science buildings. Libraries have...books. Science buildings have labs with shiny faucets and glassware and stuff. If I drew a Venn diagram, about 99% of libraries would not be science buildings. Or visa versa. There's probably some tiny fraction (the 1%) of buildings that have enough books to be catted as a library and enough labs to be catted as a science building. Essentially they are multi-use buildings. In that case, I would just tag with each category separately.TCO (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't even consider a dedicated science library to be a science building. No faucets and stuff. I'm dead serious. TCO (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
One must avoid intertwining two category trees. Usee science libraries as subcategory of libraries, if one wishes, but do not put Libraries in Science buildings. --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
In my view, libraries are not buildings, but organizations, or parts of larger organizations. The French National Library has more than one building. So Libraries, as organizations, should be part of Category:Educational places along with exhibitions or universities. The English Wikipedia's categorization scheme : Buildings and structures by type ; Public services ; Cultural organizations ; Cultural heritage ; Educational organizations; Information storage is quite good too. Teofilo (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the mistake. It is similar with Category:Automotive industry being included in Category:Automobiles. Categorization does not always mean "is an item of" it may also mean "is connected with". Categories are not always things, they can be actions. A library can be seen as a "book storing activity", rather than a building. We need to interconnect the actions categories and things categories somehow. By the way, to the opposite of some libraries being more than one building, some other libraries are less than one building : category:Library (Room). Teofilo (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Teofilo that categorization is not always an 'is-a' relationship. An obvious example of this is that the subcategories of a geographical place are typically 'is or was located in'. - Jmabel ! talk23:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I think, in general, categorizing libraries, museums, and schools somewhere under buildings is useful. The other alternative would be to have, for example Category:Library buildings under Category:Libraries, but since the most typical case is that a library corresponds to a single building, that seems to me to be slicing things a bit thin. - Jmabel ! talk23:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It does seem to me that we are leaning toward a consensus that libraries should not be considered "science buildings." - Jmabel ! talk23:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Not practical. "Create" takes seconds, but then someone has to manage categorization day by day - if not, uploads will pile up in main category:Libraries just like they do now. If you volunteer to do it regularly, excellent! if not, it's a stillborn proposal. NVO (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Docu: Here's an example. Yesterday I stumbled at category:Elektronika, which is a "by brand" category, but became a magnet for anything electronic-related - elektronika is just electronics in Polish, Czech and Slovak languages. So I had to move 45 files to somewhere else. I can comprehend these languages, and the subject field (sort of...) and still the process took around three hours (no copyright review, no deletion requests - just browsing files and categories). It must be done regularly, say, once in two months. Someone has to invest their own life hours into managing this tiny tidbit of imagery. As a self-appointed janitor of a a far larger category:Moscow I know that regular maintenance of a well-known subject field doesn't take a lot of time, but it requires commitment to do it at least monthly. Here's a question: who would volunteer to police category:Libraries ? NVO (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I still fail to follow your explanation: Category:Libraries is already there. Nobody suggested to delete it because nobody "would volunteer to police it". We don't "police" categories around here and nobody creates them just because he will maintain them forever. To return to my suggestion: I proposed to create Category:Exteriors of library buildings. This is unlikely to mean anything else in another language. -- Docu at10:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Category:Arquitectura negra is being used as parent category of village categories including maps, landscapes etc.. This seems inappropriate category building to me, as only architecture items should go into that category. Can spanish users discuss that, and if needed, rearrange that category? --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Machine translation: Category:Arquitectura negra se utiliza como categoría principal de categorías de la aldea como mapas, paisajes, etc... Esto parece inadecuado de categoría de construcción para mí, como sólo los elementos de arquitectura deben ir en esa categoría. ¿Usuarios españoles pueden discutir esto y si es necesario, reorganice esa categoría? --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The arquitecrtura negra itself is a constructive way of a specific area, the Ayllón Mountains, whose villages are constructed entirely in accordance with this architecture, so it is above include the categories of those in Category:Arquitectura negra. (La arquitectura negra es una forma constructiva propia de una zona en concreto, la sierra de Ayllón, y cuyos pueblos están construidos enteramente siguiendo esta arquitectura, por lo que es precedente incluir las categorías de éstos en la Categoría Arquitectura negra.) Sonsaz (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The truth is imo in the middle of this. I refer to Category:El Cardoso de la Sierra as an example (other categories dont contain enough images) most of this is not architecture, so the categorization isnt appropriate. It would be good to separate a category 'Buildings in El Cardoso de la Sierra' and subcategorize that to not include people and nature photos into the Arquitectura negra category. If not the whole village is in that architecture style the category Buildings in El Cardoso de la Sierra can be separated more. However, there is not enough material, so adding the village to the architecture category might be an temporary solution. Another sollution would of course to not categorize the villages but to look out for the individual images showing this architecture and adding this images to the category only, not the whole village. Additionally a gallery Arquitectura negra can contain captions pointing the reader to the village categories, e.g. {{Category see also}}. Thats a better sollution, it of course includes the use of more possibilities of Commons (so called "Galleries"), people forget from time to time that categorization is not the sollution for anything. --Martin H. (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Partly true. Both in this case as in others, these people are completely built according to this architecture. While most images are of mountains, since the municipalities are very mountainous. But also make sense in the arquitectura negr (black architecture). The arquitectura negra is characterized precisely because the principal material used for buildings is the slate, a rock that is extracted precisely from those mountains. Therefore, they also form an active part of the arquitectura negra. Therefore, and because it is a unique architecture that area, I motivated the need to categorize these municipalities in Category: Arquitectura negra. Sonsaz (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Video upload from flickr
How do you upload a video from flickr? It has an okay permission... but how do I download it to my computer (or better even, upload it directly to Commons)? Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Too bad there isn't a reasonably easy way yet... I think videos like this one would be quite good value for Commons. Oh well... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
embedding subtitle inside ogv and upload video to commons
I need some help.. I am trying to embed the Greek subtitles in the video Great Feeling.ogv into a new video. I followed the instruction from Commons:Video#Subtitles and closed captioning and the referring external page en.flossmanuals.net/TheoraCookbook/EmbeddingSubtitles and I upload the new video (with the embedded Greek subtitles) under the new name [35].. but the subtitles do not appear. I am using Ubuntu 10.04 and the subtitles play without problems under the mplayer.. but with vlc they don't play.
The idea is to embed the greek subtitles in these tutorial videos about the wikipedia.. in order to use them in the el.wikipedia project. We want these videos to be available (with subtitles) to any user, even anonymous without enabling mwEmbed gadget.
Can someone please help (or send me to another place here or at En-wiki for help) get a video to play properly? This is not about "my system". It's about a video that I want to put in article, but 3 users in a row (even with different browsers) were unable to get to play. If I put a video in article (just like an image or text), I just want it to work when the outside readers click on it. The youtube video works fine so it's not an issue of us as users not having enough bandwidth, we see videos fine on any other site and have highspeed access. Is there something we can fix in the formatting? Otherwise I can't stick it in my article.
And sorry, not meaning to bleat like a sheep. I know we are all on the same team, trying to get great content in front of our readers! And I've gotten a LOT of help to get to where I am. Just need a bit more.
Video on Commons: [36]
Video in talk page of article: [37]
(problem same either location)
Works fine for me with embedded support in Firefox 3.6 and Opera 11. People need (AFAIK) a recent browser with embedded ogv support or a Java plugin to watch videos. Click on "more..." to see which player is selected and available. It works not if I select Java (Cortado) - then it buffers until 19% but does not play.
But from a standpoint of providing content to the average civilian coming over here, can we make the thing play in the most common browsers? Otherwise, should I put in my article something that majority of general readers will have a problem with? Isn't there something I can do on my end, rather than ask people to have Opera? TCO (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Firefox can play those videos natively since version 3.5 (released 2009-06-30). Opera since 10.5 (released 2010-03). Google Chrome since 2009-09. See en:Use_of_Ogg_formats_in_HTML5#Support Not sure what works in Internet Explorer; probably no native support - so only the java plugin, which should work, too.
I find Commons videos do not play in an old 2008 Safari browser version 3.2.1 for Windows (I do not wish to upgrade that). What browser are you and the other users you mentioned using? Are you able to play any Commons video? All audio and videos work for me on Windows Vista with these standard browsers (no plugins needed): Chrome 8.0.552.237; Opera 11.01; Firefox 3.6.13. I also tested some test videos I have at User:84user/Videos_uploaded and they still work. What about audio only? Scroll down to "The Tantalizing Fly audio intro" to test File:Tantalizing_Fly_1919.AVI.025s0to16nova6.ogg. -84user (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been able to play some Commons vidoes but had issues with others. I think this one is worse than others, so maybe there is still some formatting that would help it. I'm on IE. I mean that is not like a small fraction of users who are on IE. I would expect still more than 50% of English speaking web surfers are on IE. It's not about ME being able to watch the video. I want content to put into my article to display to my readers.TCO (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Merger is easy, and I'd personally be in favour of moving Norfolk, England back to Norfolk - there don't appear to be any places which are JUST referred to as Norfolk (we have cats for a naval base and an island). -mattbuck (Talk) 03:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
There's five cities around the world known as Norfolk. I think they should consistently be at City, Nation or City, State.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. It's been 3 days since i've been trying to upload a SVG file. I checked the name and has no colon (:). I also tried changing the name of the file, both the one in my local drive and the destination one. The error i get is:
Error message
key 'fq7dohvbi1nhep4qktjl55mqmd08z93.' is not in a proper format
Backtrace:
#0 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/includes/upload/UploadBase.php(557): UploadStash->stashFile('/tmp/phpFsM98J', Array, NULL)
#1 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/includes/upload/UploadBase.php(569): UploadBase->stashSessionFile(NULL)
#2 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/includes/specials/SpecialUpload.php(322): UploadBase->stashSession()
#3 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/includes/specials/SpecialUpload.php(413): SpecialUpload->showUploadWarning(Array)
#4 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/includes/specials/SpecialUpload.php(167): SpecialUpload->processUpload()
#5 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/includes/SpecialPage.php(561): SpecialUpload->execute(NULL)
#6 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/includes/Wiki.php(254): SpecialPage::executePath(Object(Title))
#7 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/includes/Wiki.php(64): MediaWiki->handleSpecialCases(Object(Title), Object(OutputPage), Object(WebRequest))
#8 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/index.php(117): MediaWiki->performRequestForTitle(Object(Title), NULL, Object(OutputPage), Object(User), Object(WebRequest))
#9 /usr/local/apache/common-local/live-1.5/index.php(3): require('/usr/local/apac...')
#10 {main}
If the upload function doesn't recognize the files as being SVG, it helps if you edit the svg slightly and try to upload it then. I edited your comment to collapse the error log -- Docu at08:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much. It absolutely worked. --ESCJosep 08:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Over-categorization of the Louvre
Paintings in the Louvre are categorized by school of origin, such as French, and then by room. One problem here is this latter level often has only one or even zero images, while a second problem is that placement of paintings in the Louvre, like that in other museums, is not constant.
Why not collapse the room categories into fewer, usually one category, such as by school, e.g. German paintings, or perhaps by school and by century, such as 15th century French paintings?
I agree that "by gallery" or "by room" categories are only useful if items are not regularly moved around within the museum. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–19:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a more general question about wether we should put the room location in the file description.
{{Artwork}} has an optional "location" parameter that is supposed to be used for that. In some museums it may cause problems but in the case of the Louvre it should be okay (artworks don't move that often there). ::Having "by room" categories can be interesting since there is some coherence in the way the museum organizes its collections. And it has the advantage of being very simple and unambiguous. I don't see it as incompatible with other possible categorization methods - but it is true it not very easy to maintain a dual Louvre categorization system.
I would argue for an automatic categorization through {{Louvre location}}. However some Louvre rooom categories should probably be renamed this would make things more consistent and clearer.--Zolo (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
More on categorization in four major museums. The Metropolitan Museum has been done well done well, it seems to me, but the Louvre, the Kusthistorisches, and the Hermitage are, I'll say, not so much.
The Metropolitan Museum category seems well organized to me. Collection of the MM / Paintings in the MM / 17 subcategories: American paintings in the MM, Ancient Egyptian etc, Asian, Austrian, British, . . . . . / Some country subcategories have artist categories.
The Louvre category, as I said, is over-categorized by far: Collections of the Louvre / Paintings in the Louvre, plus some odd, single-file, categories such as Louvre G103, and two artist categories, e.g., Works by Watteau in the Louvre / 11 subcategories by country, e.g., Dutch paintings in the Louvre / Then in each country there are subcategories by room, e.g., Dutch paintings in the Louvre - Room 4, with one file,or Dutch paintings in the Louvre - Room 5 (empty) and there are six such empty subcategories just in Dutch painting. The subcategory French painting in the Louvre has all the paintings in the top category, but then 67 subcategories by room. The subcategory Paintings from Italy in the Louvre (note the different format) has subcategories by room and by artist.
Kunsthistorisches Museum (KM) / Paintings in the KM / A mish-mash of subcategories by country, by artist, by style, . . The subcategories by artist are called "Paintings by (name of artist) in the KM" so that all are alphabeticized under P. Many have only one file.
Hermitage Museum (HM) / Collections of the HM / Paintings in the H / Subcategories by some styles (i.e., baroque) and by some countries and "Hermitage hi-res from a .torrent", with 101 images, many far exceeding 10 Mb.
--Henrytow (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
"Hermitage hi-res from a .torrent." This is a source category. This can be usesul (eg if you want to find high quality files), but iles classified there should also be in other cats
"Paintings by (name of artist) in the KM", I think this can be okay and could even make categories easier to maintain iff this is done systtemically for this museum and preferably for all museums.
Louvre G103" I suppose you a referring to Category:Model Ship - Louvre E17364 or the like. These categories are single-artwork categories, jhust like Category:Meditation on the Passion by Carpaccio in the Met. It is the only manageable way I know handle artworks with multiple images, they should be categoriezed the same ways as files.
About the general idea of categorization. The problem is that we can either adopt the museum categorization system or a unified Commons way. Or we can try to adpot both systems at the same time. I think this is what is currently done and it may be a good thing in some respects, but probably we should agree on more explicit rules and automatize part of the work, to ensure a certain degree of unity, but I am not sure it is going to be easy.
For the Louvre: I think the idea was to have a dual system: one by curatorial departement and another by room, but it curely needs to be revamped. The problem is that the Louvre classification system is rather obscure. I live in Paris and have been in the Louvre many times yet I still don't fully understand how it works. There website itself is not very clear (neither their maps, nor the room classification in Atlas database--Zolo (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Auto-playing videos on Commons
I've just looked up this category... and a video it contains has kept auto-playing. This is not only annoying in itself (why waste ressources on loading a video I don't want to see?!), but besides, it comes with sound, which happily auto-played along. Every time I reloaded the page (I was sub-categorizing images with Cat-a-lot), the video re-started until I gave up to come here and simply left all the ill-fitting images in the category...
How do we stop this from happening??!
I'm not just asking for an option how *I* can stop this. Pages with materials that auto-start video or sound are in my (and not only my :o)) opinion highly annoying and not worthy of being included in a decent project like Commons (let D-rated commercial websites deal with them). And besides, it's just not good for the project if contributors like me stop working at a category because some materials there keep auto-playing. We can't expect everyone to first deal with "protecting themselves from thoughtless programming" before they will contribute again... it means (as in my case) that work simply doesn't get done.
I agree start autostarting is annoying (a thing which is bad at gif anis). However, our ogg videos and sounds do not autostart usually. Could you please tell us your browser config? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Very odd. After you've all said you don't see the same effect, I've gone once again to that category... and no problems this time. Despite the fact that last time, it occurred consistently after reloading the page ("intentionally"), using Cat-a-Lot, opening images & then using the "back" key, etc. I'm pretty sure I didn't even reboot my computer in the meantime (just hibernated), didn't update the browser or otherwise change settings. Just plain odd. But fine. Well, I'll keep an eye out and will come back to the Village Pump if the problem/error/oddity occurs again. BTW, which browser settings would you like to know in that case? - Very puzzled: Ibn Battuta (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you just clicked on play accidently. ;-)
Settings: Well, most important: which browser exactly (name, version number), less important: which operating system, any extentions/addons/plugins which are installed in the browser. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Legal warnings
Do we really need warnings like Template:EKCH warning? Thousands of airports have policies like this. It is not the responsibility of Wikimedia Commons to warn about all the worldwide legislation regarding photography. If it is, a lot of templates are missing! :D --Ysangkok (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, it looks dubious to me. "Users of this media should ensure that this media is made with permission." Last time I checked, this kind of law is a non-copyright restriction and any illegal activity by the uploader is their problem, not ours. I'm also skeptical of the claim that "distributing pictures of persons at work or clients in areas comparable to an airport, without each person's explicit consent is most likely illegal." What? I'm not familiar with any Danish law protecting privacy of persons in photographs beyond ordinary personality rights. I would be happy to support a nomination of this template for deletion. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
@Dcoetzee re: «Distributing pictures of persons at work or clients in areas comparable to an airport, without each person's explicit consent is most likely illegal». Spanish Organic Law 15/1999 of 13 of December (Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos) strictly forbids too those kind of activities (not limited to airports only). That Law is applied by the Kingdom of Spain Data Protection Agency (AEPD). But of course, it's the uploader responsability to accomplish with the laws. --Dferg(talk · meta)22:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
When I created the template I clearly wrote that I'm not sure if this is making to much of it? The background was an incident I had at the airport, which afterwards made me pursue the subject further. The issue is that distribution of these photos (in theory - no conviction of this has been made yet) can be illegal according to the Danish Law on Personal Data Management (da: Persondataloven) §6 and result in imprisonment of up to six years by enforcement of the Danish Penal Code (da: Straffeloven) §114b in certain situations. Where there has been verdicts for breaking the Danish Law on Personal Data Management §6 (in case of photography of customers walking in and out of a bank, people working at an train station, postal workers doing their route and emergency services employees in non-emergency situations, there has so far not been any enforcment the Penal Code §114b (it's rather new). Given that the airport also has a regulation for this, my thought was that this was somewhat - though not as generic - as {{Personality rights}} but slightly different. --Henrik (heb: Talk·Contributions·E-mail) 12:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Even if that is true, the template seems to claim permission is needed from the airport (that law sounds like a privacy law really, where you would need permission from the people themselves), and it seems to be applied to photographs taken at the airport regardless if it contains people or not. From what you say this could apply to photographs taken at many different venues, not just that one airport, and is more like a privacy law (i.e. reason for deletion, not just a warning). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I was told that the laws of personality rights and prevention of terrorism was the background for the airport regulation. I have no idea wither this applies to airports in general or not (Copenhagen Airport is the only place I've ever been stopped by security for taking pictures). --Henrik (heb: Talk·Contributions·E-mail)
January 31
Detective work
File:Paolina Borghese Canova.jpg is licensed under the GFDL and cc-by-sa, but does not indicate who took the photograph. The image was transferred from the English Wikipedia, which took it from the Italian Wikipedia, which in turn states that the image is originally from the Swedish Wikipedia. However, none of the description pages state who the photographer was and I can't find the original file anywhere on sv.wikipedia. The user who uploaded the file on it.wikipedia has been inactive since 2007. How should I proceed here? Jafeluv (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe your answer is here. In 2005 that file was in the Swedish Wiki under the name "Canova01.jpg" (which since then was used here in Commons for other sculpture). All you have to do is to ask some admin at wiki-sv to read in the deleted file who was the author/uploader of that photo.--DarwinAhoy!09:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Will Flickr allow selection of newer CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensing?
Hi all, looking to get some insight into creative commons licensing options on Flickr. When designating a license on Flickr (via the drop-down menu), it displays the option to choose CC-BY-SA 2.0; however the newer CC-BY-SA 3.0 license is not presented as an option. Does anyone happen to know if/when Flickr will allow use of the 3.0 standard? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Incomplete deletion requests
It seems that the menu for deletion requests often gives the message incomplete deletion request, and yet, the deletion request turns out to be complete. Can someone fix that? --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Support --Jarekt (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Info for someone who is curious if there are similar discussions for de.Wikipedia: e.g. here there are. --Saibo (Δ) 03:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Neutral. That would be nice, but all bots need to be updated to know that the header above the tag is included as part of document which needs to be archived (many bots copy sections to archive pages, as each discussion is usually not its own page). Breaking existing bots is not worth the change to me, so we probably need to tread carefully. A simple template rename broke User:DRBot recently, causing a mess on COM:DR, and its author is no longer particularly active here (though did come back to fix that one). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, I don't see a need for this very tedious change. You have not outlined the problem with the missing header template in the edit window. If the request is closed it should not be edited anymore. Only bots will touch it, and they can (only) deal with the current format. I would suggest you change back COM:DR and leave it at this. There is no need to create massive amounts of work for script and bot developers to change a system that works fine. En.wp can do what they want, but that does not mean that commons has to follow every step they take. --Dschwen (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment - "All well established discussions at en.wiki closes their discussions by placing the header templates below the header." even if this were relevant, it's wrong. Both MfD and AfD place the close top template above the header and always have as far as I know. See DELPRO for the closing procedures at each enwiki XfD. All of the XfD's at enwiki are different and have long fought off attempts to try to make them consistent, though this is largely due to the fact that both MfD and AFD have a different way of archiving and both (through different methods) transclude individual discussions, maintaining a separate page for every discussion whereas some others, such as TFD, have daily logs that contain all the discussions for the day. The problem you are describing is still an issue at MfD but has never been something worth changing. You simply navigate to the page, click on the page tab, then click on edit again and you get the whole thing. We should do what works best.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 14:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Done. --Dschwen (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
-2011-01-09T15:06:00.000Z-File:Atalaya.png){kind=link}
_flag.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haikou_East_Railway_Station_001.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haikou_East_Railway_Station_Automatic_Ticket_Machine_001.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Renmin_Da_Dao,_Haidian_Island,_Haikou,_Hainan,_China_02.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Renmin_Da_Dao,_Haidian_Island,_Haikou,_Hainan,_China_04.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%27Birth_of_Adonis%27,_oil_on_copper_painting_by_Marcantonio_Franceschini,_c._1685-90,_Staatliche_Kunstsammlungen,_Dresden.jpg){kind=link}
Weak support to copy APG + less change to be made. Liné1 (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
![[24]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Benito_Mussolini_marching_into_Rome.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Benito_Mussolini_honoring_the_Unknown_Hero.jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Benito_Mussolini_1917.jpg){kind=link}
,_Oregon_-_20060422.jpg)
![[29]](http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/184679/1/Chrysemys-Picta,-Before-1792.jpg){kind=link}
![[30]](http://ovidmeta.jp/dat/pic/1651ovid-p.286a.jpg){kind=link}
Resolved.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
