Commons:Help desk/Archive/2012/10

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

Deleting an uploaded image.

Hello,

I am a recently new editor to Wikipedia. I have been working on the Teyana Taylor article, and attempted to upload to the article, but somehow uploaded the image to Wikipedia Commons instead. I do not have permission to use the image that I uploaded, and I didn't know what I was doing when I uploaded it. I was unaware of the criterion. How do I delete the uploaded image that I uploaded to Wikipedia Commons?

Thank You,

Ajbwrites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajbwrites (talk • contribs) 01:55, 9 September 2012‎ (UTC)

File:Teyana Taylor, Cannes Film Festival 2012.png was deleted on 17 September. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 20:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Upload a new version

How can I upload a new version of an image without filling all the informations again? Zetrs (talk) 05:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 07:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2012

Hi,

Can you tell me where I might be able to access the list of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, USA monuments? I submitted several monuments, and although the contest has ended, I still have a half dozen or so photos to upload. Having only used the upload wizard from the contest, I'm not sure where or how else to go about submitting these images and having them automatically tagged with their Historical Registry ID. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setsailmedia (talk • contribs) 18:49, 1 October 2012‎ (UTC)

You can find the list on English Wikipedia: en:National Register of Historic Places listings in Oklahoma. Find the landmark in question and go to its Wikipedia article. In the article, you should find a NRHP Reference#. Then just follow the normal upload process here on Commons and add {{NRHP|nnnnnnnn}} (where nnnnnnnn is the reference number you found) somewhere on the file description page. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 07:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Upload an image with licence

What I need to do if I want to upload an image to wiki which is posted on news web page (vecernji.hr)? I suppose an image is free to public, but I don't know what I need to do with licence.

http://www.vecernji.hr/sport/vijesti/brozovicev-otac-skola-nogomet-ne-idu-skupa-smo-ga-ispisali-clanak-453406

I want to cut part of an image and upload it on web. Webmasters said: "it's not a valid license". Help me with this.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsFan555 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Why do you think that image is free? It seems improbable. If it is free, you will need to provide evidence. Maproom (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but your supposition is about as wrong as it gets. The photo is used by that site under a non-free license from Pixsell, a Croatian photo agency. Their business model is based on charging money each time that their content is used. You can find their terms of use, which are of course completely non-free, at http://www.pixsell.hr/index.php?cmd=show_uvjeti. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 06:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

September 2012 Heritage Competition Deadline : Cut-off time on 30 September 2012

Good day,

It was with great disappointment that the cut-off time for the competition was just after 21:00 on 30 September 2012 without prior notice in the rules of the competition.

I could upload photos but was not allowed to record the unique "SAHRA ID Number" to my photos. I thought the month of September would end at 24:00 on 30 September. At 21:00 it said -0 days left and the space to add the unique code disappeared.

Even if I would not stand a chance in winning one of the prizes due to the thousands of entries, it would have been nice to be able to upload all my photos with the unique number. The amount of time and effort that went into finding the heritage sites (some with very little info as guidance) and the distance that had to be travelled and the money spend on fuel made the fun experience somewhat sad and disappointing at the end of the day to say the least.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.151.4.18 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 1 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Hi, whoever you are! This is the general help desk for the whole Wikimedia Commons project, so I'm not sure the people most involved with the Wiki Loves Monuments competition are reading this. There's a dedicated help desk specifically for questions related to the competition at Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments/Help desk. My guess would be that the competition was set to end at midnight UTC, and that you're in a different time zone. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I guess next year, the same competition will start in September and you will be allowed uploading all your photos with the special interface. If you managed to upload some of your photos, you can look at the file description page, click edit, identify the template that took this id-number (will look like {{monument x|id=<the id>}}), upload your new photos and insert the complete template you identified previously (with the updated id) into the "other information" field of Upload Wizard. -- Rillke(q?) 10:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rillke(q?) 10:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for change of filename

I am requesting that the name File:Lord Professor Ruben Canelo of Studley.JPG be changed to File:Professor Ruben Canelo.JPG . As discussed in an Articles for Deletion discussion at enwiki, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruben_Canelo , Ruben Canelo is a real person, but the title "Lord so-and-so of Studley" is almost certainly a joke or hoax. MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops - I think there may already be a file called "Professor Ruben Canelo". If so, this one could be changed to simply "Ruben Canelo". MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
No need to go through Help Desk for this sort of thing. If you don't have rename privileges yourself, you can just tag the file in question with {{rename|the new name.ext}}. You can look at the documentation of {{Rename}} if you want to learn about how you can clarify the reasons for the move request. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I'll give it a try. I'm new to Commons, and when I clicked on the "move" arrow it looked hopelessly complex. MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, I think I figured it out. Thanks. MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
it looked hopelessly because renaming files is not as trivial as moving pages and because Commons has a very strict policy about file renaming. -- Rillke(q?) 10:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rillke(q?) 10:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Commenting on images

If an image is titled in a misleading way, and misdescribed, is there an appropriate way to comment on it? I know how to edit an image, but not its associated description. The examples I have noticed are trivial – File:St._Lawrence%27s_Church,_South_Hinksey_-_geograph.org.uk_-_114232.jpg and File:St._Lawrence%27s_Church,_South_Hinksey_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1411994.jpg are named and described as St. Lawrence's Church, but that church is in fact dedicated to St. Laurence. (ref) Maproom (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence of Rome. But it is spelled with a u in this church's dedication. As I said, in this case it is trivial – but in general, what is the best way to correct, or comment on, information in an image's description? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maproom (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 October 2012‎ (UTC)
Generally, you can edit any unprotected file by clicking on the edit link on top of file pages, also see COM:RENAME to learn how to rename a file. if you're not sure, you may suggest a correction by leaving a comment on the file's talk page.  ■ MMXX talk 17:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! So file pages have talk pages. Stupid of me not to have noticed that. Maproom (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but they are only read by very few individuals. -- Rillke(q?) 09:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rillke(q?) 09:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Submissions to Wiki Loves Monuments USA; Submitting Multiple Photos; Correcting Categories/Coordinates of Photos

Today, as a first-time user of Wikimedia Commons, I submitted 3 photos for the Wiki Loves Monuments USA photo contest. I have two questions/concerns needing help or further guidance. 1) Is it acceptable to submit multiple photos for the contest. I did not see anything specific in the rules prohibiting same, but if only one photo can be submitted for purposes of the contest, then I wish my submission to be the earliest photo I submitted on today's date, taken at the Palace of Fine Arts, San Francisco, CA. The 2nd and 3rd photos can simply be general submissions to the Commons itself, and not for purposes of the contest. 2) I am sorry to report that I did not properly upload my 2nd and 3rd photos. Although uploading completed, they are not properly categorized. Also, their coordinates are off when looking for their location on Google Earth links, etc. It appears that they link to the category/coordinates of my 1st photo uploaded. Again, terribly sorry. Is this something that I fix myself? Or, will this be fixed internally? I attempted to upload a new version of 2nd photo, and system would not allow. I am hesitant to try to fix myself with my knowledge of wiki system. Help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquarianbydesign (talk • contribs) 01:02, 1 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Welcome, User:Aquarianbydesign. First little thing, sign your words with four tildes which will automatically give your signature at the end and make it easier for everyone to find out what you've been doing, for example that the picture you want is File:POF Collonade Architectural Detail Photo Wiki Loves Monuments USA 2012 Contest Submission.jpg. As for question 1) I think every photo uploaded by the WLM method you used is automatically entered. I hope I'm wrong about that, as it means the judges will be months digging out from the snowstorm.
Question 2) shows that Commons is making a picture collection using software intended for an encyclopedia. It's not terribly difficult for us who got to it through Wikipedia, but people who come directly in as photographers have much more to learn. Yes, as you can see from my own record, Jim.henderson contribution, you can indeed change everything in the description. I edit the words or categories or coordinates of a new picture a few times before letting it rest, and sometimes come back weeks or years later for more tweaks. That kind of flexibility is a legacy of Wikipedia. And don't worry; if you get it wrong (as I do, at least twice every day) it's easy to click on "Undo" and go back to the less bad version. I do that also, at least five times a day, not just on things I bungled myself. When I upload a second version of a picture, I generally first give it another name with for example a -2 suffix, since I don't like to overwrite an existing file no matter how bad, even though an overwrite can be undone. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. Questions specifically related to the Wiki Loves Monuments competition are probably best directed at Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments/Help desk.
  2. Yes, you can fix these issues. Here's how: At Special:Log/Aquarianbydesign, you'll find a list of your uploads. Click on one to show the file description page. Click "edit" at the very top of the page. You'll see the wiki markup for the page. It might seem like a lot of code, but to fix the coordinates, just find the bit that says {{Location dec|38.066667|-122.883333}} and change those numbers. You can also edit the list of categories. Identifying appropriate categories is a bit of an art. Our categories are not Flickr tags, but more like Dewey Decimal Classifications. I corrected the location and fixed up the categories on File:Olompali State Park Burdell Barn 9 30 2012 (4).JPG. You can see the changes I made here. I'll let you give the other ones a try yourself. There's no reason to be hesitant, as even if you get it wrong, changes can always be undone. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Licence incomplète

Bonjour, j'ai récemment téléversé le logo de la ville de Dole, en France (File:Logo Dole.svg). Cependant un message m'a été envoyé pointant une licence incomplète. Que dois-je faire pour bien compléter celle-ci? d'avance merci. Cjulien21 (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Remark to anyone trying to help: it looks like this was a failure to upload rather than a deletion after upload, because it appears File:Logo Dole.svg never has existed. - Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
However, File:Logo Dole.jpg did exist, but was deleted as a copyright violation. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour, Une recherche ne permet de trouver aucune trace d'un fichier qui serait intitulé "File:Logo Dole.svg" dans les journaux d'opérations du site Wikimedia Commons. Apparemment, comme le dit un intervenant précédent, aucun fichier de ce nom n'a été téléversé sur ce site. Toutefois, en faisant une recherche complémentaire dans vos contributions, on trouve que vous y avez téléversé un fichier intitulé "File:Logo Dole.jpg", qui est probablement celui auquel vous vouliez faire référence dans la question ci-dessus. Quoiqu'il en soit, la page de description d'un ficher (qu'il s'agisse d'un logo ou autre) doit mentionner la licence libre (ou le statut de domaine public) sous laquelle l'auteur de l'oeuvre concernée offre explicitement cette oeuvre au public pour libre réutilisation. Pour ce faire, il vous faut inclure, dans la page de description du fichier, un bandeau mentionnant cette licence. Pour plus de détails à ce sujet, voir la page Commons:À propos des licences. Si vous êtes le créateur ou le propriétaire des droits d'auteur de l'oeuvre, il vous revient d'offrir la licence libre de votre votre choix. Si vous réutilisez une oeuvre dont quelqu'un d'autre est propriétaire des droits d'auteur, la licence libre à utiliser est celle offerte explicitement par ce propriétaire, en précisant la source où cette offre de licence libre peut être consultée. Si l'oeuvre n'est ni sous licence libre ni dans le domaine public, elle ne peut pas être téléversée sur Wikimedia Commons, mais elle pourrait peut-être être téléversée sur le site fr.Wikipédia si elle correspond à certaines conditions d'exception, par exemple si l'image est une marque déposée et pourvu que le propriétaire des droits n'en interdise pas l'utilisation. Pour plus de détails à ce sujet, voir la page fr:Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur et éventuellement le bandeau fr:Modèle:Marque déposée. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Connecting pictures?

I uploaded many pictures of historical sites in connection with the contest but only one picture has been connected to the wikipedia item. Am I supposed to connect each picture with the wiki verbal description or wait for others to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libinia (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 October 2012‎ (UTC)

I suppose that by "connecting", you mean either inserting the picture in a Wikipedia article or linking to the article. Yes, sure, you can do it. Other users can do it too, although it could take some time for them to realize that the pictures are available, so it's good if you go ahead and do it, especially if there is no other picture of the site. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, mir scheint ich brauche Hilfe. Die folgende Datei wurde am 25. 09 2012 an die unten gegebene Adresse als Mail mit der Datei "Opus 4 72.jpg" als Angang geschickt. Hier ist, so denke ich, alles bestätigt was für eine freie Lizenz benötigt wird. Was kann ich tun oder was fehlt noch? Da ich noch neu bin, brauche ich Tips, die überschaubar sind. Beim Mentorprogramm habe eine Diskusionsseite. Diese Seite finde ich sicher wieder, was ich von anderen Seiten nicht sagen kann.

To:  : permissions-commons@wikimedia.org



We hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: VEGA international d. o. o.I, am OR the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the picture „Opus 472.jpg“ attached on this mail.


I agree to STANDARD CHOICE; publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.3 .


I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.


I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.


I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.


I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.


I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.


VEGA INTERNATIONAL D.O.O.

Cesta 24 junija 23

1231 Ljubljana Črnuče

SLOWENIEN

Direktor: Bojan Praprotnik Date: 25. September 2012

Grüße --Bomas13 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Please email your permission statement from an email address of your organization to commons@wikimedia.org, as any one else could be pretending to be you here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Fort on High Knoll - St Helena, 1821 - Copy.jpg

I uploaded the file above and received a bot message that I had not specified the license. In the old system it was easy to specify licenses. In the new system I am not sure how to do it. The file is a reproduction/photo of a lithograph first published in a book published in 1821. I did not take the photo, but rather downloaded it from the web. What next? Acad Ronin (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

copy right license Help Please

[Help I am getting flagged for copyright and license on my Luther At Worms] I am so sorry, I have had some terrible luck and have not had a lot of time to learn. I do apologize. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guda42 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 3 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Question added by Guda42 (talk · contribs). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Looking at your uploads, you are trying to reproduce a very old print from the first half of the 19th century, PD-old applies here for the license, unless you are interested in claiming a copyright on the background photograph of the carpet. I have added that in a few spots, otherwise I see you have added the CC-BY license, which is OK for the non public domain content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Blurred picture

Hello Guys,

This picture, File:Branover-at-work.png, appears quite sharp on Wikimedia, but quite blurred when used here, "Herman Branover". Can anyone explain why the picture's quality deteriorates that much? Thanks 05:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magazine1212 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 3 October 2012‎ (UTC)

The original image is not that big, and when it is resized to 400 pixels some of the detail is lost. For this sort of image, made from different images put next to each other, it is much better to cut it into separate pictures and upload each separately. However there is still a very likely copyright problem, as the photographer would hold the copyright to the photos making up this image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Good morning, Please excuse my short english : i'm french. I upload this file for using in wikipédia but it's my first upload. I'm sure for the copyright : it's a very old picture, in a very old book (i have this book edited in 1862) and i scan himself. the rights are now totally free. how i do for modify the status copyright. I have a other picture to upload with similary conditions what is the good process for obtain a status valid ? Very thank for your answer. best regards--Jean GUIRAUD (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

For this it is safe to add {{PD-old}} in the license section. If you know when the illustrator died you can add this information. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank for your answer, i added the dates of the illustrators : Gravure d'Antoine Maurin dit "Maurin l'aîné" (1793-1860) à partir d'un dessin de Louis Janmot (1814-1892). Best regards Jean GUIRAUD (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't understand how to clear the copyright issue with the picture Aurélie Resch.jpg I have the e-mail authorization from the author to post the picture. I am happy to sent a copy via e-mail (where should I send it?)

Thanks. JC Depraetere


--JC Depraetere (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(english version)
there is missing a licence defining the condition the media can be reused.
To be hosted on Commons, medias must be free (as free speech, not free beer), this means, they must authorize by default the usage and modifiction (allowing the creation of derivated works), including commercial usage for the photography. This does not mean that the person photograhied lose her personality rights.
For more information, you can check Commons:LICENSING for which the french version /Commons:À_propos_des_licences is not necessary up to date.
Il manque une licence définissant les conditions de réutilisation du média.
(version française)
Pour être sur Commons, les médias doivent être libres, c'est à dire autoriser par défaut l'utilisation et la modification (création de travaux dérivés) y compris à titre commercial de la photographie. Cela ne veut pas dire non plus que la personne photographiée cède son droit à l'image.
Pour plus d'information, on peut consulter Commons:LICENSING dont la version française /Commons:À_propos_des_licences n'est pas forcément à jour.
Esby (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete five files

Hi! I am the photographer and uploader of the following files, which I request deleted. The reason is that they do not depict what they claim, they are photos of the Nathorst glacier in Nathorst Land, and not the Paula glacier in Heer Land (which the names and texts claim). Thanks. Bjoertvedt (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems like a shame to delete such nice photos just for that. If you want, I (or someone else with renaming rights) can move the files to a better name. Just let us know what name you'd like here or tag the files with {{rename|New and improved name.jpg|3}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Better to delete, I have already renamed them and will upload again within a few minutes. I have uploaded hundreds of these photos so this is no match. Thx. Bjoertvedt (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
You might have trouble reuploading files which are identical to files that have been previously deleted. For that reason, renaming actually is the easier option. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I have already uploaded the same photos under different names.

So I would just again ask someone to please delete the files that are listed at the top of this thread. They are now existing in double - one correct form and in one set of incorrect files listed here. Thanks alot! Bjoertvedt (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You can tag the incorrectly named ones as duplicates: {{duplicate|New name.JPG}}. That will probably get them processed sooner. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Could someone just please be so kind and delete them?? BR, Bjoertvedt (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sanandros (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks alot! They have been duplicated with equal photos, and houndreds more Svalbard photos are on their way... ;-) Bjoertvedt (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

削除

初めまして。画像のアップロードがうまくいかず、同じ画像が３点あります。すべて削除する方法はないものでしょうか。

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 志村俊一 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 2 September 2012‎ (UTC)

File:K0202.JPGでしょうか。志村さんは本当に撮った写真ですか。他のサイトからコピーされたと思いますから、即時削除を依頼しました。
--Stefan4 (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
アカウント名は違いますが、ご本人かもしれないと思います。志村さんご自身の作品かどうかについて [1] で質問しました。
--whym (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
File:K0202.JPGは即時削除後、復帰されました。
--whym (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
File:K0202.JPGの過去版3つのことでしょうか？ 確かに重複してしまっているようですが、ウィキペディアへの貼付け等の際には最新版（一番上）しか利用できないため、このまま放置しても特に問題はありません。
--whym (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --whym (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

My images

Why are my files deleted, even when I reupload them from the English wikipedia so they can be used on the dutch one, they are deleted. Is there any true reason to delete images already present on Wikipedia?
Kevin1109 (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You uploaded screenshots from videogames that can't go under a free license, because the video game company holds the copyright. They can be uploaded on some wikis as fair use material, but not on commons. --Funfood ␌ 16:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The reason is clearly stated in the file's log. There's also a link to Commons:Fair use which explains it in further detail. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 13:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Ernest Procter - Feather Leaves - Penlee House.jpg

Hello, I have uploaded three images to Category:Ernest Procter, an English artist who has been dead more than 70 years. I'm not sure, though, what I am supposed to do to notate that it's no longer a copyright violation. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Assuming your remarks here are accurate, {{PD-old-70}} should do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, lovely! [[2]] (1886-1935). Thanks! I'm assuming I just go into edit mode for the files and post it at the top.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I figured it out - and have the right message presented on the screen now. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that {{PD-old-70}} is applicable to File:Ernest Procter - Feather Leaves - Penlee House.jpg. It appears to be a recent photograph. According to its metadata: "All rights reserved by Penlee House Gallery and Museum, Penzance & copyright holders." —LX (talk, contribs) 06:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the same as LX. It would be great if any way someone goes on his own and do a pic with higher resolution.--Sanandros (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Since there was no response here, I've started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ernest Procter - Feather Leaves - Penlee House.jpg. Any further comments should go there, and I'll mark this help desk section for archival. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 13:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Complaint About Image Use Policy and Editors

I am writing to complain about Wikipedia’s/Wikimedia Commons' image use policy as enforced by your editors. I’m not sure I agree with or understand why you have chosen a policy so strict that it basically negates the power and potential of the Internet—if you want to have the image policy of a print encyclopedia, that’s your business. What I object to is the impossibility of figuring out what you want and the apparent inability of any of your editors to actually help me solve the problem. The several editors who so vigilantly monitor licenses were quick to detect some problem, what problem I still don’t understand, then instantly delete the picture, and refer me to the same thicket of dozens of articles explaining licenses and policies. What I want to do should be very simple—upload a picture that a friend took of another friend that we all want to be used freely. Why is it so complicated to figure out how to do something simple? I believed I had complied with your demands proving this each time—we’re on the sixth attempt now—only to have someone else come along and complain and give me the same instructions that I thought I’d already satisfied. If I hadn’t satisfied the policy, can you help me do so? We’ve emailed you the permissions of both the person who took the picture and who owns the picture. So what do you want now? I love Wikipedia, but the number of hours I have spent trying to figure out what you want for one simple picture and the frustration this produced has greatly soured me. I’m all for quality control, but all this time that everyone has spent could have been much better invested than in proving the license of an image whose use no one will ever object to. Sincerely, Odell Huff (Writing in reference to the article and image of Warren Coats).Odellhuff (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Odell! I'm sorry your experience so far has been frustrating.
I'll start with your question about what it is we need and why we need it. Wikimedia Commons (this site) is a repository of free media used by Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, and others. The free part is very important – it's a founding principle of Commons that we should only host content that can be used by anyone for any purpose. This means that we can only accept two kinds of submissions: (1) content that is not protected by copyright and (2) content that is published under a free copyright license.
A copyright license is a way for copyright holders to specify who may use their work and how they may use it. Only the copyright holder can grant a license. The copyright holder of a photo is usually the photographer. A free copyright license is one that allows anyone to use the work for any purpose. Commonly used free licenses include Creative Commons Attribution Attribution ("by") icon and Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike Attribution ("by") iconShare-Alike ("sa") icon.
When you uploaded File:Warren Baghdad.JPG and File:Warren Coats.JPG, you did not specify which license (if any) that the copyright holder has agreed to. It looks like that was also the problem with the deleted File:Warren L. Coats.jpg. According to File:Warren Baghdad.JPG, you've sent an e-mail to our permission archive, which is the right thing to do for photos taken by someone other than the uploader. If that e-mail specifies a license, that image should be safe once the e-mail has been processed by a volunteer.
As for your experience with our editors: It looks like you haven't actually had any interaction with any flesh and blood editors on this project yet. Nikbot, who left the messages on your user talk page, is a robot – an automated process that checks recently uploaded files for missing licensing information and notifies the uploaders.
So, with all that out of the way, some follow-up questions: Did you mention a specific license in the e-mail sent in regarding File:Warren Baghdad.JPG? Did you also mention File:Warren Coats.JPG or send in a separate e-mail regarding that file? —LX (talk, contribs) 14:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi LX, thank you for your nice reply. What I had wanted to do was communicate the desires of both the author and the subject that the picture should be released to the public domain and not be protected by copyright at all. I tried to reflect that (repeatedly) with the options I was given when I uploaded the file (and the previous file), but I obviously didn't do it right. I kept on getting decision trees that I answered to the best of my ability. I thought I'd answered the questions properly, so I don't know why you didn't end up with what you needed.
So I reforwarded an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org from both the author and the subject (one contention has been that it was the subject's camera for the subject's computer but a friend snapped the picture--we had to track down the person who snapped the picture, the "author," to ask his permission to actually use it?). Then, in Wikimedia Commons on the file's description page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warren_Baghdad.JPG#.7B.7Bint:license-header.7D.7D) under the licensing heading I inserted:
An email containing details of the permission for this text has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS. Does that satisfy the requirements? Thank you for help. While I do understand the reasoning, my personal opinion is that licensing requirements this severe and a decision tree this complex are consuming manpower in recreating the limitations of print. Surely a better balance could be struck between unleashing wiki potential, especially for content meant to be in the public domain, and Wikipedia's legal needs.Odellhuff (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, the key piece of information that was missing from the uploads was that the author wishes to release the photo into the public domain (i.e. waive all copyrights). The right path through the "Release Rights" part of the Upload Wizard for something like that would be:
  • Select "This file is not my own work"
  • State the source (probably something like "Received via e-mail" in this case)
  • State the author (i.e. the photographer, and yes, that's the person that needs to give the permission)
  • Select "The copyright holder published this work with the right Creative Commons license" and "Creative Commons CC0 Waiver (release all rights, like public domain)"
And then forward a filled-out version of our standard permission statement to permissions-en@wikimedia.org (or have the photographer send it in directly). The part after "I agree to" should be changed to "Creative Commons CC0 Waiver" to match the selection during the upload process. Adding {{OTRS pending}} to the file description to indicate that you've done this is also a good idea.
If you edit the file description pages (I see that you know how to do that) and replace the whole line that includes "Remove this line and insert a license instead" with {{Cc-zero}}, you'll achieve the same result as going through the steps above.
I know that the process can seem complex before you get used to it. The upload process would be easier if we only accepted public domain content or if we only accepted the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 license. It would also be easier if we only accepted the uploader's own works. But we'd exclude a lot of free content if we didn't accept all free licenses from a variety of sources. Since there are a lot of those, it gets complex. It would also be easier if we allowed everyone to upload anything, not ask any questions and not worry about copyright at all. But then we'd put our uploaders, the whole project and everyone who uses our content at risk of litigation, and Commons would cease to be what it was set up to be – a repository of (verifiably) free content. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Alright, that was awesome, thank you and I saved those instructions, tho that sure looks like the options I selected repeatedly before. I guess the issue is the last step--do I still need to do that right now or has it been done? It is not clear to me how to designate a CC license with a picture that's already been uploaded. Also, I do understand the reasoning of your policy, and complexity is okay if that's what's needed, but a reasonably competent person ought to be able to follow the instructions and end up with what you want. I felt like I was following the instructions given me, only to have the result rejected and told to follow the instructions. Odellhuff (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
No worries. Yes, based on what you ended up with, I'd say you selected "I found it on the Internet -- I'm not sure" (which is selected by default) instead of "The copyright holder published this work with the right Creative Commons license". The reason that we have an "invalid" option as the default is that we don't want the scores of people who don't understand or don't care that Commons is about free content to upload non-free content using the first choice available regardless of whether it's true, just to get through the upload process.) As I said, you can edit the file description pages to insert the {{Cc-zero}} tag manually. Go to the file page, press edit and replace the line that says "Remove this line and insert a license instead". Basically what you did in this edit, but changing the line just below. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I did that, thank you for your help. I sincerely hope everyone is happy now? =) Odellhuff (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I hope so too! :) Depending on what's in the e-mails you sent in, you may still get follow-up questions from the volunteers handling those, but at least they're real human beings and not robots. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 13:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision deletion for copyvio?

The original version of File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg is taken from [3] with a few edits to remove the creator's logo. This revision appears to be incompatible with the claimed PD-self license. However, all the subsequent versions have been remade from public data, and should be fine. Perhaps the first revision of the file should be deleted? --Amble (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Side note: the original version was uploaded by Cupco, 12:01, September 10, 2012. --Amble (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
OK ✓ Done --Sanandros (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amble (talk • contribs) 22:08, 5 October 2012‎ (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 17:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Das File: Karl-Heinz Garnitz.jpg wurde von mir anläßlich einer Veranstaltung im öffentlichen Raum erstellt. Das Recht an der Abbildung eines fotografierten Bildes, welches meine Person zeigt, nehme ich als mein Persönlichkeitsrecht war. Da Bild wurde im öffentlichen Raum von mir gemacht und ist deswegen öffentlich. Genügt dieser Querverweis:

<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"><img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/88x31.png" /></a>
This work is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License</a>.

Ich bitte um Hilfestellung! Mit freundlichen Grüßen: kahegar

--Kahegar (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Kahegar,
Soweit ich weiß, bedarf es einer Zustimmung des Urhebers des Lichtbildwerkes/Bildnisses bei einer gewerblichen Nutzung oder Nutzung durch andere Personen als den abgebildeten (§ 60 UrhG). Da Wikimedia Commons nur Dateien akzeptiert, für die der Urheber ein Nutzungsrecht für jedermann einräumt, muss ebendieser zustimmen.
Ich bin kein Jurist und lasse mich gern eines Besseren belehren.
Mit freundlichem Gruß -- Rillke(q?) 10:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Are subcategory names required to align with the main category name?

In specific, if I have Category:Hearing impairment, is a subcategory named Category:Schools for the deaf okay? (There's a move discussion going on at Category talk:Schools for people with hearing impairment, and the argument against is that it doesn't match its parent and disrupts the categories.) I'm not all that experienced with Commons, and I couldn't find a policy or guideline on the subject of category naming in relation to other categories. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  • There is certainly no inherent rule that makes such a pairing impossible. There is no policy that says whether it is desirable. That has to be sorted out in the discussion you've pointed to. - Jmabel ! talk 15:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I am attempting to upload the cover of a book. The book cover was the first digitally painted book cover. It remained the cover of Neuromancer for decades. I reviewed the licensing of the Neuromancer cover that is on the Neuromancer wiki page by Warhola. I was trying to follow the same process. I am not sure how to proceed. The book cover is on isfdb.com website and that is where I had taken it from. I know the artist and can get a release if required for the art work, but not sure how to proceed with a book cover. Thanks - rita erskine

--Rerskine (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't upload

Today when I tried to upload as I have in the past, the upload wizard shows me a fairly useless page with a whirling "standby" image and nothing else. Tried everything from clearing cookies, logging out of and back into Wikimedia, exiting and re-entering Wikimedia site, shutting down and restarting browser, shutting down and restarting computer, to no avail. Any ideas? Ian Fieggen (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Picture in Ana Yancy Clavel Bio

Hi, somedays ago I just added the picture in Ana Yancy Clavel bio, but Martin H erased it because possible "Copyright violation" but the picture was taken by my own.

I edited the original, but here is a picture of my cam and there you can see the picture https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/552600_531771590182595_771721407_n.jpg

If there's not enough to prove that the picture is mine, please help me to do it. I know that the picture is use in other pages as facebook, I personally attached it in a post in her fanpage wich is administrated by myself https://www.facebook.com/MissElSalvador2012 if you see the profile picture is the same that i was use here, i personally marked as fb.com/MissElSalvador2012 other cut that part, but that's a problem that I have to solve, I really want you to help me to adding the picture in her bio. It's my own work... Can somebody help me?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilio u2 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 6 October 2012‎ (UTC)

This was unsigned so I have no easy way to find your talk page or the upload in question. What you say sounds legitimate, and you might put a note on Martin H's talk page pointing him to your comments here, which would probably have been more useful than the several remarks you made there which are also unsigned and don't give any indication of the name of the picture, not exactly the best way to sort this out. In any case, though, I recommend that if you are uploading images to Commons that are already on the web in a way that does not make it obvious that they are work by the same person uploading them to Commons, I strongly recommend using the procedure described at COM:OTRS.
Please, folks (and not just this person), sign your posts in discussions by using ~~~~, which will be translated into your signature when you save. Similarly, when you use the {{Tb}} template on someone's talk page, if you don't include your own account name either by spelling it out or typing ~~~, the template doesn't tell the person where to look. - Jmabel ! talk 16:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Scratchcat.svg

Hey girls and guys, this one needs a probably minor and easy investigation and solution from you: when you try clearing off the "Scratch"-mark at the license tag
{{Cc-by-sa-2.0-Scratch}}
so that the file won't appear as a double-cat in both Category:Scratch (programming language) and its sub-category:Scratch cat, what you get is something apparently incorrect with the categories and the file failing to obey and won't show up at Category:Scratch cat. The tag-removal has worked perfectly with all the other files I listed into the new category (see example) and seems that indeed only File:Scratchcat.svg is demonstrating the failure. Plz see if you can fix so that the image is removed from the higher category and shows only at the lower one. Thankz! Orrlingtalk 08:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

hello, i tried to upload this picture for my wikipedia site about myself mirjam unger, filmemacherin, autsria but i dont know how to put the picture on the site http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirjam_Unger please can you help me? mirjam unger

--Mirjamunger (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Mirjam, diese Frage solltest auf dem Projekt stellen, auf dem du das Bild platzieren willst. Davon abgesehen, fehlt dem Bild noch eine Lizenz und die schriftliche Bestätigung der Fotografin. --Túrelio (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Ich hab das Bild in deinem Artikel mal eingebunden.
Wichtiger ist aber, dass du bei deinem Bild noch eine Lizenz angibst, unter der das Bild steht. Eine Übersicht findest du hier. Gibst du keine an, kann es gut sein, dass dein Bild in einer Woche wieder gelöscht wird. --88.130.125.67 12:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Quelle und Autor habe ich angegeben, habe aber ein Problem bei der Lizenzierung: (Zu diesem Bild fehlen ausreichende und korrekte Angaben über die Quelle, den/die Urheber und/oder die Lizenz, unter der das Bild veröffentlicht wurde.)

MfG


--Phil Mair 85 (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Das Problem ist dass die Datei urheberrechtlich geschützt ist und unter den umständen können wir sie hier nicht behalten. Vlt solltest du Commons:Lizenzen lesen. Wenn du Kontakt mit dem Urheber hast kannst du ihn evlt fragen ob er dir eine Freigabe gibt und sende sie per E-Mail an OTRS-de@Wikimedia.org. Für für weiter Infos zu unserem E-Mail Kontakt siehe hier--Sanandros (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

dia de la raza

DENTRO DE POCOS DIAS se cumpliran 2 años(12 DE OCTUBRE DE 2010) que me registre, y nunca despues, me encontre disponible por enfermedad, pero ahora ya, quisiera empezar a comunicarme, y me gustaria publicar algo de mi autoria en comemoracion del dia de la raza. (12 de Octubre )Espero me comuniquen si es posible, y que me guien si no voy por el camino correcto, desde ya agradecido — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotapepe (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 October 2012‎ (UTC)

You are welcome! --88.130.81.230 20:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Book Creator

Hi everyone. I'm looking for tools to make photo-ebooks from the Wikimedia Commons. I can make ebooks on the English Wikipedia, so here can you make ebooks on commons? I searched on settings or gadgets for activating the Book Creator or the extension:Collection, but I cannot find it. Would you tell me how to make photo-ebooks from commons? --Akaniji (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no such function for pics but could be a good idea for the future if someone is willing to write a software for that.--Sanandros (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Scanned Sheet Music - 1915 and earlier - legitimate to scan and upload?

My grandmother had a couple of bound volumes of late 19th/early 20th century popular piano sheet music, and I had though to scan and upload many of these as they're quite elaborate and detailed - I note that your "PDF Sheet Music" category already has a small number of similar uploads (ie, see "Bill Bailey Won't You Please Come Home")- can you give me any specific guidelines about dates etc for what would be acceptable? I believe these are out of copyright - 1913 for instance plus 90 years (sheet music work-for-hire copyright) would be 2003, which is comfortably safe, but are there any wikimedia-specific policies on this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfwatkins (talk • contribs)

See Commons:Copyright rules by territory; if you're looking at American sheet music, everything published before 1923 is going to be public domain. If you're looking at anything else, it must be PD in the US and in the source nation, and that's generally going to involve figuring when the composer died.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

deletion request for photos taken by Hein Waschefort

I do not know how to reach Wikimedia otherwise, should this message be picked up in your virtual world please forward it to the appropriate person/computer or cyborg

A request for deletion of my photos were made by some stupid person/computer or cyborg. All photos on this page - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hein_waschefort - were taken by me over many years, some with analog cameras, I thought it a good gesture to upload photos regularly which I no longer use (I appreciate Wikipedia and thought it a way to contribute) but since you seem to have stupid people knowing little of me or my photography being insulting by suggesting that I did not take the photos I uploaded you may as well delete all of them it will really make no difference to me!

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I have already received written permission from Mr. Micheletti to use this photo. (His response to my request below) 

Hi Joe
You can use the picture
Thank you
Patrick micheletti

Now that I have learned more about how the process works, I have sent him a follow-up message asking him to change the license on this photo to "Attribution Creative Commons".

thank you, Joe / JustAddingMyThoughts

--JustAddingMyThoughts (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes and what is now your question?--Sanandros (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No need to ask him to change the license. If he allowed you to "use the picture", you should just provide a licence which "allows you to use the picture". Obviously that is what he wanted. --88.130.112.138 12:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No, actually, 88.130.112.138 is wrong here. Please see COM:OTRS for what is needed here. - Jmabel ! talk 16:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete Picture

Please could some admin here delete the picture I uploaded a minute ago.

Link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/UPPM_Black.jpg

I'm actually working for Universal Music and was just trying to get used to wiki commons - didn't want to upload it anyway. I hope that's no problem, sorry fot that. Thanks! --Philip Reininghaus (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Good Day. The image is of the Gilbert Stuart portrait of Samuel Miles (1801) America's first first faithless elector in the Electoral College of 1796.

Fair use is appropriate with the acknowldgement, as noted "In the Collection of the Corcoran Gallery of Art"

Thank you for your consideration

David McCann

--David Duncan McCann (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Commons does not allow images on a fair use basis. Did you take the photo yourself? If so, then you can license your photo as you wish, and the underlying artwork is old enough to be in the public domain. If not, then the photo is from an unusual enough angle that the photographer would hold a copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 16:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for importing the image from English Wikipedia to Commons Wikimedia

Because I want to use the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uni_of_tabriz-tower.jpg in other wikipedias, also it's candidated to imported(copied) to Wikimedia Commons. I'll apreciate you if you help me what to do.--Arjanizary (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that you already moved it, though your move was incomplete - it needs to include all of the information from the original Wiki, including the upload-log information. I've completed the move and deleted the original from en.wikipedia. In the future, CommonsHelper is a good tool to use, though you have to sign up for a (free) TUSC account to use it. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madame, The following image (link below) comes from our family collection of my grandfather (passed away Januari 29th, 1981) and who is on this foto. There is also a Dutch Wiki article about him:http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Alsem

I am not sure which Copyrighttag I can use in this case. Maybe the same type as in page about my grandfather but I am not sure how to implement it directly. Any help would be appreciated.

Link to image at commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KLM_Crew_and_DC-3_PH-ARB,_Buizerd_1940-1945_%28photo_probably_at_Whitchurch_Airfield,_Bristol%29.jpeg

Witn best regards, --Flyingd (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You've added two copyright tags to the file description. Unfortunately, neither of them appears to be true. In the first one, you claim that "The heirs of the creator of this work have released it into the public domain," but you've also stated that the author is unknown. How do you know who the author's heirs are if you don't know who created the photo? In the second one, you claim that the photo is ineligible for copyright because it contains no original authorship, but photographs of three-dimensional subjects pretty much always contain original authorship, making them eligible for copyright protection.
If you don't know who the author is, I'm afraid it's going to be very difficult to determine whether this photo is in the public domain, particularly if its a private photo which has not been published before. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem tag I added concerning the missing authorship information was blanked twice, so this is now discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:KLM Crew and DC-3 PH-ARB, Buizerd 1940-1945 (photo probably at Whitchurch Airfield, Bristol).jpeg. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Corrected mistakes in an image

Dear all,

I corrected some spelling mistakes inside an image and wanted to update the image in the article. How do I go about doing that? edith: To clarify, the original picture is not from me. It is this picture: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Polymerisation_PEDOT.png&filetimestamp=20120410142504#metadata It should say "Dimer" instead of "Bimer" and "Oligomer" instead of "Oligomermer". If anyone wants to check my correction I uploaded it here: http://imgur.com/5J0OO

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Freyberg (talk • contribs) 14:31, 9. Okt. 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You have to wait 3 days after creating an account at Commons and then, you can overwrite the file with your suggested version. So after 2012-10-12, when you uploaded a new version, someone has to "Sichten" the German Wikipedia article in order to get the updated file there. -- Rillke(q?) 08:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Exceptions for large files

Hello, I have a file which is 166mb. It is an entire documentary movie in the public domain, taken from archive.org. The upload limit on Commons is 100mb, and I can understand that limit to restrict the uploading of large amounts of general boring content, but some media is larger than that and highly interesting and relevant. I have also read in different places that the WMF says that video will be a big part of the future of Wikimedia projects, but I do not know what this means or what plans may be in place. 100mb may be on the small side for many videos, so I thought I would ask if anyone knew anything.

Is there a way to get an exception for the file size rule and permission for uploading particular large files to Commons? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Any reason not to split it into two parts? (I realize that doesn't answer your more general question about policy going forward, but that's probably better for the Village pump than the Help desk.) - Jmabel ! talk 21:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
That is what archive.org did. Maybe they have some similar policy. I fused them together so that it could be watched as one 30-minute documentary but now I cannot upload it. Thanks for the insight on current practices - I may take this to the pump. Blue Rasberry (talk)
It should be possible to upload up to 500 MB files if you enable Commons:Chunked uploads in your preferences (experimental). If this works, then please do not split files (see Commons:Maximum file size). MKFI (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I turned on the option to upload larger files. I tried to replace the existing file, but I was disallowed because of an alert which prohibits the upload of files over 100mb. However, I was able to upload the larger file on its own by going through the new upload process. Everything seems to be fine, except that now either I need help with a history merge or to have the original file deleted because the documentary ought not exist as a half-file and the full file. I filed a bug report about the file replacement problem here.
Here is the old file which no one would want, and here is the new file which contains the entire documentary. Is it the case that administrators can do history merges here, as on Wikipedia? Can the new version be merged into the old version, or should the old version just be deleted? Coudl I have some advice about the process? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind, I figured everything out. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Zhilkin Ivan Vasil2.jpg

I added nesesary information about the sourse of this file as well as File:Ermolaev Simon Afanasyevich2.jpg, File:Duhinich Nikifor Emelyan2.jpg, File:Anikin Stepan Vasilyevich2.jpg, File:Aivazov Artemiy Vasilievich2.jpg, File:Zhilkin Ivan Vasil2.jpg. What should I do more? Hunu (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I obtained an image from wikipedia to put on my new wiki page that I am creating for a class. How to i source it correctly so it will not be deleted. Thanks --Jantho6 (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem was not with the source, but with the license information. When you modify a work published under a copyleft license, you have to preserve the license information and agree to release any copyrightable changes you've made under the same license. In this case, your changes are not eligible for copyright protection, so I've simply added the missing licensing information. I also simplified the source to point directly to the original image here on Commons instead of via English Wikipedia. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Request to upload file from bs.wikipedia.org on commons

Request to upload this file. Is that allowed? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fair use, so no. I can't see anything at source which states a licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

cover page deleted

Can anyone tell me why the photo i uploaded was deleted.

flirting with fate book cover..

prashant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashant Gandhi (talk • contribs)

Hello,
If these are your works, please send a permission. See COM:OTRS for details. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

May I upload a photo from Flicker which is licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ?

May I upload a photo from Flickr which is licensed as Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic ? Mbeychok (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No NonCommercial Files are not allowed on Commons. Only CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are allowed on Commons. See also COM:License and COM:CT.--Sanandros (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
But you could approach the photographer and ask if they are willing to relicense it. See COM:OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 23:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Going through OTRS is needlessly complicated and ineffective for such cases. Since there's no easy way to verify a connection between an e-mail address and a Flickr account, OTRS volunteers will almost always ask for the license to be changed on Flickr, so it's better to just ask for this right away instead. Instructions can be found at Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nutzerkonten janra zusammenfassen

Hey, hier auf commons möchte ich gerne demnächst selbsterstellte Bilder hochladen und in de:WP einfügen, ggf. auch in die en:WP. Das würde ich gerne unter meinem Usernamen de:janra machen. Leider kann ich hier keinen User mit diesem Namen anlegen, da es schon einen solchen gibt, er aber nicht mir gehört. Dieser commons:janra hat angeblich keine Beiträge zur WP geleistet. Daher strebe ich an, diesen commons:janra zu meinem globalen User janra hinzuzufügen bzw. hinzufügen zu lassen. Wie kann ich das machen bzw. was kann ich dazu beitragen und wie? Vielen Dank für die Info! --84.59.102.61 14:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, also in english:
Hi, I'd like to upload images to commons and I'd like to do that under my account janra, which I use on de:WP. Sad thing is, that under commons I'm unable to log in with that user name, nor am I able to create a user with that name. Someone must've been grabbing it before, but never seems to make any use of it. There are no articles related. So, question is: is it possible to bring commons:janra to my global account janra? What needs to be done for that and what can I do to make this happen? Thanks in advance --84.59.102.61 19:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It it is possible and you should be able to do it since that account has no contributions, please see COM:CHU for more information.  ■ MMXX talk 20:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi MMXX, thanks for the forw. pointer. I'll check that out. --84.59.102.61 21:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiLovesMonuments2013

  I am from Bulgaria , and I want to add my country  to the list for participation

in WikiLovesMonuments . Please help step by step RKMarty (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Mexican government public domain?

Where would I find out if Mexican government images are public domain? I'm specifically interested in this image, which is the only possibly public domain image of former Panamanian president Ernesto Perez Balladares I've been able to find. Khazar2 (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As noted on Commons:Copyright rules by territory - full#Mexico, works created by the Mexican government are typically not in the public domain until 100 years after publication. (And even if they were, there is no information at the source about who created this photo.) —LX (talk, contribs) 13:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Khazar2 (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 19:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I've just received a warning message on File:Si-band-schematics.PNG that I've drawn and uploaded some years ago. I've wrote it myself using powerpoint (that's the reason I've noted "NOT TO SCALE"), and have stated in the license tag that I'm the author.

I've tried to find the answers in some of the documents about licensing, but couldn't. --S-kei (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend asking the user who added the problem tag (Masur in this case). Perhaps they are concerned that is a derivative work of the drawing in the paper that you cite. Personally, though, I see nothing copyrightable in this image, as it's a simple line graph based on data. {{PD-ineligible}} would be more appropriate than a copyright license, in my opinion. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll ask Masur.
Regarding the license type, I myself also wish to change it to PD, if possible. --S-kei (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I've changed the copyright template to {{PD-ineligible}}. The problem tag could probably just be removed, but there's no rush, so we might as well await the response. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, LX. I'll wait a few more days.--S-kei (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I reacted only because this image is basically identical to the one in the given source publication. And because this scientific paper is not published under a free license, its content is fully copyrighted, therefore I found the fact that the image uploader claims his autorship contradictory. Also I don't dare to decide myself whether something is or is not ineligible for the copyright (it's a simple line graph based on data - correct, though the raw data wasn't given in the publication). Masur (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
    Okay. Based on that, I've removed the {{No permission}} tag. Whether the raw data was presented or not, this clearly is not the sort of expression of original authorship that is the subject of copyright. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 10:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you change this "lisence" to "My self".

--81.167.31.52 08:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Firstly, only the copyright holder (typically the photographer or the photographer's heirs) can issue a valid license. Secondly, I'm not aware of any license called "My self". Commonly used free licenses include Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 and Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
If you are the copyright holder, you can issue such a license by editing the image description page and adding a suitable tag (e.g. {{Cc-by-3.0}} or {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. If not, see COM:OTRS#If you are not the copyright holder for instructions. --Avenue (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you might be confused - the "license" is the permission that you give for the photo to be used. We need to know what kind of permission we have to use the image before we, well, use it. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Glatigny 1869.jpg,

You do not explain WHY the license for the above image is deprecated. It is an image taken by myself from a book published in 1869 and the artist responsible died in 1885. This seems to meet all the requirements for a free 2-dimensional image. Please explain what you mean. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The same goes for this file File:Kauffmann Circe.jpg If Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 is not the appropriate license, please explain why and what it should be. I notice that in this case the notice followed immediately on its upload. This suggests some kind of a bot in operation, in which case I would have thought it could disallow the upload before it enters WikiCommons. Sorry about this request, I'm not particularly technical and can't follow over-complicated directions. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The notice mentions that it is from a bot. It merely notifies the uploader that he inserted a deprecated template in a page. The uploads are not disallowed because in many cases the images are valid and it is just a matter of updating the page with a current template. The wording of the bot's notice is confusing, because it speaks of a "deprecated license", when actually the Creative Commons license on the page is not deprecated. What is deprecated is the status template "PD-URAA" also present on the page. The reason is that this template mixed different notions and it was replaced by clearer templates. (N.B.: Even if that template had been in current usage, it should not have been used with this work, as it says that it is for works published in 1923 or later, which is in contradiction with the publication year of the image, 1870.) To identify the status of the drawing, the templates you are looking for are probably "PD-1923", to indicate that the drawing was first published before 1923, plus the template "PD-old-100", to indicate that the author died more than 100 years ago. Now, about the Creative Commons license tag you also inserted in connection with this image, not many countries, if any, would grant a copyright on an identical reproduction of someone else's drawing. So even if it is not really forbidden on Commons, most users would probably consider such a copyright claim confusing, especially as you do not mention by who and on what grounds the claim is made. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that's excellent medicine! I see you very helpfully changed the Glatigny file - so, after taking a peek at what you did there, I have now changed the licensing tag for File:Kauffmann Circe.jpg. I apologise for my clumsiness. Would you be kind enough to see that the deprecation of that file in now removed? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I got permission to upload this image to Wikimedia, how do I license it?

For the past couple of days now I have been emailing certain Members of Parliament about adding an image of them to their respective article on wikipedia and this is the question I have asked: "I'm terribly sorry to disturb you but I was reading an article that had your name in and decided to find out more about you, so I went on to wikipedia, the fountain of all truthful knowledge, I jest! Whilst on your article I discovered that the article had no image and I was wondering if I may be able to use an Official picture of you, if you hold one, so that I may add it to the article in order to show readers what you look like?"

So far about 21 politicians have replied and have either sent me an image to use or have said that I may use one off their website, how would I license these images, as I know I would need to add the email into the image description and source to show that they have allowed me to use their image?

Thanks

188.221.104.80 18:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but permission to use an image on Wikipedia alone is not sufficient. The image must be freely licensed before we can accept it. See COM:OTRS#If you are not the copyright holder for instructions on how to obtain and demonstrate suitable permission. --Avenue (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help as I was wondering should I email them back and ask them to release the image under a specific licence, if so which one would you recommend I ask them to release it under, as I don't really want to be a nuisance to the MP's with regard to my emailing especially since I am emailing so many of them. Here is just one of the replies from a MP who has said that I can use his image on wikipedia [], but i'm guessing I will have to ask him to release is under a specific licence? 188.221.104.80 21:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh and how do I show emails that I have recieved on wikimedia as an attachment such as the way I can show this here [4] as i have no idea for emails! 188.221.104.80 21:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I would ask them to release the photos under the {{CC-BY-SA 3.0}} (Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0) license or the {{CC-BY 3.0}} (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0) license. You should forward their replies to our OTRS service, by following the instructions at COM:OTRS. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Heyy I have now created an account so that I can add them images, I followed all the instructions that you set out including emailing the MPs, gaining their permission, emailing permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and adding both OTRS and CC-BY-SA 3.0 to the images, yet for some reason they have been deleted for an unknown reason even though I have followed all the information. I was wondering could you help me out and see exactly what has happened as I am quite confused. Also I can't really keep emailing all these MPs as I have already emailed them twice and they have given their consent for me to use them under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 which my emails have shown to permissions have shown.The Image Man (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
You may have to wait a while for OTRS to reply to youre email(s) - they're busy. Once you get the reply, let the deleting admin (or any other admin) know the number of the approved ticket, and the images should be restored. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Person's profile

How does one enter a person's profile in the correct location for same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipcosullivan (talk • contribs)

Can you please rephrase your question? I'm not sure what you're asking. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Reg File:Hakim Ahmad Shuja 1.jpg and my full and free permission for its use

Hello, dear Wikimedians. I am a frequent user of Wikipedia and have only rarely used wikimedia Commons; in 2011 I shared a photo here that was my property and remains thus and I have explained this and given full permissions as understood by me. However, there seems to be a notice and some problem, supposedly, with this 'licencing' and I am not at all sure what to do, beyond reiterating my free and full permission and also adding a note/discussion on the talk page to this effect; have also put this matter to the Village Pump/Community here, as I am not very familiar with the process of how and which licence to post here formally, requesting some kind wikimedian to please help out by doing so, thanks. Im asking again here, thanks, and once again informing you that this photo is my own , taken from an earlier photo taken by my grandfather , of the subject in 1925 or 1926, and this too is entirely owned by me. And i have given/shared this totally fully and freely here. Your help in clarifying/fixing this misunderstanding is requested. Khani100 (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Khani100

  • Convenience link: File:Hakim Ahmad Shuja 1.jpg. Ownership of the physical photo is entirely beside the point. The question is ownership of the intellectual property rights. If you are your grandfather's heir, and therefore inherited the intellectual property rights, then you can donate rights on the basis of being an heir, but you should clarify that explicitly on the page. The relevant license would be {{CC-BY-SA-3.0-heirs}}. And it would be really good if you could provide a better reproduction of the photo than this. - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Neue Kategorie(n) in bestehende einbauen, integrieren

1. in der bestehenden Kategorie Category:Images from Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich hätte ich gerne, wegen der Übersichtlichkeit, einige Unterkategorien und zwar: Band1, und da sollten alle hinein, die Band 1 betreffen. Sodann Band33 mit eigener Unterkategorie Sedlnitzky; sowie Band55. Band 10 braucht auch eine eigene Unterkategorie. Der Sinn ist, dass ich nur ergänzende Fotos hochlade, und die sollen dann auch einfach gefunden werden. Ich und die Korrektoren nach mir benötigen diese Fotos für Wikisource. Wer die Kategorie: Category:Images from Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich aufruft, sollte eigentlich nur wenige Einzelfotos und die angebotenen Bändekategorien (gerne auch in englisch, ich kenn das passende Wort nicht) sehen. Wenn mir jemand das zeigt, oder erklärt, kann ich das Einsortieren eh selber machen.

2: In der Category:Constantin von Wurzbach sollten eigentlich die, manchmal zugegeben grottenschlechten, aber brauchbaren, Ersatzfotos nicht sichtbar sein, sondern nur über Category:Images from Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich. Beim Wurzbach reicht das Porträt und z.B. der Partezettel, m. M. nach.

3. Frage, darf ich die Kategorie "Hochgeladen mit UploadWizard" rausnehmen? Zabia2 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

3. Ja. Die anderen erfordern Überlegung und viel Text. Eventuell findet sich ja jemand bis ich wieder Zeit habe. -- Rillke(q?) 05:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Eins vornweg: Ich bin kein Kategorieexperte, Funfood und AtelierMonpli können Dir sicher treffendere Antworten geben.
1. Um zu kategorisieren, empfehle ich die Gadgets Cat-a-lot und Gadget-HotCat in den Einstellungen zu aktivieren.
Du kategorisierst, indem Du Kategorien zu den Dateien hinzufügst (mit HotCat); mit Cat-a-lot kannst Du mehrere Dateien auf einmal während Du auf einer Kategieseite bist "bearbeiten", also neue Kategorien hinzufügen (Kopieren) oder die Kategorie ändern (Verschieben).
Da Band1 kein sehr aussagekräftiger Kategoriename ist, schlage ich vor, z.B. Category:Images from Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich, Volume 1 zu nutzen. Um Category:Images from Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich, Volume 1 zur Kategorie Category:Images from Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich hinzuzufügen, erstellst Du die Seite einfach mit folgendem Text: [[Category:Images from Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich]].
Dann kannst Du die Dateien in diese neu erstellte Kategorie umsortieren (entweder einzeln mit HotCat oder mit Cat-A-Lot, wenn die Vorschaubilder und Namen ausreichen) oder kopieren, wenn es dafür gute Gründe gibt. -- Rillke(q?) 10:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Herzlichen Dank für die ausführlichen Antworten. Ich werd das, es sind relativ wenig Dateien, und ich will mich lieber nicht überfordern, lieber einzeln machen. Lieben Gruß Zabia2 (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done Danke, erledigt. War echt eine Freude, mit diesen klaren Anweisungen! Zabia2 (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ist noch eine Frage offen? -- Rillke(q?) 22:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This file might be corrupt, or have the wrong extension.

I've tried uploading an image but am greeted by the above message. Any help appreciated.Thanks.DColt (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Flickr EXIFs

I guess uploading from Flickr should not make EXIF be lost or Flickr images need not to have EXIF. So if it doesn't have, is it a violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arantz (talk • contribs) 16:02, 15 October 2012‎ (UTC)

It is not a violation, because the uploads allowed here permit changes to be made. Losing EXIF data is a derivative that is allowed. Of course it is more useful to include it if there is useful information there such as the camera settings. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Font rendering problem with SVG file

Hi, I just uploaded an SVG file that does not render correctly, probably because it uses the font Arial Narrow, a proprietary Windows font that presumably is not available to your renderer. Can you advise me on the most efficient way to solve that problem? I'm prepared to change the font in the image if I can find one with similar metrics that will work. Thanks, Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed Arial Narrow is non-free and not in the list of supported fonts. Most sans serif fonts with "condensed" variants in that list would probably be good substitutes, such as Nimbus Sans L Regular Condensed, DejaVu Sans Book (Condensed) or Ubuntu Condensed. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I changed it to DejaVu Sans Condensed, which is on the supported list, but that turns out not to render correctly either, so I decided to just convert all the text to paths. Obnoxious, but what can I do? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

License Problem!

Hallo togeter. I uplode an picture /drawing from myself. Now I got information that there is an Problem with the License. I don't know how this happens here. Please can somebody check it and tell me how to do it correct, or can somebody delete this picture and i will upload it again with the correct informations. Thanks for the help --MittlererWeg (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Me again. I think i did it now correct. Please check somebody and if it is Ok like this please remove the "License mistake header". Thanks again,--MittlererWeg (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi - its my error, moment - it will be ok! Zaraz poprawię, wszystko będzie OK!, testowałam i popełniłam błąd dla kilku plików. Soooory!--Jolanya Dyr (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

--Karlderkahle (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Hallo, die das o.g. Bild ist eine Reproduktion eines Stiches von 1760 (zweidimensionales Kunstwert, Urheber 70 Jahre tot), sollte also gemeinfrei sein, oder. falls ja könnte bitte die Löschsperrung aufgehoben werden Danke und Grüße--Karlderkahle (Diskussion) 10:35, 16. Okt. 2012 (CEST)

Hello, the below mentioned Image is a reproduction of an engraving of the year 1760 (two-dimensional art value, copyright 70 years dead), so it should be in the public domain, or. if so please could erase the lockout be lifted Thanks and Regards--Karlderkahle (Diskussion) 10:35, 16. Okt. 2012 (CEST)

I have added the {{PD-old-100}} template for you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

licence picture

Hello all, for the article http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Coumans I uploaded the (technical) picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hans_Coumans.jpg i made from the painting from artist Hans Coumans. So i made the picture, Hans Coumans made the painting. Can anybody help me with the licence? Or otherwise the picture will be removed... Sergecoumans (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Lost account password with no emails

I created an account with name Joshua_22. I contributed to commons with a few photos. I didn't use it for months and now I cannot remember the password. But I didn't put an email address at registration. Any ideas? CAn an administrator do something? IF yes they can email me a new password at this address (capchta included) Click here.

I'm sorry, there really isn't anything we can do to help you with that. Since I'm only seeing 13 contributions across all projects (7 here, 3 at en.wikipedia, and 3 at it.wikipedia), you really haven't lost that much - just create a new account. If you want to note that the old contributions were yours, you can always leave a note on your new userpage(s). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you attribute a photographer?

Hi

I'm looking to use, change and adapt some free photos off here, for a project I'm doing.

A lot of the photos say I'm free to share, copy, distribute and adapt them.

Regarding attributing the original photographer they mostly give the following guidance, which isn't very useful:

"You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one."

What does that mean? Can I just say something like, "Original photograph by author's name"? Or if I'm supposed to use some special words where do I find them? It's not apparent from any of the actual image pages.

Can anyone clear this up for me, I'd be much obliged.

Thanks - unsigned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.162.225 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 October 2012‎ (UTC)

If they haven't said anything more specific, "Original photograph by author's name" would be normal. If all you know is their Commons user name, then something like "Original photograph by Wikimedia Commons user username" would be normal. Don't forget also to comply with other terms of the license: for example with a CC-BY license, you also must provide at least the name of the license and a link to the terms, much as Commons does. I hope that answers your question. - Jmabel ! talk 21:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Also discussed at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#What does 'in the manner specified by the author or licensor' mean? Please don't crosspost questions, as it splits the discussion and doubles the work of answering. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 14:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

File for a DYK picture

Apollo 11 display

Can this file I uploaded be used in a DYK? Does it qualify?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Not sure whether you are confused or I am, but as far as I know Commons does not have a DYK; presumably your question is about the English-language Wikipedia, and a DYK would require a DYK-qualifying article. - Jmabel ! talk 21:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. I didn't make my question clear. I do a lot of DYKs. The question has to do with a possible upcoming DYK on the English-language Wikipedia. Because of its copyright history information that I obtained and submitted to Commons, is this picture available and does it qualify as a DYK picture on the English-language Wikipedia? Question has to do with the copyright status. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I presume that if it is genuinely Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 it should be no problem at all, but that would be entirely for en-wiki to decide, not Commons. The flag itself presumably is not copyrighted, and it would seem that the text in the photo would be created by federal employees and hence PD, so it looks good to me. - Jmabel ! talk 03:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! That is basically the same conclusion I came to. I'll try it and see what happens.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 15:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

photos from facebook

can i use a photo uploaded in facebook.--ଶିତିକଣ୍ଠ ଦାଶ (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If by "use" you mean uploading the image to Wikimedia Commons: no, unless you have reason to believe that the image was published under a free license. As images on facebook are not usually published with copyright information, that will rarely be the case. --rimshottalk 19:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I need help with a License! Drofmicrocaps (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


--Drofmicrocaps (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The picture is from 1972 in the United States, so if you have evidence that it was published at the time in a work that had no copyright notice, it would be in the public domain. However, without that evidence, we'd have to assume it was copyrighted (probably originally by Newell, with rights now held by successor company Newell Rubbermaid). In that case, we'd need the company's (or other copyright holder's) permission per COM:OTRS. We're not likely to get that, because companies rarely want to let photos like this be modified by re-users. So unless you are aware of something you haven't indicated on the file page, this image should probably be deleted from Commons. If it is needed in an article on the English-language Wikipedia or on another language Wikipedia that accepts fair use justifications, you could go through their process to upload it to that specific Wikipedia and fill out the template for the relevant justification. - Jmabel ! talk 15:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Inacurate picture

Hello! I happened to stumble across a picture in an article that bears no relation to the subject of the said article. The confusion must have arised from 2 identical abbreviations from field of biology meaning completely different things. As a scientist, I would like to rectify that by possibly deleting the picture, but as a complete newbie, I have no idea how to proceed with that. Could you please help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umkazavr (talk • contribs) 20:04, October 16, 2012‎ (UTC)

Hi! The simplest solution seems to remove the picture from the article, or to rename the picture if its title is misleading. Can you give us a link to the picture or the article you're talking about? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The article in question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phycobilisome and the picture in it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phycobilisome_Western_blot.png - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umkazavr (talk • contribs)
If you think the picture shouldn't be in the article, you can just remove it from the article by removing the reference to [[File:Phycobilisome_Western_blot.png]]. Do you know what the picture's name should be, though? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
My guess is that "PBS" in the image's description stands for phosphate buffered saline, and has been misinterpreted as "phycobilisome" by whoever named the image. A better name might be "sheep anti-transferrin western blot.png" - this is just another guess, as I don't know why this western blot was made.Maproom (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

I am new to editing Wikipedia and I need help knowing about the Copyright information about the Phoenix Cluster Galaxy or else, the file will be deleted within 7 Days. I searched the Information about this file, but there is nothing else except the date taken and the author. There was nothing that was mentioned about the Licensing information, either.

What should I do?

Thanks.

--6033CloudyRainbowTrail (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I found that pic om the NASA JPL page, so it is possible that it is PD.--Sanandros (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

--Meti04 (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think this is either free-licensed or in the public domain? If so, I'm missing it. Also, you are very unclear about the source. - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Metro is a Luxembourg-based Swedish newspaper. The complete source of the photo is http://www.metro.se/stockholm/han-vill-fa-bilarna-att-ga-som-pa-rals/EVHljl!iSF6BqRpeit3Y/. The photo was taken by Metro staff photographer Urban Brådhe. Metro of course does not release its content under any free license. I've tagged the photo as a copyright violation. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Oneview_Logo_(seit_2012).jpg is not licensed, but still exists and was not deleted after seven days. Everything alright?

--89.204.138.74 16:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletions are not done automatically and all these files need to be reviewed one by one. in this case, the file just needed a correct license.  ■ MMXX talk 17:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

How does Sum it up work?

I am clicking on "Sum it up" and then "OK" but nothing is happening/changing. I tried for Category:Anjan Dutt --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 05:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 05:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyone? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
You have to copy and paste the result from the text box. It doesn't seem to support automated adding. But I usually don't use this tools so someone with more experience might help. -- Rillke(q?) 10:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Copy/paste the useful parts: the local language and English text version for country related items, English version for generally known terms, all versions when containing a wide range of related words, such as Category:Mbira, all interwikis. --Foroa (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Receiving new password

Hello! I need your help. I've made myself a profile on 29-th of September this year and uploaded several photos during the Wiki loves monuments period. But unfortunately I forgot my password and have no idea what it can be. Can I somehow get a new one? My login is "Bazilio" and I can see it in red. Any help will be appreciated.

Yeah, and I tried to cancel the password via it but I was unsuccessful. I did not even receive anything, although it was written the letter was sent to my mail. I don't know what may be the reason.

May I upload a screen picture that I took from a Google map? If I can, what will the license be?--Winstonza (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

--GhostedBread1 (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC) I am uploading this file on behalf of Petronella Barker to put on her Wikipedia page "Petronella Barker, actress b.1942" to differentiate her and another Norwegian actress known as Petronella O.Barker. The ticket to usage of Petronella Barker's (actress b.1942) images was sent on 20th October 2012. The ticket number is: 2012101910010555 filed and accepted on OTRS

I've added the {{OTRS}} to the page, as you could have done yourself. You still need to select a particular license (not provide a PNG of what license selection looks like) and add categories. - Jmabel ! talk 22:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Video of a We Came as Romans concert

Hey there,

I filmed a 10-minutes video of a We Came as Romans concert at the Never Say Die! Tour yesterday and I want ask if I'm allowed to load it up as an own work or if I have to ask the band before if I'm allowed to use it here. If it works please answer back in German language but English language is okay for me too. --Goroth (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Your own recording is your "own work" but it also includes the copyrighted performance of the work (by the band), and the copyrighted lyrics and music (copyright may be owned by the band, their recording studio, or the author(s), depending on how it is set up). You have to get permission from all copyright owners. Please ask them for a specific license from our list. If you get that, you'll need to forward the permission to COM:OTRS. Good luck! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Ihre eigene Aufnahme ist Ihr "eigenes Werk", sondern es enthält auch das urheberrechtlich geschützte Ausführung der Arbeiten (von der Band) und den urheberrechtlich geschützten Texten und Musik (copyright kann von der Band gehört werden, ihre Aufnahmestudio, oder der Autor (s) je nachdem, wie es oben) eingestellt. Sie haben die Erlaubnis von all Urheberrechtsinhaber erhalten. Bitte fragen Sie sie für eine bestimmte Lizenz aus unserer Liste. Wenn Sie das zu bekommen, müssen Sie die Erlaubnis zur Weiterleitung COM:OTRS. Good luck! Übersetzt ins Deutsche von Google Translate. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for information :) I don't think that they will give me permission to use that. I just want to know. --Goroth (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

--Leotarek (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Barring very unusual circumstances, the copyright would belong to Mr. Mastrangelo. Do you have (or can you get) his permission to use the image? If so, then see COM:OTRS. If not, then it doesn't belong here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

What Template?

I want to add photographs an engineer did 30 years ago. It is from a technical scientific project. He gave the images to me recently. I told him to place it on wikimedia would have the Advantage: Will be available forever without cost. Disadvantage: Everyone can use it - you give up copyright (but you have to be named as author). He told it will be fine for him if I upload the photos. I already did some electronic enhancement of the old prints. He cant do the upload but I can. What template shall I choose? -- Portolanero (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There are several possibilities, but I'd ask him if {{CC-BY 3.0}} is okay. It's basically what you describe - everyone can use it, but the author has to be attributed. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes thats it but where is the template I need for the image upload? I saw no link to it. -- Portolanero (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
If u just copy'n'paste that CC-BY 3.0 template what philosopher just posted then it should be fine. But i have another concern: You should send a permission to the OTRS-Team.--Sanandros (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
But I need a template to fill text to the image. There is something to say and a reference to a scientific paper too. That all has to be glued to the images in some way. -- Portolanero (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
U mean this?--Sanandros (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Something like this I had in mind. -- Portolanero (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
OK and what's with that?--Sanandros (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
? It is the upload page I know well. Still I look for an appropriate template to use in this case. -- Portolanero (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
U mean an already filled out template?--Sanandros (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
{{Information
| Description  = Technichal Description
| Source       = My friends collection
| Author       = My friends name
| Date         = The date it was made
| permission   = {{CC-BY 3.0}} or any other license which your friend wishes to give
}}
Yes, like this. I needed such a template example to create a template. I thank you very much. -- Portolanero (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Your welcome.--Sanandros (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I translated a svg-file.

Hi, I just translated File:Plutchik-wheel.svg into German and tried to upload it under File:Plutchik-wheel de.svg . Worked as expected, but I'm not sure what I have to do with the license-thing, Nikbot complained on my user talk. Thanks for your help! ––Metoaster (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the file - most of the information is inherited, but if you want to impose a specific license on your changes to the file, that's usually possible too, unless the work is a) ineligible for copyright or b) released under a "SA" license. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
As a side note, when you post, could you please use a protocol-relative link (don't include the "http:")? Links here work when they start with "//", enclosed in single square brackets [ and ]. That way, those of us using the secure (https:) server don't accidentally end up on a page we're not logged in on. For files or pages here, you can actually use double square brackets [[ and ]] to mark the beginning and end of a name, so [[:File:Plutchik-wheel de.svg]] makes a link to File:Plutchik-wheel de.svg. Thanks! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, for changing and the hint, I'll try to do so in the future! --Metoaster (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a cartoon, circa 1890, taken from the pages of Punch. It is not my work but I believe it is in the public domain and therefore does not need a licence. Comment please--Terry Carrick (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Certainly public domain, but since you gave a date of 22 October 2012 and did not add a tag indicating that it was public domain, it's not surprising that a bot marked this as suspicious. - Jmabel ! talk 15:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • By the way, you say your source was Punch itself, rather than something intermediary. Could you please provide the precise date of the issue from which you scanned this? - Jmabel ! talk 15:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, in the future, please scan at a higher resolution! This is almost useless at such a low resolution. Or did you actually just pick this up somewhere else online and fail to credit your source? - Jmabel ! talk 15:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

photos that belong to my company

Hi, I put up photos that belong to my company, from our company's flickr page and are in the public domain but they are in danger of being removed. What should I do? thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrauchli (talk • contribs)

Can u give us the link to the flickr pics?--Sanandros (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Will Check with Company today via e-mail.


63.155.128.110 21:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong photo

I created File:12.7mm Rogue.jpg recently to use in an article on the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately I had confused a number of different photos of the subject that I have in my posession, so I erroneously uploaded one that I do not have any rights to. I mistook it for a photo that I took. I have since discovered that I have lost the photo that I took. Subsequently a friend, Brent Best, emailed me a photo of the same subject that he took, in the email he gives me permission to upload it as public domain. I tried to replace the wrong photo with the one my friend sent me but now I don't know how to change the details of the photo to credit him as the photographer and declare its public domain status. Help! (BTW the rusty one is correct, not the freshly painted one.) Dodger67 (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

PS - I have removed the image from the article on en.WP pending the resolution of this problem. Dodger67 (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You can edit the photo credit, description, etc. by normal editing process. But given that you've uploaded someone else's photo, a permission letter from that person should be sent (see COM:OTRS) to clarify the situation. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
If it's not too much trouble I'd rather have this file deleted and then start over with a fresh upload - the wizard process works well for me. I have just sucessfully uploaded another photo from the same source with the same licencing etc - File:Denel 35mm Dual Purpose Gun.jpg - the photographer sent me both the photos in the same email. Thanks Dodger67 (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Please, anyone? Dodger67 (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd just to make sure I've understood this correctly before I do anything - the author of this version of File:12.7mm Rogue.jpg is Brent Best who has given permission by e-mail for it to be released into the public domain, and the other photo in the history of that file is the one you uploaded by mistake and did not have permission for? January (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
That is correct - the rusty one is Brent's photo - the other one's origin is unknown to me. Thanks Dodger67 (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I've selectively deleted the incorrect upload from the history and amended the source and licensing. Please check if it looks OK now. January (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks. If I could bother you once more - there is another photo covered by the same email File:Denel 35mm Dual Purpose Gun.jpg but the OTRS person who dealt with it originally seems to have misunderstood it. The OTRS ticket is here - perhaps you can help clear this up. (Let me know if you'd like me to send you the original email from Mr Best.) Dodger67 (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't help with that one as I dont have OTRS permissions, but you could try Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard if you think it needs a second opinion. January (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I have done so. Dodger67 (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Fountain categories

As in Category:Fountains in California it has been categorized as Gardens in California, although I've noticed not every state has that category associated with its Fountain category. I feel it is an assumption that the Fountain is in a Garden. There are many examples where fountains are not part of a garden, as in: File:Salk Institute (3).jpg, File:Plaza de Cesar Chavez 01.jpg, File:Blockorange-fountain2.jpg and many other examples in other states and I'm sure other countries. I agree that Category:Fountains in California should have the categories of Category:Bodies of water in California, Category:Architectural elements in California. I'm not 100% sure about Category:Public art in California as is a fountain really a piece of art? So my question is primary about the Gardens category, then about the Public art category. --Mjrmtg (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I could guess who introduced this peculiarity even before I checked the edit history – User:Look2See1. See User talk:Look2See1. The user seems to be on some weird crusade to make Category:Gardens the top level category of all of Commons... —LX (talk, contribs) 05:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
So, I'm guessing the "Gardens in" category can be removed from the "Fountains in" categories. What about "Public art in"? --Mjrmtg (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion both can be removed. Not all fountains are placed in gardens, not all fountains are art (e.g. Category:Drinking fountains), and not all fountains are located in public. Placing all fountains into those categories is as bass ackwards as placing Category:Subaru automobiles into Category:Rallying automobiles based on the fact that some of Subaru's cars happen to be rally cars. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Concur with LX. - Jmabel ! talk 15:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
So, what should Category:Fountains in Florida be categorized as? There is currently Category:Architectural elements in Florida, Category:Bodies of water in Florida and Category:Fountains in the United States by state. --Mjrmtg (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Bodies of water seems a bit strange to me (but I'm not a native speaker). It would make sense to keep Fountains in Florida in some geographically relevant category related to water, but we don't seem to have any appropriate ones. Water supply infrastructure in the United States is probably the closest, although these days, fountains tend mostly to waste or recirculate water rather than acting as a supply of fresh water. The categorization of the parent category Fountains is far from ideal either (guess why), and I guess what we're seeing here is the trickle-down effects of that. Finding appropriate categories tends to get trickier higher up in the category tree as topics become more abstract and you're stuck with conceptually breaking down the meanings of words. It really helps to plan a category scheme first and then implementing it, as opposed to propagating categories up and down the hierarchies no questions asked or to reinvent the wheel for each geographical subcategory. So the real questions are really: (1) How should Fountains be categorized? (2) Does the category need to be broken down into more distinct types of fountains with geographical subcategories? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't be too harsh on [[[User:Look2See1]]. Most of the fountains that were used to build the first fountain category structures where the most famous ones, in general pieces of art in large gardens or settings. In general, categories tend to get more and more parents incrementally to cover all sorts of item type variations, while the existing ones are not really questioned, till it kind of overflows (normal for fountains ;)) as it does now. The fact that you have not an immediate solution for the parents shows that it is not that simple. --Foroa (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
It's precisely because it is not simple that User:Look2See1's approach is problematic. When faced with a complex problem, it helps to think things through before making decisions that affect hundreds or thousands of categories. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
One issue is that Wikipedia's Fountains article has it categorized as garden feature, landscape architecture, landscape gardens, outdoor sculptures and public art, which like said above can all be discredited by a simple drinking fountain. --Mjrmtg (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
English Wikipedia is only a good example to follow some of the time. Commons tends to have much more content for any given topic than Wikipedia, which means we often need to have more detailed subcategories. For example, English Wikipedia hardly has a need for Neptune fountains in Germany. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

System not generating thumbnails for a recently uploaded file

Plan of the Archbishop's Palace, Bourges

The system does not appear to be generating thumbnails for File:Plan du palais archiépiscopal de Bourges by Pierre Bullet - Gallica.jpg. The file itself seems to have uploaded OK, so not sure why this is so. When I tried to display one of the standard sizes on the file page, e.g., 320 x 202 pixels, I get the following error message: "Error generating thumbnail. Error creating thumbnail: convert: Insufficient memory (case 4) `/tmp/localcopy_22666eae7c5f-1.jpg' @ error/jpeg.c/EmitMessage/235. convert: missing an image filename `/tmp/transform_4fab1cfb5746-1.jpg' @ error/convert.c/ConvertImageCommand/2970." Is there a way to fix this? --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The file is saved in progressive (interlaced) mode. This means that the entire 70 megapixel image has to be loaded into memory to generate thumbnails. The server's resources are finite and shared, so this won't work with large progressive JPEGs. The solution is to use baseline (non-interlaced) mode instead. See Commons:FAQ#What resolution should the images I upload be? and Commons:Maximum file size for details. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! That seems to have worked. I noticed that Photoshop offers two different jpg baseline modes: "standard" and "optimised". Would one of these be better to use than the other? Also, I have uploaded quite a few other large jpg files, for which (I would guess) I used the progressive mode, but this problem did not occur. Is that because, at that moment the server had more memory available? Thanks for additional info. --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Optimisation takes marginally longer to encode, results in a slightly smaller file and should not cause any problems with decoding or thumbnailing. I see no reason not to use it. If you had different results with other progressive JPEGs, that could be attributed to a range of contributing factors related to the properties of the images themselves as well as the server load at the time. There is no hard resolution limit for thumbnailing of progressive JPEGs. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I need to obtain a proper license for this picture. please advise so as not to be deleted. --63.155.128.110 21:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I still haven't figured out how to attached the appropriate license Please post link. --Drofmicrocaps (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You asked this before, and the answer remains the same: the picture is from 1972 in the United States, so if you have evidence that it was published at the time in a work that had no copyright notice, it would be in the public domain. However, without that evidence, we'd have to assume it was copyrighted (probably originally by Newell, with rights now held by successor company Newell Rubbermaid). In that case, we'd need the company's (or other copyright holder's) permission per COM:OTRS. We're not likely to get that, because companies rarely want to let photos like this be modified by re-users. So unless you are aware of something you haven't indicated on the file page, this image should probably be deleted from Commons. If it is needed in an article on the English-language Wikipedia or on another language Wikipedia that accepts fair use justifications, you could go through their process to upload it to that specific Wikipedia and fill out the template for the relevant justification. - Jmabel ! talk 03:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The picture I've uploaded is a modified photo from the athletes official website www.heinrich-popow.de. The picture is offered for free non-commercial use in the press area of the website. Is there any way I can use the photo for an wikipedia article? --Rkdmllr (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

On the English-language Wikipedia (and any of several others that make allowances for fair use) you might be able to use it with a Non-free use rationale, but it does not belong on Commons, which does not allow "fair use" justifications for the use of a photo. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
To clarify two further points: (1) neither Commons nor the English-language Wikipedia treats "non-commercial use" licenses any differently from just plain "unfree"; (2) if you could get the copyright holder to release rights that would include commercial use (unlikely, but I'm just mentioning it) then we could host it here on Commons. See COM:OTRS, in particular. - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons Welcome bug

Wikimedia Commons Welcome had a bug hier. Could someone inform the right person ? Ltrbot (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

My images keep getting removed and then restored

I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, but I've been uploading images with permission of the rights holders who have granted broad Copyleft Free Art Licenses to the works publicly on their official websites [5] [6]. But despite this the images still get deleted, most recently user Denniss removed two images and won't restore them until "valid permission reaches OTRS" despite the fact that a screenshot of one of those official website permissions was sent by Túrelio to OTRS on September 20th (after Túrelio removed and then restored the images). What am I doing wrong? --Mechagodzilla 23:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, please request image undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests, I dont know all details but it seems like straightforward case --Justass (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok thank you. --Mechagodzilla 23:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

broken URI of uploaded file: The requested URL could not be retrieved

The URI of source file of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Water_table.svg which is http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Water_table.svg is broken.

I don't know where u have the problem but with me the link is functioning.--Sanandros (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

How do I get back to several of my image upload pages to add the necessary copyright data which I inadvertantly skipped over when I uploaded files? This is reference to my work on a Wikipedia article "Englert Theatre". For example, see "File:Coldren Opera House c1875.tif" How do I get back to this page to add copyright data? --BobHibbs (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Just go to the image description page and click "edit this page". I took care of File:Englert Theatre, Iowa City, Iowa, c1912.tif for you; items printed in the USA before 1 Jan 1923 are public domain per US law, and here on Commons are tagged "{{PD-1923}}". Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no author for the use of image and no specif description where this picture was taken. So can you help to make the image more offical by then. --Kirlia07 (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Internet images. The file has been deleted twice now. Do not reupload previously deleted content yourself. If you think that the deletion was not in accordance with our deletion policy, you can request undeletion. Repeatedly recreating deleted content may cause you to lose your editing privileges. Again, you really, really need to read Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Internet images. All the files you've uploaded so far have been copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 11:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Please help!

Last night, I uploaded twice the same file, and for some reason I can't explain, bungled it all. The pictures do not fit their titles, nor are they in keeping with the descriptions and the information I put in.
If a Commons administrator would kindly delete them both, I would be most grateful to him/her and I would upload them again correctly. The two files concernend are File:Hard Times, Bounderby introduces His Wife to Harthouse, II, 2 (Harry French).jpg and File:Hard Times, Harthouse and Tom Gradgrind, II,3 (Harry French).jpg.
I am very sorry for the trouble thus created and apologise for these stupid mistakes. Please keep me informed on my French Wikipedia talk page : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:Robert_Ferrieux.
Robert Ferrieux

Please keep this in one place. You already started a thread about this at Commons:Village pump#Help ! Urgent !. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 10:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I extract this image from this book available on Internet Archive: [[7]] How can I set the proper licence ? I suppose that the book is without copyright, but I'm not sure about the digitalization process made by Internet Archive.

Thanks

--Daniele4wiki (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The digitization process should add no new copyright. The important things to identify are the book title, when and where it was published and who would own the copyright on the image. The thing we want to know is whether it is public domain in its country of publication and the United States. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

В Интернете нет указания на автора загруженного мной изображения О. Глебовой-Судейкиной. Изначальное размещение файла в Сети также неизвестно. Фотография сделана в 1910-е годы (единственное указание на эту дату здесь: http://www.hlebnikov.ru/fotogalery/image/sudejkina2.jpg). Сама Судейкина умерла в 1945-м. Можно ли считать эту фотографию общественным достоянием? Спасибо. Antifaustus (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Можно загружать под {{PD-RusEmpire}}--Ymblanter (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Sheikh Badr and Category:Sheikh Badr cemetery

Hi, I'm afraid I made a bit of a mess trying to correct the spelling of these categories. The names had been spelled "Sheich Badr" and "Sheich Bader cemetery", which are incorrect transliterations from Hebrew to English. I tried to rename the categories on the images themselves, but then I made a mistake and created a new page called Sheikh Badr, which is now sitting by its lonesome under Category:Neighborhoods of Jerusalem. I have no idea what happened to the 7 or so images for which I retitled the category name. The only image name that I remember is File:Sb cemetery 2 .JPG. Perhaps you'd like to look in my User Contributions record to see what I did wrong? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

All files which u corrected seem to be fine. I couln't find any files which are not in your Category:Sheikh Badr cemetery.--Sanandros (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Yoninah (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wiki,

This picture was taken by Nicholas Dawkes Photography as part of a commission for Dr. Suzannah Lipscomb, the subject of this page. I am her agent, authorised to amend her Wikipedia page.

This particular photograph was taken from Suzannah Lipscomb's Website as she has bought it from Nicholas Dawkes Photography, along with a number of others. I therefore uploaded it as being in the public domain, as anybody could in fact copy it from her website.

I do not understand what it is that is requested of me to ensure that the photograph remains in place?

I would appreciate your help.

Thank you.

Marguerite de Bohun


--MdeBohun (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all you should provide a link to the source and you should give a valid licence tag (see here)--Sanandros (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I have done both these things. Can you then please confirm that I have done all that is necessary? Thank you Marguerite de Bohun

The information should be on the file description page linked above, not the Wikipedia article. I copied across the source link you added but the licence template you tried to add ({{PD-URAA-Simul}}) is not valid as it only applies to older works, recent photographs are automatically considered copyrighted once published. Your description indicates that it is a w:Work for hire therefore presumably Dr. Lipscomb owns the copyright to the photograph, so you could ask her to contact COM:OTRS to confirm permission using the suggested wording in Commons:Email templates. January (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree we would need confirmation via COM:OTRS of sufficient permissions from the copyright holder. However, it is not clear to me that Dr Lipscomb is the copyright holder. In particular, I don't believe this would be a "work for hire" (at least under US law) as it does not seem to fall into one of the nine categories of works by freelancers that can become works for hire. Dr Lipscomb would thus only be the copyright holder if copyright was assigned to her under her contract with the photographer. (Such contracts often transfer certain rights, e.g. the right to publish the photo in a certain context, without transferring copyright completely.) If the photographer retains copyright over the photo, we would need an appropriate declaration of consent from him instead. --Avenue (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons log-in

Can you please help me as every time when I want to log into commons I get this pop-up which then prevents me to do what I would like to do in Commons i.e. placing of photographs.

Log in / create account Jump to: navigation, search Login error There is no user by the name "Glemmens1940". Usernames are case sensitive. Check your spelling, or create a new account. Log in

Don't have a login? Create an account.

You must have cookies enabled to log in to Wikimedia Commons.

Language: العربية | български | català | česky | Deutsch | English | Ελληνικά | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk (bokmål)‎ | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | svenska | 粵語 | 中文 Username: Password: Remember my login on this browser (for a maximum of 180 days) Forgotten your login details?

If you need more information about logging in, see the How to log in page.

With many thanks,

Gerard Lemmens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.250.29 (talk • contribs) 2012-10-29T14:58:32 (UTC)

You should go to nl:Speciaal:GebruikerSamenvoegen and follow the instructions there. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Auf dem File "Karl-Heinz Garnitz.jpg" bin ich während einer öffentlichen Lesung (24.02.2011) dargestellt. Der Organisator der Veranstaltung Herr Stephan Heigl (+ Suizid am 20. April 2012) hat das Foto aufgenommen und mir damals versichert, dass ich das Foto wahlfrei für meine Zwecke nutzen darf. Meine Nachforschungen bzgl. der Bildrechte ergaben das Folgende: Am 5. März 2011 erschien in der Tages- zeitung "PNP - Ausgabe Landkreis Freyung-Grafenau" Nummer 53 ein Beitrag welcher von meiner oben angeführten Lesung berichtete. Das Foto um das es hier geht war dem Beitrag beigeordnet mit dem Beschrieb "pnp / Foto: PNP". Ich habe mich sofort mit dem zuständigen Leiter der Lokalredaktion der PNP, Herrn Reinhod Steimel Tel. 08581 / 971815 in Verbindung gesetzt und erfahren, dass Herr Stephan Heigl das Fotorecht an die PNP weitergab, damit es neben dem Redaktionsbericht veröffentlicht werden konnte. Der leitende Redakteur Herr Reinhold Steimel hat mir während einer persönlichen Unterredung versichert, dass die Veröffentlichung der betreffenden Fotografie als sogn. gemeinfreies Bild von der PNP aus genehmigt ist. Einer Veröffentlichung bei Wikipedia sollte demnach nichts mehr im Wege stehen. Mit frdl. Grüßen kahegar !

Der Redaktionsleiter der PNP (Herrn Streibl) wird schreiben an die Wiki-Sgtelle (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> und kundtun, dass die Rechte am Bild "Karl-Heinz Garnitz.jpg" von mir genützt werden dürfen. Im Anschluß an sein Schreiben bitte ich um Hilfestellung wie ich am besten die Rechte an Wikimedia weitergebe. Mit frdl. Grüßen: Kahegar !

--Kahegar (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding document

How do I add a document/information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jweihaupt (talk • contribs) 17:56, 31 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2012/10&oldid=353482963"