This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is my first upload on the Wikimedia Commons, and I'm really sorry if I made a copyright infringement of any kind, and if I choosed the wrong help desk section for my issue. As I might have already mentioned, I have vectorized the logos of some Croatian IT magazines (the only work I claim that I did regarding them is vectorization, nothing more, nothing less), each one of them except Enter which was done by a user named Vhorvat (just to make sure nobody thinks I take credit for his work). These logos are registered trademarks of their respective owners and/or designers and I am not related to any of them in any way. Could you clean this mess so that my contribution doesn't go in the speedy deletion queue?
Thanks in advance and sorry for bothering.
--Diablo-fan (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but for almost all logos in the file (except maybe BUG and PC Play) adding Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademarked should suffice, no? The logos itself are nothing more than a colored rendition of some typeface, not a chemistry structure nor a SVG representation of an ancient script (i.e. adding PD-chem or PD-ancient-script won't do the trick)... and after all it consists only of simple geometric shapes (like PC Play) and/or text, so it, in my opinion, does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, yet on the other hand might be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. --Diablo-fan (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
...what if it could be considered as non-free content, and falls under fair use? As Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use media files, should I upload this to a local (Croatian) wiki? --Diablo-fan (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademarked should suffice as license and trademark notice. Fair use is for copyright and not trademark. They are below TOO for copyright and we ignore trademark and just add the warning template. Trademark violations usually only happen when someone tries to sell widgets with someone else's widget logo. They can sell coffee with the logo I think, but not compete in the same widget market.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
When I upload photos, after I've finished entering descriptions and categories and hit the "Next" button, I get a pop-up box: "Warning: It is recommended that you fill in a category for your uploads. Do you want to continue without filling all the fields?". This is not something I've ever encountered before, and I'm perplexed (and mildly annoyed) by it. I've checked to make sure that all the new files have categories, so that's not the problem. Is this a bug, or have I started doing something wrong with my uploads in the last 72 hours that I hadn't been doing during the previous three years or so? If I'm not doing anything wrong, how can I make this mildly annoying pop-up stop up-popping? Thanks -- Ammodramus (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought that the problem had gone away, but it's returned. I've had the pop-up for my last several sets of uploads. Again, all files have had categories, so that's not the problem. Ammodramus (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I've done a little more experimenting. The problem seems to arise when I upload a set of photos, all of which go in the same categories. I fill in the categories for the first photo, then use the "Copy information to uploads below" tool to categorize the rest of the photos. If I add more categories to the later photos, then I don't get the pop-up. If I only use the categories copied from the first photo (that is, if I don't add any new categories to the later ones), then I get the pop-up. This seems like a bug; can it be fixed? Thanks. Ammodramus (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
That may be a discussion a bit too specialized for the scope of the help desk. You could make your suggestion to the creator of the template or on VP/Copyright. I suppose it depends to what level of detail you want to go with that template, given that a defective notice is an absence of a non-defective notice. (I'm happy with PD-1996. PD-URAA-noformalities-unrestored already seems somewhat of a burden.) -- Asclepias (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Except that PD-1996 does not allow for the possibility of a copyright notice but no renewal within the United States. I have a couple books that are PD in both Indonesia and the US only because the copyright was not renewed, plan on uploading them soon.Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I had assumed that failure to comply with the formality of renewal was included in the broader notion of "published without complying with U.S. copyright formalities" in the template PD-1996, which is probably supposed to reflect the general idea (if not exactly the wording) of the corresponding part of the U.S. Copyright Act, in section 104A(h)(6)(C)(i), which reads: "noncompliance with formalities imposed at any time by United States copyright law, including failure of renewal, lack of proper notice, or failure to comply with any manufacturing requirements". I understand that, technically, the template PD-URAA-noformalities-unrestored may be better, because it forces the uploader to specify the particular formality that was not met. It's just that I'm not sure if that raised level of requirement is necessary. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Correct name and format for file
I downloaded an existing Commons file (BSicon uBHF2.svg), rotated it in Photoshop and uploaded the changed file. However, I am not familiar with the naming or format procedures and the uploaded file ended up being called BSicon uBHF1l svg.png. The file should be a svg file (all the other similar files are) and be renamed and reformated accordingly. It should also be added to a category - presumably the same one(s) as BSicon uBHF2.svg. Thanks for any advice and help to do so (assuming I am correct). Newwhist (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I have found the move function and have requested the file be moved to its new name. No more action from Help desk required at this stage. Thanks Newwhist (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried to upload in my article about the painter and stage designer Yiannis Poulakas his photo (File: Ioannis Poulakas 1937.jpg) without success. I suppose because none of the preset of you categories about copyrights includes my case.
This photograph of the artist, is a family heirloom that has come into my possession from my father as Yiannis Poulakas is my great grandfather. Also there is nowhere in the photo the name of the photographer or his studio or the date of the shooting. Testimonials of my father led me to the conclusion that must be created between 1935 and 1939.
What should I do in order to publicize this photo in my article in wikipedia?
The photographer or his heir is probably still the copyright holder. It would depend on which country they were taken as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
How do I insert an interlanguage link on a Wikimedia's category page?
Previously I used to copy and paste the links from the respective page of Wikipedia, but now they are gone. I noticed the existence of Wikidata, so I added the statement "Commons category" to the desired page on this project, but the category on Wikimedia is still without these links. Thanks. --Eagle204 (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
So far, Wikidata does not support Commons as part of its interwiki approach; I've suggested to Denny that it could easily be accommodated by making Commons categories, gallery pages, and perhaps things like author templates each a separate space comparable to article-space in a particular-language Wikipedia, but so far nothing has been done along those lines.
So far, the Sum-it-up gadget (user preferences) works reasonably well and is probably the most efficient method. Bots should complete interlanguage links (over time). --Foroa (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Image download statistics
I'm aware of traffic statistics (stats.grok.se...), but are there statistics for downloads? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies16:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Pourquoi WIkimedia ne filtre-il pas la pornographie ?
J'adore Wikimedia Commons et je serais prêt à contribuer financièrement mais comme des milliers d'utilisateurs ordinaires, je me demande pourquoi la pornographie n'est pas filtrée ! Il y a suffisamment de Tera-octets de poubelles sur l'Internet pour laisser Commons le devenir aussi et je ne veux pas que mes photos contribuent involontairement, de prés ou de loin, à la promotion de l'industrie de la charcuterie. D'autant plus que je suis sûr que les pornographes addicts, qui sont aussi des téléchargeurs pathologiques, ne contribuent JAMAIS ne serait-ce que pour 1 centime au site. Oui, il s'agirait d'une censure et je connais, malheureusement, la réponse "libertaire" à ma question .. - unsigned
Monsieur ou Madame unsigned, si vous connaissez la réponse, pourquoi vous demandez ici? Si vous voulez un filtre, demandez sur bugzilla: ou sur m:Controversial content/Brainstorming. P.S. Je suis contre un filtre sur Wikipédia mais je n'avais pas des objections contre un filtre sur Commons toutefois, je ne suis pas enclin de maintenir un filtre dans mon temps libre. -- Rillke(q?)08:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Translation for a video about Wikipedia:VisualEditor - I need someone who knows or understand Spanish
I'm working in the translation to Spanish language of this file for the Spanish language Wikipedia, but i can't syncronise the text how should be. Well, the subtitles appears, but there's any phrases what don't. For exemple:
ENGLISH Hi, I'm Trevor, and I'm helping to build a VisualEditor for Wikipedia. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but most who try are easily confused because old Wikipedia's old code is pretty hard to understand
The first and the rest of text is correct, but the second and the third once doesn't appear in Spanish. I need someone who knows about the language and can be able to edit the file. Thanks. --Ravave (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
This file renders as a blank white square (), as does any size of it smaller than 15px. At 15px and above (e.g. [1]), it renders correctly (). Depending on ribbon size, display size and resolution, etc., the smaller image sizes are used by en:Template:Ribbon devices. How can I fix this? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Doh Thanks. I didn't see that tab – it was off the right side of my browser window. Nothing directly on-target in a search, other than lots of SVGs have problems rendering for many different reasons. It appears that the problem is in the SVG itself or the way the wiki renders it. File:Award star-gold-3d.svg () doesn't have the problem. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Uploading a new version of a file avoiding repeated typing of existing information
Is there an uploading way which refers to an existing file so that all the file tags (like description in different languages) can be edited or confirmed instead of newly typed in?
In many cases the only new input is the file name. Kind regards --Modalanalytiker (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It is easier than I thought: Go to the file in Commons. There is an option "Upload a new version of this file". This works fine. Thanks for your help. --Modalanalytiker (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Both NolanTDKR.jpg and NolanTDKR 2.jpg should be good to go, no? What have I not added? Get's the "The uploader did not provide sufficient information (a valid and suitable tag) on this media's copyright status." According to the author of the picture on flickr it can be used.
I think the photographer is http://www.ronphillipsphoto.com/ Googling from the name in the exif. I have doubts that the Flickr account is the photographer. Someone may wish to email the photographer so he can become aware of the Flickr account. I emailed Mr. Philips and I think I will speedy the files for now. If he does respond that it is his Flickr account then they can be undeleted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh! well that was disappointing. Spent all day trying to find some HQ images and learn how to upload them here. Sorry if I made a mess guys, I really thought those were good to go:-( Sammyjankis88 (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
No problem at all. If the photographer emails me back then I may ask him if he is willing to license these two in lower resolution for use in articles. He owes you a favor for possibly finding someone on Flickr violating his rights.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I'm new on Commons and don't see how to indicate right license about image I've uploaded. At this time, all the image files I've uploaded have been tagged as incomplete or to be deleted by someone (so, I guess it will be soon). These images are about a novelist (himself in dedication or his books's covers) and providd to be used in the framework of a wikipedia page (about the author) in preparation (actually as draft). Working closely with him and his publishers, I've of course all the rights to use and spread these images, but I don't know how to indicate this in the license fields. Should I claim that all these images are from me, from the novelist, from the publishers... I don't know what's the right indication to provide to be sure nobody will delete or inhibate these images. Should I show a document stating that he gives me all the rights to publish these images as I want ? Please, could you drive me toward the easiest way ?
Hi, we need a permission from the copyright holder of the photograph (which may or may not be the person who took the photograph) to publish it under a Free License of his/her choice (CC-BY-SA 3.0 is recommended) – note that a permission for use on Wikipedia only is not enough: It must be free for anyone to use for any purpose (including commercial use). This must be documented through an e-mail to our support team – see Commons:OTRS for details. Hope that helps, --El Grafo (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
move to commons
hi. in fawiki some image is not use and they must move to commons. Do you have any python code (robot) or script or tools for this? thanks--:)Mahdiztalk04:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Next to the search box there is a drop down menu, it will have request move option, click that and fill out the form. Alternatively you can place the {{rename}} template on the page. More information can be found at COM:RENAME. Liamdavies (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
English: Susan McCue was appointed to the Broadcasting Board of Governors on July 2, 2010 to a term expiring on August 13, 2011. By law, any member whose term has expired may serve until a successor has been appointed and qualified. McCue is co-chair of the Communications and Outreach Committee, of the BBG, chair of its subcommittee on Innovation and is a member of the Governance Committee.
How we categorize former Catholic churches that now is temporarily used by another religious confession? i.e. this, in Sestri Ponente, is a former catholic churches with Saint Catherine of Alexandria as patron saint, but now is the local diocese of the Romanian Orthodox Church (free loan in exchange of restoration and maintenance, but the ownership of the building remained of the Catholic parish).
Nevertheless the books of local history and the media still refer to it as Santa Caterina church (Chiesa di santa Caterina in italian).
I categorize it with Romanian Orthodox churches in Italy and Former Roman Catholic churches in Italy, I must add Saint Catherine of Alexandria churches in Liguria too? --Yoggysot (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Until some time ago I used Special:Upload in Esperanto to upload media files (I prefer this form to upload wizard because it has a preview mode). Then, suddenly, the licence menu on the upload page became empty, so it was impossible to specify a license. In several other languages it still seems to work.
I suppose that something changed in the upload form, and that somebody would have to maintain a licence list in Esperanto. I would be willing to do that but I cannot find the right place. I started a search for some licence names and found that, for instance, the licenses are maintained in German under MediaWiki:Licenses/de. But MediaWiki:Licenses/eo was deleted in 2007, and the upload form stopped working (in Esperanto) only this year. So there has to be some other place.
Could somebody please point me into the right direction?
Hallo, ich habe die Datei von der folgenden Website heruntergeladen: http://www.metaforum.com/en/pg-summer-camp-italy/organisational-constellations.html
Dies ist im Auftrag des Inhabers des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts geschehen. Dieser Inhaber ist Herr Peter Klein.
Herr Peter Klein hat inzwischen eine Einverstaendniserklaerung an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org geschickt (mit dem Absender: peter.klein@integral-systemics.com). In der Einverstaendniserklaerung wird die Nutzung des Bildes unter der Bild-CC-by-sa/3.0/de Lizenz bestaetigt.
Was muss ich nun weiter tun, damit das Bild nicht geloescht wird, sondern unter der entsprechenden Lizenz freigegeben wird?
Vielen Dank.
English translation:
Hi, I downloaded the file from the following website: http://www.metaforum.com/en/pg-summer-camp-italy/organisational-constellations.html
This was done on behalf of the sole owner of the exclusive copyright. The owner is Mr. Peter Klein.
Mr. Peter Klein meanwhile has sent his letter of agreement by email to permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org (using the sender address: peter.klein@integral-systemics.com). In his letter of agreement he confirms the use of the picture under licence Bild-CC-by-sa/3.0/de.
What else do I have to do now, to prevent the picture getting deleted but getting approved under the respective licence?
Hi, im Normalfall musst du erstmal einfach nur abwarten. Wenn sich in den nächsten Tagen nichts tut vielleicht einfach nochmal per mail bei permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org anfragen ob es noch irgendwelche Probleme gibt. Um voreiligen Löschungen vorzubeugen empfiehlt es sich {{OTRS pending}} in das Feld |permission= der Bildbeschreibung setzen. Aber keine Panik wenn das Bild gelöscht wird: Das kann ein Admin im Zweifel einfach wiederherstellen. Grüße, --El Grafo (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded a new version of the file Sqrt(3).png and the picture on the file that you can click showed the old version until I refreshed right after uploading it and I still can only see the old version when ever I view the full resolution.
That may be a software glitch we have had here. I think one work around was to make an oddball size thumb like: .
After a day or so it fixes itself. You can also try purging the page from the down arrow beside the blue star at the top right of the file page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
posting an Xcel chart from publicly available data
I made a chart of US bank failures 1934-2013 using FDIC data as the source of the numbers. Can I post it in the article on bank failures ? How can only the chart be pasted? Thanks--Wuerzele (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Commons:First steps should help with uploading. We only host media here. Once uploaded to commons use this format in articles on Wikipedia: Caption here
As you suggest, you need to extract the chart from the spreadsheet before you can upload it here. To do this, you need to save it as an image file.
Charts are best saved in a vector format, e.g. as SVG files. I don't know how to do that from within Excel, but in LibreOffice, you just right-click on the chart and select "export as graphic". LibreOffice will read Excel spreadsheets, but it might garble your chart.
If you can't produce a good SVG version, raster formats provide a fallback option (with some drawbacks, see e.g. w:Wikipedia:Collaboration to convert graphs to SVG). Here are some instructions from Microsoft on how to save a chart to raster formats from within Excel. PNG is generally a better format for charts than JPG or GIF.
Request deletion of File:Mucosal erosion, excoriation and ulceration.jpg
The above img was original work by myself. A user on the en Wikipedia converted the sketch into a much better version (Erosion excoriation ulcer 2.svg) so the original is not being used and is no longer required from what I can see. Thank you, Lesion (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The slideshow button appears on category pages (automatically created galleries), but not on user created galleries. Is that the way it is supposed to be or can I do anything to allow slideshowes? Thanks --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not my area of expertise. If this is useful for others, it is perhaps a good idea to do this modification or to create a script specifically for user-created galleries? Thanks --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
My e-mail will not notify me when my watchlist has changed.
Hello,
I've checked the box within Preferences which says, "Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed" and clicked "Save," yet I haven't received any e-mail messages; I've had to manually check the pages. What should I do?
I have been having issues uploading pictures to our page. The first picture of the soda straws did not have the correct source, but the second did. Actually I was not aware that the first picture was even uploaded. Also, is there an easy way to change the old pictures to my new ones, as the I am now the new owner of the touring company for Cody Cave. Please advise. Thanks.
You should include a license for File:Soda Straws in Cody Cave.JPG before it is placed in an article. Other editors may disagree with inclusion. We try and include the best images we have. Far too many editors get into disputes about which are the best though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Deceased-people-by-country talkpage
Guys. There's a problem reading the developments in this discussion page and its content is inaccessible, though it was live with full guideline just a while ago, which I now wished to follow and comment if needed, as that page is where we proceed with the Dead People category flow. Any solution? Orrlingtalk16:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Did you notice this?
This page has been deleted.
The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
It tells you why it was deleted and whom to blame (and to possibly ask for undeletion). It appears on every deleted page. It has a dark red border and a light red background. Also, cross posting is not welcome. -- Rillke(q?)21:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Zeile "Attribution" unter "use this file on the web"
Language: German
Hallo,
erstmal vielen Dank für Eure Arbeit. Gerne lade auch ich mal einige Photos oder Texte hoch...
Nun aber mal meine Frage: Wenn ich bei einem Bild "Use this file on the web" anklicke, erhalte ich ja ein Fenster, in dem auch
eine Zeile "Attribution" vorhanden ist.
Genügt es, wenn ich diese Zeile 1:1 unter das jeweilige Bild in der Webseite setze?
z.B. hier das Bild und darunter:
Ahgee (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons
danke für Eure geschätzte Antwort!!!
Hallo, im Großteil der Fälle (nämlich dann, wenn das Bild/die Datei unter einer de:Creative Commons-Lizenz steht) reicht das, aber bitte die URL zum Lizenztext nicht vergessen (sollte eigentlich auch da mit in der Zeile gestanden haben?):
Ahgee (Own work) CC-BY-SA-3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Das Own work und via Wikimedia Commons ist mMn nicht zwingend erforderlich.
Aber Achtung: Es gibt ein paar Lizenzen, bei denen das nicht reicht. Die GFDL verlangt z.B. dass du eine Kopie des kompletten Lizenztextes auf deiner Homepage bereithältst. Im Zweifel sollte man einfach mal einen Blick auf die Links in der Lizenzbox unterhalb der Dateibeschreibungen werfen und sich auch mal den vollständigen rechtsverbindlichen Lizenztext zu Gemüte führen, bzw. bei Unklarheiten im Einzelfall hier nochmal nachfragen. Bei vielen Dateien gibt es zwei oder mehr mögliche Lizenzen zur Auswahl. Da reicht es dann, sich für eine zu entscheiden, wobei man wohl meist einer Creative Commons-Lizenz den Vorzug geben wird. Details findest du auch unter Commons:Weiterverwendung oder de:Wikipedia:Weiternutzung. Hoffe das hilft dir erstmal weiter, wenn nicht einfach nochmal nachfragen!
file appear in my upload log as thumbnail but old version in actual place
I uploaded a new version of file in thumbnail of my upload appears new version whereas in actual place old version remains?--Guglani (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Most likely, you don't. Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free, educational media files such as photographs, scanned images, diagrams, animations, audio and video clips. Please read Commons:Project scope/Summary, part of our first steps guide, to understand what this site is about. —LX (talk, contribs)21:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
If it's from the US, it would be public domain unless copyright was filed at the time & renewed 28 years later. That's by no means a given. Someone may want to look into this. You might better take the question to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk23:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
That makes two key assumptions, one, that the photo was actually published between its date of creation (1956) and 1964, and secondly that within 28 years of its pre 1964 publication its copyright status was not renewed. If either of these statements are untrue, the file is copyright (see Public domain#Material in the public domain). The file has been speedied due to copyvio, but can always be undeleted if either it is found to be PD or permission is gained through COM:OTRS. Liamdavies (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Downloading
I am not sure how to download new info to Wyatt Earp reference page. I have written a song, (copyright 2012, Library Of Congress), about the true story of Wyatt Earp. Can you assist me with how to do that? Also, how to link to YouTube video of said song from the Wyatt Earp page?
Sorry, but I can't think of any reason why what you are describing would be within the scope of either Commons or Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk01:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Widely distrusted pictures
Can I use leaked pictured that are widely distributed on multiple sites? The source is typically not known and they are used by multiple websites - unsigned
Assuming that by "use" you mean "upload to Commons", the fact that it is used on multiple websites doesn't matter at all either way (it has no bearing on the copyright status. Nor does "leaked". Can you be more specific? You say nothing about what it is a picture of, what country it is from, when it was taken and by whom, etc. These are the sort of things that would determine whether you can upload it to Commons.
On the other hand if by "can I use" you mean on a personal website or such, the answer may be very different than for Commons, since Commons doesn't allow "fair use" justifications.
I notice also that your title for this section is "Widely distrusted pictures". Is "distrusted" a typo for distributed, or are you talking about an image whose authenticity has been questioned? - Jmabel ! talk07:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello I'm a new editor and I'm not sure about the rules about such things and I could not figure it out easily. Please advise about this image taken from her own web site. I have used it in the WP article on Her
--Stolen Vehicle (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Have you received permission to use the photo? We can only host freely licensed media at commons, if the image you have uploaded is copyrighted, we unfortunately have to delete it unless we can gain permission through COM:OTRS, or request the image to be re-licensed. If you know the person who created the image (or are able to contact them) I would suggest starting the COM:OTRS process. Liamdavies (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
At her site you can read: "Copyright 2012 Philippa Nikulinsky. All Rights Reserved." This means that the image is copyrighted to her and you must obtain a permission from her in order to upload this image to the Commons. Ruslik (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice yet I'm still unsure exactly what I need to ask her to do to give the required permission. Could you please advise me in this and or supply me with a "standard" type request form etc or directions to give her. --Stolen Vehicle (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, the image file at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dinshaw_Eduljee.jpg is that of my uncle taken about 60 years ago. While I found this copy on the internet from the user I have acknowledged, this image is old enough to be free from any copyright and I have seen the image in the collection of my other family members. What should I do? thanks--Eduljee (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Please mention, in the file description page, the year when the image was created and, because the author field seems to imply that it is a work of the government, mention also the year when the image was first published (it is not likely 2013 as currently written in the page, but possibly between 1941 and 1944?) and also insert in the description page the templates explaining the reason why you say that the image is free from copyright in India and in the United States (possibly the two templates PD-India and PD-1996). -- Asclepias (talk)
Hi, Can you please tell me how to make the changes you suggested i.e. the steps I should follow. I am new to Wikipedia and I don't to how to access the way to make the changes suggested. Thanks--Eduljee (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
For photographs made or published by the government, the copyright situation in India is possibly similar to that in other countries with copyright laws derived from the 1911 British law, i.e. when a photograph is a government work, its copyright status would be determined by the section of the law about government works, not by the section about photographs. -- Asclepias (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, ok. You did quite well, if your method was a bit inventive :) You do not need to copy the whole contents of the templates. To display a template in a page, you can just write only the name of the template inside double brackets, for example like this : {{PD-India}}. Now the bad news: looking at the information about about the copyright of India in the page Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights (in the end note "t"), it seems to say that works published in India must have been published before 1941 to be in the public domain in the United States. Perhaps you can look into that information and come to a conclusion about what the copyright situation is for this photo. I see that other photos from about the same period have been deleted, for example this one. -- Asclepias (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I have learned that the image was taken when Dinshaw Eduljee was a Flying Officer between March 1941 and December 1941 (he was promoted in January 1942). The same photo is on display framed in the Air Force Museum at Palam, Delhi, with the caption of his rank as Flying Officer. The most likely date is March 1941.
Status of “Harvie Krumpet” on the Official Academy Awards® Database
I need to create dozens of screenshots from the Academy Awards database to be used as citations that are required by Wikipedia conventions. see this page for example. Visit Section 2.1 at this site to see how this citation is being used, next to Harvie Krumpet(20).
I do not understand the instruction, or the method that I must use, to satisfy "Wiki-needs."
We cannot accept copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder, so Commons cannot accept these screenshots. And Wikipedia does not require you to upload screenshots as citations. Just indicate the source video work and the time at which the relevant shot occurs. - Jmabel ! talk
Hi, File:Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec 064.jpg has a second "better" version uploaded over the top of the original, and it has a "superseded" tag. I think the original, far larger version, should be restored, and the new version perhaps saved to a new filename. I was also under the impression that "superseded" only applied to different format files (ie jpg that should be png or similar), isn't it an opinion otherwise? What do you think? (Category:Works_between_1888_and_1892_by_Henri_de_Toulouse-Lautrec has 4 different versions of this particular painting.) Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion all four versions differ enough to be kept. None should have the superseded tag. All of them should have the other three versions added as thumbnails so that the projects can view them easily for selection in articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
What about a possible new wikicommons content use license under a wiki commons brand?
What about a possible new wikicommons content use license under a wiki commons brand:
There is a problem that can be solved with a replacement for attribution.
Imagine if a person did't want their name used for attribution, but also didn't want their open domain pictures used for a Hilton ad campaign in an in flight magazine.
The wiki commons brand could be used in place of name attribution
(kind of like the awkward way you see the brand 'getty images' which acts to sometimes replace attribution)
How the site works now is if you want to use a picture you have to attribute it, which is kind of ridiculous when the attributed name is a username like yoloking69LOL
The Wikicommons logo could be used in lieu of names.
You really can't hide use of a photo anyway.
You can reverse image search anything with google or tin eye.
Product could be certified by wiki commons.
Products could have pages on wiki commons and they could post the attribution on the wikicommons page for the product or company.
This would get the wikicommons brand and ideology out in the public more.
I'm not sure what you're getting at really, but commonly used licenses such as {{Cc-by-3.0}} already allow authors to define how they want to be attributed. It doesn't have to be a user name. It can be their real name or a pseudonym. Authors can also nominate additional attribution parties, such as Wikimedia Commons. Regarding authors who don't want their works used in advertising by companies willing to comply with free licensing terms: they should not publish their work under a free license on a free content project, and we're not going to change our policies to cater for their wishes to restrict use of the content. —LX (talk, contribs)11:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Could you please help me: I have uploaded the file which is an advertisement dating from the year 1928 and which I have found on http://www.zoeppritz.com/wikipedia - the advertisement has been made by the company itself in the year 1928.
What is missing concerning licensing information, I am not sure what I have to put in?
Thanks for your help in advance!
Hello, I have been trying to figure out how to replace a current image that is on our company Wiki page with the correct logo. I have followed instructions which states to upload first into Wiki commons but then from there is cannot figure out how to get it onto the page? The wiki site is Subsea 7.
Thanks
Pru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prublakely (talk • contribs) 10:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I assume you are talking about en:Subsea 7 on the English-language Wikipedia, not something on an internal "company wiki," about which I'd have no clue. You don't indicate what image you are trying to use there, but if you are trying to replace the only image in the page, the logo, then on the article page you would select "Edit Source" and where it says "company_logo = [[Image:Subsea 7.svg|230px]]" you would change "Image:Subsea 7.svg" to the file you want to use, e.g. "File:Subsea whatever.jpg". - Jmabel ! talk11:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I find many charts and maps that do not cite the year or, sometimes, source of data. Is there any way to easily mark those as needing a year or source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meclee (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I need help. The author of the image I uploaded told me through e-mail, "Everything on my site is free to be used by anyone. I have nothing filed in the way of an official copyright, although I request that I am given credit for anything posted or produced in print." How can I prove to Wiki that he has "nothing filed in the way of an official copyright" so that the image can be used (if I do not prove it, the image could be deleted in seven days)? Thank you in advance.
uploading a photo from Flickr with licensing: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
To whom it may concern,
I am trying to make my way through all the correct Wiki media procedures. I uploaded a photo of Blake Colburn Wilbur. It was reviewed by Stefan4 - however since he won't "talk" I hope you can help me with this. Please see - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WilburGen
re the photo of Blake Colburn Wilbur posted by Stanford Medical History Center to flickr in 2011. My family has the same photo (Blake is my grandfather) - but since Stanford posted the photo first - I figured it would be less difficult to use their copy.
Hello. I would like to upload an image (see [2]), but I am unsure whether it can be done in commons or not. The image in question is a portrait done by H.B. Norris of a man who died in 1877 (over 130 years ago).
The problem is that next to nothing is known about Norris. He did another portrait of a man named Richard Tilling, which may be the one who died in 1929 (and mentioned in this Wikipedia article, see [3]).
What is known, however, is that the man who died in 1877 lived to be 80 years of age. The image reflects him in his 40's, meaning that it was probably done around 1840.
Thoughts or suggestions? Thanks in advance.--MarshalN20 (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW, the Richard Tilling portrait by H.B Norris on the BBC site is possibly by Helen Bramwell Norris (1865-1927), but she is presumably not the artist for the portrait of General Rosas on both dating and stylistic grounds. See also File:Theodore.watts-dunton.jpeg and [4].
What a fascinating find! Yes, if Rosas died in 1877, it is highly unlikely that Helen Norris (age 12) might have painted such a portrait. Should we attribute the artist as "unknown" or also go with "H.B. Norris"? I'll go with what the source states (H.B. Norris), but please do feel free to change it if you think it is better to go with "unknown". Regards.--MarshalN20 (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Could you please help me: I have uploaded the file mentioned above which is an advertisement dating from the year 1928 and which I have found on http://www.zoeppritz.com/wikipedia - the advertisement has been creates by the company itself in the year 1928.
What is missing concerning licensing information, I am not sure what else you need?
Thanks for your help in advance!
Best regards, Simone
What is missing is that you haven't provided any license tag at all. If it is in the public domain, then you need to provide a tag indicating why. Offhand, I don't see why this would be in the public domain yet, but someone else may no more than I do. You might better ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk15:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded a file then I uploaded a new version of it and then noticed the new version had a slight mistake and thought clicking revertr would delete the newer version but instead uploaded a second copy of the original version. Is there a way to delete all the thumbnails but the original one then upload the new verion without the mistake now that I took the mistake out of the paint file?Blackbombchu (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Assuming you are talking about successive versions under the same name, they will take up just as much space whether we "delete" them or not ("deletion" is really just hiding). In very rare cases we actually would physically remove an old version, but that would be because of legal issues like libel. Barring that, actual removal would be far more trouble than it would be worth. - Jmabel ! talk02:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes. You can use {{Speedydelete}} with an appropriate comment to ask for a deletion as a courtesy to the uploader on the basis that it was uploaded in error. Make sure you state that you plan to upload an equivalent image. - Jmabel ! talk15:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Why this is a violation
I posted a picture in file hydro2 that I thought I could use but the file got deleted. sadly I used the same picture in the file heliumspectra and I will try to delete that part. My question is that they also said the files hydro3 and 4 may violate the policies but these are completely my on work done in word 2007. The picture came from googling concentric spheres and say share by them. I have tried every way I could think of to ask permission to use them but do not know how. and also, if I can not use this picture can I just use my own similar drawing? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfraser (talk • contribs)
They would be out of scope because they are basically text. Commons is for media (images, sound, video). Assuming it's your own writing, maybe this content would be more appropriate for Wikiversity. - Jmabel ! talk
Failed to show all links to my page
In the file that I uploaded, how come it says that help desk is the only page that links to my file when I have a blog called "How to create accurate image angles" that also links to my file?Blackbombchu (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
You don't say what file, but only links from Wikimedia Foundation projects are listed here. We have no automated way to know what external pages might link in to our pages. - Jmabel ! talk16:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
You could add a comment to the talk page indicating where it is linked (or where the image is otherwise reused) from externally. - Jmabel ! talk16:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
No subject
was hoping that you might be able to help me in some way. My family has owned this bracelet for a long time. My father has recently passed away and he has left it to me. We have done some studying. From what we have read .. Christian the 5th did not like the picture on the medal so he recalled them supposedly for his beard not looking the way he had wished. That medal was also to be give to whom had been in the three wars for the three year period. The German and the Prussian war. So, obviously this one wa not melted down.
I spoke to a gentleman from your country and he told me to contact you as you would be more of interest for this particular item. I do hope that you might assist me in this matter, Respectfully, Joy Woods
joys phone pics droid 2229.jpg joys phone pics droid 2229.jpg
29K View Share Download — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.102.104 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
What exactly do you need assistance with (I didn't see a question in there), and what does this have to do with the Wikimedia Commons media repository? If you have a question relating to a specific media file, please name the file. We don't seem to have a file called File:Joys phone pics droid 2229.jpg here. —LX (talk, contribs)21:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Adding content to an existing Wiki page
Hi,
I took some time to summarize the areas of expertise for women philosophers on an existing Wiki page titled "List of Women Philosophers". Its a matrix listted philosophers by subject area such as Ethics, Feminism, etc. I believe it would augment the current page nicely so readers could look up topics of interest, find relevant women philosophers and be able to research those individuals' backgrounds on the existing page. The matrix is ~1.5 pages long.
Is there interest in adding this summary and how do I do it?
Dear, Sirs
I wanted to upload the file - (Афганистан_до_востребования._Обложка_диска.jpg) the cover of a film about war in Afganistan which has been shot by the hero of the article in wikipedia I've made. The file is taken from the site http://rus.ruvr.ru/2013_01_24/Afganistan-Do-vostrebovanija/. Would you be so kind to help me with proper and correct uploading it.
With best wishes. --Anatoly315 (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Unless you were responsible for creating this cover you don't own the relevant rights, so you can't sign them away. It is possible (but not likely) that the creator would be willing to release those rights. If so, see COM:OTRS or COM:OTRS/ru for how to proceed. - Jmabel ! talk15:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Problem with new version of file. Cache?
Hi, I have a bad feeling that I'm about to feel stupid, but I'm having a problem getting the right version of File:Farming Village Cooperative of Jagodnjak - Fodder Factory.JPG. I've tried uploading a new version with the watermark cropped out, the thumbnails under file history appear to be correct, and it's telling me that the live image size is correct (562 × 421 pixels, file size: 136 KB) but I'm still seeing the old version with a red date watermark in the bottom right corner. I've purged the page, cleared my browser cache etc. but can't seem to get the right image. Could someone please have a look at the current file and see if the red date watermark is there? If it is, any ideas on what I've done wrong? Thanks. -Wine Guy (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand what's happening. I see that User:Darkweasel94 has tried as well. One odd thing is that the WP article where it is used [5] has the correct (new) file version, and the page on en-WP where I came from [6] has the correct thumb. I'm now having the opposite problem with File:Lesmurdie_Falls_NP_0305.JPG, it seems fine on the commons file page but the thumb at the en-Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop is the old version. If anyone can explain this, I'm all ears. Thanks again. -Wine Guy (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I tried it too. The version I was reverting to didn't have the timestamp when I clicked on it, but after the revert it was there again. darkweasel9418:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The problems I've had seem to have resolved themselves for the most part. I think part (or all) of the issue is addressed at Help:Purge#Advanced manual thumbnail purging; there can apparently be issues with "persistent problems with a thumbnail updating". I was unaware of some of the issues described on that help page, so the "problem" is resolved as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for your help. -Wine Guy (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and have yet to understand fully how to use it. I live in France in a village called Sauveterre-de-Béarn, Pyrenees Atlantiques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauveterre-de-B%C3%A9arn). This is a beautiful village of major medieval historic importance, yet Wikipedia does not show any of it, just the river and a field. I believe my photo will give a fuller, accurate and comprehensive image of this town. I have already uploaded it to Wikipedia commons, is there any way you can please upload it to the Wikipedia Sauveterre webpage ?
File upload from Flickr gone wrong (like quite a number of recent others)
I often upload files from Flickr but maybe I occasionally do something wrong? (That's a question) What is it I did wrong here and I have tried various ways to re-upload the image without luck. Please sort me out! Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Bryan's flickr upload tool (uses User:Flickr upload bot, can take up to 24 hours). It does sometimes say not everything has been uploaded and I have learnt to ignore that so I can't say whether or not that warning was shown. I get in a marvellous tangle when I try to upload a replacement image and I think that is because I do not quite completely understand what I'm doing and am presented with blocks which perhaps I should ignore? Should I start again from Flickr providing a new file name and ask for the faulty empty file do be deleted? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
When I first got to the page there was no image. Your attempt to upload an image or the bot's upload may have failed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks I understood that but its the proper solution that eludes me. I've no technical knowledge. I think I'll just keep on uploading and deal with the probs as they arise. Many thanks, Eddaido (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, something must be wrong (and it is probably me). I feel sure I must have left tracks all over the place trying to upoad this file this file have a look at this page for my tries at various times and I have also tried to use http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/flinfo.php (and possibly left nasty stupid non-IT person mess behind me) but I suppose because I do not understand what I am trying to do I have had no luck with that either. Thanks for any more help at all I may be able to get! Eddaido (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded the first one. I copied the largest size from Flickr to my hard drive and then selected "No file by this name exists, but you can upload it." at the top of the failed page. I assume that the other two were just attempts at the first file. Commons:Commonist is another uploader you could try. I have never used the Flickr upload bot so I don't know what could be failing with it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Will have another try, I don't remember what stopped the process when I tried to do that. Eddaido (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Benutzerkonten zusammenführen
Hi!
Habe zwei Benutzerkonten, einmal unter "Qx777" und dann unter meinem Realnamen.
Kann man die irgendwie (unter dem Realnamen) zusammenführen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qx777 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 21. Jul. 2013 K@rl (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
Ich weiß nicht ob es möglich ist, aber ob es möglich ist nur ein "bureaucrat" kann es tun. Sehen Sie Commons:Bureaucrats. (User is asking to combine his two accounts. I'm not aware of a way to do that, but I said if someone can do it, it's a "bureaucrat": see Commons:Bureaucrats.) - Jmabel ! talk23:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Can I use ANY image on Wikimedia Commons for my projects? Help with understanding of license terms required.
Hi. I run a sole trader web design company and there are some nice images on Wikimedia Commons that we'd love to use to accompany, for example, a page about a particular visitor attraction or event on our clients websites.
I am struggling, mainly because it is so wordy, to understand the licensing and/or terms and conditions of use of any image and would appreciate a more basic description if someone could help?
If we wanted to use an image what acknowledgement do we need to provide on our clients websites?
Would appreciate some guidance, thank you.
Regards
NJ
Hi there, queries like this are always helped if we know what images you're talking about, that way we can check the license and give specific advice. Bar that, I can say that images licensed with a CC BY-SA 3.0 license are free to use in anyway so long as both a copy of or link/reference to the license, and credit (ie the author) are included with the image. An example of this could be "Picture of thing. Created by Foo (Commons contributor) licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0." I hope this helps, but remember that this is non-specific vague advice that may not hold true if the image has a different license, as I said, it would help a lot if you could mention what images you are referring to. Liamdavies (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
What I'm struggling with is understanding what, in this instance, "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license" is? :o(
Also, where do I find what I need to do to 'attribute' an image on my clients website?
How many different types of licenses are there and how do I find out what they all mean?
Vielleicht kann mir jemand helfen: Ich lade Hochkantfotos hoch - die volle Auflösung ist auch korrekt, die Vorschaubilder in den verschiedenen Größen sind jedoch alle um 270° verdreht. What can I do? Beispiel: File:Böckstein 3082.jpg - Ich habe zwar meist den Rotateauftrag gegeben, der ist aber eigentlich kontraproduktiv, da er auch das Original dreht. Danke im Voraus K@rl (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Ich habe grad Dein Bild angesehen, alle Groessen sind verdreht. Hast Du mal Deinen Cache geleert und die Seite neu geladen? Purge die Seite mit der Datei mal. Koennte sein das es eine Verzoegerung seitens Commons ist, welche die "alten" Vorschaubilder anzeigt. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)20:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Liegt wohl an Deiner neuen Kamera. In den Exif Daten ist die Rotation der Kamera gespeichert. Deshalb ist die Vorschau richtig und das eigentliche Bild "falsch." Schau mal hier.
In den Exifdaten der EOS 600 von beiden Fotos steht doch "Um 90° entgegen dem Uhrzeigersinn gedreht" - was ja der Tatsache entspricht - und trotzdem ist einmal die Vorschau falsch und einmal das Vollbild falsch. somit kann es ja nur beim Hochladen liegen. Evt. liegt es am COmmonist? --K@rl (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
File:Böckstein 3082.jpg muss jemand oder etwas physikalisch gedreht haben. U.U. sogar in der Kamera zugeschnitten o.ä? Wegen Rotatebot brauchst Du dir keine Sorgen zu machen: Wichtig ist nur, dass das Vorschaubild im Rotatelink richtig ausgerichtet ist. -- Rillke(q?)09:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Assuming you mean "some random image you found on the Internet and would like to put on Commons" there is no such procedure. If you don't own the rights to the image you can't license those rights. Typically, for an image that is made in the last century or so, those rights belong to the artist or photographer; if you are not the artist or photographer, then the only way you can legitimately place that image on Commons is to get appropriate permission from the rights holder (see COM:OTRS). There are exceptions: some works are in the public domain; rules for what is public domain vary a lot from one country to another. This particular image appears to be the work of the Ghanaian government, and might qualify as public domain either because it may be too simple to be eligible for copyright or possibly (I don't know) the Ghanaian government may generally place its government work in the public domain (several governments do that, including the US federal government, but many others do not). If someone specifically knows about public domain for Ghanaian government works, please help out here. - Jmabel ! talk03:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This link [[7]] contains the (hopefully) actual copyright law for Ghana. There is apparently no specific PD-Gov here and exceptions are very limited (see section 8). But someone else more experienced may be able to offer further input. GermanJoe (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
A new porn filter is being implemented in the uk - Wikimedia - commons as a pornography hoster will be open to blocking - any website with sexual content will be filtered out from search results - Wikimedia Commons clearly hosts porn content - how does the project think to move forwards with this? Youreallycan (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
We are hardly a pornography hoster with <<1% of those media in concern and also, this is neither our mission nor our goal. COM:SCOPE is worthy being read and regulary looking at Special:NewFiles may unveil new insights for all the doubtful. -- Rillke(q?)08:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Es geht um folgendes wir haben in Wikipedia soweit die Seite von Famoe erstellt,
jedoch fehlt ein Bild von ihm das wir soeben hinzugefügt haben und wir desweiteren
leider probleme haben das richtig online zu stellen.
Dieses Bild wurde von Famoe's Facebook Profil entnommen,
Privates Profil: Fabiano montesano
Künstlerprofil: Famoe
Wir Rap & Rhymes Records Ltd. besitzen alle rechte der Bilder und sind auch berechtigt
diese hier zu veröffentlichen. Wenn sie irgendwelche Weitere Informationen brauchen
oder eine Bestätigungsemail selbst von der seite thisisfamoe.com
ist das kein problem.
Ich hoffe auf eine schnelle rückantwort, damit wir dieses problem auch endlich lösen
können.
Danke sehr
Solche Genehmigungen bitte von einer offiziellen E-Mail-Adresse aus mit Angabe des Bildes und der Lizenz, unter der das Bild freigegeben wird, an permissions-commons@wikimedia.org senden. Unter COM:OTRS stehen ein paar Vorlagen - jedenfalls müssen Bearbeitung und kommerzielle Nutzung für jeden, nicht nur Wikimedia-Projekte, urheberrechtlich erlaubt sein. darkweasel9414:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Help deleting an image
Hello, I recently uploaded a photo of Nelson Dellis to the Commons. I've been working on behalf of Nelson to draft a Wikipedia article for him, and we secured initial permission to use this photo from Life'sDHA, the copyright owner. However, when we asked the company to send the email to Commons confirming that permission had been given to release it under a CC-BY-3.0 license, they changed their mind, indicating that they'd rather not have the image used on Wikipedia. If someone has a moment, could they please delete the photo? Thanks! ChrisPond (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The image appears for me, a little lime green square, with a field of blank space the same size above it. Maybe try refreshing the page or purging your cache. Liamdavies (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The file which i have uploaded is logo of a government scheme .Can i use it ?
I have not merely copy pasted the logo , I have downloaded it from the site , made it as .png and then uploaded it .
Will this come under copyright violation --Commons sibi (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there a category for files which have no categories yet? Or a different way to look for such uncategorized files? Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded a non-free image yesterday to the commons using the upload image wizard. I then used that photo to replace an existing photo in a bio article. Today, I used the same facility to try and upload a similar non-free photo (private photo given to me to load to the bio), to replace the previous one, again using the same wizard. This time it said there was no file by that name but that I could upload it, with a link on the "upload it". I tried again with the same result.
What is happening here, and how can I fix it?
The article in question is the biopic about Women's World Chess Champion Anna Ushenina, and the image in question is a private photo sent to me by her manager to instal in the biopic.
On a sidenote, "This is the preferred photo by Ushenina and Tsepotan" is not a valid reason to satisfy NFCC#1 - if a suitable free alternative exists, it should be used (but that's more of an en-Wiki topic). GermanJoe (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
As explained by others above, it's an English-language Wikipedia topic and better discussed over there, but we can give you the link to their en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. Please note that the concept of fair use, the basis on which some non-free images can be accepted on en-Wikipedia, is something completely different from a permission from the author to publish the file specifically on a Wikipedia article. Such limited permission does not meet the basic purpose of the Wikimedia sites, which is to publish material that can be freely reused. Of course, it would be interesting if you could obtain a free license from the author and upload the file here on Commons. However, it's not clear if the informations currently on the en-Wikipedia description page are correct. You wrote there that the photo was taken in July 2013 by Tsepotan, but a version of this photo was published in an article on the internet apparently from March 2013, which places doubt on the informations on the en-Wikipedia description page. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
We have a bunch in Category:Anna Ushenina. We can't use a copyrighted fair use one if free license ones exist. I tagged the en:wp one for speedy deletion. If her manager wants to have it added then see: Commons:OTRS and have it uploaded to commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there a way to remove a wrong date from my picture?
I took the picture File:Penguins in Nebraska zoo.JPG sometime this month, but for some reason the camera put 08/10/2010 on the picture. It is annoying to me that the date is 3 years off. SL93 (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
How can someone own a 1868 advertisement just because it's on their website?
I uploaded Pavilion Theatre Mixed Playbill, 1868.jpg and the EXIF date for the image says "Images may be reproduced only with written permission of V&A Images". I don't see how they can own the copyright of a work that was published 145 years ago. It is from a university website. SL93 (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, The Victoria & Albert people don't claim a copyright on the 1868 work. They claim a copyright on the 2009 reproduction (possibly photographed by Henrietta Clare). If that claim is valid or not in the United Kingdom, when considering the nature of this particular reproduction, I don't know. So, I hesitate as to the best place to link for you to read more information, but between the following pages you will probably find more discusions than you ever wanted to read about this topic and you can draw your own conclusion:
Note that this discussion may matter if you want to decide if you can reuse the reproduction freely in the United Kingdom or in some other jurisdictions, but anyway it is accepted on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I can replace it with another copy that I found that isn't of a reproduction, but I'm not sure if I would need to. SL93 (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
As said above, it's accepted on Commons. Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs reminds reusers of the fact that files on Commons are not necessarily freely reusable everywhere. You do not need to replace it on Commons, as far as Commons policy is concerned. However, if you live in the United Kingdom, it's your decision to evaluate how comfortable you are with uploading files on which people in the UK are claiming (rightfully or not) a copyright in that country. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Did not sync for first time
App did not sync for first time. Even after several hours.
Alice Drysdale-Vickery (1844-1829). She was big from 1907 when her husband died and she took over. She does look far younger than her death at 85 in the above image. I would say under 60 at least. Probably safe to say published before 1923.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Can a page or part of freely downloadable document at World Digital Library URL <http://www.wdl.org/en/item/2672/> be uploaded on WikiMedia Commons? If yes, under which license(s)? Wikipedia has an article on this subject but lacks images. These images are available at the said URL (World Digital Library)..
--Abrsinha (talk) 09:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The World Digital Library has a section about copyright as part of their legal notice. The fact that it's downloadable at no cost does not say anything about whether the content is free in the sense of freedomdefined:Definition. A work is available under a free license if and only if there is a notice saying it is covered by that free license. It is possible, however, that some of the content hosted there is in the public domain (not protected by copyright), for example because the copyright protection may have expired. That needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory for details. —LX (talk, contribs)10:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Différence et organisation Category/Galerie
Quelqu'un peut-il m'expliquer la différence entre la gestion des catégories et la gestion des galeries, et la raison d'être des galeries comme sous-catégories ? Je voulais voir la totalité des images de la catégorie Mustela lutreola, mais dans un premier temps, je n'ai eu accès qu'à la galerie, et je ne me suis pas aperçue tout de suite que j'étais dans "Mustela lutreola" (galerie), et non dans "Category:Mustela lutreola" qui donne accès à la totalité avec un slideshow. C'est assez subtil. Merci de ce que vous pourrez faire pour m'éclairer. --ChristianeB (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Voir Commons:Galeries pour la différence entre les galeries et les catégories. Si on met une phrase dans le cadre de recherche, c'est comme en Wikipédia: s'il y a une galerie avec ce nom, on la voit, sinon on reçoit des résultats de la recherche (catégories et fichiers). Pardon pour mon mauvais français, j'espère qu'on peut me comprendre ... darkweasel9409:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Massive licence violation: Feautured pictures of animals
There are a massive violations of CC-BY license. Postcards and expensive posters from FPs of aninmals are sold there. My ara photo is affected. I've seen a lot of other photos I do know from FPC. I guess that nearly all postcards are create from photos of Commons. What should we do? IMHO this discussion page is not the right place to talk about this threat - but what is the right one? --Tuxyso (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I thought you are already aware of suchreuses. They provided links to my user page and to the CC license in some pages. The link to the source file is also required. Some users (like me) have no complaints on such uses; but it is up to you in your case. But I think such uses are OK as far as they meet the licensing requirements. If you don’t like it; you may refrain from releasing your works with such a license. GFDL is a bit stricter; but still it may difficult for you to stop them if they have no plan to respect to your licensing terms. Further, participating in FP will boost the popularity of your work; it will automatically boost the reuses too. JKadavoorJee09:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with re-use, but where is the link to the source file. IMHO the link has to be placed near the photo. I cannot find any link to my userpage or to the source file. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This indeed a license vioaltion because they don't name the original author and some source information (without clickable links to license or image) is only available if you click on "About the design". This is not where you expect to find such an important (and incomplete) info.--Denniss (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The license and the url of the Commons description page are hidden under the "read more..." clickable link. But I didn't see your name. -- Asclepias (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
In fact, the real use is the printed photo card. I don’t think they do any copyright formalities there. You can try an order to verify it. :( JKadavoorJee09:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The link and info under "read more" to the original file was previously not there. I've emailed the "designer" and told him to add a link to the original file. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I manage several Facebook, twitter, pinterest, and google plus pages on behalf of businesses. I need to know in plain terms whether I can reuse a wiki commons photo on those social media sites. I will add text to the photo if I need to crediting the source and author. I need someone to explain this to me plainly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.233.170 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
A. wikipaintings.org has been contacted via its online web form in regards to the page above, with locked editing capabilities, via the following message urging them to correct their commercial use restrictions on a faithful photo of a Da Vinci attributed work.
"Especially considering that wikigallery.org appeals to US Federal Law regarding its own policies.....it is inconsistent with wiki's pre-defined license attribution policies re: public domain images, to restrict the commercial use for this image, a work attributed to Leonardo Da Vinci, whose works are ALL in the public domain in the USA, without commercial use restrictions.
You can't have it both ways.....either you're the author of a new and novel use sufficiently altered from his original public domain works---in which case you need to remove his name as the author----and are permitted to define your own copyright restrictions....
or
the image is not a new and novel use of his work, in which case it's in the public domain, and the restrictions re: commercial use need to be removed by August 2, 2013, after which if remaining, the restrictions will be filed for dispute."
B. Meanwhile, the thumbnail of the image available via google word search online without attribution tags (link below) beyond "provided courtesy of..." will be posted as its own wiki commons page with a public domain attribution, to provide wikipaintings.org a link to a page w/unlocked editing that they can update with corrected attribution moving foward.
I'm providing this information to the help desk as an interim measure between notifying wikipaintings and wiki commons prior to formally submitting a dispute. (no need to reply, unless other actions are desired by wiki commons)
wikigallery.org gives a rather contradictory/confused/cofusing/unfinished impression.
Their file description page makes the contradictory claims that the image is in the public domain (meaning it's not protected by copyright and therefore cannot be subject to copyright restrictions on commercial use) and that commercial use is prohibited.
The page footer contains both a {{Cc-by-nc-nd}} (which additionally prohibits modification) and a statement that the text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (no version specified). That's not quite as contradictory, as multi-licensing is always a possibility, but it's far from clear what their intent is.
Their main page claims that images are freely usable.
Their donation link leads to Wikimedia's donation campaign even though it's obviously not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. (The site is hosted by Softlayer on servers in Dallas with contact addresses pointing to a connection with 1st-art-gallery.com, which is based in Pennsylvania.)
This might be a new incarnation of someone trying to give an apparence of credibility to dubious merchandise by spreading it on Commons and other sites. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
OpenStreetMap licensing
I haven't been on top of this since they changed their licensing in September 2012. I create a lot of maps using OSM data, and license them as cc-by-sa-2.0 (the old OSM license). I upload them in both SVG and PNG format. Here's an example: File:Bogota districts map.svg & File:Bogota districts map.png.
The data is {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}}, so that needs to be put in for all maps from after the license change, no matter in what format they are in. The tiles can be licensed under whatever their copyright holder has released them under, that doesn't need to be a CC license, but for use on Commons of course it needs to be a free license. darkweasel9419:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, how does that affect re-users of, say, Wikivoyage content? Would any article on Wikivoyage with a map created from OSM data then also be required to have the ODbL license? This would affect what, for example, a hostel in Bogota would need to provide with a printout. This isn't an insurmountable problem, but if you could clarify, it would be appreciated. --PeterTalk20:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, according to my understanding of the ODbL, whenever you distribute anything based on OSM data, you need to add a notice where it's from and that it's licensed under the ODbL (just like you need with most non-PD images here). But of course it doesn't need to apply to the text of Wikivoyage articles themselves. IANAL however. darkweasel9421:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I, the uploader put this image on Wikipedia, and I told them that it was from a blog. However, I didn't see a all rights reserved message at the bottom of the page. It's a photograph of a mountain. This is the website: http://babaknavaie.blogfa.com/post-111.aspx. Am I allowed to keep this photo on Wikimedia? Also, I did give credit to the person from where this is originally from. Thank you!
If there is no explicit release under a free license, no. All photos are copyrighted by default, "all rights reserved" has no legal significance. But you can always ask the copyright holder if he'll agree to release some of their photos, and have them send a permission to COM:OTRS. darkweasel9421:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I am unable to upload media files. whenever I tried, it says duly giving list of some names such as, ogg, etc it is not approved category file etc., What is the method to up load viedios. please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskaranaidu (talk • contribs) 04:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You should not use double apostrophes in category names. It won't change the format, and it looks too much like quotation marks, which can be confusing when retyping the name. As you can see in Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Images from, common practice seems to be to use quotation marks or nothing at all apart from Title Case.
Hi, is there a way to wrap into PD-scan complex license tags with their own params? Let's say I have
{{PD-old-auto-1996
|country = [[w:en:Russia|Russia]]
|date = January 1, 1996
|reason = It was first published in the [[Soviet Union|USSR]]{{void
}} (see [[Template:PD-Russia|PD-Russia]] for more details).
|deathyear = 1944}}
but PD-scan doesn't take it as it needs the license name only:
Hi. I work for Senator Barickman, and he's asked me to upload this picture to his Wikipedia page. I just recently received the licensing agreement from the photographer who took it, and tried to provide a link. It was deleted, and I haven't been offered any explanation as to why. How do I go about uploading this license correctly so that we can get this problem resolved?
The reason File:JasonBarickman.jpg was deleted is shown in the deletion log, which you'll see if you click on the filename. You were told more than a week earlier on your use talk page what to do to avoid that. As explained in that message, you need to follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS. Note that we only accept files that are published under a license that allows anyone to use the content in modified or unmodified form for any purpose, including commercial purposes. The document that you've tried to link to in the permission field does not seem to be publicly available. —LX (talk, contribs)20:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, my initial message was a bit vague. I meant the link I provided to the licensing agreement was deleted, not the image. The agreement was sent to me via email, and it is a PDF file, so I'm just unclear about the best way to upload it here.ZTFulkerson (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess the best way is to send it to the OTRS email address - nobody except them really needs to be reading it. darkweasel9422:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You may also wish to email the head of you party nationally. I emailed the Republican and Democratic national leaders a while ago and got no response. I told them many of their articles had lame images or no images and they were allowed to provide them for us to review for article use. Have them send a memo to all members to check their article images. Detail about the process, licensing by photographers, and the fact that any final decision is made by editor consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rick_Remender is a fine example of our image selection with the subject involved. Mostly we try to use the best likeness and most recent.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
), as does any size of it smaller than 15px. At 15px and above (e.g. [1]), it renders correctly (
Thanks. I didn't see that tab – it was off the right side of my browser window. Nothing directly on-target in a search, other than lots of SVGs have problems rendering for many different reasons. It appears that the problem is in the SVG itself or the way the wiki renders it. File:Award star-gold-3d.svg (
) doesn't have the problem. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. Lesion (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Resolved
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Award-star-gold-3d.svg/15px-Award-star-gold-3d.svg.png){kind=link}
