2020s
date QS:P, 2020-00-00T00:00:00Z/8
2029	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2028	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2027	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2026	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2025	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2024	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2023	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2022	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2021	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2020	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

2010s
date QS:P, 2010-00-00T00:00:00Z/8
2019	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2018	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2017	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2016	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2015	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2014	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2013	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2012	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2011	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2010	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

2000s
date QS:P, 2000-00-00T00:00:00Z/8
2009	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2008	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2007	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2006	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2005	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2004	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

May 1

GeoCommons

Following the work of Wikipedia-World, I have just installed on the toolserver a project to show geocoded Commons images in Google Earth: GeoCommons. This is good use for the data we have here, and with precise geocoding and enough images it allows for a proximity search type of image browsing or just looking at a landmark from many different angles. The downside at the moment is that it works through database dumps, which means weeks of delay before edits are visible. That might change, though.

When Google introduced the Panoramio.com image layer in Google Earth at the end of last year, they had around 100,000 images. Less than half a year after, they're almost up to a million [1], and I haven't seen any cats so far. Even though a layer of our own that needs to be installed separately doesn't quite have the same kind of exposure, it's a good starting point to encourage making our data even better.

To help with geocoding, images needing coordinates are easy to find with Mayflower. For example, this Mayflower search gives a list of images of the Tower of Pisa that haven't been geocoded yet. Google Earth can also simultaneously use multiple sites as placemark resources, so it's easier to figure out where exactly a photo was taken when there's something to compare with. For help on adding the actual coordinates, see Commons:Geocoding and en:Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates. --Para 01:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on this a bit more to get rid of the long delays mentioned above and have the data update quicker. Rather than having to wait weeks for a new database dump to arrive, edits to geocoding on Commons are now visible on Google Earth within minutes, depending on the toolserver replication lag (which at times is quite a few minutes itself). --Para 23:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Austmap.png

The image was deleted on Commons and bot replaced with Image:As-map.png on en.WS (not sure of the order of events). I have looked at the new image description and there is no information that this is actually the map from the 2004 CIA World Factbok. Which, of course, is where the image is used in Wikisource. A map is not simply a map of a place but of a time as well. I never saw anything on CommonsTicker about this. Can someone explain what exactly happened here and how I would know if it was a still the appropriate image for the 2004 CIA Factbook.--BirgitteSB 16:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked, and it is the exact same image, yes: however the image information on both is (nearly) identical as well, and there was no information on the deleted version stating it was from the 2004 CIA Factbook. The content of the deleted image's page was "Map of [[Australia]]. {{PD-USGov-CIA-WF}}", while the current version has the addition of "CIA" in the description but without a date. -- Editor at Large • talk 17:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, maybe it would best if I simply reupload all these under a 2004 title. It happened before where they were all replaced with updated versions from the 2006 Factbook and I am unsure of how certain I can be that it was properly fixed.--BirgitteSB 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly do that, if you want to ensure that it remains the 2004 version. Uploading to a name such as "CIA Factbook 2004 [map title]" would ensure it isn't updated and will likely be helpful to wikibooks in terms of knowing which version you are using and finding them faster. Image:As-map.png is used a lot (55 pages in 35 projects), so I suggest just uploading to the different name for now and leaving the existing one under the title it is currently at. Normally the original would be marked as a duplicate but in this case it may be updated to the new version, and we would want the latest edition on wikipedias rather than the outdated one. -- Editor at Large • talk 17:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting COM:MOTD up

I have been undertaking a project that uses the Wikimedia Commons Media of the Day, while doing this it occurred to me that it would be useful to split it up into 'Audio of the Day' and 'Video of the Week' (since there are insufficient videos). This would provide better user experience since generally users will either be interested in audio (such as music, which the commons has a fair bit of) or video. Lcarsdata 17:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to be able to broadcast on the front page that we have both audio and video, as I am sure a lot of people are unaware that we host both as well as images. Having a separate VOTW may help to boost awareness that we host video and perhaps (hopefully fingers crossed) get us some more free video content. -- Editor at Large • talk 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, go for it. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2

featured image not available for download

Hi all, I hope this is the right place to write this (if it is not, move this discussion to the proper page): I want to signal that Image:Canis lupus laying.jpg is not available in higher resolution. May it be fixed? --Smark 08:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try here [2]. It opened fine for me, though it is slow due to large filesize. -- Editor at Large • talk 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to wikipedia categories

Hi, i am fairly new user to Commons. I searched (futile!) for information on whether i can add Wikipedia categories to images located in Wikimedia commons. This will ensure that i have all the images with respect to a category available irrepesctive of the location of the image (wikipedia for fair use images and commons for free photos). Is there a command, syntax for the same? Pls let me know. Vimalkalyan 11:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot add images from Commons to a category on wikipedia, or add images from wikipedia to categories on Commons; you can link categories here with the same name as wikipedia ones by using [[en:Category:Foo]]. This adds it as a link in the navigation bar, below the toolbox; it will be a link saying "English", as with interwiki links on articles in wikipedia. You can also add the {{Commons|Category:Foo}} template to categories on Wikipedia, or {{Wikipedia|Category:Foo}} here (though that is unnecessary if the interwiki link format is used).

Note too that Commons has fewer categories and less restrictive ones than Wikipedia; we don't have "Canadian-Irish actors from Mexico" type categories and because we have images they are usually less subcategorised, to allow for easier browsing. Cheers, -- Editor at Large • talk 12:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can add Commons images to Wikipedia categories by editing the image pages in Wikipedia. But I am not sure if that is a good idea. Most times it should be enough to connect the categoris with interwiki links as Editor at Large describes. /82.212.68.183 13:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the f*ck are people doing here?

Why do perfectly good images (name, license etc. all OK) have to be replaced by one with just a slightly different name, creating hundreds of useless edits all across projects? Take for instance Image:Lombardy-flag.svg vs. Image:Flag_of_Lombardy.svg and Image:LocatieAmsterdam.png vs. Image:LocationAmsterdam.png. What's the frigging use of replacing them, besides creating work for CommonsDelinker? None. 84.84.36.240 23:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The friggin use would be a consistent naming scheme. --Dschwen 23:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons_talk:Deletion_guidelines#Deleting_duplicates. Apparently image redirects kind of work (they look terrible, but Tim says they work well enough). So probably we should start just redirecting duplicates instead of all the stupid bot work (or worse, image redlink holes). --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 3

CC-3.0

Sorry if this has been addressed elsewhere. Files licensed with CC-BY-3.0 are beginning to show up on the internet. Some have already been copied to Wikimedia Commons such as Image:Aleurites_moluccana.jpg. Others it would be nice to add so they can be used in the various Wikimedia projects. The CC 3.0 license (according to the templates) are not yet approved as free. What is the process and timeline for such approval? --Selket 00:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stalled discussion is at Commons_talk:Licensing/Creative_Commons_3.0. From that discussion it seems clear to me that the U.S. versions of the CC-by-3.0 and CC-by-sa-3.0 licenses are acceptable. The unported licenses may be ok, but the rest are questioned due to moral rights clauses. The U.S. version does not have a moral rights clause. The unported license has a moral rights clause, but it only applies to the jurisdiction it is sought to be enforced in, so it is likely ok. -- Ram-Man 01:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the unported version doesn't create moral rights, it simply states that they are not waived. Now, I don't know very much about E.U. copyright, but my understanding was that moral rights aren't waivable anyway. So, it seems that it is simply acknowledging the legal reality of those jurisdictions. If unported is "likely ok", can we fix the template? --Selket 05:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The legal text of the unported licenses goes beyond saying "moral rights are not waived", which is the crux of the dispute. I think there is agreement that the -us licenses are acceptable but the unported license, as well as some of the others, have a clause that is contentious. Given that, the unported licenses should not be accepted until the resolution of the discussion - participate there not here.--Nilfanion 06:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be a debate internal to Wikimedia Commons. If there are in fact problems with the moral rights language as is (which I doubt), these should be debated on the cc-licenses list, and CC should be asked to fix them. It is not fair or reasonable to condemn any particular CC license if no real effort has been made to resolve the problems with it. CC is trying to make its licenses legally safe by adding the moral rights language, not trying to add new restrictions.--Eloquence 10:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree there is value in working to make the CC license compatible, that is not the threshold for whether or not it can be used here on the Commons. Let me quote Commons:Licensing

Works which are not available under a license which meets the Definition of Free Cultural Works are explicitly not allowed. See the Wikimedia Foundation board resolution on licensing for more information.

Either a license meets that definition or it doesn't. In the opinion of a lot of editors, most of the CC-3.0 licenses do not meet that criteria and thus by mandate of the resoution passed by the Wikimedia Foundation board we can't use it here on the Commons. In fact, based on your point it may not even be legally possible for a worldwide license to be compliant with the Definition, but that doesn't change what we have to do here. Even if that excludes a certain block of people, there is nothing we can do about that. The board resolution doesn't say "A license must meet the Definition of Free Cultural Works unless such a license is not legally possible". Also, we must have a debate whether or not we allow the license and discuss whether it meets our criteria. Trying to move the issue elsewhere is not helpful for our purposes. Condemnation or not, we have rules that we have to follow and the CC shouldn't take it personally that we follow those rules. Fairness isn't at issue here. -- Ram-Man 12:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing policy explicitly refers to the licensing section of the DFCW, so moral rights that exist outside the license are not a problem. The question, really, is only whether the CC licenses create any new restrictions.--Eloquence 12:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that we can allow a license that acknowledges non-free aspects, such as moral rights? What if laws were changed that permitted moral rights to be waived? In cases like that, we'd be stuck with non-free licensing even though it would no longer be legally required. This is why there are objections. The CC licenses may create new restrictions either now or in the future because they don't maximally waive moral rights. In any case, we shouldn't be rehashing these issues here, as they are clearly disputed. Move them to the link provided above. -- Ram-Man 13:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the licenses establish restrictions beyond the legally anchored and inalienable moral rights, those should be challenged. I am simply not convinced that an issue of interpretation should be resolved here by banning these licenses. Rather, in recognition of CC's aims, we should work with them in figuring out whether the current wording is a problem, and how it could be improved.--Eloquence 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Freedomdefined and the decision of the foundation is that Freedomdefined is totally clueless with regard to moral rights. It's been five weeks since I asked them about their stance on moral rights [3] and they have not been able to clarify that issue one bit.

What seems odd to me is that some people are against moral rights although moral rights are as a part of droit d'auteur (copyright) as commercial rights. Samulili 18:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant licensing section of freedomdefined.org does not concern moral rights. If the CC 3.0 licenses establish restrictions beyond the inalienable ones, those (and only those) would have to be held up against the four freedoms.--Eloquence 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other license reviews

There is currently a {{Flickrreview}} process (and a few other similar processes) to have a trusted user or sysop verify that the image was available at the source, under the particular license on a particular date. It seems like it would be a good idea to have a general license review request for images that are just hosted on random sites but released PD or under a free (or almost free) license.

For context, his and my previous post both relate to Image:Aleurites moluccana.jpg, which was moved from en, but labeled with the wrong license. The website source clearly indicates that it was made by U.S. government employees but not on official duty. --Selket 05:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

Quick question on copyright law on performances

I've long known that camera flashes are distracting/dangerous to performers on a stage, which is why you should refrain from taking pictures during concerts (the darkness is nothing a sturdy tripod can't fix, but that isn't very polite, hmm?) Recently, however, I've heard people also saying that taking pictures of the performers violated copyright law. Is there any validity to this claim? What if the concert is free and hosted on government property (i.e. the Trenton War Memorial)? Thanks for your time: this is a purely theoretical question and I won't be hurt if no one answers. ;-) Edward Z. Yang 01:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons talk:Licensing#Copyright status of concert photographs. --EugeneZelenko 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When an SVG isn't an SVG

I was looking at Image:Coat of arms of Venezuela.svg and I decided to expand it. You will notice the fuzziness. That's becuase a PNG is embedded in a .SVG format. I didn't know if there are any other cases like this but they should be deleted or dealt with because they obviously do not add any benefit over a PNG. Not sure if anyone else has noticed this. gren 04:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an older version. I won't delete this because it may be relevant in some cases, but I have reverted to a real vector version. gren 04:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grouping pictures of a series?

I have uploaded a few of a series of images starting with 2007 wasp nests in curtain.jpg. I used galleries on the image pages to indicate that they are related. Is there a better, suggested way of doing this? Creating a separate category looks like overkill to me, as does creating a separate page.

Here's another example of a very small series (same event, same photographer):

So what do others do?

In some cases (large series, notable event), categories seem to work:

Sometimes you can find the series only when visiting a user page:

User:Jastrow/Press photos#Demonstration against CPE, Mar. 07 2006

Here an editor added links to pictures in the same series, calling them "Other versions":

Maybe we should have a template in the spirit of the "Other versions" example, but with a more helpful wording?

I have raised this issue at the help desk several weeks ago without getting an answer (archived here). Rl 13:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the solution you used in image:2007 wasp nests in curtain.jpg rather useful, at least for a small series of images. -- Túrelio 18:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to copy an image from Hungarian Wikipedia, and to get it deleted from there afterwards

I hope this is the right place to ask this question. I've been editing article about striped grass mice at en and at fr. In looking for interwiki links, I found that the Hungarian article had an image which is not available on commons, but which I'd like to use at en, and perhaps also at fr. I'd like also to take a few centimetres off the margins, so that when the image is a particular size, the mice will be more visible. I looked at en:Template:NowCommons for interwiki links, and there doesn't seem to be a Hungarian one. So I'm not sure what would be the correct thing to do after I've uploaded it. Based on instructions I was given previously when I asked an administrator about copying an image of an ice cream machine from fr to Commons, I think that what I should do is the following:

Save the image to my hard disk.
Upload it to Commons, under GDFL and Cc-by-sa-2.5, as in the original. Use the same name — "Lemniscomys barbarus01.JPG" Mention also that it was uploaded to Hungarian Wikipedia by hu:User:Azay, with date.
Go back to the saved image on my disk, and crop the edges. Make no other modifications.
Upload the modified version over the original, adding a note that ElinorD cropped it but that the image is not modified in any other way. Leave the licence tags alone.
Look at user language categories on hu.wiki, trying to find someone currently active who speaks English. Leave them a message asking them to tag the image for speedy deletion. (I tried putting {{db}} on the image just using preview, as an experiment, and it didn't work. Obviously they don't use the exact same template codings.) The en template db didn't have any interwiki links either, so finding a Wikimedian who speaks both Hungarian and English seems to be necessary if the original is to be deleted after being uploaded to Commons.

I'd appreciate if someone could confirm that all of this is the correct way to do it — or to warn me if it isn't. Many thanks. ElinorD 16:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They've got a template like nowcommons. So you can simply use {{nowcommons}}.

The steps above seem ok to me, except that you also need to link to the original image page, i.e. hu:Kép:Lemniscomys barbarus01.JPG, on the image page here.. --Erwin85 18:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'd be grateful if you (or someone else) could have a look at the image Image:Lemniscomys barbarus01.JPG and check that I've done everything correctly. The image at hu was tagged with GDFL and cc-by-sa-2.5. So when the uploading instructions told me to change GDFL to {{GFDL-user-w|hu|Hungarian Wikipedia|Azay}}, I assumed that I was also to put {{cc-by-sa-2.5-user-w|hu|Hungarian Wikipedia|Azay}}, but it didn't work. I then changed it and just put {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, which seems to be fine. I haven't yet put the nowcommons template on the original image, but I'll do that in a moment. Cheers. ElinorD 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little striped mouse shows old version at fr article and new version at en article

As mentioned above, I've been working on articles about the striped grass mouse (Lemniscomys) both at en and at fr. I created a short article on the Lemniscomys striatus in English and in French. The image that I used for both was one that I found at the German article, but it is hosted here at Commons. As the little mouse was in the centre, and the picture had a lot of background, I felt that the mouse was too small be be properly seen when inserted into a taxobox. I saved the image, cropped a few centimetres from top, bottom, left, and right, so that the actual mouse would be bigger if the picture was fitting into the same amount of space. I uploaded the new version over the old, and explained to the uploader.

Since then, I have found that the mouse looks larger than before in the German article, and in the English article. However, it still looks tiny in the French article, and it's obvious when I look there that I'm seeing the original version of the image — from before I cropped and re-uploaded it. I've tried reloading the page, purging the cache, etc., but nothing works. I recently looked at it on a different computer, and it was still the old version showing at fr. There are also other places where that image appears, and sometimes it shows the tiny mouse from the old version, and sometimes the larger mouse from the new version. How can I get the French article to display the modified version of the image? Thanks. ElinorD 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you solved this already? I see the same images on de, en and fr. --Erwin85 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no, I haven't solved it. I see the same image in English and German, but the French article shows what is unquestionably the original version of the image. Of course, it's exactly the same photo, but in the newer version (English and German), the mouse is bigger in proportion to the rest of the photo, and there's less background. I've looked at it with two different computers, so I don't think that it can be related to not having uploaded the page properly. Thanks anyway. ElinorD 19:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After trying for over a week, with constant purging of the cache, and reloading the page, I have finally managed to get the image at fr to display according to the modifications I made. I guess it must have had something to do with my computer, after all, rather than with the Wikimedia software, so sorry if I wasted anyone's time. ElinorD 17:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 5

Please vote

Should all pictures be deleted which are published after 1922 and of which the creator died after 1925? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Opinion_section is awaiting your vote. --Historiograf 22:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Pros_and_Cons first ;o) Michelet-密是力 17:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 6

Help needed with CommonsDelinker bots

Please let me know if you are able to help me improve the code for two bots that save our community a lot of time: a bot that deletes images on local wikis once the image was removed here (delinker) and a bot that can universally replace images (replacer). The current code does its work but needs a lot of monitoring. It is basically unstable. You need to have a solid understanding of Python and the Pywikipediabot framework to be able to help here. Having access to the toolserver is an advantage. All actions are logged in a database table that could use more exposure to the outside world in some way (php/perl web knowledge required). Please contact me by email or on IRC. Thanks in advance. Siebrand 20:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Pretty please? Siebrand 22:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

Gif into SVG : How make Automatic conversion of hundred thousand GIF ?

...the final SVG version need.

Hello everybody, and especially SVG likers.

I'm looking for an automatic tool able to converte hudreds of such black & white GIF images into SVG. The gif that I want to converte anre such as on the right, it's a basic work of 5 clics, but I need to do this for... 100.000 images ! Is it a solution to converte all a serie of Gif into SVG ? Did you already heard about such wide conversion ? All help is welcome, about 4.000 of this images will be share with commons, in the Commons:Ancient Chinese characters project --Yug (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard of any such tool that exists yet, but the GIMP should be able to handle this type of task, manually. V60 ^{干什么？ · VContribs} 17:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are programs to automatically trace raster images into vector images. I can't think of one off the top of my head but such tools exist under linux and you could easily write a script to iterate over thousands of files. However, your vector results are only going to be as good as your raster source with this method. Cburnett 18:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See List of raster to vector conversion software. I believe potrace may be helpful here; it's command-line and very configurable--the marginal cost of doing an extra image is very, very low. grendel|khan 22:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

Proposal

I suggest adding

{{Information
 |Description=
 |Source=
 |Date=
 |Author=
 |Permission=
 |other_versions=
}}

to image page, I think it will be usefull.--Vaya 08:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By adding something like this to MediaWiki:Imghistlegend--Vaya 17:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category and/or Gallery question

I am doing a mini-"raid flickr for free images"-project, meant to obtain specific free images of people (mainly from Israel) for Wikipedia use. This basically means I take one free use image of the subject and upload it. Since the plan is to have only one pic should I:

Open a category for the person and only give the category all the relevent general categories (from, occupation, born etc.) interwiki to the relevant article.
Open a gallery for that one pic and give the gallery the many cat's interwiki.
Both
No cat. or gallery, just give the pic the categories (and forget the iw?)

Thanks, DGtal 13:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that there is more then one free image available, will be good idea to create category/gallery with interwikis. Otherwise - just add single image to relevant categories (for example, Category:People of Israel). --EugeneZelenko 13:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

Quality and copyright questions

There's currently a deletion debate going on at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Palestine Mandate 1920.gif which raised a couple of questions in my mind - hopefully someone here might be able to answer them!

Do we have any guidelines for image quality standards? The image is of very poor quality and has an embedded and lengthy English-language caption, which obviously reduces its portability across multiple Wikipedias. I voted to delete it because I felt - as a matter of gut instinct - that it fell below the standards we should expect, but having thought about it a bit, I'm wondering exactly what quality standards we apply. At the very least, it doesn't seem to be a good idea to embed a caption below an image. I've never seen any other examples of this sort of thing; is it something we're supposed to discourage?

Where do we stand with derivative versions of copyrighted images? According to the image description, it's based on a number of fairly recent publications - the odds are that it's traced from a low-resolution printed map (which would explain the pixelation as the result of subsequent resizing). The US Copyright Office's guidelines on derivative works suggest that a slightly altered copy of an original work wouldn't qualify as a legitimate derivative work and would presumably be a copyright violation.

Any thoughts? -- ChrisO 00:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Image:BritishMandatePalestine1920.png, a higher resolution vector version. It should supercede the .gif one anyway, this should kill the problem. Michelet-密是力 06:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information itself is not copyrighted. If a recent publication places a state border at some place, anybody can draw a map with a border at the same place, using the same information (for which there is no artistic creativity, it is not an expression of the author's personality). Theoretically, you cannot use the same map, the physical thing (for which there may be artistic creativity), in a reproduction or transformation process. Practically, a map like this one, simply showing a border position, is to trivial to be copyrighted, because there is no way to make the difference between the two processes. Michelet-密是力 06:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the quality question, my answer would be to only reject images because they are considered too low quality when there already is an alternative (of higher quality) available. How much better would depend on the degree of similarity between the pictures and the number of alternatives. Of course this is all just my opinion. - Andre Engels 14:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of political and social events

Hi there,

As you perhaps know, French Wikipedians and the French chapter, Wikimédia France, have made a special effort to cover the French presidential election (we obtained press access to some meetings, obtained good photographs of all 12 candidates, as well as of other politicians, etc.). I think we should sustain this effort with respect to the various political and social events (for instance, we obtained photographs of the post-election rioting from a person with a Flickr account).

There are a variety of events on which we are likely to have Wikipedia or Wikinews articles: elections, riots, protests, etc. We should try to cover these. Either go there if it is nearby (do not take unnecessary risks) or gently email people who put up photographs on Flickr or similar.

(Word of caution: I think we should not make faces too recognizable, think about taking photographs when people are looking elsewhere, or blur or pixelize the faces. We do not want to get people in trouble, be them rioters or law enforcement.) David.Monniaux 08:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed

I request from an author for the permission to use one of his image that already hosted on the internet and this is what I got, "Thanks for your enquiry. In principle I have no problem as long as you are not using the image for profit and the license does not allow people to reuse it for profit. As long as these conditions apply feel free to use it and attribute with my name."

Is this permission goes with the Wikimedia Commons policies?
If YES, could you people point out me the correct license template for it? Thanks 124.43.208.233 20:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. Non commercial licenses are explicitly not allowed on Commons and other Wikimedia projects. See Commons:Licensing. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks 124.43.214.136 21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

Crystal Clear - computer icons

It seems like this page got a bit of traffic recently, thanks to Digg. There seemed to be a lot of appreciative and positive comments in the digg post.

It got me thinking, that it may be worth our while to spend some time organising all our computer icons a bit better. At the moment it's REALLY haphazard.

Gallery pages seem better suited to computer icons than most images, because it's quite reasonable to have 200 or 300 images and it's still quite a small page. In fact, it's *better* than a category listing, because the category introduces all that unnecessary whitespace.

So... I don't know, do people have ideas about how it is sensible to organise icons? Pages like this are obviously very useful. I was thinking maybe it might be useful to have a big table with columns=different themes, rows=icons for different functions. Any other thoughts? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many duplicates among computer icons. Those should probably be redirected to the preferred file names. Unfortunately many has already been deleted. /82.212.68.183 16:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I often find myself trailing through the pages and pages of different themes of icons to find one suitable for my purpose. A table like you have proposed would ease this task incredibly. Lcarsdata 06:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would, too. --MichaelMaggs 17:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a start: Comparison of icon sets. It is quite hard work. There is a problem that I can't figure out, too: should be list icons by the function they likely represent, or what they actually visually show? Functions are not always represented the same way. For example the date/time function can be represented by an analog clockface, or by a calendar. (Probably other things too.) Tango has a useful document we should try and copy, I think: [[4]. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3d Icons

Where can i find 3d icons for use with web applications on wikimedia?

May 11

Problem with rtl interface

I took a screener. The red shows the Comons logo fly sideways and the yellow shows the diff indent of the sidebar. This needs to be fixed. Yonidebest Ω Talk 15:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way this is an internet explorer only bug, while I fully agree this should be fixed, it may be more productive for you to use a browser which displays this properly for the time being (for example Opera or Firefox). I will have a go seeing if I can fix this. Lcarsdata 16:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a bug with MediaWiki:Monobook.css/he after doing some tests on my testwiki. Fixing atm. Lcarsdata 16:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see what is causing, the original rtl.css does not have this problem, it must be caused by some of the stuff not included in the 'light' version. Lcarsdata 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll turn to Eran, the person who added the script. Yonidebest Ω Talk 16:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

Commons:Meet our photographers

Hello,

I created this page (thanks to David Gerard's suggestion) as a place where we can highlight, to outsiders, our best photographers, and show that we do have professionals and professional-quality work here. It is also a nice way to thank such superb photographers for donating their time and work to us, by letting them self-advertise a little bit.

You can see I put an example user promo there. Before we get started filling it out I guess we need some criterion for inclusion. So obviously this is only about people who donate their own work. How many FPs should they have before they should be included on this list? 5, 10, 15? Other ideas? (BTW I think we can make a similar page like Commons:Meet our vector artists for our SVG whizzes, too :))

--pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually instead of discussing it here, please comment at Commons talk:Meet our photographers --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this derivative work?

I have seen the image Image:Sisko-Zanaq.png, and I'm not sure if this can be considered a "derivative work" or not. It is a "fan art" version of a character from a Star Trek TV show, but it isn't a direct reproduction of the show (it isn't a screenshot, a promotional poster, etc.), neither it features (as long as I'm aware) strong trademarked things that would make a strong diference between fan art of a TV character or fan art of an actor.

You can check the original character at Star Trek Thanos 16:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If faces are the works of god, then this is a derivative of one of his/hers works ;) Otherwise I think we just have a portrait here. Samulili 17:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that it is a portrait of a fictional character. A portrait of Patrick Stewart would be fine but one of Jean-Luc Picard would be more of a problem.Geni 01:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks OK to me. --MichaelMaggs 17:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it does not inherit from another picture (poster, screenshot), there is no "derivative" from the Star Trek TV show involved: the piece of art reflects the artistic personality of its author, not of the actor or TV show creator. Beware, the analysis would of course be different for a comic strip character. Michelet-密是力 05:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New upload page bug

I used to be able to add many sound files quickly because I could return to the "Upload own work" page and it would still have the templates and selections in place. I merely has to select a new file and make a minor change or two to the information of the next file. Now each time I go "Back" to this page, it tells me I'm not logged in. I have to reload the page, re-enter all the file information, and re-select the permissions. This makes using the upload feature painful and annoying. --EncycloPetey 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... AFAIK no changes have been made to the upload form that would affect your edit session and log you out. Do you have "Remember my login on this computer" enabled at Special:Preferences? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never enabled that "remember me" thing for anything in my life, and yet I haven't had problems with the upload yet. I only have problems if I am not logged in the first time I go to the upload page--and obviously, every time I return to that page with the "back" button, I still get the info that I'm not logged in... but that shouldn't be your problem because once you got through to the upload form, that should be available via "back". Hm... --Ibn Battuta 03:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like my problem. While I use "remember me", my computer had "forgotten" this time I went in, so I wasn't logged in before I went to the page. It may be a cache issue. --EncycloPetey 04:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Converting images to SVG in Inkscape

This was covered somewhat on a discussion thread higher up on the page, but my problem is with Inkscape. I can't figure out to convert basic pixel-based images into SVG. Other than manually tracing the lines, is there a way for the program to outline simple shapes? I'm starting with Image:Gaf.png, which is pretty basic. If anyone could point me in the direction of a tutorial or help page that would be great, or if there is a simple button or command in the program to use that would be even better. Thanks. ɪkiɾɔɪd | talk 20:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inkscape has an auto-trace feature under path->trace bitmap but you will usually better results if you just draw new paths yourself. For very simple examples like the one you posted the trace bitmap feature may produce acceptable results. --Gmaxwell 20:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got it working, and uploaded Image:Gaf.svg. Thank you so much! What is the name of the template that I put in Image:Gaf.png in order to indicate that a vector version is available? ɪkiɾɔɪd | talk 21:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{SupersededSVG}} Yonatan ^talk 21:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually {{Vva}} or {{Vector version available}} should be used instead, if you just want to indicate that there is a vector available. If you've replaced all uses of the png with the vector and the png is no longer used, orif the png is a very low-quality image and the svg should be used for quality purposes, then {{SupersededSVG}} is the right tag. The superseded tag was mostly used before when the deletion requests on superseded, unused images were still going on. -- Editor at Large • talk 00:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be really interesting by this : Commons:Ancient_Chinese_characters:Tutorial, we do exactly tha same work than you (Image:Gaf.png=> .svg), but with chinese characters. --Yug (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it, thank you for the link. I think it is ok to delete the PNG version--it isn't used anywhere and I'm the creator. So I guess I'll list it for deletion. ɪkiɾɔɪd | talk 15:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used {{Superseded}}, is that a bad thing? CrazyPhunk 08:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

"Why DID you delete... ?"

For the first time I've found myself in the list of those saying "Why did you delete my picture?", and promptly I find that I'm not the only one using the past tense--it seems that uploaders of images suggested for speedy deletion are generally not informed (and I'm not sure about the others, I still have to gather some first-hand data on that :o))...

Wouldn't it make sense to have a software that automatically informs uploaders that their image has been deleted and why that has happened? i.e. something like "copyright violation, it was suspected that this was image was not taken by you", "copyright violation, it was suspected that the subject of this image was protected by copyright", etc. I'm imagining the sysops or whoever does the deleting just entering some short tag or clicking on a certain button or however you guys do this... and the rest should be automatized, so that there is essentially no additional work: The software should fill out the summary line (allowing you to add stuff, of course, but being sufficiently comprehensible if you don't) and post this info on the uploader's website. BTW, this would also have the advantage that user discussion pages would be even more informative about their past uploads than they are right now. (i.e. if I want to contact a user about a license issue, I get a quick overview unless he's archived his stuff...) - What do you think? --Ibn Battuta 03:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have several hundreds of deletions each day, while backlogs are still growing. Therefore, it is possible that a user is not notified of a deletion (actually quite often). It could be possible to create a bot, that fetches each day the deletion log and notifies users that a file they uploaded has been deleted, similarly to the notifications DRBot sends for a pending deletion. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always try to inform the uploader with {{Speedywhat}} when I delete a picture. The job is rather tiresome indeed and I would be glad indeed if it could be auromatized. I feel we should also have more specific templates for straightforward and frequent cases, such as Fair Use pictures from en:, logos or press material. Of course I can just write "please don't upload logos/Fair Use pictures/anime pictures/press material, they're not free" but everyone cannot read English. A page like Commons:Administrator translations/Suspected copyvio, with several translations of short and to the point sentence, would be a great help as well. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following instructions should help you figure out what happened to your deleted media files (typically images) manually:

Access your long upload log.
Search it for redlinks (links to things that don't exist), or search the source for "=edit" without quotes. For instance, in your upload log I found Image:Henry Vaughan.jpg.
For each redlink found, click the redlink and then "deletion log" on the last line, or just paste the image name onto http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page= (spaces should be autoconverted to underscores), for instance http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Henry_Vaughan.jpg.
The resulting deletion log entries should show you what happened, in this case the following single entry:

08:28, 14 April 2007 Herbythyme (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Henry Vaughan.jpg" (correct at Image:Charles I etching.jpg)

Thus, it appears in this case that Herby thought that Image:Charles I etching.jpg was a "correct" version of Image:Henry Vaughan.jpg. You'd have to ask him why he thought that. :) — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff G., thanks for your help, but Herby deleted it because I marked it for deletion. The image that made me post here was Image:University of Virginia Cavalier mascot.jpg... but though I'm following up on it (which looks like becoming a rather tedious process...) that's actually not the point either because I'm more interested in the solution of the problem "users are not informed" than in my "personal" issue with that image. Thanks anyways!! --Ibn Battuta 16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[prior editing conflict]

Sounds to me then that 1.) sysops should use standard words for typical reasons for deletion (so far: fair use, anime pictures, press material, derivative work, logos; BTW, please note that many German logos are free, probably also logos under other legislations).

2.) a bot should work through the deletion log and identify the uploaders of all versions of that image from its file history (unless the uploader is identical to the user who deleted--or does that rarely ever happen?)

3.) the bot posts an information on the userpage(s), if possible, explaining the reason (see 1); this info contains a clearly visible link (something like "You don't understand English?" or something similar?) to a page with more information in other languages, again possibly directly linking to the page about the particular reason for deletion.

4.) The information/ the deleted pages should be short and easy to understand (linking to more comprehensive information on the already existing pages) - the goal is to let the uploader understand what's happened, not to inform him about all possible caveats for the next time (okay or not?)

Would you agree? And if so--who could write such a bot? The owner of the DRBot, someone else, any volunteers, ...? And again, do you think further "standard cases" of reasons for deletion should be included? --Ibn Battuta 16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the owner of DRBot :) I'm currently still busy with Flickr, but only one part of that of what I wanted to do with Flickr is left, so I hope to finish that soon. Next on my list are a rewrite of DRBot, such that it also can archive COM:UDEL, do some more sophisticated archiving, and possibly also do the tasks described above. However, that won't be before June, and possibly even July. So if there is somebody else... -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I hadn't yet checked who the owner is... :o) - If you could do such an extension of the DRBot's activities, I think one or two more months wouldn't be a problem... but obviously, if someone else was willing to step in, I don't want to stop anyone! Thanks anyways for offering to do that! --Ibn Battuta 07:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damaged Thumb

I have recogniced that some pictures uploaded in April/May 2006 have damaged thumb print. This can be fixed by reuploading this images. --Mik81 17:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which images? Broken thumbnails can usually be fixed by purging the page (appending ?action=purge to the end of the link). Yonatan ^talk 18:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually. Unless it's this image: Image:Sawtooth Oak Quercus acutissima Trunk Bark 2008px.jpg

This image is ok as a thumbnail

This image is always broken in a gallery

I don't know why it doesn't work right. -- Ram-Man 17:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked regenerated of the thumb using http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Sawtooth_Oak_Quercus_acutissima_Trunk_Bark_2008px.jpg&w=120. Seems to be fixed now. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who knew that you could do that? Thanks! -- Ram-Man 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Password problems

Hello, I'm Danutz, an admin here. I can't seem to log on to Wikimedia Commons. It says the password I introduce is incorrect. When I created my account I didn't introduce an e-mail adress so i cannot have the pasword sent via e-mail. I'm the same Danutz from ro.wikipedia, you can see my letter of intention to become admin here on Commons back in December 2004 [5], where i have stated this (n.red.-that i'm the same with Danutz from the Romanian Wikipedia). Can my password be reset and sent to me via my e-mail adress that i inserted in my account information on the Romanian Wikipedia? --Danutz2 17:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you romanian guys like to choose insecure passwords. :P Please read this Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Attention#Secure_passwords and then try contacting a server administrator (possibly at #wikimedia-tech on irc.freenode.net) in order to have your password reset. If you don't know how to use IRC, you might like to try using this link to join that channel. Yonatan ^talk 18:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File size

Hello. May I overwrite Image:Vinton Cerf-20070512.jpg with the 6.3MB original? The upload form suggested that I not do this (it gave a suggested limit of something over 4MB) so I reuploaded the image at low res. On second thought it is likely an important enough photo that deserves the best quality that is possible. Thanks for your thoughts (I notice the FAQ mentions 6MB). -Susanlesch 14:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Hmm. The Flickrreview already inserted the higher resolution copy automatically. How embarrassing. Thanks but why did the upload form stop me? -Susanlesch 14:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a guideline. Use your best judgement -- if the original, high quality image is over the suggested size, ignore the guideline. Higher quality originals are preferred over reduced resolution ones. ~MDD 46 96 15:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MDD4696, many thanks for your help. -Susanlesch 01:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki links - whats happening?

I've noticed that a number of categories and galleries where I have added images and information have had the interwiki links removed.

Where was was the discussion as the edit summary doesnt point to it
what is the replacement
Why isnt it being added at the same time
Or do we now create article here to encompass the image subjects

Can someone help as I use this link heavily when I've uploaded new images to commons and want to use them in wikipedia articles. Gnan garra 03:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Wikipedia houses the discussion. The reason why it was deleted was because links to Wikipedia can just be wikilinked using [[en:Wikipedia:Village pump]] (this is an example for the VP) and the link will show up in the sidebar. V60 ^{干什么？ · VContribs} 03:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt appear to be any consensus there to delete, more over it appears to be more a discussion about anti english language templates. This appears to be coming more of a common thread here, its english language we cant have it. Gnan garra 03:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T'is the other way round: there has been no discussion or consensus to change from the [[en:Wikipedia:Village pump]] formula, so Template:Wikipedia was a disorganisation of the consensual situation. Michelet-密是力 04:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that we can't have things in English; it's that if the things we have are in e.g. English, French, German, Chinese, Polish... and the host of other languages required, the clutter defeats accessibility. Man vyi 05:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable copyright

BezPRUzyn (talk · contribs) seems to be uploading images from other wiki's that are not properly sourced and licensed. I don't have adequate time to check each one of the uploads, but many of them are less than 70 years old and claim PD-OLD and newer than 1954 claiming PD-Russia. Also seems to be a language barrier as they are selecting {{PD-USGov-Military-NGA}} for vi:Tiêu bản:PD-Nga which appears to match {{PD-Russia}}. Could someone, perhaps with automated tools, double check BezPRUzyn contribs? Looks like a bunch of deletions are probably warranted. Thanks in advance. --Dual Freq 11:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private images

Are private images such as Image:19042007.jpg allowed? If not, which tag should I use to mark them? speedydelete with reason? Which template should I use to notify the uploader? Yonidebest Ω Talk 12:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Speedy}} and {{Project scope}} (The latter from Commons:Message templates). Samulili 13:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Project scope}} could be more specifically about unfit images, though. Now it's quite close to {{Offtopic}}. Samulili 13:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xiangqiboard-bw.png

This was originally uploaded to en-WP under the GFDL, but in my opinion it's not really eligible for copyright as it doesn't meet the threshold of originality that's required -- it's the initial layout for the board for Chinese chess (Xiangqi) with no creative elements. I've therefore changed the licensing to {{PD-ineligible}}. Question: Do I have the right to do this, or do I need to keep the licensing as GFDL? howcheng {chat} 17:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpture copyright

Despite the discussion above on "Freedom of Panorama" on 18 April I'm still not sure where we stand on photographs of sculpture in the US which are considered differently than architecture. I came across Image:Minneapolis Spoon.jpg which has been nominated for deletion as, under US law and the sculpture is on display in the US, 2-d reproductions of 3-d works on public display are still subject to copyright. The best discussion I've found of this is at [6]. Should we have images of sculpture where the 3-d work is under copyright on the Commons? I know the law is different across different countries - i.e. the same image is not considered to breach the original sculptor's copyright in the UK - but having Category:Sculptures of the United States displaying mostly modern (and therefore still under copyright) pieces of art does seem a little mad. Madmedea 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the images in that category are recent uploads. I think we delete most images US sculptures. Perhaps one might except Image:Andy-Goldsworthy-at-SUNY-Purchase.jpg, as that particular design might not be copyrighted. / Fred Chess 20:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY-SA-2.5

Why is the CC-BY-SA-2.5 licence no longer in the dropdown upload menu? Alaexis 20:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the dropdown menu is different for some languages, e.g. CC-BY-SA 2.5 is an option in the Dutch menu. Why is that? --Erwin85 20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the German language menu it's still available. -- Túrelio 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can use any tag that is listed at commons:copyright tags. The dropdown menu is only a convenience of the most common tags. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the answers. I still use this licence; I was just a bit surprised it disappeared from the dropdown. Alaexis 13:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this image okay?

Alfons Mucha was a Czech artist, who died in 1939; under Life 70 rules, his works won't be public domain until January 1, 2010. However, I found a poster he made for a 1921 exhibition in the US. It seems that this work was first published in the United States prior to 1923. Is this poster then okay to upload? (I used a similar rationale for Mucha-Maud Adams as Joan of Arc-1909.jpg.) grendel|khan 20:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I also found this New York Daily News illustration from 1904, which would seem to also be PD-US; is it? grendel|khan 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your assessment is correct, AFAIK. I believe there was a Mucha painting that was a Featured Picture on en-WP that had to deleted because it was done after 1923, but I don't remember the details. howcheng {chat} 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about application of Template:PD-GE-exempt

I found this image (shooting of Georgian opposition fighters during the coup against Gamsakhurdia in 1992) at the English wikipedia. I wonder if it was correctly tagged as PD-GE-exempt (and so if I can safely upload this one (and many others) here). --Hardscarf 20:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think template is misused in case of news images and need to be replaced with fair use there. Photos are copyrighted by article 6 of Georgian copyrights law. --EugeneZelenko 14:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hubble dark matter photos

I was thinking of uploading two photos from NASA's announcement that Hubble has discovered regions of dark matter. However, the full-size images both credit "NASA, ESA, and M.J. Lee (Johns Hopkins University)". I know NASA's works are in the public domain, but the ESA prohibits commercial use. Could someone look into whether these images actually include work by the ESA or Johns Hopkins? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Hubble images that are partially credited to the ESA are also in the public domain. See Template:PD-Hubble for details. These two images are labeled with STScl so I believe they are OK. howcheng {chat} 16:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 16

Derivative works from Encarta

I came across the maps created by User:Ghuoargh. The image descriptions say that they are basically labeled maps from Encarta. Should these be deleted as derivative works? --Peta 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if images in not {{PD-old}}. --EugeneZelenko 14:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use in Commons

Wikimedia Foundation's legal team mistake a impottant one.

Fair use is not only for US.

most countries(I think ALL countries) have fair use. Of course, THE WORD "FIAR USE" is only for US. for example, South korean copyright law, thay use "RESTRICTION OF COPYRIGHT". legal word is not same, but meanig is same.

Berne Convenion is "the world constitution(?) of copyroght". it is base law.

Berne Convenion

Article 10

(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries.

(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between them, to permit the utilization, to the extent justified by the purpose, of literary or artistic works by way of illustration in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching, provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice.

(3) Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and of the name of the author if it appears thereon.

Berne Convenion Article 10 rules "fair use"

and, 163 countries adapt the Berne Convenion.

You understand this??

At least 163 countries accept "FAIR USE"

I suggest that fair use iamge copyright tag for commons.

GFDL? GFDL is now law. Berne conventions is law.

the law say that "fair use is a freedom"

GFDL "CAN" prohibit a "legal freedom"? GFDL is constitution??

Wikipedia Policy "CAN" prohibit "legal freedom"? Wikipedia Policy is constitution?? It can break a insternational legal freedom?

Anybody can't prohibit "international legal freedom"

Only Commons and most language version wikipedia prohibit "international legal freedom". it is a mistake. important mistake...It is nonsense...

GFDL is for "more free"

GFDL is not for "less free"

Wikipedia is for "more free"

Wikipedia is not for "less free"

Berne Convenion Article 10 ruled the international freedom for fair use.

but...

GFDL prohibit "Berne Convenion Article 10's right"

Wikipedia prohibit "Berne Convenion Article 10's right"

It is important legal mistake...I think.

I think that Commons "MUST" have some "international fair use tag"...

-- WonYong (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It won't happen. The whole point about fair use (or fair dealing, etc) is about the USE of the copyrighted item. Commons is, almost specifically, not about the use of images, but their storage and arrangement. If we're just keeping them, not using them in some fair use arrangement, then we don't have any justification for that - we're just infringing the copyright. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WonYong, there is indeed a general legal possibility for quotations, and texts quotations are often used in wikipedias, but this is not accepted on commons nevertheless. The main reason is that a quotation of an unfree material is not free for any kind of usage, since it can only be used in a citation context. Therefore, the requirement for "free material" is not totally fulfilled. Another practical obstacle is that quotation is not very well defined in the case of pictures, films or musical pieces, their introduction is therefore a legal risk, and the local policy is to avoid risks and borderline situations (essentially, because local control and local legal knowledge is to weak to take too much chances). But the idea is indeed worth noting. Michelet-密是力 09:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make a new server seperately... 1) Commons server (free image server) 2) Fair use server (non-free image server) -- WonYong (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this would be a fair bit of work to set up and to maintain (to be fairly lawsuit proof it would have to be clear that if an image got orphaned (not used in any article under a legit fair use claim) it would have to go away)... and is outside our core mission, isn't it? The current scheme of having individual projects that allow fair use images host them directly seems to work well enough. Lar: t/c 13:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only english is OK? oops!! core mission? I think that core mission is "to make global wiki encyclopedia"...not only english...-- WonYong (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's core mission of Wikipedia, not Commons. --EugeneZelenko 15:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Mass deletion request

Hello,

While perusing Category:Incomplete deletion requests recently, it seems to me some of these may be from attempts as "mass nominations" gone wrong. And it is not surprising, given that our instructions are quite often inconsistent, out of date or just flat out wrong.

This page (Help:Mass deletion request) is a guide to nominate multiple items for deletion at once, i.e. mass requests. It also, I hope, explains why each step is necessary (and it's not enough to just tag everything as {{Delete}}).

Please let me know/help me fix it if you find it unclear or badly worded. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please change the cat from the non existing Category:PD-Art (PD-old) to Category:PD Art --DieBuche 12:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't wanted the cat to be created! Currently pictures with the template {{PD-art}} come into the cats PD-Art (PD-old) and PD-old. I'd propose to change the cats of the template to Category:PD Art, but the template is locked so I can't do this--DieBuche 15:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you discuss with Kareha who did the clever coding. I'm a bit out of my depth on that. See Template talk:PD-Art. --MichaelMaggs 19:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal - moving subcategory Religion in "X-country"

Hello.

I have uploaded several pictures in subcategories under Denmark and it has struck me why Religion in Denmark isn't a direct category under the Category:Denmark. Instead the subcategory is placed under Culture in Denmark and Buildings in Denmark. Administrator --EPO has told me that this is a normal procedure on every country's page. I think Religion in "X-country" is such a huge category that it should be on its own in the "X-country" page. For instance there are several more pictures in this category than on Monuments of "X-country" or Graves in "X-country". What do you think? regards, --Hubertus 13:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Category:Religion is a subcategory of Category:Culture, so for the sake of consistency, Category:Religion in X-country should be a subcategory of Category:Culture in X-country. The level of a category is not determined by the number of media files it holds, but rather on where it logically fits into a hierarchy of commonly understood concepts, and in such a hierarchy, religion is a logical subset of culture. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal: Geography-based requests for media page

I would like to propose a page where it would be possible to request media (images and sounds and whatever): the page should be sorted according to the geographical localization of the object to reproduce.

For example: If it were necessary to get a picture of the Colosseum (!), I would look for the section "Italy" in that page, then "Rome" and add, if necessary, a request like "[[:en:Colosseum]]: any picture", with a link to Google Maps or whatever if I know the exact location.

What is the use of such a feature? Easy: If I were to go to Rome, I could take note of the pictures needed from there, take the picture, upload it, then strike the request and add a link to the image.

What do you think about it? --TcfkaPanairjdde 16:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Commons:Picture requests? :-) As far as I know, many local Wikipedias have similar pages. The whole thing does not work very well. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that, thanks. Maybe it would work better if it were better promoted, maybe... --TcfkaPanairjdde 17:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two new tools for Flickr

As you might, or might not know, I have been quite busy with Flickr lately, especially with User:FlickreviewR. I have written two tools (or actually, one tool with two functions) with helps Commons users with images for Flickr.

The first is a database of all images reviewed images from Flickr: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~bryan/flickr/browse You can search on nsid, username, photo_id, link, and Commons image. The database contains over 28,000 images, which is over 70% of the total number of Flickr images on Commons :)

Now the second tool is really handy (imho ;P). It allows you to easily upload images from Flickr: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~bryan/flickr/upload :) All images uploaded by this tool are guaranteed to be tagged under a free Creative Commons license at upload time. Hopefully this will make it easier to upload images from Flickr, reduce the number of copyvios and make sure that only hi res images are uploaded.

All images are still in beta; by using this tools you are subject to the Commons Licensing and Project scope policies, etc. etc.; Please report errors to User talk:Bryan. If you find any security bug in the upload part, the bot that performs the uploads and to be blocked is Flickr_upload_bot (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user.

-- Bryan (talk to me) 17:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr upload bot is fine! Its very easy to handle. --GeorgHH 20:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! You know what would be useful too? That the bot could leave a comment at the Flickr page, to notify the image has been uploaded to Wikipedia. Not sure if the API allows that (my guess is that it does not due spam reasons), but if possible, it would be useful. -- ReyBrujo 01:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Finally Commons:Bots/Requests#Flickr.com images again could be closed :-) Thank you! --EugeneZelenko 03:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on the mailing list about this Flickr upload bot. I don't support it because it allows essentially anonymous image uploading. Worse than that it actually allows you to attribute your action to any registered user you feel like. I don't think we should allow bots to circumvent the MediaWiki requirement that only logged in users can upload. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try it Pfctdayelise - the Flickr upload bot system has a mechanism which requires you to be logged into the Wikimedia Commons otherwise the authorization edit will be attributed to the wrong person and the bot just won't upload an image. The system is actual quite clever. Lcarsdata 06:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... I see. (I assumed the bot would just come around afterwards and upload all the images for all the image pages - I didn't realise you actually had to follow a second step. My bad.) Well we may need some way to check for image pages that exist without actually having images. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - so who prepared this one, exactly? Image:Women making out.jpg pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was Bobby, but he needed some help. Chuck-no 07:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the bot does not have access to "adult content". Probably because it is only 5 days old ;) I'll see whether I can turn "safe search" of. I'm afraid however that this required login; something that cannot be done automatically.

@Pfctdayelise: I replied on the mail list. [7] -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this content educational? :-) Are you sure that personal rights are not violated? Place is definitely not public. --EugeneZelenko 14:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly educational. It is suitable for Lcarsdata's upcoming wikibook, “Kissing techniques – How to kiss like Freyja.” Kjetil r 16:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to come and ruin the party but judging by the number of different sex-related pics that guy has, all of different women, it seems unlikely he's the copyright holder for all of them. Yonatan ^talk 01:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 17

Wikiquote.png

Please do not delete our logo - Image:Wikiquote.png. Your deletion created a bunch of red links everywhere - including the WMF official website; wikimediafoundation.org. And if I recall correctly it is the third time you commons admin deleted logo images used on that website. And you gave us again red ugly links instead of our logo. I am very saddened with those red links you gave us!

I am very surprised at this deletion since some of you Commons folks assured such deletion would never occur. It happened again, and you didn't even notice your deletion. Instead, you forced us to host those red links. I find here a serious lack of responsibility.

Per request CoolCat undeleted it. I hope anyone don't delete it again. Giving red links is once enough.

As its editor I would ask you never to delete Wikimedia logo at least until we safely host those images on each wiki. Thanks. --Aphaia 16:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:( pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kamui99 images

Some of us have concerns about Kamui99's images may be copyvios (they're at least badly sourced). It seems he uploads them to his own flick page as CC, then moves then to commons. However, it's been found that some of those are taken from websites.

For instance Image:Bianca_Trump.jpg comes from smokingcelebs.com and Kamui links to User:Kamui99/Permisson Cigfetish Celebrity Cigarette Central as a permission proof, but I quote verbatim from it:

I cannot grant nor deny permission to use the pics, as I do not have any copyright over them.

Cigfetish<[email protected]>[2][3]

Visit SmokingCelebs.com http://www.SmokingCelebs.com
and
The Female Celebrities Smoking Messageboard http://boards.smokingcelebs.com/

So no, he can't license that image from that permission.

Now, Image:Briana_Banks.jpg is sourced from Kamui's flickr site yet that image comes from terababes.com, and such site gives ©2000-2007 TeraBabes.com on the pages.

It seems that his flickr page is ripe with copyvios, so I think we can't allow those images using his flickr account as sole source. For instance Flickr version as CC-by is the same as [8] (notice that he removed the (C) milena-melba.de watermark). So if he's posting copyvios to his flickr page, we can't trust him to use it as a source.

Dodo's been doing a great work tracing the real source of his images, tough job, but the question now is, what's the proper course of action now? Should we still allow him to upload images citing his flickr account as source? Would it be wise to open deletion debates on each one? -- Drini 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing one's own website is not a source. I suggest somebody writes him a message in Spanish, that he will be blocked if he ever violates copyright again. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drini wrote to him in Spanish four hours ago, and I just did so in English and Spanish, but he hasn't edited since 10:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC). — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rometern3 appears to be someone with very similar interests and lack of respect for copyrights also uploading the images of kamui_sendoh, who also hasn't edited since late April, so I wrote to that user too. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition: These are all images sourced from his Flickr account. Deleting them all is also an option for me. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please administratively hide their image uploads until they return? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's "deletion". When an article or image is "deleted" it isn't really deleted, it's just hidden from regular users, but sysops can still view those and of course, restore them. -- Drini 13:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, please delete their image uploads. :) — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee!: User:Kamui99/Permisson dirtybob dot com

Hi Bob!

I have a question for You... I was wondering... Could ask you to contribute with the photos you've in www.reviewerhell.com to the Wikipedia Project and Wikimedia? ...

If You would be so gentile to contribute, we would thank it a lot ... Without other matter , Thank You so much for Your attention and time.

BLESSINGS


From: "Bob K (D.B)" <[email protected]> To: "Kamui Shirou" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: I have a question for You from Wikipedia Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:13:01 -0400

No, because I do not own the original copyright on most of the images...

db

Found the site, now I'll go check one by one -- Drini 15:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all the Kamui images are now gone from Flickr, or at least hidden. That's a bad sign. The DirtyBob permission though, may still be OK. Note that it is specific to only those credited to Dirty Bob, and says so. --AnonEMouse 15:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, "Wikipedia permission" is not enough... -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 18

commonist

I tried to upload some images with commonist but received an error message. Commonist is no´t able to log in. I guess that the new log in page is the reason for this behaviour. Is there a workaround? -- Stahlkocher 09:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, it is working again... -- Stahlkocher 11:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images with cars

Some images with cars have erased the registration plates. Is it necessary to "remove" the plates? --Janezdrilc 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good idea to keep privacy of car owners. --EugeneZelenko 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. Does anyone want to design a set of Commons registration plates (license plates in the US) for use on such images, one in wide format for most of the world and one in the narrower US format? :) — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know of people who would not like their reg.plates out in public pictures - especially if it's a special or expensive car worth stealing, vandalizing or just not suitable for your official income... Think about the number of websites helping people to find either the owner or at least the area in which the car belongs. I believe that in most cases at least our news media in Denmark have to camouflage the plate unless it is specifically mentioned in the passage, or it is clearly just some irrelevant car passing.

Imagine you saw your wife's car in another city on a day when she told you she was at home all day... what would you think?

Imagine your friends saw the pics and started calling you names because you "just had to put your rusty car on the internet, huh".

If I put my private car up, I might as well hide the reg.number, though I don't thing I'd make others hide it on their eventual photos of my car anyway. I didn't hide either reg or company name at the company car I uploaded for an article, but who knows when we swich vehicles at work anyway.

G®iffen 17:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License plates are, by definition, very very public. They are on the exterior with the express purpose of identifying the car. That said, IMHO, it is a courtesy to remove them specifically to not needlessly draw attention to the car. I'd do it for others and I'd appreciate others doing it on the chance my car is in their pictures. Quid pro quo. Cburnett 05:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you live in the US - but here in Germany, if you are in a public place, you still have a right to privacy. Personality rights are pretty strong. Taking a picture of a car and publishing it in a way that you can trace it back to the owner and his whereabouts is not OK. --Fb78 13:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, in general, there will be no right to privacy issues with photographing what can be seen in a public place, including publicly displayed license plates. Morven 07:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's mainly a matter of relevancy. If I would upload a picture of a particular make and type of car, to be used as an illustration in an article regarding this brand, the actual licence plate does not add to the informational value. It's to some extent a variation of "do not show people's faces in an identiable way unless you are certain that they have no objection". MartinD 09:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we careful with Flickr CC-BY photos made by the Smithsonian?

http://public.resource.org/memo.2007.05.19.html --Historiograf 14:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the Smithsonian attempts to reserve rights it does not have, and that those attempts should be ignored. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree...

The "Smithsonian Copyright notice" is (imho) correct. Please read it carefully:

♦ "Text and image files, audio and video clips, and other content on this website is the property of the Smithsonian Institution": indeed, if the Smithsonian owns the source objects, and/or has created the files, he may claim property on the derived files as well. The claim is correct, as far as property on the file is concerned.

♦ "Smithsonian expressly prohibits the copying of any protected materials on this website...": this is a legal right, as long as the Smithsonian owns the objects and the file, in can put whatever condition it wants on them, including copying restriction. Here, the Smithsonian says that its property may be used, as long as the licence conditions are respected. This is legal, of course: Wikipedia does exactly the same thing with the GFDL licence mechanism.

♦ "...except for the purposes of fair use as defined in the copyright law, and as described below." This does not mean that the material is subject to author's right, but simply that the Smithsonian gives the "right to copy" his property as long as the conditions of fair use are fulfilled.

The word "copyright" is confusing, and should be avoided, because two things are involved, when making a reproduction of a work of art: the author's right (intellectual property on the artistic creation), and the property of the support (the painting, the photographic plate, and here, the file). When a work of art is in the "public domain", this simply means that the author's rights can be dismissed (as long as patrimonial rights are concerned - let's neglect moral rights). But the property rights on the thing itself remain, together with the right to use it and have a commercial exploitation of it. This includes the right to take pictures of the thing, make a file of the picture, and post the file on the Internet with whatever licence they want.

Of course, when the file is posted, anybody "can" (is able to) ignore the licence and take a copy, but this is illegal: you "can", but you "may" not. This is exactly the same situation as when a church puts a sign saying "1$ apiece" aside candles for prayers: anybody "can" (is able to) ignore the sign and take a candle, but this is illegal: you "can", but you "may" not. And the result would be a theft all the same...

So: Yes, the Smithsonian copyright warning is valid, even for 2000 year-old pieces of art, and should be respected, because Wikipedia is not a bandit-operated organism. And hence, since only non-profit use is allowed by the Smithsonian licence, they cannot be accepted on Commons unless an accepted licence is agreed on with the Smithsonian Institute. Michelet-密是力 18:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Michelet's explanation is correct; remember, of course, w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which would invalidate their claims to copyright of mere reproductions of two-dimensional artworks (which do not include low-relief sculptures). --Iamunknown 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, on the other hand, think Michelet's explanation is false. Copyright is the exclusive right to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies, to create derivative works, to perform or display the work publicly, and to transmit or display by means of digital audio transmission (from en:w:Copyright). When Smithsonian doesn't have copyright (intellectual property law) on the works it can not prohobit copying even though it owns the physical copies (property law). Samulili 09:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like Samulili, I don't think Michelet's "property theory" is correct. I have no desire to get into yet another extended discussion, so let me just point out that this is the second time that Michelet has brought forth this theory, and I still haven't seen any source for it. I suspect it's a misapplication of property laws to intellectual property, which are subject to the specialized intellectual property laws (copyright). Remember your own "special laws override general ones" dictum, Michelet? Can you show sources that would support your theory? Such as a court decision where this was indeed applied to a copyright dispute? If at all, property rights might maybe give the owner of the files the means to restrict access to them (akin to a museum's house rules forbidding photography). But if one doesn't restrict access by putting the files on the Internet, I don't think one can legally prevent someone from making a copy of the work, if the work itself is "free" and the content of the file not subject to copyright. Lupo 09:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. IANAL, but my opinion is that Michelet is correct in theory, and wrong in that particular case about Smithsonian's website images. First, those photos have (allegedly) been taken by US government employees and thus, fall in the PD. But not before the subject of the photo is in the PD too (if copyright applies). Citing Commons:Licensing: "Specifically, the following are generally not allowed: (...) photographs of copyrighted artwork". I've browsed some of the Smithsonian images categories and I failed to see any photo whose subject might fall under copyright laws. Obviously, I didn't check all the 6288 images. However, beware of other flickr photos of Smithsonian artworks, as they may be copyright protected despite their being GFDL or CC-by. So, instead of retrieving the images from flickr, maybe the easiest and safest way is to directly download the tarball of the 6288 photos. — Xavier, 14:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is serious doubt that a lot or at least some of the Flickr Smithsonian pictures are not in the PD, see also http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/3742519/ Michelet's copyright theory is pure nonsense I think. Users who can read German will find some explanation in the Friesenhaus decision of the Bundesgerichtshof (difference between law of property and Immaterialgüterrecht) --Historiograf 09:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a photo physically owned by the Smithsonian is public domain, either by creation or by expiration, the Smithsonian cannot create new copyright in it. They can, of course, create new derived works and copyright the changes, but this would have to be done by hand (the action of an automated process such as watermarking is highly unlikely to pass the creativity bar under Bridgeman vs Corel and general principles of US copyright law, which have never recognised the concept of "mechanical copyright". It would also have to be in such a way that their changes could not be removed. I think we can fairly state that under US law no new copyright has been created.

No other form of "intellectual property" can exist; they cannot be patented and are not secret.

We are left only with contract law. Contract law is only binding on those who sign the contract, in general; the Smithsonian can only sue those who have made contracts with them. I've never heard of a court ordering the suppression of a public domain, non-secret work simply because someone broke a contract not to distribute it; there's always a first time, I guess, but it looks unlikely from here. Morven 07:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, they can try to enforce a contract (click-through license or some such), but only against the downloader. Wikimedia as a third party would AFAIK not be liable under any such contract. It's entirely the same thing as museums' house rules. See also Peter Hirtle's take and Mazzone's Copyfraud paper, p.33ff on contract issues. Lupo 09:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novice Needing Help Regarding Image Licensing

Hi I hope someone can please advice me in simple terms. I wish to upload an image of a singer to replace the current image which is ten years out of date. The image I would like to replace it with is taken from the artists myspace page and I contacted the artist directly to ask their permission explaining why and they gladly gave their permission for the image to be used as they too would like an up to date image being used there. However I am unsure what to use in the drop down menu for Licensing. Can you please advise? Also how would I go about getting the image up to replace the current one on their profile? Many thanks for you help inadvance, sorry for my lack of knowledge! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maggz (talk • contribs) at 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to WikiCommons. Please do not replace older photos with newer ones. Instead, upload the photo with an original name so we can use both photos if necessary. It is useful to have photos of an artist from different stages in their career. Secondly, which permission have you been given? Only the photographer can give a fully credible permission to use a photo in some way. Does he or she allow anybody to use the photo for any purpose? Thuresson 01:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't going to replace the older photo merely upload one that could be used as an alternative. The artist themself gave me permission as opposed to the photographer. I have however uploaded two photographs of my own that were taken last year either of which could also be used. The artist btw is Darren Hayes. Could someone update the image for me, as I have no knowledge of how to do it but having contacted him know that he would like a more recent image up there. User:Maggz —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC).}}[reply]

I'd be happy to help you but I need to know what you wrote when you asked permission to use the photos and which reply you got. Thuresson 16:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I wrote "Was looking at the wikipedia page and wanted to update the image they have there of you to the current one you have on myspace if that is ok with you but I also would like you to confirm that I have your permission to use the image there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Hayes"

Unfortunately that is not enough. Could you please recontact him using one of our Commons:Email templates? Then, if he agrees, please forward the correspondence to [email protected]. Then, upload it using the license he agreed to and in the description say, "permission sent to OTRS". Thanks, Yonatan ^talk 22:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 20

Arabic Wikipedia

The Arabic Wikipedia (local code:ar) has a large backlog of images (about 600 images) needing to be uploaded to Commons (mostly GFDL-self and PD). However, it has a relatively small community, so, it is difficult for local users to handle this. Hence, I am requesting that a bot uploads those images to Commons. If anyone is interested to do the job, please contact me. Thank you. --Meno25 14:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review images first. Some of them may be copyvios. --EugeneZelenko 15:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - PLEASE have people check the images BEFORE they get transferred. If they get moved here, and then deleted there, it is huge hassle to try and figure out if the image actually has any source information and that kind of thing. Anything that's suspicious (e.g. low resolution "web" type images, PD-self with little information about the subject or event) should NOT be transferred. thanks --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This will take some time from local users. Thank you for your comments. --Meno25 14:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to use the bot to do that but I didn't go through with it. Because many of these images are wrongly tagged as pd and pd-self or no rights reserved as you can notice. the best way in my opinion is to upload each one at a time, hand reviewed. it consumes time; but it is better than adding another lot of copyvios to here.--Alnokta 23:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded an image to Arabic Wikipedia, but I'm doubtful whether it should be transferred to Commons, since it has no use except in an Arabic language context. AnonMoos 06:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I have been through all the Self-PD images on ar. 4 to 7 images might qualify to be Self-PD. the rest are nothing but clear copyvios or mistaged. Sadly, you two, Meno25 and Alnokta might be the only two admins concerned with images rights on arwiki, the rest are fighting to keep the copyvios and would be more than happy to hide the the copyvios as PD-Self in commons (as some might think). Please keep these images away from commons, and if possible out of ar.wiki. --Tarawneh 21:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second Tarawneh, ar wiki rubbish shouldn't be dumped at commons. many admins don't want to learn about what's right but to prove one user is wrong. there's a tome of copyvio material and images relating to electronics. almost no one seems to care - go through this list and enjoy. --Azdiyy 10:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azdiyy, This is a Troll-free wiki. Do your business somewhere else. --Tarawneh 22:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

Problems logging in

Can the 15 year old boy that runs this site please fix the log in procedure? Even when you request a temporary password and try to reset the password it still does not recognize the new password! Extremely frustrating! User:Malber 14:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SVG issues

I created Image:Brahmika.svg (and spent a large amount of time doing so :-( ) but when I uploaded it, none of the lines matched up. What happened? What I was going for can be found here at the bottom of the page. Is there a reason why all of the lines came out unconnected and in the wrong place? ɪkiɾɔɪd | talk 01:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to created the SVG with fonts? You should convert your characters to paths. Siebrand 06:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. You should not leave any fonts to be rendered in the SVGs, because you cannot be certain that the engine that will render the SVG has the exact same font(s). Siebrand 07:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a font, it was basic lines. They all disconnected for some reason. It seems to be OK now...what did you do to make all of the lines show up correctly? ɪkiɾɔɪd | talk 20:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lines were fine; it was the crosses that threw them off. The crosses in the middle were made of letters from the Arial Unicode MS font. --Kjoonlee 19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is to ungroup everything by selecting the group and pressing Ctrl-Shift-g a few times. Unselect everything by clicking on an empty space. Next you shift-click on just the crosses, then issue the "object to path" command, through the menu or by pressing Ctrl-Shift-c. You'll then get an image that works on all renderers. (I assumed you wanted to keep the captions as text, though.) --Kjoonlee 19:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: You might want to redo them on a grid; looks like a textbook example of when a grid might be useful. Simple grid tutorial --Kjoonlee 19:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncategorized images

I would like to help a little around here with categories, as I have been noticing that many images that I suspected were not available, really were, but I didn't found them because of them not being placed in categories. I suspect why: people mostly use Commons as a tool rather than an end, for most an image is either created or found, uploaded (wich, if done correctly, includes providing the right license) and then used from Wikipedia. And for that, seeking in wich category/ies would the image fit is a task wich does not seem needed to be done.

I have noticed, among the "special pages" at the left, a page that lists all the images without category. However, that is less useful here than in Wikipedia with articles: all images without category are images without license, and soon to be deleted because of such lacking. Any image with the license it must have would already be in a category with all the other ones of that same license.

Is there a way to see all the images wich have, instead of no categories, only the license-generated categories and need to be categorized more for easier finding? Thanos 03:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We might have something on the toolserver, however I am not sure. If I can't\you don't find anything I will hack together a script and make something that does what you want tonight. Lcarsdata 06:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could use Orphan Images tool for that purpose. --EugeneZelenko 14:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably what you want, thanks Eugene. Lcarsdata 15:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously PD, lacking source information

Should we have a milder version of the no-source tag for unverified but likely PD-art images? I'm not saying they should be kept up indefinitely, but maybe they should be allowed to stand three months or so instead of just a week before being automatically deleted. This would give more time to occasional Commons users to verify the source information for old paintings etc.--Pharos 10:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more time between upload and tagging the image with a lack of information of any kind, the less chance you have of information ever being added to it. IMO your proposal sounds great, but only causes images to be used in more wikis, so that it will cause more comments and cost more time to get rid of them... Siebrand 11:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I feel kind of guilty when I get a comment like this, and I know there are hundreds or thousands of other poorly sourced paintings and prints I could also tag, but I refrain from doing so because I know it would just be destructive if the only action taken is they're deleted after a week. I do think occasional Commons users will be more likely to act if they get a chance to see a tag (not everyone signs on everyday), and such an extension could also allow third-party people to intervene to "save" a painting.--Pharos 11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly what you're feeling. However, if the uploader can show the thing is 300 years old, we do not need to know the author, because we would know (assuming a human over 120 years old is impossible) he has been dead for at least 70 years. In such cases it is about getting a source (did they scan it, from which book and page), did they take it from a museum site, etc. This all to establish that the claim they make can be verified with a little effort (who/what's on the image, etc.) As you have probably see more often that you would have liked, it's much easier to whine afterwards than to be thorough in the first place. And yes, it sucks that you and I have to press the delete button. Siebrand 12:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Russian/Belarusian copyrights laws author name is required for PD works. So, I think will be good idea to find out them. And definitely ask uploaders to provide such information. --EugeneZelenko 14:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar requirements apply to the copyright laws in most European countries. This does not include anonymous works (but a work is not anonymous simply because one person is unable to find the author's name given the time and effort he is willing to expend). It is the duty of the uploader to credibly demonstrate the status of the works they upload. If a work is more than 300 years old, it should not be all that difficult to find it in books that are old enough to support that claim. After all, all images on the Internet come from somewhere. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should still have some sort of verification that the image is what the uploader says it is. Even if it's a link to a page where the exact media file is not available would suffice IMHO. For example, if you have a painting by some artist you never heard of, you should be able to verify that it's actually by this person and not by someone similar (or a modern painting in that style), so a link to an art gallery that sells prints of the painting would be OK by me. howcheng {chat} 05:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I caused an almight row on the english wikipedia recently when I (manually) tagged about 100 images with the {{Nosource}} tag - as it was felt that PD images should not be deleted just because they don't have source information - and I designed a "more friendly" template as a response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-nosource. I, however, support howcheng's point that the source is not just about verifying copyright it is also about verifying that the image is what the uploader says it is, otherwise at best it is misleading, at worse useless. So I hope the Commons sticks to its current stricter position. Madmedea 09:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree with Howcheng that the prime thing is real verification of PDness, and this should remain a requirement on Commons (with, yes, a countdown to deletion). But if we're going to thoroughly enforce things on this level, which I don't know if we're really doing now, in my opinion we're going to have to give a little more leeway for such images (a period longer than 7 days).--Pharos 17:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really feel we should take some action on this, because a huge percentage of our so-called (and almost certainly in fact) PD images really would be deleted if we ever enforced policies thoroughly, and it's not helpful to just ignore this discrepancy. If we don't create another class, these images will likely never be tagged in any way, and there will be no incentive to source them properly at all.--Pharos 04:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collections Canada image

I came across the image Image:BrianOrser1988Olympics.jpg and I see it's tagged as "CopyrightedFreeUse". I thought that wasn't the case for images from Collections Canada, which is the source site for this particular image. Specifically, I'm referring to this page:

"Copyright Restrictions

"The reproduction of records held at Library and Archives Canada (LAC) may be limited by donor restrictions and is always subject to the requirements of the Copyright Act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/index.html).

"Reproduction Restrictions

"Some reproduction restrictions may require that you obtain written permission from the donor in order to receive copies. Other restrictions may be related to preservation, or due to the fact that LAC does not own the original records, but only copies, and therefore does not have the authority to reproduce them. In such cases, you will have to contact the owner directly to obtain photocopies and reproductions." (emphasis mine)

Did I miss something somewhere in the back story on this image, and others from Collections Canada? Tabercil 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At LAC, you always need to check the conditions on each individual image. In this case, they state "Restrictions on use/reproduction: Nil; Copyright: National Archives of Canada; Credit: Ted Grant / Library and Archives Canada." Ted Grant apparently donated his photos to the LAC, including the copyrights. (See here, where they explicitly state that he assigned his copyrights to LAC.) See also the Ted Grant collection. However, maybe {{Attribution}} would be a better choice than CopyrightedFreeUse. After all, they do give a specific credit line. Lupo 06:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-categories in the licensing categories

I started by reading the smart note on the top of Category:PD-self that says "Please consider placing your image in a new or existing subcategory if this category is too large."

So I decided that I should make a sub-category for cars as there are *a lot* of pictures relating to the subject. when I got to doing it; I found out that if I add the category to each picture, that won't solve the problem (removing cars' pictures from cat:pd-self) and the pictures will still be visible at cat:pd-self. after that, I decided to apply a new idea..which as I noticed no one around here thought of doing it. the idea simply was categorising inside the big licensing categories using new templates. so I made Template:PD-self-automobiles which is copy-paste of Template:PD-self except the change in the category that it places on images which was Category:PD-self-automobiles.

Those were deleted after this deletion request. the pictures are restored to the huge category.

I don't understand what are the downsides of making & creating these new sub-cats and templates. the only and _only_ downside is that it will make choosing the license tag a little bit more time-consuming and I (as well as you if I may say can live with).

I realize that I made a mistake by making and creating new ideas without consulting the community here first. for that I apologize. my only excuse was that I thought what I'm doing is trivial. Now, that I brought it here, I was thinking may be you can take a look at what I mean and my idea and apply it if it is so worth applying. if it is not, I shall understand and respect community's decision.

Side notes: now that I tried commons's deletion system, I can say that it is no different than the rest of Wikipedias..it depends on number of votes rather than discussion..another thing, would it have been the same response (deletion and no discussion) if someone like User:Pfctdayelise created the template?

More on this: one two --Alnokta 23:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alnokta,

I'm sorry you had a bad experience on this when you were trying to improve things. It is a good idea to open a discussion here.

And although it's good to "be bold" and just make improvements when you can, this doesn't work so well with the category system, because it relies on everyone more or less understanding the same rules. One of these 'rules' is, categories should be in English. Another one is, license categories shouldn't be mixed with descriptive categories.

The thing is, the license categories aren't intended to be used in the same way as the descriptive categories. We assume that no one who is looking for a public domain picture of a car starts by going to Category:PD-self. Instead we use the license categories only as a way of recording the licensing status, not any descriptive stuff. So therefore, it doesn't matter that this category has 14,000 items, because we don't expect anyone to ever browse it. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer..as you said it is an assumption that no is going to browse it..I would like to see how many users will need descriptive categories in licensing cats..because sometimes when I browse, I like to ask questions like, 'I want to see all the pictures about dogs and which was added under cc license' or 'I want to see all the pictures of cars which was made under the public domain AND by the users'..see what I mean? these type of queries needs descriptive sub-cats.--Alnokta 18:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the instructions in the template that appears in Category:PD-self direct users to create appropriate sub-cat:s. Surely the instructions that appear in licensing cat:s should represent what it is intended for users to do, rather than relying on users divining that such instructions are not intended to apply to such cat:s? Man vyi 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. (I just removed that line.) I know Alnokta was trying to help. We had misleading/outdated instructions. I can't say much about that except that it is the nature of working in a wiki. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's good! Man vyi 06:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think will be good idea to topic independent license filter in software (in MediaWiki, external script, local script). You could try to discuss issue with Magnus Manske or Duesentrieb who did similar things. --EugeneZelenko 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

Great news - new users can now replace their own files

Woo hoo! Have a look :)

Note that currently they won't see the "upload a new version of this file" link on the image page. But if they go to Special:Upload and manually put in the same filename, they will be able to overwrite it.

--pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why did you publish this on Commons' Village pump ? Shouldn't this be (silently) reported to mediawiki developers as a bug ?~~ [updated, after my brain has warmed up] Well, maybe it can be seen as a feature since some new users have requested to re-upload a broken file, or an image with borders/caption/watermark removed. Did you check that a new user still can't upload someone else's file this way ? — Xavier, 16:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I see it as a great feature, seeing as we currently get a steady stream of requests to help new users update their own files. :) I didn't check if they can "accidentally" overwrite someone else's file, but I believe the code that made this change is sound, so... if someone feels like testing it, go ahead. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

User:Avjoska's humble pictures

I don't want to bother anyone personally so i thought it would be polite to drop my thoughts here. I have uploaded over 100 pics lately, i think my quantity is better than quality. i appreciate some comments about my pictures for future (what's wrong with this or that one). you don't need to comment the horizon, that's bad i know and i don't have any software to correct the horizon, either. any help is appreciated! Avjoska 18:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might find get more detailed responses at the Commons:Graphic Village Pump? or better yet, Commons:Photography critiques. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

Getting free images of people

Wich would be the places or situations were I would be most likely to find public people close enough to take photos of them and upload them here with a free license?

I know this isn't about understanding licenses or other internal issues of Commons but something related to the "outside world" instead... but the main goal, how to better be able to create free images, is still on-topic with it. Thanos 05:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of "public people"? Do you mean famous people, or are you talking about generic shots of people doing activities, eg swimming, running, that kind of thing? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, famous people. Generic people is anywhere, no sense asking that. Thanos 14:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... won't it kind of depend on why they're famous? If they've a movie star, you could try to go to a movie premiere they might be at. Or if they're a sports star, go their sporting event...? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky because we can't use a fair use image of famous people, so we have to actually take a picture ourselves (unlikely a newspaper would give us a free copy). You would need to think of a strategy, like going to an event they will be at or something like that. If they don't live anywhere near you, try to find a user who might be in a position to get an image of them. Make a request on the requested images page. If they are a recluse, try stalking them (see the related Wikibook). Richard001 01:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible to search Flickr and verify if somebody has a picture that you need. If the license is ok, you can upload the pìcture here right away. If the license is not ok, you can ask the owner to change the license. You can find a lot of famous people's pictures on Flickr. Just be aware and use common sense checking if the Flickr user is the REAL photographer or copyright owner. Dantadd✉ 02:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal license templates, again

Today I found this personal license template: {{Mattes}}. I'd like to make two remarks about it:

The user does not uses {{subst:Mattes}} and the template is used in almost 800 pictures, he can change the license in all of them in just a second
The template, that automatically releases the picture under a {{PD-self}} license contains the following phrase:

If you want a license with the conditions of your choice, please email me to negotiate terms.

Well, if someone releases a picture under a {{PD-self}} license what terms should or could be negotiated? I didn't get it. Dantadd✉ 15:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we prohibit personal license templates. Such templates should be split. A good example of how it should be done is Image:Tron Øgrim.3.jpg. Kjetil r 16:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that particular case, splitting does not solve issue #1 : what prevents User:Nina-no to subsequently add some restrictions to his/her image license and make it incompatible with Commons ? (S)he could do it in one second for all his/her images and we would not notice anything. — Xavier, 16:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} is not a part of Nina's template. She could not change the license by changing her personal template. Kjetil r 11:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By adding restrictions in her template, she can make the whole license non-free, as we understand it. For example, I've already met restrictions like "use of this CC-by picture is limited to WP only". She already adds a (reasonable) restriction to her images with "Please credit this photo in the immediate vicinity of the image". If tomorrow she adds, "Credits to Nina must be written on the cover of any book containing this image, with a 2x3 inch font", I guess we will consider this as an abuse and remove her images from Commons. — Xavier, 15:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one here : {{GFDLF}} (a copy of {{GFDL/fr}}). — Xavier, 16:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, these are good issues that we have to take care of, but my second point was not commented. Can an user that released a picture under a [[tl|PD-self}} license ask third parts to "negotiate terms"? Dantadd✉ 16:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dantadd, a publisher may want a written agreement or something like that, and the author may be willing to do so for a fee. Seems OK to me. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with personal license templates. I agree the above one is kinda useless with the "negotiate" part, but the rest is useful linking other items. If he changes the license terms to an un-free one, we just revert the change and it's free again. They can't revoke the free license terms, though we may delete some of the images if they are unused as a courtesy. Someone should only make a personal license template if they have lots of images. I've got about 20 that I did and a template for that doesn't seem useful. 50 seems okay, but a set number minimum doesn't seem like a good idea ("When does a pile of leaves become a pile?"). MECU≈talk 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that a change of license in the template does not appear in the imge history thus it can be imposible to find. What I've generally recommended the users to do is to split their template up into two parts, one with he personal message/contact details or whatever (User:Foo/myinfo) and one with the "official" license template. By then writing {{User:Foo/myinfo}}{{license}} in their personal template they can subst that template (making the license permanent) yet have the possibility of updating their contact details on all images at once by editing User:Foo/myinfo. Most users I've spoken to have not had a problem with this scheme. /Lokal _Profil 17:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but a statement like "If you want a license with the conditions of your choice, please email me to negotiate terms" is incoherent with the license {{PD-self}}. If you release a picture into the public domain, finito, there's no more terms or conditions to negotiate. Dantadd✉ 18:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. As already stated by MECU, it's quite useless for a picture in PD. Maybe one should read instead something like "If you want the same image at a greater resolution with the license of you choice..." ? Anyway, even if he hasn't any greater definition pictures, he doesn't risk anything in proposing to be paid for his PD work. Some might find safer to sign a clear contract with him, rather than using his images from Commons. — Xavier, 19:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, of course. My guess is that the sentence was copied from a similar notice by a GFDL-licensing user. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I think the statement is misleading. Dantadd✉ 20:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, and just to make sure, I hope all personal license templates contain a standard, regular license tag? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a risk. Dantadd✉ 19:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal templates and categories

More generally, what is Commons's policy about personal templates (not even license related ones, like {{ANIMATION03}}) and personal categories (like Category:Reynaldo/Gallery)? I recently spent significant time to search Commons on that matter but failed to find any rule or guideline. — Xavier, 16:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There should be an official policy about personal categories and galleries. Dantadd✉ 19:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up several times now and so far each time we reach the same conclusions. Personal categories are fine, as long as they are under Category:User galleries, and the images have other topic-describing categories/galleries. Personal templates that contain info like technical details, user's website, "notification requested" notes etc, are fine, but they should not put any extra REQUIREMENTS on top of the specified license/s (eg "non commercial only"). Requests are OK, requirements are not. Also the license part should be subst:ed. So if you have a personal template that only has contact info, and on each image you put {{Mytemplate}} and {{GFDL}} [or another license], that's fine. If the license template is part of your personal template, your personal template should be subst:ed whenever you use it. This is to keep any license changes relating to the image transparent, ie part of the edit history of the image page. Does that make sense? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a sensible policy to me (can I find it written somewhere else?). But it would be better, IMHO, if there was also a naming convention for user templates and user categories, like {{User:XYZ/mytemplate}} and [[Category:User_XYZ/mycategory]]. — Xavier, 13:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and that {{ANIMATION02}} is weird, I would ask that guy what he is trying to do. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned statements

The image Omsk Tarskaya street.jpg (and other images as well) contains a statement that starts with: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:.
However, this statement is currently not followed by the name of the person who actually stated this. Bob.v.R 02:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the license {{PD-self}}, "I, the copyright holder" is considered to be the person who uploaded the image and added the tag. For images released by users of other wikiprojects or to specifically state who released it into the public domain {{PD-user|username}} is used instead, which provides "This image has been released into the public domain by its author, Username..." -- Editor at Large • talk 04:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For 'PD-user' the situation looks very clear for the reader. However, for 'PD-self', as for example used here, it would in my opinion be an improvement if it would be stated clearly who made this statement. In the current situation, the reader has to 'guess' who it might be. Bob.v.R 10:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this a problem, given that many pictures do not mention in the 'Description' field who the author is: file history data does *not* appear when you view the picture embedded in a local Wikipedia. You have to go to Commons to know who the uploader is. Even there, this is not user-friendly at all. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jastrow. Are there other users who also want to comment on this issue? (If we indeed see this as a problem, then we can consider what to do about it.) Bob.v.R 18:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the template should link to the uploader. Richard001 01:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a known bug that upload history is not part of the information transcluded to other projects when an image is used. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got the bug's ID number? I'm not sure that voting counts for anything but it gives me the illusion to make a contribution :-) Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-answer: that would be bug #3283. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Richard001. A possibility to achieve this could be to from now stop using the PD-self template completely. In that case there will be no new cases of unsigned statements. (That would only leave us to think about what to do with the statements that already exist.) Bob.v.R 23:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, until the bug is fixed. :) — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on that bug as follows:

Everything possible from the image description page on Wikimedia Commons (including the upload history appropriately linked, the talk page, and the Check Usage link) should be immediately accessible when they are transcluded to other projects. "What links here" should be available both locally (for links on the local project) and for Commons. Perhaps a new pair of magic variables {{USERNAME}} and {{USERNAMEE}} would help to get the projects to actually comply with the "BY" (attribution) portions of the Creative Commons licenses for images transcluded from Wikimedia Commons? I'm sure there are other uses for such variables on the local projects, as well.

— Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the discussion page of PD-self, the license {{PD-author}} is mentioned. This license explicitly mentions the author. Bob.v.R 08:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the {{PD-author}} license template does indeed explicitly mention the author. However, for the explicit mention to work as designed, the user is required to actually enter their linked username into the first parameter of that template, but the template documentation (such as it is) doesn't say that. :( — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now fixed this deficiency - please see the changed documentation at Category:PD-author, as {{PD-author}} is edit-protected. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, this looks to be an improvement. Is a similar modification possible for PD-Self? Bob.v.R 07:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only for an Administrator - {{PD-Self}} would need to be modified to provide for a parameter specifying the name of the author. However, I have done the same for {{PD-user}} and {{PD-user-w}}. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Is it then an idea to from now on strongly discourage future use of the PD-self template? Bob.v.R 14:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, until the bug is fixed. :) — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

Requested images

Should we not also have a requested images/media category like Wikipedia where requests are placed via a template on the article talk page? See w:Category:Wikipedia requested images. As it is, there may be a request for an image for a certain image page, but someone who could make such an image may view the page without even being aware of the request. What I propose is replicating the Wikipedia system, with a template being placed on the relevant talk page, and a message showing up on the main article or category page so it doesn't go unnoticed (perhaps it could simply go on the article page, though it might be considered untidy or not appropriate for non-registered users who are just browsing and don't want to see that.

I don't like splitting the system into a list and a category, but they both have their advantages, so I don't see what else we can do. Perhaps there's some way we can merge them into one, I haven't thought about it much yet, but starting things off would be a good idea. Richard001 02:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that Commons has a large and regular enough community to make a system like that useful. Plus, wouldn't it apply to practically 99% of the pages and topics we have? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should just encourage people to add a request at the relevant talk page as well (a template allowing input for describing the request, along with placing a link on the content page, would be ideal). Why would it be a problem to have requests on 99% of pages? We're aiming to fulfill them, aren't we? Richard001 01:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is in the german wikipedia also used for logos if they are too simple to be copyrighted.
I want to know if this applys also in Commons. Is it allowed to upload "simple" files like Image:Logo99-nc-.jpg or Image:Logo77-nc-.jpg? The template says "Note: trademark restrictions usually apply. Logos can be registered as design patents for a copyright-like protection." . I would says that every logo is copyrighted no matter if they're only letters or a complex logo. I've seen that many of those simple logos got deleted, because they're logo and according to the commons licesing there is no fair use.
--D-Kuru 20:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♦ The template exists, see template:PD-ineligible. ♦ Logos generaly are not "PD-ineligible", most of the time they are creative (which implies an artistic property protection), and anyway they are not "public domain" because of trade mark protection. Michelet-密是力 18:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought trademark restrictions are independent of copyright. Anyway, in germany a lot of logos are ineligible for copyright. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Commons? Is it allowed or isn't it?

--D-Kuru 23:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By itself, no, though the copyright status is obviously a special case. Michelet-密是力 05:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I belive they are allowed if they are only general text logos (but the issue is not solved yet). Since simple text logos are not eligible for copyright, even in the US, [9] there is a new template for this called {{PD-textlogo}}. / Fred J 12:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is complicated with the trademark restriction but personally I don't think it makes sense to forbid everything that is trademark protected since virtually anything can be trademark protected. / Fred J 12:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. I personally think that we should not look at non copyright restrictions. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

Pschemp's icons problem

Please help to solve problem with icon reproductions User talk:Pschemp#Your icons images. A.J. 09:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

Commons:Territorial division of the World

I created this help page in order to make the categorization of places consistent in Commons. In particular, I think we should agree on what is a country in Commons. So, I ask you to comment this draft. --Juiced lemon 00:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure all these terms are explained fairly well on en. Also I don't see "Western Sahara" (big surprise). I think I'll go create a help page in order to make the categorization of most disruptive editors of all time consistent in Commons. ¦ Reisio 01:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The “big surprise” is for those users who don't read the English Wikipedia (the en wp article describes clearly w:Western Sahara as a territory, not a country). You don't usefully contribute to Commons project, and you comes here only for disruptive actions, as we can see. --Juiced lemon 07:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you stop it, please. Discuss about a procedure, not who is or isn't a useful member here. Neither of you are blocked, so assume that community consensus says you both can be useful. Making judgements about other users isn't part of that. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy

Hello, I've written a draft of this policy. Please comment on the talk page as to whether you find it acceptable or not. Is there something you disagree with there? Is there something not covered? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commonshelper and the Image deletion warning

When an image is uploaded with the help of the commonshelper-tool: Is it possible that users (especially administrators) that mark an image for deletion notify the original uploader instead of the person which used the CommonsUploader-tool, when they differ? As the original user should have information concerning the licence status, author and other necessary info, but not always has an account on commons. The uploader is of course responsible for his or her own uploads, but in order not to delete images like this one (which was put here, but as a bot uploaded it, the uploader was not notified so I had to do it in order to save it from deletion). So what I would like to know if it is possible for users that mark an image for deletion and see the original uploader differs from the one that uploaded it at the commons, to notify the original uploader about it, either on his of her commons talkpage or -when there is none (yet)- on the talkpage of the original uploader on the wikipedia where it was first uploaded. --Hardscarf 11:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When using the delete tag, I try to notify everyone mentioned on the image description page, its talk page, and their histories. I have once been told by a notification recipient that the image was "not my image". — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Bots/Requests for flags/OsamaKBOT

Hi, Can you visit this page Commons:Bots/Requests for flags/OsamaKBOT? Thanks.--OsamaK 13:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category merge proposal

Please comment at Category talk:United States National Park Service if you have an opinion on whether Category:United States National Park Service should be merged into Category:National Park Service. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1000FP

Commons currently has 816 FPs. So within a year we should have 1000. What interesting and fun promotional/commemorative things could we do? I'm kinda thinking ahead, because typically we plan for such milestones about five minutes before they happen, so it never hurts to be organised. ;)

Two ideas I had are: having a lucky-draw prize for all Wikimedians who've gained at least 1 FP (1 FP = 1 entry), organise prizes, and get the Foundation office to draw it :) and organising a commemorative print book. What other cool things could we do?? Please respond at Commons_talk:Featured_pictures#1000FP. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

upload problems

Hi, I'm experiencing problems when trying to upload pdf files of a german studies/medieval literature serial (Germania, Vierteljahrsschrift...). I uploaded the first volumes without any problems. A few days ago, I tried to upload the next volumes but only got an error message (The Document contains no data). From a different computer, my browser is looking for the wikimedia server for some time, but then tells me there is no server response/ the page is not available.

Any idea what's the problem? --Mauss 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no more image source retrievable

I was thinking about to upload this pic but the given source is not hosting the image (anymore). I wanted to insert it towards de:United States Department of Veterans Affairs Police. Now, is this a hinderance to upload or should one just trust the original uploader on en:wikipedia that it once existed? -- Mattes 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on removing sysop rights due to inactivity

Could I draw people's attention to this which we are seeking to make policy. It takes into account various itmes on pages over the past couple of months. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

Could someone second-check this for me

Could someone second-check Image:May 2007 soldier kidnappings ID cards.jpg for me? The image should be ok, as ultimately it's a non-creative picture of a US government work, but I want to be absolutely clear. One thing, the ultimate source is not known. The images came from an insurgent video, but the actual details haven't been released to the public. -N 18:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seem pretty obvious a faithful reproduction of a US-Gov work. However, I'm not sure about the pictures of the soldiers... -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're dead, Jim. -N 19:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long is the photographer is not dead for 70 years... but I'll the pictures for the army are taken by army personell as part of their duties? Or do you have to take your own photos with you to have such a card made? -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you were talking about {{Personalityrights}}, which I'm going to put on there anyway. I'm in the Navy and those ID cards look identical to mine, except mine says "Navy". It's just like going to the DMV, they take your picture and make the card, you don't bring in anything. -N 20:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N, you wrote the actual details haven't been released to the public. Do you really mean, the families of those - probably murdered - soldiers haven't been informed of their death? If yes, I will vote for speedy deletion. -- Túrelio 20:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their deaths aren't official, which means they could be alive. Is there a policy against using this image I'm unaware of? -N 20:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should be fine this way. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just try to imagine one of those two is your dad or spouse, and, let's say, a friend calls you, hey, I've seen the ID card of Alex/Byron on Commons. Do you need a "policy" to find that disgusting? -- Túrelio 21:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worse than finding it on CNN after it was in a terrorist video. We are a catalog of human knowledge, and are not censored.-N 22:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, by "catalog of human knowledge", you mean "a load of stuff someone found on the internet", and by "not censored" you mean, "we are really bad at cleaning up our stuff and we like it that way" :) --Fb78 10:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an arbitration case on en-wiki that will decide on how to deal with privacy/identity of real people, and the outcome may be a good reference for this debate here. Wooyi 00:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007/05