Commons:Help desk/Archive/2009/08

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Image upload confusion

Hi, I'm new here. I've been creating a few new svg images for a couple of wikipedia pages. The images are heraldic in nature and so are built using components of other images already on wikimedia. I tried uploading one: Viscount_Linley.svg and it appears to have worked, but I can't link his wikipedia entry to the file. Also, the description of the file suggests it is an update of another file. I was trying to suggest that it was derived from a number of files, not an update of any particular one. Any advice would be much appreciated!

The most straightforward of several ways to do this is {{w|David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley}}, which will produce David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley. Also, while not relevant in this case, you can produce different visible text, as in {{w|David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley|the present Viscount Linley}}: the present Viscount Linley. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Old Photo

I have my grandmother's 1923 High School yearbook (USA) -- 1923, not before 1923. Can I scan a photo from it and upload? There are no mentions of copyrights anywhere in the yearbook. How do I classify the photo (if it can be uploaded)? TwoScarsUp (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is probably {{PD-US-no notice}}, which would make it good for upload. Just place that template on the image description page. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Failing that, {{PD-US-not renewed}} is pretty much a sure thing. - Jmabel ! talk 04:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Am I allowed to edit here if I'm blocked on Wikipedia? Rowdy the Ant (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello,
Welcome to Commons, its not important for us if you are blocked on a wikipedia project, you are free to edit Commons and I hope you enjoy your stay here.
Best regards,
Huib talk 21:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Just, uh, please don't do here what you got blocked for there. - Jmabel ! talk 04:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no problem, if you saw me on Wikia you'll think I'm a changed user! Rowdy the Ant (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Election

The Wikimedia Board of Trustees election has started. In the rejection message ("Sorry, you are not in the predetermined list of users authorised to vote in this election.") a link to the reasons to be in/out that "predetermined list" might help. Oscar van Dillen and his sock and/or meat puppets don't like me and I accept that as a reason to exclude me from voting, but innocent users should get a more informative message. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a point, any tangential cheap shots notwithstanding. The requirements can be found at meta:Board elections/2009#Requirements, but a link to them from the rejection message would be useful. Alas, I suspect that may require patching the SecurePoll extension, since the current implementation doesn't seem to provide any place for such a link. In any case, there's nothing we here at Commons can do about it except complain to the devs. (Well, I could try to do something about it, assuming I feel sufficiently adventurous to go poking in the SecurePoll code, and I'm sure one or two other devs may also read this page. But it's still not the ideal place to ask for such fixes.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, actually, it may be technically possible since rev:53793 after all. Now we just need to get the custom error message translated and deployed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Erik,
Please don't say things like this about trusted users, or a less trusted users. If I understand it correct you have a problem with Oscar? This should be solved but not on Commons.
Huib talk 15:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Abigor/Huib/SterkeBak/…, the assumed problem is off-topic here. I mentioned it, because it might explain a message written especially for me. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
@Ilmari Karonen: Thanks for the link (that "1 June" explains it). I tried to find the message and failed (for some strange reason). It would be useless if I told after the elections had ended, that it might have been a good idea to give people a link to the requirements. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Since you are much better in finding such things, on http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Watchlist&hideBots=1 is a link titled "Show bots" which, despite the name, links to a page with hideBots=1. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
That's a MediaWiki bug (specifically, bugzilla:19442). I believe it's already been fixed in SVN trunk since rev:52772, but apparently that change hasn't been deployed yet. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Image Upload

I have improved an image from the commons and wish to upload it.

When I log in and select upload and then choose

It is a derivative work from the Commons, verify that I am logged in

I get a screen asking for an upload of an original work. No browse to image link is available either.

Help. I want to contribute but it isn't easy.

Howard

Hi Howard, after you passed the first screen asking if you are logged in you have to enter the filename of the original file from Commons (File:...) into the second screen. However, at the moment the Tool is out of order, you may wait a few days untill everything with the toolserver is fixed. --Martin H. (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Fotos vom früheren Arbeitsplatz und Screenshots von TV-Sendungen

Hallo, ich habe zwei ziemlich kniffelige Fragen:

Vorweg zur Info: Ich habe früher Mal bei einem TV-Sender gearbeitet und bearbeite gerade den Wikipedia-Artikel zu dem Sender. Der Sender existiert inzwischen nicht mehr (GmbH aufgelöst und Technik abgebrochen). Aber natürlich lebt der frühere Besitzer des Senders und der GmbH noch und auch die früheren Mitarbeiter und Moderatoren des Senders leben natürlich noch. 2 Fragen:

1. Ich besitze zahlreiche selbstgemachte Fotos von meinem früheren Arbeitsplatz (Maschinen, Räume, Gebäude, Technik, Studio usw. aber keine Personen). Das Urheberrecht liegt also klar bei mir, aber darf ich solche "internen Fotos" meines früheren Arbeitsplatzes veröffentlichen?

2. Ich besitze zahlreiche Videomitschnitte und Screenshots von früheren TV-Sendungen. Die Urheber der Bilder (Kameraleute, Regisseure etc.) leben noch, die abgebildeten Moderatoren leben auch noch, der Besitzer des Senders auch, die GmbH die den Sender betrieben hat ist dagegen aufgelöst. Darf ich Ausschnitte und Screenshots veröffentlichen?

Bin für Tipps dankbar. -- navigate (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Keine ganz einfachen Fragen.
1) ist eine mögliche Restriktion die eine Sache zwischen dir und deinem ehemaligen Arbeitgeber und zwischen euch geschlossener Verträge ist. Im Zweifel nachfragen wenn möglich. Sensible Technik oder Betriebsgeheimnisse kann ich mir allerdings kaum vorstellen, also auch niemand der durch die Veröffentlichung einen (wirtschaftlichen oder anders gearteten) Schaden erleiden könnte.
2) Mit der Gefahr etwas völlig falsches zu sagen: Im deutschen Recht ist der Urheber eine natürliche Person. Ich weiß nicht ob Fernsehen als Filmwerk im UrhG gilt, sollte dem so sein hat der Sender wahrscheinlich ein ausschließliches Nutzungsrecht des Materials (§89,1), gilt zu prüfen ob dieses Recht noch besteht. Egal ob erloschen oder nicht, geht die Lizenzierung unter einer freien Lizenz nicht ohne Einwilligung aller Urheber. Im Falle von Filmmaterial können das viele Leute sein. Selbst Screenshots sind nicht ganz einfach, selbst wenn der Kameramann von seiner eigenen Aufnahme einen Screenshot macht hat er nicht das alleinige Urheberrecht, auch der Regisseur kann ein Urheberrecht am Screenshot haben da er den Inhalt bestimmt hat, oder ein anderer an der Produktion beteiligter ohne dessen Zutun das Bild nicht zustande gekommen wäre. Also keine Screenshots unter freier Lizenz ohne Zustimmung aller Beteiligten zu dieser Lizenz.
--Martin H. (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hallo Martin, danke für die Infos!
Zu 1) Ich habe dort als Arbeitskraft auf stundenbasis gearbeitet. (Tatsächlich war ich viel mehr als nur Vollzeit tätig.) Ich hatte aber komischerweise nie einen Arbeitsvertrag. Das heißt: Ich habe meinem Arbeitgeber lediglich Lohnsteuerkarte, Adresse und Bankverbindung genannt und am Monatsende, in Abhängigkeit der geleisteten Arbeitsstunden, ganz offiziell eine Lohnabrechnung, samt Steuerabzug und Sozialabgaben erhalten. Ich habe aber wirklich nie einen Vertrag oder sonst irgendwas unterschrieben. (Alle Kollegen hatten einen Arbeitsvertrag und dieser enthielt auch einen großen umfangreichen Passus zur Geheimhaltung.) - Nachfragen beim früheren Eigentümer des Senders ist nicht möglich, da der Mann ein prozesswütiger, durchgeknallter und jähzorniger Sektenguru ist.
Zu 2) So was in der Richtung hatte ich selbst schon vermutet. Das Nachfragen wegen Lizenznutzung kann ich vergessen. Mir ging es da mehr um das Thema Zitatrecht im Rahmen einer Enzyklopädie. Aber ich habe mich da inzwischen auch schon selbst hier in der Wikipedia informiert und festgestellt, dass das wohl bei Screenshots und Videos rechtlich nicht so einfach ist diese in der Wikimedia Commons einzustellen und als Zitat zu nutzen. -- navigate (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Actress gloria reuben photo by christopher peterson.jpg

Folks, it is appropriate for the uploader to require attribution in the image permissions: Attribution required: Photo by Christopher Peterson.? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much the definition of the CC-BY license. It's perfectly fine. --Yarnalgo (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

i have a school project i have to use a .wmv cc video all i want to do is find a video game to download to use with my other video how do i download from this site and find what i am looking for jeez it is very confusing

Using Commons File Descriptions in Articles

I haven't found this handled in any of the help pages - maybe am too much of a Newbie to search the right places so I'd better ask the professionals: I uploaded two pictures to commons Wandrey "BALANCE OF POWER" and Wandrey "CIRCUIT WOMAN". I added titles and descriptions for both pictures in German and English. Now I want to use these in my article. How do I reference them (syntax)? Thanks in advance, --Kst32 (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What is your article? On which Wikipedia? What do you mean by "these"? (The descriptions, or the images?) --Teratornis (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The article is http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrus_Wandrey on the German Wikipedia. By "these" I meant the descriptions. The images I already referenced in the article, only the newer version of my article is not yet verified. --Kst32 (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
You can't access the descriptions in any automatic manner. (Of course, any user can see them by clicking through.) If you want the description to appear in the article, you need to copy and paste. - Jmabel ! talk 04:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
That's unfortunate, as it is double input, but can't be helped. I'm glad though, it's not just a stupid newbie-mistake. Thank you for your time and response. --Kst32 (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

brand / logo / image - licensing

Hi, I'd like to upload an image. a Logo of a company which I have found on their website. Furtherly I will use it to illustrate a company description page. what should I exactly put in the "License" field when uploading an image? for that it wouldn't be deleted. Thanks in advance

It depends. If the logo is copyrighted (most are) you must not upload it on Commons. Instead you may upload it locally on Wikipedia and use a license tag {{Non-free logo}} and a fair use rationale. If it is free of copyright, you may upload it here with the appropriate tag ({{PD-old}} if the copyright has expired, {{PD-ineligible}} if it too simple to be copyrighted). Sv1xv (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


OOOOOK! Now it's clear why it was deleted. you see, I was trying to put {{Non-free logo}} and {{SVG-Logo}} on Commons. It's obvious that I've misunderstood the phrase "It is a non-free fair use image (Non-free logo, cover, screenshot, artwork etc.)" at the Upload page. Thanks, Sv1xv

The tag {{Non-free logo}} on Commons is a "trap" which marks the image as copyright violation and submits it for speedy deletion. Sv1xv (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, fair use content is not allowed on Commons, only free files. --Martin H. (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Marianrentaalbumcover.jpg

How do I nominate an image for deletion. File:Marianrentaalbumcover.jpg was added to Wikipedia, deleted and then added here and I'd like to suggest it for deletion. Monads (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You can nominate individual media files directly by going to the image description page and clicking on "Nominate for deletion" in the toolbox on the left (help). If you prefer to list the request manually, see Commons:Deletion requests/listing a request manually. If it's a copyright violation you would use the Speedy Deletion process described here. See COM:D for all the details. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Monads (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Help on VHS Covers

What type of license are VHS Cover pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by User99671 (talk • contribs) 08:47, August 7, 2009 (UTC)

As a rule, VHS cover pictures are copyrighted and cannot be uploaded here: Commons accepts free pictures only. If you're a user of the English-speaking Wikipedia, you may upload such pictures locally under Fair Use if they meet the en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

my patent

how do i get or print a coy of my patent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizell11248 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably not by using Commons. This is a repository of free content media files. You could ask on Wikipedia:Reference desk if you can't figure it out yourself. You might also Google for "patent search". That brings up pages of links that might help you. --Teratornis (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing error

I was editing an image file in Commons and, due to my unfamiliarity with the programming language, deleted something I should not have. The file is Main_Title_Page.jpg. I was trying to remove the "Check categories" box, after having added categories, but after doing so the boxes for Usage and Related Galleries disappeared and I can find no way to bring them back. There is doubtlessly a detail I am missing. Could you please tell me what I have done wrong and how I might correct the situation? -Maekju — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maekju (talk • contribs) 15:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Those sections are part of the "check categories" box and are only there to assist in the adding of categories. Once categories are check they are supposed to be there so don't worry about adding them back. --Yarnalgo (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

To overwrite or not to overwrite?

That is the question. So, how do you make the call between overwriting a file vs. uploading a separate, derivative file? If you overwrite, how do you link to the source file? I'm a little bit confused by this and, unless I'm looking in the wrong place, the issue isn't really covered in FAQ. LAW (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't easily display the original file if you over-write (althoough it is still there). I find the best policy is to discuss it with the original uploader (or whoever uploaded the current version), sometimes one persons improvement is anothers degradation :-). Also check usage of the original file, your new version might not be suitable for some uses. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Transferring pictures from Flickr by using Flinfo / "AC 3000ME" sports car

Hi, for my article "AC 3000ME" at the german WP I am searching for more pics of that mid-engined sports car (on Commons there is just a single one). On Flickr there are some usefull, even with the right kind of Creative Commons-licence as far as I can appreciate, so I tried to transfer them (my first actions with Flickr and Commons). Using Flinfo (for the first time), 2. "Get Flickr-Info" wasn´t a problem for several tested pictures, but 3. "Download original size" always (!) led to the same answer: "The picture is currently not available", even when I changed the motive to flowers, buildings etc.

Is it just a problem with Flickr, maybe a momentary one, just a problem with all the elected single pictures (e.g. [1], is it a problem with Commons or Flinfo, or is the guy at this keyboard the problem? You can alternativly answer me in german. Thx for your help. --Roland Rattfink (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ich nehme an, du durchsuchst Flickr, kopierst dir die ID des Bildes aus der URL und gibst sie bei http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/flinfo.php ein, dort klickst du auf "Bild in Originalgröße herunterladen". Es scheint, als habe Flickr für einige Bilder derzeit das direkte verlinken über den static link deaktiviert, ist also ein Flickr problem. gehe einfach auf das Flickr Bild zurück, z.B. http://www.flickr.com/photos/kylegordon/2725814052/, klicke auf die "All sizes" Lupe über dem Bild und lad es dir über diesen Weg runter. Dannach kannst du Flinfo weiter folgen und das Upload-Formular für Commons öffnen. --Martin H. (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
See User talk:Flominator/Flinfo#"Download original size" link is broken for me. At least two Flinfo users have reported this problem to User:Flominator. The problem seems to be that Flickr has changed the format of the URL for the original size photo from the format that Flinfo assumes. You can see the problem by comparing the URL that Flinfo gives vs. the correct URL; for example, using your photo:
It is possible to scrape the correct URL from the flickr photo page. (For example, I wrote a quick Perl script to download every photo from a Flickr photoset.) Presumably Flinfo could scrape the correct URL similarly, but does not currently. I might write another note to Flominator about that. --Teratornis (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if you only know the ID - unlikely - you can use http://www.flickr.com/photo.gne?id= --Martin H. (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Posting pictures (jpeg files)

I am so below the proficiency gate with this that virtually all the help info is useless

I have a jpg file where I know who the author is, and he has given permission for the item to be published on Wikipedia.

It is a rail map of the Wrexham and Shropshire railway route. It was produced by the Sales Manager of same.

This situation doesn;t seem to fit any category.

The map is a whole lot clearer than the one currently on the Wrexham and Shropshire railway article

87.113.93.120 14:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

First an info: A permission for publication on Wikipedia is not enough. Permission must be given to everyone, not only Wikipedia, to reuse the file for every purpose including commercial use as long as the terms of a free license are fulfilled. You should ask for permission under a free license using Commons:Email templates.
Second a quick instruction to upload: Go to Commons:Upload, select It is from somewhere else, fill out all information fields, some hints:
The source is the railway corp., (Company name, location, sales management), the author is also this company - for privacy purposes you don't have to name the illustrator's name if the company holds the copyright. If there is some other version on a website you can provide a weblink. The image is not your own work, so you should follow the instructions written below the permission field: copy the text "{{OTRS pending|month=August|day=10|year=2009}}" into the field and forward your written permission to OTRS. Your permission should name a license, see above. It is preferred to ask for Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike, {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Select this license from the drop down menu. If you get permission for any other license written in Commons:License tags you should enter this tag (including the curly braces) into the additional information field. Add categories to your upload, take already existing images of the same or a similar subject as examples for categories. --Martin H. (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OGGs

hi, i was wondering how to upload OGGs to commons. i've seen pages with audio clips and was wondering how it is done. i also need info. on what is copyright accepatable to upload. ie. can i upload an internet radio segment, or recorded (using computer recording) audio segment from youtube? Any help is most appreciated. Thanks!


J929 (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:File types: Patent-encumbered file formats like MP3 are not accepted, use ogg for sound. Regarding the copyright: presumably a sound file has many copyright holders: The singer. speaker or instrumental player, the composer, the recorder, other people related to the production and so on. They all gain copyright for their work, maybe they are contracted to an employer if copyright transfer is possible in the country of origin.
Uploading sound is like uploading every other file: If every copyright holder agrees to the licensing in written form - see Commons:Email templates for a wording example - or every copyright holders copyright has been expired in the country of origin and the U.S. - see COM:L for reasons - you can upload the sound file. I emphasize the word every - if some copyright holders are not known we act precautionary --Martin H. (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thanks for the quick reply. The audio sample would be of Sai Baba. He would be the only person in the sample. there are youtube files with him talking, how does one sort the copyrights for that considering the upload audio piece would be from that source. (ie is it a free source). i have CDs from a company that independantly made recordings of him but have now stopped all business transactions (i talked to them to 4 years ago and they said they are stopping all CD manufacturing due to poor sales) -although i still know them and hopefully could get coyright release- what is the policy if the manufacturing company is no longer around?
thanks again!!
J929 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
In case of Sathya Sai Baba it is obvious: He is alive, probably Indian copyright applies: COM:L#India gives 60 years of copyright for the recording, you may get permission from that copyright holder. But it also gives 60 years for the speaking - copyright holder is also the speaker. See http://copyright.gov.in/handbook.htm: A sound recording generally comprises various rights. It is necessary to obtain the licences from each and every right owner in the sound recording. This would ,inter alia, include the producer of the sound recording, the lyricist who wrote the lyrics, and the musician who composed the music. I dont know if a speach is considered a literary work, if yes the copyright expires 60 years after Babas death. So you need a written permission to a free license from the copyright holder. --Martin H. (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! i guess the copyright holders would be the Sai Trust. Although i have audio CDs from a company called Saican (from Canada). On the CDs, it states that they (Saican) hold all copyrights (Copyright 2000. saican), can i approach them for copyright release or does it have to be from the Sai Trust?
Am i right to assume the Youtube recording would also need copyright release from the Sai trust?
I also bought a recording of Sai Baba from the Prashanti Nilayam bookstore (inside the ashram) yet on it there is no (none at all) copyright info, it just says the title, thats all. How does that work for copyrighting? (is it still under the Trust? although nothing is written)
Thank you for your time and patience!
J929 (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I can only assume: The publication of a CD is maybe covered by an permission the publisher gained from Baba or the trust on behalf. This happend, maybe, under a non-transferable individual license/permission. To publish the spoken content under a free license that allows everyone to reuse it you need also a permission covering the publication under that free license. --Martin H. (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
That permission would have to be from the Sai Trust? or can it be from Saican? the CD i have says that Saican alone has copyrights.
or is it best to contact Sai Trust and see what i can do about general copyright release?
Thanks again!!  :)
J929 (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I dont think anyone is able to guess about the copyright status. Possible copyright holders are named above, to upload something it is required to have all copyright holders permission and to exclude any third party rights. --Martin H. (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!!
J929 (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User Marinelli

Ich habe irrtümlich die falsche Version von Bildern hochgeladen. Ein Freund (Künstler) hat mich darum gebeten. Ich sollte eine niedrige Auflösung hochladen, damit kein Missbrauch getrieben werden kann, und habe irrtümlich die hohe auflösung erwischt. Es handelt sich um 5 Bilder. Zuerst wollte ich die niedrige Auflösung darüberspielen, aber die große Auflösung ließ sich noch wiederherstellen. Jetzt habe ich Löschanträge gestellt, fürchte aber, dass ich das falsche gemacht habe. Kann jemand helfen? Die niedrige Auflösungen sollten bleiben. Gruß--Marinelli (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Um welche Bilder geht es denn? --rimshottalk 06:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Um die 5 Bilder der Kategorie:Gerhard Gepp, ich habe heute einen Schnelllöschantrag gestellt wegen upload error. Würde bitten, die zu löschen, dann lade ich die richtige Version hoch. Danke!

Genaue Namen: Endspiel.jpg, Fenster.jpg, Saurier,jpg, Fussball und Freud.jpg und Knochenhand.jpg (nochmals Entshculdigung für die Unanehmlichkeiten).Gruß --Marinelli (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Danke, wurde gelöscht. Gruß --Marinelli (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

need help

I keep on getting Template:No_license warnings when I am uploading pictures. What exactly am I doing wrong? Most of the images that I have uploaded are from Afghanistan and there is no copy right law in Afghanistan. What kind of a license do I have to pick and what should I put in the information boxes? (Ketabtoon (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

Urheberrecht auf www.bing.com

Sind die Hintergrundbilder (Hinter der Suchmaske) auf www.bing.com frei?

Rechts unten ist ein C.

Oder welche Lizenz ist das. Habe den Dienstleistungsvertrag gelesen - werde daraus aber auch nicht schlau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minutestomidnight (talk • contribs) 15:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Natürlich nicht. Das wär' ja was, Microsoft und dann frei lizenzierte Bilder. Wenn ich die Maus auf dieses ©-Zeichen bewege, erscheint bei mir eine Quellenangabe, z.B. "Aldabra Atoll, Seychelles - Ralph Lee Hopkins/Getty Images", und das Hintergrundbild ist ein Ausschnitt von diesem da. Getty ist eine kommerzielle Bilderdatenbank, da ist nichts mit "frei". Lupo 15:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: Microsoft könnte evtl. was für seinen Ruf tun und gleich auch noch Geld sparen, indem es frei lizenzierte Bilder von Commons verwendete. Aber wahrscheinlich ist Ihnen das zu unsicher, und unsere Community hier würde gleich seitenweise darüber dabattieren, wie denn die Attribution genau auszusehen habe :-P Lupo 15:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Heißt das die Bilder dürfen nicht auf Commons gestellt werden? --Minutestomidnight (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Genau das heißt es. Zur Definition: Ein Bild ist frei wenn der Rechteinhaber des Bildes sich schriftlich und freiwillig einverstanden erklärt, dass Jeder sein Werk zu jedem Zweck nutzen darf, kostenlos und für unwiderruflich. "Zu jedem Zweck" schließt kommerzielle Nutzung ein, "Jeder" bedeuted absolut Jeder, nicht nur Wikipedia-Projekte. Zur Einfachheit geschieht die Freigabe zur freien Verwendung unter freien Lizenzen, der Rechteinhaber nennt die Lizenz z.B. auf seiner Webseite oder per Schriftverkehr/Email.
Mit Ralph Lee Hopkins/Getty Images hat Lupo ein Beispiel eines Rechteinhabers und eines Rechteverwalters genannt, diese müssten einer freien Verwendung (unter einer freien Lizenz) zustimmen. --Martin H. (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

problems with licence

Yes check.svg Resolved

Dear friends,

My name is Javier Serrano Copete (fujurcitook (talk · contribs)) and I have a problem. Someone (Sonsaz (talk · contribs)) has said that MY images from "barrio de la Hoz" and "Campo Taranz" are copyright.... yes, absolutilly... they have MY COPYRIGHT and I am who have uploaded these pictures in Wikipedia! Please I wish these pictures would be reintroduced! Also, I wish that SONSAZ was advertised that he cannot say that my pictures are no mine!!!—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.29.179.94 (talk) 03:09, August 6, 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Those files have been marked as copyright because File:Campo-taranz.JPG and File:Barrio Hoz.JPG can also be found on www.panoramio.com where it says "© All rights reserved". In cases like this, we are always cautious, because it often happens that people claim to be the author of pictures which are not actually theirs. Please remember that on the Internet, we have little way to check whether people are really who they claim to be.
A Commons users left you a message on Panoramio ([2]). Can you please answer him by mail or on the website? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Panoramio allows users to choose different licenses. If you will license your photos on Panoramio with a suitable free content license such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA then they will acceptable for Commons. See COM:L and Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. --Teratornis (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Licensed on Panoramio changed by author to CC-BY-3.0 and photos File:Campo-taranz.JPG, File:Barrio Hoz.JPG have been restored.--Captain-tucker (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
And both images tagged with {{LicenseReview}}. Lupo 20:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this Licence OK?

© 2003 Department of Public Works, City of Cambridge, Massachusetts I found this licence at the bottom of a page (found via Google search) that contains an image I wanted to use for an article on Wikipedia. The image is rather important, as it shows the type of product (in a general sense, not the specific product or products produced by the company the article is about) that the company my article is about manufactures.

I read in several places on Wikimedia Commons and on Wikipedia that it is OK to use anything licensed by a government agency (in this case, the department of public works of the city of Cambridge) is considered to be in the public domain, and thus can be copied without any permission or conditions.

So does that license mean I can upload the file?

Here is a link to the picture:

http://www.cambridgema.gov/TheWorks/departments/recycle/images/paperboard.jpg

Someone please advise me on this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scixx (talk • contribs) 08:44, August 11, 2009 (UTC)

The "Department of Public Works" of a city is not even close to part of the federal government and that license means that the content is fully copyrighted and so not free to use on Commons. --Yarnalgo (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Certain works held by the United States federal government may be in the public domain, subject to an explicit statement to that effect and subject to verification by the uploader that the PD statement is actually correct. No works by local or state government in the US are public domain, especially when they have an explicit copyright notice. Acroterion (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
That's not true; all works created by the US federal government are in the public domain, no explicit statement needed. Works held but not created by the US government may not be PD. Furthermore, works by state or local governments are in the public domain according to the same rules as any other works--and there's millions of pre-1923 works out there--and several states, including Massachusetts, have passed laws that put certain works into the public domain; see File:Henry Louis Gates, Jr. mugshot.jpg for a description of the laws in affect for Massachusetts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi there, My first attempt at posting to Wikipedia! At 82 years of age having some difficulty absorbing all the instructions. Have written a Book of Definitions which I would like to contribute if accepted. Attempted the Commons approach, but too many hurdles. Would very much welcome simple instructions to post the material.

Jim Glasgow (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jim - can you describe the material you're trying to contribute in more detail? If your book does consist of definitions, Wiktionary may be a more appropriate place to contribute them. You probably don't want to contribute your book in its entirety here - if you want to do that, a better idea is to post the book on your own website with a Creative Commons license statement attached to it, so that others can use it. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Kaleidoscope photography

I have a concern over a couple of kaleidoscope photos I took and which I wanted to submit. Their quality is good, colours vibrant and shapes clear and because of that I think they would be useful (i.e. could be used on pertinent Wikipedia pages and so on) as well as "educational". However before uploading them I wanted to know if it is true that kaleidoscope photography cannot be used in Wikimedia projects in that whoever made the kaleidoscope is the legal copyright holder of any random pattern the kaleidoscope generates. Can anybody please illuminate me on this matter? (Please note the kaleidoscope in question is of unknown maker, and merely filled with clear beads that probably weren't even manufactured by the kaleidoscope maker). Thanks in advance ﻯναოթ€ռ (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You could look at some of our other Kaleidoscope images and see what licenses they use. It seems difficult to believe the person who builds a random image generator could copyright everything it creates after selling it to someone else. That's almost like a camera manufacturer claiming copyright over all the images that its cameras generate when used by customers. Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, and copyright law bears no relation to common sense. --Teratornis (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer Teratornis. I had already checked the existing images, and the reason why I wanted to submit some new ones is because those currently available are either out of focus or not very clear and I can provide pictures of better quality. My concern over potential copyright issues stems from a comment made by a member in regard to the kaleidoscope picture currently displayed in the Wikipedia article Kaleidoscope. Please note the comment is not in the talk page of the article, but in the picture uploader/creator's talk page. I wanted to know if this claim reflects an actual issue or not, as, just like you, I find it difficult to believe that a kaleidoscope maker possibly holds the copyright over the (infinite?) patterns it random generates. So I just wanted to know whether I can upload the photos here on Commons or not. (It looks to me that nobody objected when the other kaleidoscope pictures were uploaded on Commons.) If you're unsure about this issue, could you please direct me to somebody who might know? Thanks! ﻯναოթ€ռ (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You might try asking on Commons talk:Licensing, but the idea that a kaleidscope maker could hold copyright over all images coming from the device would seem to violate the Idea-expression divide. We might have to throw out File:Various Spirograph Designs.jpg too. --Teratornis (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an interesting question and I really have no idea. On the one hand, obviously a camera manufacturer can't claim copyright over photos taken with the camera. On the other hand, a sculpture could be said to be a "picture generator", since you get many different pictures when viewing it from many different angles - and clearly the sculptor shares rights to any such photos. I can't figure out what the right bright line test is here. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say the difference is that the appearance of a sculpture from any angle is generally a result of intentional design by the sculptor and embodies their unique creative expression. The images seen in a kaleidoscope, on the other hand, are random assemblages of individual components, where the components themselves are typically below the threshold of originality.
In any case, the comments at en:User talk:Rnbc mentioned above appear to concern images painted on the outside of a kaleidoscope tube, specifically File:Kaleidoscope tube.jpg. Such drawings can indeed be copyrightable, just like any other artwork. Indeed, the fact that the tube happens to house a kaleidoscope would seem to be completely irrelevent. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Aaah, ok! That makes sense then. Thank you for clarifying. ﻯναოթ€ռ (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Frage

Hallo, was genau fehlt denn? Es ist doch angegeben, dass diese aus der Wikipedia selbst stammen, meist aus der siciliano-Version der jeweiligen Städte, also die Version auf sizilianisch innerhalb der Wikipedia. Diese sind public domain. Andere sind fair use. Dazu habe ich leider kein template gefunden, und habe es einfach mit der URL und fair use angegeben. Ich bitte um Antwort. Danke schön im voraus. MFG --Messina (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Lizenztechnisch ist einiges leider schief gelaufen. Der Urheber ist nicht "Leonard Vertighel", er ist lediglich der Uploader. Er besitzt sicher nicht die Veröffentlichungsrechte. Demnach solltest du einfach {{pd}} verwenden. Außerdem ist fair use in den Commons nicht erlaubt, diese Bilder bitte sofort wieder löschen bzw. löschen lassen mit {{copyvio|fair use}}. Bezüglich der korrekten Einordnung von Wappen hat dir jemand etwas auf deiner Diskussionsseite geantwortet. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For Schlurcher

Regarding the pictures. They deleted my personal pictures made. You ruined a work that are more time! I sent a letter to you with pictures that we see parts. I have let me do it. You have done so to contact me via email. It was an unwise gesture on your part. Apart from the pictures below do not have to delete anything.

  1. TerepMik01.jpg
  2. TerepMik.jpg
  3. ZsebMik01.jpg
  4. Petzval05.jpg
  5. MikTel.jpg
  6. Petzval04.jpg
  7. Schwarzschild.png

Please cure mistake you made. I got pictures but need to do again photomontage, which needs time. I am very shocked by the behavior. If at my pictures I put water put "own work" Not supposed to touch them.--Tamasflex (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Those files seem to have been montages of photos you found on various websites. You may not upload them to Commons without permission from the people who originally took the photographs and who therefore own the copyright to them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I looked a little deeper, and it seems at least plausible that some of your deleted images really were entirely your own work. I hope you can understand how the situation might seem suspicious at first, though. You uploaded a bunch of images, some of which were copyright violations and the rest of which looked very similar to the copyvio ones. As an analogy, if you had a bunch of eggs in a basket and found that some of them had spoiled, you'd suspect that the rest might be rotten too, wouldn't you?
Anyway, I'd suggest that you list the files which you want undeleted (not the ones that should stay deleted) at Commons:Undeletion requests and let the folks there have a look at them. You may also want to mention the existing discussion on your talk page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice on Copyright needed

I wanted to upload several graphs from http://www.zeno.org/Roell-1912 First to Commons and then use them in Wikipedia.

Specifically: http://www.zeno.org/Roell-1912/I/Ro020154 and http://www.zeno.org/Roell-1912/I/Ro020152 digitized from the original work: Röll, V. Freiherr von: Enzyklopädie des Eisenbahnwesens, Band 2. Berlin, Wien 1912, p. 257 and 256 respectively. The first volume was published 1911 the last 1923 after the "main" author's death on Oct 12th 1922. Dr. Röll had about 200 authors contributing to the 2nd volume alone. For example Dietler, Direktionspräsident der Gotthardbahn a.D., Luzern was responsible for the entry that included the above two graphs. He was also listed as contributor to the last volume and presumably was still alive when it went to press since others were listed as deceased in this last list of contributors.

I realize that they did not only scan the pictures but also digitized the entries of this as well as several other older encyclopedias dating form ca. 1793 to 1913. They linked the entries not only within one encyclopedia but also with the entries from all the other encyclopedias. If I understand this correctly they did this under the assumption, that the rights of these publications have expired. However I assume they own the rights to the digitized pictures and now linked encyclopedic entries. Although they caracterize their work as "gemeinfrei" which I first understood as "generally free", they explicitly state: "A taking-over of all available contents, or of essential parts thereof, into another database is prohibited."

Checking their licensing under http://www.zeno.org/Zeno/-/Lizenz%3A+Gemeinfrei I found the following English Translation for "gemeinfrei":

According to our opinion, this work is free of third party rights. Before any further utilisation, it is imperative to examine whether this assessment can be maintained, as Zenodot refuses any liability and does expressly not indemnify from potential claims by third parties. In case of a confirmation of our assessment, the following shall apply: These contents may be copied, disseminated, publicly reproduced and be made available to third parties, as an individual work or as part of a work - also for business or commercial purposes. We ask you to refer to the origin of such contents as follows: Source: http://www.zeno.org - Zenodot Verlagsgesellschaft mbH Copyright notes, trademarks or other reservations of rights by third parties may not be deleted. A taking-over of all available contents, or of essential parts thereof, into another database is prohibited.

I assume this does not allow for the download of any scanned graphs or pictures? Please let me know.

PasoAPaso

PasoAPaso (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Gemeinfrei" is the German equivalent of "public domain" (copyright expired). Their note about not allowing wholesale copying of their whole database or of essential parts thereof relates to the database rights. I don't think the two graphs in question pass the threshold of originality, so in addition to being claimed PD by zeno.org they're probably also PD because they're not copyrightable in the first place. Finally, please note that while Dietler may have written the entry, it is unknown whether he drew these graphs himself. Though it may appear unlikely that a member of the direction of the Gotthard railways may have done so, Dietler was also an engineer and certainly was capable of producing such graphs. Just in case he did: Dietler, Hermann (1839-10-01 - 1924-01-24; image (on p. 3 of the PDF, p. 284 of the publication)), and thus the graphs would be {{PD-Old}}. Lupo 08:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks that was very helpful! PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
One more question: I tried to attach some geolocation tags to the file
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LongitudinalProfileLoetschbergbahnSwitzerland_woCaptions.jpg
I am not sure that I used the right sintax. Could somebody check to be on the sure side. Since this railway goes north to south and then west to east I put in three coordinates: For the northern station, the "knee" in the route and the eastern station. Does it work for all coordinates attached to the file?
PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Also: I included the literature Dietler listed in his chapter in the "Additional info" field on the upload page. This list came out in an additional framed field with the whole list put in a single very wide line. How can I improve this?
Thanks PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not answer here. I opened two new help requests bellow. If you want to answer there!
PasoAPaso
PasoAPaso (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


Help needed

I have two screenshots, photos made with my mobile phone taken by a film and I want to use one of them for the page of the "film" Munchie but I don't know exactly how to upload it with the right licnece and correctly. Please help me! --Jamie Lee Jean Hewitt - Commons (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The copyright for the movie would be held by its producer, I presume. So you cannot upload your "screenshots" here. Lupo 11:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You can not upload this "Screenshots" - photos you made of the television screen with your camera. The copyright is held by the producer, so you need permission from the copyright holder. --Martin H. (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Cookies

I don't know how to enable cookies—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.18.108.63 (talk) 18:30, August 12, 2009 (UTC)

How do I enable cookies so I can log in?—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.18.108.63 (talk) 18:32, August 12, 2009 (UTC)

See HTTP cookie#Browser settings. You enable cookies in your Web browser. If you tell us what browser you are using, someone might tell you the exact command. It's probably somewhere in your browser preferences. See also Wikipedia:Browser notes. --Teratornis (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

New logo for svwiki

I just reacently changed the logo for the swedish version of Wikipedia to this image and it would be nice if an administrator could look it to prevent vandalism. //Sertiont|c 19:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, saw that it allready were protected. //Sertiont|c 19:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct upload and label procedure; acceptability of image subject matter.

Please advise me if the subject matter is acceptable for Wikipedia / Commons. I'm a new contributor, the original photographer of the work already uploaded, and I wish to know if the material has been properly marked and classified. I'm not even sure if this is the correct place to be asking this question; if it is not the right place, please delete this immediately.

My stuff: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Name_invalid .

I'd like to know that the material is OK, in terms of public interest or education or relevance to Wiki in general, before I upload any further stuff. I have hundreds of images of downtown Vancouver, of amateur but reasonable quality.

I have full legal proprietary rights, and enjoy contributing to public domain content on this planet.

Currently, Vancouver BC Canada is preparing for the winter Olympic Games, in about 6 months from now, and the downtown eastside (DTES) ghetto area of this city is experiencing a massive clean-up, which just makes things more difficult for those poor, addicted, or sick residents of that area. I like to show the contrast between what Vancouver is said to be like, and what it really is like, especially for the disadvantaged who live in the DTES.

I will carefully consider any criticism or advice. Thank you.

- Some old nobody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Name invalid (talk • contribs)

It think some or even most of the photos are within the project's scope. Some hoewever, - like the one I nominated for deletion - are out of the project scope or at least should be discussed. So please do not be upset if someone nominates on of your images for deletion. This does not necessarily mean that it will be deleted. --ALE! ¿…? 08:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You could upload your photos to Flickr also. --Teratornis (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Eagle nebula pillars.jpg

Why we have a black zone on this image?-- (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's because the Hubble Space Telescope takes photos with odd shapes due to its 4 cameras; see en:Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 for other examples. Pruneautalk 11:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Bah, you just buy the NASA cover story. In reality they caught a picture of a UFO and had to cut it out. Wanna borrow my tinfoil hat? --J.smith (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How can I better edit the file?

Yes check.svg Resolved

The author of the article from which I took the graph http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LongitudinalProfileLoetschbergbahnSwitzerland_woCaptions.jpg from, listed several sources as "literature" in a list at the end of the article. To allow future user of the file to hunt for possible earlier sources of the graph I included this "literature list" from which the author might have taken the graph or a predecessor of the graph. I entered this information in the "Additional info" field on the upload page when uploading Now this list came out in an additional framed field with the whole list put in a single very wide line. I am not sure whether this box was intended by the programmers of the update software, put I suspect not.

How can I improve this? (Both the box and everything being put in a single extremely wide line.) I would like to avoid this for future uploads if it is not intended to be like this. Thanks

PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

One bland at the beginning of the line triggered the pink box around the line.
Resolved
PasoAPaso
PasoAPaso (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Referring from here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dagonweb#.7B.7BAutotranslate.7C1.3D.7Cbase.3DPlease_link_images.2Fheading.7D.7D I have been asked to make some kind of comment on my additions. I have no idea what exactly to do and when I click for more information I am supposed to read 6-8 pages of highly dense text. This won't do. Please implement a simpler point and click system, instead of this ... mess. I love contributing my work but if this system is put before me as a hurdle, I have very little issues with not making the contribution and not using wikipedia. I though wiki was free to use, but the current byzantine infrastructure clearly serves to keep out contributors. Please mail replies to (REMOVED FOR SPAM).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagonweb (talk • contribs) 12:25, August 5, 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think it is complicated but it really is not. The bot's message on your talk page explains how to add categories to your images. Simply add the code [[Category:Whatever]] to the file description page to add it to categories. I'm not sure what you mean by a "point and click system" but you might want to check out HotCat which is a tool for easily adding categories. To install it on Commons, go to your preferences (top right of any page) then go to the Gadgets tab and check HotCat then save. --Yarnalgo (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


What is the "file description page" you are referring to? There are plenty of pages that simply state info about the file... can you be more exact? 18:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)18:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)~~

How can I create a line break without using the indent(:) function?

How can I create a line break without using the indent(:) function? PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Use <br> or just put an extra space in the code:
stuff<br>
more stuff

even more stuff
makes...

stuff
more stuff

even more stuff --Yarnalgo (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Flickr searching

I'm not a new user, but I was not sure where else to ask this. Anyone know if it is possible to search within words on Flickr? Or rather, certain parts of words. For example, if I want to find all images that have the word "saurus" in them, like Tyrannosaurus, Stegosaurus, so on. It would really help me in finding pictures for Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

See http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/by-2.0/ and http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/by-sa-2.0/. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You can search for freely-licensed photos on Flickr with the {{Flickr free}} template, for example:
  • Search Flickr for images with the keywords: Tyrannosaurus under these licenses: cc-by or cc-by-sa
  • Search Flickr for images with the keywords: Stegosaurus under these licenses: cc-by or cc-by-sa
Whether your search can include partial words, regular expressions, boolean operators, etc., depends on what the Flickr developers have provided. Let's try a guess, which doesn't do what you want:
  • Search Flickr for images with the keywords: *saurus under these licenses: cc-by or cc-by-sa
You would have to ask them or find the manual on Flickr (if it exists) that documents their search syntax. You can also search for freely licensed images with Google Image search now, but I have not found it too useful yet as it tends to find mostly photos that are already on Commons. Google may get better at locating and indexing other collections of freely licensed images as time goes on. --Teratornis (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I made myself clear, I meant than instead of searching for individual words with for example "saurus" in them, I just somehow search "saurus" itself, and find all places where it is used, even within other words. I know that is possible on Google, but not sure if it can be done on Flickr. FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know Google could do that. How do you ask for it? Searching for *saurus doesn't work. If Google can do it, you could add site:flickr.com to your Google search to search only pages on Flickr. Pruneautalk 09:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is an attempt on AltaVista which does not quite work. AltaVista only finds the substring "saurus" when it appears as a separate word or delimited by punctuation. If you want to find dinosaurs on Flickr, one possibility is to see the dinosaur group. However, that will probably mostly show non-free photos, which won't be suitable for Commons. As I mentioned in my first reply (yes, I did understand the question), whether your search can include partial words, regular expressions, boolean operators, etc., on a particular site depends on what the developers have provided. Regular expression searches (of which the substring search you want is one example) seem to be computationally expensive, so very few sites offer them. A Google search finds this discussion that might give some ideas. --Teratornis (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems the * operator on Google search only works for word stems. I.e., you can only search for a substring that begins a word, not for a trailing substring like *saurus, as far as I can tell. --Teratornis (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is an advanced Flickr search for freely licensed images with the "dinosaur" tag. --Teratornis (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How to attach geolocation tags correctly to a file

I tried to attach some geolocation tags to the file http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LongitudinalProfileLoetschbergbahnSwitzerland_woCaptions.jpg I am not sure that I used the correct syntax. Could somebody check to be on the sure side? Since this railway goes north to south and then west to east I put in three sets of coordinates: For the northern station, the "knee" in the route and the eastern station. Can I attach more than one set of coordinates to one picture (or graph in this case)? How can I check whether it works? Thanks

PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Normally to geocode an image, you would use the {{location}} template. However for non-photographic images including graphs the location is not applicable and the image should not be geocoded. --Yarnalgo (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Templates such as {{Location}} and {{Object location}} seem to embody the assumption of only one location per image. If you want to give the geographic locations of some of the stations on File:LongitudinalProfileLoetschbergbahnSwitzerland woCaptions.jpg, the easiest method is just to mention the station names in the image description and link them to their Wikipedia articles. The articles should be geocoded, or you can geocode them if nobody else already did. The Lötschberg railway line article, for example, could have some instances of Template:Coord set to display inline. --Teratornis (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the last suggestion. That's what I did.
Generally non-photographic illustrations like technical graphs and artistic drawings or paintings can relate to locations and illustrate interesting aspects thereof. Independent from the actual technology of creating an illustration it might make sense to link them to a place and geocoding them. It is just a different dimension of information linked to the location. Can somebody comment on this?
PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a valuable contribution but in Commons we're supposed to geocode the point of view (Commons:Geocoding#Geocoding media on commons) ie camera location or "as seen from" location for a non photographic image. Problem is, a route altitude chart has no such reference location. You could geocode the high point, were there a need, but to my mind the links to German and English Wikipedia pages do all the locating anyone could reasonably desire.
Oh, and when I want to geocode an image after it has been uploaded, I go to a nearby already geocoded image, paste its coding into mine, and adjust the numbers to point to the correct location. Usually it requires repeated adjustments. Smart people use neater, quicker methods. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
If you have a geocoding camera (a camera with built-in GPS), then you can get the camera location from the EXIF data from a photo (assuming the camera had a good exposure to the sky so the GPS receiver was able to pick up the satellite signals). See:
There is at least one bot on Commons which can read the EXIF data of an image and put it into a {{Location}} template automatically. I discovered this by uploading a photo from Flickr to Commons which had the location in its EXIF data but was not already geocoded on Flickr, and I wasn't aware of the EXIF data. --Teratornis (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How can I best link these two files?

I would like to link the following files with each other: File:LongitudinalProfileLoetschbergbahnSwitzerland woCaptions.jpg and File:OutlineMapLoetschbergbahnSwitzerland.jpg They show two different projections of the same railway line. One is a birds-eye view without the height information. The other is the heightinformation along the line only. With both two-dimensional projections a three dimensional line can be reconstructed. I can link them by putting a link of one file into the other file's additional information field and vice versa. Are there better ways of doing this? PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Just put a link to the other file in the other_versions field of the {{Information}} template. --Yarnalgo (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
If you have several images relating to this rail line, you can put them into a gallery page on Commons. See COM:EIC#Gallery. This is another way to group related images together which might be useful. If you want to convey three dimensional data on Commons, we don't have many convenient ways to do that. One option might be to create a flyover video with some sort of 3D modeling software, and upload it as an .ogg file. If you can actually take a ride on the train, you might bring a video camera and film views of the various sections. You could then use video editing software to caption the scenes with their elevations and coordinates. That would be a lot of work but might be interesting to a few nerds like me. --Teratornis (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Google Maps (screenshot)

Hello! How should I handle (license wise) a screenshot from google maps (satellite image) if I wanted to post it in a Wikipedia article through Commons first? Gregory J Kingsley (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: You can't. Google Maps / Google Earth images are copyrighted and cannot be uploaded to Commons (or Wikipedia for that matter).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any alternative to this at all using a different method, other than posting an External Link? (I have seen Wiki articles with google map screenshots placed somehow, pictures showing - not just as a link.) Thanks. --Gregory J Kingsley (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Use map resources under free license, such as Open Street Map, or NASA photographs. --Martin H. (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo deletion

how do i delete a photo I uploaded?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Infortunatus (talk • contribs) 16:19, August 16, 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion policy and Commons:Deletion requests for help. --Yarnalgo (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

adding image to article

Just having a hard time, sorry if i'm not understanding directions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptone85 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

See w:en:Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, the default is
[[File:foo.jpg|thumb|description of the image]]
However, your upload is missing a license tag. Every image needs a free license, all available licenses are listed in Commons:License tags. A free license allows everyone to reuse the image for every purpose including modification and commercial reuse, collecting free images is the scope of Commons. To me File:-56 Lavell Morrow.jpg looks like a press photographs. Take it as a compliment if you are the photographer, please nominate it for deletion if you are not the photographer/copyright holder. --Martin H. (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Can these images be uploaded to the Commons?

Can the following images be uploaded to the Commons? If they can be uploaded here, what license should be used? Here are the links:

Thanks in advance! Surtsicna (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

These are recent photos of 3D objects, so they are copyrighted. The license is Non-commercial/Non-derivative, so they are not acceptable on Commons. Sv1xv (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Einfügen von Bildern

In der Wikimediaseite http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cedrus_libani konnte ich keine Bilder einfügen, die ich vorher unter der deutschsprachigen Wikipediaseite, Artikel "Zedern" http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zedern eingefügt hatte. Ein Beispiel ist die Datei Groesste Zeder Deutschlands.jpg unter http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Groesste_Zeder_Deutschlands.jpg.

Unter "Bearbeiten" steht jetzt:

Cedrus libani var. libani ==
English: Lebanon Cedar

Wenn ich den Text bearbeite in

Cedrus libani var. libani
English: Lebanon Cedar

erscheint nicht das gewünschte Bild, sondern stattdessen der Text "Groesste Zeder Deutschlands.jpg". Das Programm findet also meine Datei nicht. Was soll ich tun, damit das Bild erscheint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ueberwald (talk • contribs) 18:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Die Frage wurde wohl übersehen. Da du das Bild mitlerweile selber per CommonsHelper nach Commons transferiert hast hat sich das Problem aber wohl erledigt. Einbinden funktioniert nur von Commons in andere Projekte, nicht andersherum. Das Bild lag auf de.Wikipedia, also auf einem lokalen Projekt. --Martin H. (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

gallery

How can I load from commons a whole gallery into another wiki (wikiversity)?--Darapti (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Images on Commons can be used on all Wikimedia project. If you have a <gallery>[...]</gallery> you can copy&paste the source code of the gallery to Wikiversity and the result there will be the same. If you have a File:foo.jpg you can use it on every other project with [[File:foo.jpg|thumb|description]], see COM:FAQ#How can I directly use materials on this site in Wikipedias?. --Martin H. (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
For more information specifically about galleries, see COM:EIC#Gallery. --Teratornis (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The copy paste thing is surely a possibility, but I was asking about one simple command like {{:commons:name of gallery}} in Wikiversity which would copy the gallery. Or something like {{subst:commons:name of gallery}}--Darapti (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
An interesting idea, it has been considered for transcluding templates between wikis (Reasonably efficient interwiki transclusion, Enable template inclusion from Commons), but it doesn't work at present. I don't think they were envisaging transcluding entire galleries, might be a heavy load issue. As a matter of interest, why do you want to? --Tony Wills (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You can link to a gallery page on Commons. For example, from the English Wikipedia, you can use templates from Category:Wikimedia Commons templates such as Template:Commons. What advantage would copying or transcluding a gallery onto Wikiversity have over merely linking to the gallery? --Teratornis (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
the concrete reason for my question is the following: in a project on (german) wikiversity we use some tables (prettytables to present numerical results) and I wrote some empty tables of various sizes, to simplify matters. So these are Wiki-helping page as an ingredient for final wiki-pages (no images). I thought that such material would be easier available for other users if it would be stored centrally, e.g. under Commons.--Darapti (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
If a gallery is stored centrally on Commons then why do you need a copy of the gallery on Wikiversity? I can't make sense of your reason for wanting the gallery on Wikiversity. You seem to be arguing against your original request now. --Teratornis (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps give us a link to the project and the tables to see what you are trying to do? It doesn't sound as though you need to see a whole gallery of images on your pages, but just include individual example images?? --Tony Wills (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to start again. What is a good way to store Wiki-pages (not uploaded Media files) which help as a basis to create final Wikipages? I think there should be something better than writing them on the user page and then copy and paste. I think of (Wiki-)tables or matrices with no entries and similiar things. (I was thinking about galleries because they allow Wikicontent).

For an example see [6] and [7]--Darapti (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with your idea, Wiki projects doing much effortto maintain templates on their own (e.g. license templates) and - in your example - other templates like tables, infoboxes and so on. Commons is not the place to host templates in wiki text i think, Commons is for media files, Commons uses galleries and categories to present its content. There should be a project like wikitemplates.wikimedia to host content like this, regrettably so far there is no such project or I don't know of it. I heard of ideas to create a centralized project for license templates like Template:GFDL which is maintained in every project on its own and allow for transclusion of such centralized templates. At the moment cross-wiki "subst"ing is not possible. I propose to create the table as a template on your local project so that you can easily create pages there using "subst:" and inform similar projects in other languages about the opportunity to copy&paste this tables. --Martin H. (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Article review? And inter-wiki linking?

Can someone review the media I've placed on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyball

Also, how do I link to wikipedia from commons?

Thanks --Bcjordan (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You can link to the English Wikipedia from Commons in several ways, including:
--Teratornis (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Rights on [Stress test of the Rohrbachbrücke]

I am thinking about uploading the above image to Wikimedia Commons to maybe use it lateron in the Gotthard Line article. It is the largest image on the page with the caption "Belastungsprobe der Rohrbachbrücke, in der Mitte die Malletmaschine Ed 2x3/3 No 151." I am not sure about the rights to this photo. I do not know the author and no information seems to be available in that respect from the webpage. I can roughly date the time it was taken as before the opening of the Gotthard Line on June 1st 1882, which makes it at least 127 years old.
So far I can neither establish the author nor his death.
What would be a good approach in this case?
I could contact the owner of the webpage and ask him for the source and also whether he would mind having this picture published. I am kind of afraid that he might be kind of possesive with respect to the photos published on his webpage and that he just doesn"t like the idea. What do you recommed doing in such a case? Would you contact him somehow from your Wikipedia/CommonsWikimedia account or from your personal e-mail?

PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rights on Captions to pictures or

Is there a copyright to captions of pictures? For example taking the above two examples, are the captions to these four photos protected by copy right?

PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Many captions are so short that they are not eligible for copyright. Longer ones may be, and we should write our own instead. This is why I did not, for example, copy the detailed descriptions given by the National Portrait Gallery when importing their works, only the titles. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I just read about your case. You seem to be in good and professional hands. All the best!
PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cc-by-nc-3.0

Why are images under the Cc-by-nc-3.0 license unaccepted? See Template:Cc-by-nc-3.0. Scarce (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the policy is to allow commercial usage. Esby (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
That's ridiculous Scarce (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
See COM:L and File:BD-propagande-2 (en).jpg. Also be sure you understand what free content is. --Teratornis (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Image vandalism

there is an image on "lexington steele'" page of me as a kid who someone has wrongfully put up there. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take this down as this is very embarrasing for me and is causing me great distress. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelshrewd (talk • contribs) 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The user in question (User talk:Antickz) has been warned for multiple vandal edits and will be blocked if he continues. The current revision of the Lexington Steele article on the English Wikipedia looks OK. --Teratornis (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

transfer of a newer version

Hi, i'm new at commons, in fact i've created my account for uploading a newer version of this

Meyers b15 s0272c.jpg

file. For am i new, I do not have permisson to overwrite. Could someone pls do this for me? My version is of much better better quality and also higher resolution. Source is a scan of another copy of the same book (Meyers from 1899). I would like to keep the original description and lizense, if possible. The original contributor has used blanks in the filename, but this seems to bring up problems. Are there any restrictions against using blanks in filenames.?TIA,--Markscheider (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Autoconfirmed users for the first issue, and MediaWiki:Titleblacklist for the second. The "problems" you refer to appear to be in the {{PD-Meyers-pages}} template, not in the filename. --Teratornis (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Some discussion of problems with this template appear on Template talk:PD-Meyers-pages. --Teratornis (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I've fixed the problem with the template description line for a start. Regarding the first issue, i guess its best to relax and have a cup of tea. Or two, maybe, 'til Monday morning.--Markscheider (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

File Links

I have uploaded several pictures and linked them to relevant wikipedia articles, but how come the "File Links" are not displaying these links?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bthomeldh (talk • contribs) 19:27, August 12, 2009 (UTC)

File links only works on a single wiki - for example, if you visit en:File:A.png, it will show you uses of that file on the English Wikipedia. The Commons File Links only shows links on Commons itself. To show uses across all projects, try the "check usage" tab instead. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I had same question. But what is the check usage tab? Searched around and could not find one. Carolmooredc (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This button locates all articles and other pages using this image on every Wikimedia Foundation project (wikipedias, wikibooks etc). Sv1xv (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
When you look at an image page, there should be a tab saying "check usage" at the top of the page, on the same row as the "edit", "history", "watch" and other such tabs. If you're using the new "Vector" skin (which you can enable by clicking "Try Beta" at the top of the page), the check usage link will be hidden in the drop-down menu next to the search box. If you really don't see any such tab, one or more of the following might be the problem:
  • You have JavaScript disabled (or your browser does not support it).
  • You've enabled the "Remove Image Tools" gadget in your preferences (under "Gadgets" → "Maintenance tools"). Just uncheck it.
  • You're using a skin other than MonoBook, Modern or Vector. The extra tabs do not currently work in other skins.
If you'd rather not to change your Commons skin or disable JavaScript just to see the extra tabs, you can go to the CheckUsage page directly and just enter the file name there. I'd suggest bookmarking it for later use. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Somehow missed it when searched the photo's page. Now I've Checked Usage and found the one place I uploaded to. Now what? Wait for it to automatically register? Put it in myself? Shouldn't this be in the help article? Thanks. Carolmooredc (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your questions. What exactly do you expect will happen now? What do you mean by "register"? Do you have a question about a specific image file, and if so what is its name? If you want to organize your uploads in a way that Commons does not do by default, you might want to create a gallery page. Also note that Commons is mostly disjoint from the various Wikipedias. The various Wikipedias can display files from Commons as if they were on the Wikipedias, but categories for example are completely separate. An image category such as Category:Wind power is completely different than Category:Wind power on the English Wikipedia. You will also see some differences when you view an image page on Commons and the corresponding image page on one of the Wikipedias. For example, compare these two:
Note the differences in the File links sections. The image page on Commons shows links to gallery pages on Commons, whereas the image page on the English Wikipedia shows links to Wikipedia articles. --Teratornis (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

<Backdent> Starting from scratch, this is what needs to be better explained in one or more places (in case it is somewhere and I, like others, missed it):

  • Commons:Welcome reads: Wikimedia Commons uses the same wiki-technology as Wikipedia and everyone can edit it. Unlike media files uploaded to other projects, files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons can be embedded on pages of all Wikimedia projects without the need to separately upload them there.
  • There is a "File links" at the bottom of the Commons Page which says: "The following page links to this file"
  • It is not as specific as "File links" at the bottom of an en.wikipedia image page which says: "The following pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file (pages on other projects are not listed)"
  • So given the points above, one assumes that there is a way to show all the wiki pages that a photo might be used at.
  • I thought that was automatic but then was told clicking "Check Usage" would give me the details. Evidently that is all it does?
  • If someone WANTS the photo page on commons to shows the links to all the pages where a photo is used, is there a way to do that, besides manually?? (Assuming that is allowed.) Carolmooredc (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
No, due to the way the software currently works it takes a little while to find all usages of a file. For this reason, the file's page does not list these usages (the page would display too slowly if it did that). I don't recommending adding a list of usages to the page yourself, because such a list would be difficult to keep up to date. Instead, just use "check usage" whenever you need to know this information. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I should have mentioned one of the reasons I felt it was important to list the file names. On en.wikipedia if a photo is NOT used it can be removed. Perhaps/probably on other wikis too. Only the answers above have assured me that is not true on Commons. (Or am I wrong?) In any case, given that others have asked this question and I've wasted a bit of time on it, can't we have a section that explains this briefly. I Propose under Commons:FAQ a new 3.21. After I get comments here, where I started, I'll propose it there for any further tweaking. (Also will propose mentioning photos stay on Commons.):
Commons:FAQ 3.21 "File links"
The "File links" section will automatically list any files on Wikipedia Commons that display your images. It does not show where these images are used on other Wikipedia projects. To discover that information click on the "check usage" tab at the top of the page.
Thoughts? Carolmooredc (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Changing the faq seems goodness. Another thing would be to change the Mediawiki text that says "The following page links to this file" to be something more specific, explaining that it's only on this wiki and since Commons allows links from elsewhere, you may need to check other ways too.... if someone adminish remembers the name of that snippet offhand, go forth and give it a try! Else I'll try to find it next time I remember. (I'm scatterbrained enough I have trouble remembering the name of the page that lists all the MediaWiki text)... ah, it's Special:AllMessages and the message(s) we want to change is/are MediaWiki:linkstoimage and MediaWiki:linkstoimage-more. So what exactly do we want these to say (we are running with the defaults here now...) ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Also MediaWiki:Nolinkstoimage. I've suggested before that we could just add a CheckUsage link to those messages. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
...and I've just done that. It currently works in English only, though: we'll need to edit all the translations of those messages to add the links to them as well. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I also did the Finnish translations while I was at it, but others will have to do most of the rest. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Ilmari. I did the French translations. Pruneautalk 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It may be worthwhile clarifying, for those coming from En, that images here do not need to satisfy the en:Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that would be a rather confusing note if not worded correctly because in fact, images here can't be non free. Full stop. We don't have a corresponding NFC or EDB, because we don't allow fair use at all. Only free images can be hosted here. So it would be a good clarification but some thought would be needed I think. ++Lar: t/c 15:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>

✓ Done...Ok. took a couple days off. Does any of the above impact my proposal to put this in? If not I'll proceed.

Commons:FAQ 3.21 "File links"
The "File links" section will automatically list any files on Wikipedia Commons that display your images. It does not show where these images are used on other Wikipedia projects. To discover that information click on the "check usage" tab at the top of the page.

thanks Carolmooredc (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rights on [Steam locomotives on the Gotthardbahn]

I have the same thoughts about the first three pics of the above webpage. The pictures were taken before the electrification of the Gotthardbahn, which was finalized on May 28th 1922. The center sections between Erstfeld and Biasca had been finished already on Dec 12 1920. The locations of the first (bridge before Dazio tunnel) and the second and third picture (Kerstelenbridge [Chärstelenbridge] in Amsteg) are all in this central section. Therefore the pictures are at least 88 years old. Probably they date back to the very early days of the Gotthardbahn, since the bridges are shown without any further reinforcements that were soon necessary to support the newer, more powerful and heavier steam engines. The picture postcards were published by "E.Goetz Phot. Luzern" who might be the author or the publisher or both. I tried to find out more about E. Goetz, who seemed to have published also as Kunstverlag E. Goetz Luzern. Besides finding more postcards and a few books I was not successful. It seems to me that this business closed some time ago without leaving further traces besides the pictures and photos, which does not exclude that there is a legal successor. I think in fact there is always a legal successor, besides if the original author is dead for more than 70 years.

Again I could contact the owner of the webpage for further info and his permission to use the pics from his webpage. In this case it is even a little more awkward since he marked the images with his name. For the second and third photo I found the same photo or colorations of the same photo also on Amsteg picture postcards.

PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Found the same postcard with poststamp of Aug 3rd 1911, so the first postcard is at least 98years old.
PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
According to Dietler Gotthardbahn in Röll Enzyklopädie des Eisenbahnwesens Vol.5 p.360 and 359 the Kerstelenbachbridge already had enforcements that are not seen on the postcards two and three. Hence the photos for those two postcards were taken in or before 1914, when volume 5 of Röll's Enzyklopedie was published. They are at least 95 years old.,br.

PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You cannot upload them on Commons with a permission from the owner of the item. You need permission from the owner of the copyright, unless the photographer died before 1937, in which case they are free anyway. However, you may upload them on English Wikipedia without further formalities if they were published before 1923. Material published before 1923 is PD in the USA. Sv1xv (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
All these pictures were taken before 1923. Can I upload them to Commons even though I am physically located in Europe?
For pics older then 1923 can I use them both in the English and let's say German Wikipedia, uploading them there from Commons, once again taking into account that I am located in Europe?
What about cases, where I cannot find out who the copyright holder is because there is insufficient information like in the case of these picture postcards?
And in case they have been colored does this extend the copyright somehow, like that it becomes a new work of art?
Thanks for your help!
PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Images uploaded on Commons must be free in the country where they were published and in the USA (location of the servers). These images are PD in the USA. However some research is needed to establish if they are PD in the coutries of origin. In european countries this applies to either anonymous works before 1939 or works created by a photographer who died before 1939. As an absolute minimum you need access to the back side of the card, to see what is printed there (a publisher's name or a photographer's name). Sv1xv (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
On the back of the card it says: "E.Goetz Phot. Luzern" where E. stands for his first name starting with E, Goetz is his last name, Phot stands probably for Photographer and Luzern is his home city in Switzerland. He also has some cards (not the ones that I would like to upload) and some books with several photographs published with "Kunstverlag E. Goetz Luzern" listed on the back or in the book standing for "art publishing company E. Goetz Luzern". I could find a lot of other postcards by him and some books that you can buy in the antiques book market, but no useful info about him.
Are there any special listings I could check?
PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
So the postcards are not anonymous works. You must find the date of death of E. Goetz. Sv1xv (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Found a good website listing postcard publishers: PostcardPublishers with the following info: Emil Goetz 1896-1958 Luzern, where 1896 according to another website is the year he took over the business from his predecessor. So Emil Goetz died just 51 years ago. Too bad, I cannot upload those photos.
PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
So the postcards cannot be uploaded here. Those published before 1923 may be uploaded locally on the English Wikipedia. Sv1xv (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It turns out that his estate and pictures are at the state archive in Uri. I assume they at least know who holds the rights to the estate, if they are not holding them themselves. I am thinking of approaching the current copy right owners and ask them to donate a small amount of five to ten pictures to the public domain. Are there some recommendations that I could follow?
PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
They can release them to the public domain or keep the copyright and release them under a free license, like Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY). If they do, the procedure described in COM:OTRS is recommended. Sv1xv (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
No they don't want to do it. They are offering to put up the image in a not downloadable format for 95 Swiss Francs.
They say they only own the Uri part of the archive of Emil Groetz, so there might be a chance to find the Dario grande postcard rights with somebody else. I am giving it another try.
PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

JPG?

Hello, I am trying to upload a picture of the Greek writer, journalist, and foreign correspondent George Fteris. But when I tried to do it, it said that it had no extension like JPG. But it does though: the file on my desktop is called DSC01721.JPG. How can I fix this? --Iliada (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What name did you specify for the destination file? A non-descriptive name like DSC01721.JPG almost certainly violates a rule in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. See Commons:First steps/Upload form#4. Set an appropriate file name. --Teratornis (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I called it George Fteris, and the same thing happened. --24.63.210.29 22:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Upload form has two fields related to the filename, the first field, in english called Local filename is to select the file from your desktop (DSC01721.JPG), the second field called Local filename is for the target name on Commons (George Fteris.JPG), it adopts the filename of the file from your pc, but you can modify it. Both filenames, source and target, must have a valid extension like .jpg or .JPG or .png or .PNG or .gif or... and so on. The fileextension must be the same in both fields, uploading a .png file as .jpg will not work. --Martin H. (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

George Fteris died in 1967. Who took that photo and when? Is it possible it is still under copyright? Sv1xv (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

My great-grandmother took the picture in 1957. Right now, it is owned by my grandmother. It is in her summer house in Athens, Greece. --24.63.210.29 15:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
In this case the copyright passes to the childern of your great-grandmother. If your grandmother was the only child (she has no brothers/sisters) she must release it under a free license, following the procedure specified in Commons:OTRS. Sv1xv (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Serebriakova

Hello, I went in commons to 'Serebriakova'. One page was shown, with the text 1 out of 2. How do I get page 2 on thge screen? A.Lukaart; E-mail:lukaart@scarlet.nl. Thanx in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.191.4.95 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Entering Serebriakova to the search gives 2 results, one media file and one category. Both items are shown on 1 page with the information Results 1 - 2 of 2 for Serebriakova. --Martin H. (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Contacting user

I woud like permission to use your dinosaur picture Compsognathus_longipes_cast2. How can I get in contact with user Barllista? Best regards, Pascale

All files on Wikimedia Commons are available under a free licence, which means that you don't need to ask for permission to re-use a picture. All you need to do is include something along the lines of "Photo by Ballista, edited by Frisfron / Wikimedia Commons. CC-BY-SA 3.0" If you are using it on a web page, a link back to the original picture is a good idea. Even though you don't have to contact Ballista, they would probably be happy to know that their image is being used elsewhere, so as a courtesy, you could drop a note on User talk:Ballista or en:User talk:Ballista explaining how you've reused it. Pruneautalk 16:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
And see Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. --Teratornis (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hyperlink Help

To Help Desk,

Firstly, I am new to wiki commons and had a question. I was uploading my pictures onto wiki commons and under author, instead of myusername, I wanted to put my name with a hyperlink in it, so when you click on my name it goes to my Flickr page, like how some people have it. Could you please tell me how to do it. and also how to go back and do it for all the pictures I have already uploaded.

Thank-you

Your reply is greatly appreciated

--Theoffice89 (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You should use the syntax
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/username John Doe] 
which produces John Doe. To change your other uploads, go on each page (there's a list here), then click on the "edit" tab, and change the author information using the same syntax. Pruneautalk 20:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

New user question

As you know, I just started- or tried to start- using commons today. I have noe ide as to how I would get to the pictures I am trying to download. Can you help me? Thanks . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowersinmylife (talk • contribs) 23:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What kind of images do you want? Did you try the search box to the left? --Teratornis (talk) 07:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons Equivalents of en:WP:UAA and en:WP:AIV?

What are the Commons equivalents of Usernames for Administrator Attention and/or Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism on the English Wikipedia? I'm trying to clean up after a vandal. The vandal uploaded an image to Commons which s/he then used to make a vandalism edit on the English Wikipedia. I've tagged the relevant image for deletion and made an entry at Commons:Deletion requests. Tckma (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

COM:AN/V. Tagging the file/page for speedy deletion (e.g. {{sdelete|vandalism}}) is better than opening a normal request. Rocket000 (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please help me with this licence

Has anybody got any advice as to how I can upload an image supplied by the Northern Territory Government public relations department as part of a media release? I see not possible licences. Image has been repeatedly taken down. I have uploaded it four times in different ways. Image will probably have gone by the time you read this but it was Jane_AagaardNTLA.jpg, it was just a media release photo of a politician. Ex nihil (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons only accepts images which are released under a free licence (see Commons:Licensing). For the image to be accepted on Commons, you'll need to get the copyright holder to release it, and then send an e-mail confirming the licence to OTRS. Note that just because the NT government has used it in a media release doesn't mean that they have put the image in the public domain; they presumably still retain all the rights to the image, so you'll need an explicit statement from them that the image is under a free licence. Currently, your image is at File:Aagaard NTLA Speaker.jpg, but it will be deleted if the licensing isn't fixed after a week. Pruneautalk 08:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Licensing a family photo

File:Joseph-thorndike-1960.jpg

I'm stumped. After uploading the image I received a Speedy Delete warning, and this explanation:

"This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org)."

But every advice about licensing suggests I ask for permission from someone else to use the image. I own the image. My mother took the photograph of my father, my mother died, I own the photo. There is no one else I can get a permission from: it's my image, as I indicated when I uploaded it.

Any suggestions?

Many thanks. JohnThorndike (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

John Thorndike

The tag with {{no permission since}} and the corresponding user information {{image permission}} is a standard procedure. In this case because the uploader name differs from the author name and the source explanation is not very common. However with your explanation above the case is already clearified. I will replace the {{PD-self}} with {{PD-heirs}} to make it even more clear that you, the heir of the photograph and all copyrights, released the photograph and all rights on them into the public domain. Thanks for your upload and your contribution to Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


Comment:

This seems to be a preoccupation of Martin H. I find myself in the exact same situation. As you indicated this in your initial upload (as I did), I fail to see the benefit to Wikimedia Commons of the editorial "initiative" to which Mr. H. adheres.

Curious. Etrangere (talk) 1:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry, but the case is different. You not provided correct author information and you are not the inheritor of the photogtaph. You need to correct the authorship and to provide a written permission from the copyright holder. --Martin H. (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Ensuring that every image is legal is of immense importance to Wikimedia Commons. Martin H. is doing a very important task. --J.smith (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The difficulty of determining how to license an image is the result of the international copyright laws. The best place to complain about the problems resulting from copyright laws would be to direct complaints to the lawmakers who create the laws. In general, lawmakers serve the interests of commercial media companies, since they have the concentrations of wealth to hire lobbyists and so on. For example, see the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in which the public interest seems to have been largely overlooked. Regardless, the Wikimedia Foundation must obey the laws as they stand, or the existence of the whole project could be at risk. --Teratornis (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

montage & upload

who can montage & upload a pic like this montaged pic with this , this,this,this & this for me? important is i want all of five pics that i shown.if any one wants to do this please name it Shiraz City. thanks very much.--Amin pedia ☺Chat 15:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You could ask for help here:
Or you could learn how to use a bitmap editor such as GIMP. See Commons:Software. --Teratornis (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo edit/fixing

Is there a page where I can request help fixing a photograph I have uploaded? If not, where can I find users that would be willing to fix it? Ks0stm (TC) 21:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

--Teratornis (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Ks0stm (TC) 16:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirects and search (was: Help please!)

I noticed this morning that there were three images that came up when one searched for "Guru Rinpoche". As Guru Rinpoche is just the Tibetan name for "Padmasambhava", I thought that if I created a redirect page for "Guru Rinpoche" to "Padmasambhava" the images would turn up on the "Padmasambhava" page alongside a number of images that are already there. Unfortunately, I was mistaken - nothing seemed to happen. So, I went back to try to cancel the redirect page by wiping out the redirect code - but the (now empty) page has remained and now I can't find the three images of Guru Rinpoche at all. I am so sorry I have made such a mess. I don't know how to tidy it all up - so I am asking for someone who knows how to do this to please help. Thank you very much indeed. John E. Hill (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Initially, you did the right thing, i.e. redirect Guru Rinpoche to Padmasambhava (if these are equivalent).
Currently, the result isn't exactly what you expected. It turns up the gallery Padmasambhava, not all the images individually though.
BTW if they are equivalent, Category:Guru Rinpoche should use {{category redirect}} to point to Category:Padmasambhava as well. -- User:Docu at 23:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
A gallery redirect doesn't move the contents of the gallery. It simply opens the linked gallery, rather than the gallery that was requested. Please use gallery redirect for correctly-spelled synonyms of the main gallery page. Copy the contents of the redirected gallery and merge it manually into the main gallery page.
A {{category redirect}} is used in a similar fashion, but does not open the linked category. Instead, it displays a message that informs the user of the main category.
I edited the Guru Rinpoche images as above. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

question..

(I don't really know where to place this question but hopefully this is the right place.)

I was wondering... is it okay to take a screen shot of a famous person from a video and upload it here (to add to a Wikipedia article)? Will the picture be copyrighted? Any additional comments appreciated. Thanks! Someone963852 (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Screen captures from a video are subject to the same copyright as the video itself. What is the video? --Teratornis (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
If the video is under copyright, and is not free content, see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. --Teratornis (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for answering! What if the video is just from a random TV show? Will the copy right rules still apply? Someone963852 (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Lupo 14:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Also see COM:CB. --Teratornis (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Google maps

Hi, Can I use a screen shot of Google map for uploading at Wikipedia? If so, which of the following options should I select as the open source / free software license;

  • GNU General Public License (GPL)
  • GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
  • Mozilla Public License (MPL)
  • Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD)
  • Apache Software License
  • MIT License
  • CeCILL
  • other FOSS license
Sorry, you can't upload screenshots of Google Maps. They have a copyright themselves and the imaging data they use are licensed to Google by third parties. They allow only a limited freedom for re-use, therefore they are not under a free license. However, you may use screenshots from NASA World Wind, which is PD. Sv1xv (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Attribution requirements

I am excited about the opportunity to use images from Wikimedia in an upcoming book, but am confused by the requirement for attribution. Most of the images I want to use are under the GNU Free Documentation License and CC Attribution ShareAlike, which ask that images be attributed. Does this mean attributed to Wikimedia Commons or to the Author/user? Sometimes there is no author or user listed or the user may be only a series of letters/numbers. THANKS, FD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.88.253 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

See COM:EIC#Reusing and COM:REUSE. --Teratornis (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Also http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FFAQ#How_do_I_properly_attribute_a_Creative_Commons_licensed_work.3F. You must attribute the author in the way he requested attribution or in the best of your ability with the information you do have. You must also attach the full license text or the URI, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode #4.a.
In open acces publications you often read something like "Image by John Doe; copyright terms at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/". --Martin H. (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Lake Pend Oreille.jpg

The image loaded here was incorrectly saved as a mirror image. Since I am new to the Commons, I can not change the image yet. I have uploaded the corrected image here. Would someone be kind enough to replace the original with the corrected version? Thanks in advance, Patris Magnus (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Did so and deleted the now duplicate second version. --Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)