Commons:Help desk

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

(Redirected from Commons:License questions)
Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Wikimedia Commons help desk in other languages:
Deutsch: Diese Seite ist ein Forum für neue Benutzer der Commons. Hier darfst du jede Frage in der Sprache stellen, die du bevorzugst. Wenn du schnellere Hilfe benötigst, besuche bitte den Live-Chat-Raum #wikimedia-commons im IRC (Direktzugriff)!
English: This page is a forum for new users on Commons. Feel free to ask any question in any language you like. For quicker help please refer to the live chat room #wikimedia-commons at IRC!
Español: Esta página es un foro para los nuevos usuarios de Commons. Sientete libre de preguntar cualquier cosa en el idioma que gustes. Para una ayuda más rápido, por favor pasa por el canal de charla en vivo #wikimedia-commons en el IRC
Italiano: Questa pagina è un forum per i nuovi utenti di Commons. Sentiti libero di porre qualsiasi domanda in qualsiasi lingua preferisci. Per un aiuto urgente per favore entra nella chat room live #wikimedia-commons in IRC!
Français : Cette page est un forum pour les utilisateurs novices sur Commons. N'hésitez pas à poser vos questions dans votre langue préférée. Pour une aide plus interactive, pensez à visiter le canal de discussion #wikimedia-commons sur IRC
日本語: この頁はコモンズの新規利用者のためのフォーラムです。 何語でもかまわないのでお気軽に質問をお書きください。迅速なサポートを希望するときはIRCチャットの#wikimedia-commonsの利用もお考えください。
한국어: 이 문서는 공용의 새로운 사용자들을 위한 포럼으로, 자신이 원하는 어떤 언어로든지 자유롭게 질문을 할 수 있습니다. 보다 빠르게 도움을 얻고 싶다면 IRC의 #wikimedia-commons 채팅 채널을 이용해보세요!
Македонски: Оваа страница е форум за нови корисници на Ризницата (Commons). Слободно поставете било какво прашање на било кој јазик. За да добиете помош во живо, обратете се на каналот #wikimedia-commons на ИРЦ!
Polski: Ta strona jest miejscem dyskusji dla nowych użytkowników Commons. Możesz zadać dowolne pytanie w dowolnym języku. Jeżeli zależy ci na szybkiej odpowiedzi wejdź na kanał #wikimedia-commons w sieci IRC!
Português: Está página é um fórum para novos usuários no Commons. Sinta-se livre para fazer qualquer pergunta em qualquer idioma que preferir. Para ajuda rápida, por favor usar o canal de chat ao vivo #wikimedia-commons e no IRC.
Svenska: Om du vill ställa nybörjarfrågor på svenska, är du välkommen till den svenskspråkiga Bybrunnen här på Wikimedia Commons eller att tjatta på IRC-kanalen #wikipedia-sv

English | Español | Français | Português | Svenska | +/−
Shortcut: COM:HD
Human-help-browser.svg
This help desk is a forum for questions and help on

How to use Commons

Anyone, from newbie to experienced, can ask a question here. Questions will be replied to here as well. Any answers you receive are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. Please sign your question by typing four tildes (~~~~). In order to get quick answers consider the following points:
Important discussion pages (index)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg

Contents



[edit] categorization

Hello!

Yesterday I uploaded an image but forgot to categorize it. Now I cannot find how to edit the category. And the bot is crying... Could you please help me? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclipsa (talk • contribs) 11:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Go to the image page and click on the "edit" tab at the top. Then add [[Category:Brabus vehicles]] and click Save. Pruneautalk 13:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Almost every time I upload an image with categories specified on the US Government source upload form, those same categories are not showing up on the File once the upload is complete and the Bot is listing almost everyone of these as if I left the categories off. Not happening! So, may I suggest you or someone make sure those categories I input on the form get into the file for the image. I've uploaded a lot of images from NASA and that's a lot to go back into for listing categories I've already listed once. Marshallsumter (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not too bad to add categories with HotCat. Otherwise, I don't think any of the software developers read the Help desk, so bug reports rarely do much good here. See COM:EIC#Bugs. --Teratornis (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lag time 19+ hours?

I have no idea where to report this, so I'm starting here: I'm getting an "estimated lag for commons.wikimedia.org: 19 hours, 9 minutes" message (as of this comment). The http://status.toolserver.org shows s6 having a major issue, but also that the status.toolserver page hasn't been updated since Nov. 14. Am I missing something? Is something really down? Is this some sort of maintenance issue? Is there a huge number of files being upload by administration? I've never seen lag like this. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

See the following question for some links that might help or might lead to some place that helps. The Commons:Village pump might be a better place to ask this question. --Teratornis (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance with permissions

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Animalkingdom.jpg. The uploader claims to represent a company that has been granted a limited right to use the image (and others) by the copyright holder. Can someone more familiar with licensing and permissions issues please answer the uploader's concerns? Powers (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to follow the procedure in COM:OTRS for that image. --Teratornis (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the user claimed the process to be "clear as mud" and I don't have the necessary experience to walk the user through it. Powers (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Then I guess the image will get deleted. The instructions in COM:OTRS have apparently been clear enough to lots of people. If the user cannot tell us what he or she finds confusing about the instructions, then there is probably nothing we can do. Most people probably don't have the ability to use a do it yourself system like Commons, unfortunately. --Teratornis (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] stock image royalty-free for non-commercial uses only, usage credit required

Can an image labelled as "stock image royalty-free for non-commercial uses only, usage credit required" be put on wikicommons & used on wikipedia? It's from a book published in 1909. See http://www.fromoldbooks.org/Gotch/pages/105-Montacute-house/ for more info.Rodw (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons does not allow media with a non-commercial restriction. See Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. However, if the image is from a book published in 1909 then it should be in the public domain. See Help:Public domain, and for a famous example see Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. Judging from the "About" page on that site it looks like the site owner is a hobbyist who may not be familiar with details of copyright law that impact what he is doing. I.e., I don't think he can claim a non-commercial restriction over an image that is out of copyright. The fact that he scanned the image probably does not meet the threshold of originality. However, rather than confront him in a hostile way, I suggest telling him that having his scans uploaded to Wikimedia Commons will drive traffic back to his site, because his scans will appear in Wikipedia articles where they will be widely viewed, and our image pages will link to his image pages as our sources. We can certainly credit the person who scanned the image from an old book, and if he asks for donations on his site that is not an issue for us. --Teratornis (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments - I have emailed the person who scanned them in asking if he has any particular text he wants used as a credit on here. I've uploaded a couple which he lists as public domain ie File:Somersetshire map 1786.jpg & File:Farley-Castle 1830.jpg - it would be great if you could check the licence & text I've added to ensure I'm giving the right credits to the right people etc.Rodw (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
See here; he is aware that the original images are PD, so it's clear that he thinks he has copyright over the online images because he scanned them. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The book, The Growth of the English House, by Alfred J Gotch, was published in London in 1909. The copyright law in effect in London at that time for photographs was life + 50 years, but has since been extended to life + 70 years; the laws in European countries are not the same as in the USA, and books published before 1923 are not automatically out of copyright; in addition, the term "public domain" has difficulties, because of laws about moral rights. In the case of this particular book, photographs are out of copyright but accompanying text and diagrams are still covered (they get a different copyright term in the UK). For works that are out of copyright, the wording on my website (www.fromoldbooks.org) says a that usage credit is requested, not that it is required, and there's no restriction for commercial or other use. The content management system I am using makes it hard to distinguish the copyright of individual items in a book, so they generally all get marked with the most restrictive term that might apply, but I am not attempting to claim any copyright for scanning images: US and UK law is fairly clear on that point, and in the US there is legal precedent, but in Canada (where I live) it's not so clear, and there is not a "public domain" in Canadian law, e.g. moral rights to attribution cannot entirely be waived here. For works published jointly in multiple countries which have ratified various international copyright treaties, the shortest period of copyright in any of those counties applies to all of them for that work, but that only applies for works published within 30 days in multiple countries. So for Internet publishing of a work, where people can view and potentially reuse the work in any country, there is a potential "conflict of laws" situation, but, in general, the copyright law of the country in which the work was created and first published, where these are the same, will prevail. Hence, I have followed the provisions of the UK Copyright Act, taking into account also the influence of Canadian law where the scans were made and where the site is hosted. I hope that's clearer; I'll work on making the copyright notes on my Web pages clearer over the next month or so. Thanks, Rod, for contacting me - and sorry for a long answer! The short answer (as I said in my email) is that yes, where images are out of copyright feel free to use them in wikipedia, and I'd be pleased if there was a link back. Barefootliam (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
For Internet publishing of the work, the copyright law of the server and host prevails. Note that Agatha Christie's estate has not managed to remove The Mysterious Affair at Styles from Wikisource or Project Gutenberg, nor ultimately did the Margaret Mitchell estate manage to pull Gone with the Wind from Project Gutenberg Australia. See The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation: Cease and Desist Responses for some examples here. Commons concerns about the copyright of original nation are a slightly idiosyncratic choice, not law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Apologies to Barefootliam for my incorrect assumptions about him. No need to apologize for a long answer - when unraveling copyright questions, more information is usually better. See the links under COM:EIC#Copyright for information about how Wikimedia Commons appears to interpret copyright law. Thank you for sharing your work, and for actually coming here to discuss with us.
  • Note to Prosfilaes: it looks like "wikisource:" is the interwiki link prefix that works, rather than "ws:" wikisource:The Mysterious Affair at Styles.
--Teratornis (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • No offence taken, Teratornis; it's helpful to be able to have such a discussion. To Prosfilaes, I can only say, there's no single set of laws for the Internet as a whole, beyond of course standards and regulations set by IANA, IETF, W3C (where I work) and so on. Doing what is right is not an "idiosyncratic idea." The "law of the host and server" does not "prevail" in some legal sense. But we are off-topic, and perhaps must agree to disagree. At any rate it's fine to use images from my Web site, taking into account the copyright notes I have made and your own research, and that I cannot accept liability for errors or omissions. Barefootliam (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Doing what is right is not idiosyncratic as a concept, but specific concepts of what is right can be and frequently are; as one who believes that copyright law generally goes far beyond what moral responsibility would demand we respect, for both good and bad reasons, I don't see doing what Commons does as a matter of moral necessity. If there is a legal sense where the owner of the server is bound by more than their law, and the downloader more than his, I would like to know about it; such a fact might require the English Wikipedia, Wikisource, and Project Gutenberg to change their behaviors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The US copyright law says that "a work that is published in the United States or a treaty party shall be considered to be first published in the United States" so it's a feature of US law that the US does not (in general) respect longer (or different) copyright terms in other Berne Convention countries. However, the Convention also grants minimum periods of protection in all countries, which is life + 50 years; for a work made in a Berne Convention country outside the US (and not published within 30 days in the US) there is thus copyright protection in the US of not less than 50 years after the death of the author. The "Gone with the Wind" take-down notice is not a counter-example: the notice was sent to Project Gutenberg and not to Project Gutenberg Australia, and hence was not honoured. It's not entirely clear to me that the US has entirely ratified the Berne Convention, because the US copyright act places additional limits by saying that a work shall be considered to have been first published in the US if it was published in any Berne Convention country, and also because moral rights of authors are somewhat limited, and (as far as I can tell; not everyone is certain) can be waived. Note also that copyright violation if more than 10 copies are made (e.g. downloaded) in the US is now a criminal offence. It's all a bit vague because it takes decisions in courts to make things clear, not opinions by lawyers. But I think it's fairly hard to justify your statement, For Internet publishing of the work, the copyright law of the server and host prevails, even in the US, and certainly not here in Canada. There's no single legal entity with jurisdiction over such things, for one thing. Barefootliam (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to argue Berne Convention, but US copyright law is explicit about being the treaties not being self-executing. Works published prior to 1978 get 95 years from publication, not life + 50. The notice that was sent to Project Gutenberg Australia was ignored; Gone with the Wind is still online, because it's legal in Australia, even though it's an American work in copyright in the US. For actions done on a particular soil, with rare exceptions, the only jurisdiction is that of that particular soil. If you do something in the US, the US law is the prevailing law. You haven't offered counter-examples; give me a case where PG or the Internet Archive or Wikisource was forced to take something down that was not copyright in the US. Or quote the law. Just saying that "it's fairly hard to justify your statement" is not evidence.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why can I not see the image i uploaded

Media:Example.ogg Can youplease help with my image upload, it is not visible and how do I apply it to my wikipedia document? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyptiancotton (talk • contribs) 00:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The image you uploaded appears to be: File:Canningvale Egyptian Cotton Towels.TIF. Please read Commons:First steps and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. The preview of that image does not display for me. When I view the image itself, my browser opens an external image viewer and then I have to wait for 21 MB to download. That is not very convenient. You might want to downsample to a smaller size and change the format to PNG. The image will soon be deleted anyway if you don't add permission information. See Commons:First steps/License selection. --Teratornis (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
TIFF files don't have a preview. JPEG is probably the best format, since it's a photograph, but given that the original file is uncompressed, the PNG is only a third the size (7 MB), so I don't see the need to scale it down.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How to add a picture

Hello-

I want to add a picture for Al Riley. How do I do this? He has provided a picture to be posted; he is an elected official and I want to use his profile picture. Please advise.

Thanks, Marta Perales —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msperales (talk • contribs) 14:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read Commons:First steps. If you did not take the picture yourself, follow the procedure in COM:OTRS so we can properly document permission from the photographer. Is the picture already online somewhere? --Teratornis (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Filter for Commons display

It sure would be helpful if there were a filter function (e.g., *.png) on the display of thumbnails in the Commons "Recent Files". That way, one would not have to scroll through hundreds of Pie Charts, for example, that held not the least bit interest to many of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.19.69.250 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Every time I use a computer, I see many ways I would like it to work differently. Probably the only way to get the system you want is to code it yourself. --Teratornis (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The "Extended view" linked at the top of Special:NewFiles allows filtering. Regretably it is sorted by uploading user and not simply by time of upload. --Martin H. (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Preview image is not reflecting the latest version. Why?

Hi. I've found that in some cases the preview images are not being renewed after uploading the modified images. For example, in Moegino.JPG, the vehicle on the right side should be cut short if it is the exact scaledown of the latest (4th) version, but the medium sized preview image of the file page and the thumbnail on the Wikipedia page still remain as those of the 3rd version. 20 days have passed since the latest upload. a) Any solutions? b) Is there any ways to request the deletion of the unnecessary versions , namely the 2nd and 3rd ones? These are only wasting the resources of Wikimedia.
Thank you in advance.--トトト (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It is updated for me, please clear your browser cache. The cache of IE is extremly persistent, also a ctrl+F5 not helps some times. I not know of a standardized process for version deletion, you may ask an administrator, nominate the image for deletion with the request for version deletion etc. - but its not an issue. I delete the versions for you. --Martin H. (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting the 2 versions. But the problem still persists: I've cleared the whole FireFox3.5 cache but the preview image/thumbnail on the 2 sites are still unchanged. The front wheel of the Mitsubishi? RV should be unseen (Small 110px one that I've quoted above was OK from the start). I've tried it with IE but it's still there.
My guess is, when you upload an image, and re-upload the modified image in which the longitudinal pixel is unchanged, the server of Wikimedia commons will never update the already-created preview image. Am I not right?
(Sorry for taking your time.)--トトト (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I see it's been fixed now. Thank you. (However, I have a similar trouble in Ishigaki-jima surfer.jpg; I've re-uploaded contrast-adjusted version, but it seems that the preview was not yet updated...) --トトト (talk) 07:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I read your last problem post and can confirm it, also for me the image page was different from the thumbnail you posted here, it showed the second or third version with the street lamp on the right even I already deleted this versions. Strange, I have no idea, but god to see that the time fixed it ;) --Martin H. (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Duesseldorf christmas fair 04.jpg

Hi, I am the editor of a small-circulation (approx. 180 copies) newsletter for German translators in the UK and wish to use the image "Duesseldorf christmas fair 04.jpg" by Rainer Driesen dated 23.12.2001 as an image in the latest Christmas issue. The image is in Wikimedia Commons and permission has been granted under GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2. Can I use the image and what text must I include with it?

Thanks and regards,

Julie Roberts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.71.13 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. If you want to reuse this image you have to comply with the license requirements of either the GFDL or the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license.
To fulfill the GFDL you have to release your copy under the GFDL again, credit all the authors or content creators and include a complete copy of the GFDL license text.
To fulfill the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license requirements you must attribute the author, release your copy under the same or a similar Creative Commons license, provide the name of the license and/or a link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/, see Commons:Credit_line#CC-BY_and_CC-BY-SA_licenses. --Martin H. (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How do I upload a pdf reference?

Hello

This is probably a very simple question, but I have a pdf of a newspaper article I want to use as a reference.

It is just a pdf sitting on my desktop - how do I add it to the reference list. Can I upload it to commons or cut and paste the pdf somewhere?

Many thanks for any help

The first and more important question is what is the copyright status of the newspaper article, is it public domain due to copyright expiration (see Commons:Licensing) or do you have the copyright holders written permission to a free license? The second question is if the content is within the project scope. Newspaper articles are published and, likely, reviewed, so you can use them as a reference on Wikipedia without uploading the article here. If the article is not notable or historic it will fall out of the Commons project scope according to COM:PS#Excluded_educational_content. However, you can still cite the article in an Wikipedia article following the instructions in en:Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Martin H. (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks Martin - yes I do have the express written permission for publishing the article on wikipedia. I guess my question is more of a 'which buttons do I press' type of question? should I upload the pdf file to commons or is there a simpler more elegant way? Once again many thanks for your help

The only way to upload files to Commons is uploading them ;) Maybe you have the correct permission, however the workding 'permission for publishing the article on Wikipedia' sounds to me like you not have. You need the copyright holders written permission that everyone, not only wikipedia, can reuse the article for every purpose including commercial use, modifications or build upon under the terms of a free license. A free license allows for this kind of free reuse, see Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. If you have this permission and if the article is within our scope (notable article or historic content) you can simply upload it with Special:Upload providing the source (where was it published) and author (who wrote the article) information. Likely you will be asked to forward a written permission to COM:OTRS after you uploaded the article. --Martin H. (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi folks, I just got stuck with the question whether I can upload a redrawn SVG-version of the historical logo of the former shipping company en:Norddeutscher Lloyd to Commons or not. The company existed from 1858 to 1970 and the logo in question was created before 1882 and is no longer in use. Is it public domain due to the author died more the 70 years ago? Or do other terms apply because the company was in function until 1970? --Gepardenforellenfischer (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, for copyright you must establish that the logo designer died before 1939 (well, 1940) or that it is an anonymous or corporate design published before 1939/1940. In addition, if it is an armorial design (i.e. a coat of arms, armorial badge or related device) you may recreate it from the text description or blazon without violating any copyrights. Sv1xv (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for helping. --Gepardenforellenfischer (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A remade self-portrait of a person deceased more than 100 yrs ago

Hello- I have a wee question concerning a pic I would like to upload. I have found a self-portrait of Rudolf Kurz published in a book on GoogleBooks. I took a screen of that page (seeing no other way to extract the pic) and edited a bit with Photoshop. Since the portrait was done more than a 100 yrs ago and by a person who died more than 100 yrs ago (1871) (as well as 'cos I meddled with it), is it ok to upload such a file? Thank you for your help. Cheers Hoodinski (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is ok. The copyright belongs to the creator, and has expired; the scan of an already public domain image by Google or whoever does not generate a new copyright. The copyright tag for such images is {{PD-Art}}. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no, it's probably {{PD-Scan}}, provided the book itself that Google scanned is in the public domain. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Righto- cheers. Hoodinski (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request rename of nigger-gorrilla.png

An image on wikipedia:Great Hippocampus Question, The name of the file "Nigger-Gorilla.png" seems inappropriate. Would it be possible to rename this to Brains-negro-gorilla.png? The file name is the same as from the site in which it was taken. [[1]] Does this even contribute to the article? Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See COM:FAQ#MOVE. --Teratornis (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Upload replacement file

I seem to have crapped up a file I uploaded. I uploaded a low resolution jpeg, then tried to replace it with a tif file, but didn't notice that the original file name includes the jpg file extension. I tried to undo my edit, which didn't help. Someone tell me what to do! --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Go to File:DAPIMitoTrackerRedAlexaFluor488BPAE.jpg, at the bottom youll find the file history, click on revert. .tiff is allowed to upload but not supported for thumbnails. See Commons:File types. --Martin H. (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Thanks. It's still 3X bigger than the first file, so that's okay. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to User:Justass who converted the .tif to .jpg and reuploaded it. --Martin H. (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't check the names, and I thought you did it. Yes, thanks Justass for just converting it for me. I asked for the one I uploaded as a tif with the same name to be deleted. That should take care of it. I appreciate the help. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I uploaded Public Documents, but they were deleted because I wrote the wrong licencing. HELP!

I uploaded this gallery - [2]

It was all deleted, since I filled out the licensing wrong.

  • 1. the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors 1961 Commendation for Louis Lesser, which I got from PUBLIC files in the County of Los Angeles.
  • 2. the "Louis Lesser 1963 Annual Report", page by page (18 pages), which is not copyrighted, but is from the PUBLIC files for the SEC application to get listed on the American Stock Exchange.
  • All of the pages were deleted because I did something wrong.
  • A. Can anyone show me how I should have filled out the licencing for these public documents, and restore them? It is difficult for me to upload, being on a very slow internet situation, and I am working at a public computer, which is an antique.
  • B. I am uploading photographs I took, and am unsure of how to do the licencing. Can anyone help me fix it if I do it wrong, instead of just deleting them? HkFnsNGA (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Those are public files; that doesn't mean they're public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
B. Why were the photographs I took, of individuals, in public, last summer, deleted, and how shuold I have done things differently so they would not be? HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
1. What is the licensing needed for a public document such as a certificate from the LA County Board of Supervisors?HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
2. What is the licencing for a Chapter 7 Company, Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc., where by the definition of Chapter 7, all rights tpo ANYTHING are given up?

Is there anyone who might know how to answer these questions? HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

For your question #2: If there is some very special reason why some media is PD and it is not covered by the existing tags, use {{PD-because}}, stating the exact reason. Usage: {{PD-because|this image is free under part X of Act Y as a document of ...}}. Sv1xv (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
It's best to ask individual questions under individual headings, because each case you present above is different, requiring different actions, involving different manuals, and giving anyone who wants to help you different needs for information. (For example, question B. is vague, because deleted files don't show up easily to other users who are not administrators. Before anyone can answer your question, first we have to identify the files you are talking about. Give us the file names, and link to whatever deletion discussion that may still be around for these files. If you took a picture yourself, and the subject of the picture is not under any copyright restrictions (see COM:CB for a list of such restrictions), then you can license your work freely for example with {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}.) Trying to answer different questions under one heading lead to a bit of a mess. What manuals have you read so far? Virtually everything a new Commons user needs to know about Commons is on Commons - that is how Commons users have helped new Commons users. Your talk page has a {{Welcome}} template with links to several manuals. Read them. In particular, read Commons:Project scope, Commons:First steps, COM:L, COM:CB and COM:OTRS. According to Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, at Commons we assume everything is under copyright and is not freely licensed unless we can explicitly verify that it is freely licensed. The burden of proof is on the uploader. The burden of reading and following the instructions is also on the uploader. Unfortunately due to the complications of copyright law and the large number of cases this cannot be made instantly point-and-click simple for the casual user. It takes some work to learn how to upload various kinds of works to Commons. Your best bet would be to start with the easiest case: an image you created yourself. Once you know how to manage that, then you can move onto the more difficult cases of files created by someone else (for which you should follow the procedure in COM:OTRS if no explicit declaration of their free content status exists online). Note that administrators tend to delete files with incorrect licensing instead of individually tutoring new users who don't read the manuals because there aren't enough administrators and they don't get paid. --Teratornis (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Also note, an unlinked phrase like "Chapter 7 company" is ambiguous. You are writing to fellow Commons users all over the world. Thus you should link such terms to pages that define them, for example do you mean: Chapter 7, Title 11, United States Code? In general, when you don't know the copyright status of works by someone else, you have to obtain permission from the creator(s) and document it by following the procedure in COM:OTRS. In some cases, Commons users have already identified types of works that are known to be in the public domain, and we have standard templates for marking them as such (see for example Commons:Image copyright tags visual). These templates cite the applicable laws. I have not heard of a "Chapter 7 company" case yet, and if it has not come up on Commons before, then we might be breaking new ground here. If documents pertaining to such cases are in fact in the public domain, there must be some law somewhere declaring them so, and we will need to cite it. Can you tell us that law? --Teratornis (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I will try just uploading a cell phone camera image first, as you say. It looks like I have a lot of reading to do. Can you suggest an order of things to read, and links to them? I will try to spend a little time each day, reading these, until I get through most of it. Thanks again. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Commons:First steps sounds like a good place to start. Usually you can tell by reading the first part of a page whether you are ready for that page yet. If the first part doesn't make any sense, come back to it later. To do all the things you want to do, you will have to read all the pages I linked. The order in which you read doesn't matter much. It looks like you had the misfortune to start off trying to do several difficult things all at once. You might want to edit your user page with notes about the things you want to do, with links to the manual pages you are reading. See for example my notes in User:Teratornis/Notes#Move some images to Commons. Much of this stuff is too complicated to just "wing it." Writing notes about what you are doing allows you to attack a problem systematically, and then six months or a year later you can read your notes and remember what you did. --Teratornis (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] power point presntations

I want to upload power point presentation and I don't know how, pls help me!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.H.SHIKAKHWA (talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:File types. Commons does not allow .ppt files. If you created the file yourself, you could convert the individual slides to SVG files. See Commons:File types#SVG. Also, you should categorize the images you have already uploaded. I would help but your image descriptions are terse and vague. For example, does the word "Firefly" in your image descriptions refer to the Slingsby T-67 Firefly? Since your images only show a partial cockpit view, I cannot see enough of the aircraft to identify it. --Teratornis (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Iran pictures

Hi guys, I´ve got some great pictures of a trip to iran last summer which I would like to upload. I took all of the pictures myself, but some are inside old mosques. As far as I understand the licence policy of iran, I am nevertheless allowed to upload the pictures. Do you think I got that right? Thanks! Nikopol (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Look at our other pictures from Iran and see how they are licensed. See Commons:Image casebook and Commons:Freedom of panorama. If those don't help, look at other links under COM:EIC#Copyright. If the mosques are old, as in centuries, then they couldn't be under copyright protection, as far as my non-lawyer understanding of copyright goes. --Teratornis (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for editing SVG

Please help Rwanda just joined the Commonwealth of Nations, so could someone please amend File:Commonwealth of Nations.svg? Thanks. Koavf (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Already done by User:Bastin --Justass (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I want to use Tracks / GPX files

Tracks in GPX (or other?) file formats may be useful as

  • description/definition of a lemma
  • content of a lemma (sports events, hiking tracks, ...)
  • source for information.

Is there a general policy about these kinds of files? I noticed, that they are not allowed in the commons and in wikisource. Do we upload them on commercial websites and reference these? I'd rather create these files and put them in the commons. --Awilms (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The nearest thing I see to a discussion about this might be in Commons talk:Geocoding and its archive pages. You could read those discussions and see if anyone there thinks along the same lines. What exactly do you want to do with GPX files on Commons? The more specific you can be about your goal, the more likely that someone can help you. In particular, I don't understand your use of the word lemma. The definition from logic doesn't make sense, and asking Google for more definitions doesn't find one that fits with your usage. --Teratornis (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Wayroutrackp.png
Thank you. With your help I found out about Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates/Linear[3], and that page pretty much shows the limitations of geocoding in wikipedia, and also the currently discussed ideas to solve my problem. I do actually want to represent routes, tracks, rivers, etc. with the help of an already established standard (i.e. gpx files), which allow to highlight a linear feature on a map. See pic. Up to now, it is only possible to indicate individual coordinates (example [4]). It would be convenient to store these gpx files in the commons, to be able to access them from wikipedia.
NB, the use of lemma (linguistics) in the context of an encyclopedia seems to be different in English and German, although it's definition seems to match in either language. So my native German caused a slight problem, sorry for that! --Awilms (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Some more links are in COM:EIC#Geo and WP:EIW#Geo. I forgot to mention those. Maybe something there will be useful. However, your findings fit with my general impression that geocoding on the Wikimedia Foundation wikis generally assumes a single location per article or image. Obviously that is too restrictive when the subject is a route, a road, a railroad, a utility easement, a watercourse, a political boundary, etc., but I guess nobody has figured out a universally pleasing way to relax that restriction. Perhaps the main difficulty is that MediaWiki is not (yet) natively a geographic information system. If you want to experiment with mw:Category:Map extensions, you can download MediaWiki and set up your own mw:Manual:Wiki on a stick. Also see WikiIndex:Category:Maps. --Teratornis (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Establishing a new category etc

I am a relatively new user mostly interested in architecture and I want to share some of my more unusual older pictures with the Commons community. I am not really familiar with the technical side of things though and I'm slightly frustrated when I get only BOT mail after committing a mistake.

My most urgent problem is a simple one: I want to establish a new category, i.e. Kromsdorf. This is a little village in the Landkreis (County) of Weimar, Germany, featuring an interesting renaissance castle and a wall with a lot of portrait busts mostly done in a mannerist style. I am not sure whether I should integrate it into the Weimar category, but I could easily upload 10 of the portrait busts alone.

I am usually uploading pictures that I want to use immediately in German Wikipedia and I would be grateful to find a kind of mentor who would help me not to commit too many mistakes.

Robert Schediwy (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This Kromsdorf? There is a Category:Municipalities in Thuringia already, with many subcategories, but no Category:Kromsdorf yet. Do you know how to create it? Also, if you are taking pictures of sculptures, how old are they? See Commons:Image casebook#3D art (sculptures etc.). --Teratornis (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


No, I do not know how to create it. The statues in Kromsorf are about 300 yers old, so no problem. The statues in Mussolini's Foro Italico are part of Rome's architectural cityscape, so I see no problem there either. Robert Schediwy (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Take the other subcategories of Category:Landkreis Weimarer Land as examples, just create Category:Kromsdorf with adding [[Category:Landkreis Weimarer Land]] and maybe a description and some interwikis to it. Add images to the category with [[Category:Kromsorf]] on the image description. Creating a category is exactly like creating an article or any other page on a wiki. --Martin H. (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I created the Category:Kromsdorf page in case it was confusing to Robert Schediwy. To learn more about categories, read the pages linked from COM:EIC#Cat. The pictures in the category look nice. I don't speak German, but I copied the first sentence from de:Kromsdorf for the category description in German. Will a German speaker please check that to make sure I did not do something ridiculous. It looked reasonable in Google translate. --Teratornis (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Geotag?

For the first time I uploaded an image with coordinates embedded in the image (done via my computer). There seems to be information in the metadata, but no "Camera Location" template was automatically attached to the image file. Will a bot come by and add one or do I need to do something myself? For now the image just says "North latitude" and "west latitude" in the metadata, which doesn't seem very helpful. Thanks, Fletcher6 (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

DschwenBot is going thru all newly uploaded images and extracts location if available, so no need for any additional input. But in case you want to be sure bot notices your image, you can add {{GPS EXIF}} template --Justass (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! Fletcher6 (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia's tagging process was delayed by some sort of technical glitch for a few days until today. Usually EXIF tags get converted every morning of Atlantic and American time. Anyway this year I uploaded about a thousand pix with geotags in EXIF, and tagged several hundred that were uploaded in the past, so indeed the process actually works. See Commons:Geocoding for more information or ask on its talk page or my talk page. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Celtic Star-Dublin 31-5-08.jpg

File:Celtic Star-Dublin 31-5-08.jpg has been tagged as a copyright violation. As I explained in the rationale when I uploaded it, the website it came from clearly states on its homepage that all images are Creative Commons licensed. Thus, the image of Celtic Star should be useable here. May we have a quick resolution to this as I was hoping to upload more images from that website. Mjroots (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Issue settled, it has since been explained that the licence was CC-by SA-NC. :( Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding content

I've been reading the article fanservice and i've noticed that it could use a lot of images to support all the situations that are considered fanservice (such as panty shot, accidental kisses, onsen trips, etc). I feel that those images could really fulfill the "educational purpose" requiered for uploading content to commons. Thing is, some of those images (like the panty shot) could be rated "T for Teens". So my question is: Are images not rated "E for Everyone" allowed?. Thanks in advance -- Faito 15:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no "ratings", you can upload images and other media as long as it have any imaginable educational purpose. But you are allowed to upload and license under "free" license only your creations or you have to have written permissions from authors. But in your case if I understand correctly "fanservice" images are created based on anime and manga animations or comics or other copyrighted content. Thus any derivatives, even drawn from a scratch are copyrighted by original creators and cant be uploaded to Commons (unless you have written permission from the original author, not a person who drawn anime character in more "sexy" way). --Justass (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt answer, I have read all documentation regarding the licence aspect. I intend to use Wikipe-Tan in a sexy way, ilustrating the sitations addresed in the article. I believe i can do derivated work from Wikipe-Tan, since "she" has been released under "CC licence". Am i correct? -- Faito 17:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipe-tan is released under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5, so yes you can make any derivatives, just acknowledge original author (User:Kasuga} and release your work under the same license --Justass (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Excelent, you have been very helpful. I thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. -- Faito 18:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Some Wikipedia editors object to having "too many" images in an article. If you run into that problem on the English Wikipedia, you could make a gallery page for your images on Commons, and inter-link it to the Wikipedia article, with:
--Teratornis (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Some problem on this SVG file

There is a ploblem on this SVG file that the image show between wikimedia commoms and wikipedia are different.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SML10.svg

月下凉风 (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Which language Wikipedia? On the English Wikipedia, the Commons file appears:
--Teratornis (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Delete upload?

Is there any way to delete your uploads? First I tried to replace one file with another, but then I noticed that the license of the new file was different... Then I decided to make a new upload, with the correct license... but now I would like to delete the first file... Can I do that?

Here is the adress for both uploads 1)http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lajos_Gul%C3%A1csy_%281882-1932%29_Magic_Var%C3%A1zslat_%281906-1907%29.jpg 2)http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gulacsy_Magic.jpg

Thanks for help Carulmare —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carulmare (talk • contribs) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See COM:D. You can link more cleanly like this:
Also, you might put some Babel boxes on your user page. --Teratornis (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes... but what about my question? The real problem is perhaps that I can't find a way to document that the new file, the new version of the picture, has a different license than the old one. How would you express that... and where? When I did the upload, using the form for replacing one version of a picture by one with better quality, I never saw the option to do that. So I came to the conclusion that I really should have made a new upload... (which I also did). Is that the right conclusion?

Please try to understand this. If I explain badly, because I'm new to these things, ask me some questions and I'll try to be more precise. I have read the standard texts about uploading, but I don't seem to be able to find the answer to this problem. --carulmare (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The first part of my answer was: see COM:D. Is there something you did not understand when you read that page? The page describes how to delete an image which is a duplicate or redundant. --Teratornis (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that was the very last thing I noticed, only after having returned to your message several times. To a newbie that little peace of information looks like something you just don't have to care about, some strange and meaningless combination of letters... Please take this the right way, as a suggestion on how to make Wikimedia Commons more user-friendly. I, for example, have wanted to contribute to Wikimedia Commons for years... but two things have stopped me. One is the strangeness of the interface, but that is really a minor thing. I can learn. What is much worse is that there is no way to immediately regret what you have done and make a new try. There is no Undo button. I think that there should be a few hours... perhaps a day... before your upload really goes into the data base... or at least such an option for newcomers.

Now to the things I would like to know about this special upload. 1)Was I right to conclude that this is a case for speedy deletion? (No, I don't really care about that. I would like to clean up this mess, no matter the rules. :-)) 2)When is this deletion going to happen... will I be notified when it is done? 3)Was I right to conclude that you can not replace one version of a picture with another, if the license is different?

Thank you for your time. Please be patient, because I think I'm addressing things that may be very important. I'm pretty sure many people that are new to Wikimedia Commons are experiencing the same difficulties that I do. And in your introduction letter you do state that you want feedback on what is important to know for newcomers. carulmare (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I not reviewed you contributions, but try to answer: I agree with you, an uploader should have the chance to rename or delete an image, both admin rights, seven days after upload, thats my proposal too. You questions: You replaced File:Lajos Gulácsy (1882-1932) Magic Varázslat (1906-1907).jpg with a different version and decided to undo this.
    • 1) No need for speedy deletion, you reverted yourself sucessfully and the image is the same as it was befor.
    • 2) You will not get a notification if something is deleted you nominated for deletion yourself. But like every other edit on the image also the deletion will appear of course on your watchlist if you watch the image.
    • 3) You better not replace the image with something different. You can of course replace it with an edited/improved/corrected version derivative of the original. However, in this case the license GFDL of File:Lajos Gulácsy (1882-1932) Magic Varázslat (1906-1907).jpg is incorrect. The painting was not created by the uploader but by Gulácsy Lajos, died 1932. So the painting is {{pd-old}}. Also the photograph was not created by the uploader but taken from a website, the photographic work is a slavish reproduction of the public domain painting and therefore also pd according to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. So the correct license is {{PD-old}} and you can ignore the license if editing or overwriting the image. However, besides this you can overwrite the image with your version, but it is a good idea to upload it under a different name because it is very different in collor. Commons is better with both versions :) --Martin H. (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me about the 'undo thing', Martin. And it is a good idea! Only imagine how it would effect the probably very tiring work of answering the same question again and again from every new contributor. Then you could learn by doing things, you could correct yourself, be your own teacher. Now a very small mistake becomes the interest of a lot of people... and that is a very scaring thing to most people. I guess most people prefer to just forget about their mistakes, rather than to draw more attention to them by asking questions. I, on the other hand, is a librarian by profession... a rather orderly kind of human being. :-)

Being that, I have (at least) one more question. The Pataki Márta upload is now in the Public Domain... but my upload is not. When a visitor comes to this page, he or she must draw the conclusion that also my upload is in the Public Domain. Perhaps it should be, I have read the Wikimedia Commons statement about originality, but I chose, careful as I am, to go with the Flickr license, which demands a contribution to the Flickr member. I wonder... should, and could, I add something about that? If I try, it seems to change the information about the main picture, Pataki Márta upload, not about my upload...

Also I'm gathering that it is better to make a new upload, when a picture is a little different, for example in color... or license? I think I had an opportunity, during the upload, to write some license information in the commentary field, but that was perhaps a one-time chance...?

Thank you very much for your detailed answer. I'm really trying to learn the ABC in this context. --carulmare (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll delete the image from the version history to follow your wish to attribute the flickr uploader. Yes, it is not possible to edit the comment listed in the File history, that entry is similar to the upload log of that file and as a log that is intentionally not changeable (except by the few WMF server admins but they wouldnt do it). The attribution to the flickr user is a courtesy, it is not required to attribute the author or to follow the Creative Commons license, the image is public domain (Notice that the flickr user also only scanned it from a book but not cited the book. A good sourcing would be to cite the book too). Of course Commons allows users to add their names as photographers, so adding the name is a good idea not to scare people offering good scans of public domain art or scare them not to license other works, maybe photographs they created, freely. --Martin H. (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the help - and yes, let's be courteous! :-) --carulmare (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Some undo features on uploading might help a few users, but on the Help desk we have many other kinds of repetitive questions. Adding more features to Commons has the side effect of making Commons harder to learn - more features mean more complexity, making it harder for a new user to notice the particular things he or she needs. See how my initial answer was confusing because I gave more information than was directly needed after "See COM:D." I don't think Commons can ever be made easy for everyone; see User:Teratornis/Why is Commons so complicated? (Note: I disagree with the {{Welcome}} template which says: "This is a wiki—it is really easy." Depending on what a user may want to do, Commons may be far from easy. Many things here are not easy for me. You have to be a lawyer to figure out some of the copyright issues for example.)
  • Something that might help: having a completely separate "sandbox" wiki, where new users can practice every aspect of editing on a wiki, including uploading images, without worries about leaving a big mess. For example, it would be useful to have standard tutorials for many different aspects of uploading, license selection, categorization, etc., in which we provide the images for users to practice uploading and walk them through the same exact steps, just as students in school work the same homework problems. The problem with practicing on the real Commons is that everything we do has to be new in some way - it can never be an exact repeat of something that is already here.
However, the simple fact is that wikis are built by experienced wiki users, and experienced users care more about their own needs (for more features and thus more complexity, usually) rather than training the new users. There's no getting around the need to read lots of manuals and take careful notes when learning a do it yourself system like Wikimedia Commons. Most things that are this complicated require classroom training, but there is no school we can attend to learn how to use Commons. So far. --Teratornis (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, Teratornis, and for the information. To the former I would like to say that wikis are not built by experienced users, but of users that gradually have become more experienced. That is probably going to happen to me, too! :-) But even then it is very likely that this kind of mistake is going to happen again and again. I do mistakes even though I know how to do things correctly. Things just happens. So I know what is wrong, but still I have to come here and try to explain how I think, I have to take time - and give time, time that both parts could have used in a better way... It is true that people ask about a lot of things, ask for information that they could have found somewhere else, but the 'deletion questions' are different. In those cases people have to ask for help, because there are no way that they can correct the problem themselves. Please think of this. If this is a trouble for you, it is the same for me... plus a rather humiliating experience. Don't you agree? --carulmare (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright question

Here User:Richardprins asked a question regarding the status of several of his uploads. Unfortunately no one saw it because it's in the deletion template and there's no subpages, but I don't think it's a straight speedy request, either. I didn't think the location of the uploader mattered but I'm not sure about the author's... -- Mentifisto 06:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Per the conversation here, a series of images were uploaded to Flickr wityh the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0. Unfortunately, the uploader over there did not have the permission to do so. I failed to realize that and uploaded them here. Another editor just caught it and some for them for deletion. I agree and tagged the rest. Would it be appropriate to redo all of the deletion requests with the speedy delete per copyright violation request or will it be removed pretty swiftly? I suck.Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone made a mention at one of the deletion discussions. Good reminder to be more careful in the future. :( Cptnono (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
It is not your fault, my suggestion is to add the user to Commons:Questionable Flickr images and arrange the images for speedy deletion. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
You don't suck, copyright sucks. --Teratornis (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help with mass deletion request

(This query also posted at Commons talk:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request#Help, please)

Hi. I tried following the example Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request#Example in laying out a mass deletion request. What is the "il" where you (or I, anyway) would expect to have "File" or "Image"? And why the transcluding brackets {{ }} rather than the square ones [[ ]] ?. When I tried to use the example format it produced redlinks for the files, which surely isn't very useful? Eventually I made up a list using the following styling: * [[:File:Fale - Capo Mimosa - 310709 - 41.jpg]], which gave me clickable links that I could then use during the next stage of adding the deletion request to each individual image page. Where did I go wrong? SiGarb (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The {{il|filename}} creates formated imagelists with usefull links, see Template:Il. The "I" is a remaining of the file namespace previously called the image namespace. Of course use {{il|Fale - Capo Mimosa - 310709 - 41.jpg}} without the File: namespace prefix. However, the template is not necessarily required. Admins can use the Gadget delreqhandler that gives a "delete" and a "keep" behind every file listed on a deletion request subpage, all other links are not so usefull or I personally never used them. Using delreqhandler I have a small del/keep link behind every image listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Some images by Fale and I can keep the image (remove the deletion tag and mark the file as kept on its discussion page) or delete it with only one click. So create your list with *[[:File:...]], I do it the same way. You only mistake was, I guess, to use the {{il}} with an extra File: prefix. --Martin H. (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I tried both, and both gave redlinks, but I may be wrong. Anyway, thanks for your reassurance. If my current method works OK I think I'll stick to that! SiGarb (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Betty Bangs.jpg

Yes check.svg Resolved – ukexpat (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Would someone more knowledgeable than I am please take a look at this one. The restrictions stated in the copyright release appear to be incompatible with COM:L. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

im going to delete that - again. See the log. Surprisingly the source now changed to a more correct source after it was first sourced to a blog... Seems like TinEye gives some evidence about the copyright holder, however, the selected licensing "provided that Online Materials are presented solely for the purpose of Entertaining users of this site in the United States and its territories, and for promoting programs, films, and other products." is not in COM:PS#required licensing terms. --Martin H. (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew it looked iffy. – ukexpat (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How to document permission from the copyright holder

I have a page scheduled for deletion, but it contains an image and copy that I have been given permission by the copyright holder to post. How can I amend my page to reflect this?Annewisconsin (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

COM:OTRS. --Teratornis (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DSLR vs Easycam

Hi, I don't know if you mind general questions but probably the folk here know a lot about photgraphy. Obviously a DSLR is easier to hold steady than a 3inch Easycam. It takes monster lenses and tripods, will usually have superior gadgetry, perfect preview, etc. etc. Apart from that though, if you hold it steady enough, is the actually photo capture electronics on a 10 MP Easycam going to be the same quality as a 10 MP DSLR? ~ R.T.G 22:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, but your question showed me there was no "Photography" entry in the Editor's index to Commons, so I am adding one now. Maybe I will find a link that could lead you to someone who can answer your question, if you don't get an answer here. Note that sometimes a given camera model can have different names in different parts of the world, so to make your question understandable to the most people who could help, you should link the camera names to Wikipedia articles or other Web pages that define them. For example there is a Digital single-lens reflex camera article on the English Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, they don't really cover the quality of electronics on the wiki. It's confusing with point and shoot because even 5MP cameras might be more expensive than 12MP from good the big names with similar features. ~ R.T.G 00:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Personal pages of some Wiki-photo-editors discuss our hardware, which in my case is an upper middle priced compact en:point-and-shoot camera. Any DSLR is too monstrous for my drive-by shooting style. People who get halfway serious about this or other hobbies develop similar quirks of taste that limit the benefit of imitating us. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Missing permission" reports

If you check my contributions you will see that I have tagged quite a few images as missing permission or possible copvios, one dating back to late October. Is there something else I need to do, or will those images be reviewed in due course? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Upload failure with 0GV movie : timeout after 10 minutes

I have tried 5 times unsuccessfully to upload a 18 meg .ogv movie clip, using the Commons upload page. I have a broadband cable connection. It uploads OK for 10 minutes then the upload is disconnected and the browser displays a blank page. This happens with Firefox, IE, Opera browsers. I have successfully uploaded other .ogv movie clips, but they are a bit smaller. Is there a timeout after 10 minutes ? My internet connection is capable of highspeed uploads but the maximum upload speed to Wiki Commons is 45 kilobytes/second and the average appears to be about half that i.e. 22 kbps. At that speed the upload should take about 14 minutes - yet it always times out after 10 minutes. ??? Rcbutcher (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] why not correctly reviewed  ?

please, can anyone tell why it's not correctly reviewed - and can anyone fix the reviewe proces

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Espalmador,_soaked_in_the_mud_for_a_while.jpg

Reviewed --Justass (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk"