Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

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

Featured sets[edit]

So we temporally banned set nominations. Now we need to review the guidelines (if needed) and make a procedure to handle them.


The current guideline is available at Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/guidelines#Set nominations. Please check it and make suggestions, if any.

Since the existing set guideline is just a few lines in a bulleted list, I find it relevant to copy them here in and then we can comment on the individual lines (typeset in green). Please do not apply a polarizing vote on lines. Let us try to discuss and reach a consensus --Slaunger (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agreed. Maybe 'direct and obvious' is a bit redundant and can simply be shortened to 'obvious'? An alternative word to bring into the game could be 'coherent'? --Slaunger (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer a bit of redundancy because it prevents people trying to lawyer around the wording ("It's obvious to me that x,y,z is connected, even through it's not a direct connection"). --99of9 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with 99of9 - the more concrete the guidelines the less grey area...--Godot13 (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
1. All images should be processed and presented in a similar manner to ensure consistency amongst the set.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agreed. In practise I would propose this to be as a gallery with captions, much as how it was done for the now discontinued (due to technical problems) Valued image sets. For instance. check this nice VIS candidate page of Thespis, opera from Adam, and the way it is (after promotion) formatted as a Valued image set: Thespis, opera in a manner, which clearly highlights that this set has a special status. However, the templates used for VIS are really alienating to fill in for the nominator, so I would propose to make some smarter nomination templates, if possible. They were made before Lua, I do not know if something smarter is possible nowadays. --Slaunger (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • When I wrote this I was mainly thinking about image processing and presentation, not how they are arranged in the nomination or gallery. For example, in the VIS you mention, I would possibly want to critique the apparent differences in overall darkness of some of those images. --99of9 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Arrangement of the images should be some part of the set's aesthetics, but the similarity in editing, processing, tones (if relevant) is important.--Godot13 (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
2. All images should be linked to all others in the "Other Versions" section of the image summary.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not hink this should be a requirements for all sets. For some large sets, I believe this is better solved by having a dedicated subcategory for the images in a set., or have them organised in a gallery categorized to the main theme of the set. --Slaunger (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that large sets could be an exception to this. One reason for having this requirement is to again prevent nominators from making vague thematic groupings when the images themselves are not truly closely connected. If you're willing to link them as an "other version", then I'm more likely to agree that they are closely connected. --99of9 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
3. If the set of subjects has a limited number of elements, then there should be a complete set of images. This may result in images in this kind of set with no "wow" factor, and perhaps little value on their own. Their value is closely bound to the value of having a complete set of these subjects. The decision to feature should be based on this overall value.
4. If the set of subjects is unlimited, the images should be chosen judiciously. Each image should be sufficiently different to the others to add a great deal of value to the overall set. The majority of images should be able to qualify for FP on their own.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could 3. and 4. simply be shortened up to "The nominated set shall be complete and be extraordinarily valuable when presented in its entirety."? --Slaunger (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to question "complete" - I could see situations where incompletion might be required (say, I can prepare 65 out of 66 images from a book, but the 66th is badly damaged, and the book is very rare). I also think "extraordinarily valuable" may set the bar excessively high. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Adam Cuerden: Then how about "The set shall, when possible, be complete." and "The set shall be highly valuable."? --Slaunger (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the badly damaged 66th should still be included in the set if it is to be considered our best work (although then it may fail the quality requirement). I favour keeping the completeness requirement. I would make an exception if it were the only copy in existence and the 66th page was missing :-). --99of9 (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I think there is a clear categorical difference between objects in a finite set (e.g. plates in a book) and a set of images selected to represent an infinitely extensible subject (e.g. Kungsträdgården Metro station). It doesn't make sense to me to ask the latter to be "complete", and in my opinion the former should not be considered "our best work" until it is complete (I understand that this can be a tough requirement Adam, but IMO high standards are exactly what FP is about).--99of9 (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree with dropping the concept of a selection from an unbounded set. On Featured Lists at Wikipedia [from memory when I participated there years ago] they handled both complete and unbounded lists/sets. Part of the skill and judgement for unbounded sets is selecting high quality images that are representative of the whole. As far as handling bounded sets where the nomination is incomplete, I'd suggest we word the desired situation. If we don't already have something, then we need an IAR-style clause where nominations that fail the normal guidelines may be accepted provided explanation is given and accepted by the reviewers. This would include such issues as low resolution, or some images being poor quality. -- Colin (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
5. All images should be of high technical quality.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agreed. I think the current, not so rigorous rule is adequate. I considered for a while if it should be required that all images were 2 Mpixels, but on second thought I can think of exceptions, where the resolution of each image matters much less than the completeness, especially when the sets is large. It is good to leave some room for interpretation here. --Slaunger (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd actually go more hard-line on this. Every image should be up to the minimum standards, or be an obvious exception (for example, the Face on Mars image doesn't exist at higher than low resolution, but it was that low resolution image and the errors that started the phenomenon. A set of it and a high-res modern image would be suitable, but that should be the exception, never - not ever - the rule.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • See my comment above about documenting the FP-standard guidelines as such, but providing the opportunity (in general) for a nominator to explain why their image/set should still be considered. -- Colin (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I would propose to also add the clarifying statement to the guideline (I think it can be formulated more concise than I have done, please do so, if you see abvious ways to improve it):

  • Files in a featured picture set, will be tagged as being "Part of a featured picture set". Selected individual pictures in a featured set may also be nominated separately for featured picture status, if each nominated picture fulfills the normal (stand-alone) requirements for a featured picture. It is recommended to spread such single picture nominations out in time in order to avoid reviewer's fatigue from reviewing many thematicaly similar pictures consecutively. --Slaunger (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that additional nominations from a set is somewhat of a bad idea. It increases the number of nominations, without any actual benefit. The point of featured pictures is surely to make people aware of work useful to wikis. If that's our goal, only one promotion is ever necessary, although we might want to discuss how to handle this in POTD/POTY.
Mind you, I have some grave concerns with POTY - the last two years, despite having category winners, they were not announced, not in the final announcement or anywhere else - which, in my opinion, makes a mockery of the goal of celebrating the diversity of images by using categories, and which would cause major, major problems with sets in POTY, since you'd surely need to treat sets in a separate voting, possibly not even allowing them in the final, but giving their own award. This is possibly a bit off-topic, though.
My suggestion to POTD is that it may be appropriate to have more than one image from a set, but they should be no less than, say, four months apart. Alternatively, we could come up with a way to handle multiple images in POTD, with a main image as a default fallback. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)



We need specific categories and galleries to showcase them. The current galleries for FP are under Commons:Featured pictures. So we need to create similar galleries either under Commons:Featured pictures or under a new Commons:Featured sets.


The current structure is Category:Featured pictures by subject under Category:Photography by subject and Category:Featured pictures by country under Category:Photographs by country.

There is one generic category Category:Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons which is assigned on pictures having {{Assessments}}.

This is actually very spottily applied. I don't think any of my featured pictures are actually categorized under either type of category, because historical media doesn't generally appear to get categorized. And, of course, not every featured picture is a photograph. I'd suggest that the categorization scheme we have is actually far more broken than people think. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment tag[edit]

I think {{Assessments}} with featured=5/6 may be possible.

Don't do it that way: First of all, featured= is not just used to mark featured pictures. featured=2 marks former featured pictures, and there's also sounds in there using 3 and 4, but that's not very well-used at present.
Instead, realize the nomination for a set is always formatted Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/DESCRIPTIVE NAME. Not only is it absolutely trivial to find out if an image is part of a set from the nomination alone, it's also trivial to put all images in a set into the category Category:Featured picture sets/DESCRIPTIVE NAME because the template has to link to the nomination anyway. That category can then be linked to from the Assessments template. Using basic magic words can find out the number of images in that category, giving the size of the set.
If ordering the images in the set beyond that is desirable, a setposition= or setpos= variable can be used to change the category position. Simplifying the code slightly, it'd be something like: [[Category:Featured picture sets/DESCRIPTIVE NAME|{{{setpos|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]] - although DESCRIPTIVE NAME would be, I think, the comnom variable or some #titleparts variant of same. I seem to recall that the Assessments template has some weird, poorly-documented code around comnom to check that the FP nomination fits the right format. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


Please discuss under each topic above and make generic comments here. Jee 03:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would support specific categories and galleries for sets. Yann (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Yann:. One gallery alredy exists which I'm not aware of earlier; maintained by Ö. I think it only needs some sorting and splitting.
But we need to create categories. I thin we can create them either inside or outside of Category:Featured pictures by subject. Any suggestion? Jee 08:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


So there's been like no activity on this for a few days && we really need to get set noms up & running again (like I have three antarctica images I'm waiting to set-nominate) I'm going to summarize what's been said so far—

0 If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set.

  • Disparate & convoluted groupings should be disallowed

1 All images should be processed and presented in a similar manner to ensure consistency amongst the set.

  • Everyone pretty much agrees but could also be extended to captioning & galleries.
  • Templates for creating these galleries are long and annoying to fill out.

2 All images should be linked to all others in the "Other Versions" section of the image summary.

  • Possibly redundant and unnecesarry?
  • Used to prevent disparate & convoluted groupings
  • Large sets might be exempt
I'd be inclined to drop this. I don't think it's enforced, nor is it particularly enforceable, and it ignores the actual purpose of the "Other versions" section - which rather supersedes it. If you're using it to link to other images in the set, you aren't using it to link to, say, the unrestored version of the file. Lose the requirement completely.. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

3 If the set of subjects has a limited number of elements, then there should be a complete set of images. This may result in images in this kind of set with no "wow" factor, and perhaps little value on their own. Their value is closely bound to the value of having a complete set of these subjects. The decision to feature should be based on this overall value.

Add "Or a good reason why the set isn't complete". Also, note that completeness is subjective. For example, you might think that including all illustrations in a book is simple, but I can name a few cases where it isn't - for example, Rudyard Kipling's Soldier Tales includes small images under the titles of the stories, and at the end. They're fairly simple and not half so useful as the full-page illustrations, so I probably would leave them out, but would that make my set incomplete? Also, I generally get illustrations from the second printing or so - much cheaper, and all the original illustrations are there. But this means I couldn't, for example, include the first edition cover, and, indeed, probably couldn't afford to, as second editions are usually pretty affordable; first editions... not so much.
There's a few books where the American 1st edition and British first edition have completely different illustrations. Would completeness require both? The point is not to give an answer, it's to point out that there's a subjective element to this rule. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

4 If the set of subjects is unlimited, the images should be chosen judiciously. Each image should be sufficiently different to the others to add a great deal of value to the overall set. The majority of images should be able to qualify for FP on their own.

  • Issues arise with what to do when it is difficult or impossible to complete a bounded set
  • How should you choose members of an unbounded set?
Commons has a tendency to get bogged down in bureaucracy. People will vote it down if it's poorly chosen or unjustified as a set. We can let this evolve. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

5 All images should be of high technical quality.

  • Exceptions might be made if there is a good reason for it.
That's always true. We should make it clear exceptions can be made at times - but probably not at specific points in the rules. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Classification of FPSs

  • Renominations as single images could be used to determine POTD/Y eligibility
  • A spacing rule could also be used to prevent set elements from dominating POTD
I really don't like the idea of having renominations as single images. That's pointless, and instantly negates any value to a set nomination.


  • FPS elements need to be placed in galleries and categories to keep them organized
  • The current category tree is broken and doesn't work for sets
  • Technical problems regarding the Assessments template

Love, Kelvinsong talk 19:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have been traveling in the last weeks and couldn't follow this discussion closely. I will try to relaunch it shortly to try to find a solution. Poco2 21:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess I have to apologize, I didn't manage it so far and will be in London/Wikimania and in other destinations until end of August. Sorry, I have been pretty busy with travel arrangements, work, preparation of my presentation in Wikimania, etc., but I haven't forgotten it. Poco2 07:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Featured sets[edit]

When it was being voted on to "temporarily" remove sets from the process, I suggested that we should set a time limit when they should come back.

This discussion was closed prematurely, with majority support, but few votes, with the closer claiming it would be irrelevant.

Well, it wasn't, was it? Like many things on Commons, noone cares to do the work.

As such, I propose again that we set a limit. Sets will be back at the start of October, with whatever criteria we can come up with before then. We did not vote to permanently remove sets from the process. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand and sympathize with your thoughts. It is disappointing if most of the people who voted for a new procedure ceased from participating in that discussion. If the majority of opinion is "no sets"; then it should be stated loud/bold. Jee 14:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
That's summer, many of us are on vacation... But october will be a good date for a new start. Adam, do you will have already some set candidates ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I do. ;oD Yann (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer[edit]

Dear FPC colleagues,

I wonder if all of you know about the present conflict involving the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and some wiki communities (especially the English and German Wikipedias), concerning the recent roll-out of the MediaViewer. This is not probably the best place to make the announcement (I have already made it in the Village Pump) but I want to make sure that the FPC and QIC people (who are mostly concerned with image editing) are aware of it. The specific objective of this post is to make you know about this open letter addressed to the WMF, which can be signed by any logged-in editor: [1]. This is a serious matter and I am concerned with the impact the conflict may have in our volunteer collaboration. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with the content of the letter, I'm not sure this is the place for such advocacy. Pleclown (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think any place is suitable for this type of information involving serious management problems --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It is certainly not the best place. But I wanted to make sure that this small community, which is deeply concerned with image editing, was aware of the subject. I suspect that most of the people here doesn't check Village Pump regularly. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes; many of our photographers are not very active in VP or AN; so it is good to make such notices here too. ;) Jee 15:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling UK photographers: the Wiki Loves Monuments contest starts on Monday 1st September[edit]

Hi all. I thought that contributors here might be interested in the notice about the Wiki Loves Monuments contest that I have just posted to the Village Pump. This year, we are particularly interested in increasing the quality of submissions, and no doubt many people who are part of the FP community here will have images of the UK that might make good entries. Also, don't forget that similar competitions will be starting in many other countries on Monday. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Featured pictures/Plants[edit]

Hi, maybe you saw it but I started to revamp the FP galleries. In summary I worked on the layout of these galleries by putting a colored background, an enlargement of the images and a more precise classification. (orders and famillies for plants and animals, classifiaction by countries for the bridges). I also create this navigation template Which is present at the bottom of every galleries.
I have already made these galleries:

I started this and I shall go at the end of this job. And although it is not the purpose of my intervention here, I am opened to quite suggestion to improve these galleries. My problem is that I am working on this gallery : Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods, and I find there is a lot of images, too much IMO for a only gallery. I ask for the consent of the community to create subpages for the Arthropods orders (or classes (like Arachnida)) whitch contains more than 50 images. To be precise, I want to create these subpages :

And the navigation template would become :

The potential numbers of the images of these supbages can only increase in the future. In an esthetic concern for to give a positive image of Commons and of our finest pictures, I hope you will understand me and you will approve the creation of these subpages for our FP galleries. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 07:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Christian, you have done a fantastic job restructuring the gallery pages you have already worked on, the new navigation template is IMO 718smiley.svg Awesome! and professional and worthy for highlighting our very finest work.Smile I also think that your proposal of a further subdivison of the Arthropods as you propose makes very much sense. --Slaunger (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • +1. Jee 14:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • +1. --El Grafo (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • +1, beautiful work. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 20:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • +1, Well done, I can´t wait --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • +1 --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • +1 great job! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • +1 This is a wonderful work, thank you! A nice and useful improvement to our galleries, which will facilitate much the access to the pictures. Now we all need to help finishing the job and facilitate the classification by inserting the relevant information in the nominations. What about requiring that all nominations identify the correct drawer where it should go, like in WP:FPC? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    @Alvesgaspar: I agree; it will be nice if the nominator state the intended gallery too. I (as a closer) struggle to find the proper gallery, especially for pictures under "places". In many cases, I have to read all the articles where they are used to find the suitable gallery. (for plants and arthropods, it is not an issue for me as the topics are familiar to me.) Jee 15:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    @Alvesgaspar:, @Jkadavoor:, yes when we create a new nomination, there should be automatically and necessarily a section to be filled, exactly like in WP:FPC. Exemple for an arthropd:

FP category for this image:Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
-- Christian Ferrer Talk 05:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

  • -1 Nice idea but very arbitrary organisation. Why pick out some orders of insects and lump al other insects withe rest of the arthropds? Plants and fungi have nothing in commen. Etc... You couls as well group perfume bottles with the whisky casks...  Biopics 13:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    @Biopics:Yes indeed Plants and Fungi have nothing in commen but when I started I did not know by where to begin and I was inspired by this page : COM:FP, where these two kingdom are tidied together. But now you point this, I agree and I will modify the navigation template in consequences very soon, maybe this evening, the galleries are already separates. Thanks you very much for to have help fixing up this mistake. And for the arthropds, as I already say above only a few orders have enough images (50 images) to have their own galleries, so yes it's arbitrary (50 images for an order = a new gallery) and no it's not arbitrary because the order (or class) classification is not of my fact, it is scientific. @Jkadavoor: Yes indeed Arachnida (Arachnids are arthropds, so for now there is no problems) can also have their gallery because we have 49 FP images of theses little friends, I'm the fisrt agree with that and I didn't quote about Arachnids because I did not counted yet this Class. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 17:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done now on the navigation template Plants and Fungi are separate. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    I also added the "Class : Arachnida" to the list above and in the exemple of navigation template -- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    @Biopics: If I understand properly, I think your question is why splitting insects while keeping "Class : Arachnida" and remaining "Class : Insecta" together under arthropods. Good question, and we can move Arachnida too as it seems big enough for a separate gallery. Other classes seems too small for separate galleries. Jee 15:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • +1 I like the structure. Not all insects are much enough here (yet) to have own subpage. Most of us aren't biologists so they will wonder if plants and funghi really have nothing in common. Comments like straight above are somewhat disrespectful for any voluntarily working Commoner anyways. --A.Savin 14:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is disrepectful at all. I'm sure Biopics will help fixing up the mistakes and inconsistencies. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I can also separate the Arthropods classes, like this :

-- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama question[edit]

I'll be going on a trip to Lithuania soon, and I noticed that there is no freedom of panorama there which is quite annoying. I'm a bit rusty on what this actually means for my photography as I've usually lived in and visited countries that DO have freedom of panorama laws. As I understand it, their copyright expiry is the death of the artist + 70 years, which probably makes many or perhaps most architecture and art from around 1900 onwards not photographable as far as uploading to Commons is concerned. Is that right? If so, how do we explain images such as this, this, this or this (these images I found as examples on the Lithuania article on the English Wiki but I'm sure there are many more)? Are these also FoP violations that have somehow slipped through our nets, or is there another reason for hosting them such as fair-use (there are no templates on the image page to suggest this however)? I'm not trying to stir up trouble or get them deleted from Commons but I'm confused. :-) Comments? Diliff (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi David, in my opinion those images are copyright violations and should be deleted from Commons. I believe there is a way out, which is uploading them to Wikipedia only and use them in the artciles under the concept of "fair use". But I'm not absolutely sure that is so. I think MichaelMaggs is an expert on the subject. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Alves. That's what I thought might be possible, but as I understand it, fair use images are usually only allowed at very low resolutions which is frustrating. It would be a shame to lose these images completely from the Lithuania article(s) though so low resolution is better than no image at all. Diliff (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I guess that's of little worth for you, but you can upload most of these images at (at full size) since German law appears to include FoP for every location as long as the image (not the building) is located in Germany (kinda the case on --DXR (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
        • That's interesting how Germany can have such strict laws on privacy but such relaxed law about international copyright. ;-) Diliff (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Good job you spotted this before you went. It would be extremely frustrating to create your multi-megapixel stitched images and then have some fair-use compliance-bot downsize them to 200px. I suppose you might as well just take your camera phone now :-( -- Colin (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, it only applies to modern architecture. There's still plenty of historical sites that fall outside FoP laws anyway, but yes, good to know what is fair game or not in advance. Diliff (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
          • It is possible to upload high resolution pictures to English Wikipedia too using en:Template:FoP-USonly. But do it on your risk. Only WMF is protected as their servers are in US; the photographer is really doing a crime when violating the local law. Jee 16:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
            • If he doesn't upload them while in Lithuania, he'd only be concerned about US and UK law, both of which allow FoP. :) -- King of ♠ 07:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
To be precise, Lithuania was part of the Russian Empire, so anything built there before 1918 is {{PD-RusEmpire}}. --A.Savin 14:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks. Diliff (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is it really? There is no FOP in Russia! Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Just hearing about non-FOP frustrates me. The other day a friendly IP started a DR for 3 of my FPs due to missing information about the FOP terms in Montenegro. So, since nobody really looked into Montenegro's copyright law, in order to be on the safe side everything is deleted. I addressed the topic to the advocacy colleagues from the WMF in London, but they don't care.
I do have great pictures of many countries (like Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Qatar or UAE) that I cannot upload (a bunch of them from Lithuania were also removed). I am though keeping them with the hope that this stupid regulation in some countries changes some when. Actually one of the reasons for me to go or not to a country is their FOP status. So, neither they get income through my visit, nor promoted via posting some nice pics on the web.
The funny thing is that the lawmakers, at least in the EU, have no clue about this topic. Hopefully our new "lobby" in Brussels can change things. These guys had a meeting in Brussels about FOP, and thought that they have made their point. The EU gave them a picture of the EU parliament as a proof of good willing, which is under FOP, and a certificate that the picture could be used in Wikipedia. Doing that they were authorizing something that they are not eligible to, since such and authorization can only come from the architect office that designed the building. And those guys where the EU experts on the topic. Poco2 16:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
These copyright laws probably made sense to law-makers at the time and they believed that protecting the rights of the architects and copyright holders was an honourable thing to do (in theory it is), but they obviously failed to see the consequences that it would have for photography, tourism and freedom of information in the 21st century. But the frustrating thing is that most visitors to these countries will be completely oblivious to the FoP restrictions and will take photos and publish them as normal and will most likely never be contacted by the copyright holder asking for the photo to be removed (or worse). It's mainly an issue for us as law-abiding Commons contributors that are screwed over by it. And given that each country would have to update its laws on an individual basis, I can't see this FoP issue changing in a hurry, which is a real shame. Diliff (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Russian law has changed. Until october 1st, there IS FoP in Russia for buildings !--Jebulon (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You rather mean from October 1st on, right? Otherwise we should organize a Wiki Loves Buildings in Russia until end of the month :) Poco2 19:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
) Yes, sorry. "from". "del 1 de octubre".--Jebulon (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm actually in Lithuania at the moment, and as a general rule I've been avoiding anything that could give me problems with FoP, but then a question occurred to me. At what point does a photo go from being a clear FoP violation to being considered 'de minimis'? Is this actually clearly defined anywhere? I assume a skyline shot that contains landscape and some old architecture as well as modern buildings could be considered ok, since the modern buildings are incidental to the scene rather than the focus of it? But what if the scene is almost all modern buildings? Couldn't you argue that you didn't WANT them to be there or to photograph them, you wanted a photo of a non-copyrighted building in its surroundings, and those surroundings just happen to be copyright protected? Here's a practical example: I took some photos from a vantage point over the city. In one direction it is mostly old buildings and should be fine. In the other direction, it is the 'modern skyline', a view very similar to this. Would this qualify for de minimis since no one building occupies the bulk of the frame, so each one is essentially incidental to the scene, even though as a group, they comprise almost all of the frame? It becomes absurd if an entire chunk of a city's skyline becomes off limit to photography simply because there are modern buildings in it... Diliff (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hope this will give you some vague idea. :) Jee 07:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It does seem to be almost exactly the same question (but with a different country, the laws could be slightly different) and with the answer I was expecting. Thanks Jee. I'll work with the assumption that as long as I am taking a photo of a 'city scene', it will be ok that there are some copyrighted buildings in view. As I said above, it would be ridiculous if it were possible to prevent any photography of an entire cityscape just by placing one copyrighted building in view. As a consequence, it would allow the copyright holder(s) to carry out a Mafia-like protection racket. "You can only take photos of the city if you pay us lots of money". Diliff (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

FP New galleries[edit]

Hi, dear colleagues,
Seen the enthusiasm which you showed for my request above, I have the pleasure to announce you that our collection of FP images grew rich of these five news galleries :

Grosser Wollschweber Bombylius major detail.jpg
Vespa crabro head 01.jpg
Damselfly 08 (MK).jpg

The navigation template was modified and these fives new galleries are there present in it.
Thank you very much for all your kind words. :)
-- Christian Ferrer Talk 14:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't speak yet. Good job Christian, it is a needed and user-friendly step! Poco2 11:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Great work, Christian! --Slaunger (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!!! Jee 07:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Content creators may be interested in the discussion regarding the legality of removing watermarks/copyright notices from images uploaded to Commons. This discussion arises from a legal opinion delivered by the WMF. It is not definitive but raises the stakes even when using CC licenses. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Photo Challenge for Featured Picture photographers[edit]

I'd like to encourage our Featured Picture photographers to take part in this month's photo challenges. This is an opportunity for you to select or take photos you might not normally offer at FPC. There are three themes this month:

  • The Holidays theme is looking for images that focus on the act of going or being on vacation (rather than your holiday snaps of scenery).
  • The Big and small theme wants images with a pair of subjects that contrast in size.
  • The Light on the move theme is looking at long exposures (relative to the light movement). Here's your chance to try taking those traffic trail photos or do some light painting.

I hope you are inspired to grab your camera and try something new and challenging! -- Colin (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I entered something, thanks for the reminder. I guess that some of us are quite busy with WLM, I am at least. perhaps that might be a reason for the relative lack of entries in the light challenge. --DXR (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes I thought the light challenge in particular was a fun theme and definitely plan to have a go at creating something -- but I'm also busy with WLM. Perhaps we should extend that one to give more time. -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)